Reuters: Israel preparing for a nuclear Iran
posted at 3:28 pm on November 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Yes, yes, it’s the job of governments to plan for all contingencies, but in that case why is Olmert’s office denying the report? Israel has the will to stop them but probably not the means; the U.S. may have the means but probably doesn’t have the will. And no one knows for sure just how far along Iran is, least of all stooge central, which pronounces its knowledge of the Iranian program as diminishing notwithstanding those warhead-design blueprints Iran shared with them on Tuesday: “The UN watchdog remained unable to ascertain that Iran did not have a secret, parallel military enrichment program because Tehran was still denying inspector visits to anything but its few declared nuclear facilities.”
Invest in reinforced concrete and canned food. Oh, and in submarines.
Israel is quietly preparing for the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran despite public pledges to deny its arch-foe the means to pose an “existential threat,” Israeli political and defense sources said on Thursday…
[T]wo senior Israeli sources with knowledge of the Olmert government’s defense planning said a secret memorandum was being prepared about “the day after” Iran has own atomic warheads.
“There are long-term ramifications to be addressed, like how to maintain our deterrent and military response capabilities, or how to off-set the attrition on Israeli society that would be generated by fear of Iranian nukes,” one source said…
[Defense Minister Ehud] Barak has championed Israel’s development of a ballistic defense system to fend off any future Iran nuclear strike.
Israel is also building up a fleet of German-made submarines which are believed to carry nuclear missiles, a message that any catastrophic Iranian attack would be repaid in kind.
The submarines are nice but they presume, of course, that an MAD deterrent will work on Islamic fundamentalists when that’s really the whole question, isn’t it? Lest we end on that sour note, though, have a look at this intriguing report from the Independent about a former top Iranian nuke negotiator who’s been charged with passing information to the west. There’s a glimmer of hope here if the charges are true, since it would suggest some element favoring capitulation on western demands within the upper echelons of the regime. Strong hawks would scoff at that possibility, though, and dismiss this as a dog and pony show meant to suggest a “rational” wing among the mullahs when there is none. Still, it’s worth noting that the accused traitor, Hossein Mousavian, was arrested six months ago, not recently, which is quite a time horizon for a dog and pony show. On the other hand, if Mousavian really is a traitor, what was he doing at the side of Ahmadinejad’s nemesis, Rafsanjani, when the latter gave a speech this week urging caution in pushing too hard against the west on nukes? If people seriously believed Mousavian’s been passing secrets, he’d be political poison, no? Or is this Rafsanjani’s way of suggesting that the charges against him were trumped up to try to silence a voice more conciliatory towards the west than Ahmadinejad’s?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Ha. So the Jews might not save the world’s bacon, so to speak, after all. What will everybody do?
JiangxiDad on November 15, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Seems curious that the Iranian gov’t would just arrest an official for passing secrets to the West. You’d think he’d either disappear or meet with some unfortunate “accident”. I guess it’s all in how they want to play it. That said, I don’t dismiss the possibility that someone in their gov’t could’ve flipped.
CP on November 15, 2007 at 3:41 PM
That’s been long-standing policy, I believe; the Dolphins are just the recent additions – ie I don’t think they are Iran specific. And the question really is even if they are no deterrent, wouldn’t you want to strike back regardless?
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Mr. Bond. I expect you to die.
doriangrey on November 15, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Israel certainly has the means – otherwise a MAD strategy is just a total bluff. It is, as with the US, a question of the will. That, Israel does not have.
And, I’ll go one better, most arab countries, and the Persians, don’t really believe that Israel would launch if it was destroyed. With the level of restraint the Israelis show in their fighting, one would not assume that they would carry out a MAD strategy.
progressoverpeace on November 15, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Each day Iran is allowed to own nuclear weapons probably adds 1M to the final death toll. Nuclear Jihad will not be cheap.
Israel should also consider mentioning that if any nukes come their way from ancillary sources, that Tehran gets the bullseye. They should also strap Jimmah Carter to one.
