Barak Says Nuke - Armed Iran Couldn't Destroy Israel

[bemildred]

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - A nuclear-armed Iran would not be capable of destroying Israel, Defence Minister Ehud Barak said Thursday in remarks that departed from long-running Israeli arguments about the threat posed by its foe.

"Right now, Iran does not have a bomb. Even if it did, this would not make it a threat to Israel's existence. Israel can lay waste to Iran," Barak said in a transcript of a newspaper interview obtained by Reuters before publication Friday.

Israeli leaders have repeatedly sounded alarms over Iran's atomic ambitions, pointing at President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's calls for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map" and support for Islamist guerrilla groups arrayed along Israel's borders.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a right-winger who brought the centre-left Barak into his coalition government, said he saw "eye to eye" with the Defence minister -- signalling a possible change in Israel's official rhetoric as world powers prepare to revive diplomatic engagement with Iran next month.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/09/17/world/international-uk-israel-iran.html

[BlooInBloo]

1. Jeebus. Can his penis get any smaller?

[cliffordu]

4. Well....

:rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Ah we have finally entered the realm of MAD

Ain't it lovely?

MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION, for the acronym challenged.

[LeftishBrit]

8. Not to mention what could be called SAD...

self-assured destruction if things go a little wrong. Can happen anywhere, but especially when countries are relatively close to each other.

[shira]

11. MAD works for rational nations, not so much for fanatically religious armagedon types like Iran

[LeftishBrit]

13. I disagree.. I think Ahmadinejad et al are actually rather fond of their own skins.

(I assume you mean 'leaders' by 'nations'.)

I don't want nuclear proliferation anywhere, and especially not in a region of the world where there is a lot of instability and true fanatically religious terrorists could get hold of the nukes. And anywhere at all, there could be an accident. So I am by no means justifying 'nukes for Iran' - but I don't think Ahmadinejad is the martyr-type either.

[ArabInIsrael]

17. Ahmadinjed is not a martyr

He isn't a martyr, but he has no power. The Mullahs run the show, and the mullahs are crazy.

Look at the Iran-Iraq War, 1 million killed. Iran sacrificed 10,000 children during post-war mine diffusing. They sent kids to disarm cluster bombs and land mines.

Iranian leaders have been boasting about how they could absorb an Israeli nuclear attack.

Mutually Assured Destruction would make sense under the context that it was mutual, but the Islamic states do not value the lives of their citizens as Israel does.

Plus, if you nuke Tel Aviv...that's pretty much the end of Israel. If you nuke Tehran, it's hurt...but not down for the count.

Plus plus, Israel isn't going to allow a nuclear Iran regardless if it was run by sane communists. A nuclear armed Iran would deter immigration to Israel which the country depends on to maintain the demographic. Odds are, many Israelis would also emigrate to the West. Tourism would be dead, and the economy would tank.

Israel would rather chance war than a potentially armed Iran. Barak is just blowing steam, always has been.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. I could have made the same argumment about the USSR circa

1961

Yes MAD works

[shira]

15. i hope you're right

[shaayecanaan]

16. Actually, the most irresponsible nuclear state has generally been the United States

Nations that have deployed nuclear weapons

The United States (Hiroshima, Nagasaki)

Nations that have threatened the unilateral use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states

The United States against China (Gen Douglas MacArthur, 1950)
The United States against Iran (1979)
The United States against North Vietnam

Countries with the highest level of inadequate safeguards in respect of nuclear weapons according to the NTI

Russia
The United States

Countries that have almost precipitated a nuclear war

The United States (the Arkhipov incident, 1962)
USSR (the Petrov incident)

[Libertas1776]

3. Gee

and I thought Israel didn't have nuclear weaponry :sarcasm: How naive of me.

[bemildred]

5. Good point.

Olmert got raked over the coals for admitting that, IIRC.

[LeftishBrit]

7. Well, now it's been admitted, it can't be un-admitted.

[bemildred]

12. Oh, I would wager it can still be un-admitted.

But we will see.

[LeftishBrit]

6. Well - he's right. I've always thought that the fears over Iran are overblown for just this reason

apart from others.

Political leaders will always play the game of My-Penis-Is-Bigger-Than-Yours (even Maggie Thatcher did!) - let's just hope that it remains confined to words.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. That was not a mental image I needed. N.T.

[proteus_lives]

9. If there was a nation that needed nukes, it's Israel.

That way the arab states won't risk another general war.

