Such questions almost seem bizarre at a time when Iran and negotiators from the P5+1--the U.S., China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany--appear to be making progress at resolving the dispute over Teheran's nuclear program.And yet the very fact that a negotiated settlement seems possible may be the trigger for yet another war in the Middle East.
A dangerous new alliance is forming in the region, joining Israel with Saudi Arabia and the monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council, thus merging the almost bottomless wealth of the Arab oil kings with the powerful and sophisticated Israeli army. Divided by religion and history, this confederacy of strange bedfellows is united by its implacable hostility to Iran. Reducing tensions is anathema to those who want to isolate Teheran and dream of war as a midwife for regime change in Iran.
How serious this drive toward war is depends on how you interpret several closely related events over the past three months.
First was the announcement of the new alliance that also includes the military government in Egypt. That was followed by the news that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were stocking up on $10.8 billion worth of U.S. missiles and bunker busters. Then, in mid-October, Israel held war games that included air-to-air refueling of warplanes, essential to any long-range bombing attack. And lastly, the magazine Der Spiegel revealed that Israel is arming its German-supplied, Dolphin-class submarines with nuclear tipped cruise missiles.
Saber rattling? Maybe. Certainly a substantial part of the Israeli military and intelligence community is opposed to a war, although less so if it included the U.S. as an ally.
Opponents of a strike on Iran include Uzi Arad, former director of the National Security Council and a Mossad leader; Gabi Ashkenazi, former Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) chief of staff; Ami Ayalon and Yuval Diskin, former heads of Shin Bet; Uzi Even, a former senior scientist in Israel's nuclear program; Ephraim Halevy, former Mossad head; Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, and Shaul Mofaz, former IDF chiefs of staff; Simon Peres, Israeli president; Uri Sagi, former chief of military intelligence; and Meir Dagan, former head of Mossad, who bluntly calls the proposal to attack Iran "The stupidest thing I ever heard."
Mossad is Israel's external intelligence agency, much like the American CIA. Shin Bet is responsible for internal security, as with the FBI and the Home Security Department.
However, an Israeli attack on Iran does have support in the U.S. Congress, and from many former officials in the Bush administration. Ex-Vice-President Dick Cheney says war is "inevitable."
But U.S. hawks have few supporters among the American military. Former defense secretary Robert Gates says "such an attack would make a nuclear armed Iran inevitable" and "prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world." Former Joint Chief of Staff vice-chair Gen. James Cartwright told Congress that the U.S. would have to occupy Iran if it wanted to end the country's nuclear program, a task virtually everyone agrees would be impossible.
In interviews in the fall of 2012, reporter and author Mark Perry found that U.S. intelligence had pretty much worked out the various options the Israelis might use in an attack. None of them were likely to derail Iran's nuclear program for more than a year or two.
Israel simply doesn't have the wherewithal for a war with Iran. It might be able to knock out three or four nuclear sites--the betting is those would include the heavy water plant at Arak, enrichment centers at Fordow and Natanz, and the Isfahan uranium-conversion plant--but much of Iran's nuclear industry is widely dispersed. And Israel's bunker busters are not be up to job of destroying deeply placed and strongly reinforced sites.
Israel would not be able to sustain a long-term bombing campaign because it doesn't have enough planes, or the right kind. Most of its air force is American-made F-15 fighters and F-16 fighter-bombers, aircraft that are too fragile to maintain a long bombing campaign and too small to carry really heavy ordinance.
Of course, Israel could also use its medium and long-range Jericho II and Jericho III missiles, plus submarine-fired cruise missiles, but those weapons are expensive and in limited supply. They all, however, can carry nuclear warheads.
But as one U.S. Central Command officer told Perry, "They'll [the Israelis] have one shot, one time. That's one time out and one time back. And that's it." Central Command, or Centcom, controls U.S. military forces in the Middle East.
A number of U.S. military officers think the Israelis already know they can't take out the Iranians, but once the bullets start flying Israel calculates that the U.S. will join in. "All this stuff about 'red lines' and deadlines is just Israel's way of trying to get us to say that when they start shooting, we'll start shooting," retired Admiral Bobby Ray Inman told Perry. Inman specialized in intelligence during his 30 years in the Navy.
