Israeli Attack on Iran Postponed Until 2013 - Haarezt

Netanyahu and Barak - Israeli Attack on Iran Postponed?

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz is out with a short but extremely interesting article stating that any Israeli strike on Iran would be delayed until 2013.  The article by Haaretz writer Amir Oren argues that a recent US military war game simulating the after affects of an Israeli indicated that just one Iranian missile fired at a US base could kill 200 American soldiers:

"According to a war simulation conducted by the U.S. Central Command, the Iranians could kill 200 Americans with a single missile response to an Israeli attack. An investigative committee would not spare any admiral or general, minister or president. The meaning of this U.S. scenario is that the blood of these 200 would be on Israel's hands."

While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak had appeared to be leaning towards striking Iran - Netanyahu has called the Iranian nuclear program an "existential threat" to Israel - it appears that the US war game simulation has effectively put a kibosh on whatever plans the Israeli duo may have had.


For those interested in reading more about the US military's Israel-Iran war game simulation, here is an excellent summary article from the New York Times.

Israel More Confident in Attack on Iran? Remember Dick Cheny?

Before Israel Attacks Iran it Should Remember Dick Cheney

Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic Monthly has an interesting although somewhat unnerving piece on his recent trip to Israel.  While there, Goldberg talked to a number of senior Israeli officials and emerged from his trip more convinced than he was previously that Israel is not bluffing when it threatens to attack Iran.  According to Goldberg, Israeli officials increasingly believe that the dire forecasts of the harm an attack on Iran would cause are overblown, and that the fallout affects from a strike could be contained.  According to Goldberg:

One conclusion key officials have reached is that a strike on six or eight Iranian facilities will not lead, as is generally assumed, to all-out war. This argument holds that the Iranians might choose to cover up an attack, in the manner of the Syrian government when its nuclear facility was destroyed by the Israeli air force in 2007. An Israeli strike wouldn’t focus on densely populated cities, so the Iranian government might be able to control, to some degree, the flow of information about it. 

Goldberg also notes that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu believes that a successful raid could "unclothe the emperor" and embolden Iran's citizens to overthrow the regime.  For those interested, here is the link to Goldberg's full article.  I have no particular insight into the thinking of senior Israeli or Iranian military officials; however, if past experiences have taught us anything it is that when it comes to armed combat, "the best laid schemes of mice and men" frequently go awry.  Indeed, who can forget Dick Cheney's prediction before the launch of an attack against Iraq in 2003 that "we will, in fact, be welcomed as liberators".  I think its fair to say in retrospect that this did not work out quite as planned....

Will Israel Attack Iran with Long-Range Missiles?

Israel Attack on Iran - Jericho Missiles and Israeli Attack Routes

I just came across a fascinating article from MSNBC's Open Channel analyzing how an Israeli attack on Iran might unfold.  While almost all of the previous articles I have seen that analyze Israeli attack on Iran scenarios tend to focus on Israeli airstrikes, the Open Channel article by Robert Windrem examines the possibility of Israeli long-range Jericho missiles being used as a central part of the attack.  As a recent NY Times article noted, an Israeli attack on Iran conducted entirely or primarily by airstrikes would be extraordinarily difficult given both the number and underground locations of Iran's nuclear sites, so it seems entirely possible that Israel would use a multifaceted approach in an attack on Iran that used a combination of airstrikes, missiles, cyber warfare and special operations forces.

"Two words:  Jericho missiles," said one former White House and Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, when asked how Israel would attack Iranian targets at great distances. "They are conventionally armed, have a very small CEP (circular error of probability, meaning they are highly accurate) and can be used in conjunction with a strike fighter operation." 

Let us hope that it does not come to war, but if it does, it may well start with missiles launched from bases in the Negev on a cloudy night.  Do read the entire Open Channel analysis.

Syria: Shia Alawites Versus Sunnis

As we have mentioned in a couple of previous posts, one way of looking at the situation in Syria is almost as a civil war between the Alawites (an offshoot of Shia) who constitute the bulk of the regime, and the Sunnis who constitute the bulk of the rebels.  Although Assad's Alawite sect makes up only 12% of the country, they hold the bulk of the positions in government and the state security apparatus.  Meanwhile, the Sunnis make up anywhere from 60-75% of the population, and constitute the vast bulk of the rebellion.  
Part of the reason the regime - and most of the Alawite population - is fighting so hard to hold on to power is they fear the repercussions if they lose.  As this excellent article from Reuters explains, the Alawites are fearful that the majority Sunnis may turn on them if Assad falls.  As noted in an earlier post, the cry of "The Christians to Beirut, the Alawites to the grave" has been heard at many anti-government protests, which further reinforces the fears of Alawites and other minorities in Syria.  Below is a map of Syria's demographics that give a rough overview of Syria's complex demographics:

Map of Religious Demographics in Syria - Alawites, Christians and Sunnis

                                                                       

Syrian Regime Fights to the Death as Sectarian Divisions Deepen

 

As the al-Assad regime has continues its efforts to crush the rebellion against it, comes news that another key rebel stronghold has fallen to Syrian forces.  It appears that the Syrian military has captured the city of Idlib in Northwest Syria near the Turkish border, depriving the rebels of a key stronghold and conduit of weapons to the Syrian rebellion through Turkey.

The brutality of the mostly Alawite Shia regime demonstrates the extent to which both the Alawites and other minorities fear the result of a victory by the largely Sunni rebellion.  The New York Times had an excellent article recently detailing these fears.  Here is an excellent excert from the Times piece:

Abu Ali recalled hearing anti-Shiite slogans chanted in Homs by rebels in opposition to Syria’s alliance with Iran, which, like Iraq, is a majority-Shiite state in a region that is predominantly Sunni. He heard calls for “Christians to go to Beirut,” and “Alawites to the grave.” 

