145 thoughts on “Bibi’s Secret War Plan – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. from what i can tell your source “former minister in a former government” would have to be mofaz…

  2. Although this plan looks pretty complex, I am sure it makes minor to no harm to Iranian warfare. Dont forget that Iran has a 8 years complete was experience and knows how to keep its defense layers protected. e.g. defense forces are completely independent from public electrical and telephone system. Internet connection is totally banned in military bases and They are far from any kind of silo or nuclear facility, and so much distributed that they need more than “tens”, lets say “tens of thousands” of highly penetrating missiles to make sure they have made an effective damage.

  3. Firstly, well done for publishing. Secondly, well done for publishing manner which respects your source and safe guards them. The world is recovering from Bush’s idiotic war, if half of the rational in this blog is true then it seems Bibi has taken leave of his senses. This is my take (for the record, I’m a former middle ranking para officer and I’m now a oil trader at Investment Banker):

    1. Israel has the capacity to severely damage the nuclear infrastructure of Iran, of that there is no question, will the damage be worth the fallout (political and military)?
    A. According to Kissinger, any nation that starts a war, typically forgoes American support. Specially in a election year. The calculus in the mind of the Israeli’s Gov, is if they start shooting first and Obama refuses to join the war, can they finish the job militarily? Answer is unlikely. Even more worryingly for Bibi and cohorts, if Obama is re-elected (which is highly probable), Israeli Gov would fear a Suez esq American response.

    B. Economically, the first shot will sent oil to $150 dollars per barrel. If Iran expands the war to include Saudi and GCC countries, that will send oil to $300 p/b. Iran’s economy is already crippled, this additional shock will contract their economy by 5%. Israel on the other hand my fail to grow, it may even contract if their reactors suffer direct hits. Israeli GDP is 242.93 billion, thus a 30 day war would cost approximately 10-20 billion, any more than that and you are talking about a really punishing economic output.

    C. Military response from Iran range from Missile strikes to Hamas (highly unlikely). The most interesting situation would be regarding Syria who has a defence pact with Iran. They could use this situation to deflect the domestic troubles to Israel’s door. It would only cost them some missiles and they would simply have to pray from some kind of Israeli response (probably via Golan). Hamas is now more aligned with Egypt, thus would sit this out. Hezbollah, would probably heed the call and launch strikes on Haifa and if capable Tela viv.

    Ultimately, Bibi’s track record shows, he’s never started a war, he’s merely supported other peoples wars. He’s politically aggressive, but militarily cautious (And rightly so!). I’ll wager this is all a poly to corner Obama/Romney into a Strike post election. Why, because Israel cannot be certain of the successful outcome of a independent strike, thus it will require US might. It will still carry the same penalties, but the truth is, it will ensure the outcome of their goal.

    Once again, great article and excellent food for thought.

    PS Cost of independent action is easy to gauge for Israel, reason for not committing it to paper is fear it would be leaked. Sacrificing so much in material and treasure on a folly which may not achieve it ultimate goal and committing the theory to paper would sway public opinion so far to against, it would effectively silence their bellicose war drum! Israeli’s are not stupid.

  4. What I don’t understand is, if the Israelis really want to deploy this attack, why would they leak precise information about how they are going to execute it? I can only think of it as a way to decoy Iran in case they do attack.

  5. As they say in Iran “Israel gooh mikhore” to attack Iran.

    If Isreal is trying to get the world used to war so they will not be shocked, “he” is wrong. The world will be in shock and owe when Iranians will respond and there will be a 4th world war because we are already in 3rd world war. So, i would advise them to think twice. Can you imagine another country threatening to stage a war against another country constantly? Why is Isreal so agressive? I am amazed about the audacity of these war mongers. We people of the earth need jobs, true peace, and food not wars, violence, prejudice and destruction.

    Tell Israel stop war mongering and stop oppressing Palestinians.

  6. I think your analysis of the ‘leaked memo’ is fairly accurate, to me it is the kind of ‘dream’ scenario a boy would put together for an imaginary war he was going to fight. It is too naive with regard to the effectiveness of the strike and the lack of accounting for responsive action by Iran.

