Given the far different situation in Iran, stopping Iran's nuclear threat will take far more than an outright military strike ... or two, or three ...

We'll be talking outright war, Michale ... a very scary proposition for America.

Sanctions and covert operations against Iran are almost certainly going to be ratcheted up if Iran doesn't offer acceptable concessions.

Operation Opera and Stuxnet were both brilliantly planned and executed, but neither was genuinely decisive. Osirak couldn't produce plutonium fast enough to build even a single prototype in less than a decade it was almost a choke that didn't really need to be attacked. The Iranians seem to have recovered from Stuxnet fairly quickly. As psychological warfare both operations were more successful; updated versions of the Doolittle Raid on Japan.

I suspect the Israeli's are going to eventually upgrade their submarine fleet from cruise missiles to ballistic missiles. Current sub launched cruise missile range is a bit limited, and cruise missiles can be intercepted, if not easily or reliably. The subs would have to be bigger, but not necessarily nuclear powered....unless the Israelis feel the need to hide them on long patrols in Blue water...which is the best is the best solution to survivability.

"It's people like you who make nuclear war sound almost 'gentlemanly'!!"
"The word is 'feasible' and it's not something that I agree with. But lets stick with your little caper here."
-THE FINAL OPTION

:D

Michale

I assume ya wouldn't go for The Parking Lot strategy?? :D

Off the top of my head??

Re-enforce and increase the sanctions...

Couple that with an increase in covert attacks on Iranian nuclear infrastructure (stuxnet on steroids) plus an increase on assassinations of military and scientific personnel...

Less messy and a lot more surgical than an outright military strike..

But, as the Israelis proved at Osirak, an outright military strike CAN be effective..

Michale

So what's your permanent solution to the Iranian nuclear ambition? Any and all, but be specific.

It's the entire MAD Doctrine that was part and parcel to the Cold War..."

MAD was just one part of the US and Soviet nuclear doctrines. Both NATO and the Warsaw Pact fielded a herd of "battle field" nukes to be used directly on each other's armies, not on strategic targets several hundred miles or kms beyond the FLOT. They were hung on F104s, stuffed into 155 shells etc etc. Soviet tanks were basically moving NBC shelters, driven sealed up by dead reckoning off the compass and odometer. NATO didn't believe it had the manpower to stop the Reds with conventional weapons, and RED had to respond in kind. This was true well into 1980s. I know, 'cause I helped war game it during that era.

Game coordinator: "Blue isn't losing fast enough. We're supposed to be exploring the introduction of tactical nukes and chemical agents!"

Bleary eyed peon (me). "It's your F'N' war model"

Game coordinator: "Tweak the scenario inputs. That's your F'N' job...and make it plausible and give us a script by 0200! Where's your coder?"

Bleary eyed peon: "Sleeping under that pile of coats..that's what's making that rasping noise. Can you get us some take-out?"

MAD was seriously questioned during that period. Generals and admirals were contemplating nuclear campaigns that might go on for weeks or even months after all the ICBMS were fired in the first few days. Nuclear wars might be in some sense "win-able."

"I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks."

That's from Dr. Strangelove 1964, but I heard an admiral say almost exactly the same thing in 1986, with higher numbers, adjusted for inflation I guess.

The above admiral was speaking in the context of the B2 bomber, which was designed to fight a strategic nuclear air campaign. That demands very low attrition, especially when you only have a small fleet and you can't make new ones quickly.

Israel is too small to play these kinds of game. The distinction between strategic and tactical blurs when your land mass is about the size of Vancouver Island. Small numbers of small nukes are doomsday devices for the State of Israel.

The fact that THAT is even in contention makes my head swim.. I mean, honestly.. The idea that not only is it not a big deal that Iran gets nukes but that, even though Iran is the world's GoTo country for terrorism, Iran has "THE RIGHT" to possess nuclear weapons.... Well, that just boggles the mind and stretches credulity far past the breaking point...

