« A Bit of Original Reporting from a Fellow Congregant
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger Embraces The Bipartisan Political Center »
Report Says Israel Considering Tactical Nukes To Destroy Iran Nukes
Once again, reports are surfacing about Israel seriously considering a strike to take out Iran’s facilities that could pose a nuclear threat — this time from the Times Online that says contingency plans are now on the drawing boards.
The difference this time: the report says Israel is considering using tactical nuclear weapons to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat.
Important? Yes. Deserving of breathless reporting and SCREECHING HEADLINES? No. Not yet, at least.
Because this issue — what Israel will do given unabashed verbal threats from Iran’s leadership to eliminate it from the face of the earth — has been the subject of reports from time to time with unnamed sources saying Israel will not sit back and do nothing.
The latest report follows the pattern of previous ones that might not have been as precise as this report, again using unnamed sources — a fact that does not reduce the story’s legitimacy or potential accuracy. It’s the tactical nukes part that’s new. Some excerpts:
ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters�, according to several Israeli military sources.
The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.
This is a kind of “high concept” story where the first impression is of Israeli planes dropping nukes on Iran to wipe out the Iranian nation’s nuclear capability. However, the story — written by the paper’s correspondents in New York and Washington (suggesting the sources may be diplomatic) — makes it clear the plan calls for precision bombing:
Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels� into the targets. “Mini-nukes� would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,� said one of the sources.
The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.
Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.
This veracity of this story is impossible to confirm. True, the sourcing could be good, informed sourcing. But there are often other motives for sources to leak a sensational, headline-grabbing story: for instance, sending a message to Tehran or even a message to policy makers in Washington that Tel Aviv’s patience in listening to Iranian officials say how Israel is on borrowed time won’t be tolerated forever. It’s an interesting now-it-can-be-told piece but so far it is notably being trumpeted by the major news agencies or running as front page banner headlines on newspapers or at the top of news broadcasts…and that’s for a reason. It could be accurate, it could be a political trial balloon and it could be speculation.
Speculation is rampant on Iran, much of it quite thoughtful. For instance, this excellent roundup in The Glittering Eye over the upcoming promotion of Adm. William Fallon as new CENTCOM commander notes that one theory is that he’s being given the plum post because he’d be a perfect person in command if there’s some kind of military action against Iran.
Yet, even there breathless headline writers might be advised to take a nice, deep Yoga breath: recent reports say the military has made it known that it already feels stretched to the limit as President George W. Bush prepares to announce a “surge” (a word used politically to avoid the word “escalation”) in troops to Iraq.
Would the administration seriously consider a military action against Iran, or playing mop-up in the wake of a firestorm set off by an Israeli military action, if it’s stretched to the limit squeezing American resources to bolster the Iraq war effort?
THAT’S JUST OUR VIEW. HERE IS A CROSS-SECTION OF SOME OTHERS:
–Larisa Alexandrovna sees reason for alarm over the probably U.S. and Israeli intent: “Our carriers are nearly in position as are nearly all the key players and pieces. Israel, as it turns out, will be the proxy element through which the US will spread nuclear democracy across Iran. We are screwed and Israelis are screwed while our two extremist, rogue governments are leading the planet into disaster. Forget the horsemen of the apocalypse.” Another quote:” If Israel really wanted to avoid a second Holocaust (and as a Jew I have some personal interest in this myself obviously), then Israel needs to stop being a client state for US interests and playing friendly with people who were in fact protectors of the Nazis and their ratline.”
–Power Line has some more questions about the sources’ motives: “The Times’ article purports to be based on information from Israeli and American sources. So the obvious question is, what lies behind the apparent leaks? Are they sanctioned by the Israeli government, perhaps with a view toward deterring Iran’s further weapons development? Do they come from renegade sources who want pressure brought to bear on the Israelis not to carry out a military mission? Or are the leaks some other kind of misdirection intended to confuse Iran?”
–Pajamas Media has questions on sources’ motives as well: “Pajamas Media wants to know why Israeli military sources would leak this information now.”
