The New Republic

Hoagland suffers from a Bush-era problem in his understanding of the situation. There is not a dichotomy between "further sanction and/or bomb Iran" and "live with an Iranian a-bomb." Neither harsher sanctions nor any conceivable military operation can permanently prevent Iran from completing the uranium cycle and building an a-bomb. Sanctions and/or force in this situation are tools of persuasion; ultimately, the choice to go nuclear or not will remain in Tehran's hands. At best, any military action we would contemplate will delay Iran's a-bomb development.

So on the one hand, we do need to be pulling out all the stops to ratchet up pressure on Iran, and also to gain the greatest possible international (read: European, Russian, and Arab/Turkish) buy-in on further sanctions and potential military action. We need to make Iran feel like it's on a fast road to a world of hurt such that abandoning the a-bomb program looks like an attractive off-ramp.

But we also need to understand that Tehran has an impressive record of tolerating foreign pressure that we might expect any country to regard as intolerable. And so we also really do need to prepare for living with a nuclear Iran. Because the only two ways to permanently guarantee that Iran does not develop a nuclear arsenal are through preemptive nuclear attack or invasion and occupation. Since we're not genocidal monsters, we won't consider the former; and since we have neither a 3 million man infantry nor four years to amass materiel on Iran's border, we won't execute the latter.

- rhubarbs

July 26, 2009 at 4:14pm

WADR to Jim Hoagland (whose grasp of the middle east has been found wanting in the past), he is missing a few key factors in the Israeli reaction.  First of all, the "Israeli politician" (note the singular) who sounded the warning about the perceived Obama & co. cave-in to the Iranian nukes is Dan Meridor, the minister for intelligence matters, an acknowledged authority on Israel's security, defense doctrine, etc.  More importantly, he is one of the most moderate ministers in the government.  By way of example, he accompanied Ehud Barak to the ill-fated Camp David talks w/ Arafat in the summer of 2000.  I trust Meridor's judgment far more thatn Hoagland's (or Crowley's for that matter).

The problem I suspect for most Israelis who have thought about the subject is that the phrase that "[Obama]will not accept Iran achieving the ability to make a bomb quickly" has no meaning, let alone any value.  Okay so he won't tolerate it and then Iran goes ahead and does it anyway.  Then what?  Sanctions?  They have not been successful in the past and there is NO reason to believe that meaningful, effective sanctions will be imposed in the future.  The Russians refused to bite.  The Germans greatly value their trade with Iran, especially the socialist foreign minister (for a "reprint" M. Kuntzel's WSJ article on the topic see here:www.matthiaskuentzel.de/.../the-tehran-berlin-axis ; a somewhat more recent update, here:pajamasmedia.com/.../sanctions-what-sanctions-german-iranian-trade-booms).  And then of course is Austria's state owned gas company bidding to develop extensive natural gas fields in northern Iran.

But even assume that the Iranians say that they agree to forgo the ability to make a bomb quickly from their enriched uranium stockpile.  A few questions:

a)  What defines "quickly"?

b)  Even if they forgo the ability to make bombs "quickly" (whatever that means), it still means they can get pretty far along over a couple of years.  It might be enough to give Hillery & Obama a fig leaf by which they can claim a foreign policy success (for a change) but in the long run it has little value to Israel.

c)   Again, assume that Iran agrees to forgo the ability etc.  Who is going to enforce this and how?  Inspection regimes in Iran are about as effective as UNIFIL seeing to it that Hezbolla disarms (at least south of the Litani river).  Indeed the Iranians have proven themselves to be quite adept at hoodwinking IAEA inspectors.  And suppose Iran goes ahead, secretly develops a nuclear device and tests it.  Then what?  Sanctions?  see above.

d)  And of what value is a promise "nuclear umbrella"?  First of all, Obama lost almost all the "street cred" he once had (and it wasn't great - about 35-40% at its height) among Israelis, especially when he reneged on the the letters & agreements that Olmert & Sharon worked out with the Bush administration.  The percentage of Israelis that trust Obama to have Israel's best interests at heart is down to around 6%.  Indeed he has succeeded in doing what many considered impossible -- to get most Israelis (except at the extreme left) to circle the wagons around Netanyahu, who was never a "loved" politician even on the right and is despised by the left.  When even  Ha'aretz' hard-line left wing Yoel Marcus are complaining about Obama's attitude toward Israel and Netanyahu, you know that Obama is far outside the Israeli consensus.

