filmed from an airliner over Saudi Arabia
So far, Israel has wrecked real damage on the Iranian defense establishment, and Iran has stretched Israeli missile defenses and landed several missiles in Israeli cities. But is anyone winning? What would that even mean?
For decades, wargames have shown the Iranian regime surviving a war with the US (here and here), so I have my doubts that Israel can achieve their overthrow. It is true that the mass of the Iranian people is unhappy with their government, but I very much doubt that Israeli bombs are encouraging them to revolt. On the contrary most who have written about the possibility of the US bombing Iran have assumed that this would only increase the power of anti-western hardliners. Maybe there could be an opening after the war, if the regime is humiliated, but I am not optimistic.
So what is Israel achieving?
The stated goal was to destroy Iran's nuclear program. To date, though, there have been rather few attacks on the main Iranian nuclear facilities. The initial wave focused on air defenses, as you might expect, and Israel now says they have air superiority over the western half of Iran. But instead of intensifying attacks on nuclear sites they are deploying their planes to hunt Iranian ballistic missile launchers, and they brag every morning about how many they have destroyed before they could launch. Yes, this is the best way to protect Israel from Iranian strikes, but is it really a winning strategy? Seems to me like a vast expenditure of effort for little gain, and therefore a big diversion of valuable assets into a side eddy to the main conflict.
But even if they do get around to focusing on it, can Israel prevent Iran from making a bomb? For years, experts have been saying things like this about the Iranian nuclear program:
Striking Iranian nuclear sites is like mowing the grass. Unless a strike succeeded in permanently crippling the Iranian capacity to produce and weaponize fissile material, the grass would only grow back again. And no strike -- or even series of strikes -- can accomplish this. Iran's hardened sites, redundancy of facilities, and secret locations present significant obstacles to a successful attack. Even in the best-case scenario -- an incomplete strike that, say, set back the Iranian nuclear program by two to three years -- the Iranians would reseed it with the kind of legitimacy and urgency that can only come from having been attacked by an outside power. Self-defense would then become the organizing principle of Iran's nuclear program; it would resonate tremendously throughout the Middle East and even in the international community.
I wondered, when satellite photos after the first attack showed little damage to nuclear sites, if Israel was planning to land commandos to go into underground facilities and destroy them. But that didn't happen, and one has to assume that Iran is doing all they can to make that very costly. So it looks to me like this will be done from the air or not at all.
I doubt that Israel can do it by themselves, but with US help, no doubt something could be achieved. (29 US aerial refueling tankers deployed to Europe last night, which looks like preparations for a strike.) But how much? At this point, do the US and Israel even know where all of Iran's nuclear material is stored? I have no idea. And, again, at the moment I don't even see that Israel is trying very hard.
There are rumors that Iran is now seeking a deal that would involve promising to give up all enrichment, but that is a rumor and so far is having no obvious impact on events.
So the cycle of hate and death goes on.
Update 1, 6/16:
Jeffrey Lewis (aka Arms Control Wonk) has some good material on Twitter/X. Like this on the deeply buried nuclear site at Fordow: "If Israel doesn't have a plan for destroying Fordow, I don't see how any of this is worth it." And this on the puzzling way the Israeli attack has unfolded: "Netanyahu's attack on Iran is about sparking regime change with just enough strikes on nuclear facilities to frame it as an act of preemptive self-defense. I doubt this will turn out well."
Update 2, 6/16
Decker Eveleth: "I have no idea how or when this will end as neither side has demonstrated the capability they need to end the conflict on favorable terms to them. Also notable: all major potential mediators have expressed varying degrees of disinterest in getting involved."
Update 3, 6/16
Heatloss on Twitter/X: "Somebody asked how Israel achieved air superiority over Iran so easily, when Iran had a full arsenal of anti-air missiles. I can answer that in three characters: F-35."
4 comments:
Yes, this is the best way to protect Israel from Iranian strikes, but is it really a winning strategy?
It's not about winning. It's about Netanyahu buying himself breathing room. His own citizens and government have been steadily turning against him, and what better way to win back some support and slow down investigations into his abuses of power than to intentionally provoke a conflict with a foreign rival, providing an outside threat for everyone to rally against?
The simple fact is that the men in power in Israel don't ACTUALLY want to destroy Iran's nuclear capability - anymore than American conservatives ACTUALLY want to close our borders and halt immigration. Having a convenient drum to beat and a horn to sound to rally their citizenry in fear is extremely politically valuable to them. Any actual resolution of the supposed issue would be robbing themselves of a massive boon that helps them stay in power, so why in the world would they do that?
As you say, the cycle of death and hatred goes on. And that's entirely the point. Cynical old men in power LOVE the cycle of death and hatred, so long as the people dying are just lowly ordinary people, because they can use it to enrich themselves and stay in power indefinitely. See the principle behind the Reichstag Fire, etc.
I think the phrase "mowing the grass" is key. It's actually become a common expression in Israel for their own repeated campaigns against Palestinians and others. That is, the Palestinians or Hezbollah or whatever rise up (=grow a little too tall), commit some violent acts, and have to be periodically cut down to size by military action, with all parties acting without any serious strategy for or expectation of a final resolution. The Iran campaign is simply an extension of that beyond Israel's immediate ambit.
It is worth mentioning that, while Netanyahu is personally unpopular and does seem, at least in part, to be using war to stay in office, the campaign in Gaza and the attendant policy of expansion in the West Bank both seem to enjoy enduring approval among Israelis. I don't think this is because they've been hoodwinked by their leaders. I expect many will react to the policy of extending the regular grass-mowing policy to Iran with positive affirmation, or at least resignation.
You're not wrong about many Israelis supporting the brutality in Gaza - just as many Americans support brutality against immigrants.
In both cases, the thing to remember is that the popularity enjoyed by these forms of brutality is ALSO entirely according to plan.
The media both in America and in Israel are complicit in perpetuating the hatred for others. The small handful of billionaires who own virtually all media outlets in both countries know that it's in their best interests to stoke the fires of these conflicts, because if nothing else it helps keep them in business by giving them things to breathlessly report on 24 hours a day.
And in some cases, it goes even beyond that. Some of these billionaires are religious nutjobs who are trying to usher in The Rapture, and believe that Armageddon will begin in Israel, and so actively work to promote war there in the hopes of bringing about "salvation" sooner. Others are just racists and bigots who don't have a shred of human empathy or decency in their bodies, and are happy to invest their money in hurting others. And still others just view stoking the fires of conflict as a cynical way to get / stay in the good graces of the reigning administrations, and thus indirectly increase their own influence and power through trading favors.
Both situations revolve around a cycle of violence which profits everybody involved who either holds a high enough office or possesses enough wealth. Why in the world would they ever want that to stop? All they have to do is continue to put on their dog and pony show, continue to sucker people into falling for the same scam over and over, and laugh all the way to the bank.
How the Israelis gained air superiority so quickly and easily has more to do with Mossad than any Jet fighter.
I think it was day two when Netanyahu started whining that Israel needs the U.S. to join in on the attack, so predictable, no doubt what he always planned. He probably had it penciled in on his calendar going back years. I think I saw today where he said that next it will be NYC if the U.S. doesn't act now. Brings back memories, like when he toured the U.S. after 9/11 convincing anyone who would listen that the U.S. should effect regime change in Iraq. We listened then, much to our chagrin. Will we listen again? He may have legal woes, but his feelings about Iran are as hard core as any religious belief.
Post a Comment