Obama and the Israeli ‘nuclear shield’ option
Much has been made of the report that Obama has offered to give Israel a ‘nuclear shield’ as a defence against likely Iranian nuclear attacks. I was asked to give my opinion in email to this issue and thought I would post the report and my answer here. I would very much welcome in comments any of your thoughts to this issue. How you guys feel about Iran’s ambitions and what the best courses of action might be.
First the report and comments from the MSM then my response then hopefully some of yours…
U.S.-ISRAEL COLLISION
Published on TheHill.com on December 16, 2008With the election of Barack Obama, the United States has moved dramatically to the left in its foreign policy at just the time that Israel, which seems likely to return Bibi Netanyahu to office in early February, is moving to the right. A collision is almost inevitable.
Caroline Glick, the highly astute conservative columnist for the Jerusalem Post, writes that the “international community” believes that Obama “will move quickly to place massive pressure on the next Israeli government to withdraw from Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in the interests of advancing a ‘peace process’ with the Palestinians and the Syrians.” She notes that “people who have been in close contact with Obama’s foreign policy transition team have privately acknowledged that the widespread belief that Obama will move swiftly to put the screws on Israel is fully justified. According to one source who has spent a great deal of time with the transition team since last month’s U.S. elections, Obama’s people are ’scope-locked’ on Israel.”
Meanwhile, in Israel, there is a growing consensus, reflected in public opinion surveys, that trading land for peace is a chimera. Netanyahu points out that “we do not have a viable partner with whom to negotiate peace.” The Palestinian Authority does not speak for the people of either Gaza or the West Bank, and Hamas, which probably does (it won the election), does not want to be a party to any peace agreement. Recent experience suggests that Hamas will quickly install rocket launchers on any territory Israel concedes, using it not as a basis for peace, but as a platform from which to kill more Jews.
Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the candidates of the left, Labor’s Ehud Barak and Kadima’s Tzipi Livni, are deeply committed to land for peace. Their rejection by the Israeli electorate — the anticipated outcome of the Feb. 10 election — will signal a bold departure in the political consensus of the Jewish state, a consensus that flies directly in the face of Obama’s likely policy.
The difference between the U.S. and Israel also extends to the realm of how strongly they oppose Iranian development of nuclear weapons. While Iran moves closer and closer to a bomb that could and will be used against Israel, Obama speaks of extending the American “nuclear umbrella” to cover Israel.
Reading between the lines, this means that he doesn’t think he can stop Iranian nuclear ambitions and will retreat to a policy of deterrence, accepting a nuclear Iran in the bargain.
If Netanyahu wins the election, he will bring with him a determination to stop Iranian nuclear weapons, no matter what, and a refusal to concede more territory in the name of the peace process. But Obama’s foreign policy team will be focusing on pushing Israel in just the opposite direction.
The result is likely to be the most significant divergence between Israeli and American policies since 1956, when President Eisenhower sided with the Arabs to halt the British-French-Israeli invasion of Suez.
The United States has tremendous leverage over Israel — military, financial and political. And Obama’s ability to carry the Jewish vote by a wide margin despite his likely Middle East policy makes him largely immune to the kind of political pressure that has disciplined American presidents in the past and forced them to incline toward accommodating Israeli views on the Middle East.
But Israel probably has the military capacity to bomb Iran and to win the Middle East war against Syria, Hamas, Iran and Hezbollah that is likely to result. Unlike Olmert, Netanyahu will use ground troops right off the bat and will fight such a war to win and to win big. But they may have to do it without their strongest ally: the United States.
Although I didn’t deal with every aspect of this article, itself a kind of ‘chimera’ I did focus on the issue of Iran the US and Israel….
some of this is good but like most stuff I read on the matter it seems under informed.
I so far at least do not see Obama’s admin as fundamentally different than Bush’s.There are strong rumors of Obama offering to set up a ‘nuclear umbrella’ for Israel but in fact there is already a US base operating an ABM site and has been for some time albeit a ’secret’ one so Obama’s offer is nothing at all new.
