PART TWO:   THE ISRAELI OPTIONS FOR IRAN

Yesterday I briefly outlined the possible Iranian, strategic concepts of a First Strike on Israel and the possible consequences of such actions.

Given the prevailing theory is Israel will strike first, let's go over what the strategic issues might be for Israel and what repercussions their actions may bring upon them and more importantly their Allies.

A LIMITED, SCALEABLE STRIKE:

First and foremost, I would be absolutely shocked to see Israel take this course of action given the fact they would be sacrificing the element of surprise,  yet limiting their impact on the Iranian nuclear facilities; it would almost seem self-defeating!

Targeting nuclear program areas that have low probability of civilian casualties, thus limiting public outcry is the main objective of a limited strike.

The ability to scale the follow on attacks after giving a warning that further attacks are ready for execution again gives Israel the option of controlling the severity  of the conflict.

The real danger with any nation contemplating such an option is suffering a disproportionate response.

Israel would have to truly gamble Iran would limit it's response based upon the "limited" attack from Israel.

In nation states where the survival of the country is not really in question, the theory of limited, scaleable attacks or counterattacks is a logical pattern.

In a nation the size of Israel, with limited abilities to survive a massive first round counterattack and yet still be able to win a decisive confrontation  this would is a dangerous gamble.

 I simply don't see this scenario taking place.

The Risk Assessment formulary will never pass the IDF's senior command.

Having said this, the one weighted factor that could influence the final decision could be the support of lack of support from Israel's Allies.

Simply put, if the US ask Israel, assuming the US would get the opportunity to ask, to limit it's attack or risk alienating it's strongest protector, Israel would have to think long and hard.

Would the US get the chance to weigh in on the issue?

At this point in time,  I don't think they will.

So, let's move on to a more plausible scenario.

A FATAL BLOW WITH A DIRE WARNING AFTERWARDS:

So much has been written about the high probability of Israel not being able to accomplish a complete destruction of the Iranian nuclear program that it's possible many in the world truly believe this statement.

I would be willing to bet you there is one nation that doesn't believe this theory to be true..... Israel!!!

Here is the technical problem with this all too common theory from the " talking heads" on TV.

Nuclear programs are incredibly expensive and complex and most of all fragile. 

The idea that every facility and every piece of equipment must be destroyed to prevent the program from being rebuilt is foolish.

What needs to be hit... what it needs to be hit with and what impact that will have to the overall program has been reviewed time and time again.

It is unrealistic to think Israel has not worked this part the attack scenario for several years now.

"Shock and Awe" is not a proprietary concept to the US.

The complex part of Israeli " Fatal Blow" First Strike is not just understanding what par

of the nuclear program must be attacked and what level of damage must be achieved.

Israel must also plan for the neutralization of Hezbollah and any other organization, such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad and this part of the attack must take place nearly simultaneously.

What resources will be used for what target is a detailed process.

Again, this is not news to Israel and you can rest assured they have this plan complete.

Stacked on top of the issues of nuclear facility targeting and neutralization operations, Israel must have a defendable... believable Public Information Operation plan ready to execute.

This message must be geared towards not just Israel's own public, but more importantly it must attempt to justify a First Strike to the rest of the world.

Now, Israeli government is realistic in it's expectations.

For a large segment of the Middle Eastern Population, the reasoning will not be heard!

What Israel must rely on is the known but seldom spoken hatred for the Iranian's by Arab Leadership.

Keeping the GCC and others limited to verbal ridicule is the real goal.

Keeping the common Arab / Muslim / populist calm is the challenge of the Arab Leadership.

Simply put, this attack will most likely explode the Arab Spring issue in places such as Egypt and Jordan.

Add to this the reaction to Hezbollah's neutralization mission that will have to take place on Lebanese soil and the issue of Second Order Effects..... Law of Unintended Consequences becomes the Delta that is simply too complex to anticipate.

Ok, lets simplfy this topic.

