A sound analysis, except even making a nuclear weapon may not help Iran. Iran would need both atomic weapons and a means of delivering them effectively. That last is a bit more difficult, as it would require sufficient nuclear armed missiles to overcome both Israeli and US attacks on launch sites (i.e. the threat starting a launch wouldn't result in obliteration.)
Israel can probably be deterred, but maybe not: the use of the Hannibal Doctrine, killing their own soldiers and civilians during the 10/07 attacks indicates the nation might be willing to chance a direct hit, even if failure to stop an Iranian missile resulted in massive casualties. And make no mistake, such an attack would result in the utter obliteration of much of Iran and its people, as Israel possesses numerous nuclear weapons and has no moral compunctions regarding civilian deaths. Iran might be able to damage Israel, if Israeli counter measures against a weapon prove ineffective, but no one inside or outside Iran doubts Israel's ability and willingness to counter punch with far more devastation. So even acquiring a nuke might not change the balance of power between the two nations, given Israel has many more nukes ready to go.
Iran can't reach the US directly and at this point it's likely the US might choose to employ nuclear weapons as a first strike should the Iranian regime declare itself a nuclear armed power. That too is an existential risk for both the regime and its citizens, who might well be willing to mount their own rebellion if their only other choice is death from above by Israeli and US nukes.
At best Iran rolls the dice and goes for nuclear weapons, and hopes this doesn't immediately trigger an all out war with Israel and the US. At worst they end up committing suicide, just like the actual Carthaginian general Hannibal. It's a true dilemma, where either choice results in getting gored and bleeding out.
What I found more intriguing were the non-responses from China and Russia. Russia, it's true, is tied up with its own elective war in Ukraine, but the lack of risk taking by China and Trump's willingness to act may deter their own plans to take Taiwan by force. China may not be as bellicose as portrayed by its wolf warrior diplomats.
Or it could simply come down to Iran's messianic government isn't worth the risk in its allies' eyes, and Russia will still continue to attempt to take more of Ukraine while the Chinese bide their time, hiding their strength until they believe the moment to take Taiwan is right.
We might be reading too much into the conflict. Iran could well be, as you observe, the dog that doesn't bark, knowing it can't follow up with a convincing bite. If so, even nukes may not provide a sharp enough deterrent against further aggression from Israel or the USA.
One achievement Bibi and Trump have gained is the ideals of a moral or limited war are no longer in vogue and brutal realpolitik back. It seems madness now that we were willing to invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of people, but no steal the oil. The idea of not directly attacking civilians also no longer merits serious consideration, as both Ukraine and Gaza clearly demonstrate. We're firmly in the territory of the strong do as they wish and the weak suffer what they must at this point, no moral pretenses necessary. In that sense the Iran bombing is but to be expected.
My guess is that China is husbanding its resources when it comes to Taiwan. It's really not in their interest to get involved with Iran, except rhetorically, to highlight US/Western hypocrisy.
I agree that Iran doesn't have great options. The estimates I've read thought that it would take them a year after developing a nuclear weapon to have a realistic means of delivering it.
I think Israel would be forced to exhibit restraints vis-a-vis Iran if it got to that point, a big if.
Israel is a very small country with a very small population. Even one nuclear hit would have devastating consequences, consequences that wouldn't change even if they wiped Iran off the map.
Dear Habib, I followed you from Quora to Substack. Your perspectives are usually deep and very revealing. You said in 6 (g): "They have shown no appetite for suicidal war on their own territory). They understand that a nuclear first strike on Israel would lead to the obliteration of their country. What they seek is to make themselves uninvadable, not to be annihilated."...I hope that some policy maker sees this and it actually gets to influence some major decision...Sadly, except for maybe China, people like you never get to make or advice on major policy decisions around the world again.
There are so many people in the West who can't imagine that Iranian policymakers are rational actors. And unfortunately, many of them get to be policymakers.
Point 2 - the IAEA (certainly an organization with no love for Trump) says Iran’s nuclear program has been setback significantly. I pray that is true, but we do know that the initial intelligence reports that have been leaked are “low confidence.”
