Why should Israel bother. I don't think there is any realistic chance that any NATO country, that would not aid it voluntarily under current arrangements, would honor its treaty obligations under NATO. Can you imagine France helping Israel, under any circumstance. I just don't see what the upside for Israel is, and it costs money.

This is a stupid idea. your "obvious question" is in the right direction but you miss the prolem completely. The more obvious question is what about the fact that the "Jewish State" of Israel is a racist state that is oppressing and occupying millions of people. It is the modern Apartheid South Africa, the only, like white people under Jim Crow, most of the Jews don't even realize it because they don't even give that much of a damn about the Palestinians to care. It deserves to be sanctioned, not encouraged to be more militaristic. Israel is in violation of more Security Council resolutions then Saddam was, and also has a secret nuclear weapon stash. To encourage it to join military partnerships like NATO is legitimizing these facts and taking more direct responsibility for them. Do you expect the Europeans to send troops to Ramallah to help defend Israel's "security"? Yeah right.

The only way this is even a partially acceptable idea is if Israel is made to apply all the Security Council resolutions and come to terms with International law, and completely end the occupation and open up its nuclear program.... otherwise it is just a stupid idea.

Maybe, if they want to solve the Iran "problem" they should let Iran join NATO. That would do it too.

Given the Israelis' rather aggressive espionage tactics (even with allies), I really can't see NATO militaries lining up to share intelligence methods and information with them. There's also their involvement in the illicit international arms market to consider, as well.

"And in spite of the anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic voices that one can hear in Europe, there is little doubt that European leaders such as Tony Blair, Angela Merkel and even Jacques Chirac would also stand tall and defend Israel against an Iranian threat."

Is there really little doubt that Chirac for instance would stand tall and defend Israel against an Iranian threat?

Imagine a situation where Iran nuked just three cities--Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Be'er Sheva. This would kill or seriously injure about 2/3 of the Israeli population--pretty much ending the nation. The Israeli dying counterstrike would probably destroy a few cities in Iran, killing or injuring about the same number of people (4 million). This is a much smaller percentage of the Iranian population, so it could survive as a nation. What happens next? Would the US nuke Iran to complete the now failed Mutual Assured Destruction job? I doubt it. Would France? Of course not. Would we commit counter-genocide? The game-theorist in me says yes--if MAD is to work you have to be willing to finish the assured destruction part. The rest of me is horrified. But it isn't at all clear what we would do. So the question is whether or not Iran means it when two out of the last three leaders have suggested that it might be ok to risk partial destruction to totally destroy Israel. If it isn't clear to me, a US hawk, what the US would do, I don't see why anyone would be so sure that anyone in Europe would step up to the plate.

Ron Asmus and Bruce Jackson explained this idea at greater length in Policy Review last winter:

http://www.policyreview.org/feb05/asmus.html

The question is whether this is proposed to be a unique exception or a step toward enlarging the Euro-Atlantic security sphere progressively eastward. If the former, it would tend to polarize relations with the Arab and Islamic worlds. If the latter, it would correct a serious defect in current strategy, which tries to stabilize new democracies through ad hoc external commitments and a focus on purely domestic change. But if the latter is meant, then the door should be declared open to other countries that meet NATO's membership standards.

The main drawback is that if a stronger Western tie to Israel leaves Iran and its neighbors free to go nuclear, it really won't help Israel strategically. One or two suitcase nukes in the high kiloton range would destroy most of Israel's populated areas. Whether the countries that might supply or leak these weapons to terrorists would be deterred from doing so by a stronger Western commitment to Israel is far from clear. But the long-run idea of absorbing Eurasia into a single security sphere has a lot to commend it given the alternatives.

I think that Israel could surely destory Iran as a viable state. I think that Iran knows this and that the real leaders of that country have no desire to commit national suicide.
As for Israel joining NATO, you have got to be kidding. No US President would be foolish enough to tie US interest to those of Israel. The assumption behind NATO was that the national survival interests of W. Europe, Canada and US were linked vs the USSR. The national survival of Israel and the US are not linked in that way.

Israel has subs with the ability to put nukes on them (assuming they haven't done so already). They could fulfill the MAD contract themselves if Iran does a first strike.

First, I don't know what he is referring to when he says that Israel will lose its extended deterrrent--he seemingly misapplies the term or makes up his own meaning.

Second, the op/ed is poorly written--I was actually surprised how bad I found it.