There is current legislation before the Congress urging exactly that, and Obama did say that the U.S. had "Israel's back." But does that mean U.S. forces would get directly involved? If it was up to the American military, the answer would be "no." Lt. Gen. Robert Gard told Perry that, while the U.S. military is committed to Israel, that commitment is not a blank check. U.S. support is "so they can defend themselves. Not so they can start World War III."
Polls indicate that, while most Americans have a favorable view of Israel and unfavorable one of Iran, they are opposed to joining an Israeli assault on Iran.
That might change if the Iranians tried to shut down the strategic Straits of Hormuz through which most Middle-East oil passes, but Iran knows that would draw in the U.S., and for all its own bombast, Teheran has never demonstrated a penchant for committing suicide. On top of which, Iran needs those straits for its own oil exports. According to most U.S. military analysts, even if the U.S. did join in it would only put off an Iranian bomb by about five years.
What happens if Israel attacks--maybe with some small contributions by the Saudi and UAE air forces--and Iran digs in like it did after Iraq invaded it in 1980? That war dragged on for eight long years.
Iran could probably not stop an initial assault, because the Israelis can pretty easily overwhelm Iranian anti-aircraft, and their air force would make short work of any Iranian fighters foolish enough to contest them.
But Teheran would figure a way to strike back, maybe with long range missile attacks on Israeli population centers or key energy facilities in the Gulf. Israel could hit Iranian cities as well, but its planes are not configured for that kind of mission. In any case, bombing has never made a country surrender, as the allied and axis powers found out in World War II, and the Vietnamese and Laotians demonstrated to the U.S.
The best the Israelis could get is a stalemate and the hope that the international community would intervene. But there is no guarantee that Iran would accept a ceasefire after being bloodied, nor that there would be unanimity in the UN Security Council to act. NATO might try to get involved, but that alliance is deeply wounded by the Afghanistan experience, and the European public is sharply divided about a war with Iran.
A long war would eventually wear down Israel's economy, not to mention its armed forces and civilian population.If that scenario developed, might Israel be tempted to use its ultimate weapon? Most people recoil from even the thought of nuclear weapons, but militaries consider them simply another arrow in the quiver. India and Pakistan have come to the edge of using them on at least one occasion.
It is even possible that Israel--lacking the proper bunker-busting weapons--might decide to use small, low-yield nuclear weapons in an initial assault, but that seems unlikely. The line drawn in August 1945 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki has held for more than 60 years. But if Israel concluded that it was enmeshed in a forever war that could threaten the viability of the state, might it be tempted to cross that line?
Condemnation would be virtually universal, but it would not be the first time that Israel's siege mentality led it to ignore what the rest of the world thought.
A war with Iran would be catastrophic. Adding nuclear weapons to it would put the final nail into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Within a decade dozens of countries will have nuclear weapons. It is a scary world to contemplate.
© 2023 Foreign Policy In Focus
Such questions almost seem bizarre at a time when Iran and negotiators from the P5+1--the U.S., China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany--appear to be making progress at resolving the dispute over Teheran's nuclear program.And yet the very fact that a negotiated settlement seems possible may be the trigger for yet another war in the Middle East.
A dangerous new alliance is forming in the region, joining Israel with Saudi Arabia and the monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council, thus merging the almost bottomless wealth of the Arab oil kings with the powerful and sophisticated Israeli army. Divided by religion and history, this confederacy of strange bedfellows is united by its implacable hostility to Iran. Reducing tensions is anathema to those who want to isolate Teheran and dream of war as a midwife for regime change in Iran.
How serious this drive toward war is depends on how you interpret several closely related events over the past three months.
First was the announcement of the new alliance that also includes the military government in Egypt. That was followed by the news that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were stocking up on $10.8 billion worth of U.S. missiles and bunker busters. Then, in mid-October, Israel held war games that included air-to-air refueling of warplanes, essential to any long-range bombing attack. And lastly, the magazine Der Spiegel revealed that Israel is arming its German-supplied, Dolphin-class submarines with nuclear tipped cruise missiles.
Saber rattling? Maybe. Certainly a substantial part of the Israeli military and intelligence community is opposed to a war, although less so if it included the U.S. as an ally.
