Why Slate is probably wrong about Israel bombing Iran soon

If Israeli fighters and tankers can fly over Iraq at will, what does that mean for Iraqi sovereignty as a whole?

i.e. Iranian fighters and tanks and troops and...whatever the Mullahs deem an acceptable excuse to further flex their muscles in Iraq.

Unfortunately that country is a looong way away from defending itself in the region, let alone in its own cities.

If Israeli fighters and tankers can fly over Iraq at will, what does that mean for Iraqi sovereignty as a whole?

i.e. Iranian fighters and tanks and troops and...whatever the Mullahs deem an acceptable excuse to further flex their muscles in Iraq.

Unfortunately that country is a looong way away from defending itself in the region, let alone in its own cities.

This isn't about nukes -- this is about Israel trying to create obstacles between a US-Iran rapprochement that Israel judges to be contrary to its own regional ambitions.

Anyway what exactly would Israel bomb? A nuclear energy facility that has been under IAEA safeguards and which is making low-enriched uranium that cannot be used to make nukes? And bombing that facility would help, how?

Iran's nuclear program is totally supported by the people of Iran who have a history of deeply resenting foreign interference in their country's affairs. So all bombing Iran would accomplish is inflame nationalism there, increase support for the government and the people would then totally support Iran building nukes.

This supposed "imminent" Israeli bombing strike on Iran has been the most over-hyped Israeli and American media fantasy of the new century. It's a pleasure to see the Establishment Media commentators catching up with the realities of the situation, all of which have been posted on the web for the last several years by numerous observers with tactical and logistical military experience.

Ref:

From Robert Morton's über right-wing website worldtribune.com. Whatever one's opinion of that site Mr Morton does have quite good military connections. He reported the American denial of so-called bunker-buster munitions and denial of permission to Israel to fly through Iraqi airspace at least five months before the much celebrated David Sanger/NYT piece that essentially repeated the same information. Note the dates on the stories below:

U.S. nixed Israel's request for bunker-busters

Thursday, 14 August 2008

The United States rejected a recent Israeli request for advanced detection systems as well as bunker-busters capable of locating and destroying Iranian nuclear weapons sites.

Israeli officials said the administration was persuaded by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that such systems could be used to facilitate an Israeli air strike on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities.

Full piece Here.

# # #

U.S. denies Israel's request for tanker aircraft [and permission to fly through Iraqi airspace]

Thursday, 21 August 2008

....This marked the second U.S. refusal of an Israeli request for military systems in about a month. In July, the administration rejected an Israeli request for advanced bunker-busters and underground detection systems. The White House was also said to have denied Israel permission to use Iraq's air space for an attack on Iran.

Full piece Here.

# # #

Iraqi airspace 'must not be used in strike'

July 14, 2008

....According to a senior official, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari "conveyed to the US ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, on Friday a message from the government that Iraq doesn't accept the use of Iraqi space by Israeli jets," that could launch aerial attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Full piece Here.

# # #

Retired USAF officer Rick Francona posts some relevant comments at his blog as well. Mr Francona's update to his original piece is likely a moot point given the strain in Turkish-Israeli relations as a result of the Israeli campaign in the Gaza Ghetto.

In addition there are some worthwhile comments on this subject at Pat Lang's Sic Semper Tyrannis blog.

To sum up, the logistics of an Israeli manned bombing mission to Iran are extraordinarily difficult. The risks (capture of Israeli pilots by the Iranians, Iranian retaliation against Israel itself etc.) are substantial and the chances of significant and lasting damage to the Persian nuclear programme are not good.

Even the online wagering site intrade.com puts the odds of an Israeli and or American strike against Iran before 31 Dec 2010 at 31% an attack WILL occur, 69% odds that an attack WILL NOT occur. Anyone who is quite convinced that the Israelis and or Americans will attack Iran before that time can place a wager at the intrade.com site and potentially win a substantial amount of money.

[ intrade.com => Current Events => Iran ]

The uranium enrichment process uses a gas form of the metal, U-hexafloride, which is stored in pressurized bottles between enrichment cycles thru the centrifuges. Bombing Iranian plants and their inventory would blast the gas, any U-metal, and contaminated machinery, scattering major radioactive debris. Carried aloft by explosions and fire, gas and dust would drift and settle over the Iranian population, poisoning surface water, animals, and agricultural land. Cancers and birth defects would multiply for decades.

Think Chernobyl; fallout doesn't stop at the plant boundary, or the national border. Except Chernobyl was an accident.

I certainly don't want the 200,000+ US troops and citizens still held hostage by US policy in Iraq to be placed at even greater risk by such an act. But I would hope that isn't the primary restraint on Israel (or the US) from going postal with a major attack against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Even deniable threats of what equates to WMD attack coming from Team Cheney or our ally PM Netanyahu are improper and inflammatory. Any attack on our nuclear plants, or radiological poisoning of our territory, would properly be regarded as a WMD attack. US policy is that such an attack on the USA would be subject to nuclear retaliation.

