Israeli-Iranian War

[Loki]

JERUSALEM — Amid intensifying Israeli news reports saying that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is close to ordering a military strike against Iran’s nuclear program, his deputy foreign minister called Sunday for an international declaration that the diplomatic effort to halt Tehran’s enrichment of uranium is dead.

Referring to the Iran negotiations led by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany, the minister, Danny Ayalon, told Israel Radio that those nations should “declare today that the talks have failed.” After such a declaration, if Iran does not halt its nuclear program, “it will be clear that all options are on the table,” Mr. Ayalon said, not only for Israel, but also for the United States and NATO.

Asked how long the Iranians should be given to cease all nuclear activity, Mr. Ayalon said “weeks, and not more than that.”

The comments came after a frenzy of newspaper articles and television reports over the weekend here suggesting that Mr. Netanyahu had all but made the decision to attack Iran unilaterally this fall. The reports contained little new information, but the tone was significantly sharper than it had been in recent weeks, with many of Israel’s leading columnists predicting a strike despite the opposition of the Obama administration and many military and security professionals within Israel. Articles in Sunday’s newspapers also examined home-front preparedness for what experts expect would be an aggressive response not just from Iran but also its allies, the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas.

“Lord help us, would you just do it already and be done with it?” wrote Ben Caspit, a columnist for the newspaper Maariv, referring to the Israeli leadership. “When one looks around the impression received is that it isn’t only in Israel that they aren’t being taken seriously any longer, but the world refuses to get worked up over them either.”

“Maybe they’ll bomb Iran in the end just to prove that they’re serious,” Mr. Caspit added.

Mr. Netanyahu and his top ministers have been saying for weeks that while the sanctions against Iran have hurt its economy, they have not affected the nuclear program, which Iran’s leadership insists is for civilian purposes. On Sunday, Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom called on the United States to enact “even more extensive and even more comprehensive sanctions which could overwhelm the Iranian regime and possibly even topple it, or bring it to make the decision to abandon the nuclear program.”

The mixed messages from Mr. Shalom and Mr. Ayalon came two days after Mr. Netanyahu called Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general of the United Nations, and urged him not to go to Iran for a meeting scheduled for the end of this month of the so-called nonaligned nations (countries that were not allies of either the United States or the Soviet Union during the cold war).

“Even if it is not your intention, your visit will grant legitimacy to a regime that is the greatest threat to world peace and security,” Mr. Netanyahu told Mr. Ban, according to a statement released by his office Friday night. “Not only does it threaten countries throughout the Middle East, not only is it the greatest terrorism exporter in the world, but it is impossible to exaggerate the danger it presents to Israel.”

“Mr. Secretary General, your place is not in Tehran,” Mr. Netanyahu added.

At a cabinet meeting on Sunday, Mr. Netanyahu seemed to be trying to rebut the Israeli newspaper articles questioning domestic preparedness as he bid farewell to the current home-front defense minister, who is becoming ambassador to China.

“There has been a significant improvement in our home-front defense capabilities,” Mr. Netanyahu said, according to a transcript released by his office. “One cannot say that there are no problems in this field because there always are, but all of the threats that are currently being directed against the Israeli home front pale against a particular threat, different in scope, different in substance, and therefore I reiterate that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/wo...l-says.html?hp

Assuming this isn't a complete bluff, which I don't think this is, it looks like we might see a war in September.

[Dreadnaught]

We've seen so many articles like this so far, it's hard to judge them well.

It's plausible. But it's also hard to imagine Israel would give up the element of surprise by making a big public stink about how they feel talks are failing, and then attack. They've been complaining about talks failing for years now.

But this is obviously totally possible. Which I am saying twice in case they do attack and future generations take my statement above as some sign of innocent naiveté.

[wiggin]

I've heard rumblings for some months now from some friends who are (peripherally) connected to the corridors of Israeli power suggesting that October is a likely strike date, if it happens.