Opponents of a strike on Iran include Uzi Arad, former director of the National Security Council and a Mossad leader; Gabi Ashkenazi, former Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) chief of staff; Ami Ayalon and Yuval Diskin, former heads of Shin Bet; Uzi Even, a former senior scientist in Israel's nuclear program; Ephraim Halevy, former Mossad head; Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, and Shaul Mofaz, former IDF chiefs of staff; Simon Peres, Israeli president; Uri Sagi, former chief of military intelligence; and Meir Dagan, former head of Mossad, who bluntly calls the proposal to attack Iran "The stupidest thing I ever heard."
Mossad is Israel's external intelligence agency, much like the American CIA. Shin Bet is responsible for internal security, as with the FBI and the Home Security Department.
However, an Israeli attack on Iran does have support in the U.S. Congress, and from many former officials in the Bush administration. Ex-Vice-President Dick Cheney says war is "inevitable."
But U.S. hawks have few supporters among the American military. Former defense secretary Robert Gates says "such an attack would make a nuclear armed Iran inevitable" and "prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world." Former Joint Chief of Staff vice-chair Gen. James Cartwright told Congress that the U.S. would have to occupy Iran if it wanted to end the country's nuclear program, a task virtually everyone agrees would be impossible.
In interviews in the fall of 2012, reporter and author Mark Perry found that U.S. intelligence had pretty much worked out the various options the Israelis might use in an attack. None of them were likely to derail Iran's nuclear program for more than a year or two.
Israel simply doesn't have the wherewithal for a war with Iran. It might be able to knock out three or four nuclear sites--the betting is those would include the heavy water plant at Arak, enrichment centers at Fordow and Natanz, and the Isfahan uranium-conversion plant--but much of Iran's nuclear industry is widely dispersed. And Israel's bunker busters are not be up to job of destroying deeply placed and strongly reinforced sites.
Israel would not be able to sustain a long-term bombing campaign because it doesn't have enough planes, or the right kind. Most of its air force is American-made F-15 fighters and F-16 fighter-bombers, aircraft that are too fragile to maintain a long bombing campaign and too small to carry really heavy ordinance.
Of course, Israel could also use its medium and long-range Jericho II and Jericho III missiles, plus submarine-fired cruise missiles, but those weapons are expensive and in limited supply. They all, however, can carry nuclear warheads.
But as one U.S. Central Command officer told Perry, "They'll [the Israelis] have one shot, one time. That's one time out and one time back. And that's it." Central Command, or Centcom, controls U.S. military forces in the Middle East.
A number of U.S. military officers think the Israelis already know they can't take out the Iranians, but once the bullets start flying Israel calculates that the U.S. will join in. "All this stuff about 'red lines' and deadlines is just Israel's way of trying to get us to say that when they start shooting, we'll start shooting," retired Admiral Bobby Ray Inman told Perry. Inman specialized in intelligence during his 30 years in the Navy.
There is current legislation before the Congress urging exactly that, and Obama did say that the U.S. had "Israel's back." But does that mean U.S. forces would get directly involved? If it was up to the American military, the answer would be "no." Lt. Gen. Robert Gard told Perry that, while the U.S. military is committed to Israel, that commitment is not a blank check. U.S. support is "so they can defend themselves. Not so they can start World War III."
Polls indicate that, while most Americans have a favorable view of Israel and unfavorable one of Iran, they are opposed to joining an Israeli assault on Iran.
That might change if the Iranians tried to shut down the strategic Straits of Hormuz through which most Middle-East oil passes, but Iran knows that would draw in the U.S., and for all its own bombast, Teheran has never demonstrated a penchant for committing suicide. On top of which, Iran needs those straits for its own oil exports. According to most U.S. military analysts, even if the U.S. did join in it would only put off an Iranian bomb by about five years.
What happens if Israel attacks--maybe with some small contributions by the Saudi and UAE air forces--and Iran digs in like it did after Iraq invaded it in 1980? That war dragged on for eight long years.
Iran could probably not stop an initial assault, because the Israelis can pretty easily overwhelm Iranian anti-aircraft, and their air force would make short work of any Iranian fighters foolish enough to contest them.
But Teheran would figure a way to strike back, maybe with long range missile attacks on Israeli population centers or key energy facilities in the Gulf. Israel could hit Iranian cities as well, but its planes are not configured for that kind of mission. In any case, bombing has never made a country surrender, as the allied and axis powers found out in World War II, and the Vietnamese and Laotians demonstrated to the U.S.
