Sunday Times: Israel plans to nuke Iran

[david dissadent]

*rummages*
If they've got sub-KT warheads or devices the Yanks didn't get involved with building them...indeed, would probably like the tech themselves...

who would like what technology? Surely you are not suggesting america does not have sub kilotonne weapons? Google Davey Crockett if you are.

 

[teqniq]

So the lunatics in the White House may view this as their last chance to push their agenda to the next stage. Once they've actually started a war with Iran, then even if the Democrats do take the Presidency, they'll be committed to it.

This is the bit I'm worried that they may just decide to go for. Shit or bust.

 

[david dissadent]

It looks like the US is building the propoganda platform necessary for the strikes on Iran. First they have raided a consulate of Irans in Iraq and now Rice is talking about taking on the forces that are interfering with Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6253285.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6252567.stm

Perhas I should open thread as a gulf of tonkin watch.

 

[kyser_soze]

who would like what technology? Surely you are not suggesting america does not have sub kilotonne weapons? Google Davey Crockett if you are.

I did, and it just comes up with a load of Davey Crockett (King of the Wild Frontier) links.

 

[Kaka Tim]

It looks like the US is building the propoganda platform necessary for the strikes on Iran. First they have raided a consulate of Irans in Iraq and now Rice is talking about taking on the forces that are interfering with Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6253285.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6252567.stm

Perhas I should open thread as a gulf of tonkin watch.

My thoughts exactly.

They seem to be trying to provoke the iranians into a response which they could use to justify military action. Very very troubling. Its begining to look less and less like 'mere' sabre rattling.
Thus far the pretty universal notion that a war with iran would be a disastrous act of insanity has been used as a pretty convincing argument that the US wouldn't do it. But their recent actions, the escalation of the Iraq war, plus the announcemnt of a huge expansion of overall troop numbers for the army all seem to point the same way.

I think Bush and the PNACers are actively conisidering a 'shit or bust' big play on the middle east - all the way up to and including using nukes. Maybe their counting on the fact that their is no USSR to counter act their nuke power and want to 'secure american interests' in the region for the next centuary.

This is rapiddly getting to the stage where one incident could spark an irreversable and rapidly escalating confrontaion with Iran which results in what would essentially be World War 3 - whatever the wishes of the Bush Administration or whoever suceeds him.

The only source of hope is that, thus far the Iranians have not bitten - ironically undermining the argument that they some mad, unpredictable rouge state (unlike, for example .... ). Just wish they could get Ahmadinejad to shut the fuck up.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I did, and it just comes up with a load of Davey Crockett (King of the Wild Frontier) links.

If I recall right is was some sort of nuclear mortar (!!!) They got quite some way with it until someone spotted a few flaws with the concept. For example, none of the weapons developers seem to have thought to ask the question: "Do you really want to give e.g. battalion commanders their own nuclear weapons?"

 

[kyser_soze]

Ahh yes, NOW I know what you're talking about.

Was that one of those crazy ass 'lets have nuclear everything' from back in the day?

I think another flaw was 'how will your troops operate effectively in a radioactive battlefield'

 

[david dissadent]

I did, and it just comes up with a load of Davey Crockett (King of the Wild Frontier) links.

http://www.brook.edu/FP/projects/nucwcost/davyc.HTM

Lazy boy.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I was just re-reading Seymour Hersh's article from last April, on US planning for starting a war with Iran. It's very interesting, even though events haven't quite developed as per the plans he described (e.g. the Israeli attempt to 'take out' Hezbollah prior to starting a war with Iran, to remove them as a factor in Iranian retaliation didn't exactly come off as intended)

An awful lot of it is very consistent with the stuff we've been seeing lately though and I found that re-reading it strongly confirmed my concerns that we're seeing the build up to some sort of 'double or nothing' attempt to start a war with Iran while they still have the opportunity.

With regard to the possibility of a nuclear attack, I think it depends what they're trying to do. If they're actually trying to eliminate Iran's nuclear capability, then it probably looks very tempting to use nukes. Especially if due to Bush's current huge credibility problem, the Israelis are going to have to start the party before the US can find itself 'forced' to join in.

Here's some of the reasoning from Hersh's sources. The discussion here is about US military options, but due to its rather weaker strike capability, it applies even more strongly to Israel (nominally) 'going it alone'

One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete.

