Seymour Hersh is probably shouting “I told you so” after reading this story. He’s been reporting for months, even years about deliberations within the Pentagon on eliminating Iran’s nuclear capability. The crux of his reporting as I’ve read it is that it seems highly likely that either we or the Israelis will attack Iran. Bunker busting nuclear bombs would very likely be used according to Hersh. Much of this is confirmed in a Times of London report today quoting unidentified “Israeli military sources.”
ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.
The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.
All of this raises some interesting questions and thoughts. First, what is the IDF’s motive in releasing this statement? Here’s how the authors respond:
Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.
I don’t actually think the Israelis believe this will “put pressure” on Iran to halt enrichment. I think Israel fully expects Iran to pursue enrichment as long as it takes till it has a weapon. I think Israel is laying down a marker to the Iranians saying we WILL attack you, make no mistake about it. It’s the kind of street-tough language you imagine coming from drug dealers battling over turf. It is also possible the IDF is warning the U.S. and world that it will most definitely attack Iran. This would accord with the “softening up” scenario noted above.
However, I don’t think world opinion can be “softened up” regarding the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. The very notion of using them contravenes so many norms of international relations, not to mention international law that Israel will virtually guarantee pariah status not just among Arab nations, but among all nations for decades. Israel will also take a huge hit among Americans, and even everyday American Jews (as opposed to Jewish leaders who will cheer enthusiastically as the first bombs fall) will cringe in horror.
One thing this leak certainly indicates is a desperate IDF–but especially an IAF-desire to regain its vaunted military reputation which has been permanently tarnished by its performance both in Lebanon, where it was bested or at least fought to a draw by a small band of militant irregulars, and Gaza, where it has been completely unable to stifle Qassam fire against southern Israel. Not to mention yesterday’s botched raid in Ramallah. Dan Halutz and IAF commander Eliezer Shkedi know how much such a spectacular victory would mean to retrieving their services’ reputations. No doubt, they’re not just prepared for the go ahead, they’re salivating for it.
I mentioned getting a “go ahead.” But given that the IDF saw no need to notify either the prime minister or minister of defense in advance of yesterday’s Ramallah raid, one wonders how much, if any deliberation there would within the cabinet before approving the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. I’m going too far, you say. Perhaps. But even if there is deliberation, I strongly suspect there will be virtually no true opposition to the operation, certainly none on moral grounds. Perhaps some opposition on purely pragmatic grounds warning how much Israel could lose in the hasbara wars, etc.
Here is proof that amidst all its abject failures, the IDF has learned nothing about hubris:
“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.
The idea of wagering on the use of nuclear weapons is repugnant, otherwise I’d propose betting someone on this boast. The IAF couldn’t even effectively knock out Hezbollah rocket launchers in Lebanon. It boasted falsely that it had killed Nasrallah in his reinforced Beirut bunker. How does it guarantee that it can take out heavily reinforced 70 foot thick concrete Iranian facilities? Does anyone believe such bellicose boasting anymore? Do Israelis believe this shit anymore??
More proof that the Israeli army is in dream land comes in this passage from the article:
Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.
To “reduce the risk?” What they should say is that instead of killing millions of Iranians it might just kill 10-or 20,000. The Times’ journalists thankfully include this partial ‘rebuttal,’ though much farther back in the story:
Scientists have calculated that although contamination from the bunker-busters could be limited, tons of radioactive uranium compounds would be released.
“Tons of radioactive material would be released.” I’m not a nuclear scientist. I don’t know how many will die from a release of “tons” of radioactive material. But tons to me says deaths in the tens, if not scores of tens of thousands. After all, there are several major cities near these facilities. An Oxford Research Group report predicts that 10,000 would die. If such a result happens, is Israel prepared for the firestorm it would face? After such an assault, Israel can expect to be in the crosshairs not just of Hamas, as it is now, but of every Arab and Muslim the world over. For those of my Islamophobe readers who say: “how would that be different from now?” I say: wait, just wait. And the rest of the world, I’m sorry to say, wouldn’t shed a tear when Shkedi is charged with war crimes and hauled before an international court. And make no mistake, the world will eventually not ask, but demand such an accounting from Israel.
What types of response can Israel and the world expect? Iran can exhort its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas into holy war mode and arm them with the most advanced weapons it possesses. Iran can launch its own missiles at Israeli cities. And make no mistake, Iranian gunners will likely be far more accurate than Qassam rocketeers.
The Times reporters also list other potential retaliatory responses:
Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks against Jewish targets around the world…
American experts warned of repercussions, including widespread protests that could destabilise parts of the Islamic world friendly to the West.
