Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012

[DiscoBerry]

Ronen Bergman, an investigative journalist and analyst on the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth has written a long piece for the New York Times magazine, asking the question on many people's minds: Will Israel attack Iran?

Bergman's answer, which comes in the last paragraph, is yes:

After speaking with many senior Israeli leaders and chiefs of the military and the intelligence, I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran in 2012. Perhaps in the small and ever-diminishing window that is left, the United States will choose to intervene after all, but here, from the Israeli perspective, there is not much hope for that. Instead there is that peculiar Israeli mixture of fear — rooted in the sense that Israel is dependent on the tacit support of other nations to survive — and tenacity, the fierce conviction, right or wrong, that only the Israelis can ultimately defend themselves.

Bergman is one of a small circle of heavyweights in the Israeli media who spend a significant amount of time with the politicians, spies and generals who are going to make the ultimate decision. So his assessment carries more weigh that your average Israel-Iran analyst. Here is one of the key paragraphs:

The Israeli Air Force is where most of the preparations are taking place. It maintains planes with the long-range capacity required to deliver ordnance to targets in Iran, as well as unmanned aircraft capable of carrying bombs to those targets and remaining airborne for up to 48 hours. Israel believes that these platforms have the capacity to cause enough damage to set the Iranian nuclear project back by three to five years.

Three to five years seems a very confident estimate. The US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, reckoned in December that such strikes could set the Iranians back one or two years "at best". Bergman also talks to a Mossad veteran, Rafi Eitan, whose own estimate was "not even three months".

Bergman spent a lot of time in recent months with the Israeli defence minister, Ehud Barak, and is particularly revealing on his strategic thinking. He does not necessarily share Binyamin Netanyahu's apocalyptic view of Iran's intentions, but believes a nuclear Iran will be more aggressive and harder to counter.

"From our point of view," Barak said, "a nuclear state offers an entirely different kind of protection to its proxies. Imagine if we enter another military confrontation with Hezbollah, which has over 50,000 rockets that threaten the whole area of Israel, including several thousand that can reach Tel Aviv. A nuclear Iran announces that an attack on Hezbollah is tantamount to an attack on Iran. We would not necessarily give up on it, but it would definitely restrict our range of operations."

At that point Barak leaned forward and said with the utmost solemnity: "And if a nuclear Iran covets and occupies some gulf state, who will liberate it? The bottom line is that we must deal with the problem now."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2012/jan/25/israel-iran

[Radiation]

So...basically if Israel decides to bomb Iran they would basically start WWIII?

[shykid]

A provocative Israel will lose the support of the world, probably including the US, especially if they use nukes, and its very existence depends on that support. I don't know if the powers that be in Israel are foolish enough to think otherwise, but if Israel attacks anyone, unless it is in retaliation, Israel won't exist anymore because their allies will bail on them.

Iran is not a threat, either. Just like Israel, I don't know if the powers that be in Iran are foolish enough to think otherwise, but if Iran fires a nuke, even in self-defense in response to an attack, Iran won't exist anymore. There will be more than adequate retaliation to destroy Iran, even without Team America World Police to do the dirty work, although I'd be surprised if we didn't participate in (if not lead) any such effort. I am critical of paranoid, trigger-happy neocons, but fuck, I can't say military intervention isn't necessary when a bunch of fundies start firing nukes. A pre-emptive strike on Iran is foolish without certain knowledge they're going to attack us first, but it would be equally foolish to ignore or "negotiate" with a nuclear Iran on a warpath, even if they're not directly targeting us.

So, yeah, TL;DR: Israel and Iran probably aren't going to do shit, because if they do, they're going to be in a world of hurt.

[Lt. Fred]

Is it possible for the IDF to lose the unwavering support of the United States?

[Sylvana]

"From our point of view," Barak said, "a nuclear state offers an entirely different kind of protection to its proxies. Imagine if we enter another military confrontation with Hezbollah, which has over 50,000 rockets that threaten the whole area of Israel, including several thousand that can reach Tel Aviv. A nuclear Iran announces that an attack on Hezbollah is tantamount to an attack on Iran. We would not necessarily give up on it, but it would definitely restrict our range of operations."