There is a Cold War precedent for targeting deep underground bunkers with nuclear weapons. In the early nineteen-eighties, the American intelligence community watched as the Soviet government began digging a huge underground complex outside Moscow. Analysts concluded that the underground facility was designed for “continuity of government”—for the political and military leadership to survive a nuclear war. (There are similar facilities, in Virginia and Pennsylvania, for the American leadership.) The Soviet facility still exists, and much of what the U.S. knows about it remains classified. “The ‘tell’ ”—the giveaway—“was the ventilator shafts, some of which were disguised,” the former senior intelligence official told me. At the time, he said, it was determined that “only nukes” could destroy the bunker. He added that some American intelligence analysts believe that the Russians helped the Iranians design their underground facility. “We see a similarity of design,” specifically in the ventilator shafts, he said.

A former high-level Defense Department official told me that, in his view, even limited bombing would allow the U.S. to “go in there and do enough damage to slow down the nuclear infrastructure—it’s feasible.” <snip>

But those who are familiar with the Soviet bunker, according to the former senior intelligence official, “say ‘No way.’ You’ve got to know what’s underneath—to know which ventilator feeds people, or diesel generators, or which are false. And there’s a lot that we don’t know.” The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”

He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”

source

 

[DrRingDing]

I think another flaw was 'how will your troops operate effectively in a radioactive battlefield'

They are in Iraq already and were, before in 1991.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Following on from that post above, here's what I think might be about to happen. Bush is trying to mobilise additional troops, he's already sent an additional carrier battle group and according to some sources, what sounds like one or more of their amphibious assault groups each carrying about a brigade of marines with their own armour, helicopters and so on.

Suppose the basic concept described in that Hersh article has changed slightly due to unplanned circumstances, but not all that much. Hersh talks about the US launching an all-out attack on both Iran's nuclear facilities and at the same time, their various other capabilities, naval and Pasdaran bases and so on, in order to suppress their ability to retaliate. Suppose instead, that Israel will apparently unilaterally, attack the key Iranian nuclear facilities on its own.

However, the US has already reinforced his naval presence and possibly also has positioned amphibious assault forces ready to e.g. try to deal with the very numerous Iranian missile sites along the Straits of Hormuz. They've also got a troop surge planned, if not authorised, to provide additional manpower in the fairly likely event of Iraqi Shiites kicking off.

So in this scenario, Israel to nobody's surprise, does something mental and Bush doesn't have to take any official responsibility for it, but when the Iranians start retaliating, he can call that provokation and use it as his casus belli for joining in the nice new war the Israel will have just started for him.

 

[kebabking]

'tis a possibility, being an odious sod being able to blame someone else might well appeal.

and i can see this 'shit or bust' idea forming in some septic circles...

but not military ones.

i was somewhat surprised that the new Iraq Commander is Gen Petreus, now, IMV, he's done pretty well, written the COIN doctrine and not joined the 'hoo-ha' bloodlust, but he wasn't really on the list, nor was the Admiral (?!) who's been appointed head of CentCom.

this suggests two possibilities, firstly that senior US Army officers are less than enthusiastic about taking on the job that Bush wants to give them, prefering to become OC vehicle park at Buttfuck, Indiana, or that Bush has had to 'cherry-pick' senior officers from way down the list in order to find those he thinks will do his bidding.

if senior officers are wary of taking the CentCom and Iraq jobs, perhaps they'll run a mile at 'operation persian freedom'?

i'm well aware of the ingrained loyalty that the US military has for CinC, and that on the surface at least, he gets the 'hoo-ha' when he visits US troops rather than the polite - and embarassed - greeting Blair gets when visiting British troops, but for me there are some interesting indicators...

 

[Bernie Gunther]

That Hersh article I was quoting from rather suggests that some senior US military figures were getting really upset with the neo-cons for waving nukes around.

The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning. Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran - without success, the former intelligence official said. "The White House said, 'Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.' "

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it "a juggernaut that has to be stopped." He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue. "There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the adviser told me. "This goes to high levels." The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. "The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks," the adviser said. "And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen."

same source.

Of course, one way around that is to have Israel do the actual nuking bit.

Then the US just has to respond to the Iranian retaliation.

The Democrats probably won't even dare breathe a word of criticism if Israel is involved.

 

[david dissadent]

Bushs biggest problem is not the Democrats. His real problem seems to be Republicans. Hagel and Luger are just about the biggest of the 'big beasts' on the hill. They are foreign policy experts with a long history of solid republican (not neocon) policy and treaties behind them.