Hening on November 15, 2007 at 3:53 PM
No wonder Israel is worried, with a 0-9 record the Dolphins can’t help much.
right2bright on November 15, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Wow, would they ever be wrong in assuming that!!! The “you taking us down, we taking you with us” thought process is alive and well in Israel. But I suppose a bunch of nations that figure the Holocaust never happened and that America is the great Satan can believe anything, no matter how insane.
mjk on November 15, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Why left-of-center governments are always a danger. Olmert should have been sacked the minute he needlessly called a truce with Hezbollah.
Halley on November 15, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Lol, nice.
Spirit of 1776 on November 15, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Yeah, but on the bright side, Ricky Williams is back…
Rick on November 15, 2007 at 4:06 PM
We are surprised by this, Why?
How many Jews have to die at the hands of Islamo-fascism before we (as in our State Department and Israel’s own government) take them seriously?
Lawrence on November 15, 2007 at 4:09 PM
Kadima folks were scared that Kadima would go the way of Shinui in a new election and most of them would never get back to the Knesset. Ah, the beauty of party-oriented European style parliamentary systems …
progressoverpeace on November 15, 2007 at 4:09 PM
from the ganja pit :) How useful…
df4jc on November 15, 2007 at 4:17 PM
It took decades for MAD to become a deterrent. Not to mention enough nukes destroy Russia 10 times over. And two recently nuked cities. Chernobyl didn’t hurt either.
Can a society that missed WWII, denies the Holocaust, and has delusions of grandeur be persuaded in time? Then there is the humiliation, and oh yea – the Islam.
Rationality and impulse control are not a character traits associated with folks who sent 250k retards against Saddam’s machine guns, with nothing but Korans!
Agrippa2k on November 15, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Frankly Israel has been too weak on this. So have we.he UN, the EU, and our liberals need to hear the words – until their limited imaginations can get the image.
Israel needs to make it clear that any nuclear strike, regardless of how little of Israel remains, will result in complete destruction of Iran – their entire population.
Then the enviro-nuts (who could care less about the immediate death) can obsess about the radioactive fallout’s effect on all of Europe, even the US.
We should do all we can to facilitate this capability. Submarines, hardened silos, targeting satellites, and stealth bombers.
Agrippa2k on November 15, 2007 at 4:32 PM
The best case scenario is that Iran’s poor self control will result in a missile launch minutes after they have their first bomb. An attack.
Israel’s missile defense (improved version of the patriot) could probably stop a single launch.
Then we can finally end the delusion about Iran, and impose a blockade (siege) and sanctions that effectively put them on the moon.
Agrippa2k on November 15, 2007 at 4:36 PM
I, for one believe that MAD does and will work against these countries. I don’t buy the whole concept of Jihad driving the leaders of these places. Jihad is a tool that they use to control the masses. If they were not afraid to die for the glory of Allah they would have launched conventional attacks years ago without regurd to the outcome. Just kill as many jews as possible.
The leaders of these countries are not into that at all. And they are very much into self preservation I assure you.
conservnut on November 15, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Sharon is rolling over in his coma.
RobCon on November 15, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Exactly right. Deterrents won’t work. Bombs will. The sooner they fall, the better for everyone, including the Iranian people.
My guess: Iran will keep their nuke program moving steadily forward, but avoid any overt actions/threats that demand a response, because they know Bush won’t unleash our Air Force in an election year without rock-solid justification. If a Dem wins the election, they drop the farce and start threatening, knowing the Dem will sit on her/his hands and send a strongly-worded memo to the UN. If a Repub wins the election, Iran will go back to stalling, hoping the Repub will not risk the fallout from another Iraq-type political disaster. That’s why we need a president with both physical and mental gonads. Hillary doesn’t qualify; Obama is (I assume) 50% qualified. No way to know for sure about the Repubs — it’s easy to talk tough on the campaign trail.
Splashman on November 15, 2007 at 4:42 PM
I might add that the danger for us and Israel is in having weak knee governments that would take the option of a nuclear response off the table.
