Hi Colt! Awesome opener!
The Wash Post article is very interesting-- and it does look like our hands are currently tied. Do you think the Powers That Be would actually ask the Iraelis to do it for us? I would love to see the threat matrix analyses for that scenario.
Hmmm, I'm going to wait with breathless anticipation for Trent Trelenko to weigh in on this-- hope he's taking requests today!

Do you think the Powers That Be would actually ask the Iraelis to do it for us?

I don't think the Israelis would wait to be asked. If they feel they have to act, they will - with or without a request from DC.

Well done Colt. Lots of links to investigate for more info.
But, isn't it a shame, you have to keep posting reports on human stupidity? :(

Keep up the excellent work.

quark2:

Thanks.

There was a newspaper published in the UK for a while that only reported on good news. It went bust...

I've been studying the Iranian nuke program for some months now and it seems as though they have hardened and/or taken underground those facilities. The mullahs are well aware of what Israel did at Osirak. So an Israeli strike against Natanz and Bushehr would only do half the job.

Happy Birthday Colt!

It is not my birthday!

Sorry - LGF "joke"... ;-)

Land: Don't kid yourself, we can take the plants out, hardened as they are, but it's the attendant civilian casualties that stay our hand.

Colt: Given that the US and Israel most certainly share information, wouldn't mutual knowledge be assured? There was a lot of discussion about this attendant on Trent Trelenko's "Iran's Spoiling Attack". I don't think the argument was really resolved.

Hey, that's a great WoW. Lots of stuff I hadn't seen.

As for Israel, you know, this is all very fascinating. Looking back on 1967, it's easy to see how this could all spiral downward into a war between Iran and Israel, but's it's also easy to see a lot of outs short of full-on combat. I think a nuclear-free zone is definitely a good first option to go for, although it would probably have to entail an explicit, public US guarantee of Israel's security. Failing that, what happens if Israel bombs Iran, Osirak style? I can't think of much that Iran can realistically do. They can't exactly march through Iraq, although I suppose Syria might be willing to act as a conduit for Iranian forces. And Israel is pretty well locked down against terror attacks at this point, so using Hezbollah isn't likely to be effective. What kind of bunker-busting capability does Israel have? Do their bombers have the range? Etc.

Praktike,

Syria already is a conduit for Iranian forces, incl. Revolutionary Guard. But that isn't the same thing as being a conduit for a conventional attack force, more like jumped-up terrorists.

And no offense, but given the USA's historical record and current trends, I wouldn't treat a security guarantee from your country as being worth anything.

Israel's "bombers" are F-15s, incl. I believe some F-15Es. Their F-16s had the range to make it to Osirak, and should be able to make it to Bushehr. But some of the Iranian nuclear facilities are deep in Iran, and access to them is another matter.

The other difficulty is that "bunker busters" are usually 2000-4000 pounds, specially designed, and dropped from a great height to build up kinetic energy. Bombs that heavy have range effects on an F-15 or F-16, and Israeli tactics rely on flying in low to escape detection so you'd have to factor a quick climb to high altitude into the fuel equation (and attack plan). It's all so much easier if you have B-2s and B-52s - but Israel does not.

Couple that with the locations of some Iranian facilities, and I'm not sure Israel has the capability to disrupt the Iranian weapons chain. I'd need a lot more intelligence than I have to even guess - but I'm sure the Israelis have a few ideas.

jinnderella:

As Joe implies, the distance between Iran and Israel makes refueling a make-or-break element of the mission, unless the IAF land in Iraq after the operation.

pratrike:

I can't think of much that Iran can realistically do.

I'd bet on attacks in South America, Europe and Israel - if not the United States. Shin Bet have taken down several Israeli Arab Hezbollah/Hamas cells. There are probably more sleeper cells in Israel. Some of the now-12,000 Hezbollah rockets pointed at northern Israel might be launched.

I think a nuclear-free zone is definitely a good first option to go for, although it would probably have to entail an explicit, public US guarantee of Israel's security.

I don't think any American guarantee of Israeli security is likely, binding or even wanted (if Israel is dependant on the US for security, the US has a de facto veto over Israeli policy).

I'd like to say the Israeli nuclear program is preventing another (conventional, as opposed to terrorist) Arab-Israeli war. Assuming you don't read my blog, I'm not confident of that - I'll have a post up in the next couple of days explaining why.

A Home Front update, via LGF - Five US Muslims charged with selling equipment to Syria and Libya in violation of sanctions

One of the men, Ghassan Elashi, is a founder of CAIR and a former director of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (a Hamas front).

Hey, Joe, still bitter about the War of 1812, eh? Sorry about that.

Thanks for the answers. That's troubling -- so it would have to be a US strike, eh? Here's hoping this nuclear-free zone thing works out. One good thing is that Israel is no longer as dependent on Iranian oil as it was, so it could attack with relative impunity. The US, on the other hand, could not.

oops. I mean to say that Israel is no longer dependent on ME oil, but the US is. Neither does business with Iran on this score, but we might get hammered by the Gulf states. Although you'd think this situation would make Russia happy, given their high extraction costs. They wouldn't really be able to produce anything more, but they love high prices over there.

Nice one Colt.

Praktike,

Why would I be bitter about the War of 1812? Our side won.

Now, instead of destroying your valued cultural symbols by burning down the White House, we do it by sending you Celine Dion and Mariah Carey. And you take them!

I'm telling you, Odysseus and Agammemnon had nothing on us Canadians... just take the nice horsie... that's it....

On a more serious note, when you look at the list of allies the U.S. has sold out or left in the lurch over the last 50 years, you'd really have to be insane to stake your national survival on an American guarantee. Accept troops, be a friend, work together? Sure, great ideas.

Depend on your country for national survival against a determined threat (and since the Arabs are focused on genocide, personal survival as well)? The polite response that comes to mind for ANY nation offered that kind of deal as a paper guarantee is "you have got to be kidding me."

Israel in particular should be wary of such guarantees. Especialy as Dean's "Berkeleyization" of the Democrats' base continues, and the party intensifies its new trend of looking to Europe and the U.N. as guidance points and counterweights to the Republicans' domestic advantages. If these trends continue, they will inevitably push the U.S. Democratic Party to mirror the tilt of their models, and become steadily more anti-Israel (and as the mirroring intensifies, anti-Jewish) as time goes on.

Given the United States' history IRT Israel, I'd be sceptical of any such guarantee in the first place. Sending a carrier group to save Arafat and the PLO in 1982 is probably the most extreme example of the US saving Israel's enemies, but one of many.

Well, a couple things here.

For starters, I believe a significant source of Israeli anxiety about American security guarantees would have to stem from the 1967 war. If you recall, Rusk was never an Israel fan from day one, Johnson was up to his eyeballs in the shit over Vietnam, and he didn't think he had the leverage in the Senate to do much. Sending an American ship through the straits of Tiran might have done the trick, but the Sixth Fleet didn't have its act together in time. In any case, our intelligence said that Israel could repulse an Egyptian attack, and it was probably correct.

As for 1982. well, let's just say that the invasion of Lebanon is just about the dumbest thing Israel has ever done. To say nothing of the shame of Sabra and Shatilla. America sending in a few Marines to sit around and get blown up for no reason isn't much more intelligent.

In any event, America has become much more tightly linked with Israel since the late 60s. I think it's to the point where Israel is seen as the 51st state, which has it's good and bad points. For a mainstream politician to suggest "even-handedness" toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is tantamount to political suicide. Even Howard Dean, for all his faults, learned that in a hurry.

I think that, despite Joe's fears, America will stand by Israel. Although I would feel more confident about that if those Kazakh oil fields were online by now ...

pratrike:

The United States has been arming Israel's enemies for decades. The United States has been bailing out Israel's enemies for decades. In 1973, the only reason the US resupplied Israel was because Israel threatened to nuke Soviet cities, thereby sparking nuclear war. The Bush administration threatened to suspend vital military aid unless it abides by the "peace plan".

America is a good friend of Israel, except for whoever is in the White House.

As for 1982. well, let's just say that the invasion of Lebanon is just about the dumbest thing Israel has ever done.

Be that as it may (and I disagree - I'd rather not get in to it now), why send a carrier battle group to save the PLO? Or tell Israel to end Operation Defensive Shield? Or keep Arafat alive? The only thing I can come up with is that the US executive (and it makes little difference which party it is) believes it is in America's interest to protect Israel's enemies.

If that's the case, then any American guarantee of Israel's security will be worthless.

America is a good friend of Israel, except for whoever is in the White House.

Correction: Congress approves arms sales, including the top of the line M1A2s with depleted uranium armour and shells to Egypt. The JDAMs will probably be next.

Colt -

On the arming Israel's enemies point - ME politics is a tricky business.

I mean, the Israelis helped the Pakistanis increase the range on their tanks! They cooperated with the Saudis in supporting the Muslim Brotherhood against Nasser. They supported HAMAS, for crying out loud. And of couse, they sent plenty of captured AK-47s to the mujahidin. And hey, they cooperate a lot with the Jordanians, the Saudis and the Egyptians, for what it's worth. And I'll have to check up on this, but I imagine there was some Israeli hanky-panky going on with the Iraqis in the 80s as well. So anything you could accuse the Americans of doing on this score would have to apply to the Israelis themselves. But I'm not aware of any sort of American military aid to, say, the Syrians or the PLO. Good point about Congress, in any event.

One point on which both Israel and the US have been clear, however, is that they will not permit any one player in the ME to become dominant. It's divide and conquer, play them against each other, etc. The Arabs and Iranians know this, but they can't help themselves.

One more thing.

I'm not sure why the US has gone to bat for Arafat for so many years. I can speculate that there is an understanding, though, that because he's such an incompetent buffoon, he's a convenient stooge for the Egyptians, Saudis, and Jordanians. Indeed, Nasser's original intent in supporting Arafat was to take the Palestinian monkey off his back. They never have to deal with their own populations demands to wipe Israel from the map, because they can always point to the stupid Fatah/PLO/PA or whatever and say that they're doing something.

"As Joe implies, the distance between Iran and Israel makes refueling a make-or-break element of the mission, unless the IAF land in Iraq after the operation."

If the rumors of Israeli operatives in Kurdistan are true, that could be why: to establish some sort of clandestine staging ground for infiltrating Iran.

Nov thru Jan should be an interesting time. As little as possible will happen until the election with regards to the US' military involvement in Iran and hard diplomacy. The election is too close and acting now v. acting for another four is too important for BushCo politically as well as strategically.

Of various estimates I've seen stated, Jan 2005 is the earliest with regard to Iran coming online nukes. If this is indeed the current understanding, it still leaves a window for Bush to act, win or lose in Nov. Not really sure which situation would lead to a harsher response to Iran's nuclear dalliance.

Couple this possible nuclear coming out date with Iraqi elections and there will be much manuevering going on.

pratrike:

In some of your examples, Israel is assisting one side against another enemy, ie, the Saudis against Egypt, Hamas against Fatah, etc. Stupid in the short term? Sure. But in the belief that it would be detrimental to Israel's enemies.

And hey, they cooperate a lot with the Jordanians, the Saudis and the Egyptians, for what it's worth.

With Jordan and Egypt, to a minimal extent (no Egyptian embassy, for example). With Saudi Arabia? Not to my knowledge, but I may be wrong on that. Again, though, this co-operation doesn't extend to arms sales or military training, or anything that could be detrimental to Israeli security. No comparison, IMO.

But I'm not aware of any sort of American military aid to, say, the Syrians or the PLO.

No aid to the Syrians, but the Oslo Accords gave the PLO military training and thousands of infantry weapons. In terms of assisting enemies, Israel was as much to blame as the United States in that instance - if not more. I think we can call that a draw.

I can speculate that there is an understanding, though, that because he's such an incompetent buffoon, he's a convenient stooge for the Egyptians, Saudis, and Jordanians.

Hamas was kicked off by Saudi petrodollars, and is maintained by the Sinai tunnels. Egypt and Saudi Arabia want Hamas to survive and continue attacks, ie, incompetence isn't what they're looking for.

I might be more inclined to agree about Arafat, if it were just him. Yassin, Op. Defensive Shield, numerous targeted killings, etc, were all condemned by the US. Why would the US give a damn about some Hamas leader getting killed? It's a listed terrorist group that has killed Americans. During a war against terrorism, what possible reason could the Bush administration have for being "deeply troubled" by the death of Yassin?

Colt,

I'd assume that Sharon got the message sub rosa that the American diplomatic corps would issue some pro forma objections and otherwise turn a blind eye to his hunting expeditions--basically, I doubt the American public response came as a surprise to him. As to why the Bush team chose this public posture? As bad as it sounds, maybe it was an attempt to not borrow more trouble on the diplomatic front with those hostile to Israel (*cough*Old Europe*cough*--though possibly the Jordanians, Egyptians, etc. as well).

It's not the choice I would have made. I'd have told Sharon "Happy Hunting" in so many words, on the evening news. Then again, I'm not the President of the United States. =)

In short, I think Bush's statement was tactical, not strategic (and I'd be rather upset if I was wrong).

Sam Barnes:

If it were just State (who represent the US, whether we like it or not), I might be more inclined to agree with you. However, when the White House condemns the killing of Hamas leaders it's something else. This is a good example.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the president was "deeply troubled by the strike [on Rantisi]," concerned it "will undermine efforts by Palestinian authorities and others to bring an end to terrorist attacks and does not contribute to the security of Israel."

Joe,

"And no offense, but given the USA's historical record and current trends, I wouldn't treat a security guarantee from your country as being worth anything."

I'm ashamed to admit it, but you are right. Our record is at best mixed when it comes to leaving allies holding the bag. The most recent major instance I can think of was the popular uprising in Southern Iraq in 1991. (As an aside, one of the reasons I found most compelling to support Operation Iraqi Freedom was the blood debt we owed the Iraqi people for not finishing the job in 1991--especially for encouraging the uprising that Saddam brutally quashed while we sat by.) It is one of my most fervent wishes that we do not add to the list.

That said, popular support for Israel in the States is pretty solid. Yes, the far Left is heading off into KKK-land with the anti-Semitism, but the Christian Right is adamantly pro-Israel, and any Republican that tries to wander off the reservation will be quickly disabused of that notion, or repudiated by the party.

As for the Democrats...well...Joe Lieberman still has friends in his own party, though their legislators run the gamut--for instance, there have been some historic tensions between the black community and the Jewish community (see, Al Sharpton, among others). I wish their party elders would clean house (Senator Feinstein, are you listening?), but it's probably an unwritten rule that tensions between core constituencies are resolved in-house, under wraps, or not at all. Oh well. I still think you can count on pretty much the entire Republican party and a sizable chunk of Democrats--this makes for a big majority.

Colt,

I did notice that, and it does concern me. I agree, direct comment from the White House seems like overkill if it's just diplomatic Kabuki theater. Based on Bush's actions, though, I still lean towards the tactical, not strategic, explanation.

Sam Barnes:

Based on Bush's actions, though, I still lean towards the tactical, not strategic, explanation.

If only it were just words...

The Bush administration has prepared a list of

sanctions against Israel should it refuse to comply with a plan for a

Palestinian state by the end of the year.

The sources said the State Department's proposed list of sanctions included an examination of the use of U.S. weapons in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Israel has employed such platforms as the AH-64A Apache helicopter, the AH-1G Cobra helicopter and the F-16 fighter-jet in air attacks on Palestinian insurgents.

"It's hard to overestimate the anger within the administration toward Israel regarding the delays in the roadmap," a congressional source close to the administration said. "The White House doesn't regard the roadmap merely as foreign policy. It sees the roadmap as a major element toward the reelection of the president."

Hi Sam Barnes! Could you email me please? I finished my Chomskyan studies!

Sorry, for the OT Colt!:)

Oh, and Joe, remember that it was Canada that bailed on Regatta in '67.

Yes, the US has been guilty of some shameful episodes of not following through. No one mentioned Vietnam, one of the worst when a Democrat cut off aid to SVN that left them unable to fight off the final NVA assault into the south.

But just what other nation's guarantees are worth anything at all? Who even has the capabiality of lending meaningful military support? I think the US did fairly well during two world wars, the Cold War and Korea. - And who are Israel's other international friends?

And, my most pro-Israeli moment was not upon learning a few years back that she'd been selling weapons systems to China. Don't recall what weapons, but it did happen. And, of course, Clinton allowed critical missle guidance technology to be sold to China.

It's all a dirty business that will fall short of everyone's expectations at times.

Finally, wasn't the initial justification for US weapons sales to Egypt the need for a defensive capability against Saddam? The same with Saudi Arabia, I think.

Will:

Finally, wasn't the initial justification for US weapons sales to Egypt the need for a defensive capability against Saddam? The same with Saudi Arabia, I think.

It might well have been. Though that's pretty ridiculous IRT to Egypt. As for KSA, surely weapons sales will stop now, if that was the objective?

The good news is that there are rumblings in Congress about swtiching a lot of Egypt's military aid over to non-military. As for KSA, if we don't sell hardware to the Saudis, how are they going to pay for all of their wild Moroccan sex parties?

Colt,

You're quick. After posting I realized I'd forgotten a key reason (the initial reason) and just returned to add to what I'd said.

The original US arms sales to Egypt were after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, and were intended to flip Egypt from a Soviet client to a US client during the Cold War. Then the increasing threat from Saddam gave additional impetus to those sales.

I see no reason to continue these sales to Egypt, especially of our more advanced systems, but I doubt our weapons producers and their supporters in Congress will agree.

Colt,

I had a longer response, but it died in transmission. I think that article should be taken with a grain of salt.

1) The article was written in May, 2003, so the "end of the year" they are talking about is 2003, not 2004. AFAIK, we haven't levied sanctions against Israel, 2003 is over, and there is no interim Palestinian state.

2) Your link talks about the "Bush administration" a lot, but only a couple of places mentions "the White House." If I remember my Washington press-speak, "administration" could refer to senior staff in Cabinet departments, e.g. State, that are not politically appointed.

3) I think what probably happened was NSC put out a request for suggestions, State submitted it's usual anti-Israel proposal, State lost at NSC, and did the typical "loser leaks to press" thing. This explanation seems consistent with the facts presented, although it's not the story they are trying to sell.

pratrike:

LOL!

The good news is that there are rumblings in Congress about swtiching a lot of Egypt's military aid over to non-military.

I've heard about that - I hope it happens.

Will:

I see no reason to continue these sales to Egypt, especially of our more advanced systems, but I doubt our weapons producers and their supporters in Congress will agree.

That's the bottom line. That said, Egypt would go to the French of the Russians if the US ceased arms "sales".

Sam Barnes:

1) The article was written in May, 2003, so the "end of the year" they are talking about is 2003, not 2004. AFAIK, we haven't levied sanctions against Israel, 2003 is over, and there is no interim Palestinian state.

The roadmap called for a state to be created over several years, so I think you're reading the sentence wrong. I think it means "if Israel does not accept the roadmap by the end of the year".

2) Your link talks about the "Bush administration" a lot, but only a couple of places mentions "the White House." If I remember my Washington press-speak, "administration" could refer to senior staff in Cabinet departments, e.g. State, that are not politically appointed.

No way in hell State or a Cabinet official or whoever threatens sanctions against Israel without the president's go ahead. And if that sort of thing does happen, I'm voting Democrat because Bush doesn't have control of his own government.

3) I think what probably happened was NSC put out a request for suggestions, State submitted it's usual anti-Israel proposal, State lost at NSC, and did the typical "loser leaks to press" thing. This explanation seems consistent with the facts presented, although it's not the story they are trying to sell.

It wasn't in the press, just IMRA, MENL and some Hebrew outlets. Another way to look at it is that Israel dropped the "fourteen points" (problems they had with the roadmap in its original form) soon after May 2003, ie, they backed down.

Here's an interesting counterfactual to ponder: what if the US had flipped Egypt before there was any flipping to be done. That is, given Nasser the arms he wanted before he got them from the Czechs, while at the same time locking in the deal on Aswan, nudging the British out, and working on structural reform of the Egyptian economy? After all, at that point Nasser as an ardent anti-Communist in addition to being ardently anti-West. I think it could have been done.

No unity with Syria, which might mean no Assads. No arms to Yemeni "republicans", so a "monarchist" victory there. Hell, maybe no Six Day War.

Interesting indeed.