Israel v Iran

[JHE]

2) Just because Iran may achieve nuclear weapons does not mean they would or should use them.

3) Both Iran and Israel having nuclear weapons creates a MAD mutually assured destruction state in which neither side would be wise to envision a first or pre-emptive strike because of the retaliatory strike that would follow.

(Emphasis added)

True.

However, if and when Iran has nukes, would and should Israel trust Iran not to use them to wipe out Israel?

Most people are deterred by nukes. The world saw that work in the end during the Cuban missile crisis. However, not everyone is deterred. It seems incredible now, but there were Cubans who were very angry at the Soviet government's backing down. 'Nikita, little poof, what is given is not taken away,' they chanted in Havana in protest at the withdrawal of the missiles.

Are some 60s Communists the only people nutty enough to favour nuclear war? I don't think so.

In the Iran-Iraq war, the Iranian Slamists had a special way of clearing minefields. They sent groups of boys running across the minefields to set off the bombs. Why not? After all, the boys, as martyrs, were sure to go to Paradise.

The Iranian Slamists scream, 'Death to Israel!' Do they not mean it? Are they not really anti-Zionist fanatics?

Two ways in which nutty Slamists in Tehran might decide the best thing to do is to fling nukes at Israel:

They might well think

1. A good enough first strike could so very nearly wipe out Israel that there would be little or no come-back.​

or (more likely)

2. Israel would have some capacity to hit back, but Iran is a much bigger country and, despite massive casualties, would survive. The dead Muslims all go to Paradise and the survivors become the earthly heroes and leaders of Islam.​

How confident should Israelis be that the Slamists in Tehran would not believe either of those things?

 

[weltweit]

You make a good point JHE but could Iran consider itself going up against only Israel in an exchange. Firstly we don't know about Israels delivery systems I think. But the USA, the great friend to Israel, has nuclear assets in the gulf and they could be involved in a counter strike should Iran decide to evaluate that risk.

Then it would be Iran v Israel and the USA which would be no contest.

 

[ymu]

No, he is a crackpot, perhaps even a dangerous one.

I don't think he's a crackpot. He's a very good Israeli historian, if somewhat amoral in his interpretation. For example, he's well-known for uncovering evidence genocide against the Palestinians in 1947-8, but also thinks that Israel should have completed the job as it would have avoided all the current problems.

I've no idea if he's any good on current Israeli policy, but I don't think I'd dismiss his insights out of hand.

 

[weltweit]

All this posturing over possible actions against Iran, what condition the Israeli nuclear arsenal is in, whether Iran may get the bomb etc, it misses out the angle of the American Star wars missile shield.

The US are deploying elements of their shield at the moment, so at some level it must work, even if only to irritate the heck out of Putin. But if it does work against the Russians it gives the USA cart blanche to start a pre-emptive strike when and where it wishes because the shield neutralises any Russian counter attack. If it works at all, and if it works well.

Then there is Israel. Could the shield be configured to defend Israel from Iranian missiles. There is history there because Patriot anti missile missiles were deployed to Israel when Saddam was firing Skuds at them. If the Star Wars Shield was erected around Israel, if that is possible, then any Iranian threat would be much reduced.

And of course if Israel had the shield it (and Iran had nukes) Israel would again be in the position it is in now, that it could launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran with relatively little nuclear consequences.