October 5, 2024 - 4:00pm
Israel must respond harshly to Iran’s massive ballistic missile attack on its territory. The country’s government has to restore favourable deterrence following Iran’s very deliberate attempt to kill Israeli civilians and destroy civilian infrastructure. But how will Israel respond?
Some analysts believe Israel may attack Iran’s oil industry, or its nuclear programme. President Joe Biden says he opposes both options and wants Israel to look for alternative targets. Biden’s rationale on the oil industry concern is centred around US domestic politics: one month away from the US election, he doesn’t want his Vice President to have to deal with a sharp increase in oil prices that reverberates into the US economy. Still, strikes against Iran’s oil industry would make strategic sense for Israel. Such strikes would degrade the Iranian regime’s only significant economic lever and ultimately deter future Iranian attacks.
Biden is right to oppose an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear programme, however. To be sure, that nuclear programme is a big problem. It is designed to provide Ayatollah Ali Khamenei with two very concerning possibilities. The first is his ability to quickly rush towards employing a nuclear weapon should he decide to do so. Iran has stockpiled enough near-weapons grade purity nuclear material to allow it to facilitate a nuclear weapon within two weeks. The second is to credibly threaten the existence of both Israel and Iran’s Islamic nemesis, Saudi Arabia.
The problem is that Israel alone cannot destroy Iran’s nuclear programme. Whatâs more, destroying the programme isn’t nearly so simple as bombing a bunch of nuclear plants and research facilities. Iran learned the lesson from Israel’s attacks on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and Syria’s Dair Alzour reactor in 2007. Tehran has distributed its nuclear programme widely across the country. It has also buried significant portions of it deep underground. To destroy Iran’s nuclear capability in its entirety, Israel would need to conduct a multi-day air campaign targeting a very large number of sites. It would also need to simultaneously destroy significant parts of Iran’s air defence network and air force.
Even then, Israel wouldn’t be able to secure success. It would also need to deploy ground forces to physically breach and destroy the underground nuclear facilities at Natanz and Fordow. US military sources I’ve spoken to have expressed doubt that even latest-generation US bunker buster munitions (which Israel does not possess) could destroy these facilities with certainty. But getting a commando force deep inside Iran, deep into varied facilities, blowing them up, then exfiltrating would require airlift and close air support capabilities that Israel lacks. It would also require airfield seizures through which to exfiltrate the commandos.
It’s one thing blowing up Hezbollah pagers and bunkers; it’s a very different thing operating at vast scale and depth against a very large defensive force primarily orientated towards defending the very thing Israel would be attacking.
Israel knows this. Which is why successive Israeli governments have put significant pressure on successive US administrations to outline conditions under which the US might join Israeli strikes. But that leads to the extended consideration here: what would happen if Israel did attack Iran’s nuclear programme?
The answer to that question underlines why the last few US presidents have been so deeply hesitant to entertain strikes in that vein. It’s because they know that doing so would invite a full-scale regional war. Khamenei and those at the regime’s ideological power centre regard the nuclear programme both as the guarantee for and destiny of their Islamic Revolution. They would view an Israeli attack on this destiny through a joined political-theological lens of existential threat.
Already paranoid following Israel’s devastation of Hezbollah and intelligence penetration of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, they would lash out wildly, feeling they had nothing left to lose. They would attempt to strangle trade flows through the Strait of Hormuz, unleash terrorist and missile attacks at US and Israeli bases around the world, and would generally fight hard in the hope that they could bloody Israel and the US enough to win a salvation ceasefire. This is why the US has traditionally reserved its military option for the event in which Iran attempted to actually build and deploy a nuclear weapon.
Again, however, the top line concern is that absent the US military’s support, Israel cannot destroy Iran’s nuclear programme. So the ensuing chaos of any Israeli attack would serve little purpose beyond the thin possibility it might lead to war â and perhaps regime change â in Iran.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIf Israel can have nuclear weapons then I see no reason why Iran can’t either
Logically that is correct. However from a practical viewpoint the West doesn’t want the possibility that the weapons would be used on its Middle Eastern allies, thereby precipitating total chaos in the Middle East, an “oil crisis” and consequent economic mayhem in the West with entirely unpredictable but undoubtedly damaging results.
And yet when they bomb Iran they will get their “oil crisis”
I’d suggest a peace deal, but the clowns running things just hate that idea
If history is any guide they will over play their hand and it will blow up in their faces
D Walsh,
Since 1979 the only peace deal Iran wants is the death of Jews and the defeat of the West. It takes all sides to make peace.
D Walsh, get your eyes checked.
One is a peace-seeking democracy; the other a murderous theocracy.
The most elementary problem of our NeoCon warmongers is that they fail to grasp changing reality.