What’s worth looking at is the idea that the US strategy is one of defense of Israel to Iranian nuclear missiles as opposed to preventing Iran from developing these weapons. It would appear that Iran will develop the capability for a nuclear device if they have not already done so and may in the coming years be able to develop an actual deliverable weapon.
Let’s put ourselves in the position of Iran for a moment…
We have a massive economic crisis. For the first time we are issuing debt bonds, something we are normally opposed to as an instrument. We use Islam as the tie that binds for a large number of disparate groups within Iran. The negative focus is the USA and Israel to try and keep our people united despite massive poverty and growing oppression at home. Our budget is based on a minimum USD $60.00 per barrel oil price and Iran’s crappy oil cannot get over $30.00 $PB at the moment and probably less, so Iran is sliding into more and more debt.
should we decide to go ahead with expensive nuclear weapons programs the thing to do would be distract the world with new missile tests and purchases from Russia and then build a shitty primitive nuclear device aboard a large ship and detonate it off the coast of Israel while everyone is busy with super high tech missile defense systems.
this is what I would do if I was Iran.
I tend to agree that any attempt to eradicate Iran’s program is probably not practical. It would mean a rapid end to the Obama admin for one thing. He would have to use all his political capitol up as it would be a near impossible sell at home if indeed it was even possible logistically. There is no point in destroying the facilities. You have to kill the people with the know how. This means you would have to have a surprise attack in order to be effective as the equipment is cheap and easily replaced and wouldn’t set the program back much at all. Chances are they have a lot of U235 available and ready now. The scarce resource is the technicians who have the know how to actually do anything with it.Iran has been somewhat masterful at deception and stalling. Its a safe bet most of what we know is a dodge. The chinese bomb design is likely not what they are making. a simple U235 bomb needing a minimal of know how is probably what they are going for and it would be easy to construct this aboard a ship. something the size of Hiroshima bomb, maybe 15 or 20 kilotons would do to destroy Tel Aviv or more likely if they could, launch it high enough to create an EMP which would effectively set Israel back to pre 1900s technology and make it easy pickings for ground forces.
In any of these cases I find the analysis I see of Obama’s offer of a Nuclear shield to be lacking in decent information. It isn’t new and it doesn’t tell us anything we need to know.
If there is an attack on Iran’s facilities planned, as I said it would have to be a surprise. So the more we hear about one the less likely it is to happen.
More meaningfully the bickering over ABM systems for central Europe are indicators that the US is planning to defend against Iranian missiles as opposed to ending Iran’s capability to acquire them.
This seems to me a more telling example of US policy. That they are ready to incur Russia’s wrath for a system most definitely intended to defend against Iranian threats to Europe.
I think at this point it would do nothing more than create a huge mess to try and destroy Iran’s nuclear equipment and, as stated, if you don’t get the technicians that Iran has in an attack then you really aren’t doing much good. I think we either prepare for a nuclear Iran or just wipe out Iran completely. Which would you rather do at this point in the game? I certainly hope that the Obama administration does not abandon Israel in its time of need, as it were. And we must also think of the possibility of Russia attacking Israel if Israel takes out or attacks Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Israel needs the United States as a friend now more than ever I think.
Comment by James Rochelle — December 19, 2008 @ 4:15 am
This is a well drawn and fascinating analysis therefore, being the blogosphere, I am going to quibble over a minor point.
There are strong rumors of Obama offering to set up a ‘nuclear umbrella’ for Israel but in fact there is already a US base operating an ABM site and has been for some time albeit a ’secret’ one so Obama’s offer is nothing at all new.
I am afraid the latter assertion does not follow from the reported rumour. The American nuclear umbrella is retaliatory, not preventive. What incoming President Obama has reportedly offered is to extend the benefits of nuclear retaliation against a nuclear attack by Iran (it is not clear if this would extend to any mass casualty WMD attack, as is the current American policy in its own defence). This is not the same thing as a ballistic missile defence shield meant to prevent an attack from succeeding. Both provide an umbrella of sorts as each provides a form of deterrence.
