From most likely to least likely, IMHO:
Option One
As discussed previously, Israel lets Iran's next attack automagically destroy the Dome Of The Rock, then sits back and watches Iran take on the rest of the Islamic world for their stupidity, while they rebuild the third iteration of the Temple on its historical site.
This has been how Israel traditionally rolls. They sow chaos among their enemies, let their enemies' own internal conflicts serve Israeli interests, and reap the benefits, with carefully placed action.
This is the David Option, putting one stone in Goliath's forehead. Which sends the Philistines (from whence narrow coastal strip tribe's name the modern word "Palestine" comes) fleeing for cover. History doesn't repeat, but it often rhymes.
Option Two
Israel and the Western powers continue to soak up and largely fend off Iranian attacks until someone comes up with a better plan, at a disparate and profligate waste of money and ordnance on all sides but Iran's. Which emboldens Hamas, Hezbollah, and every other whackjob jihadi group on the planet, multiplying attacks and provocations endlessly, and destabilizing the world to the benefit of countries like Iran, Russia, China, and North Korea. IOW, the exact pain-in-the-ass countries perpetually since 1950, and the current status quo since about 1974. This is the "Nothing Ever Changes" Option.
Option Three (maybe)
Israel expends another $1B on the next attack, which costs Iran less than $100M. The West decides the lemon isn't worth the squeeze, and Israel, going broke slowly or quickly, gets wiped off the face of the land there "from the river to the sea", fulfilling the most fervent expectation of generations of impotent Arab Muslims since 1948. This is the "Sh'yeah, when monkeys fly outta my butt!" Option.
Option Four
Israel gets tired of Iran's shit, and recognizing Iran has moved from largely impotent threatener to a nation actually capable of carrying out its endless calls and threats to destroy Israel, rolls up all Iranian provocations, incitements, and actions against Israel since 1978 into a ball and decides to present Iran with a bill.
It comes in the form of a general nuclear strike on Teheran, and any number of lesser cities and all identifiable nuclear facilities in Iran, to the public outrage and quiet delight of every non-Persian country bordering/adjacent to Iran, not least of all Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Russia, and to a large extent, about 90% of the United States (The vocal minority loses their collective shit, which isn't Israel's problem anyway.)
Israel decides if they're going to be treated as a pariah by most of the world for decades, they might as well act like one, and ends their troubles with a near-nuclear state before it becomes a nuclear peer-to-peer contest.
Iran, as a result, dissolves into a Yugoslavian polyglot of competing (surviving) groups, and large hunks of it are nibbled off by competing states and groups, ceasing to be anything of interest for a century. The Kurds carve out a homeland (pissing off Persian, Russian, and Turkish counter interests, which is a geo-political hat-trick), Iraqi Shi'a are largely turned into the Sunni's bitches, the Yemeni conflict is mopped up, Hamas surrenders or dies in Gaza, Hezbollah is strategically weakend in Lebanon, and the House of Saud takes the opportunity to do a large-scale roundup and execution dump of troublemakers of all factions within the kingdom. All of which heralds a decline of terrorism worldwide for 10-20 years, at least from the plethora of Iranian-sponsored @$$holes, who are generally 80-90% of all the world's incidents. This is the "Wouldn't It Be Nice" Option.
{We could have made this last Option Five, substituting an identical strike, but with conventional weapons, as Option Four. But:
a) Israel couldn't accomplish that mission without multiple conventional strikes, a scenario unlikely and probably increasingly impossible after any initial strike, with dwindling and probably insufficient IAF resources in the first place. (Pay attention: Even Japan wasn't stupid enough to make Pearl Harbor a three-day raid.)
b) You don't take geo-political half-assed half-steps, and Israel prefers lightning strikes, not rolling thunder.
c) Nukes get the job done all at once, which is the entire point of the exercise.
Thus, a conventional strike, or strikes, are even - in fact far - less likely than a general nuclear reckoning, and frankly Iran has been begging for a Hiroshima enema from anybody since about 1978, on general principles.}
Nota bene: None of these are The Samson Option.
