It is not aboutif, but when ISR will strike

Submitted by Stonewall Jackson (Switzerland), Feb 16, 2012 at 12:05

You make good points, albeit there is no will not even in America, let alone in Europe to issue the "Holocaust Declaration", the automated response by for instance America or NATO to answer any nuclear attack carried out by Iran with a nuclear counter attack.

Apart from the lack of any political will to enter into an agreement which my force the hands of nations like France, GB or America and has an inherent danger of built-in escalation, which may result in WWIII, Iran likely would not attack ISR, because they do not have to. It would be so much easier to simply proliferate a tactical nuke to Hamas or Hezbollah who would in turn carry out the attack, and then handle the literal fall out with plausible deniability, just like the issue statements over statements, denying any involvement in the recent embassy bombings.

ISR understands the potential proliferation of nuclear weapons as a much higher risk. In the entire Muslim world there are evidently ample quantities of fanatic islamists available willing to blow themselves up in the name of djhaad. The current party line in these demographics is, if we can't have it, then nobody shall (for several generations). If a third of ISR becomes a nuclear wasteland, the Jews have nowhere to go in the region. The muslims can wait a few gererations, living in neighboring countries, as the Jews would have to be relocated to another continent, likely to North America.

Pragmatic risk assessment clearly dictates that ISR can not allow for Iran acquiring a nuke. You are, to use an analogy, already in a firefight with another gang, using revolvers (having heavy artillery in reserve, while carrying out a limited, local conflict with little danger of escalation to a regional, let alone a global full-on war) and suddenly the other side may get heavy artillery, grenade launchers, machine guns, rockets and tanks). What do you do? Will you bring out your own heavy guns, before the other side has them or will you wait, until they got them? it is one or the other. but most definitely not the third option, where you wait, until the other side fired all their heavy weapons.

This is why I dispute your notion, that an ISR strike is doubtful. The only doubt in my scenario is, when the strike will happen - not if.

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".