Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

[BadJuju]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

This can't go on forever or Israel faces an existential threat worse than a nuclear Iran: Israel's enemies may decide Israel is a paper tiger and act accordingly.

This is what starts wars.

That doesn't really make sense from my perspective, though. Israel has proven time and time again that they are not paper tigers. They have won every war they have engaged in. And furthermore, they have the Samson Doctrine which would ensure that if any invasion managed to overcome Israel's conventional forces, it would be obliterated and so would the respective country.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

It's easy to over-think these things.

Why did the US invade Iraq when it did?

So many theories.

For the oil. To avenge Bush Sr. And so on.

But the timing. Why then?

Quite simply because Saddam Hussein had thumbed his nose at the US one time too many in a politically charged atmosphere after 9/11.

The US had threatened Saddam repeatedly, but nothing happened.

The military re-eminence of the US cannot be challenged without a response or the US risks being perceived by its enemies as a paper tiger.

When the US attack finally came Saddam was quite obviously unprepared as indicated by his rural hole in the ground hiding place.

Israel threatens and in response rather than back down Iran increases nuclear program activity in full public view.

This can't go on forever or Israel faces an existential threat worse than a nuclear Iran: Israel's enemies may decide Israel is a paper tiger and act accordingly.

This is what starts wars.

I definitely take that point onboard.

But I also wonder how much weight is being given BY Israel TO Israel's perception as a global pariah and apartheid state in the views of many?

I may be going off on a slight tangent here......but the iTulip way is trends over trades isn't it?

The demographics of Israel look problematic for Israel in a global diplomatic sense don't they?

IF I'm understanding the population figures for Israel and the Palestinian Territories correctly(possibility of double counting) there's approx. 5.5 million Israeli Jews and approximately 5.2 million Palestinians/Muslims all living under the auspices of the Jewish state of thru annexed/military controlled territory.

It would appear Jews are already the minority in the combined Israeli State and controlled territories.

It would also appear that with relative birth rates(even factoring in Aliyah...Law of Return such as Soviet/Ethiopian/American Jews) Israeli Jews appear to be clearly losing the demographic war even though they've won all the military battles.

Could Israel be close to a demographic inflection point that could place Israel under increasing and oblique counterattack claims of apartheid?

Has Israel not already used it's demographic Q1 and Q2 in the form of Soviet/Ethiopian/US Jews as one-offs to augment it's demographic capital base?

Does Israel have a demographic Q3 left in reserve to counter it?

Rhodesia and South Africa WON every single major(and nearly every minor) military engagement in the military war, but they both lost the political war.

I wonder how much of a genuine existential threat to Israel this demographic trend represents compared to the more immediate nuclear Iran trade?

And how much of a factor will this have on Israeli leadership decision making process?

I've read recently some folks mentioning a Persian antecedent to Poker called As-nas.......but it sounds like the connection between As-nas and Poker is tenuous at best.

However the game of Chess seems to have more clearly worked it's way from India to Persia then onto the rest of the world.

[jk]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

i believe the demographic argument is being used strongly in the internal debate over the occupied territories. i assume it played at least some role in the decision to abandon gaza.

[porter]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

It's easy to over-think these things.

Why did the US invade Iraq when it did?

So many theories.

For the oil. To avenge Bush Sr. And so on.

But the timing. Why then?

Quite simply because Saddam Hussein had thumbed his nose at the US one time too many in a politically charged atmosphere after 9/11.

The US had threatened Saddam repeatedly, but nothing happened.

The military re-eminence of the US cannot be challenged without a response or the US risks being perceived by its enemies as a paper tiger.

When the US attack finally came Saddam was quite obviously unprepared as indicated by his rural hole in the ground hiding place.

Israel threatens and in response rather than back down Iran increases nuclear program activity in full public view.

This can't go on forever or Israel faces an existential threat worse than a nuclear Iran: Israel's enemies may decide Israel is a paper tiger and act accordingly.

This is what starts wars.

Romney said in an interview Sunday on Meet the Press the following regarding Iran:

The president has not drawn us further away from a nuclear Iran," he said. "In fact, Iran is closer to having a weapon, closer to having nuclear capability than when he took office." Romney said he'd use "every option" to prevent Iran from advancing. "We need to use every resource we have to dissuade them from their nuclear path," he said. "But that doesn't mean that we would take off the table our military option. That's something which certainly every American would hope we would never have to use. But we have to maintain it on the table or Iran will, undoubtedly, continue their treacherous course.