Israel can achieve a Fatal First Strike on the Iranian program.

The result will be an Iran that will not have the ability to rebuild a nuclear weapons program anytime in the distant future.

The Iranian Nuclear threat will be eliminated.

In the process... the Middle East will have social turmoil that could easily topple the Saudi and Jordanian governments.

The Israeli government may be tossed from power as a result as well; a possibility that I am sure has been factored into the plan.. a plan that could easily be understood by more than just one political party in Israel.

A regional war may be avoided simply because the Arabs and the Ottomans do not see value in destroying their countries over the Persians....  Somewhat the same fate the Palestinians have suffered for over 40 years.

SUMMARY:

What does Israel have to lose by going " limited"???  A lot ..perhaps too much....

What does Israel have to lose by striking a fatal blow?? 

Who is it that continues to say, "Israel's days as a nation are numbered"?

I think you get the picture.

Oh ya.. I called this option " A fatal blow with a dire warning".

In the history of Israel, the topic or recognition of it's nuclear weapons program has never been officially acknowledged. 

If this fatal blow plan somehow would go wrong.. if Hezbollah and others were able to deal a catastrophic blow to Israel... the warning of what price could be paid may very well be given.

I think that warning was given in 1973 and the two Super Powers at that time rushed to prevent a calamity.

Don't be foolish enough to think history can not repeat itself.

On Wednesday... I will look at what I consider the interesting part of this possible conflict... the tactics of how each side might execute their plan.

IRAN AND ISRAEL... HOW MIGHT IT HAPPEN?

The first thing worth saying is just how monumental the decision to go to war with each other truly is to both Iran and Israel.

The price both might pay, along with the rest of the region, is something they have both contemplated for years.

frankly, the fear of where such a conflict might leave both of the parties has been the best deterrence.

I've commented before Mutual Assured Destruction is not a strategic concept that Israel would base their survival on, yet their undeclared nuclear weapons program has in fact provided them with this option for years.

To paraphrase several past Israeli Statesmen and Women, ' Most of Israel was sand when they fought for it and most of Israel will be sand if they lose it.'

For the sake of looking at how this tragic event could take place, we need to accept the fact that MAD will not prevent the conflict.

How might it happen?

Let's take a look at two baseline scenarios; one with Iran starting the conflict and one with Israel initiating the event.

IRAN DECIDES TO STRIKE FIRST:

One particular lesson that may have been discovered  from the 2006 / 2008 " proxy wars" Iran experimented with is the strategic and tactical value of Israeli Air Force Bases.

Israel's ability to strike quickly and decisively is based upon it's Air Force.

the IAF is also the stopgap measure the IDF counts on to buy itself time for mobilization of it's grown forces.

To lose the IAF fields, even for a minimal amount of time, would prove to  be disastrous for Israel.

An Iranian  preemptive  missile strike on IAF airfields would be a logical strategic concept that would, at least temporarily, level the playing field.

What Iran would have to consider and do so very carefully, would be the classical " Law of Unintended Consequences".

To cripple the IAF as a first strike option would force Israel to escalate their response dramatically.

The classical, controlled exchange of conflict would not be an option if the IDF found itself without it's Air Force at the very beginning of the conflict.

Simply put, Israel would almost assuredly respond disproportionately knowing how wounded their defense had become.

If Iran was truly set on blunting Israel's ability to wage near-term warfare, it would have to gamble with the initial counter attack.

The short answer is, this scenario is an " all in" option with little room for limited exchanges.

This is the type of action Iran would take if it truly meant to attempt to defeat Israel in combat; something they will not achieve.

The Iranian ability to " control" the initial conflict would probably be based on the more classical " proxy" actions such as in 2006 and 2008.

Iran's use of Hezbollah and Hamas, although I think Hamas is no longer an option for Iranian planning purposes, would allow Iran to send the message, not just to Israel, but to the rest of the world, just how desperate the events had become.

Again, the Law of Unintended Consequences would come into play.