I'm still extremely skeptical it will happen, though. I don't think they have US backing, and Israel simply doesn't have the ability for the persistent strikes necessary to really degrade the program. It's questionable whether they have ANY ability to hit the Qom site, and even Natanz is a tough nut to crack. Maybe a limited ground assault?

Even with a limited aerial strike, they're unlikely to do much lasting damage to the program, and they are likely to have downed pilots. Not a pretty combination. If they open the floodgates for a long, protracted assault, they are looking at rapidly escalating casualties for minimal marginal improvement in the results.

I can't rule out anything, though - from Netanyahu's perspective, the worst case scenario is the status quo, so an attack can't make it any worse and might do some good. That might be enough for him, and damn the geopolitical consequences.

[Lewkowski]

I wonder how this will play out with the elections this November here in the states.

[RandBlade]

The irony is the louder and more serious they seem about attacks the more likely that the rest of the world may do enough to avoid them being necessary. Whereas the quieter and more surprise launch would surely be more likely to catch the Iranians off guard and work?

So I wouldn't rule anything in or out. Regarding an attack, I'd believe it when I see it.

[wiggin]

The irony is the louder and more serious they seem about attacks the more likely that the rest of the world may do enough to avoid them being necessary. Whereas the quieter and more surprise launch would surely be more likely to catch the Iranians off guard and work?

So I wouldn't rule anything in or out. Regarding an attack, I'd believe it when I see it.

They were never going to be able to catch the Iranians off-guard. The Begin doctrine is such an entrenched part of Israeli security thinking that any aspirant to nuclear power in the Middle East will have to expect an Israeli attack at some point. Iran's program is clearly designed with this in mind - they have dispersed their program throughout various sites in the country, hardened them against most conventional attacks, and worked to upgrade their air defenses. They're clearly prepared for an Israeli attack, and no amount of prevaricating and obfuscation on the part of the Israelis is likely to do anything to change that. On Israel's side, their preparations have been hard to hide as well - significant upgrades to their long-range striking forces (new F-16s with conformal fuel tanks, new tanker aircraft), significant practice exercises, a massive clandestine campaign to slow the program short of all-out war, and acquisitions of bunker busters et al.

Granted, the specific timing of an attack is likely to be something they try to use misdirection about. So given that, it seems more likely that Israel is either about to attack in the very near future or right after the election (but NOT in the Sep/Oct timeline that's been bandied about). That being said, who knows?

I read an interesting piece recently with some believable details about the deliberations in the Olmert security cabinet in the run-up to the bombing of Syria's nuclear reactor 5 years back. What was remarkable about the scenario is that even though there were worried discussions going on at the highest levels of the Israeli government about what to do with the nascent threat for nearly half a year, not a single hint was leaked to the press. The Mossad and IDF sent multiple deep-penetration commando missions to northern Syria to observe the site and take samples, and even got some pretty good intelligence by tailing a Syrian official in Europe and searching his laptop, all without a single hint to anyone else what was going on. The Israelis shared their intelligence with the Americans ahead of the strike, and asked if the US would act (answer: no), but even the US was unaware of the timing of strike preparations.

This suggests to me that the Israeli government is perfectly capable of keeping their mouths shut when needed to deal with a massive security threat, and they will do so if it is strategically and operationally a good idea. But the reason why there are all of these 'leaks' about Iran is because they are a part of a carefully orchestrated information operations campaign designed to either obviate the need for a strike or obscure the timing and nature of a strike. I suspect it's because Israel is well aware that on Iran, the cat has been out of the bag for a decade, and everyone is expecting an eventual Israeli attack. Hermetic secrecy would do them no good, but appearing to leak like a sieve gives them the opportunity to guide the actions of others in a desired direction.

So, at the end of the day, it's anybody's guess what will happen. I think that the Israeli security establishment is not stupid, and they're aware of the limitations on their power. But they are also desperate, so they might taken even a low probability of success over what they see as a certain existential threat.

[Loki]

It sounds to me like Netanyuahu wants to send a signal to the domestic public that every option was tried before the use of force.

