Today in YNET, Yair Lapid has an op-ed (todah, Snoopy at Simply Jews) that presents an interesting look on what Israel might expect after an Iran strike:
“Let’s assume we bomb in Iran,” the senior source told me. “What do you think will happen the next day?
I repeated what everyone else has been saying: We can expect blood, fire and smoke; hundreds of missiles will be fired at Israel.
“That’s not the real scenario,” he said. “The problem is not that they would fire 300 missiles at us in two days, but rather, that they would do the opposite – fire only five or six missiles each month, but keep doing it for two years.”
And what would happen then? I asked.
“Israel’s airspace would be closed down,” the senior source said. “Airplanes will not be taking off, ships carrying goods will not be arriving at Israel’s ports, life here would grind to a halt, and our economy would be paralyzed.”
A few problem with Lapid's scenario.
One,if nothing is done, if Israel does nothing, the missiles are eventually going to come anyway, and they're going to be nuclear and chemical weapons. Unlike what our 'intelligence chief' James Clapper says, all the evidence shows that assuming the Iranians are rational actors is extremely foolish.
Two, if the IDF hits the oil fields and oil infrastructure ( as I described in my article last week), the Iranians are going to be far too occupied with their internal problems to waste much time and money trying to hit Israel...assuming they still even have the capacity after the raid.They're far more likely to try and attack US, Saudi and UAE targets and shut down the Persian Gulf, in which case I trust the US Navy to make them very sorry they did.
Three, the chief danger to Israel is from Hezbollah and Hamas and 'soft' Jewish targets overseas. I spelled out in last week's submission why there's a decent chance that in terms of missiles Hamas and Hezbollah's response will be mainly confined to rhetoric, especially when it comes to Hamas. If there is such a response, the Israelis need todeal with it ruthlessly, even to the point of tactical nukes - especially since they're going to be labeled as Nazis and warmongers by the usual suspects anyway. Old American proverb: "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6."
Four, as you may have noticed,when dealing with the Muslim mindset, it's frequently a case of at your feet or at your throat. A strong, decisive Israeli response against Iran would do much to dissuade others from repeating the Mullah's error and could even be a major deterrent to illegal proliferation and an impetus for peace.
Five, if Iran actually does launch missiles at Israel, again a full on, disproportionate response would certainly make Iran or other bad actors in the region think twice about doing it again. Since neither Israel or any other country would be able to exist under the conditions Lapid describes, such a response would not only be imperative but entirely justified.
Make no mistake, Israel and the West are going to reap a certain amount of cost for allowing Iran to develop its rogue nuclear program and terrorist proxies as much as it has. But the cost is going to be infinitely greater the longer it's delayed...especially for Israel.
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
- Sir Winston Churchill, 1938
5 comments:
Yair Lapid is an air-head.
Did you read the comments in the talk-backs? Everyone was laughing.
The Israeli media truely sucks, I don't even read YNET anymore & I'm almost at the point of giving up on the JPost.
Terry, Eilat - Israel
"...in which case I trust the US Navy to make them very sorry they did..." Scenarios have been run on this very thing such as should the Iranians attempt to close off the Strait of Hormuz. You're likley aware of all of the details. In the "war games" the US Navy was able to reopen the strait. It took any where from several hours to several weeks.
Even in the best case scenario of a Naval confrontation with Iran where the whole thing was over in a matter of minutes, the US lost an air craft carrier and several support vessels. Essentially while the US emerged victorious the losses we took were enormous.
Given the specatular ability US officials seem to have to both overestimate our strenghty while, at the same, time vastly underestimating the capabilities of adversaries and potential adversaries, I would expect reopening the strait to take several weeks to perhaps even months. At a minimum, we should expect the US to lose multiple aircraft carriers and numerous other ships. Just who'd be "sorry" here.
There's several other things to consider that are not being considered here. 1.)I'm not sure what Russia and China will do should their ally find itself in a military confrontation. What I am certain of is they will not just sit back and do nothing. Its very likley a military confrontation with Iran will result in a military confrontation with Russia and China. Are we prepared for this? At this time, the answer to that seems to be an emphatic no we are not. 3.)You are correct to point out that they are more likely to attack US, Saudi, and UAE targets. The Saudis and the UAE have far better intellegence gathering services than America does. They can worry about readying themselves for this. Would the Iranians really attack them? The Saudis and the UAE hate Israel and America more than they hate Iran. They'd be far more likely to assist Iran than to be on the receiving end of an Iranian attack. Any "evidence" to the contrary would seem to be over active imagination by media pundits. 4.)An Iranian attack on the US would likely involve an attack on the American mainland. If such an attack uses either suit case nulcear weapons, chemical weapons, or biolgoical weapons, as it likely would, millions of our people could die. Are we preapred for any of this? Have our people been trained in the use of things like gas masks? Have they been trained in basic survival strategies in the event of a nuclear attack? Have nuclear bomb shelters been constructed or has any effort been made to do this? The answer to this is all no. 5.)Should overt military hostilities erupt between Ameria and Iran where there is an actual shooting war, Mr. Obama will be virtually handing the election to whomever his opponent is. As such, we should expect him to do every thing in his power to try and avoid this up to and including undermining Israel's attempts to deal with this problem.