Does this mean that if Obama is elected then Israel will strike Iran, and if Romney is elected then Israel will hold off?


On a side note, Romney also mentions around the 18 minute mark in his interview that he wouldn't balance the budget until his second term because he believes that cutting spending that much in the first term would hurt the economy. Does this change your position that republican austerity could be a potential trigger for the next recession?

[FRED]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

It's easy to over-think these things.

Why did the US invade Iraq when it did?

So many theories.

For the oil. To avenge Bush Sr. And so on.

But the timing. Why then?

Quite simply because Saddam Hussein had thumbed his nose at the US one time too many in a politically charged atmosphere after 9/11.

The US had threatened Saddam repeatedly, but nothing happened.

The military re-eminence of the US cannot be challenged without a response or the US risks being perceived by its enemies as a paper tiger.

When the US attack finally came Saddam was quite obviously unprepared as indicated by his rural hole in the ground hiding place.

Israel threatens and in response rather than back down Iran increases nuclear program activity in full public view.

This can't go on forever or Israel faces an existential threat worse than a nuclear Iran: Israel's enemies may decide Israel is a paper tiger and act accordingly.

This is what starts wars.

This just in:

Israeli expert: Iran already a nuclear power, but can’t deliver a bomb

Professor Uzi Even believes Tehran has covertly created enough highly enriched uranium for a successful underground test. But it is several years shy of being able to deploy a weapon, he says, and should not be targeted

Professor Uzi Even, one of the founders of Israel’s nuclear reactor in Dimona, has a history of being correct about foreign countries’ nuclear capacities.

In 1969, after six years of service at the Nuclear Research Center Negev, he wrote a paper estimating when India would be able to conduct its first underground nuclear test. Then a doctoral candidate in physics at Tel Aviv University, Even came up with a document, distributed far and wide in the relevant circles, that gave a specific date five years ahead — in the spring of 1974. He was three weeks off the mark.

Even was also deeply involved in Israeli assessments of Saddam Hussein’s reactor at Osirak, drawing conclusions that remain controversial to this day — of which more later.

Most recently, Even privately studied two new nuclear programs in the Middle East. The first, in Dir a-Zur, Syria, was a sophisticated and isolated “plutogenic reactor par excellence,” he said, and “without any doubt, it had to be destroyed. And I am glad that it was” (by Israel, according to foreign reports in 2007).

The second, in Iran, is a different story. In a recent interview with The Times of Israel, Even said that he had no doubt about Iran’s intention to create a nuclear arsenal. As opposed to Saddam’s Iraq, he said, the Iranians have gone about the pursuit of man’s most deadly weapon in an extremely sophisticated manner — by sectioning the operation and advancing in stages.

Even believes that the regime has already, covertly, created the 20-25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium necessary to conduct a successful underground test. In fact, in contrast to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s August 30 report, which stated that Iran has 189 kilograms of partially enriched uranium fuel — inadequate for a nuclear explosion — Even believes that the regime has already, covertly, created the 20-25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium necessary to conduct a successful underground test. In other words, he believes Iran is already a nuclear power. more...

[Bundi]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

This just in:

Israeli expert: Iran already a nuclear power, but can’t deliver a bomb

Professor Uzi Even believes Tehran has covertly created enough highly enriched uranium for a successful underground test. But it is several years shy of being able to deploy a weapon, he says, and should not be targeted

Professor Uzi Even, one of the founders of Israel’s nuclear reactor in Dimona, has a history of being correct about foreign countries’ nuclear capacities.

In 1969, after six years of service at the Nuclear Research Center Negev, he wrote a paper estimating when India would be able to conduct its first underground nuclear test. Then a doctoral candidate in physics at Tel Aviv University, Even came up with a document, distributed far and wide in the relevant circles, that gave a specific date five years ahead — in the spring of 1974. He was three weeks off the mark.

Even was also deeply involved in Israeli assessments of Saddam Hussein’s reactor at Osirak, drawing conclusions that remain controversial to this day — of which more later.