[RandBlade]

Isn't the bombing of dangerous materials (like nuclear reactors) against international law?

Would Israel simply not care about that though?

[Loki]

A) Never heard of a relevant international law.
B) It's ultimately up to the Security Council to do something about an IL violation...

[RandBlade]

A) Never heard of a relevant international law.

Article 56 of Protocol I (1977) Geneva Convention.

[Loki]

The first three are "works and installations containing dangerous forces" and may be attacked but only in ways that do not threaten to release the dangerous forces

Regardless, the SC is the main enforcer of IL.

[wiggin]

RB, so far Israel has only bombed nuclear reactors before they were operational. IIRC that was the main consideration for bombing Osirak when they did, because the reactor core would have been shortly delivered, making the resultant collateral damage much higher than if they just attacked the building. It's likely that there was some nuclear material at both the Osirak and the Al Kibar sites at the time of the raid, but there was not a functioning reactor that could lead to a catastrophic meltdown.

Furthermore, your cited Article 56 only applies to power generation (and only civilian power generation at that). Military production facilities are completely fair game; thus, if Bushehr were bombed (Iran's generation plant), it might be an issue, but the rest of the weapons program (enrichment et al) is completely fair game. If Israel can make a decent case that an electrical generator is being used to produce plutonium for a weapons program, it's also fair game.

I think Israel would be nervous about causing significant collateral damage from a meltdown or from significant contamination from, say, destroying an enrichment facility near a population center. I would imagine this factors into their battle calculations, and obviously it needs to meet the general standards of proportionality. But I don't think there's any unique problem with international law, no.

[RandBlade]

Are you certain that military facilities are fair game?

1. Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.

EDIT: Yes part 2 states that it'd be fair to attack if necessary if those facilities are supporting military operations. Not sure a pre-emptive strike would fall under supporting operations or not?

[wiggin]

Preemption is a tricky issue in international law and is largely unsettled. However, provided that a preemptive strike was considered 'legal', I think that a nuclear weapons facility would indeed be a legal target. In fact, most modern examples of preemption have been targeted against WMD or perceived WMD threats.

[Flixy]

Depends on how much civilian casualties and damage it would cause, I suppose.

[Loki]

Preemption is a tricky issue in international law and is largely unsettled. However, provided that a preemptive strike was considered 'legal', I think that a nuclear weapons facility would indeed be a legal target. In fact, most modern examples of preemption have been targeted against WMD or perceived WMD threats.

This isn't preemption; it's prevention. No one seriously believes that Iran is going to attack Israel in the next few months.

[wiggin]

Depends on how much civilian casualties and damage it would cause, I suppose.

I think in principle that the basic idea of proportionality would apply, yes, but the military significance is so great that it would likely dwarf any civilian casualties, making it likely fine by proportionality. Unless you actually nuke the place, all you're likely to get is containable radioactive contamination rather than some megacasualty event.

This isn't preemption; it's prevention. No one seriously believes that Iran is going to attack Israel in the next few months.

Yeah, I know, but many people have argued that the traditional distinctions are largely meaningless when dealing with WMDs. You're right though.

[RandBlade]

Osirak was universally condemned at the time wasn't it? Even by the United States?

[Flixy]

I think in principle that the basic idea of proportionality would apply, yes, but the military significance is so great that it would likely dwarf any civilian casualties, making it likely fine by proportionality. Unless you actually nuke the place, all you're likely to get is containable radioactive contamination rather than some megacasualty event.

If it's confined, I think the balance would be pretty clear. Depends of course on the location, is it near a city, would it contaminate, say, water supplies, is it in an agricultural region, etc. There will of course be a public backlash, especially from certain countries, but I don't think too many people will care much about Iran if the collateral damage is small (let's face it, most people who would complain the loudest already are strongly against Israel). Most countries do want those installations gone, after all.

Osirak was universally condemned at the time wasn't it? Even by the United States?