But, regardless of all that, Obama's deal with Iran let's Iran have nukes in 10 years AND drops all sanctions against Iran...

Get that?? Iran doesn't have to lift a finger, doesn't have to change ONE IOTA and, in 10 years, all sanctions are lifted and Iran is free to build a nuclear arsenal...

Like Obama's deal with China...

It's all carrots.. And no sticks whatsoever...

I imagine that the Iranians and the Chinese get together and laugh their asses off saying, "How the hell did this guy ever become the leader of the free world!???"

I imagine that a new phrase will be created soon..

The Obama Deal..

It's a deal that gives away everything and gets nothing in return...

And we get 2 more years of these Obama Deals...

Oh.... joy....

Michale

That's not just particular to Israel..

It's the entire MAD Doctrine that was part and parcel to the Cold War...

Israels policy of ambiguity and opacity about it's nuclear program makes it easier for most Arab countries not to discuss the topic in public very much.

Easier for the Arab politicians, perhaps. But military men and women deal with the realities of the world we have, not the world we WISH we had as politicians do..

Ergo, if the Arab countries were worried about Israel's nuclear arsenal, the would have been vying for nukes since the 60s..

The simple fact that there HAS been no nuke arms race proves that Israel's nuclear arsenal is not the disrupting influence that Israel-bashers make it out to be..

Compare and contrast that to the VERY public statements from the Arab governments regarding Iran's nuclear arsenal..

It all boils down to one simple fact...

Letting Iran have nuclear weapons is akin to letting Nazi Germany, circa 1939 have nuclear weapons...

In the annals of BAD IDEAS, it would be the worst of the worst...

Michale

I love a good map, I will check it out. I'm continually amazed at the media's failure to prominently display maps of wars. I was astonished all throughout the Libyan war, and I'm even more astonished at their lack during the ISIS war.

-CW

The evening after I wrote this, the Washington Post put up an op-ed that was in a similar vein (with a slightly differnt slant). Wanted to post it here to add it into the conversation. It's an interesting read.

-CW

"Jordan, Qatar, Emirates, Saudi don't fear a nuclear armed Israel..."

I basically agree, and you could throw in Egypt and a few others for good measure. I notice you don't include Iran. I agree with that too. Iran has no deterrent proxies it really trusts and it Iran has spread itself very thin.... all ten fingers in different pie, so to speak.

Israel has always seemed to envision their nukes as a doomsday deterrent rather than a battle weapon. "If we go, we take you with us." That has been true since the days of Ben Gurion. An understandable reaction to the holocaust. Israels policy of ambiguity and opacity about it's nuclear program makes it easier for most Arab countries not to discuss the topic in public very much. Very smart psychology on Israel's part.

CW - 9

The maps are even better if you overlay them against same scale ethnicity maps. The IFTSOW hasn't published any that I know of, but I've cobble some together with some of my home software (the ol' transparency & layer features) and the match ups between ISIS control and Sunni is striking. Also the match up between nobody home and desert.

The IFTSOW is worth following. It strength seems to be native language skills and historical perspective. It seems rather weak in technical military matters, even though it is funded by grants from defense contractors.

http://www.understandingwar.org/our-supporters

Israel has had nukes since the 60s..

Where is the nuclear arms race you speak of??

Non-existent...

Until Iran started......

Michale

Depends on what other assets I had available..

They will be missed. Just watched "The Enterprise Incident" this evening, for the one episode where SPOCK (not Kirk) gets a bit of space-nookie....

Not only then.. If I recall correctly, Spock got to boff Jill Ireland on Omicron Ceti III in the episode THIS SIDE OF PARADISE.. :D

Ah, but we'll see how many Israelis actually support Bibi's views in a week or so, won't we? That's the true measure, isn't it?

Troo dat.. I think Bibi will cruise to victory...

Of Iran and Israel, one country has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. One has not. But that's a subject for another day....