How Egypt and Turkey and the GCC would respond has changed dramatically after the impact of the Arab Spring.

Would the rest of the region sit on the sidelines and watch the two real enemies of the region duke it out?

Would the GCC come to the aid of the Persians?

Would the Muslim Brotherhood really care if Iran was dealt a crippling blow while most likely dealing one as well to Israel?

Would the Ottoman Empire risk conflict for the sake of the Persians?

Yes, the people of Palestine would suffer as well as the people of Lebanon, but does that equate into deaths for Egyptians or Turks?

I don't think so.

So, is this a good option for the Iranians?

Probably not and they most likely believe the same.

Ok, if the options for an Iranian first strike are " Limited... A proxy fight... or a Strategic blow .. the attack on the IAF.. .my bet is they go strategic.

The problem is, that leads us to a much more serious conflict than what the world is use to seeing in the Middle East.

How quickly things can get out of hand and how willing the rest of the world is to intervene will become the huge issue.

Before I end this discussion on how Iran may react, I want to make a point that has been talked about for several years now.

Would Iran truly target non Israeli targets in this conflict?

The short answer is... it depends.

It depends if Iran is convinced they are in a " use or lose" event... if they feel their current government is about to suffer the classical " regime change" conflict... then anything is possible.

But, if Iran executes a " First Strike" based on warning the world they will not tolerate further interference in their matters, such as an Arab Spring type events starting to happen in Iran, then they may limit the severity of the message.

Simply put, if they feel their national survival is at stake... yes they will attack " other targets.... If they are trying to send a desperate message.. then they will not.. at least not at first.

Tomorrow I will give my opinion of Israeli " First Strike" Options.

WILL THE IAEA's REPORT ON IRAN PUSH ISRAEL TO THE BRINK?

With all the talk and media coverage of the pending IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program, it's easy to see the spotlight will not be on Syria this week.

In a odd way, that is just what Iran is looking for, but this may not be the distraction they had planned on.

Israel's continuing up tick in media statements addressing Iran's nuclear program  have not gone unnoticed all over the world.

Let's ask a very simple question and try to answer with an easy answer.

Is Israel really.....really.... preparing the world for actions against Iran?

Now, the topic of Israel and Iran has been a classic " boy crying Wolf" for several years now.

If I had to guess, I would say the rumor they were about to come to blows has happened over six or seven times in the past five years; and that is only counting honest assessments by professional individuals.

I have published this next set of comments several times over the past six months, but lets do it again.

Lets look at why this could be closer than it has ever been in the past!

Both countries are in a much more dangerous position than they have been for some time now.

The threat of the Arab Spring to both Iran and Israel is more than real.. it is most likely imminent.

They both fear the same basic issue, Islamic Fundamentalist  Sunni Muslim Brootherhood/ and the civil unrest this movement can bring to their  countries.  

In both cases it's the youthful, educated movements that will start the fires, but the MB is in the background waiting to step in.

For Iran, this is a repeat of Iranian history.

Don't forget who started the " Revolution" in Iran that brought down the Shaw and who "hijacked " the movement once it was underway. ]

For Israel, the social disorder on the streets will come from the Palestinian statehood issue.

Again, to keep the answer to the question of could this attack really be about to happen, I will keep the answer simple.

Both countries very possibly see themselves in positions they have not experienced for decades.

They both are living on the edge of paranoia and both are looking for " plots" behind every event.. day by day.

In the past few months, I have looked at how this event may take place, but some critical issues have changed and tomorrow night I will update how I believe this event will take place if it does happen.

I will warn everyone.. I am very concerned most of the world is drastically underestimating how bad this event could get.

 http://www.debka.com/article/21453/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/06/us-nuclear-iran-idUSTRE7A50KE20111106

ISRAEL AND IRAN;  A DISCUSSION CONTINUED  

As the week draws to a close, I think it's important to simplify an important issue that received a great deal of discussion all week long.

It is no secret Israel sees itself in an increasing desperate position.