These 5 factors need to be considered in any analysis. The analysis presented is not necessarily factually incorrect but it is incomplete. I'm not saying don't act militarily to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program. I am suggesting that, at a minimum, these factors and likely others need to be considered.
Hi Poster,
A few things.
The Iranian Navy is for the most part antiquated and obselete. They also have no air power to all intents and purposes.
I'm not sure what war games you're referring to,(Millenium Challenge 2002?) but the ability of our Navy to use air power and sheer firepower to take out what passes for Iran's navy ( and its ports) is beyond any rational doubt. Even the little speed boats ( 'martyr's BBQ specials!) can be dealt by using helicopter gunships launched from platforms as Reagan did th last time Iran tried this during the 1980's. Oh, and BTW, we didn't lose a single US ship, let alone an ACC.
Second, rest assured Russia and China are not going to go to the mattresses for Iran. It's a commercial relationship, not an 'alliance'.
Third, the Saudis hate Israel and Shi'ite Iran about equally ( to quote Saudi King Abdullah directly) but they fear Iran a lot more, especially since they have a Shi'ite underclass living in the eastern part of the country. The Saudis and the rest of the GCC might come out with some rhetoric, but behind closed door they'd be thanking Allah the Jews did the job.
I won't even address the idea of an Iranian attack on the US. They don't have the capability - yet.
Regards,
Rob
"Concerns about “the imminent threat” of Iran are often attributed to the “international community”—code language for U.S. allies. The people of the world, however, tend to see matters rather differently.
The nonaligned countries, a movement with 120 member nations, has vigorously supported Iran’s right to enrich uranium—an opinion shared by the majority of Americans (as surveyed by WorldPublicOpinion.org) before the massive propaganda onslaught of the past two years.
China and Russia oppose U.S. policy on Iran, as does India, which announced that it would disregard U.S. sanctions and increase trade with Iran. Turkey has followed a similar course.
Europeans regard Israel as the greatest threat to world peace. In the Arab world, Iran is disliked but seen as a threat only by a very small minority. Rather, Israel and the U.S. are regarded as the pre-eminent threat. A majority think that the region would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons: In Egypt on the eve of the Arab Spring, 90 percent held this opinion, according to Brookings Institution/Zogby International polls.
Western commentary has made much of how the Arab dictators allegedly support the U.S. position on Iran, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the population opposes it—a stance too revealing to require comment.
Concerns about Israel’s nuclear arsenal have long been expressed by some observers in the United States as well. Gen. Lee Butler, former head of the U.S. Strategic Command, described Israel’s nuclear weapons as “dangerous in the extreme.” In a U.S. Army journal, Lt. Col. Warner Farr wrote that one “purpose of Israeli nuclear weapons, not often stated, but obvious, is their `use’ on the United States”—presumably to ensure consistent U.S. support for Israeli policies."
http://inthesetimes.com/article/12821/what_are_irans_intentions
Chomsky has it right.
Noam Chomsky..now there's a factual, unbiased source for you...a 'Jewish' anti-semite who refuses to debate since he was made to look ridiculous several times and who has been caught lying in print too many times to mention.
I'll just point out a few things in the lil' snippet you cut n' pasted, as seriously deconstructing this crap isn't worth my time.
* a lot of the so-called non-aligned nations are tin pot dictatorships that badly need oil, or nations like China and India who do, or Muslim nations who naturally hate Israel, especially Islamist ones like Turkey.Or they have serious and desperately needed commercial interests in selling the mullahs new toys, like Russia.
*The Sunni countries in the Gulf hate Iran worse than poison because of aggression it has sponsored against them,(the Mecca raid, or Bahrain for instance, where the GCC actually sent in troops and gave Iran an ultimatum to get out), because of Iran's potential to foment mischief among Shi'ite minorities in places like Saudi Arabia, because of the historical Persian/Arab animosity and because they realize the mullahs are batsh*t crazy. That's why all th eGCC countries are arming themselves, because they understand that Obama is a very weak and undependable horse. Take a look at what Saudi King Abdullah has had to say about Iran. It's not pretty.
Iran is a loose cannon and threat, and Israel isn't, at least not to the GCC countries.
*I and most other freedom loving and non-Marxist people have no problem with Israel having nukes. They never signed the non-proliferation treaty. Iran, on the other hand did and have lied about their illegal program for years.
*Israel's not genocidal. Iran has threatened Israel with genocide numerous times. And please don't quote that asinine Iran shill Juan Cole - I have access to native Farsi speakers and know exactly what was said by Khamenei and A'Jad.
* Anyone who thinks Israel would use its nuclear arsenal on the US is either in need of serious medication, Chomsky, or a paranoid Jew hater.
Please don't waste my time or my readers time with this horse manure in the future. Take it somewhere else, please.
Post a Comment