I've been discussing this topic for quite some time, and an interesting article was printed in the Wall Street Journal the other day. I'm curious as to your thoughts on this issue and what you think we might expect in the short & long-term.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 48412.html

Below, I've quoted a portion of an anonymous response from a friend. Feel free to comment on both the article and the response given. Thanks!
In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

Any non-nuclear Israeli airstrike would be at most a short-term setback that would not cause a wavering of Iran's political will on the matter. Therefore, there is nothing to be gained.

Is a short-term setback to Iran's nuclear plans not a gain? I think in the minds of many, including several Muslim gulf states, it would be.

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

At any cost? Scuttling international diplomacy, throwing egg on the face of Israel's main ally, delegitimizing the groups in Iran moving for change, undermining the IDF's reputation for effectiveness...

There is more to be lost than gained in a futile airstrike.

Well, from the Israeli perspective, they have only two choices. Either they die or live. If being forced by the international community's usual impotence to finally act, even for only a temporary relief or reprieve from the imminent threat to their lives, YES. Certainly it's the worst possible option, save simply allowing Iran to have their nuclear weapons, but it may ultimately be the only choice with which they are left. Nothing more than their lives can be lost, and in the face of that being the only other choice, I think they may chance it.

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com

I don't see Israel's situation as being that dire though.

Given that there will be a long window of time where even an "anonymous" nuclear strike on Israel will have presumptively Iranian origins, a massive Israeli nuclear retaliation would be virtually inevitable.

Executing such an attack despite that inevitability demands a belief that the government of Iran is willing to martyr itself to strike at Israel. Suicide attacks are handled by expendables, not leadership. Osama isn't willing to martyr himself, and you can be sure that he's leading a much more austere life than Khameni and his followers are enjoying.

The national pride, bragging rights, MAD threat, and the de facto leadership role conferred by mere possession would be a heady alternative to self-annihilation. Why blow yourself up when you can be the leader of an Islamic renaissance?

I believe it's that somewhat hypocritical ideological fervor that makes restraint a imperfect but viable option for Israel.

In real terms, I think it’s possible that you’re correct, but given Israel’s particular vulnerabilities (i.e. location, size, locus of primary Jewish ethnic/religious existence, etc…), I’m not sure they can afford to be so nuanced in their assessment of potentially high impact threats like that posed by Iran.

It is certainly possible that Iran or some other nation or group will choose anonymous delivery of something like a nuclear weapon to the shores of Israel as their method of choice, but that doesn’t appear to be the developmental intent of Iran’s current programs and certainly not enough to allow Israel to rest on its laurels. In short, they can’t simply assume what you rightly point out, that it could be a relatively “long window of time” before a nation like Iran could successfully hit them. In addition, the willingness and ability of a presumably nuclear capable nation to respond after a devastating nuclear strike has never really been tested. In the only real world example of nuclear weapon usage, it sapped the will of the enemy to even attempt a response. It’s certainly not completely analogous because there are all kinds of other factors involved, but I do think it’s a relevant point. And as I’m sure you’re probably already aware, a single successful nuclear strike against Israel’s capitol, Tel Aviv, would be the equivalent of the United States losing more than 16 million citizens in a single attack. While I’m fairly confident that Israel could respond with its own larger nuclear strike, the damage done by the initial strike against Israel could severely reduce its ability to maintain its own border security or otherwise mount an effective defense against invasion by other nations. In short, a single successful strike, could easily mean an end to the state of Israel. All that to say, they cannot afford even a single successful strike against them, and therefore, there is a sense in which they have to be somewhat more black & white and less nuanced in their approach to these things.

I suspect that if a Middle Eastern nation decided to strike Israel with nuclear force, the leadership of the attacking nation would be nowhere near the capitol of their nation and likely nowhere near a major city or obvious military base. Given that Iran’s population is 10 times that of Israel and the disregard with which they generally treat their citizenry, I would not be surprised to find a ready willingness to martyr a large proportion of their population in a strike against Israel. If we weren’t talking about a faux democracy and a Muslim nation, I think your expression of its unbelievability would have a lot more weight. Saddam Hussein was certainly willing to subject his people to all of the ravages of 3 different wars in the space of less than 30 years (two involving the only superpower in the world), and I have little reason to believe that the leadership in Iran are ultimately all that much more rational than he was. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. Whatever the case, I don’t think that Iran would be taken to the point of non-existence in any case.

Regarding Osama, I would say that he is no different than any other terrorist leader. I suspect that he’s willing to martyr himself, if it comes to that, but I don’t think such a willingness is necessarily contradicted by remaining in hiding. Ostensibly, he is providing leadership in this terrorist struggle against the non-Muslim West and those non-Muslim nations that occupy Islamic lands. It may be that he sees his leadership role as more vital and effective than whatever damage can be done by the martyrdom of his singular life & body. But if he were found, I would not be surprised to see that he and his colleagues are wired to explode. That’s very speculative, but I don’t think it’s totally without foundation.

I’m not sure that the Iranians see themselves in the light you say (e.g. leaders of an Islamic renaissance). Remember, they are enemies of all the predominantly Sunni Muslim nations in the world. One of the reasons that Muslims cannot be as effective as they’d like is because they are often fighting amongst themselves. They are killing Shiite, Sunni, Sufi, or some other sect or cult of Islam and are therefore, very divided. It’s a significant reason why I doubt the long-term efficacy of an Iraqi state that remains as a single national unit. The Israelis know this as well, which is precisely why they are training and arming Iraqi Kurds in the north and at least part of the reason Turkey has turned far more sour on the Israelis of late. I think the Iranians see themselves as the true representatives of Islam, as do most groups of Muslims. They “…believe that Imam al-Mahdi (i.e. the 12th Imam) will reappear when the world has fallen into chaos and civil war emerges between the human race…” And Ahmadinejad “appears” to believe that the way to bring this about is to attack and attempt to destroy Israel. We’ll see if his actions match his rhetoric though.

Regarding your parting comment, I would say that I don’t’ think Israel can afford to be seen attempting to bluff their enemies. If their enemies cease to believe that there is a significant chance that Israel will seek to take them down/out in a major way, I believe they’ll be much more willing to take action against the state of Israel, and I think this is the historic calculation that Israel has made as well. Great comments!

In His Grip,

christian_concern@yahoo.com