Colonel Sam Gardiner, a Pentagon adviser, said Iran could try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the route for 20% of the world’s oil.
Here’s what I think the repercussions will be: if you think that Iraq is a maelstrom of killing, it is a cakewalk compared to the blood that will spill following such an attack. It will be a field day for international terror. In fact, it will be the “full employment” card for terrorists everywhere. And they will be gunning not just for Israelis or Jews–they’ll also be gunning for Americans. The article makes clear that U.S. and Israeli officials have met a number of times to discuss this plan. No one in their right mind believes that Israel would do such a thing without at least America’s tacit, if not explicit approval.
Another false assumption in the IDF calculations of the impact that the attack will have on Iran’s nuclear capacity:
Israeli officials believe that destroying all three sites [Natanz, Isfahan and Arak] would delay Iran’s nuclear programme indefinitely and prevent them from having to live in fear of a “second Holocaust”.
I’d say there’s a better than even chance that however successful this raid is that it does not knock out Iran capabilities. It may knock out portions of its program, but by now this program has been so compartmentalized in order to prepare for just such an eventuality that there is maximum redundancy built into it. The Iranians probably have 10 of everything spread out all over the country.
What’s more, Israel’s first use of nuclear weapons would violate an explicit pledge by every Israeli prime minister going back to the 1960s that Israel would not be the first Middle Eastern country to introduce (by which they really meant “use”) nuclear weapons to the region. Think how easy it is to blow away decades worth of national security policy.
In addition, one must not discount the “Saddam response.” A Center for Non-Proliferation Studies (CNS) report says that the Israeli attack on Osirak had precisely the opposite effect on Iraq’s nuclear program than was intended:
Contrary to popular belief…Israel’s attack on Osirak in June of 1981 did nothing to hinder Iraq’s nuclear aspirations. Although it temporarily set back its capabilities, it served rather to…increase Saddam’s desire for a nuclear arsenal. In fact, Iraqi nuclear scientist Imad Khadduri claims that Israel’s preemptive strike against the French-built Tamuz Iraqi nuclear reactor, which was not really suitable for plutonium production anyway, had the exact opposite effect of the one intended: it sent Saddam Hussein’s A-bomb program into overdrive and convinced the Iraqi leadership to initiate a full fledged nuclear weapons program immediately afterwards.
Khidir Hamza, another Iraqi nuclear scientist and one of the leading proponents of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, gave a near identical assessment. He told Mike Begala on CNN’s Crossfire on February 7, 2003:
…What Israel [did]…got…the immediate danger out of the way. But it created a much larger danger in the longer range. What happened is that Saddam ordered us – we were 400… scientists and technologists running the program. And when they bombed that reactor out, we had also invested $400 million. And the French reactor and the associated plans were from Italy. When they bombed it out we became 7,000 with a $10 billion investment for a secret, much larger underground program to make bomb material by enriching uranium. We dropped the reactor out totally, which was the plutonium for making nuclear weapons, and went directly into enriching uranium…. They [Israel] estimated we’d make 7kg of plutonium a year, which is enough for one bomb. And they get scared and bombed it out. Actually it was much less than this, and it would have taken a much longer time. But the program we built later in secret would make six bombs a year.
Does anyone doubt that Iran would pursue this program with a vengeance if Israel attacked? This too is from CNS:
…There is no reason to believe that an attack on the facilities in Bushehr, Arak, or Natanz would have any different consequence than…Osirak…Such an attack would likely embolden and enhance Iran’s nuclear prospects in the long term. In the absence of an Iranian nuclear weapon program, which IAEA inspectors have yet to find, a preemptive attack by the United States or Israel would provide Iran with the impetus and justification to pursue a full blown covert nuclear deterrent program, without the inconvenience of IAEA inspections. Such an attack would likely be seen as an act of aggression not only by Iran but most of the international community, and only serve to weaken any diplomatic coalition currently available against Iran.
The most troubling aspect of such a scenario is that, unlike Iraq in 1981, Iran is not dependent on foreign imports for nuclear technology and already has available the raw materials, and most of the designs and techniques, required to pursue a nuclear weapons program. Iran has the necessary know-how and has already produced every stage of the nuclear fuel cycle. Furthermore, Iran has uranium mines in Yazd and is in the process of constructing milling plants to manufacture yellow cake uranium and conversion plants that convert it to UF6 gas. Iran has also begun manufacturing its own gas centrifuges used to enrich uranium. Even if Natanz, Arak, and Bushehr were destroyed in a preemptive strike, Iran probably has duplicate equipment that can be activated and has the know-how to produce more, to pursue a more vigorous and unabated nuclear weapons program in the long term.