It is only speculation but they can turn America.inc against the president and the neocon agenda. Especialy this latest weeze of a possible war with Iran.

Disatisfaction with the presidency throughout the brass was evident last year with the 'revolt of the generals' in May\June then the eve of election slating of the policies by the millitary magazines.

I think it is very worth people trying to catch a glimpse of any of the power struggle that makes it into the press between the neocons and imperialists on the one hand (basicaly all the Vulcans and friends) and the old republicans and democrats on the other (Hagel, Luger, Pelsoi and Murtha. Especialy Murtha)

 

[DownwardDog]

I think the US would have to let them overfly Iraq to get there.

Either that or they'd have to persuade Turkey to let them go that way, which seems pretty unlikely.

They could possibly fly a littoral route around the southern end of the Arabian peninsula. After all, the IDF flew 3,000km to Tunis to give the PLO the good news in '82 in Operation Wooden Leg.

 

[kebabking]

true, you see a map and you draw a line accross it.

the new F-15I's should get to the facilities with Tanker support, but tanking on that route is going to be much less secure than tanking over the Med. on the other hand none of that states along the littoral route have any love for Iran and they would probably ensure that any token QRF they sent to investigate 'missed' the Israelis.

they'd probably just scream back in a straight line, they've just nuked someone, their interest in the legalities of overflight rights is likely to be pretty limited - OTOH having done the deed they'll need to keep the septiocs sweet, so adding to the charge sheet might not be an idea, particularly if it allows a theory of US complicity to develop.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Everybody is going to think the US is complict even if they aren't.

I'm also fairly sure I recall reading someplace, I think it was the military leader of the Pasdaran, saying that they'd certainly hold the US responsible for anything like that the Israelis might do.

 

[david dissadent]

I'm also fairly sure I recall reading someplace, I think it was the military leader of the Pasdaran, saying that they'd certainly hold the US responsible for anything like that the Israelis might do.

Hardly makes it a statement of policy by the Islamic Republic does it? I doubt they have settled on how they will respond yet themselves.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Hardly makes it a statement of policy by the Islamic Republic does it? I doubt they have settled on how they will respond yet themselves.

Why do you doubt that? They've had 27 years to think about it, I'd be quite surprised if they hadn't got some pretty clear ideas by now.

 

[david dissadent]

Why do you doubt that? They've had 27 years to think about it, I'd be quite surprised if they hadn't got some pretty clear ideas by now.

Because of the depth of division at the top of the Iranian leadership about how to deal with the rest of the world and the state of flux of the situation since the US invasion of Iraq 4 years ago and the potentialy catastrophic consaquencies of a full war with the US.

There are so many variables and the risks are so high that it is likely there are still significant divisions over the responce.

Even the summer war in Lebanon changes things......

edited for clarity.

 

[Idris2002]

I'm quite worried about the possible use of the naval base the Israelis have off the Eritrea coast in any possible attack on Iran.

Here's a link from a site called Don't Bomb Iran - I've no idea who's behind that site, mind.

http://petermo.info/wordpress/?p=104

According to that, the Israelis were denied use of the Eritrean base in 2001. But given that Eritrea has even fewer friends than Israel, maybe things could have changed since then. . .

 

[david dissadent]

I'm quite worried about the possible use of the naval base the Israelis have off the Eritrea coast in any possible attack on Iran.

The subs use cruise missiles. Singlularly useless against bunker, lest they have fitted them with megatonne range 'gougers'.

And why not sail from Elat, why the need to stop in an African port? since when did submarines have a cruising range of 400 miles only? Kptlt. Lothar von Arnauld de la Perière's sub easily outpaced that by a factor of 10.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Because of the depth of division at the top of the Iranian leadership about how to deal with the rest of the world and the state of flux of the situation since the US invasion of Iraq 4 years ago and the potentialy catastrophic consaquencies of a full war with the US.

There are so many variables and the risks are so high that it is likely there are still significant divisions over the responce.

Even the summer war in Lebanon changes things......

edited for clarity.

What makes you think there is division at the top in Iran?

My impression was that Khamenei, assuming he's still in health, had a pretty good grip on all the foreign policy stuff and that pretty much anyone with a say in such matters was a direct appointee of his?

edited to add. A quick google reveals a few Israeli sites saying he's dead, plus lots of mainstream media sites everywhere else except US, UK etc reporting quite an interesting speech he gave about all of this stuff.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair in December called on "moderate" Arab states to form an alliance against Tehran’s alleged support of extremism, in comments angrily condemned by Iranian officials.

