Iran war? Place your bets!

I would like to recommend to your attention Robert Wright of The Atlantic.  The link takes you to his accumulated columns which are well worth reading especially on the Iran imbroglio.  He is a senior editor at the magazine and he seems to me to take a cool, judicious and intelligent look at this ferociously complicated game of bluff, double bluff and so on ad infinitum, or so it appears to me.  In his most recent article he refers to the "betting on the Intrade.com proposition "USA and/or Israel to execute an overt air strike against Iran before midnight ET 31 Dec 2012."  He concludes that there is good news and bad news.  The former stems from the betting pattern showing people are discounting the possibility of an attack this year, but the latter arises from a big gain in the odds for next year! 

He points out the obvious, that there is no love lost between Obama and Netanyahu.  Of course, Obama is a Leftist in tune with his base which detests Israel.  It is one of the ironies of the last 60-odd years that the Left has spun 180 degrees from support to hatred of Israel; where-as, the Right has overcome its original disdain for all things Jewish and is now a voluble supporter of the Jewish homeland.  Robert Wright points out the highly important nuance between Netanyahu and Obama in their approach to Iran and its nuclear ambitions.  The former draws a line in the sand at the point where Iran gains the capability of building a bomb.  The latter insists that it is the actual manufacture that would be a trigger point.   At this week's meeting, the Israeli PM was trying to bounce Obama into his script but he was having none of it.  With some dextrous footwork he stuck to his position that actual manufacture was the American line in the sand.  However, under the pressure he did commit his administration to the policy that America would not allow Iran to possess a bomb.  If he wins in November he will be held to that policy commitment sometime during the next four years.

In later article Robert Wright considers precisely what sort of an attack would be possible, be effective and be lasting.  His analysis is gloomy.  Almost all the experts are agreed that an air attack would only delay Iran's ambitions by a few years.  There-after, similar air attacks would be useless not so much because they would bury their equipment deeper but because they would disperse it into multiple locations none of which would be easily identifiable.  In other words, it wouldn't be like looking for a needle in a haystack but more like looking for a hundred of them!  A partially successful air attack would simply unite (even more) the Iranian people around their government and make them ever more determined to have their own bomb.  Thus, it becomes clear that the only way of ensuring that all Iranian facilities are destroyed is by putting 'boots on the ground' by means of a full-scale invasion and take over of the Iranian government machine.  Anyone fancy that?  Not too many, I reckon.

On the other hand, who fancies an Iranian bomb with a matching delivery system that could reach western Europe?  Or even just a small Iranian bomb, a crude one would do, that could be passed on to its proxy terrorist hangers-on to use as they see fit?  You see the difficulties.  Sometimes, not often, I agree, but you have to feel some sympathy for the politicians. But read Robert Wright, he's worth it.  For what it's worth from an ex-corporal like me, I do not think that the Israelis will permit an Iranian bomb, irrespective of what Obama or anyone else thinks.  They will bomb and they will keep on bombing until they think the job is done.  Forever in their mind is one word, one memory, one horrific scar - Auschwitz!

 

Comments

[dearieme]

You just blow all their power stations up. No electricity = no isotope separation. Also = large death toll, of course, in harsh winters.

[JK]

"For what it's worth from an ex-corporal like me, I do not think that the Israelis will permit an Iranian bomb, irrespective of what Obama or anyone else thinks. They will bomb and they will keep on bombing until they think the job is done. Forever in their mind is one word, one memory, one horrific scar - Auschwitz!"

It would appear we're in basic agreement except for that, "...and they will keep on bombing..." - simply because I'm of the opinion the Israelis can only depend on the first strike being a complete success. Therefore:

http://www.fpri.org/enotes/2012/201203.jones.israelirannuclear.html

(Below is the link to the assessment Mr. Jones refers to on Israel's difficulties):

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/world/middleeast/iran-raid-seen-as-complex-task-for-israeli-military.html

[A K Haart]

I agree with dearieme. Power stations are the more likely target, not the nuclear installations themselves.

[David Duff]

JK, thanks for the link but I do not believe that the Israelis would go to a unilateral nuclear attack at anywhere near this stage in the proceedings.

DM and AK, the problem with attacks on power lines/generators is that they can be fairly quickly repaired and would thus require a constant (never-ending?) series of attacks which would become more and more difficult to carry out successfully.

[JK]

Nor I David, "near this stage" but if the Israelis reach a point where their conclusion is, it's an existential threat, and the only option is to remove the threat - drop the curtain and reset the stage.

Thing to keep in mind is - whatever the Israelis do, they're gonna get hit with widespread umbrage and any succeeding attempts to perform follow-on attacks will be increasingly difficult - if not impossible.

"Therefore:"

[Dom]

"... ironies of the last 60-odd decades..." Did you mean years? Otherwise, good post!

[JK]

Noted that too Dom. Figgered DM to've fired off an email.

[JK]

Plausible...

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/153582

[David Duff]

Thanks, Dom, and I don't know whether I meant 6 decades or 60 years but then I often don't know what the hell I'm talking about anyway - oh, you've noticed!

And, DM, take a hundred lines for failing to spot my, er, 'deliberate' mistake!

[David Duff]

The shrewdest thing I have seen written about the possibility of an Israeli strike is that it will take place when the Israelis and the world have stopped talking about it!

[JK]

Well then David. Thanks for doing your bit for world peace.

(Anything you can do for gas prices?)

[David Duff]

Yes, that's easy. Tell your 'Dickhead-in-Chief' to open that bloody pipeline from Canada!

[JK]

That's gonna have to be done from your end David.

We've got candidates campaigning over here. ("Arkie-ese" bleeding off on ya David? "Dickhead-in-Chief"?) Suppose it might help if we begin hollering, Show us your willy!!

[David Duff]

It never fails, JK!

[Andra]

If I see any willies on this page I'm outa here!
The mantyhose is quite enough for my sensitive green eyes.