Does anyone doubt that several other new Arab nations would join the race for nuclear weapons? No, attacking Iran will mean sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind.
The twisted thinking behind this prospective raid is the same thinking that led George Bush to believe that merely by toppling Hussein he could unleash the power of democracy in Iraq. Instead, he has released the power of murderous sectarian hatred. So in Iran, Israel believes it can rid itself of a problem with a ‘neat, clean’ military solution. Instead, it will unleash 100, maybe 1,000 times the hatred that the Arab world now feels toward the U.S. and Israel. The groundswell of enmity will itself be like a nuclear bomb in world affairs.
Truly, I fear for Israel and the world if Israel pursues this madness and folly.
I first read this story in Haaretz.
Man, this is some scary s**t. If that happens it will unleash a chain of events that is impossible now to oversee. They must also be doing lots of scenario making for varying aftermaths and some of those aftermaths could look quite grim regionally and globally. If seeing a possible scenario like that doesn’t scare the hell out of enough politicians and military leaders to prevent it from happening, then we are truly being led by madmen; people whose reality and mind set are so removed from ours; people who are living apparently in their own crazy world, unleashed and gone mad in their own virtual multi-player game of Stratego. Scary.
This is probably as true as Robert Fisk’s claim that Israel was using uranium enriched weapons against the Lebanese.
And, like last time, when it’s proven wrong, RIchard Silverstein will not retract and apologize, but instead lamely protest “Hey, how do you expect me to catch every development on this issue?!”
So which is it–did the Times of London reporter NOT talk to Israeli military sources & made that part up? Or were the sources authetic but didn’t know what they were talking about?
Haaretz today asked both the PM & the cabinet minister who’s supposedly in charge of Iran strategy, Lieberman, for comment. They refused.
Haaretz claims that the Foreign Ministry denied the report, but the only actual quotation it provided fr. an actual ministry representative didn’t at all deny the report but rather claimed that Israel intended to rely on diplomacy. Which of course begs the question: what happens when Israel decides that diplomacy no longer works??
And you’re an outright liar (or else just plain ignorant) about the Fisk story. Another reader pointed me to the story of the UN investigation & I replied to it in the post I wrote about Fisk’s report. (see under “Update”). 2 separate research groups surveyed Lebanon for radiation fr. weapons. One, the group Fisk covered, found such radiation evidence. The 2nd, which surveyed diff. spots, found none. This IN NO WAY disproves the first report. If the 2nd group had surveyed precisely the same spots as the first & not found radiation, then this would’ve been news and my reaction would be diff. And how can you claim Fisk’s report was disproven UNLESS the two surveys went over the same ground???
I have nothing to retract or apologize for. You have much to apologize for, but alas never will because true believers never believe they’re wrong even when they are (as you are so much of the time).
I’ve certainly never said an untruth on this board. I’ve just pointed out some of your more egregious misrepresentations. When I’m wrong, I admit to it.
The thing is, I rarely make such sweeping assertions of fact as you do. I just call your bullshit when I see it,
And it’s really funny how you have now stooped to editing and partially deleting posts to remove the facts that you don’t like. What a pathetic and hateful man you are.
That itself is a lie. You’ve lied through yr teeth about everything I say & believe. Virtually any time you characterize anything I say without quoting me, you lie. Then there are all the ‘sweeping assertions of fact’ (which you indeed make–all the time) for which you often provide no proof & which are almost universally wrong.
Talk about bullshit. Whenever I see a notice in my Inbox that you’ve published a comment I detect a distinct whiff of the stuff.
I routinely edit comments by those who merely post links which provide free publicity to bolster their ideological point of view. Besides, your link had absolutely nothing to do with the thread in which you posted it. And further, you exhausted our discussion of the National Brands matter with comments containing thousands of logorrheic words on the matter & I told you discussion was over. But being the extremely mature & civil ideologue that you are, you feel it’s incumbent on you to continue to try to get a word in edgewise by trying to publish both this inappropriate link & a related comment trumpeting the Israeli “economic miracle” 5 times or so. Your lack of success in publishing doesn’t stop you fr. trying again. Like all good bores, you never stop trying.
Richard, what’s your take on Mubarak’s comments recently about wanting to acquire an A-bomb of his own in response to Iran? And don’t you think many Arabs in the area would be content, albeit secretly, if Israel hits Iran’s nuclear facilities?
There is no doubt that the ranting mullahs of Iran have stirred up much hatred against them within the Arab world as well as outside it. No doubt, Saudi Arabia, Egypt & other countries feel threatened by their A-bomb pursuit. You’ve pointed out an additional problem w. Iran’s proliferation. Once Iran has the big one, they’ll all want to have it. That’s why the West should do everything in its power short of start WWIII in order to prevent this fr. happening.