For Common Core grads, biblically/historically Samson, mighty judge of Israel, shorn, blinded, and a prisoner of the Philistines, asked to be taken to the pillars of the palace where the feast celebrating his enslavement was occurring, whereupon he summoned one last burst of his former strength to push the pillars aside, collapsing the place on himself and his tormenters simultaneously.
The modern equivalent would be Israel launching nuclear strikes at every capitol and major city of the surrounding Arab nations while on the verge of destruction by them, which is nowhere evident to any degree at the current time. Lebanon and Saudi Arabia tapped out after 1948; Jordan after 1967, and Egypt after the 1973 war. Syria continues, mainly because it signed no peace accords, and gets no hush money as a result, and they control Lebanese territory since 1976, and the dissolution of Lebanon as a coherent state. Iran has been too far removed to touch Israel directly (until this week), relying solely on third-party terrorism by surrogates, and thus avoided Israeli direct wrath for the same reason.
Until Obozo broke a decades-long policy on the part of the U.S., and sold Israel air-to-air refueling aircraft and capabilities, which now makes Iran no longer a one-way suicide mission, and instead makes it a nation well within the strike capabilities of the IAF, and the 50-100 nuclear weapons Israel "doesn't have".
Bummer for the Iranians, who have now entered the chatroom.
---
"Interesting times".
A Chinese veiled curse for good reason.
Garment-rending, teeth-gnashing, and poo-flinging disputes in Comments. We're out to play all day, so nod, or rage on, at your discretion. We'll moderate and push through the replies upon our return. Anonymous screeds from the Usual Suspects will be mocked or disappear at bloghost's whim, depending on how much our claws need sharpening on the scratching posts of your impotent rage.
A wildcard is Turkey. Were Turkey to say 'enough', Iran goes from a big problem to a smaller problem. Turkey is on the sidelines but they are not exactly pleased with Israel's Gaza dealings. Couple that with Turkish leadership would enjoy a distraction from something other than the economy for the population at large. Syria might object but would be no match and Lebanon is essentially defenseless. Sitting on Israel's northern border and a NATO member would make things very tense.
ReplyDeleteTurkey exists with NATO's forebearance.
ReplyDeleteGetting tossed out of NATO opens them up to Russian territorial ambitions, and to joining Team Jihad.
Which hasn't worked out well for anyone trying it.
In the same way they acquiesced to Sweden and Finland joining NATO, they'd be told to sit it out, or go their own way, for good.
Greece would get Cyprus and their side of the Bosporus in short order.
Turkey will stew, maybe even rumble some trouble. But I don't think they're prepared to jump.
Even less so if it adds Ankara to Israel's ultimate SPF 100,000 target list down the road.
Personally I think Israel should go after the leadership of Iran in some way, shape, or form and keep cutting off the head of the snake until such time the Imams decide that perhaps Allah isn't really on their side after all... and I love the Dome of the Rock idea
ReplyDeleteAesop, I wonder if your calculus includes the fact that Iran is now a member of BRICS as is UAE and soon to be Saudi Arabia? It would seem to me that such allegiances may complicate some of your potential outcomes and cause no small amount of hand wringing.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt Iran would be sharing targeting information in advance with appropriate allies not unlike the way Israel, UK and the United States just teamed up. I welcome your thoughts.
A much nicer solution to the constant trouble making of Islam would be an alliance of nuke holding nations turning every Muslim country into a bunch of glowing holes where cities used to be. At least 50 megatons each for Mecca and the Shia holy city (whose name escapes me). Not going to happen but one can dream.
ReplyDeleteOption one can't be counted on. Iran's drones and missiles aren't very accurate...they are aimed at cities...not specific targets. Thus hitting the
ReplyDeleteDome of the Rock mosque would be a random unlikely event. Unless Israel did it
while claiming it was Iran. Even if Iran accidentally hit the mosque they would
claim Israel destroyed it. The vast majority of arabs would choose to believe that rather than hold Iran responsible. Ultimately as long as islam exists there will. E war between islam and Israel.and the rest of the world The ugly reality is unless islam is TOTALLY eradicated there will NEVER be peace. Even if we did get rid of islam humans simply aren't a peaceful species.