Christians and other minorities also fear the impact of a Sunni victory.  None of this justifies the brutality of the al-Assad regime, but it does demonstrate the extent to which the regime and its supporters perceive they are literally fighting for their lives and survival. 

Do Iran's Hardliners WANT Israel to Attack?

 

There was a fascinating piece in the Daily Beast a few days ago arguing that Iranian hardliners actually want Israel to attack and are trying to bait it into doing so.  The article quotes Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace:

“I do think that a military conflagration could be one of the few things that could potentially rehabilitate the regime,” said Sadjadpour. “It could resuscitate revolutionary ideology and repair the deep fractures both among the political elite and among the population and the regime.” 

 It is difficult to say if Mr. Sadjadpour's theory is correct or not, and even if it is, the strategy likely exists only among the most hard core elements of the regime.  Interestingly enough, there has even been some speculation that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameni may even be "flirting" with the American "Great Satan".  Iran's attitude should become more apparent when it meets in Istanbul next week with the P5+1 group (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany).

Iran Attack 'Sheer Madness"

I just came across one of the best articles summarizing what would happen if Israel or the US attacks Iran.  Written by the British military and geopolitical strategist Max Hastings, the article argues that while an attack on Iran may be justified, the potential affects would be so catastrophic that it is something that must be avoided at all costs.  Mr. Hastings opinion is summarized nicely here:

The implications of such action are uncertain but assuredly immense - it would precipitate an open-ended conflict between Iran and the West.

I think this is probably the single best summary of the situation I have seen; yes, Iran is a "rogue state," but the costs so outweigh the benefits from the broader perspective that we in the US must not attack Iran ourselves and must argue strenuously to the Israelis that must not attack Iran either.  Do read Mr. Hastings article here.

How Might Israel Attack Iran?

As the meeting between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to a close yesterday, it appeared as though the status quo still reigned. Obama asked the Israelis to allow time for sanctions and diplomacy to work, while Israel stated that it had made no final decision on Iran but that it was an option that remained open.  One anecdote from the meeting seemed to us to show how Netanyahu is, to some extent, driven by biblical stories in the same way Ahmadinejad is.

"Netanyahu gave Mr. Obama a copy of the biblical book of Esther, which tells of a Persian ruler in what is now Iran who ordered the execution of all the Jews in his kingdom -- but the Jews prevailed in battle.

"As he gave the gift, the prime minister is reported to have told the president, "Even back then, they wanted to wipe us out."

Given that an Israeli attack is still on the table, and will become increasingly likely as time passes with no negotiated solution, military analysts are increasingly laying out scenarios explaining from the military perspective how Israel might strike.  The best analysis I have seen is this one from the BBC.   The author, Jonathan Marcus, Lays out a variety of issues that would be involved for Israel, including the route its planes would take to reach Iran, what targets they could hit, the effectiveness of Israel's "bunker busting" bomb arsenal, and Iran's air defenses.  It is clear from reading this article that for Israel to be successful in striking Iran would clearly be no easy feat.

Obama to Both Israel and Iran: 'I Don't Bluff'

As the anticipation builds for Monday's meeting between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama, the President has given a long interview to Jeffrey Goldberg of Atlantic Magazine just published on the Atlantic's website.  In the interview, the President states very clearly that both Israel and the Iran should understand that he is not bluffing when he says that the US considers it "unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons".  The President is clearly worried that Israel will strike Iran on its own, which would cause havoc in the region, by reassuring them implicitly that the US will strike itself if necessary.  The message to Iran meanwhile is very simple:  Do not take our threats lightly, we will not allow you to have nuclear weapons. 

What was also quite interesting about this interview was not only the content, but also the journalist to whom the White House gave the interview.  Mr. Goldberg is considered fairly pro-Israel overall, and it is possible that in choosing Mr. Goldberg to do the interview the White House is taking an extra symbolic step to send a message to Israel and its US supporters that the President is indeed prepared to order a strike on Iran if necessary.  While there has been quite extensive speculation that the US would be willing to live with a nuclear Iran and simply pursue a policy of "containment," Mr. Obama's interview seems designed to make clear that this is in fact not true, and that the US will not tolerate an Iran with nuclear weapons.

It is worth noting that in the past when Iran has felt sufficiently threatened by the Americans, it has retreated from its most hardline positions.  This happened most notably in 2003 after the US overthrew Saddam Hussein, and the Iranians began to fear that they were next.  Read this review by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof on the incipient steps Iran took to reach a grand bargain with the US.  As there have been some tentative feelers coming out of Iran indicating a willingness to compromise, perhaps it is time to review the possibility of a "grand bargain" with the Iranians.  George Washington University Professor Amitai Etzioni has an excellent piece in the magazine National Interest in which he reviews Iran's seeming willingness to compromise in 2003, and then outlines the parameters for what a diplomatic deal with the Iranians might look like today.  Do read Mr. Etzioni's article.

The Sectarian Nature of the Battle in Syria

 

The NY Times had a fascinating article yesterday on the fall of the Baba Amr enclave in the city of Homs.  The rebels in the Baba Amr enclave had held out for nearly one month against superior numbers and firepower deployed by the Syrian army before finally deciding to withdraw. 

The most interesting part about the Times piece was its analysis of how rebellion in Syria has become increasingly sectarian in nature.  The Assad regime as well as the most elite units of the military are largely composed of Alawites, an offshoot of the Shia branch of Islam.  The Alawites make up about 12% of the country's population, while the majority Sunnis make up nearly 75%.  Much of the Alawite population believes it is literally fighting for its life, and belief that if the Assad regime falls the consequences for their community will be dire.  This is a must read article.