    I must disagree with your premise that Israel is dealing with an Iran which has moved on from the Saddam culture. During the Arab spring we have seen leaders – Gaddafi for one – who have adopted the strong invincible stance only to crumble when their stance was really put to the test. I wonder if their religious psychology provides a flaw in their strategy.

    Having lived in the Middle East, I was surprised, in Kuwait, how reckless some of the young men were in their driving. I was informed that the young people’s view was that God (Allah) would decide when it was time for them to die and so they lived their life as they wished. This ‘not quite being in control of our destiny’ could be a flaw in such cultures’ strategy when it comes to dealing with an offensive on their country.

  7. I like how nobody is discussing the nuclear disaster that would occur if the Israelis successfully bombed the enrichment facilities. This should be seen as a form of nuclear war.

    1. I think this is what the planning is trying to avoid, Ed. It appears that the common belief is that Iran will have the capability to construct a nuclear bomb by the end of this year. So, with the US not wanting to get involved in anything before the Presidential election in November (and sensibly so), it appears Israel is looking at the possibility of ‘going it alone’.

      As the first part of my comment indicated and is indicated in Richard’s analysis, the Israelis do not appear to have fully thought through the consequences of any attack but, I suppose, it is a matter at looking at the lesser of two evils. Do you take a risk on destroying the production facilities for a nuclear weapon or do you wait for the nuclear weapon to be created and then deal with all the implications and possibilities of that situation? Sort of between a rock and a hard place.

      1. Sort of between a rock and a hard place.

        THe greatest danger for Israel if Iran did have a working nuclear deterrent as ISrael does, is that ISrael will no longer have a free hand to unilaterally attack its neighbours as it did in Lebanon in 2006. Israel attacked Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure, including the international airport, roads, bridges etc without any counterattack not he part of the Lebanese army. Similarly Israel’s impunity when it comes to punishing the entire Palestinian population for resistance and terrorism conducted by various guerrilla groups would be at an end.

        There is little chance of nuclear exchange between the two countries as (a) It’s suicide for everyone involved (b) these are two highly religious countries that prohibit such mass destruction on an ecumenical basis and (c) the high level operators in both countries are not as stupid or as reckless as the general public imagines.

        Far more belligerent nuclear enemies such as Pakistan and India have thus far refrained from nuclear exchange for similar reasons, as indeed did the USA and the Soviet Union. It’s important to understand that in military circles nuclear armaments are not considered weapons but strategic assets. You can’t actually USE them – that negates their value. That negates everything.

        As far as Israel’s dilemma is concerned, even if they carry out a successful attack on Iran and cripple their nascent nuclear industry, what’s to stop them redoubling their efforts in greater secrecy and with more resources? Its a lose – lose scenario.

        1. Reply to Wisdo:

          If Israel nukes the centrifuge facilities and nuclear personnel sites then this “lose-lose” becomes a win. Nuking major city centers too would avoid the problems with leaving the Persians standing. This would provide a solution good for at least 10 years and could be extended indefinitely by the occasional additional nuke.

  8. Is it true that Obama has asked Netenyahu to wait until after the US elections to attack Iran ?

    IF it’s true that Obama has close ties to the CIA, that would explain his even handedness in the Middle East.

    ” We were there to document the event” *
    – The five Dancing Israeli’s arrested on 911.
    * Interviewed on Israeli television

    1. ” We were there to document the event”

      That one again?

      What’s the connection?

  9. After reading about the alternative versions seen of this document (such as the Fresh posting) I wanted to suggest a possibility. These documents are fairly plausible but at the same time aren’t actually revealing detail to an extent that would endanger any real plans greatly. Instead it may be that what we see is multiple, deliberately varying versions of this document being leaked out to different individuals. There is a tradecraft technique in which this is done to identify a leak – the possible leakers believe they have a document which has gone to a number of people but in fact each is somewhat different. The version that leaks therefore tells the originator who leaked it. The document itself needs to be plausible and may also contain misinformation… hard to say anything about the veracity if indeed it is being used for this purpose. So there is a possibility that your source is being deliberately exposed. And, perhaps another source for the Fresh posting. Or something along these lines.