Point 3 - we know that the area has been under satellite surveillance AND that Israel had to option to destroy roads leaving the facility and did not exercise that option. The Mossad also have significant intelligence assets in Iran. I very seriously doubt that Israel and the US don’t know where the uranium was taken.
Point 6, bullet point f - I believe it is a mistake to think that The Ayatollah thinks of things in the same way westerners do. To him the destruction of Israel is completely rational, and commanded by his faith. To put it simply, if Iran develops nukes they will be used on Israel.
I'm conscious of that. The damage done to the Iranian nuclear program may be extensive. We really won't know for sure for a while. It doesn't change the fact that we've made the option more attractive than it was before.
Nothing I have read suggests either the US or Mossad knows where the uranium is at this point.
Lastly, rationality is not a trait exclusive to Westerners. I am not a Westerner by birth. Nor are the people who raised me. Perhaps because people in the West had never encountered nor thought about Islamic fundamentalism before 9/11, they tend to lump in together all manner of people who have nothing to do with one another. The vast vast vast vast vast majority of Islamic fundamentalists want nothing to do with suicide. Iran has a mature leadership that has been in power for nearly 50 years. If their goal had been to lead their country into some cataclysmic war of annihilation based on some Millenarian premise, they could have done so by now. And yet here we are. No suicidal war, ever. Instead, what we see is a rational assessment of the balance of forces and the use of indirect means of putting pressure on their enemies, not all out war, the only instance of which was when they were attacked by Saddam. There is a certain type of orientalism that pervades Western analyses of Iranian--and by the same extension North Korean--behavior. But we have religious fundamentalists making policy in both the US and Israel. And nobody thinks them incapable of rational analysis. Nobody thinks them to be the equivalent of Al Qaeda.
Let's zoom in on that for a second. Not even Al Qaeda was a suicidal movement. They were a movement that used suicide bombing as a tool of war. But the leadership was never trying to commit suicide. The problem with dealing with caricatures of your adversaries instead of your adversaries as they actually are is that it leads you down the wrong policy pathway.
A sound analysis, except even making a nuclear weapon may not help Iran. Iran would need both atomic weapons and a means of delivering them effectively. That last is a bit more difficult, as it would require sufficient nuclear armed missiles to overcome both Israeli and US attacks on launch sites (i.e. the threat starting a launch wouldn't result in obliteration.)
Israel can probably be deterred, but maybe not: the use of the Hannibal Doctrine, killing their own soldiers and civilians during the 10/07 attacks indicates the nation might be willing to chance a direct hit, even if failure to stop an Iranian missile resulted in massive casualties. And make no mistake, such an attack would result in the utter obliteration of much of Iran and its people, as Israel possesses numerous nuclear weapons and has no moral compunctions regarding civilian deaths. Iran might be able to damage Israel, if Israeli counter measures against a weapon prove ineffective, but no one inside or outside Iran doubts Israel's ability and willingness to counter punch with far more devastation. So even acquiring a nuke might not change the balance of power between the two nations, given Israel has many more nukes ready to go.
Iran can't reach the US directly and at this point it's likely the US might choose to employ nuclear weapons as a first strike should the Iranian regime declare itself a nuclear armed power. That too is an existential risk for both the regime and its citizens, who might well be willing to mount their own rebellion if their only other choice is death from above by Israeli and US nukes.
At best Iran rolls the dice and goes for nuclear weapons, and hopes this doesn't immediately trigger an all out war with Israel and the US. At worst they end up committing suicide, just like the actual Carthaginian general Hannibal. It's a true dilemma, where either choice results in getting gored and bleeding out.
What I found more intriguing were the non-responses from China and Russia. Russia, it's true, is tied up with its own elective war in Ukraine, but the lack of risk taking by China and Trump's willingness to act may deter their own plans to take Taiwan by force. China may not be as bellicose as portrayed by its wolf warrior diplomats.
Or it could simply come down to Iran's messianic government isn't worth the risk in its allies' eyes, and Russia will still continue to attempt to take more of Ukraine while the Chinese bide their time, hiding their strength until they believe the moment to take Taiwan is right.