Third, it wouldn't make Israel any safer--the idea that Israel being in NATO would serve as a more credible/effective deterrent than Israel's own nuclear capability and the obvious US connection is ridiculous. IMO, it actually decreases Israeli security because Iran might infer that they will have to be more cautious/restrained because of the organization...

Sebastian,

You underestimate Israel's nuclear capability. Not only do they have a second strike capability, but at least 300 warheads.

If Iran attacked Israel with nuclear arms. Iran would no longer exist as a state, you can bet on that. The only question is, what other targets would be on the list. In all seriousness, if Israel was attacked in this fashion, then the whole of the middle east will endure a nuclear holocaust.

Check out Robert Harkavy's exploration of this issue.

"Israel has subs with the ability to put nukes on them (assuming they haven't done so already). They could fulfill the MAD contract themselves if Iran does a first strike."

and

"You underestimate Israel's nuclear capability. Not only do they have a second strike capability, but at least 300 warheads."

I believe you are confusing the 300 warheads and the second strike capability. They aren't the same thing. The second strike capability is mostly found in the three (soon to be five?) German submarines Israel purchased in 1999. They are the reason I, and indeed the Iranian leaders, posit the destruction of some number of cities in Iran after a nuclear strike destroys Israel. But Israel and Iran are very different in geography and population distribution. Three successful hits are all you need to kill 2/3 of the people in Israel. 30 hits wouldn't even come close to doing the same to Iran. And I would be surprised if you are going to get even as many as 30 and certainly not 300 nuclear strikes out of 3-5 Israeli submarines.

Sebastian,

I understand what you're thinking here. But the destruction of the population is very different from the destruction of Israel's retaliatory arsenal. I am not confusing their total arsenal with 2nd srike capability. In order for the scenario you envision to play out, Iran would have to do more than what you're proposing. They would have to 1. have missle technology accurate enough for a counter force targeting strategy 2. the intel to have something to target 3. the capability of taking out most, if not all of Israel's nukes. A few strikes on Israeli cities doesn't accomplish 3. I'm not sure about Iran's capabilities for 1 and 2.

Regarding the number of warheads and 2nd strike capabilities, two or three strikes on Israeli cities is not likely to destroy any significant part of Israel's nuclear weapons stash, neither first nor second strike capability. But how we categorize the intended use of the weapons doesn't matter (i.e. whatever is left would be used in a counter-attack).

In addition, there's no reason to think that Israel doesn't have the ability to MIRV their launch platforms. 3-5 subs can carry over a hundred warheads themselves. This doesn't consider other 2nd strike capabilities such as strike fighters armed with nukes or silos built out in the middle of Ha-Negev.

Regarding the destruction of Iran, we must consider for that matter, U.S. or other retaliation, even if Israel isn't in NATO. In fact, regardless of the ability or willingness of Israel or the rest of the world to nuke Iran back, Iranian leaders can be certain of a global response that would probably include the determination that they are unfit to have a state of their own.

Regards

BTW, anyone else notice that everything was posted the same time? :)

02.21.06 at 11:47 AM

Has Dr. Drezner's blog become some sort of temporal sink hole?

Ok, disregard the previous comment. Now that I'm on a University computer, I see it must be because I have javascript disabled on my browser at home.

Turns out *I'm* in a temporal sink hole.

Does anybody else find it wierd that Sebastian has such concerns about Israel vs Iran? 100-300 warheads + multiple delivery methods + local military conventional supremacy isn't good enough - the US must protect the poor little things?

"In addition, there's no reason to think that Israel doesn't have the ability to MIRV their launch platforms. 3-5 subs can carry over a hundred warheads themselves."

This isn't my best area, but I think this is wrong. The subs are designed to carry what in effect are cruise missiles, not multiple independent rentry vehicle (MIRV) rockets. I'm pretty sure each cruise missile has to have a single target (though I'm open to seeing word of technology I haven't heard of). My understanding is that the Dolphin submarine employed by Israel is thought to have Popeye and Popeye turbo cruise missiles. I haven't seen anything on how many of those are available.

I agree that many NATO states would try to weasel out of their obligations. And wouldn't this drive the various Arabs ballistic? I mean, even more than they are?

Sebastian Holsclaw:
You state that an Iranian strike on "just three cities--Tel Aviv, Haifa, and Be'er Sheva... would kill or seriously injure about 2/3 of the Israeli population."
This is not so.

An Iranian attack of this order would plainly be catastrophic for Israel; and it plainly and rightly will go to great lengths to avoid such an attack or the threat of one.
However, with fission weapons in the kilotons range, casualties could be expected to be in the tens to hundreds of thousands.
Israel would be grievously hurt, but not destroyed.

