Our brother's keeper, but...
Sunday, April 30, 2006 at 4:01PM Tom got this email:
Tom,I agree with most of the conclusions you draw in your new book. However, I don't believe an Iranian bomb will make the Middle East more stable in fact, I believe it will make it less stable. Before I start I must come clean, I am a die-hard Zionist so I may not be wholly unbiased in these matters. I believe the bomb will contribute to instability for many reasons; for example, size. By size I mean the physical dimensions and demographic distribution of Israel. Most of the Israelis live on a strip of land that is approximately one hundred miles long by twenty two miles wide. One would not need many weapons to devastate the Israeli state. Iran is a significantly larger state with a wider population distribution. So, whereas Iran may be able to 'ride out' an Israeli first strike, Israel couldn't't say the same. Israel does have countermeasures to an Iranian attack namely the Arrow ABM, but could the Arrow stop a couple hundred SHAHAB III/IVs? I realize that Iran doesn't have a large MRBM/ICBM aresenal now, but what about twenty years from now?
This leads to my second issue, the relative size of their respective missile arsenals.I have read that Iranians are trying to build at least one SHAHAB III a month. They are also developing the SHAHAB IV/V and VI. These missiles will have a CEP of only 190 meters which is more than enough to kill any soft target at which they are aimed. Also, the reliability of these missiles are near eighty percent. Israel does have the Jericho II and the Popeye II SLCM. However, I don't know if Israel's missile numbers are enough to deter Iran, especially given the fact that Iran's population isn't as concentrated in one small place like it is in Israel.
Finally, I believe an Iran with nuclear weapons would have a freedom of action against Israel that it currently doesn't have and this would further deteriorate the situation in the Middle East. I know that this may sound odd but think on it. An Iran with nuclear weapons would not have to attack Israel with nuclear weapons; they could attack Israel with a massive conventional strike. They could also have Hezb'allah attack Israel with their own weapons and then Iran can come in and put their nuclear umbrella over Syria, and even Lebanon. I believe that this scenario would force Israel to attack Iran if Israel truly believed that Iran was close to weaponizing any of their nuclear materials. Israel would have to strike first and be in the unenviable position of starting a war.
Perhaps I am being alarmist. I don't know. I don't think that the US would let the situation in the Middle East spin out of control that much. But one state shouldn't depend on another for its survival; as the Czechs found out, this sometimes doesn't work out so well. I welcome your comments.
Be well,
Jacob Kessler
Tom's reply:
US has lots of missiles, and Iran's acquisition should and would lead to U.S. extending explicit nuke umbrella over Israel just as it did with W Europe vis-a-vis Sovs. Imbalance here would collectively favor US & Israel much better than it did Sovs in Cold War.Israel either learns to live with that like US and Europe did or it should fight Iran on its own. Americans shouldn't be forced to choose between preventive nuclear war and Iraq-x-3 occupation (the only effective choices remaining) just on Israel's fear that that MAD stand-off is unacceptable to them.
We should be willing to be our brother's keeper on this one, but not his pre-emptive mass murderer. Our historical rule-set on this is clear and well-established.
The avowed nuke power is easier to deter and contain vis-a-vis terrorists than the secret one, as Pakistan has proved.
Reader Comments (3)
For deciding strategy in an adversarial situations, the branch of mathematics known as “game theory” (much of which was developed by John Nash of the “Beautiful Mind”) always gives better results than "hunch theory." Today a game is afoot over Iran’s nuclear aspirations, and hunch theorists by and large have concluded that confrontation is the appropriate strategy for the west. However, if we attack the problem using game theory, we reach the opposite conclusion: under all scenarios, a properly-conceived strategy of “consorting” with Iran beats any strategy of confrontation. Go to www.badgerd.com to find out why.
isn't there the inherent problem that if Israel strikes Iran that the Iranians would try to close the Straits of Hormuz to tanker traffic (i.e. 90% of Japan's oil), thus forcing us into the conflict?
Charles,
The first economy that torpedoes when the Straits are closed is Iran's. It lives on that money.