Most recently, Even privately studied two new nuclear programs in the Middle East. The first, in Dir a-Zur, Syria, was a sophisticated and isolated “plutogenic reactor par excellence,” he said, and “without any doubt, it had to be destroyed. And I am glad that it was” (by Israel, according to foreign reports in 2007).

The second, in Iran, is a different story. In a recent interview with The Times of Israel, Even said that he had no doubt about Iran’s intention to create a nuclear arsenal. As opposed to Saddam’s Iraq, he said, the Iranians have gone about the pursuit of man’s most deadly weapon in an extremely sophisticated manner — by sectioning the operation and advancing in stages.

Even believes that the regime has already, covertly, created the 20-25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium necessary to conduct a successful underground test. In fact, in contrast to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s August 30 report, which stated that Iran has 189 kilograms of partially enriched uranium fuel — inadequate for a nuclear explosion — Even believes that the regime has already, covertly, created the 20-25 kilograms of highly enriched uranium necessary to conduct a successful underground test. In other words, he believes Iran is already a nuclear power. more...

Interesting article. Thanks Fred.

It generates as many or more questions than it answers.

...But crucially, he said that Iran — in thus far choosing the scientifically less challenging track of producing a solely uranium-based nuclear explosive device, based on the prototype provided by Pakistan’s A. Q. Khan — remains several years shy of being able to deploy a weapon.
The main obstacle in the Iranians’ path, Even said, is weight. Uranium is five times heavier than plutonium. Creating a nuclear warhead and winnowing down the complex infrastructure necessary to detonate it effectively — to, say, the one-ton maximum payload of Iran’s best ballistic missile, the Shahab-3 — “requires sophistication that neither Iran nor Pakistan have.”

Iran is well aware of this limitation. In article 30 of the IAEA’s most recent report, the director general mentions that the Iranians are planning to begin operating a plutonium-based reactor in the third quarter of 2013, in Arak. Progress on that reactor, Even said, and its march toward operability — forming the plutonium needed for a single bomb would take one year from the moment the facility was working properly — was the true sand in the hourglass."

...Iran has not yet actively pursued the plutonium extraction method. The process of creating plutonium — a substance not found in any significant quantity in nature — is complex and currently beyond the capability of the Iranians. Still, Even said he does not “belittle” their abilities and he was concerned by the IAEA report indicating that the reactor in Arak would begin operations in late 2013.

Putting aside the important dynamics of the assertaion that Iran is potentially already a nuclear power yet not able to develop a practical conventional delivery system for a uranium based weapon, it isn't clear what exactly the timeline would be for Iranian development of a plutonium based conventionally deliverable weapon.

Do they or don't they have the technical ability to generate the required plutonium? Starting a lab doesn't necessarily indicate an answer to that question. One would surmise though, it indicates at least an intent to achieve these capabilities.

[GRG55]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Romney said in an interview Sunday on Meet the Press the following regarding Iran:

"The president has not drawn us further away from a nuclear Iran," he said. "In fact, Iran is closer to having a weapon, closer to having nuclear capability than when he took office." Romney said he'd use "every option" to prevent Iran from advancing. "We need to use every resource we have to dissuade them from their nuclear path," he said. "But that doesn't mean that we would take off the table our military option. That's something which certainly every American would hope we would never have to use. But we have to maintain it on the table or Iran will, undoubtedly, continue their treacherous course."

LOL. At worst Romney comes across sounding like an idiot. At best he comes across as lacking the courage to say what he really wants to.

1) "Every option"? What options is he going to put on the table that have not already been applied?

2) The military option has been on the table for some time...that, according to Romney, has not deterred the Iranians from getting "closer to having a weapon, closer to having nuclear capability than when he took office". So how is "maintaining it on the table" going to make any further difference?

Where the hell is Madeleine Albright when you really need her?

Speaking to Colin Powell, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
'What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?

[Raz]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

...

Israel threatens and in response rather than back down Iran increases nuclear program activity in full public view.

This can't go on forever or Israel faces an existential threat worse than a nuclear Iran: Israel's enemies may decide Israel is a paper tiger and act accordingly.

This is what starts wars.

I agree and it reminds me of a conversation between Nikita Kruschchev and Mao Zedong in 1960:

Mao wanted to invade South Korea and called upon the Soviets to remove the American forces from Western Europe with a Warsaw Pact blitzkreig, reasoning that the Americans would never risk another world-wide war to preserve these other countries.
Mao said that China could afford to lose 100,000,000 people to achieve victory and the US is a "paper tiger". Kruschchev replied, "Maybe so, but they have thermonuclear teeth".