–Brilliant At Breakfast: “Wanna see the American economy collapse too? Then grab your popcorn, because if the U.K. Times Online is right, that’s what we’re going to see…It kind of adds a new dimension to the fact that John McCain and Joe Lieberman are attached at the hip AND complete supporters of the Bush Madness, doesn’t it?”
–Wizbang’s MUST READ has a ton of links on this issue.
–Seven Stripes: “I could only hope Israel would muster the strength to carry out a military operation against Ahmadinejad and his nuclear ambitions, considering the plethora of verbal threats against Israel over the past year or two. Then again, one must wonder whether the revelation of these “secretâ€? plans is a deliberate attempt by Israel to scare the Iranians via concocted misinformation….I cannot believe that this highly sensitive information would be reported unless Israel’s full desires were that it be disclosed as a warning to Iran against it’s continued pursuit of nuclear arms.”
My gut tells me that – based on how things have gone the last year or so — (what with Olmert pansy-assing out against Hizballah, and Bush failing to get tough enough against NOKO, IRAN or ASSAD or Mookie al Sadr) – — that nobody on the our side HAS BALLS BIG ENOUGH TO NUKE IRAN. Which is sorta what the mullahs are counting on. Arik Sharon had big enough balls. And so did FDR and Truman and Churchill. So you are right Popinjay: this is probably PR/BS designed to send Iran a signal. One they will snicker about and ignore.
21 Responses to “Report Says Israel Considering Tactical Nukes To Destroy Iran Nukes”
“that nobody on the our side HAS BALLS BIG ENOUGH TO NUKE IRAN”
We’ll that is a good sign. I can’ think of a more displaceable act then the preemptive use of nuclear weapons. As I understand it, Iran has not broken one line of any treaty they have ever signed. This entire escalation comes at the request of Israel who, I guess, wants to be the only country in the Middle East to have nuclear weapons and wants to keep their ability to terrorize unconditionally. But of course, there is not a single piece of evidence that Iran is making nuclear weapons. Not one piece. So, why is it the US and Israel get to decide who has nuclear power in their countries? Maybe God picked them to rule the world? Hummm..Which country is crazier, Evangelical USA, Orthodox Extremist Israel or Koran reading Iran? All guided by fanatical followers of fairy tales.
The targets in Iran are at extreme range [for F15/F16] and the flight path is either over Saudi Arabia and through US controlled airspace in the gulf or over Iraq, and again in US controlled airspace. Also if the attacking aircraft had to drop tanks to engage enemy aircraft they will need to be refueled in order to return, somewhere over Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Bottom line, in order for the attack to take place Israel will have to get our approval, I don’t know if they can get it. Israel has purchased bunker busting bombs from us recently but from what I understand those bombs would not penetrate the hardened sites used for the Iranian nuclear facilities.
1 – a preemptive use of nukes by us against them is preferable to a preemptive use of them by them against us.
2 – a preemptive strike which did NOT neutralize their sites would be HORRIFIC. ONLY a successful strike would have ANY positives. and the ONLY way to guarantee a successful strike is to use several small tactical nukes.
i think this would be the right thing to do. i think FDR and truman would do it if they were potus now.
neither bush or olmert has shown me that they “got” one tenth the cujones of fdr on his worst day.
more people died in the conventional fire-bombings in japan than the nukes. and it took two to get them to surrender. the first did NOT do it. and the nukes saved more lives than they took. an invasion would have killed more “japs.” MY POINT: we shouldn’t be shy of using nukes. we never forswore first use during the cold war.
we mustn’t forswear first use now.
THANKS FOR THE LINK!
all the best!
peace thru unconditional victory!
The Cold War Doctrine was Mutually Assured Destruction, which is all about dissuading first use. If you’re so eager to cheer on Armageddon, at least start from a realistic basis. Of course we should be “shy of using nukes.” To suggest otherwise is repulsive.
Armageddon? As a result of specific strikes against nuclear sites? What a bunch of nonsense. Nothing will happen. People will get angry, but that will be about it. Israel will not – IF it’s going to do this – throw nuclear bombs all over Iran: it will be very specific. It will not destroy Iran, nor will it cause lots of people to be infected by radiation.