The best the Israelis could get is a stalemate and the hope that the international community would intervene. But there is no guarantee that Iran would accept a ceasefire after being bloodied, nor that there would be unanimity in the UN Security Council to act. NATO might try to get involved, but that alliance is deeply wounded by the Afghanistan experience, and the European public is sharply divided about a war with Iran.
A long war would eventually wear down Israel's economy, not to mention its armed forces and civilian population.If that scenario developed, might Israel be tempted to use its ultimate weapon? Most people recoil from even the thought of nuclear weapons, but militaries consider them simply another arrow in the quiver. India and Pakistan have come to the edge of using them on at least one occasion.
It is even possible that Israel--lacking the proper bunker-busting weapons--might decide to use small, low-yield nuclear weapons in an initial assault, but that seems unlikely. The line drawn in August 1945 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki has held for more than 60 years. But if Israel concluded that it was enmeshed in a forever war that could threaten the viability of the state, might it be tempted to cross that line?
Condemnation would be virtually universal, but it would not be the first time that Israel's siege mentality led it to ignore what the rest of the world thought.
A war with Iran would be catastrophic. Adding nuclear weapons to it would put the final nail into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Within a decade dozens of countries will have nuclear weapons. It is a scary world to contemplate.
Such questions almost seem bizarre at a time when Iran and negotiators from the P5+1--the U.S., China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany--appear to be making progress at resolving the dispute over Teheran's nuclear program.And yet the very fact that a negotiated settlement seems possible may be the trigger for yet another war in the Middle East.
A dangerous new alliance is forming in the region, joining Israel with Saudi Arabia and the monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council, thus merging the almost bottomless wealth of the Arab oil kings with the powerful and sophisticated Israeli army. Divided by religion and history, this confederacy of strange bedfellows is united by its implacable hostility to Iran. Reducing tensions is anathema to those who want to isolate Teheran and dream of war as a midwife for regime change in Iran.
How serious this drive toward war is depends on how you interpret several closely related events over the past three months.
First was the announcement of the new alliance that also includes the military government in Egypt. That was followed by the news that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were stocking up on $10.8 billion worth of U.S. missiles and bunker busters. Then, in mid-October, Israel held war games that included air-to-air refueling of warplanes, essential to any long-range bombing attack. And lastly, the magazine Der Spiegel revealed that Israel is arming its German-supplied, Dolphin-class submarines with nuclear tipped cruise missiles.
Saber rattling? Maybe. Certainly a substantial part of the Israeli military and intelligence community is opposed to a war, although less so if it included the U.S. as an ally.
Opponents of a strike on Iran include Uzi Arad, former director of the National Security Council and a Mossad leader; Gabi Ashkenazi, former Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) chief of staff; Ami Ayalon and Yuval Diskin, former heads of Shin Bet; Uzi Even, a former senior scientist in Israel's nuclear program; Ephraim Halevy, former Mossad head; Amnon Lipkin-Shahak, and Shaul Mofaz, former IDF chiefs of staff; Simon Peres, Israeli president; Uri Sagi, former chief of military intelligence; and Meir Dagan, former head of Mossad, who bluntly calls the proposal to attack Iran "The stupidest thing I ever heard."
Mossad is Israel's external intelligence agency, much like the American CIA. Shin Bet is responsible for internal security, as with the FBI and the Home Security Department.
However, an Israeli attack on Iran does have support in the U.S. Congress, and from many former officials in the Bush administration. Ex-Vice-President Dick Cheney says war is "inevitable."
But U.S. hawks have few supporters among the American military. Former defense secretary Robert Gates says "such an attack would make a nuclear armed Iran inevitable" and "prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world." Former Joint Chief of Staff vice-chair Gen. James Cartwright told Congress that the U.S. would have to occupy Iran if it wanted to end the country's nuclear program, a task virtually everyone agrees would be impossible.
In interviews in the fall of 2012, reporter and author Mark Perry found that U.S. intelligence had pretty much worked out the various options the Israelis might use in an attack. None of them were likely to derail Iran's nuclear program for more than a year or two.