The destructive capabilies of thermonuclear weapons with yields of hundreds of kilotons up into the megatons range are orders of magnitudes greater than fission weapons.

Even an Israeli counter-strike on Iran with hundreds of fission weapons pales beside the destruction a Power with thermonukes (USA, UK, France, Russia, China) can unleash.

As a strategy for containing Iran, this may not work.
If the Iranian regime is smart enough to defer confronting Israel, it may instead seek to expand its influence and control, bolstered and protected by a growing nuclear arsenal, into Caucasia and Central Asia (esp Azerbaijan and Tajikistan) and the Gulf region - above all, the great prizes of the Shia-populated areas of Iraq and Arabia. And also to move to decively wrest control of the global Islamist and jihadi movements away from the Wahabi Salafites.

The revenues and strategic advantages of controlling oil flows would in turn give it the money and influence to build up a conventional and nuclear arsenal capable of regional dominance from the Nile to the Indus.

That is the great prize, and the great peril.

Well we certainly wouldn't want NATO or the USA
to actually go to war to defend the rights of a
"racist" state that picks on the Paletinians.

Joe M.:

Perhaps you may wish to read about the
"War to Save Racist Kuwait to Allow it's
Leaders to Expel 300,000 Palestinians"
NATO fought in 1991.

Joe, I'm sure you would crap in your Depends
if the Israelis expelled even 1000 Palestinians.
But when your fellow Jew-haters, the Kuwaitis,
kick out 300 times that number, you proudly cheer
them on.

Does the "M" stand for "Moron"?

I don't understand why the urgency to improve Israeli security. It would seem that Israel has all that it needs to guarantee their own security, right? Much more nuclear warheads, more delivery methods, a much stronger conventional army, a close alliance with the world premier superpower... What else do you want? My take is that the Iranians know that a nuclear attack on Israel would be crazy and are not thinking about that. Their concern may be their OWN security; by going nuclear they neutralize their enemies ability to conduct a purely conventional offensive. They effectively would force their opponents to consider the ¿am I ready to use nukes over this? question before attacking Iran. Of course, Israel and the USA have perfectly valid reasons to dislike a more poweful and secure Iran, but that's another matter entirely.

Has anyone considered that Isreal might not want to be a part of NATO? They might think it would constrain their freedom of action rather than offer protection?

Dan: "This kind of move would not be without risks, but if nothing else, it would give NATO a renewed sense of purpose. "

Dan, that's sort of an odd thing to say. Why would undertaking a unwanted commitment give them a sense of purpose?

NATO idea is plain fiction.There is absolutly no way to contain Iran Nuclear Ambitions. It is simply too late to do so. That's a fact weather we like it or don't. Military action is not an option because Iran has too many nuclear site, geographically vaste, and has an 80 million population. UN sanctions will only slow the program down.We spend billions of dollars every year to ballance the power in that region, which looks like it will come to an end if Iran devolops a Bomb.
Our support for Israel serves our national interest, as well as create major problems for us. We have veto'd every UN resolution against Israel, and we continue to do so. It is time to revise our entire policy in the region, and forecast for a possible regime change in Egypt and plan for the worst to protect, promote, and preserve our interests.

For aproxx. 45 yrs., the USA depended on its power to entirely wipe out the soviets, many times over; and vs versa: hence: MAD.

The Iranians are trying to get a pitifully "puny" fission bomb, relatively speaking.

The Mullahs simply r deluding themselves if they think that the USA
Trident missile fleet with MIRVED thermonukes couldnt obliterate the WHOLE of Iran in, literally, milliseconds.

So: does the USA chance Iran-Al Quaeda
suitcase nukes in NYC, DC, etc or does
the USA PRE_EMPT the lunatic islamists,
(yes, yes, we won't have their oil, etc.) AND finally have one less crazy
state to challenge USA hegemony??

If ur the hegemon, ur populace DOES benefit: that's all the USA population unhypocritically wants.

please do a Google search, and read the Israel Lobby report from Harvard+Chicago universities, by two nationally recognized heavyweight scholars. It states undisputed facts. Then we all can make a contructive decision based on facts, not the propaganda of the news media.

Israel isn't a toy state, if iran threatend israel,
within minutes the whole of iran would be destroyed, by long range nuclear rockets, from sea to air nuclear missiles, and from long range bombers,Iran would cease to exist, it would be turned into molten ashes. This will hapen when muslims who are hell bent on the destruction of the jewish people threaten the state of israel and the lives o0f jewish people the world over.