    1. If that were so Aaron, then the fact that many versions are out there suggests that more than one person is leaking it – which in turn suggests that the Israelis have a lot of disgruntled people on the inside! (By no means impossible.)

      However, the tone of the document is not the dry tone of a governmental or military document, but more like the lucid tone of a press release, or even a novelists description. It is not broken down into numbered points or a timeline, but flows like something Tom Clancy might have written. That is not to say that it is not “authentic” – but it raises the question of who is the intended audience.

      If it was intra-military, or between military and politicians, it would refer to the “XYZ system” not”… electronic warfare gear previously unknown to the wider public, not even revealed to our U.S. ally” This whole phraseology is like waving a bright red flag. It is like a person telling his friend at the top of his voice “YOU MUST KEEP THIS SECRET AND NOT TELL ANYONE.” In short, the document is real but is itself part of the psychological war. It is not something that the Israelis wanted to keep secret, but something that they wanted to put out there.

      The question is whether their plan is to try and provoke an Iranian strike to create an excuse, to intimidate the Iranians into some sort of backing down (unlikely to occur) or to pressure the US into attacking Iran. I do not know what they hope to achieve, but I know a set-up when I see one.

      1. Not sure what you mean by “many versions.” As far as I know, there is only one version that was disseminated to me and a Fresh member. The document may’ve been shared in confidence with ministers, MKs, & a few selected journos. But none of them leaked it.

        I think the document is a cross between a military document and a press release. Clearly there was some military input into it. But it seems more likely that a PR flack either in the PM’s, defense minister’s, or NSA office put the final version together.

        I’d also emphasize that military-intel experts were asked to vet the document & they say it looks credible in terms of the weapons systems mentioned & what they knew of what Israel was developing.

        1. I was paraphrasing Aaron’s “multiple, deliberately varying versions of this document.” The style is more press than military, although there is clearly military information. But it’s written in the tone of some one who wants the info to be “out there.” It’s like the writer wants to make sure that the layman understands it. I’m sure the details are credible and realistic, but I can’t escape the thought that the Israelis WANT this document to be in the public domain – like they’re playing some dangerous kind of game.

  10. (who, oh who, might they be?)

    Jeffrey Goldberg in the US? I’ll leave out my special Israeli Gogs.

  11. Has anyone ever stopped to examine the justiification for this conflict? It’s pretty much born out of a single remark made by Ahmadinejad several years ago which was twisted and taken out of context to mean something it didn’t. Namely the “wiping Israel off the map”. When in reality, his remark was not about destroying Israel (the term “wiping off the map” is a saying used in the west, NOT at all in farsi (the iranian language). Instead it was a throw away comment about the fact that maps shouldn’t show Israel because in his eyes, it was an illegal state which should not be recognised. I don’t necessarily agree with the sentiment, but at the same time it’s important to realise that within minutes of him saying it, it was twisted into something malevolent by western propaganda which set the wheels in motion for where we are today. It was manipulated so well that it reminds me of the saying – a lie is half way round the world while the truth is still putting its shoes on.

    To back up the point I’d like to suggest everyone think about the idea of Iran using nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. A laughable notion for the following reasons.

    1) The Iranian leadership are not idiots. Iran knows (as does everyone) that Israel is a nuclear power, and that any nuclear attack would guarantee the same response from Israel (and probably the US) resulting in the total destruction of Iran.

    2) Secondly, quite simply…what would be the point? Firstly, Iran would be destroying the 2nd holiest site in Islam, namely Jerusalem, which is pretty much what this whole conflict has been about for the last 63+ years – the very sacred site it now wants to destroy? Yeh that makes sense!

    3) Also, it would result in the deaths of millions of palestinians, including their allies in Hamas. Unless you are naive enough to think a nuclear attack can destroy certain parts of Israel without significant and considerable collateral damage throughout Gaza, the West Bank, Jordan and Lebanon. I’m sure Hamas and Hezbollah wouldn’t feel too excited by that. And once again, isn’t the reason Iran is at loggerheads with Israel bcos of its support for the palestinians – the very people we now think it’s happy to destroy?