Israel simply doesn't have the wherewithal for a war with Iran. It might be able to knock out three or four nuclear sites--the betting is those would include the heavy water plant at Arak, enrichment centers at Fordow and Natanz, and the Isfahan uranium-conversion plant--but much of Iran's nuclear industry is widely dispersed. And Israel's bunker busters are not be up to job of destroying deeply placed and strongly reinforced sites.
Israel would not be able to sustain a long-term bombing campaign because it doesn't have enough planes, or the right kind. Most of its air force is American-made F-15 fighters and F-16 fighter-bombers, aircraft that are too fragile to maintain a long bombing campaign and too small to carry really heavy ordinance.
Of course, Israel could also use its medium and long-range Jericho II and Jericho III missiles, plus submarine-fired cruise missiles, but those weapons are expensive and in limited supply. They all, however, can carry nuclear warheads.
But as one U.S. Central Command officer told Perry, "They'll [the Israelis] have one shot, one time. That's one time out and one time back. And that's it." Central Command, or Centcom, controls U.S. military forces in the Middle East.
A number of U.S. military officers think the Israelis already know they can't take out the Iranians, but once the bullets start flying Israel calculates that the U.S. will join in. "All this stuff about 'red lines' and deadlines is just Israel's way of trying to get us to say that when they start shooting, we'll start shooting," retired Admiral Bobby Ray Inman told Perry. Inman specialized in intelligence during his 30 years in the Navy.
There is current legislation before the Congress urging exactly that, and Obama did say that the U.S. had "Israel's back." But does that mean U.S. forces would get directly involved? If it was up to the American military, the answer would be "no." Lt. Gen. Robert Gard told Perry that, while the U.S. military is committed to Israel, that commitment is not a blank check. U.S. support is "so they can defend themselves. Not so they can start World War III."
Polls indicate that, while most Americans have a favorable view of Israel and unfavorable one of Iran, they are opposed to joining an Israeli assault on Iran.
That might change if the Iranians tried to shut down the strategic Straits of Hormuz through which most Middle-East oil passes, but Iran knows that would draw in the U.S., and for all its own bombast, Teheran has never demonstrated a penchant for committing suicide. On top of which, Iran needs those straits for its own oil exports. According to most U.S. military analysts, even if the U.S. did join in it would only put off an Iranian bomb by about five years.
What happens if Israel attacks--maybe with some small contributions by the Saudi and UAE air forces--and Iran digs in like it did after Iraq invaded it in 1980? That war dragged on for eight long years.
Iran could probably not stop an initial assault, because the Israelis can pretty easily overwhelm Iranian anti-aircraft, and their air force would make short work of any Iranian fighters foolish enough to contest them.
But Teheran would figure a way to strike back, maybe with long range missile attacks on Israeli population centers or key energy facilities in the Gulf. Israel could hit Iranian cities as well, but its planes are not configured for that kind of mission. In any case, bombing has never made a country surrender, as the allied and axis powers found out in World War II, and the Vietnamese and Laotians demonstrated to the U.S.
The best the Israelis could get is a stalemate and the hope that the international community would intervene. But there is no guarantee that Iran would accept a ceasefire after being bloodied, nor that there would be unanimity in the UN Security Council to act. NATO might try to get involved, but that alliance is deeply wounded by the Afghanistan experience, and the European public is sharply divided about a war with Iran.
A long war would eventually wear down Israel's economy, not to mention its armed forces and civilian population.If that scenario developed, might Israel be tempted to use its ultimate weapon? Most people recoil from even the thought of nuclear weapons, but militaries consider them simply another arrow in the quiver. India and Pakistan have come to the edge of using them on at least one occasion.
It is even possible that Israel--lacking the proper bunker-busting weapons--might decide to use small, low-yield nuclear weapons in an initial assault, but that seems unlikely. The line drawn in August 1945 at Hiroshima and Nagasaki has held for more than 60 years. But if Israel concluded that it was enmeshed in a forever war that could threaten the viability of the state, might it be tempted to cross that line?
Condemnation would be virtually universal, but it would not be the first time that Israel's siege mentality led it to ignore what the rest of the world thought.
A war with Iran would be catastrophic. Adding nuclear weapons to it would put the final nail into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Within a decade dozens of countries will have nuclear weapons. It is a scary world to contemplate.