At the risk of sounding nasty I don't care what Israel does. They should have the right to any of these options. (Except 3, but I doubt Israel will go for that). I'm sick to death of hearing the whining about the poor 'Palestinians' of Gaza. I'm tired of the new line that "Gazans are hostages of Hamas too."
ReplyDeleteYes, of course they are. These idiots sowed to the wind, are reaping the whirlwind, and suffering buyers remorse, so now they throw everything at the wall to see what sticks and makes the West jump up to defend them. I'm expected to believe the terrorists are so secretive that no one in Gaza knew where the hostages were? Press [X] to doubt. Maybe, I don't know, Gazans should have done some housecleaning, returned some hostages and delivered some Hamas member corpses to the IDF, and this could have all been avoided.
I'm really tired of hearing people in the West defend people who want to kill them. Most of Dearborn needs to be deported, they hate America so much, and want it to die. Cool. I'm sure you'll enjoy the Muslim country of your choice.
Israel has a lot of forbearance. The question is, how much is too much?
The world will hate them anyway - what have they got to loose?
~Rhea
Two dogs barking, neither really wants to fight. It's gonna blow over.
ReplyDeleteIran is 9 ethnic groups occupied by the 10th. No need to kill more than the Iranian guard and their supporters. Nukes, drones and oil distribution require evaporation. Iran is like NY state. One assh*le city making life miserable for everyone else. That said the dome of the rock would be icing on the cake.
ReplyDelete>about 90% of the United States
ReplyDeleteYou don't get it. The left half of Gen Z is pro-Islam and wants Israel gone. The right half of Gen Z is Nazi-sympathetic and wants Jews out of political and cultural influence. The people who are still philosemitic are the ones who grew up on WW2 ideology, and they're dying off.
option 4 neglects the Russians, which would be a mistake.
ReplyDelete@Anon 10:59A,
ReplyDeleteHow little I care about what (or if) Gen Z thinks, about Israel, or the price of tea in China, cannot be measured with existing instrumentation. Isarael was attacked by Hamas, and they dealt with that as they saw fit. Now they've been attacked by Iran. The clever name for that, historically, is "war". Ask Egypt, Jordan, and Syria how that always works out WRT Israel in the long run.
@Historian,
Option 4 does no such thing.
a) They have their hands full trying to subdue a nation 1/4 their size and 1/10th their military strength, whose main mistake was relinquishing nukes based on Russian promises. That strategic blunder is going to have worldwide repercussions for decades, and I'd rate the chance of Israel supplying a nuke or five to Kiev as about 30-70 now, which goes up to a 50-50 crap shoot the instant Russia rattles any sort of nuclear saber at Jerusalem.
b) They have studiously avoided tangling with Israel in all their time in Syria. Short of nuclear weapons, they haven't the conventional forces nor competent surrogates (nor ever have had) available to do anything but provide target practice to the IAF, something they've excelled at doing for 70 years. Most people take their hand off the stove after the first try. Only Syria is currently interested in going for a grand slam, and even at that, they're mainly willing only to fight to the last Lebanese member of Hezbollah.
c) Russia would have no direct part of option 4 before, during, nor after, except insofar as their mouthpiece at the UN Talk Shop would clutch his pearls. They could wipe Israel off the map if they went nuclear. They would probably be able to resettle the remaining unscorched portions of their country in 40-50 years if they did that, and there's every possibility that random small nukes would keep popping off on Russian soil for years to decades afterwards. Moscow needs that like they need tertiary syphillis.
d) The last thing anyone wants is to start playing nuclear tag at the conjunction of 4 of the 9 acknowledged nuclear powers. If Israel makes the decision to go there (which I rate as a long shot, but not out of the realm of possibility), it would mainly serve to provide a welcome comeuppance to a long-time rogue terrorist state, and defuse tensions from about eight to ten of their Arab neighbors in the region (i.e. every single one of them), and set terrorist funding worldwide back about 50 years. In short, a world without Iran would be like a life without shingles and anal hemorrhoids.
I would not wish release of nuclear weapons anywhere, but of all possible places, if Teheran & Co. catch some SPF 100,000 rays, I wouldn't spill a drop of my beverage upon hearing the news, nor see my pulse rate rise a single point.
YMMV