I have little doubt that the Israelis will set the entire middle east on fire before they will suffer through another super-pogrom or holocaust.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

http://www.uskowioniran.com/

Iranian Rial @26,000 to 1 USD.

Rial has lost nearly 20% of value in last 3 days

[BadJuju]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

http://www.uskowioniran.com/

Iranian Rial @26,000 to 1 USD.

Rial has lost nearly 20% of value in last 3 days

Interesting! What is your take on this, lake? Do you think it might sway Israel?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

Interesting! What is your take on this, lake? Do you think it might sway Israel?

My best GUESS is this:

While the senior Israeli leadership has a LOT of relevant military experience in big and bold high risk/high reward DIRECT ACTION operations(part of the culture/ethos of their unit), it's difficult to weigh this against other types of operations that would fall into the UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE realm.

Different special operations units have different roles and responsibilities. Sayeret Matkal Direct Action operations are more widely known than any Unconventional Warfare operations they may or may not conduct(not being all secret squirrel..I honestly don't know if that role is performed by that unit).

It's a bit like medicine.......you have general practitioners, brain surgeons, oncologists, etc....different areas of specialization....same goes for special forces and special operations units.

Sayeret Matkal is known to have the role of General Surgery(Direct Action raids, etc), but did/do they perform the role of Oncologist(unconventional warfare)?

Their military experience, skillsets, personal philosophy, etc will have shaped them in terms of how to tackle this problem.....if they are thinking from a surgeon's perspective they may bias towards cutting a tumor out.....if they are thinking from an oncologist's perspective they may bias towards chemotherapy.

I would feel more comfortable about Israel's senior leadership IF they are adherents to traditional unconventional warfare doctrine, part of which entails undermining a government from within.

KINETIC(violent) examples of this would be the initial insertion and removal of the Taliban government in Afghanistan. That was an example of unconventional warfare doctrine employed successfully.

Another case would be Libya and we are currently aware it is happening quietly in the background of Syria.

I am NOT suggesting the same be done with Iran(and I'm not necessarily saying Libya/Syria were/are good things either).

But I am saying that if the senior leadership of Israel have any/much undisclosed experience in the unconventional warfare SF role to complement their known experience in direct action SF role then I would be more hopeful Israel will avoid conventional strikes on Iran.

I think a useful example might be how the US/allies/Vatican cooperated in aggressively undermining Poland, in a NON-kinetic way, to fracture the Warsaw Pact without leading to conventional war.

I would think an Iranian economy under mounting economic pressure as measured by a collapsing cross currency rate is potentially a very good thing in shaping Iranian behavior towards the direction the global community(pulled kicking and screaming by US/Israel) would like them to go.

So my position towards Iran is that the best way forward(for the US/Israel) would be to accelerate spending and efforts to undermine the legitimacy of Iran's current government as much as possible and right up close to the point of Iran possibly responding with asymmetric violence against US/Israeli interests, and simply absorb it and avoid responding with force or disproportionate force.

If/when the Iranian people are able to gain control of their government and present a less hostile position towards the world(meaning the US/Israel and maybe the Saudis) then I think the US should press for some comprehensive guarantees to sincerely prevent nuclear proliferation in exchange for whatever the Iranians justifiably deserve in return.

But it's hard to delve much below the surface of Israel's senior leadership(some of whom also have earned experience in the Israeli intelligence community) beyond just snippets such as:

Moshe Yaalon(Minister of Strategic Affairs): Former head of Aman(Israeli Military Intelligence) and was in command during the Second Intifada in 2000 which he put down.

Avi Dichter(Minister of Home Front Defense): Former head of Shin Bet(Israel's FBI, counterintelligence, and domestic counter-insurgency)

Shaul Mofaz(Leader of the Opposition): IDF Chief of Staff during Second Intifada where he and Moshe Yaalon led and implemented very strong counter guerilla warfare operations to extinguish the uprising.

So at least 3 of the 5 key Israeli leaders have considerable experience in extinguishing insurgencies/uprisings.

