Please Help New English Review
For our donors from the UK:
New English Review
New English Review Facebook Group
Follow New English Review On Twitter
Recent Publications by New English Review Authors
The Oil Cringe of the West: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly Vol. 2
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Impact of Islam
by Emmet Scott
Sir Walter Scott's Crusades and Other Fantasies
by Ibn Warraq
Fighting the Retreat from Arabia and the Gulf: The Collected Essays and Reviews of J.B. Kelly. Vol. 1
edited by S.B. Kelly
The Literary Culture of France
by J. E. G. Dixon
Hamlet Made Simple and Other Essays
by David P. Gontar
Farewell Fear
by Theodore Dalrymple
The Eagle and The Bible: Lessons in Liberty from Holy Writ
by Kenneth Hanson
The West Speaks
interviews by Jerry Gordon
Mohammed and Charlemagne Revisited: The History of a Controversy
Emmet Scott
Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate's Defense of Liberal Democracy
Ibn Warraq
Anything Goes
by Theodore Dalrymple
Karimi Hotel
De Nidra Poller
The Left is Seldom Right
by Norman Berdichevsky
Allah is Dead: Why Islam is Not a Religion
by Rebecca Bynum
Virgins? What Virgins?: And Other Essays
by Ibn Warraq
An Introduction to Danish Culture
by Norman Berdichevsky
The New Vichy Syndrome:
by Theodore Dalrymple
Jihad and Genocide
by Richard L. Rubenstein
Spanish Vignettes: An Offbeat Look Into Spain's Culture, Society & History
by Norman Berdichevsky



















Monday, 19 November 2012

Paul Bracken: If Iran Gets The Bomb

From The Wall Street Journal:N

November 19, 2012

If Iran Gets the Bomb

How would U.S. and Israeli strategists deal with a much riskier Middle East?

[image] Associated Press

Two Iranian women walk past a missile display in Tehran on Sept. 25, 2011.

You don't have to fire a nuclear weapon to gain a strategic advantage from it. This is perhaps the most important lesson from the decades of the Cold War. Yet many commentators on the possibility of a nuclear Iran overlook this truth and argue that we could handle this radically new situation.

A nuclear Iran is usually discussed at a cosmic level of abstraction, in terms of deterrence and containment. But it needs to be examined from the bottom up, in concrete detail. War games, which have a long history in U.S. defense planning, are one way to do this. These simulations bring out insights that never show up in academic theories. Over the past five years, games featuring an Iran that possesses a small, crude nuclear arsenal have been played repeatedly by government officials, the military and outside strategic experts in the U.S. and Israel—games in which participants are assigned roles as decision makers in different countries—and I have been involved in several of them.

The insights that have emerged from these exercises are not necessarily true, of course. They have to stand on their own merits. But I have not been encouraged by what I have seen.

The game might begin with a seemingly familiar train of events, not unlike what has unfolded this week in the Middle East: The Shiite militant group Hezbollah kidnaps Israeli soldiers. Israel hits back with airstrikes on villages in Lebanon believed to be Hezbollah ammunition dumps. The West Bank and Gaza flare up, and Hezbollah begins firing long-range missiles into Haifa and Tel Aviv. The weapons come from Iran, and there are even Iranian "advisers" with them.

But then the tempo of the game slows down. Everyone notices caution, even hesitation, in the Israel team. The Israelis refrain from airstrikes on Syria (Hezbollah's other key patron), and the Israeli navy backs off from the Lebanon-Syria coast for fear of losing a ship. If a ship were lost, Israel would have to escalate, and that is the heart of the matter: Escalation in a nuclear context isn't like escalation in earlier conflicts without the bomb.

Israel knows how to escalate in a conventional war or against an intifada or insurgency. But this is different. The conflict is no longer about how much pain to inflict before the other side gives up. It is about risk. An unwanted spiral of escalation might drive the game in a very bad direction.

The Israel team considers firing a demonstration nuclear shot, a missile warhead that would explode 100,000 feet over Tehran. Israeli plans since the 1970s have called for doing this as a last-ditch alternative to firing all-out atomic attacks. The blast would shatter windows in downtown Tehran, but it wouldn't kill anyone, or hardly anyone. Surely it would shock Iran into a cease-fire.

But before that can happen, Iran ups the ante by declaring a full nuclear alert. Rockets on truck launchers are flushed from their peacetime storage bases, along with hundreds of conventionally armed rockets and shorter-range missiles that can hit U.S. bases throughout the Middle East.