One has violated the Non-Proliferation Treaty, one has not.. :D

One country in the region already possesses nukes. That's a fact, even if they've never actually admitted it to the IAEA or the world. So who is driving the nuclear arms race in the region?

The simple fact that none of the other MidEast nations has not already armed themselves with nukes answers your question..

Jordan, Qatar, Emirates, Saudi don't fear a nuclear armed Israel...

A nuclear armed Israel is not a regional or worldwide threat..

A nuclear armed Iran is...

It's really that simple...

Michale

If you were the US officer in charge of flushing IS from Tikrit, would you forgo the Iranian forces? I am interested in your answer.

[3] -

Two in one week. I spent a few nights last week putting together a jigsaw puzzle of the original series' cast ("TOS" to those in the know). I saw Leonard Nimoy outside of the Trek world, performing "Vincent" (a one-man play about Van Gogh, told from the point of view of his brother Theo), as a kid, and have never forgotten it. It's been a tough week for Trekkies, that's for sure ("Trekkers" was a later thing, I'm still partial to the original term, personally...). They will be missed. Just watched "The Enterprise Incident" this evening, for the one episode where SPOCK (not Kirk) gets a bit of space-nookie....

Sad times indeed.

[4] -

Ah, but we'll see how many Israelis actually support Bibi's views in a week or so, won't we? That's the true measure, isn't it?

TheStig -

Wasn't that an excellent map? I was personally stunned at how relevant it was. Michale would likely even appreciate the level of detail, I'd bet.

As for nuclear deterrence, I am biting my tongue this week not to point out that Israel is the nuclear rogue in the region. Of Iran and Israel, one country has signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. One has not. But that's a subject for another day....

Michale [6] -

You ignore a further point he makes:

Nuclear deterrence is still the best practical answer to a nuclear existential threat that any military has been able to come up with.

Which also applies to Iran. Israel has nukes. Iran doesn't. So which is which in that equation?

One country in the region already possesses nukes. That's a fact, even if they've never actually admitted it to the IAEA or the world. So who is driving the nuclear arms race in the region?

TheStig -

Oooh, good point! "We begin bombing in five minutes" (and the remix of it) indeed qualifies!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k4TNtUZnM4

I would only add to your commentary the fact of a nuclear-armed Pakistan. Discuss among yourselves...

:-)

-CW

Khrushchev threatened to bury us. Reagan did a mic check by announcing Russia would be bombed in five minutes. Heads of state who control nukes routinely talk trash and nothing comes of it except mental stress.

A nuclear armed Iran is troubling, but Israel already has a nuclear deterrence in place to manage the problem, even if it doesn't admit to it. Israel doesn't rely on the US to provide deterrence by proxy. Nuclear war isn't Israel's biggest existential threat. Neither is conventional war. Demographics and unending asymmetrical war of attrition are The State of Israel's long term threats... and they know it. Iran is an enemy, but it shares no border, and too much focus on Iran serves as distraction from the Israel's harder problems.

Iran has the technological skills to build a prototype bomb, if it's willing to pay the economic costs, which are substantial. The benefits to Iran seem marginal; prestige and an active role in the doomsday club of mutually assured destruction. Nuclear bombs are not weapons of war, they are doomsday devices that strongly discourage using them as weapons as war. I'm not sure how Iran does it's calculus on this matter, but I don't think they are crazy or looking for an early trip to Paradise.

Israel can delay, but not permanently derail, Iran's nuke ambitions. I doubt the US has the means to do so short of invasion and occupation, and that would only marginally change the odds of the nuclear threat casino - and quite likely worsen overall US security and economic prosperity as we overstretch our resources. A bad deal IS worse than no deal, and a military solution seems likely to be a very bad deal.

Of course no deal doesn't mean an Iranian bomb gets built. Their program might just inch forward a bit, and the diplomatic haggling begin again as internal politics adjust in Israel, Iran and the US. That seems the most likely outcome to me. As CW points out, the US and Iran share some common interests at this moment. That just might explain Bibi's visit more than The Bomb.