"This alliance ... is against a nation that Islam is proud of - a nation that has sacrificed a lot. Therefore Arab countries must be careful about this dangerous trap," said Khamenei.

Khamenei said the United States’ regional policies have failed and called on Muslims to preserve their unity against "arrogant powers".

"America’s policies have failed in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan ... now America ... is trying to create discord among Shias and Sunnis," he said.

"Regional countries should pay attention and not fall into America’s dangerous trap.'

source

 

[david dissadent]

Iran is not a dictatorship and Khamenei still needs to have the confidence of various factions within the government. Some are pulling Iran towards confrontation and others seek less of it.

There seems to be a constant struggle for influence between differing factions with the hardliners loosing recently when the elections were deliberately rigged against them.

Even if a descion has been made, it does not follow that a commander of the militia is privy to it.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Sure, but what we're talking about here is how they'd react to a direct attack, by Israel. I'd be incredibly surprised if they don't have quite a lot of rather detailed planning options already written up and resourced against such eventualities.

 

[david dissadent]

Yes plans, but which plans will they execute? Unless they are as dumb as say European monarchies in 1914, then they will have several plans to deal with differing scenarios and to give them different options of responce.

Not just scenarios but differing responces for every scenario, its what a war staff is supposed to do.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Isn't that what I just said?

 

[david dissadent]

I was under the impression you were saying the responce was all but cast in steel. And I dont think that Khamenei is the be all and end all deciding which direction the responce takes. He will have to take into account various factions.

We could be talking at cross puroposes mind.

 

[bluestreak]

this is all a bit unpleasant. i wonder what the chances of it actually being a workable plan is.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

What I'm saying is that they've spent almost thirty years thinking very hard about what they're going to do and that they're probably going to have a fairly clear shortlist of options in mind for the current scenario.

I think it's fairly likely that Israel will attack Iran, if Bush doesn't just go ahead and do it himself, but that that while Israel may be a bit paranoid about future Iranian nukes, the over-arching reason for the US and UK will be nothing much to do with future Iranian nuclear capabilities and everything to do with regime change and regional dominance.

Here's quite an interesting article on the subject by one of Juan Cole's academic colleagues.

Washington has worked since the 1979 Iranian Revolution to keep the Iran of the mullahs from once again becoming the oil-producing powerhouse it was under the Shah. Indeed, gradually, especially in the years just after the Iran-Iraq War, Washington came to an absolutely firm, bi-partisan consensus that, no matter what promises the mullahs might make, the mullahs simply cannot be trusted. Even when the mullahs have offered quite stunning compromises, Washington has rejected them. Its reasoning is that, if Iran’s production were allowed to rapidly climb (and indeed, it has the potential for significant growth), the mullah’s would become rich and powerful players and would use their position to undermine the U.S.-backed Saudi royals and the Kuwaiti emir—and thereby U.S regional hegemony.

Therefore, the U.S. has actively blocked Iran from developing its oil and natural gas sector since 1996 by imposing sanctions. However, blocking the development of Iran’s oil potential and, with it, the regional ascendancy of the mullahs, has thus far been essentially a defensive maneuver for the U.S. Whatever the various ideological-political rationalizations embraced by various elements of the bureaucracy and the political elite, the persistent, material-economic impetus for this evolving crisis is that the global oil order is facing an inevitable demand crisis. This crisis eventually requires that new sources of oil be actively developed and brought to market to meet skyrocketing consumption. Iran has large oil fields ripe to be upgraded or brought into new production. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), Iraq and Iran together have almost 20 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves, respectively the third and fourth largest in the world. This is the material-economic basis for Washington’s urge to go on the offensive, proceeding now to the next phase of regime change.

The U.S. is intent on bringing Iranian oil production up to its full potential, but only under a new regime, one that it trusts to protect foreign investments and property rights in oil and which—like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE—will not use its oil prowess as a weapon.

Many forces are looking to develop Iran’s oil riches. If the U.S. does not want the mullahs to be the beneficiaries and custodians of this new oil wealth, then they have to get on with removing the mullahs sooner rather than later. As they learned in Iraq, they cannot maintain sanctions forever. At a time when U.S. and UN sanctions on Iraq’s oil development were rapidly losing support in the international community, the events of 9/11 unexpectedly gave the U.S. a pretext to remove the Ba’ath Party from power. In the case of Iran, for now, the hook is the ostensible “Iranian nuclear threat.”

source