Osirak was not really that military though, was it?

[RandBlade]

Osirak was not really that military though, was it?

That's what Iraq claimed while Iran claims their current technology isn't military either.

[Flixy]

That's what Iraq claimed while Iran claims their current technology isn't military either.

Aye, but that one was also supervised by French and a bunch of other nationalities, seems less likely to have been used. And they didn't enrich their own fuel, it was a reactor. Iran has been offered similar options (nuclear fuel from France) but turned those down. I mean, now half the world is pretty certain that they are not using it for only civilian reasons, hence all the sanctions. Back then, things were less clear.

[RandBlade]

Still won't stop them from criticising Israel if they unilaterally strike.

[Flixy]

Still won't stop them from criticising Israel if they unilaterally strike.

And how big was the backlash from bombing a reactor in Syria a few years ago? Pretty much non-existent.

[wiggin]

Osirak was universally condemned at the time wasn't it? Even by the United States?

Yes, but since then there has been a reassessment by many people who once condemned the attack as an act of unprovoked aggression. Documents have come to light during that time indicating that Saddam was absolutely interested in developing nuclear weapons, though it is likely that Osirak itself would have needed some further development to be an effective production system for plutonium (not to mention requiring reprocessing facilities, which they didn't yet have). Hell, Israel did exactly the same thing Iraq did twenty years earlier - with French help they established a 'research' reactor in the desert (at Dimona) and clandestinely built a reprocessing facility next door. Within about a decade, they were turning out nuclear weapons.

In retrospect, Israel has gotten a lot of kudos for their action, notably since most of the Western world ended up invading Iraq a decade later, and definitely would have been upset if Iraq had nukes to deal with.

If it's confined, I think the balance would be pretty clear. Depends of course on the location, is it near a city, would it contaminate, say, water supplies, is it in an agricultural region, etc. There will of course be a public backlash, especially from certain countries, but I don't think too many people will care much about Iran if the collateral damage is small (let's face it, most people who would complain the loudest already are strongly against Israel). Most countries do want those installations gone, after all.

Quite. It also helps that the Iranian facilities are largely so well fortified - it will help contain radioactivity in the event Israel wrecks their equipment. I doubt Bushehr would be a good target from these perspectives, but definitely Qom and Natanz and maybe Arak and Isfahan. Frankly I doubt Israel could hit Qom effectively.

Osirak was not really that military though, was it?

See above. It was probably considered by the Iraqis as the first step towards nuclear weapons, though it would have taken time and additional technology to get weapons from this plant alone. Israel hit it when they did to avoid attacking it with the reactor core already loaded, resulting in potential radioactivity release.


As for Syria, the world did complain a bit about it, but since details were so muddled (no one knew about the reactor beforehand, Israel didn't say anything, and it took the US a while to come out with data showing it was a nuclear site), there wasn't the same concentrated ire. I don't doubt plenty of people felt it was a violation of Syria sovereignty, and act of state terrorism, yadda yadda yadda. I'm not too concerned.

[Loki]

Yeah, I know, but many people have argued that the traditional distinctions are largely meaningless when dealing with WMDs. You're right though.

Virtually none of those people are respected international jurists.

[wiggin]

Has any respected international jurist actually adjudicated one of these disputes? AFAIK this is essentially up in the air ATM.

[Loki]

Has any respected international jurist actually adjudicated one of these disputes? AFAIK this is essentially up in the air ATM.

I meant those who write in law journals. I was doing research on humanitarian intervention recently, and I could find 2 people who thought any kind of preventive attack can ever be justified, and one was a former Bush lawyer. The main dispute is between those who think prevention is never justified and those who think the Security Council can justify it (unsurprisingly, it was mainly American jurists making the latter argument and Europeans/South Americans making the former).

[wiggin]

Well, they're wrong.

[Loki]

The concept of aggression would have no meaning if any state can attack any other state just because the latter might be a threat at some point in the future?

[Steely Glint]

How would Iran respond if it was attacked?