What will the U.S. and Israel do about Iranâ
€™s Nuclear Facilities?
September 29, 2006
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
One of the questions I have been asked repeatedly since we started this web site is the title of this blog. I have pondered over this question since the first inklings of news reports that Iran was trying to develop nuclear weapons following their war with Iraq. My answer to the question is the same as expressed by Larry Derfner in the Jerusalem Post article which follows. Before Iran began to scatter out its nuclear facilities I thought we still had a chance to temporarily take them out with a strike using conventional weapons, but once they put them deep in the earth, and hardened them, I believe that option disappeared. Their acquiring of sophisticated Russian surface-to-air missiles, to place around their facilities, has also been a detriment to using conventional techniques to eliminate them.
Begin Jerusalem Post Article
Rattling the Cage: The big con about Iran
Larry Derfner, THE JERUSALEM POST
September 27, 2006
Despite all the skepticism, the US and Israel do have a military option in Iran: preemptive nuclear annihilation.
The US and Israel, or the US by itself, or maybe even Israel by itself, can destroy Iran and its 69 million people, probably in a matter of hours or even less, and then nobody in the world will have to worry about those crazy maniacs getting the bomb. Things would be sort of weird afterward, it’s hard to say what the consequences might be, but the Iranian threat would be behind us.
Other than that, though, there is no military option in Iran. If we didn’t learn this from the Americans’ ongoing experience in Iraq, we should have learned it from Israel’s recent experience in Lebanon.
Many people think it’s possible to wipe out Iran’s nuclear facilities, or at least cripple them, from the air. But did Israel manage to wipe out or cripple Hizbullah’s weapons from the air? Incidentally, Iran is about 150 times the size of Lebanon. And Hizbullah’s underground military bunkers were built by the Iranians; imagine what they’ve built for themselves at home.
But I don’t want to misrepresent the case for an air attack on Iran’s nuclear works; those in favor allow that it might well require commandos and maybe small infantry units to ferret out the nukes and make sure they’re destroyed.
When I hear this, I think of American soldiers roaming around Iraq looking futilely for weapons of mass destruction, then I remember that Iran is four times bigger than Iraq, with more than twice the population, and a military that dwarfs what Iraq had when the US invaded in 2003.
I think, also, of how small units of Israeli infantry went into south Lebanon at the start of this summer’s war, and how everyone soon realized that those soldiers wouldn’t be enough – which happened at about the same time everyone realized the Air Force wouldn’t be enough, either – and that instead, a massive ground invasion would be necessary.
And all that was just for tiny little Hizbullah and south Lebanon. How many troops and how big a war effort would be needed to take on Iran?
No one knows.
How long would the soldiers have to stay in Iran before the nuclear threat were removed, if it could be removed? How would Iran fight back? Would it fire missiles at Israel? Would it use chemical and biological weapons? How far beyond Iran would the war spread? How many soldiers and civilians would die?
Again, nobody knows. And on the basis of what we’ve seen in Iraq and Lebanon, nobody can even make a decent guess, least of all the calm, confident generals and politicians who are so good at promising “victory.”
But I think people know by now that before a country goes to war, it has to be prepared to weather the worst possibilities, not just the most blissful ones. I don’t think anybody will believe the same sort of pie-in-the-sky predictions about fighting war in Iran that they believed about fighting one in Iraq and in Lebanon. And I suspect the non-believers include George W. Bush and Ehud Olmert, no matter what they say publicly.
I FIGURE they know that trying to take out Iran’s nuclear facilities by conventional means requires a huge military commitment and huge risks with no guarantee of success. It means being prepared for a much bigger war than the US has been fighting in Iraq for the last 3-1/2 years, and counting.
America won’t do it. No way on earth. With the US so hopelessly out of its depth in Iraq, the American people will as soon let Bush start a war in Iran as they’d let him bring back the draft, which would be necessary to fight such a war. So forget it. America might be up for a quick little in-and-out operation, something like it did in Granada or Panama, but that’s not a military option with the likes of Iran.
And what is Israel going to do? It would be nice to have maps and satellite photos of a big, vulnerable Iranian nuclear reactor sitting out there on the ground in plain sight, so a few jets could fly over, bomb it to hell and fly back in time for dinner, just like they did in Iraq in 1981. But that isn’t an option this time, either. Iran’s nuclear facilities, wherever they all might be, are spread out, underground, thickly defended – and the element of surprise is long gone.
So with no quick, painless solution available, is Israel willing to start the kind of war necessary to even have a chance of getting rid of Iran’s nuclear potential – to start the kind of war America clearly won’t?
No, Israel isn’t willing. For a war of choice, this is too big and dangerous, and that’s what it would be – a war of choice.
Israelis may have convinced themselves that Iran will nuke us once they get the chance, but while this is a possibility – a remote one, I think – it is by no means an inevitability, and to treat it as such is hysterical, which is what Israelis, inevitably, have become over Iran.
I’m not saying Iran, especially a nuclear Iran, is nothing to worry about. Iran is plenty to worry about, but as for what to do about Iran, how to stop it from getting nuclear weapons, neither the US nor Israel nor anyone else has a conventional military way to go about it.
There are all sorts of diplomatic pressures that can be applied to Iran and its arms suppliers, but if Iran gets the bomb, which I think is likely, we are going to have to learn to live with it like we lived with Stalin and Mao having the bomb. They weren’ t any less fana
tical than the Iranians, and when it comes to genocide and conquest, the Iranians talk about it, but Stalin and Mao did it.
So there’s good reason for worry, but not for hysteria.
Still, like I said at the beginning, there is an option for preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons by nuking it first. Now I know some of you reading this are thinking: “Yeah!” And I know you’re not kidding, you really mean it.
But I’m sorry, even if it sounds unfair to you, preemptive nuclear annihilation is only a theoretical option, not a real, live one. A country, even the US or Israel, can’t just snuff another country because of what it thinks that country might do to it in the future. Some of you may be asking: “Why not?” I’d explain, but it would probably make you angry.
That’s just the way it is – no mushroom clouds for Iran.
All you can do is dream.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. You may use material originated by this site.
However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.