That is the real danger!
conservnut on November 15, 2007 at 4:42 PM
Yep. People have forgotten. And the fact that MAD is “illegal” under the 4th Geneva Conventions, that people are so fond of these days, doesn’t help to convince some of the more adventurous and unhinged strategizers in the world.
progressoverpeace on November 15, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Or, we could send some strategic nukes a’calling. Screw what the UN thinks. America F&$% Yeah!
Pulchritudinous Patriot on November 15, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Gawd. And your basis for that assurance is . . . ? (Self-delusion doesn’t count.)
Saddam was into self-preservation, too. He believed he could and would survive even if his whole country fried around him.
But in Islam, self-preservation does not trump all, and nukes change the equation dramatically. Here’s a scenario for you to consider: Ahmadinejad has his finger on the button that will send 3 nukes to Israel. If he pushes it, he goes down in Islamic history as a martyr, the destroyer of Israel. His name will be sung and celebrated by hundreds of millions of Muslims forever. If he doesn’t push it, he goes back to the daily grind of dealing with declining oil revenue, rising prices, birthrate implosion, dissatisfied populace, annoying UN inspectors, etc. Which do you think he’ll choose?
Splashman on November 15, 2007 at 4:53 PM
The nukes aren’t just for Iran. If Israel gets hit, then they will effectively be decapitated as far as real country-wide decision-making goes. Defense of the country falls into the hands of whatever scattered forces remain. I’m willing to bet that the sub commanders have standing orders that if any type of military threat approaches Israel (Egypt, Syria, etc), a single warning goes out to the leadership of those countries. If their military doesn’t stand down in, say, 24 hours, the safeties come off.
Iran will be the smoking hole in the ground as proof of Israel’s willingness to follow through….
nukemhill on November 15, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Well look at the bright side. If Iran does nuke Israel. The real head of the snake will be dead within the next few hours after the first strike. And the main sponsor of worldwide terrorism will be no more.
Too bad millions will have to die before this happens.
Scorched_Earth on November 15, 2007 at 5:11 PM
The problem with making threats is, after some amount of time, you have to demonstrate your ability to produce what it is that you are threatening. Otherwise, after some amount of time, people either do something about your threats, or start to ignore them.
I’m beginning to suspect that Ahmadinejad is bluffing in the same way, and for the same reason that Saddam Husein was bluffing about WMD.
Unless Ahmadinejad, or Hezbollah manages another mass causality attack, or the Taliban bring down Musharraf more people will begin to suspect that the terrorists are losing the fight.
This is why it is bad public policy to make threats; someone might call your bluff.
Personally, I don’t care if Iran, or Pakistan, or India, or Russia, or China have nukes. I do care, however, when they threaten my country. It’s not the weapons I’m concerned about, its the threats.
rockhauler on November 15, 2007 at 5:13 PM
Clicking on the link to the Yahoo blueprint article, the particular online ad in the middle of the page was one for Israel, of all things. The photo had a guy holding what appears to be a handful of dirt from an archeological site.
I was just struck by the juxtaposition of the concept of WMDs and ruins…
I wish there was a way to show it. I’ve saved it as a screen shot.
Grantman on November 15, 2007 at 5:25 PM
Would that be with a logic bomb? ;)
nukemhill on November 15, 2007 at 5:48 PM
It is just as important to be perceived as a country that would commit suicide to stop genocide.
The leaders of the Arab countries could care less about the people, but they sure care about themselves.
I think Reagan proved how they value their own lives over their “beliefs” with a “hello from hell” card to Kadafi.
right2bright on November 15, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Can I blame that on my failing eyesight, or my spell checker? Or boredom?
I guess that means my credibility is out the window?
(There is a reason for [good] editors. . . .)
rockhauler on November 15, 2007 at 6:45 PM
Does anybody who’s paying attention really doubt whether we’ll see a nuclear war in our lifetime?
Not to sound fatalistic … but good ol’ planet Earth is overdue for a good brawl. Humanity seems to (perversely) enjoy the perpetual cycle, and the time seems ripe for a fight.
I’m not even sure it can be stopped. My only hope is that we learn from the next war. We might – cuz it’s gonna be a doozie.