The “enmity” between Iran and Saudi Arabia was alway a made-up one, carefully fostered by the US. While it lasted, the US was able to leverage the Saudis’ fears to sell billions worth of military toys to Saudi Arabia.
During their war on Yemen, the Saudis began to realise that those toys were not very effective. Then China came in and persuaded both Iran and Saudi Arabia that they need not be enemies. Only last week, a high-level diplomatic meeting between Saudi Arabia and Iran ended in harmony. The days when the US could manipulate Saudi Arabia by conjuring up the spectre of Iran are gone.
Attacking Iran’s oil installations is pretty much the most stupid thing Israel and the US could do – which is disconcerting, because NeoCons always do the most stupid thing.
First of all, it is not guaranteed to succeed. Russia has been busy over the last months supplying Iran with air defence assets. Unlike Western air defence assets, the Russian ones actually work, and thanks to NeoCons’ habit of telegraphing their plans, they also know where to put them.
Secondly, Iran has said unambiguously that if their oil installations are hit, the oil will stop flowing. That of course is of minor concern to the US, who do not depend in Gulf oil. Israel is wholly dependent on imported oil, but it is supplied by Azerbaijan via Turkey; maybe that would not be disrupted, but who knows – if Turkey joins BRICS in a few weeks, Turkey may change its mind about which side its bread is buttered.
A disruption to the flow of oil would kneecap Europe, but the US has shown that it does not care about Europe’s fate.
Another benefit, in the NeoCon mindset, would be that China would be existentially hit. China has done its best to remain aloof, but a threat its oil supplies would force China to intervene. It would be interesting to see how. But those joint naval exercises of China, Russia and Iran must have been based on some threat assumption.
Yes, right yet again.
The Arab-Persian, Sunni-Shiite antagonism existed 1000 years before the existence of the United States, and will exist for 1000 years after we are gone. To view that conflict as a creation of the US is to be totally ignorant of world history.
There is nothing made up of the enmity between SA and Iranian mullahs.
I canât answer as a neo-con, but I take issue with our best response to the new reality. Where evil abounds destroy it before it destroys you. The difference between the western democracies and the autocracies/theocracies is that the latter are apparently happy to sacrifice swathes of their own populations in order to increase the eliteâs power; the former prefer to nurture their citizens and only respond with violence when absolutely necessary. (Please note- these are tendencies rather than hard rules.) The time for action is now, BEFORE we end up in a global war, which will inevitably come if we fail to act decisively.
I’m sick and tired of being bludgeoned again and again with this Manichaean world-view of good v. evil, where “we” (and those whom we favour) are unreflectedly understood as “good” and those who do not agree with us as “evil”.
I also get tired of the endless repletion of “Munich” and “Chamberlain”, which betray a singular lack of understanding of the geopolitical situation of the time.
It should bother us that the vast majority of the earth’s population – most of them the citizens of countries we not so long ago dominated as colonies – do not see us in our self-glorifying light. We would do well to listen for a while, and show humility.
Hmmm! Hence my stressing that my comment refers to trends. Youâre probably right about the majority of the worldâs population. Sadly a minority of bullies couldnât give a shit and can only be stopped through physical force. You cannot reason with a psychopath or a psychopathic regime.
Chamberlain did what was exactly right in the circumstances…and then got blamed for it because Beaverbrook disliked him.
France had made it plain it would not fight for Czechoslovakia. Without France, Britain could do nothing.
Britain simply was not ready for another war, not militarily, not psychologically. It had its hands full with a colonial empire it could not afford, and traditionally disinterested in intra-European squabbles, all the more so for a country not accessible to the fleet. Besides, the Poles had secured for themselves a slice of Czechoslovakia following Hitler’s deal. If Czechoslovakia’s neighbours did not care, why should Britain?
Britain couldn’t afford a long war, nor win a short one…and Chamberlain knew this. He was traduced by Michael Foot’s “The Guilty Men” totally unfairly, and yet the lies about him are still generally accepted…presumably because the “Churchill as hero cult” is so strong.
The guarantee to Poland was foolish in the extreme; nothing could be gained, and much lost, which it was. Whilst the Empire had to be got rid of in any event ( yes too expensive with too little return), Britain did not have to become a vassal of the USA. The war ensured it did. In fact, Britain didn’t truly recover from the war until the 1980s…but was still a vassal.
You’re either just angry that Hitler’s warped idea of a paradise failed horribly due to self-destruction, and you thus will never have the chance to wear a cool looking SS uniform and live out some power fantasy of having absolute power over others. Or you’re just sore about the fact that the British empire no longer exists and cant except that it was not going to exist in the long do the how and socially and financially unsustainable it was, and just blame others or it’s failures despite the fact that it was subject to intractable historical forces that made its fall inevitable, and thus depriving you of living out some kind of mighty whitey power fantasy about a time in history that never truly existed save for In the imaginations of overgrown adolescence. Or some awful combination of the two, which makes you in either case a retrogreed moral degenerate.