But the flip side is also true. If Israel attacks Iran in order to stop Iran’s program, every nation which supports Iran will do its best to help it resume its program. Some nations may also start programs that don’t yet have them in protest of Iran’s treatment. It’ll be an unholy mess.
I by no means intend to say that I support Iran’s pursuit of nuclear club membership. I just don’t believe it’s worth mass murder in order to stop it fr. happening.
Yes, the Saudi royals will be extremely happy to see the Iranian facilities disabled (that is, IF Israel or the U.S. CAN do this, which is debatable). But if I were a far-sighted Sunni leader, I’d realize that if Israel can (try to) bomb Iran back to the Stone Age for pursuing nuclear weapons, then Israel could very well next decide to do this to my country using a much less dire pretext. It’s a slippery slope. Once you allow one ME nation to use nuclear weapons against another, you can no longer control the rules under which they’ll be used in the future.
Richard,
The Iranian nuclear threat is an extremely complex problem to deal with.
You are correct in much of your analysis of possible consequences of an Israeli strike: terrorism against Israel, World Jewry and America; retaliatory rocket strikes; and changing of the ‘rules of the game’ in terms of Nuclear Weapons use and pursuit in the Middle East and beyond.
The problem is, as you mention in your other post, that “I think the Iranian extremists are so intent on a confrontation with Israel”. It seems that Iran is positioning itself more and more for a serious confrontation with Israel. This summer was round 1, and only encouraged Iran to come back for more.
So, if Israel acts there will be terrible consequences. If Israel doesn’t act, there will also be terrible consequences. I take Iran’s talk of destroying Israel and its Holocaust denial extremely seriously, backed up as it with weapons programmes and financing of Hizbullah and Hamas.
It all looks very grave, and I don’t have much confidence that the diplomatic path will have any success.
I’m glad to hear that we agree on so much in this particular situation. But I’m nowhere near as convinced as you that Iran will provoke a confrontation w. Israel unless there is a causative agent. In other words, Iran will not have for nuclear weapons for another 5-10 yrs. (as most analysts predict except for Israel & Aipac which seem to believe this will happen imminently). There is much that could happen in that period that might convince Iran not to complete the program (depending on how well & seriously western nations negotiate w. Iran on this matter). Even if Iran gains nuclear weapons, this by no means means it would use them. Israel has not yet used them. I see no reason why Iran would unless it felt under imminent or direct threat.
While we both find Iran’s leaders to be irrational, bellicose & extremist, I, unlike you, find Israel’s leaders to be almost equally irrational, etc. If we both agree that it is unlikely Israel would use its nuclear weapons, I find it credible to say that Iran is unlikely to use them as well.
For Israel to have nuclear weapons destabilizes the ME to an extent. For Iran to have them adds to the destabilitzation. But it doesn’t necessarily send things to the tipping point guaranteeing their use. Whether or not one party or another actually uses them depends on how insane ea. side is willing to be in pursuing its perceived national interests. As Hamlet says: “That is the question.”
You really think that Americans will care if 10,000 Iranians die? 650,000 Iraqis have died thanks to our war. Most of America really doesn’t seem to care much about that. No, I have lost faith that the American people will be outraged by the use of nuclear weapons. Some will – the 20% of Americans who are still reasonable, rational and humane. But most won’t care.
I’m sorry to be so negative and cynical but that’s what I think. And I’m really sorry if we do attack Iran with nukes, because this will make it more likely that some terrorist will attack us back with nukes. I have not credited the ben-Laden-nuke-on-a-container-ship scenario much, but if we nuke Iran, well. Why wouldn’t they try to nuke us that way?
Of course, whether the whole “Arab world” will be outraged at an attack on Iran is another question. Remember, we’ve got this huge SUnni-SHia split happening at the moment, and Iranians are not Arabs, etc. But it will piss people off. Also – Dubai and all those prosperous cities of the Gulf are very close to Iran. I have many cousins working in Dubai and a few in Qatar. What a nightmare. Floating radiation clouds, etc. The bastards.
Leila: I wasn’t even thinking of the American reaction. And in most every case I’m with you regarding the callousness of the American public. But nuclear weapons are such a clear taboo (even though we’ve already dropped the “big one” twice), that I think breaking the taboo will be a huge shock even to Americans. I’m just not convinced that the vast majority of Americans think the issue of Iran getting the Bomb is so critical that it would be justified breaking this sanctified taboo. That’s why I think Israel’s ‘rep,’ already in the tank, will sink much lower here if it used nuclear weapons.