We might be reading too much into the conflict. Iran could well be, as you observe, the dog that doesn't bark, knowing it can't follow up with a convincing bite. If so, even nukes may not provide a sharp enough deterrent against further aggression from Israel or the USA.
One achievement Bibi and Trump have gained is the ideals of a moral or limited war are no longer in vogue and brutal realpolitik back. It seems madness now that we were willing to invade Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of people, but no steal the oil. The idea of not directly attacking civilians also no longer merits serious consideration, as both Ukraine and Gaza clearly demonstrate. We're firmly in the territory of the strong do as they wish and the weak suffer what they must at this point, no moral pretenses necessary. In that sense the Iran bombing is but to be expected.
My guess is that China is husbanding its resources when it comes to Taiwan. It's really not in their interest to get involved with Iran, except rhetorically, to highlight US/Western hypocrisy.
I agree that Iran doesn't have great options. The estimates I've read thought that it would take them a year after developing a nuclear weapon to have a realistic means of delivering it.
I think Israel would be forced to exhibit restraints vis-a-vis Iran if it got to that point, a big if.
Israel is a very small country with a very small population. Even one nuclear hit would have devastating consequences, consequences that wouldn't change even if they wiped Iran off the map.
Dear Habib, I followed you from Quora to Substack. Your perspectives are usually deep and very revealing. You said in 6 (g): "They have shown no appetite for suicidal war on their own territory). They understand that a nuclear first strike on Israel would lead to the obliteration of their country. What they seek is to make themselves uninvadable, not to be annihilated."...I hope that some policy maker sees this and it actually gets to influence some major decision...Sadly, except for maybe China, people like you never get to make or advice on major policy decisions around the world again.
There are so many people in the West who can't imagine that Iranian policymakers are rational actors. And unfortunately, many of them get to be policymakers.
Dr. Fanny, a couple of things:
Point 2 - the IAEA (certainly an organization with no love for Trump) says Iran’s nuclear program has been setback significantly. I pray that is true, but we do know that the initial intelligence reports that have been leaked are “low confidence.”
Point 3 - we know that the area has been under satellite surveillance AND that Israel had to option to destroy roads leaving the facility and did not exercise that option. The Mossad also have significant intelligence assets in Iran. I very seriously doubt that Israel and the US don’t know where the uranium was taken.
Point 6, bullet point f - I believe it is a mistake to think that The Ayatollah thinks of things in the same way westerners do. To him the destruction of Israel is completely rational, and commanded by his faith. To put it simply, if Iran develops nukes they will be used on Israel.
I'm conscious of that. The damage done to the Iranian nuclear program may be extensive. We really won't know for sure for a while. It doesn't change the fact that we've made the option more attractive than it was before.
Nothing I have read suggests either the US or Mossad knows where the uranium is at this point.
Lastly, rationality is not a trait exclusive to Westerners. I am not a Westerner by birth. Nor are the people who raised me. Perhaps because people in the West had never encountered nor thought about Islamic fundamentalism before 9/11, they tend to lump in together all manner of people who have nothing to do with one another. The vast vast vast vast vast majority of Islamic fundamentalists want nothing to do with suicide. Iran has a mature leadership that has been in power for nearly 50 years. If their goal had been to lead their country into some cataclysmic war of annihilation based on some Millenarian premise, they could have done so by now. And yet here we are. No suicidal war, ever. Instead, what we see is a rational assessment of the balance of forces and the use of indirect means of putting pressure on their enemies, not all out war, the only instance of which was when they were attacked by Saddam. There is a certain type of orientalism that pervades Western analyses of Iranian--and by the same extension North Korean--behavior. But we have religious fundamentalists making policy in both the US and Israel. And nobody thinks them incapable of rational analysis. Nobody thinks them to be the equivalent of Al Qaeda.
Let's zoom in on that for a second. Not even Al Qaeda was a suicidal movement. They were a movement that used suicide bombing as a tool of war. But the leadership was never trying to commit suicide. The problem with dealing with caricatures of your adversaries instead of your adversaries as they actually are is that it leads you down the wrong policy pathway.
Bold of you to think that there are people in the US government actually making policy.
Well, it may not be policy that I like but it's policy nonetheless.
I think it's more just vibes.
Policy has things like goals.