Hopefully Israel will not have to bomb Iran
Let us hope Iran does not get the "bomb"
I am what someone would call a zionist and the answer is NO! I say that for two reasons one as an American and one for their benefits.
As the American, I don't want to see a ME flare up like that. Oil prices are skyrocketing and they will only shoot through the roof. Our weak economy is getting crippled by $4 a gallon gas, an Israel attack could shoot it to $8-$10 a gallon! That would put us into a depression. I don't want to live through that. The Great Depression saw the birth of the income tax, increase entitlement spending and let to liberal illegal immigration policies. I don't want my country transformed even greater by a second.
For Israel's sake I don't want them to attack. First, it skeptical at best they can take out Iran's nuclear plants. The reason it's under a mountain is to make an air attack so hard to accomplish. I think it would do little to stop it and give Iran legitimacy in firing missiles at Israel. Their missile system is a paper-dragon, but a few would get through and many 100s of Israeli would get killed. After the Israeli assault Iran would have more incentive and passion to get the bomb.
The world should still do what they can to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. However, it might be too late and an Israeli air attack probably won't work.
If Iran announces they get the bomb. I think Israel must announce they are nuclear. Inflate their numbers and capacities and promise that any nuclear bomb that goes off in Israel will automatically trigger nuclear attacks on Tehran, Iran's top 10 largest cities, Mecca, Medina, Damascus, Beriut etc. A little M.A.D. rhetoric might work at that point. Note: Mecca and Medina are MUSTS!
There is no danger that an Israeli attack will cause $8 to $10 a gallon gas; in fact, it is likely to drive oil prices down. Israel has been threatening to attack Iran's nuclear weapons program for years, but oil prices are only being driven up now in response to Iran's threats to attack Gulf oil shipping because of the current stiff sanctions. When Israel attacks, Iran will either not attack Gulf oil shipping out of fear of provoking a war with the US or it will attack Gulf oil shipping and be quickly neutralized by US forces in the Gulf. Either way, with the threat of Iran stopping oil shipments from the Gulf will be gone, markets will calm down and oil prices will drop. On the other hand, if Israel should not attack but sanctions stay in place, Iran's threats of stopping Gulf oil shipping will keep oil prices rising.
There is little reason to doubt that Israel can do very substantial damage to Iran's nuclear weapons and long range missile programs. The two cautions most often voiced about the effectiveness of an Israeli strike are the distance and the fortifications at Fodrow and Natanz; the other sites are not well protected. Israel has recently increased it fleet of refueling tankers from five to eight giving it more than sufficient capacity to carry out a sustained attack on Iran's nuclear weapons and long range missile programs.
Israel has 60 5000 lb. bunker busters from the US and an unknown number of domestically produced bunker busters. While it is doubtful that one of these bombs could penetrate the facility, according to estimates by the US military, it is likely that repeated hits at the same spot will. Fodrow is more challenging. It is buried some 200 feet under a mountain so it is probably impervious to an Israel air attack, but Israel has been practicing large scale paratrooper drops, suggesting it may be planning to insert large numbers of special operations forces that might attempt to attack the facility from the ground. Failing that, Fodrow can be rendered unusable by destroying the supporting infrastructure, water, electricity and transportation, but this might require repeated attacks whenever Iran shows signs of trying to rebuild this infrastructure.
Of course, it is likely that if Israel attacks during the election campaign, the US will join the attack to neutralize Iran's ability to carry out threatened retaliations against US interests in the region and to complete the destruction of any part of Iran's nuclear weapons and long range missile programs. The US has a number of 30,000 lb. bunker busters that the US military estimates would be adequate to take out the Fodrow facility with repeated hits.
It is likely that taking out Iran's missile launchers would be high on the list of priorities of both Israeli and US forces, so it is likely few Iranian missiles would get through to hit Israel or US interests.
The alternative to taking out Iran's nuclear weapons and long range missile programs is not MAD but a volatile situation like the one that led to WWI but with much greater potential for death and destruction. If Iran acquired nukes it would set off a nuclear arms race in the ME and perhaps Central Asia, and in this highly volatile region with many unstable governments, the danger of a nuclear conflict is much higher than it was between the US and the USSR. Since 40% of the world's oil supply would be endangered, the great powers would believe they had to get involved, setting a scenario in which a single missile could set off a nuclear exchange that would kill more people in the region than all who died in WWII and could kill an equal or greater number in the US, Europe, Russia, etc.
For all these reasons, it would be highly irresponsible for the West, including Israel, not to attack Iran's nuclear weapons and long range missile programs in the very near future.
-
Good one.