That being said, it doesn’t seem very likely to me. I think that IF Israel strikes, it will NOT use nuclear mini weapons. Probably just conventional weapons.
On the other hand… Israel is completely right of course. Iran with WMD’s cannot be accepted. This means that Israel has to be absolutely sure that the nuclear sites will be destroyed.
“People will get angry, but that will be about it.’ Yeah like Shiites in Iraq, think of the insurgency on steroids and a Maliki government handing weapons over to Sadr. And to top it off with the time that Iran has had to prepare for a strike there is no guarantee that you have taken out their ability to produce weapons, they have already taken what counter measures they can as far as dispersing equipment and reinforcing bunkers.
I wish this were true but it isn’t. The main reason being as said above, that nobody on our side has the balls to do it. Here is some background on the author of the story from Honestreporting’s backspin blog:
First and foremost – one must consider the source of this story. The Sunday Times journalist in question Uzi Mahnaimi, is a controversial figure, who co-authored a book with Bassam Abu Sharif, former senior adviser to Yasser Arafat and PLO press officer.
While some may believe he has actual military sources in Israel who use him to leak stories that won’t make it past censors, others think he is used by foreign agents to push stories that embarrass Israel. Still others go farther, calling him unprintable names and charging that that despite the fact he works for a mainstream British newspaper, his sources makes Jamil Hussein look like the White House press secretary.
Actually… To get “ALL NUKESâ€? out of the Middle East we’d have to call home the navy and use our bunker busters to take out the foreign owned ones built with American plans and American plutonium.
Maybe then the other countries in the area wouldn’t be quite as worried about matching their advisories ‘tit for tat’.
Are you nuts? If the first use of nuclear weapons since Nagasaki is an unprovoked attack by Israel against a Muslim nation they’d prove to the Muslim world that Israel with WMD’s cannot be accepted. Every neighbor of Israel would start developing these weapons. OBL will have won the propaganda war and recruiting for Al Qaeda will skyrocket. And of course, they’d have legitimized the use of nuclear weapons, either by proving that they’re just a bigger bomb or that massive attacks are acceptible.
There’s no guarantee that Israel has “precision” nukes. No guarantee that they’ll be able to dig them deep enough into the ground that most of the radiation won’t escape. And of course, no evidence that the Israeli government would care if it did. If they’ve really gotten to the point where they’d cavalierly use weapons that they’ve denied having for decades we’re in serious trouble. Using the fear of these same weapons as a justification would be quite ironic.
I get tired of the Israel is completely right argument. I seem to remember you making the same case for their attacks on Beirut. That bungle ended up as a major victory for Hezbollah and Israel achieved none of its goals in that fiasco.
Nuking Iran would drag the U.S. into a fight with Iran and our soldiers in Iraq would be taking shots from all sides, instead of just from the Sunnis. Any nation that drags us into their wars is no ally.
“m” shows us once again the utter moral bankrupsy of the left. In his or her alternate reality, Iran is the civilized, law-abiding good guy, whereas the U.S. and Israel are the evil, rogue terror states. No matter that not only has Iran actually threatened to wipe Israel out, but it represses, brutalizes and kills its own people. Why is it that Israel and not Iran should have nuclear weapons? The answer should be obvious to anyone who isn’t morally depraved, and is able to differentiate between a civilized, free, democratic country and a rogue terror state run by fanatical mullahas awaiting the coming of the hidden imam.
steven k, America has not built any nuclear plants in the Middle East.
Some points of fact.
1) The bunker busters sold to Israel are conventional, not nukes. They would have to modify the US BB’s to nukes.
2) Iran has signed NPT and only produced grams of U235. They are years away from crude gun type weapons.
3) The radical Pakistanis many stage a coup and respond to an Israelis nuke attack. For the victims of the Hitler to unleash nukes against another is irony on steriods.
This is just saber ratlling, if Israel does this all Moderate Arab states would have to worry about an Islamic rebellion.
Laura, I didn’t say “American Built”… I said “American plans and American plutonium.” Two very different statements.