Iran's perception of its condition is not far behind.

This is an extremely dangerous combination right now.

Both nations potentially see themselves is national survival environment with
each other being the major threat.

Iran's potential loss of its most valuable proxy state, Syria and the fear of
the Arab Spring spreading to the Iranian youth, coupled with a internal power
struggle between a Persian Nationalist and a Muslim Fundamentalist has placed
itself on the edge of the cliff.

Israel faces the ever growing criticism from the majority of the modern world
over the Palestinian statehood issue, all the while knowing a reduced
landmass Israel will be virtually impossible to defend from modern day
weaponry.

Israel has a sworn enemy who as vowed to remove Israel from the face of the
earth who is also blatantly building a nuclear weapons program as the rest of
the world stands by.

Israel, just like the leaders of the GCC, fear the Arab Spring spreading to
the streets of Israel especially when it is exploited by Iran.

( Side Note: Interesting how Israel and Saudi have the same problem
right now.)

I am not sure what miracle form of diplomacy will prevent this collision form
taking place, but history tells us such attempts have almost always fallen
short.

If time is truly running out to prevent conflict between these two, then
hopefully there is enough time left to limit its impact and or hasten the
recovery.

I hope no one is foolish enough to believe the Israeli government will adopt
some form of "Mutual Destruction" Doctrine.

Again, that will be yet another example of "wishing the problem away".

What we should be working on:

Our effort must be on limiting the support Iran has planned for.

The support of Hamas and Hezbollah, if removed will limit the amount of
action Israel will be forced to take.

It will be the difference between this event being a Regional War or a
conflict between the two countries; luckily, the Arab's fear Iran more than
they hate Israel.

The danger will be Iran's ability to force other nations involvement .

Hamas cannot stand by and watch the destruction of Gaza based on Iran's
ability to manipulate organizations such as the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

If the " Sunni" based fringe organizations can be pulled away from Iran as
well, it could keep the entire Palestinian issue out of the conflict.

An Israel that is ready to address, truly address the Palestinian statehood
issue, post conflict with Iran is probably exactly what the Arabs are looking
for; at least for now.

The Billion dollar question is.. .are we ready for this event to take place
when we least expect it?

Has the public been prepared for what this event could mean or have the world
government's concerns over the world's fragile economy kept this nightmare
off the airways?

Israel's media campaign of the past week is no fluke.

Is it tea leaf reading or a last real warning of how danger out the situation
has become?

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/11/2011113125630400402.html

I think we shall soon find out.

SYRIA AND THE ARAB LEAGUE INITIATIVE.. YA..... RIGHT!!!

So, it's one  or two days past the great breakthrough with Assad and the Arab League and the city of Homs continues to be a battle zone!

Now, some will argue that " cease fires" and that is truly what we are talking about here, take time to implement.

Others will say that cease fires are contingent on both sides agreeing to the terms.

In Syria's case, it's far more complex than that.

For the Arab League and the Syrian government, the official one for now, to agree on terms for ending the violence doesn't mean the Sunni and the Shia / Alawites / were in the room or even voted on what the terms would be.

If what Syria is and has been facing for weeks now is a sectarian / Civil War/ than the agreement from two days ago is the classic, " too little too late".

It was even hinted by many prominent Middle Eastern followers this was the case.

What is interesting and needs further analysis is the fact the Arab League and Assad knew this to be true before the great agreement was reached.

As for Assad, he may have realized he was in a great position to say, " I told you so".

Stop to think about what he did.

He took a list of demands from the Arab League that everyone knew he would not come close to agreeing to and after a closed door meeting allowed the AL to announce a great breakthrough.

Within hours the Sunni blood feud with the Alawites in places like Homs and Bab Amro gave Assad exactly what he was looking for; the statement that armed factions were causing the violence in Syria and his forces were simply responding to protect the people.

Here is the interesting question, technically .... is he wrong????