Note to Rahm & the Axe:  You may THINK that J- Street provides you with electoral cover to claim that you are pro-Israel, and but the J-Street Jerks & Jesters are so un-representative of the Israeli consensus that they are to the left of Meretz.  And just because they have the "hechsher" of Yossi Beilin & his Geneva Initiative, and indeed it appears that you are adopting Beilin's "security" arrangements from the Geneva initiative, it won't fly here.  Israeli voters have rejected Beilin & his hare-brained ideas several times to the extent that even Meretz regretted taking him in.  He has no political base.

e)  Back to the "nuclear umbrella".  The underlying assumption is that the Iranians would be deterred from deploying or using nukes under a "M.A.D." or "M.A.D." by proxy regime just like the USSR (presumably) was.  Is that a reasonable assumption?  No.  Two reasons:

(1)  The threat of retaliation has to be credible.  In other words you have to really believe that the adversary has enough nukes deployed in safe places that would survive a first strike together with the ability to "deliver" them and inflict unabsorbable levels of damage to Iran.  Or that a proxy would do it.  Even if Israel already maintains deployed nukes (maybe, maybe not) it's not clear that enough nukes and their delivery vehicles would survive an extensive first strike, especially when even the "moderate" Rafsanjani (the infallibly omniscient NY Times SAID he is a moderate) publicly mused about Iran absorbing a loss of a third to a half of its population as a bearable price to pay for Israel's elimination.  And that assumes that Obama wouldn't pressure Israel not to retaliate ("you want US aid to help rebuild Israel & help the survivors?  forgo retaliation.  It won't bring back the dead.")

But what about the "nuclear umbrella"?  Well, for that to be credible you have to imagine the ultimate un-Bush, the quintessential anti-nuke president launch a devastating nuclear attack on Iran that destroys more of Iran than Rafsanjani thinks they could absorb.  Ah but this time Israel will have a signed "enforceable" (to quote Hillery) agreement with Obama.  Great.  So Israel (or what is left of it) will take the agreement to the Hague who mirabile dictu will shed its inbred antipathy toward Israel and after 3 months of hearings & considering the issue, will order the USA to abide by its agreement and nuke Iran back to the stone age.... Riiiiiiiight...

(2)  Even if M.A.D. (direct or by proxy) were credible, you have to assume that it would deter Iran.  See above on Rafsanjanni.  Also, Iran is not the USSR.  It's a theocratic apocalyptic regime who believes that the return of the 12th Imam is coming to a theatre near you soon and that his arrival can be hastened by a nuclear war.  Or in the insightful but pithy observations of Bernard Lewis, for the Iranian regime M.A.D. is not a deterrent, it's an incentive.

Iran's nuclear infrastructure can be destroyed, without invasion, without resorting to nukes, such that it would take them many years to rebuild if at all.   But it would take a lot of force and even more determination to do so.  That is what Obama lacks.  Hence the fig leaf of the nuclear umbrella.  Hence the acceptance of Iran as a nuclear power... which just a nice way to say that Israel will be the miner's canary.

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

July 26, 2009 at 4:39pm

Nuclear umbrella, schmuclear umbrella.  No countries in the region would rationally trust their survival to the willingness of the US to see its own cities and citizens incinerated in retaliation for  nuking Iran.  It was a dodgy assumption during the Cold War, it would be a stupid assumption now. Obama and Clinton continue to sound and look like tough talking hamsters on Iran.

- bl462

July 26, 2009 at 5:15pm

I don't see what force would be able to "incinerate" U.S. cities in retaliation for an attack on Iran.  A nuclear attack on Iran would however be equivalent to the famously inept "destroying the village to save it" scenario from the Vietnam War, cubed.  No nuclear attack could happen, even a smartly targeted one, without massive destruction to civilian infrastructure and -- I would guess -- significant casualties including ones specifically related to radiation.

A conventional air-plus-special-forces attack on Iran might work, if it becomes necessary, in the sense that it could destroy enough military related hardware and plant to set the development of a nuclear capability back ten years.  "Could" is the operative word here.  One wonders, however, how long it would take for the fairly large and ideologically colorful Iranian opposition to line up solidly behind the regime on the grounds of national pride and security, were such an attack to take place.