    In case anyone thinks it, I’m not saying Iran is the god guy in all this. I’m sure they would prefer Israel not to exist, but they’re not some madcap, foaming at the mouth, rabid, psychopathic, clueless barbarians that the west like to make out – hell bent on destroying Israel. In their recent history (over the last 30+ years) they’ve not actively sought military conflict (unlike certain other countries in this debate).

    Finally, I want to add that this isn’t (and should not be) seen as a conflict between jews and muslims and/or christians. No, this SHOULD be a conflict between moderate jews, muslims, christians against the extremist christians, muslims, jews. I hope and pray there are enough moderates in all these major faiths who are prepared to join forces to build a better future rather than a destructive one. Thank you for reading.

    1. I’m approving this comment because you are a new commenter here and because I think most of your comment is worth viewing. But I do not want to reopen the issue of what Ahmadinejad did or didn’t say about Israel. So let’s steer clear of that one since it’s been discussed & debated here ad infinitum and ad nauseam.

      1. I happen to agree with you, Richard, the use of the quote is starting to get boring. On the other hand I found Ahmadinejad’s UN speech rather shocking. But the rest of the comment is absolutely good.

        Interesting in our context, the following statement by the Israeli decision maker. Maybe indeed Ehud Barak?

        “I refer you to a speech that [former Iranian president] Akbar Rafsanjani gave a decade ago,” says the knowledgeable decision maker. “Rafsanjani is perceived in the West as an Iranian moderate. But anyone who reads the words of this Iranian moderate will lose all illusions. He will see that what we are facing is a unique rationality that could lead to an apocalypse. For what does Rafsanjani say? He says that between the Muslim world and Israel there is no balance, and therefore there will also be no balance of deterrence. Israel is not a superpower with a continent-wide territory.

        It’s not even Japan, that absorbed Hiroshima and Nagasaki and within 15 years became a world power. Israel is a one-bomb state. After a single atom bomb, it will no longer be what it was or what it was meant to be. A single atom bomb is enough to finish off the Zionist story. In contrast, says Rafsanjani, the Muslim world has a billion and a half people and dozens of countries. Even if Israel strikes back hard at the country that dispatched the bomb, Islam will remain intact. A nuclear war will not make the Muslim world disappear, but it will do irreparable damage to Israel.

        “Rafsanjani did not mention any other possibilities. But we know that there are other possibilities. If a bomb arrives at the Ashdod port in a container, it will be a bomb without an address. We won’t know which country sent it. We won’t know if it was sent by some terrorist organization that is not a state. This thing is not simple. A situation could arise in which we cannot exercise absolute deterrence. Therefore, there is nothing that frees us today from the need for cold, hard thinking about the implications of taking action against Iran, but also about the implications of nonaction. It’s a lot easier not to do anything. Doing is much harder. The doer bears a heavy burden of responsibility. But there are moments in the life of a nation in which the imperative to live is the imperative to act. So it was on the eve of the Six-Day War. So it was in 1948. And it may be so now, too.”

        Ironically enough, we are lectured that Iran waited 4.000 years to create an atomic bomb. Really?

        But of course Avi Shlaim can’t be correct that the Iron Wall wasn’t meant to last forever, either. Or was it indeed meant to expire one day? And if there is an international consensus concerning Iran, whatever international means in this context, there is also one concerning “Judea and Samaria”. At what point can the Iron Wall strategy be given up?

        What I am really wondering about how much support there is in Israel for no war against Iran, in other words Ari Shavit’s position the US should do it versus the “knowledgeable decision maker’s” we have to do it on our own. Interesting how carefully he avoids even trusting Romney. Admittedly I haven’t paid much attention lately.

        Are you sure this is not simply propaganda to keep the issue alive and the other one off the table?

      Leave a Reply

      Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3.7K views 0 Shares
Share via
Copy link