I guess the ego of The Messiah trumps all other considerations...

What's a nuclear arms race in THE most volatile area on the planet, what with the possibility of Barack The First losing face....

Michale

Really??

Could you cite some contemporary examples??

Please include quotes from a nuclear power that has verbally and explicitly threatened to wipe another sovereign country off the map....

I mean, yea sure.. Every country has an existential threat from nuclear weapons in the manner that every country has an existential threat of being annihilated by a giant meteor...

In other words, yea... In theory.....

The threat facing Israel is a LOT more than "theory"...

You seem to think a nuclear armed Iran isn't that big of a threat..

Many people felt the same way about a conventionally armed Germany circa 1930...

We know how THAT played out..

Now throw in nuclear weapons and imagine a nuclear armed Nazi Germany..

That approaches the threat that Iran represents...

I won't even bother going into the fact that, if Iran is allowed to possess nuclear weapons every country in the region will want them as well..

I thought you Lefties were AGAINST nuclear proliferation, eh??

Michale

Netanyahu's grand strategy requires punishing it's enemy Iran,any way it can, and Iran's nuclear program is a fine stick with which to beat them. Sanctions into the foreseeable future. Nobody likes existential threats, but every country on earth faces one from nuclear weapons. If not directly, through wind and fallout plus crazy or oops.

Israel deals with existential military threats by having it's own deterrent existential nuclear stick. It has done so since the '60s, first as a deterrent against being overrun by Arab armies, increasingly as a deterrent to other unfriendly states with a genuine nuclear capability, one of which an unstable Islamic State (Pakistan). Israel has a nuclear triad. Long range AC, ballistic missiles and almost certainly submarines (if not now, soon). Nuclear deterrence is still the best practical answer to a nuclear existential threat that any military has been able to come up with.

I have been greatly amused these past months by the media and political panic over the "Islamic State." The "IS" was/is an opportunistic uprising of fragmented Sunni enclaves within the failed states of Iraq, Syria and more recently Libya. The "front" didn't move, and the "State" has no viable economy. It's easy to isolate economically and diplomatically, even if the borders are porous at fine scale. Starve it, crush it, but you probably can't permanently kill it. Killing it would require good government and good will, which is as scarce and precious as water in that region of the globe. Also patience, in short supply as well.

CW - The Institute For the Study of War sure does nice maps!!!! I would love a home GIS to play with, but the license is pricey!

Netanyahu’s Churchillian warning
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/netanyahus-churchillian-warning/2015/03/05/60ae7fd4-c366-11e4-9ec2-b418f57a4a99_story.html

As usual, Charles nails it!

Obama's plan to vilify Netanyahu failed. Epically failed...

More Americans prefer Netanyahu's leadership to Obama's.

There is absolutely NO DOUBT that Netanyahu cares for Israel..

Michale

Harve Bennett was the driving force that resurrected Star Trek and brought it to the big screen...

He also had a cameo appearance as a Star Fleet Admiral in STAR TREK V, The Final Frontier..

Thank you Harve, for decades and decades of Trek....

Michale

Yea, AMERICA is.. Of that there is no doubt..

The Obama Administration?

Jury is still out on that one...

Michale

I would have to disagree..

As long as Iran is the world's sponsor of terrorism, things ARE that simple...

Put it another way...

Is a person as good as the best thing they have ever done??

Iran fighting on the side of angels does not absolve Iran of the guilt of being the world's sponsor of state terrorism...

Iran IS evil. Just because they have a vested interest in destroying a terrorist organization that is ALSO hostile to the US does not make them NOT evil..

Netanyahu said it best in his speech.

"The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy"

The Klingon way is better still..

q'OaStaHvuIS wa' ramn loSSSaD HoGh SIjlaHt qeItbogh loDD
The enemy of my enemy is the enemy I kill last

Michale