The Iran side in this game has given a great deal of thought to the political uses of its primitive nuclear arsenal. A few of its nuclear missiles are in hardened, underground silos. These are for quick-reaction firing, ready to launch on short notice. Mobile missiles can take hours to move and set up. Iran also understands the psychology of its enemies. The West does not want to kill millions of innocent people, so the Iran team places some mobile missiles in city parks in Tehran, Esfahan and Mashhad. Camouflage nets are placed over many parts of these cities to conceal the missiles and to mislead American satellites.

To bring attention to their dire situation, the Israel team orders two Jericho missiles to go on alert. They are timed to move to their launch positions just as the U.S. satellites are passing overhead. The intent, obviously, is to shock the White House. "We hope it leaks to the media, too, maybe we should make sure it does," one member of the Israel team says.

Israel's move forces a U.S. decision. Washington wants to restrain Israel, defend Israel and scare the living daylights out of Iran. So the U.S. publicly gives Israel a guarantee: If one atomic missile hits Israel, the U.S. announces, that would be it for Iran. The guarantee is cleverly worded. Maybe too cleverly. It doesn't specify which weapons America would use. The term nuclear refers only to Iran's attack on Israel.

The U.S. hasn't fired an atomic bomb in anger since 1945. It hasn't conducted a realistic nuclear exercise since the end of the Cold War, and in this war game, the person playing the U.S. president says that he doesn't want to go down in history as the first leader to kill five million people in an afternoon.

Some on the U.S. team call instead for a massive conventional strike, one that would destroy Iran's military power for decades. The person playing the president asks if Iran might simply sit back and watch such an attack unfold over several weeks. And he is angry: Why haven't better options and intelligence been developed over the years? Iran's bomb program isn't exactly a surprise, after all. It is the most closely watched in history. Why hadn't anybody thought about this before?

The Iran team's next move jacks up the tensions to a fever pitch. Without saying anything, Iran evacuates its big cities. The urban population packs into buses, cars and trucks and rides out to distant suburbs and beyond. In a day, Iran's big cities are at 25% of their normal population. Iran is now poised to absorb a nuclear attack. Its missiles are on a hair trigger, and most of the country's population will survive an Israeli counterstrike.

Israel, by contrast, is in chaos. There is nowhere for the Israelis to go. Ben Gurion Airport has been closed by rocket fire. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis are mobbing the coastal marinas, desperately trying to escape to Cyprus in small boats. TV shows the panic. Deterrence, and the myth of Israeli invincibility, the bedrock of Israeli security, is disappearing.

Suddenly, Iran declares that, in the interest of world peace, it will step back from the brink, having exposed the true nature of "the Zionist nuclear entity." So the game ends. Nuclear war has been avoided. Deterrence worked. But who in Israel, the U.S. or Iran will claim that this was the real lesson? Iran had used a small nuclear force to undermine long-standing perceptions of Israeli military strength and to rupture the Middle East order.

Among the U.S. and its allies, there is widespread agreement that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Some favor sanctions, some favor pre-emptive strikes, some favor espionage and sabotage. All agree, however, that a nuclear Iran would be a danger to the world.

But despite everyone's best efforts, Iran may still get the bomb. Then what? American strategic planning has avoided this uncomfortable question, but we can no longer afford to keep our heads in the sand.

—Mr. Bracken, a professor of management and political science at Yale, is the author of "The Second Nuclear Age: Strategy, Danger and the New Power Politics" (Times Books), from which this article is adapted.
Posted on 11/19/2012 11:28 AM by Hugh Fitzgerald
Comments
27 Nov 2012
Lorraine Chance

 Pretty pragmatic look at the "doomsday scenario". Difficult to disagree with prime conclusions.

Israel has traditionally considered that each one of its fighting men and women is sacrosanct, in terms of putting them in harms way.

That has to change. In order to attack Iran successfully, Israel must send its elite and brilliant pilots on suicide missions, again and again if necessary.

Iran must be attacked, without notice, not just to deliver a bloody nose, but to sever a limb or two. The Iranian population must rise up, as a result, and overthrow the current regime before millions die.




Most Recent Posts at The Iconoclast
Search The Iconoclast
Enter text, Go to search:
The Iconoclast Posts by Author
The Iconoclast Archives
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
   1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30    

Subscribe
Via: email  RSS