The trouble is not that Israel is already protected by an American nuclear umbrella, the trouble is that - unlike, say, Canada or Japan - Israel has no need to call upon American nuclear deterrence as Israel is widely known to be a nuclear armed power itself (Japan does not have nuclear weapons of its own and Canada stopped purchasing nuclear weapons from the United States after 1984). If reports of the Samson Option are to be believed, every power hostile toward Israel has already been informed of the consequences of a catastrophic attack. Obama’s offer, therefore, is for a deterrent Israel already possesses.
Worse yet, of course, is the fact that the Samson Option may pose no deterrent to Iran’s Twelver government. Mutually assured destruction was an effective strategic response to a Soviet superpower governed by nominal atheists with only one life to lose. It holds no fear for jihadis to whom martyrdom is not a bug but a feature of their strategic thinking.
Comment by Flea — December 19, 2008 @ 6:53 am
A wise person never underestimates his enemy, nor does he count on his friends very much.
There is so much flux in our interrelations will all the verious parties here. Iran, basicly is a sound country somewhat run by a mini madman. How much longer will he hold power, and what his true athority is… speculation. Israel is facing an election that may swing that country far right or far left. Land for peace, or nothing for nothing. Flux. Obama hasn’t really shown his hand, for he might not even know what his hand is yet. It really depends on who around him has the most influence over him. I don’t believe he has any pure thought on any of this. Time will tell.
Comment by Big Al — December 19, 2008 @ 8:07 am
Nuke Iran’s Nuke weapons facility at the soonest opportunity or stop pissing in the wind about peace in the ME. Iran is the destabilizing joker in the flimsy house of cards ME power equilibrium.
It would also send a message to trigger-happy Putin and KJ-II that the US will not allow mental foamers to diddle with the global nuke balance and will act decisively and swiftly when threats to the balance are flaunted for political leverage.
Comment by WL Mackenzie Redux — December 19, 2008 @ 9:44 am
James R well, as Iran was and maybe still is peopled by more or less secular and western friendly Persians who where tricked by the Islamics into a revolution they had no idea what they where getting into, I guess its prepare for a nuclear Iran. It may be a false dichotomy however. The other option may be to follow the Bush doctrine as laid out in ‘The Case For Democracy’ by Natan Sharanski. The idea being you encourage a genuine revolt against tyranny by those who live there. I think it could work in Iran and be relatively cheap and long term. So the third option is probably the way to go.
Flea: Agreed wholesale. Israel also has “Iron Dome” its own version of ABM as well as Israel has developed a rather clever small vehicle version of the Aegis system called Iron Fist. And yes the nuclear deterrent Obama is offering is largely a rhetorical weapon for the rest of us as its doubtful MAD has any value to the mad mullah’s as you say. On the quibbling front I suspect that Canada and Japan use a model one might call ‘X weeks out’ meaning that under any given set of circumstances, each nation has the parts shelved so to speak for nuclear weapons and can be in a given state of readiness as they need. So when things get worse, they can move from 8 weeks away from weapon to 3 weeks away and so on. I have no doubts that output from reactors in both nations are always being reprocessed for fresh weapons materials and the parts are being machined at all times. Its likely just about assembly.
Big all also great comments. I believe the land for peace deal would better be called “The land for nothing deal” as it should be crystal clear from Oslo by now that giving up land just creates better locations from which to fire increasingly powerful missiles towards Israeli positions.
WL Macenzie Redux: Iran has over 2000 locations where their various facilities are buried. Nuking them means obliterating Iran utterly. Rumor has it that the US is developing weapons capable of burying themselves deep in the ground before they explode. This is likely a specific weapon to deal with Iran. Iran learned a lot from the Israeli take out of the Iraqui facility. De localize. This is a very dificult military proposition. The logistics of thousands and thousands of sorties on Iran’s locations and equipment requires the use of Iraqi air space and a lot of men and equipment. Very had to do secretly.
Thanks everyone great comments. I hope lots more come.
Comment by James Cohen — December 19, 2008 @ 1:22 pm
[...] OBAMA & THE ISRAELI ‘nuclear shield’ option …. [...]
Pingback by Steynian 299 « Free Canuckistan! — December 20, 2008 @ 5:09 pm