Roosevelt was ruthless in despoiling Britain of its imperial assets.
His anti-imperialist, de-colonisation ardour carried over into the creation of the UN, but it cooled markedly once the US assumed Britain’s imperial mantle.
The Soviet Union was only too eager to pick up the standard of de-colonisation, much to the US’ annoyance. But the USSR’s policies are paying diplomatic dividends for Russia today.
The enmity between Iran and Saudi is not “a made up one”. The idea that some nefarious 3rd force can force two obvious ideological and power competitors to be friends or enemies is absurd. (Look at Greece and Turkey). Yet again, this is a version of the ridiculous conspiracy theory that the US, or a vaguely defined group of “necons” (the Biden administration is not George W Bush’s) are somehow responsible for almost all conflicts and tensions in the world. The US is always at fault – almost whatever they do (Iraq a disaster but also blamed for Syria!).
I don’t have all the answers, but there is one aggressive and destabilising power in the Middle East today. This state outrageously threatens to destroy another state in the same neighborhood, Israel, has mounted missile attacks on Saudi Arabia, as well as sponsoring attacks on international shipping. And that state is the Islamic Republic of Iran. But, natch, it’s the Americans’ fault!
By the way, you must be almost unhinged to claim that “the US doesn’t care about Europe’s fate”. Europe’s weakness and addiction to business as usual, shafting its true friends while pallying up to its enemies, is entirely its own responsibility. The US has many faults, but without it we would be living in a Nazi dominated Europe, or just conceivably a Communist one, and the sanctimonious Europeans would either be kowtowing to these masters or dead.
I agree with you, on any side of the political spectrum you’re always going to find extremist of certain ideological types who always blame the world’s problems on one singular group and never attribute agency to the actual obvious perpetrators and will always say that the said group is the one controlling everything, The favored groups they blame can be Communists, Wall Street, or NeoCons, and of course everyone’s favorite scapegoat, The Jews. Some people just cannot accept the fact that the world is a chaotic, unpredictable, and random place because they find the idea both scary and disempowering and won’t accept the idea that there are no easy solutions or simple answers what ails the world. They also like the idea that they have some unique ability to discern the reality of existence by carrying these false narratives to flatter themselves into thinking that there’s some kind of genius, but reality they’re actually quite mediocre not special, and irrelevant in the grander scheme of things, which their fragile egos cannot accept and thus deny. Unfortunately the comment section is infested with the types of people I just described, thus making the discourse on this site much poorer than it should be.
Israel attacking Iranâs nuclear facilities might be a mistake. The far greater mistake has already been made (and the folly continues) by USA and the other Western democracies. Our laughable responses to Iranian threats, deadly attacks and spreading of terrorism have been as nothing compared with the sheer stupidity of allowing its nuclear programme to continue. We alternately wring our hands in despair and pretend to be tough. Pathetic!
Israel killed JFK so they could have nukes, if the US are OK with that, they should let Iran have nukes too
US intelligence agencies are agreed – Iran has not taken any steps to produce a nuclear device. Similarly, the Iranian fatwa outlawing nuclear weapons remains in place.
The JCPOA was the roadmap to a balanced approach, protecting Iran’s ventures into nuclear power while making an Iranian quest for a nuclear weapon both unnecessary and counterproductive, while promising Iran sanctions relief. The JCPOA was endorsed by the UN Security Council, making it binding in international law on everybody.
No-one (credibly) maintains that Iran violated the JCPOA. And yet, neither Europe nor the US ever followed through on their end of the bargain. When Trump was elected, he simply reneged on the JCPOA, in flagrant violation of its terms. Europe feebly squeaked that it would continue to abide, but never followed through.
When Biden was elected, he promised to re-engage on the terms of the JCPOA, but reneged on that promise.
There’s the rub. The US is incapable of following through on agreements. The White House or Foggy Bottom may in all sincerity want the agreement and want to abide by it, but then Congress or Treasury or the Pentagon intervene and make a mockery of what was just promised.
Even if you wanted to be friends with the US, what are you to make of this? Isn’t the lesson the US are shouting out to the world: On us you cannot rely, look out for yourself?
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Friday said that Iranâs breakout time â the amount of time needed to produce enough weapons grade material for a nuclear weapon â âis now probably one or two weeksâ as Tehran has continued to develop its nuclear program.
Maybe heâs wrong. Almost everyone agrees theyâre one year out at the most.
Building a nuclear device is relatively easy. It is not technical challenges that are stopping countries from making them, but diplomatic ones. So I don’t think Blinken is wrong, but it’s irrelevant.
No-one – including Russia and China – wants more proliferation.