Here on the first day after Easter/Passover celebrations, I hope we haven't forgotten Jesus' formulation of the 'Golden Rule' principle. I sometimes prefer the proscriptive form that Rabbi Hillel taught: 'don't do to others what we wouldn't want them doing to us.'

Making book on such an attack or discussing refueling/ordnance/tactics for it is bizarre at best. The better question is 'how would it end?'

Walking Wounded says that --
"blasting enriched uranium is same as dirty bomb."

This is a common and 100% incorrect belief. Pure uranium metal is not especially dangerous, even if highly enriched.

The byproducts of nuclear reactions are often hazardous.
Plutonium, polonium, etc. are pretty risky. Blowing up (just for example) a power reactor before it's been running and the byproducts are present is actually the best time to do it.

..is when the Iranians demand full inspection of the Dimona facility as an exchange for full inspections of their own. That would be a problem for the Israelis.

I'm not sure what Israel's refueling options are, I doubt anyone outside the IDF really does - although one assumes we have a pretty good idea of how such an attack would proceed outside the auspices of American approval. But your claim that if they go through Iraq that 'we would stop them' is curious - we certainly could stop them, but that would be to cross a line that may prove as dangerous as allowing the attack to proceed since we would be emasculating Israel's defense profile and essentially not only giving the green light to Iran to do whatever it wants but also signaling to the rest of the Mideast that Israel's power is on the wane. This surely is the quite valid point of the Slate article: Israel is holding a very strong hand should it feel compelled to act unilaterally.

Actually Mr. Ricks, you are forgetting about Turkey and Israel's defense agreement. Though a longer route, Israel could fly through Turkish airspace, staging tankers and rescue choppers at romote airfields along the way.

However, relations between the two countries aren't as cordial at the moment since Israel invaded Gaza recently.

Lastly, no one ever talks about the where the real Iranian nuclear program is: in the heads of scientists, technicians, and engineers?

Don't forget all the troops working at Al Udeid right across the gulf from Iran, who are well with the range of Iranian TBMs. I wouldn't want to be there if Israel decides to go cowboy...

@hass

Why should Israel want to limit Iran's attack capability? Hmmm, it might have something to do with the fact that Iran is a major supporter of groups that believe in the use of extreme violence to destroy the state of Israel, including but not limited to Hamas, Hezbollah, the al Akhsa Martyr Brigade, and Islamic Jihad. I find it interesting how many people are willing to believe that Iran will interfere with Iraq if Israel launches an attack but can't fathom that Iran would love to hurt Israel.

@walkingwounded

Israel most certainly does not have a doctrine of first strike in terms of nuclear weapons. They've repeatedly said they would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East. In fact, citing their incursions into Gaza or Lebanon as previous examples of use of first strike would be inaccurate. If displaced Native Americans started dropping rockets on Seattle, would you call an American response an act of first strike aggression, or do those terms only apply to Israelis? And even that analogy implies that Palestinians were there first or have an inherent right to the land, which simply is not true. Where's your righteous indignation for the Jews who were chased out of Arab countries in 1948? Should Poland have to create a Jewish state for the tens of thousands of Jews it expelled in 1968?

People, stop buying into these Zionist conspiracies about Israel and it's hegemonic dreams. You know what country in that region has desire for hegemonic control? Iran. That's why it regularly interferes with the politics of its neighbors, spreading unrest from Lebanon and Gaza to Tajikistan and Kazakhstan. That doesn't mean Iran deserves to be attacked, but we need to stop and think when we're already talking about "war crimes"(hess) perpetrated by Israel against Iran.

The way I read it, the security agreement between the United States and Iraq, which went into effect at the beginning of the year, would all but compel the U.S. to prevent any Israeli incursion into Iraqi airspace.

First, the agreement requires that the United States help Iraq improve its ability to defend itself. Specifically, it says:

Article 27: In order to strengthen security and stability in Iraq and to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and stability, the Parties shall work actively to strengthen the political and military capabilities of the Republic of Iraq to deter threats against its sovereignty, political independence, territorial integrity, and its constitutional federal democratic system.

It then sets up a framework for the two to respond to any aggression from outside parties:

Article 27:In the event of any external or internal threat or aggression against Iraq that would violate its sovereignty, political independence, or territorial integrity, waters, airspace, its democratic system or its elected institutions, and upon request by the Government of Iraq, the Parties shall immediately initiate strategic deliberations and, as may be mutually agreed, the United States shall take appropriate measures, including diplomatic, economic, or military measures, or any other measure, to deter such a threat.

This was probably designed with Iran in mind, and it does say “as may be mutually agreed.” But it’s hard to imagine that Iraq wouldn’t invoke this clause with any Israeli incursion. After pledging so publically to help Iraq secure its sovereignty, any refusal to deter the first overt breach of that sovereignty would put the U.S. in an extremely awkward position.

