gprime
June 15th, 2007, 03:36 AM
As should be clear to most people, the Iraqi invasion (fine in theory, but badly managed) has left the US military overextended (http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2782.html). But Iran is a fundamentalist Islamic theocracy (http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2719) and is close to developing a nuclear weapon. As a state that denies the Holocaust (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4527142.stm), threatens to wipe out Israel (http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/archive/2005-11/2005-11-04-voa1.cfm), and funds both Hamas (http://austinbay.net/blog/?p=968)and Hezbollah (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6112036.stm). So clearly, it is in Israel's best interest to do something about it. Whether the US ought to be involved is up for debate. Some, such as Joe Lieberman, have called for US involvement (http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-joeiran0613.artjun13,0,3715082.story?coll=hc-headlines-politics), while others, most notably Reid, disagree (http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2007-06-12T062037Z_01_NOOTR_RTRMDNC_0_India-302674-1.xml). Certainly, it could be said that it is in the United States' best interest, given their alliance with Israel, the role Iran has played in Iraq, and the warning it sends to other rogue states. But it would seem that Bush has essentially decided against US involvement (http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2007/june/06_07_1.html). Naturally, this betrays promises made (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1693449,00.html) to Israel, but this is to be expected given what he did with nation building in Iraq (http://www.slate.com/id/2079496/).
In the journal International Security, Whitney Raas and Austin Long studied this problem, and published an article entitled "Osirak Redux? Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities (http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/isec.2007.31.4.7)". The 27 page article is well worth the read. But for those of you who don't want to spend the time required to read and process it, I shall summarize it. Their article studied only the probability of success and what would be required to achieve it. They concluded that though Iran has many nuclear facilities, the destruction of only three of them were critical for success: Arak, Isfahan, and Natanz. To do this, they would need twenty-four 5,000-lb. weapons and twenty-four 2,000-lb. weapons, twenty-five F-15Is and twenty-five F-16Is. Routes through Turkey, Jordan & Iraq, or Saudi Arabia were all reasonable in terms of fuel. None would likely give consent, other than possibly Iraq given US influence. (Of course, this problem could be addressed by flying along the air that borders Turkey and Syria, allowing both states to claim that Israel was flying over the other nation.*)Of course, this is not a major problem, as only 35 of the 50 planes must reach their intended targets. They conclude that it "would appear to be no more risky" than Osirak was, and that turned out to be a great success. Specifically, they conclude that Israel would have "a reasonable chance of success" on its own. And, while they do not come out and say it, they imply that following the outlined model, Israel could also take out Kharg Island, were 90% of Iran's oil exports (http://www.payvand.com/news/06/nov/1041.html) come from.
Now, the finds are quite positive. It suggests that Israel should, as one would expect given the quality of its military, do quite well without American help. However, a "reasonable chance" is not quite good enough for a matter this sensitive. The US should therefore keep this in mind and act accordingly. It is in America's interest to provide support for a joint strike with Israel, which would not be a major financial or logistical burden for either nation, and would increase the odds of success, to the benefit of both nations.
What do you think? Should Israel strike Iran's nuclear facilities? Should the United States be involved? If so, to what extent? What are the potential ramifications of such actions?
* - My idea; not part of their article.
In the journal International Security, Whitney Raas and Austin Long studied this problem, and published an article entitled "Osirak Redux? Assessing Israeli Capabilities to Destroy Iranian Nuclear Facilities (http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/isec.2007.31.4.7)". The 27 page article is well worth the read. But for those of you who don't want to spend the time required to read and process it, I shall summarize it. Their article studied only the probability of success and what would be required to achieve it. They concluded that though Iran has many nuclear facilities, the destruction of only three of them were critical for success: Arak, Isfahan, and Natanz. To do this, they would need twenty-four 5,000-lb. weapons and twenty-four 2,000-lb. weapons, twenty-five F-15Is and twenty-five F-16Is. Routes through Turkey, Jordan & Iraq, or Saudi Arabia were all reasonable in terms of fuel. None would likely give consent, other than possibly Iraq given US influence. (Of course, this problem could be addressed by flying along the air that borders Turkey and Syria, allowing both states to claim that Israel was flying over the other nation.*)Of course, this is not a major problem, as only 35 of the 50 planes must reach their intended targets. They conclude that it "would appear to be no more risky" than Osirak was, and that turned out to be a great success. Specifically, they conclude that Israel would have "a reasonable chance of success" on its own. And, while they do not come out and say it, they imply that following the outlined model, Israel could also take out Kharg Island, were 90% of Iran's oil exports (http://www.payvand.com/news/06/nov/1041.html) come from.
Now, the finds are quite positive. It suggests that Israel should, as one would expect given the quality of its military, do quite well without American help. However, a "reasonable chance" is not quite good enough for a matter this sensitive. The US should therefore keep this in mind and act accordingly. It is in America's interest to provide support for a joint strike with Israel, which would not be a major financial or logistical burden for either nation, and would increase the odds of success, to the benefit of both nations.
What do you think? Should Israel strike Iran's nuclear facilities? Should the United States be involved? If so, to what extent? What are the potential ramifications of such actions?
* - My idea; not part of their article.