69 million page views

I doubt they'd support an Israeli nuclear campaign vs. Iran

Reader comment on item: A Military Strike on Iran's Nuclear Infrastructure?

Submitted by John in Michigan, USA (United States), Jun 21, 2010 at 00:10

Dr. Pipes strikes just the right note re the alleged Saudi green light -- "Interesting if true".

It seems to me that the alleged green light (and the limited popular support in the region) for Israeli action would only apply to an Israeli action involving conventional forces. There is no reason to believe that any of this would apply to the use of an Israeli nuke (for example a submarine-launched, bunker buster or EMP weapon, as has been indirectly hinted at by Dr. Pipes).

When it comes to military action vs. the Iranian nuclear program, whatever Israel does, and whatever the US does, must, it seems to me, be premised on the idea that it will be necessary to do it more than once over the coming years. No one action, or even a campaign sustained over several weeks, will guarantee an end to the Iranian nuclear threat. Each action, or campaign, will have to be followed by a waiting period in order to assess the results on the ground, the Iranian change of heart (or lack thereof), not to mention the international climate.

The effort would likely evolve into an ongoing series of suppressive ("spoiling") raids, rather than a single decisive blow; it will likely resemble the periodic raids against Gaza rocket-launching cells, rather than the more decisive Osirak (1981) and Syria (2007) raids.

A preventative Israeli nuclear response that fails, or that succeeds but results in unsustainable backlash against Israel, would make it very, very difficult for Israel to follow up when (not if) Iran decides to restart (or rebuild) its nuclear program. This is yet another in a long list of reasons why a preventative Israeli nuclear response is not a realistic option for Israel.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (27) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
Is the military option still at bay? [25 words]Edarg kleinJul 20, 2010 04:00175781
israel would be foolish to do so [236 words]RRwestJul 13, 2010 15:55175537
Nuclear or not nuclear, it does not make any difference. [98 words]AdhamJul 8, 2010 03:57175304
leaker's motive? [90 words]William BellJun 28, 2010 16:56174948
Iranian Report [51 words]Mark DJun 25, 2010 00:59174791
Ok Then [9 words]Mark D.Jun 24, 2010 22:56174780
China Running Iran [54 words]melvin polatnickJun 22, 2010 10:03174656
Who Will Strike [75 words]Mark D.Jun 24, 2010 23:04174656
China Should Run Iran? [46 words]The Caped CrusaderJul 11, 2010 06:50174656
HAFEZ AND SYRIA, IS IT A DICTATORSHIP ? [145 words]JACQUES HADIDAJun 21, 2010 21:05174637
Strike all who are against human growth [180 words]kamekishJun 21, 2010 00:40174609
Where The US Stand [61 words]Mark DJun 25, 2010 00:33174609
Obama should not spoil Americans effort [71 words]kamekishJun 26, 2010 07:14174609
I doubt they'd support an Israeli nuclear campaign vs. Iran [288 words]John in Michigan, USAJun 21, 2010 00:10174607
The Future: Not So Clear Skies for Israel [184 words]Mike RamirezJun 20, 2010 19:57174603
Attack?? [31 words]2outspokenJun 20, 2010 18:52174600
If Iran Gets the Bomb [151 words]Prof. Paul EidelbergJun 20, 2010 18:30174596
serve [30 words]jacob nelkinJun 22, 2010 12:06174596
1A nuclear-armed Iran [176 words]Kevin BjornsonJun 22, 2010 14:35174596
What Have They Condemned [48 words]Mark D.Jun 24, 2010 23:10174596
I Think It's Good [22 words]Mark D.Jun 25, 2010 00:20174596
Must Not Happen [24 words]Mark D.Jun 25, 2010 00:25174596
Military strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure. [51 words]M.D.Jun 20, 2010 15:04174589
do the job from within? [86 words]AlanaJun 21, 2010 01:27174589
I'm Not Surprised that Nations Say One Thing & Do Another [52 words]SusanJun 20, 2010 03:10174577
The efficacy of a strike on nuclear infrastructure [137 words]ZSIJun 20, 2010 02:45174575
Going After The Leadership? [101 words]Mark D.Jun 25, 2010 00:50174575

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to I doubt they'd support an Israeli nuclear campaign vs. Iran by John in Michigan, USA

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2024 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)