If the U.S. still chose to do that, there’s always this gem:

Article 24, Section 4: The United States recognizes the sovereign right of the Government of Iraq to request the departure of the United States Forces from Iraq at any time.

It wouldn’t necessarily be in the Iraqi government’s interest to do this, but the public backlash may be too strong to resist.

Israel is its own country and has obviously acted unilaterally in the past. But I'm sure the United States is exerting considerable pressure to keep it from launching any attack.

Invaded the Sinai in 1956,
- Launched the Six-Day war in 1967 (admittedly as a justified preemptive strike),
- Halted the 1973 Egyptian and Syrian advance at the Golan heights,
- Invaded Lebanon in 1978 up to the Litani river,
- Invaded Lebanon in 1982 and
- Invaded Lebanon in 2006.

Egypt started the six day war by blocading Israel's Southern port. This is an act of war by all standards of international law. Imagine if the Soviets had blocaded New York during the cold war.

The Golan were occupied legally as the result of a defensive war in 1967--Israel had every right to defend this area.

Israel's 1978 and 1982 invasions of Lebanon were defensive as the Lebanese government allowed the Palestinians to reign rockets down on northern Israel.

2006 was a response not only to kidnapped soldiers but Hezbollah rockets that were fired at Israel before any Israeli strike.

I wasn't arguing that Israel was unjustified (or justified) in any of those wars. I was merely making the point that Isreal is not a weak nation at constant risk of invasion like so many people continue to think.

That is certainly true now, but it certainly was not true for the first 30 years of its existence. The problem now is terrorism/asymetric warfare from Hamas and Hezbollah and potential Iranian nukes.

Israeli power is actually the primary reason for the "special replationship." The US only started supporting Israel after 1967 when it proved it could hold its own against Arab countries because it wanted to be allied with the most powerful millitary in the region (before that time, it was the French who supplied Israel with almost all of its weapons). Who do you think kept the entire oil supply in the middle east from falling into the hands of Soviet client states (Syria, Egypt and Iraq) during the cold war? Not to mention that most Americans identify with liberal democracies and not theocratic despots who execute gay people and pass laws to allow men to rape their wives.

That's silly. If we didn't have israel we could have had any of those as US clients. But we had israel instead, so israels' enemies were stuck being soviet clients as a result.

Israel was not a "client" of the US until 1967. The US gave Israel no support until then. While Egypt, Syria, and Iraq had been soviet clients for over a decade before the six day war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasser#Relationship_with_the_Soviet_Union And of course Iran could never be a US "client" after 1979.

You figure the egyptian army was poised to take saudi arabia but they couldn't because the israeli air force protected the saudis?

That's correct. Egypt had already attempted to overthrow the government of Yemen because he hated the Saudis and eventually had 55,000 troops in the Arbian Penninsula. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasser#Yemen_War_and_Six_Day_War Saddat was a secular Arab pan nationalist and hated the Saudi attempt to to derail his plan for a single arab state in the middle east. Egypt could not invade again because of Israel's control of the Sinai after the 1967 war (the time when the US first supported Israel). In 1967, Israel was the only possible client to protect US interests in the middle east other than the Saudis who had no millitary to speak of.

Note for example that in 1974 we let egypt switch from being a soviet client to become a second-string american client. They'd wanted that for a long time but we wouldn't play with them because we were loyal to israel.

Incorrect. Nasser never tried to become a US client. He was an arab pan nationalist and and a "anti-colonialist" (even if he did buy western arms for a few years). He became a Soviet client in 1955 when he recieved his first shipment of Soviet arms. It wasn't until Saddat visited Israel in 1977 that there was any interest in being closer to the US. Iraq was in the US sphere for about 1 year in the early 80's in order to get nuclear technology from France and then went back to being a soviet client.

It's absurd to argue that israel was somehow an asset to the USA during the cold war. We supported israel because we felt a moral obligation to israel's survival, and not for any supposed benefit they could give us.

Again, wrong. If that were true the US would have supported Israel since 1948. The US did not support Israel in any way for almost two decades. In fact, the US supported an embargo of arms sales to Israel and until 1967 had only sold Israel some anti aircraft weapons in the mid 60's. The US also sold millions of dollars worth of weapons to some "cold war neutral" arab enemies of Israel and even sold Egypt weapons for a few years until 1955. It wasn't until 1967 when the US realized that Israel was the strongest millitary in the middle east that the US started to support it. Israel beame a US client in 1967 becaue the Arab countries had previously all chosen the Soviets and Israel had proven itself the strongest millitary in the ME.

We didn't want them. We could have offered our support but we did not. Maybe they would have refused our friendship, but there can be no evidence because we were so hostile."

Well after this response, I just can't take you seriously anymore. They deposed our puppet and who ran Iran for the previous 45 years who they hated and then took 52 US hostages for 444 days. The hostage taking was planned in September 1979 before the US let the Shah come to the US for medical treatment and before they tried to install the Shah again.