And although I can’t guarantee who will start it … I’ll bet I can narrow it down to a geographic region with a lot of sand. And camels. And guys named Achmed.
The only thing I don’t know is what will trigger it … who else will get involved … whether some of it will be aimed in our direction … and how it will end.
But it’s coming. And even if would could stop it, it doesn’t seem like we will.
God – or the nondenominational, non-offensive, only figurative spiritual figure of your choice – bless Israel. I think they’re going to need it.
We live in interesting times.
Professor Blather on November 15, 2007 at 7:10 PM
I have long said to the few who listen (to me) that there are only four known solutions to over population:
war
plague
famine
migration.
Pick one.
rockhauler on November 15, 2007 at 7:18 PM
Has the UN ever been able to ascertain anything about anything?
boomer on November 15, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Are you kidding? If the UN was tasked with ascertaining the location of their own hiney, they’d appoint a committee headed by the hiney-denying, goat-banging dictator of a 3rd-world dirtclod, and then hold a press conference to denounce the US and Israel.
Splashman on November 15, 2007 at 7:34 PM
Why wait?
MB4 on November 15, 2007 at 7:49 PM
I believe the good Professor is correct. It’s no longer a question of if…but when.
SPIFF1669 on November 15, 2007 at 8:26 PM
Grantman, email it to me. I’ll caption it.
As for all the hand-wringing: Israel already pointed out that bombs can fly two ways. A senior political official said it (forgot who, but someone very high up, and he said it openly).
Israel isn’t planning for the death of most of her people. Israel is planning for the protection of her people in case the worst happens. It makes sense to me.
I’m personally convinced that if Iran does not dismantle its nuclear program, the attack will occur right after the 2008 Presidential elections.
Meryl Yourish on November 15, 2007 at 9:20 PM
Saying it is one thing. The question is whether anyone believes it. Given the fact that Israel has never bombed a major arab city in war (even wars where Israel was very close to losing, like 1973) belies the tough talk.
Given what Israel thinks are the stakes, it’s clear that protection of Israelis is not the driving factor of Israeli policy. This bleeds into laughter when the same country claims that it is ruthless enough to wipe out mass civilians in a final volley (from the grave) of MAD missiles.
I don’t believe it and I highly doubt that the arab/persian worlds do, either.
There must be continuity between local actions and global threats.
As with the stupidity of having called WWI “The War to End All Wars”, the banning of all the successful Allied tactics of WWII right after WWII in the 4th Geneva Conventions was nothing more than an emotional reaction to the horror the Allies were confronted with in the utter barbarity of the enemies – both the Nazis and the Japanese – but that doesn’t excuse anyone in this day and age when the horror is long gone and history is laid out for anyone to see.
The best way to insure that nukes will be used is to pretend that they don’t exist and act as if they could never be used – though relying on them for ultimate deterrence. This attitude might be palatable to guilt-ridden Westerners, who would rather live in a fantasy land, but it is highly ineffective in practice.
Frankly, of the five or so major fronts these days, the most containable for such a hot exchange is India/Pakistan. This was pointed out by the Indian Prime Minister when India and Pakistan almost went nuclear not long after 9/11 and he said that India could absorb the entire Pakistani arsenal and still wipe out Pakistan. I would note that no one complained about the threats of incinerating civilians back and forth in that exchange.
progressoverpeace on November 15, 2007 at 11:47 PM
From the Yahoo blueprint link:
Yet here we are, twiddling our thumbs and listening to our idiotic politicians who wish to have “discussions” or “conversations” with these duplicitous bastards.
Good Grief!
hillbillyjim on November 16, 2007 at 12:30 AM
I wonder if Israel has considered a strategy of Transitive Assured Destruction: “If Washington lets Tehran nuke Tel Aviv, Tehran gets it. So does Washington.”
Kralizec on November 16, 2007 at 1:09 PM
There had been such rumblings in the past, with Europe being the recipient.
However, the real transitivity comes in the case of Israel NOT carrying out a MAD strategy and the arabs ending up in control of the Israeli nuke arsenal and industry. No one likes to talk about this scary prospect.
progressoverpeace on November 16, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Comment pages: