Colt looks at developments in the Middle East and wonders when we might see the next Arab-Israeli war (Hat Tip: reader Jinnderella).
I would argue that as long as Israel retains the nuclear option, the only wars we'll see would be either a full nuclear exchange, or a simple extension of the current "Oslo War" (which is a regional war by any standards). Not much room in between. But give Colt's piece a read, and see what you think. He's writing about things that Israel's General Staff must at least be thinking about and taking seriously.
Israel had a nuclear option in 1973.
I've argued (often to substantial ridicule) that Israel's overwhelming conventional military superiority—in part paid for by the U. S.—is what has laid the groundwork for the campaign of asymmetric warfare being carried out against them.
It's not just the nuclear deterrent it's the conventional strength as well.
And why change a formula that's working?
I've argued (often to substantial ridicule) that Israel's overwhelming conventional military superiority—in part paid for by the U. S.—is what has laid the groundwork for the campaign of asymmetric warfare being carried out against them.
It's not just the nuclear deterrent it's the conventional strength as well.
And why change a formula that's working?
Dave Schuler: I think the change to the formula is Iran's burgeoning nuclear threat-- Don't you believe that will alter the effect of the nuclear deterrent? And is Uberanalyst Dan Darling correct, in saying that the Iranians are where NK was 1993, and can basically build what they want?
jinnderella:
The formula I was referring to was Israel's neighbors formula of supply arms (and encouragement) to the Palestinians and discouraging Palestinian immigration into their own countries. I'd say that from their point of view—which discounts the suffering of the Palestinian people—the formula is, indeed, working. The level of criticism that both Israel and the U. S. are subject to as a result continues to rise.
Will the EU be willing to forego the €22B in trade between the EU and Israel to punish the Israelis for the Wall without which it's pretty obvious that the Second Intifada will continue? Stay tuned.
I don't honestly know what's going to happen about Iran's nuclear program. I suspect that somebody is going to do something. Iran is not nearly as geographically or economically isolated as NK. It's hard for me to imagine allowing a rogue regime like the Iranian mullahocracy to hold nuclear weapons.
Dave: I agree with your analysis of the Iranian situation-- but, I've read a whole lot of discussion and there don't seem to be any cost-viable solutions. IMHO, the more it looks like the Iraq Model is going to succeed, the higher the probability is that there will be some strike against Israel. AND if there is some sort of preemptive action against Iran's nuclear facilities, won't the first Iranian response be to attack Israel?
The Syrians have hinted that they think their VX arsenal matches Israel's nuclear weapons stock. Clearly insane...
jinnderella - I agree that the solutions seem thin on the ground. It would be sad to have to nuke Teheran just because no one could come up with something better.
Although arabs make lousy combat pilots, they make even worse mechanics and maintenance men. Their armies and air forces may have lots of neat toys, but the toys don't work unless you meticulously maintain them. Don't you dare trouble an arab to stoop to that. He'll laugh at you and go back to his hash pipe.
Iran is a different story, although I suspect russian and/or chinese/N. Korean scientists are doing more than their share to bring about a more nuclear Iran. No doubt the program is infiltrated by the spy agencies of several countries.
And why change a formula that's working?
Precisely.
Almost four years of terror war against Israel have reaped extraordinary dividends for the Palestinians and their supporters. No reason why another four years shouldn't earn then even more. By then, Israel will surely be an absolute pariah (if it hasn't achieved that status already) and after so many years of crisis, it should topple with a push here or a shove there.
It is conceivable, though, that patience may wear thin, leading to an attempt to launch the knockout blow against the weakened Zionist Entity.
Patient or not, there can be no doubt that Iran, counting on the distractions in Israel (and Iraq), are working hard on it, with a little help from their friends....
Colt: At LGF, Mr Pol told me that the Iranians have two armable nuclear warheads that they stole from Kazakhstan in 1991. Is this true? And if so, does it change your scenario?
jinnderella:
Damned if I know. Mr Pol has career experience in these matters.
If it is true, then yes, it does. Drastically. It means the Iranians can start the war at a time of their choosing by taking out a large chunk of Tel Aviv, and perhaps Jerusalem. That would make the ensuing conventional fight... interesting.
How will they get there, Colt?
A container on a cargo ship would be the most likely to succeed.
That said, it begs the question why haven't they done it.
Syrian Gas and Iranian nuclear weapons are indeed a concern. Iran has publicly stated a willingness to risk nuclear war (see statements by Iranian leaders at MEMRI.com). If gas or nukes are used, I see Israel quickly using nuclear weapons to shatter Iran and Syria, perhaps Lebanon too. I wonder if the Arab leaders understand just how big the risks are?