Israel v Iran

The BBC has an article considering Israel’s military options against Iran designed to stop Iran’s nuclear programme. The article concentrates on bombing and missile attacks but misses one important option that Israel has, nuclear weapons. Israel is believed to have nuclear weapons and the logical weapon to use against an adversary believed intent on going nuclear would be a nuclear weapon. A nuclear weapon would do a lot more damage than any “bunker-busting” high explosive bomb and would deal with the problem of the limited carrying capacity of Israel’s planes. A further option would be to use such a weapon against the government of Iran.

We could be about to see the first use of nuclear weapons since 1945, and Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) advancing past deterrence. It all depends on how serious Israel and Iran are in this game of “chicken”. I think either or both governments are crazy enough to do such things. Both have domestic and global problems and both have leaders not shy to use violence to achieve their ends. When these two eventually attack militarily nuclear is an option.

What Russia and China, both nuclear powers, would do in response to a nuclear attack against their Iranian ally, is anyone’s guess. I would expect equipping Iran with the latest weaponry at least. That would give Iran more options for their response. I expect Iran would consider an assault across Iraq and Jordan sooner or later bringing an end to any prospects for peace in the Middle-east.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Israel v Iran

  1. There you have it. The Balkans are close to Iran and the oil could be shipped from Iran through Russia.

  2. Phenom says:

    No, Pogson, closing the Gulf won’t be good for Russia. Russia is currently working at the top of its capacity for drilling oil and gas. No wonder this winter they even reduced the supply for the Balkans for a day.

    Russians may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even they are not happy to have a mad muslim neighbor with militaristic ambitions…

  3. The pictures I have seen of Iran’s isotope separators show their installations are brittle and a good shaking would set them back years. I suspect that’s a prime objective of Israel. A delay may allow political forces in Iran to correct things. The other thing is that with nuclear weapons the soft targets are wiped so Israel may gamble that they kill the most serious opponents and infrastructure and thus reduce the motivation/ability for an attack. That would be a dangerous trade-off with increasing the motivation for revenge, however…

  4. Russia is an oil exporter. Closing the gulf would be good for them. Russia could probably take Iran’s oil over the Caspian sea or through one of the “stans”. They could trade with the Chinese…

    Oil tankers will not run where they are within range of mines, rockets, gun boats, etc. Even the USA cannot secure the straits with 100% security. Iran does have rockets that can reach many miles away such large slow targets. Even one freighter sunk would offend all the other countries of the region.

  5. Ray says:

    I don’t think that nuclear explosive will work either. These thing are buried kilometers below surface with rock. The amound to explosives needed to blow it up would end up in other countries, such as Pakistan and India, whom both have a nukes. A better solution would be to use drones and bomb the exits.

    BTW, it hasn’t been confirmed whether Isreal has nukes yet.

  6. Phenom says:

    Pogson, if Iran closes the Gulf, USA will reopen it within a week. My bet. Irans are persians, and one thing they know very well is trade. They are masters of haggle, and for a long time haggling is all Iran does. They would not resolve to actions, or they will find themselves surrounded by enemies. Russia and China both included.

  7. Andrew says:

    Since the USA bases its ‘fiat type currency’ on oil instead of gold I can’t see an attack on Israel where there seems to have unknown military, agriculture and other technologies. Also there seems to be similar talks from the neocons using the familiar verbiage used by the Bush administration just before the Sadam invasion.

    Before the Iraq invasion Sadam was threatening to undercut the Saudis.

    Kadafi was also about to wholesale oil before his demise.

    Hugo Chavez let it be known when he nationalized his country’s oil companies he intended to to do something similar and mainstream media vilified him to no end.

  8. So far, Russia and China have been vetoing resolutions in the UN Security Council and shipping weapons. It’s hard to do more vetoing but they could ship more/better weapons or break the embargoes/sanctions one way or another. An attack by Israel could well trigger that behaviour. A premonition of such an attack could trigger that behaviour. If there is a ground war between Iran and Israel, Iran’s oil may prove very useful even if they cannot sell it. They can use it themselves and they can barter it. Iran can put its entire economy on a war-footing and use that oil to power the war machine. Iran has almost 10x the population of Israel and I doubt the USA would want to get involved on the ground. Iran can close the Gulf if it wanted to do that. Iran has more than double the population of Iraq and how much trouble was Iraq? It does not matter about air-superiority if the population is against an intruder. In the Arab world, USA and Israel are seen as intruders.

  9. Phenom says:

    Russia is not that fond of Iran. Recent years Russia is having increasing trouble with Muslims in its own country. Neither are they too happy to have a rather strong Muslim neighbour, who happens also to be their direct competitor on the oil export market.

    China would never, ever take serious counter-actions against their biggest markets – USA and EU. All they do is petty haggling.

  10. One story has Iran’s bunkers being hundreds of metres under rock. Conventional explosives might only spill the tea. Any less decisive attack might only spur the Iranians to greater efforts. The fact that they have built stuff under rock suggests they are very determined.

  11. lightpriest says:

    Using a nuclear bomb to destroy a facility is like having a sledgehammer for a plumber.

Leave a Reply