I am really failing to understand the thinking here. How would a nuclear Iran protect its proxies any differently than it does now? Nuclear weapons don't protect anything. Any remotely sane leader would recognize that the use of nuclear weapons, especially against neighboring countries, is possibly the worst idea in the world. There is a reason why America, despite having the largest nuclear stockpile in the world, and also being the only country to actually use a nuclear device against an enemy, and a history of invading other countries, has NOT used its nuclear arsenal since world war 2.

There was a really good quote in the movie The Peacemaker: "I'm not afraid of the man who wants ten nuclear weapons, Colonel. I'm terrified of the man who only wants one."

[Yla]

"From our point of view," Barak said, "a nuclear state offers an entirely different kind of protection to its proxies. Imagine if we enter another military confrontation with Hezbollah, which has over 50,000 rockets that threaten the whole area of Israel, including several thousand that can reach Tel Aviv. A nuclear Iran announces that an attack on Hezbollah is tantamount to an attack on Iran. We would not necessarily give up on it, but it would definitely restrict our range of operations."

I am really failing to understand the thinking here. How would a nuclear Iran protect its proxies any differently than it does now? Nuclear weapons don't protect anything. Any remotely sane leader would recognize that the use of nuclear weapons, especially against neighboring countries, is possibly the worst idea in the world. There is a reason why America, despite having the largest nuclear stockpile in the world, and also being the only country to actually use a nuclear device against an enemy, and a history of invading other countries, has NOT used its nuclear arsenal since world war 2.

There was a really good quote in the movie The Peacemaker: "I'm not afraid of the man who wants ten nuclear weapons, Colonel. I'm terrified of the man who only wants one."

The useful thing here is not the nuke, it's the threat of the nuke alone. The scenario displayed is exemplary. What if in another Libanon war, Iran would threaten to nuke either the invading IDF, or cities in Israel if Israel doesn't back off. It's a poker game where both parties would come out losing, so the only winning move is not to play/to fold, i.e. back off and leave the Hizbollah alone. As humiliating as that would be for Israel, it's preferable to getting nuked.

In other words, even if it would be disastrous for Iran to carry out the threat, Israel could still not afford to risk it.

[armandtanzarian]

Is it possible for the IDF to lose the unwavering support of the United States?

The United States government/ i.e. the Obama administration? Yeah. The Right Wing nutjobs? No way. The existence of Israel and its policies are like religion to them. That's a good reason for the "attack Iran" rhetoric; Israel's gonna do something stupid anyway so might as well take credit for it and/or justify it somehow.

As I said before, Israel is a controlled by children, namely war hawks and idiots for whom the unconditional coddling has created politicians who act precisely the same way a spoiled 6-year old with weapons acts. Yes people want to destroy Israel, but to pretend Israeli politicians don't have a hand in the escalation of hostilities ignores the whole picture. They make America's hawks look like chickens. Which makes me wonder just how much of their need to strike is just a hardon for bombing stuff rather than a levelheaded assessment of the threats.

Because the only way to justify a preemptive strike, and this one is precisely this, is if they think a disastrous strike from Iran is very much certain and imminent. And anyone with an understanding of the situation knows Iran is most likely not capable of doing any strike of any kind. To attack Israel is a suicide mission, especially considering their trump card, the nuke, isn't even ready. Not to mention the sanctions have done damage to the Iranian economy, AND most Sunni and Islamist nations in the MidEast hate them (Iran's greatest ally is Syria, nuff said). Both sides stand to lose more from escalating this cold war into a real one, and sadly seems only one side recognizes it.

[D Laurier]

Ugh.  Iran needs to train a whole lot of AA crews, and a whole lot of fighter pilots.
Iran also needs to stop playing into the hands of the democracy. These "we are strong too" rants only serve to support democracy propaganda. Iran needs to present itself as they truely are... a weak country, struggling to survive under a crippling blockade that has been strangling them for over 3 decades.
The occupation has been winning sympathy by presenting itself as a weak and peacefull country, living under constant seige by vast armys. Iran needs to take a page from their enemy's playbook, and start playing the victim.
Rasfanjani was a good president, and led the "forgive the americans" faction of the revolutionary council. His efforts were thwarted by warmongering Americans who scared the Iranians into voting for the wannabe strongman Ajmenidad.

Natanyahoo is a raving genocidal maniac who needs to be put down