The US’ “diplomatic” efforts have focused on punishing would-be nuclear powers, trying to beat them into submission; that approach to me misses the key issue, in that countries beset all around see nuclear weapons as a desperate but cheap solution. So the greater the pressure and isolation, the more attractive the bomb becomes.
Russia may be going down the opposite route: Supplying Iran with the conventional defences that relieve the pressure on Iran and so reduce the attractiveness of nuclear devices.
U.S. intelligence agencies all agreed ? Lately they have all agreed only on one political line or another, Not on any serious estimate of the intentions or capabilities of America’s opponents or even of her allies. These agencies are filled with good analysts and have access to limitless information, but their leadership, all of them, are ‘political’ to the core..One reason why US wars have been lost for decades.
As to whether it’s wise to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities; we won’t know until it’s tried.
Iran never abided by by the JCPOA, and multiple US Administrations, on a bi-partisan basis, allowed Iranian imperialism and anti-Jewish obsession to fester. Obama and Biden both infamously funded Iranian imperialist pretenses with billions.
That the author of this post skips over decades of Iranian attacks and destruction is telling.
With such short time frames it’s ridiculous to rely on the US Armed Forces for anything. We could never get our s**t together in time. Just look at what’s NOT happening in Appalachia right now. There are thousands of troops sitting in their barracks, doing nothing, within a hundred miles of flood victims who haven’t seen any help yet. Our combat engineers ordered to do nothing cause “the roads are washed out”. It’s shameful.
The UN Security Council forms international law? Since when?
I sincerely doubt there exists any great enthusiasm among the American public to join Israelâs war.
The views of the American public are utterly irrelevant to what its ruling “class” do. The only time those views are accorded any importance is when there is so much public anger and action that they cannot be ignored eg Vietnam.
i think the Israelis know what they are doing and I have greater faith in them than all these western politicians and journalists who have empirically proven their stupidity so many times.
I used to think that Israel did at least try to look after its own people but their Covid vaccine policy and the possible blind eye to the Oct 7th assault make that belief less tenable.
Perhaps a lesson about Iranian imperialism will be learned.
“Iranian imperialism”? Please do elaborate!
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and Gaza are all under Iranian hegemony. I believe that is imperialism.
Hezbolah is literally run by Iranians. Hamas nearly. The Houthi as well. The Iranian bombings in Buenos Aires. The Iranian support of IEDs against Americans in Iraq. The Iranian sponsored attack during the Haj in Mecca….for starters.
Israel should not attack the nuclear sites. Israel should not disrupt the oil industry. I read what Israel should not do. What should it do?
How about bombing the drone factory or factories?
How about trying peace?
What a lovely but naive idea! I want peace; he wants me to die; so Iâll just wait and maybe his hatred will go away of its own accord. Jews in Europe kind of tried that approach in mid 20thC. Itâs not a story with a happy ending.
What an astoundingly stupid remark. I believe Neville Chamberlian tried the same thing with another Gas Mann in 1938.
The mullahs in Iran want the peace of a charnel house operator. It takes all sides to make peace.
Peace is not naive, itâs the only option. Killing, killing, killing is no solution. Weâve just all got to grow up.
I hope youâre a high school student.
Thank god Israel has all the subscribers here to advise them.
Likely better advice than Whitehall or Foggy Bottom have provided…
I was thinking the same thing! “Boy, thank God we saw this article by Tom Rogan–we were just about to attack Iran’s nuclear program, but realized our error in time! Thanks, Tom!”
What tripe…
Israel will neither hit the Nuclear plants or strike against Iranâs Oil industry. Author is just wrong to suggest targeting the latter ‘…would make strategic sense’. Setting off a worldwide recession with Straits of Hormuz closure, and badly impacting the Abraham Accords as Gulf states lost out in the process, not in Israel’s interest.
The key is to ferment opposition against the regime in Iran. Cyber warfare and covert actions to help opposition groups can do more on that than a performative strike on a refinery. Israel will do something we can all see, but it’ll be more nuanced.
Perhaps the best way to put Iran’s deep buried nuclear sites out of action will be to entomb them rather than to destroy them.
Destroy the oil infrastructure and cut off their source of cash. Threaten to use nuclear weapons? Nuke them into oblivion, stop pandering to their threats and annihilate them. In fact, do it first….
Israel doesn’t have to destroy the underground facilities, just seal off the entrances and ventilation shafts
It would certainly put a lot of people in their graves, including Israelis and Americans if the US joined it.
Stopping bullies with violence, really, which but donât you understand about killing and killling and killing? All living things are our brothers and sisters, even the crazies, on both sides. I think that blokes love this stuff, until itâs their child.
But you’re so cold logic, rapist and robbers are by definition good people and thus should be allowed to do what they want. I wonder what type of household you grew up in I wonder.