True, his forces spent the first few months attempting to crush the protesters for the reason, in his mind, of preventing a sectarian civil war from taking place.

Not speaking to the brutality of his attempts, if he has failed in preventing the Civil War, then his ability to stop the fighting is extremely limited.

Now, I have no intention of sounding as if I condone any of his Actions over the past few months, but the fact of the matter is Assad most likely sat down with the Arab Leauge knowing he was powerless to give them what they were looking for.. thus ... why not agree to what they demanded.

So, what is the next move?

What does the Arab League do when they realize Assad is powerless to stop the fledgling civil war?

If they realized what they were walking into when the showed up to talk to Assad, then they have been planning what their next step should be.

I know that is giving the AL a great deal more credit than most, but I am convinced they knew what time it was before this weeks meeting ever took place.

It will take probably another day or two at the most to see where the blame line shows up.

Will the AL blame Assad for breaking his word?

If so, what does that get them?

Will the AL begin to place pressure on the Sunni side of this civil war?

We should see hints of the next AL move, if they can manage one, soon!

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=244323

WHERE HAS THE PALESTINIAN STATEHOOD ISSUE GONE?

The short answer is, nowhere fast!!

The reality is, nobody is in a real hurry, other than the Palestinians, to push the UNSC vote.

It appears the PA is one vote away from having the nine needed to force the US veto and that one vote is going to be virtually impossible to get.

In the long run it won't really matter given the US will take the blame one way or another, but not having to officially cast the " Veto" vote is a small victory for the US.

As for the UNESCO recognition, if it does one thing, it sets the "trend" of UN organizations getting comfortable with saying yes to a Palestinian membership.

As for the relationship between Abbas and Hamas, the past week has been another trying chapter in Palestinian leadership journals.

Iran's dictated missile events revolving around it's power struggle with Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood did nothing for Abbas or Hamas's future.

That kind of events is the last thing Abbas or Hamas needs right now and that is exactly one of the reasons Iran called for the event.

So, what does all this mean?

How does the actions out of Gaza and the threat of Israeli response tie into the pending UNSC vote?

Well, for one thing, it could mean Iran is threatening they could keep a vote from event taking place.

A proxy conflict between Israel and the forces in Gaza would be just the excuse the UNSC would need to kick the vote down the road for months if not longer.

So, is the Palestinian statehood vote a bargaining chip in the struggle to keep Syria / Assad / in power and in the Iranian camp?

I would absolutely bet on it if I had to.

If the Arab League wants to see the Palestinian / UNSC vote come to fruition, then Iran may very well demand the Arab League come to terms with Assad.

Surprise.... surprise... what took place today????

Ah yes..... an " agreement" between the Arab League and Syria!!!

Imagine that..

Now, lets see who betrays who first!

It's the Middle Eastern way of doing business....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15554178

ISRAEL'S ATTEMPT TO WORK  WITH EGYPT.

Netanyahu's decision to temporaraly hold off on retaliating against groups in Gaza has a twofold message from both Israel and Egypt.

Israel allows itself the perception they are still willing and able to work with Egypt on matters of regional importance.

Egypt is allowed to send the message to Iran that they can still hold the fate of Gaza even though Iran pushed it's case for being able to influence groups like Islamic Jihad.

Round one went to Iran with Egypt having to watch Iran initiate operations in Gaza, but round two goes to Egypt for convincing Israel Egypt can pressure events coming from Gaza.

It's a Chess game, as it always is, but this game has five key players right now.

Egypt /  Hamas / Palestinian Authority / Israel and Iran.

How long does Israel hold off you may ask?

Until the first missile strikes an emotional target or the Israeli pubic demands protection.

I don't think this is the prelude to a full scale event, but Iran's option of a " proxy war" to protect Assad is smack dab in the middle of the table.

It won't take much right now... and the Palestinian leadership, to include Hamas, knows it.

If someone or some team has to be sacrificed to keep Israel from striking Gaza, Hamas and Egypt will make sure that happens.