[azurnoir]

18. If Iran were to develop a nuclear weapon

which at this point in time is still not a certainty then IMO nuclear deterrence would become reality but all of that is still subjective.
The present reality is that Israel persists in making what are very much in reality empty threats, Iran's nuclear facilities are located in areas that Israel does not have the weaponry to penetrate nor does Israel have the refueling capability to make the round trip flight neccesary

[ArabInIsrael]

19. You underestimate Israel's capacity

Are you this naive? Israel is more than capable of attacking Iran, but at what cost. Israel would have to weigh the issue of demolishing an entire country. An attack on Iran would be an attack on its military, total destruction of the airforce, attacking political targets within Tehran to de-stabilize leadership, and then attacks on Lebanon and Gaza in anticipation for Iranian-proxy unleash.

Israel is not making empty threats, and according to a leaked IAEA report Iran has the capacity to develop nukes tomorrow, if it wanted to. Israel believes it does, and they probably are. Iran bankrolls Hamas and Hezbollah, they would be stupid NOT to develop nukes. Canceling Israel's deterrence is basically a death sentence for the Jews.

It would put the country in a perpetual state of fear and likely emigration by Israelis who are concerned about their safety. It would reduce tourism and tank the Israeli economy.

So while Israel might survive, it wont' destroy its country to avoid a confrontation with Iran. The Muslim states are used to living in garbage and willingly sabotage their own economy and people during war. Israel does not.

Israel will act if it thinks it security is threatened, and Israel believes a nuclear Iran is a threat to its security. Whether you think a simple MAD scenario is perfectly acceptable is irrelevant, as Israel does not.

I guess we can go back and blame Jimmy Carter, he was the #1 guy in instrumenting the fall of the Shah and rise of the Islamists.

Surprise.

[azurnoir]

20. My post was in reference to Israel attacking Iran's nuclear

facilities and only such an attack, of course Israel could attack anywhere in Iran however I did not feel that was germane to this conversation as to Israels capabilities to attack Iran if in such an attack Israel were to respect the airspace limitations of other countries we are still left with a refueling problem.

[ArabInIsrael]

21. Response to Azurnoir

Considering Israel's tactical accomplishments at the surprise of the world, I doubt a "refueling problem" is going to stop Israel from effectively eliminating Iran's capacity to fight Israel, let alone govern itself.

Israel has nuclear-capable submarines and recently completed its Jerico III missile system which is touted as one of the most advanced nuclear weapons in the world. According to intelligence experts, no modern anti-ballistic missile system outside of the Israeli-made Arrow interceptor is capable of destroying the Jericho III.

Israel has a lot of options. Looking at a map you will see several countries that might consider allowing Israel to use their airspace to hit Iran, but it would take pressure from the US. Israel will most certainly tell the USA its intentions to attack Iran if it decides to do so. Not a request of course, simply informing Obama what's going to happen.

USA must protect its assets in Iraq and the Gulf, and according to Pentagon assessments our military is severely exposed in the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, not to mention our assets in Iraq-mainland.

If USA is interested in protecting the lives of its citizens, it will be forced to collaborate with Israel one way or another. An Iranian attack on the USA would force Congress to declare war on Iran and we know how that goes.

However, while Iran will most certainly attack Israel, it is not clear if Iran will attack the USA. This is why many generals in the US military are more comfortable with a nuclear Iran than a physical confrontation. Our military is in no shape of fighting a conventional conflict with a foe like Iran and the people would not support it unless America is attacked first. Iran knows this and is very aware of USA's knee-jerk response to threats, physical or otherwise.

Assuming Israel's strikes Iran, presumably with nukes and cluster bombs, hits Hezbollah hard and launches operations in Gaza in anticipation for another proxy war ordered by Iran, the results are predictable.

Israel casualties will be relatively liberal. Israel is looking at a net-loss of 10-15% of its military capabilities, at least 10,000 soldiers, and however many airplanes get lost in Iran. No doubt pilots will elect to fly one-way missions to Iran and parachute out if need be, soldiers have embarked on suicide missions in the past. Civilian casualties will be heavier than conflicts among the Palestinians but manageable.

Arabs are looking at heavy losses, and reviewing Israel's previous wars it is clear they won't make an exception. Iran's military will be destroyed whole-sale and without discretion, targets will be assumed in Tehran and other central cities, special-forces will be ordered in...most likely paratroopers. Israel does not have the man-power to occupy Iran (duh) nor the military budget, so that isn't possible.

If Israel can get its hands on the F-35s before Iran goes nuclear (or Israel believes Iran's nuclear - that is the only thing that matters), then its pretty much game set match for the Arabs.

The US knows a war with Iran will set-back any Palestinian resolution decades, probably even more.

Some sort of confrontation will occur no doubt, so consider this a precedent-review. Remember - Israel has gone to war for far, far less.