Iran is not an existential threat to Israel

ARTICLE: Israel Finds Strength in Its Missile Defenses, By Howard Schneider, Washington Post, September 19, 2009

This program has never been a secret and has progressed along nicely across my career. To me, this has always been the way to go with Israel's fears re: Iran, not some goofy system in Eastern Europe.

ASHKELON, Israel -- As it pushes for international action against Iran's nuclear program, Israel is steadily assembling one of the world's most advanced missile defense systems, a multi-layered collection of weapons meant to guard against a variety of threats, including the shorter-range Grads used to strike Israeli towns like this one and intercontinental rockets.

The effort, partly financed by the United States and incorporating advanced American radar and other technology, has been progressing quietly for two decades. But Israeli defense and other analysts say it has now reached a level of maturity that could begin changing the nature of strategic decisions in the region. Centered on the Arrow 2 antimissile system, which has been deployed, the project is being extended to include a longer-range Arrow 3, the David's Sling interceptor designed to hit lower- and slower-flying cruise missiles, and the Iron Dome system intended to destroy Grads, Katyushas, Qassams and other shorter-range projectiles fired from the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon.

With the Arrow system in operation and the Iron Dome due for deployment next year, Israel "has something to stabilize the situation: the knowledge that an attack will fail," said Uzi Rubin, a private defense consultant who ran Israel's missile shield program in the 1990s. Iran, he said, now cannot be assured of a successful first strike against Israel, while groups such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon may find one of their favored tactics undermined.

Ultimately, it is this kind of capability that allows me to project ahead to a regional security dialogue that involves the region's nuclear powers, and using that as a top-down peace creator instead of trying to fix the whole package inside-out with Palestine-Israel.

Great line comes from Uzi Rubin later in piece:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said this week that he did not consider Iran's nuclear program an "existential issue" because "Israel is strong." Part of that strength lies in its nuclear capabilities -- never acknowledged but widely presumed to exist -- and part in the assumption that the United States would stand behind Israel if it came under attack. But it also rests in the calculation that enough of the country's air bases and other military facilities would survive a first strike to retaliate effectively.

The sort of deterrence -- guaranteed retaliation -- that the United States and then-Soviet Union once achieved by deploying nuclear warheads in submarines and keeping bombers aloft is what Israel is striving for through its antimissile systems.

Iran "is radical, but radical does not mean irrational," Rubin, the defense consultant, said. "They want to change the world, not commit suicide."

God forbid you ever find some common sense in the blogosphere, crowded as it is with a lot of less-than-real talent.

The Israelis and the Americans have been planning for this reality for a very long time, thus my continuing admonition not to go all wobbly over Iran's nuclear program. We are simply running out the string on a 20th century technology that does not represent the dominant threat of the 21st.

Comments

[borhbemo]

Related article in today's Jerusalem Post--showcasing (continued) interoperability of Arrow and US offshore (Aegis/SM-3) anti-BM capabilities

JPost.com » Israel » ArticleSep 21, 2009 1:34 | Updated Sep 21, 2009 19:29US ships arrive in Israel ahead of joint drill

[Scott A. Akers]

Does Habeas Corpus not apply to Intelligence personnel? If it was not illegal when they did "X", even if "X" was stupid and counter-productive, how do we prosecute them for it? Are we going to re-create the culture where our Intelligence services are afraid to do anything for fear that a future administration will prosecute them for doing it? Yes if they think what they are doing is fundamentally illegal and immoral they should refuse, but in all other cases if the CONSTITUTIONALLY Appointed/Elected leaders sign off on it aren't they obligated by their oaths to obey? Are we going to create a situation where ALL of our intelligence operations are performed by non-Americans because any American bright enough to perform those duties will also be bright enough to never work for a country that will betray them after the fact?