When being taught the trade of unconventional warfare/guerilla warfare/counter-insurgency while you learn how to STOP an insurgency, you also learn how to START one....two sides to the same insurgency/counter-insurgency COIN....pun intended.

So from my perspective, I'm hoping Israel's senior leadership looks towards options to continue to undermine Iran and exploit their vulnerabilities through unconventional warfare doctrine primarily through NON-kinetic/NON-violent means like in Warsaw Pact era Poland.

BUT it must be said that all of the widely known Sayeret Matkal operations from which unit all of Israel's senior leaders originate were of the big/bold, high risk/high reward variety.

A Direct Action based mindset is one that compels speed, aggression, and violence of action. A Direct Action operation(after all the very important preceding pieces of the puzzle are put into place) may take only minutes to hours to successfully complete.

An Unconventional Warfare based mindset is one that compels patience because it can take years to see any tangible success.

There are clear indicators of unconventional warfare(in different shapes and forms) being conducted against Iran that include:

*budget bullet points of substantial funds being allocated for the purpose(I think starting under President Bush)

*STUXNET....now that the administration has spiked the "cyberwarfare is legitimate, except when used against us" ball

*A good number of Iranians employed in Iran's nuclear program and military leadership involved with delivery system programs have been targeted and killed(I listed all the known ones I could find in another post I made on iTulip)

*Iran disclosing plans to create it's own internet or it's own Great Firewall like China to reduce this obvious communication platform theat to the government......there was no internet when Poland was intentionally pulled apart.

*Other stuff surely going on that hasn't hit open source yet

And on top of this you have all the related diplomatic/economic warfare measures to try and shape Iran's response in the direction the world(US/Israel and Saudi royal family want).

In closing and in short

Yes...I would guess a falling Iranian currency would be a good thing to possibly, and maybe only slightly, reduce the chances of an Israeli raid in the eyes of Israeli leadership.

It's my understanding that the majority of Israelis oppose a raid on Iran, but then many Israelis were strongly in favor of caving into demands made by the Entebbe hijackers.

My perception is that, historically, all seems to be forgiven by the Israeli public if the IDF conduct a successful high risk, high reward mission.

But if you fail, you are done.....just ask Danny Yatom.

Danny Yaton was the head of the Mossad(as well as ANOTHER former member of Sayeret Matkal) when the botched assassination attempt on Khaled Mashal, head of Hamas, took place.

Danny Yaton immediately resigned.

I would think the same thing would happen to the senior leadership of Israel IF it attacked Iran and it failed to achieve sufficient success to justify the risk.

Just my 0.02c

[Slimprofits]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

That doesn't really make sense from my perspective, though. Israel has proven time and time again that they are not paper tigers. They have won every war they have engaged in. And furthermore, they have the Samson Doctrine which would ensure that if any invasion managed to overcome Israel's conventional forces, it would be obliterated and so would the respective country.

This business with Iran has been building steadily since 2003. And more than once we've heard that the time is now for someone to act against Iran.

This ties in nicely what with Fred posted:

Over the weekend, government insiders began hinting to Israeli news media that the chances of an attack this year were diminishing and that Defense Minister Ehud Barak — who was once seen as a staunch proponent of a military operation — had changed his mind, leaving Netanyahu more isolated.

Calls for the Obama administration to set red lines could give Netanyahu the political cover he may need if Israel decides to refrain from an attack, despite its persistent claims that sanctions are not working and that Iran's nuclear program is accelerating.

In a column last week, senior analyst Amos Harel of the Haaretz newspaper said Netanyahu and Barak "overplayed their hand" in the "Iranian poker game" and may now be "seeking a ladder to climb down."

[EJ]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

This business with Iran has been building steadily since 2003. And more than once we've heard that the time is now for someone to act against Iran.

This ties in nicely what with Fred posted:

I don't think anyone who is talking in public knows what is going to happen.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

I don't think anyone who is talking in public knows what is going to happen.

IF a raid was about to be conducted, part of the planning and execution of it would include a comprehensive counterintelligence and deception plan, which could include leveraging mass media distribution channels, resulting in the Vizzini Paradox:

It can be hard to find levity when you hear the drumbeat of war......but there's always time for a quick chuckle...especially when it has some relevancy on a couple of levels.

[nedtheguy]

Re: Meanwhile Back in the Sandbox...

redacted