Imagining an Israeli Strike on Iran

[cali]

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: March 26, 2010


In 1981, Israel destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak, declaring it could not live with the chance the country would get a nuclear weapons capability. In 2007, it wiped out a North Korean-built reactor in Syria. And the next year, the Israelis secretly asked the Bush administration for the equipment and overflight rights they might need some day to strike Iran’s much better-hidden, better-defended nuclear sites.
Related



They were turned down, but the request added urgency to the question: Would Israel take the risk of a strike? And if so, what would follow?

Now that parlor game question has turned into more formal war games simulations. The government’s own simulations are classified, but the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution created its own in December. The results were provocative enough that a summary of them has circulated among top American government and military officials and in many foreign capitals.

For the sake of verisimilitude, former top American policymakers and intelligence officials — some well known — were added to the mix. They played the president and his top advisers; the Israeli prime minister and cabinet; and Iranian leaders. They were granted anonymity to be able to play their roles freely, without fear of blowback. (This reporter was invited as an observer.) A report by Kenneth M. Pollack, who directed the daylong simulation, can be found at the Saban Center’s Web site.

A caution: Simulations compress time and often oversimplify events. Often they underestimate the risk of error — for example, that by using faulty intelligence leaders can misinterpret a random act as part of a pattern of aggression. In this case, the actions of the American and Israeli teams seemed fairly plausible; the players knew the bureaucracy and politics of both countries well. Predicting Iran’s moves was another matter, since little is known about its decision-making process. —DAVID E. SANGER

1. ISRAEL ATTACKS

Without telling the U.S. in advance, Israel strikes at six of Iran's most critical nuclear facilities, using a refueling base hastily set up in the Saudi Arabian desert without Saudi knowledge. (It is unclear to the Iranians if the Saudis were active participants or not.)

Already-tense relations between the White House and Israel worsen rapidly, but the lack of advance notice allows Washington to say truthfully that it had not condoned the attack.

<snip>

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/weekinreview/28sangerintro.html

[oberliner]

1. Iran responds to an Israeli attack by bombing Saudi Arabia?

That seems a little strange, doesn't it?

[Capt_Nemo]

2. 100% pure, unadulterated nonsense

"using a refueling base hastily set up in the Saudi Arabian desert without Saudi knowledge"

No IDF planner will ever take the risk of lining up its 100 most sophisticated combat planes
as sitting ducks on enemy territory. Furthermore the fuel transport logistics are unfeasible.

[Shining Jack]

3. Good article.

But I'm surprised how they underestimate the Hezbollah.They are far better equipped,organized and trained than,lets say the Talibans who are slowly taking back Afghanistan.Hezbollah is armed with advanced Iranian-supplied missiles equipped with precision-guided mechanisms and are capable of reaching targets deep inside Israel.Hezbollah also possesses mortars,RPGs,anti-tank and anti-personnel mines,anti-tank missiles and surface to air missiles.That would be ugly.:(