Besides… it’s – again – not going to happen people. At least, it seems very, very unlikely to me.
You’re right Michael, I hope.
However, seeing comments from moderate bloggers that seem to give justify (some even seeming to promote) a premptive nuclear strike on a soverign nation based on nothing more than rumor and fear should make us all sit up and look at what we’re saying and doing. We’re the adults… Right?
There are rumors Israel might nuke Iran – and people actually think that’s a good idea??
Based on nothing but rumors that Iran might be developing nuclear weapons – not even that they have any, or are anywhere near having any, but just the possibility that Iran is enriching uranium?
OK, I won’t bother with the moral/ethical arguments against. It’s like the torture debate: people who support nuking another country have already decided they don’t care about that.
So, as with the torture debate, let’s try utilitarian argument.
First, does Israel know exactly where those alleged nuclear weapon development sites are? Because “pinpoint” nukes will only be effective if they do. As a cautionary note, I refer interested parties to last summer’s war in Lebanon as a sign that Israeli intelligence isn’t quite up to its vaunted reputation. As further cautionary notes, that’s in contrast to the 1981 strike on Iraq’s nuclear weapon development facility, when Israel did know exactly what to hit, and didn’t use nukes.
Also, as with calls for the US to bomb Iran, the people calling for Israel to nuke Iran have this really insane notion that there won’t be serious consequences, or that if there are, only Israel will suffer them. The first notion is laughably stupid, esp. since the Arab world already thinks the US is making war on Islam AND already thinks Israel is nothing more than a US catspaw. There is no way Israel could nuke Iran and not have the entire Arab world blame the US. As to the second notion: isn’t it a trifle disingenuous to say Israel “must” nuke Iran for its own protection and then say, if there are any consequences, it won’t have anything to do with the US and too bad for Israel?
Finally, people who think nuking Iran is a good idea are also the people who think we’re in a global war with Islam. We’re not. But nuking Iran is a great way to ensure that we wind up in one. Any guess what Pakistan might do in that situation?
Also, I’ve got news for y’all: being the country that encouraged/connived with another one to nuke a nation that hasn’t invaded anyone, that no one was at war with, that has not been proven to have nukes, and that hasn’t violated any treaties it’s signed… might not bring the rest of the world in on our side.
First there is evidence not just rumor about Iran trying to develop nukes. They may not be but they decided to go about their “energy” production in a way that deliberatly leaves open the possibility of nuclear weapon production. Was is for nukes, for the payoffs they hoped to extort, just to scare the crap out of people? I don’t know. To say there is no evidence is absurd in the extreem. There is no proof but there is lots of evidence Iran made sure of that.
Is there this ‘evidence’ Eric? Would you please provide a link to a government agency, ANY government agency, to verify this?
AND?
So with do you or do you not think a preemptive NUCLEAR attack on Iran is warrented?
Should have read: So with what you know… do you, or do you not, think a preemptive NUCLEAR attack on Iran is warrented?
Test photo insert or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb
The B61-11 ‘mini-nuke’ bunker-buster is a hydrogen bomb. Hydrogen bombs use a ‘fusion’ reaction unlike atomic bombs which use ‘fission’. H-bombs leave less radioactive fallout The B61-11 has an adjustable yield (.3KTs to 300 KTs) and can be set so that the blast from the explosion mainly goes in one direction- in the shape of a cone. Set at the base of a building pointing down would be one way to take out the core columns. The neutron radiation vaporizes steel, pulverizes concrete, creating a pyroclastic flow much akin to a volcano destroying most evidence. Continuos spraying of water over Ground Zero will reduce levels of radiation over weeks. Nukes have already been used aginst the American people. They were used in conjunction with thermate cutting charges to demolish all three WTC towers an 9/11. WTC-1 and WTC-2 had asbestos fire-retardant on the beams. It was gonna cost a billion bucks to remove it. Larry Silverstein told the world that they “…made the decision to pull-it and we watch the building collapse…” Seismic records show gigantic spikes just before each towers collapse. These spikes are consistent with subterranean nuclear blasts.