Ginzy, I'm not sure what you mean by Obama lacking the determination to do X or Y.  It strikes me as rather premature to express final judgment one way or another in that area.  At the moment Obama is determined to give Iran a chance to back away from their ultimate confrontation with nuclear realities.  So far, he hasn't done so badly in the determination field and has at least a consistent plan:  giving Iran time to think about this, but not for ever.

- ironyroad

July 26, 2009 at 6:35pm

ironyroad said

"I don't see what force would be able to "incinerate" U.S. cities in retaliation for an attack on Iran. .."

Here's how.  If Iran can eventually develop nuclear arms on ballistic missile capable of successfully attacking Israel a prudent assumption would be that it would have at least some second strike capability from land or sea based missiles, and/or plus proxies or Iran might deploy dirty bomb.

- bl462

July 26, 2009 at 6:54pm

Right now, the rest of the world, including Israel, is waiting to see how the schism in the mullocracy plays out. If grassroots protests are somehow able to overthrow the theocrats, the civilized world will exhale a big sigh of relief. Meanwhile, when Pres. Shimon Peres visited Azerbaijan, I'm sure that not all the talk was about cultural exchanges.

- nbarry

July 26, 2009 at 7:09pm

". . . a prudent assumption would be that it would have at least some second strike capability from land or sea based missiles."

Aimed at the U.S.?  You're suggesting that the Iranians could deploy subs with nuclear weapons close to the U.S. -- in either ocean -- and the Navy wouldn't be on it?

- ironyroad

July 26, 2009 at 7:19pm

ironyroad said,

You're suggesting that the Iranians could deploy subs with nuclear weapons close to the U.S. -- in either ocean -- and the Navy wouldn't be on it?

The issue isn't whether the US Navy would be on it or not, the issue is whether it's a prudent assumption that a future Iran with those technological capabilities would pose a credible threat of retaliation against the US homeland.

- bl462

July 26, 2009 at 8:13pm

The issue of credibility, which you raise yourself, also involves comparative military assets.

- ironyroad

July 26, 2009 at 8:38pm

So, if the Iranians developed a nuclear bomb, the Israelis would blame Obama because he neither bombed nor allowed Israel to bomb Iran? He is very unpopular in Israel, we hear.

ginzy, I recall a tough guy president named W.Bush and another tough guy prime minister named Sharon, both of whom should be at the top of the blame list. They were in power together, and for years did nothing but issue empty threats at Iran. A credible argument could be made that their policy on Iran helped embolden the mullahs. Do the Israeli public remember that?

Perhaps, Obama should copy their act - make a secret side deal on the settlements with Bibi (a deal that's counter to their publicly proclaimed agreement), strike toughguy poses, shake his fists at the Iranians, and hand over the subsequent mess to the next president. Maybe then, his popularity would go up in Israel.

As long as no action is taken, just mouthing off some sort of tough language at the mullahs, and not complaining about "natural growth" of the settlements is bound to make him a great friend like W. Bush in Israeli eyes, right?

- scrubby

July 26, 2009 at 8:39pm

But sanctions and military strikes now are a form of deterrence. They are penalties, real and threatened, designed to persuade Iran not to do a thing. If the threat of nuclear annihilation is not sufficient to deter Iran from using nuclear weapons later, why would the threat of economic sanctions or a minor campaign of conventional airstrikes will be sufficient to deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons now? Either Iran is deterrable or it is not; if not, then we really only have two choices: preemptive nuclear attack, or immediate regime change through foreign invasion.

- rhubarbs

July 26, 2009 at 8:54pm

Irony,

Yes, it's about credibility - the credibility of the Iranian counter-response determines the credibility of any US threat to suffer potential nuclear retaliation by Iran and/or its proxies for an attack by Iran on a third party, but as ginzy also notes, there is also an important and precedent issue of the credibility of the US' political willingness to nuke Iran in the first place in such a circumstance.  As for comparative military assets, you have focused on Iran's perceived current military assets and in particular whether it could in such a circumstance successfully retaliate using sea-based nuclear missiles but the grim triad also included land based missiles and dirty bombs.  

As was all-too evident in the first Gulf War with the SCUD attacks on Israel continuing notwithstanding US efforts to find and destroy the launchers, in any case, you can't assume a 100% defense capability and I think the issue returns to the credibility of the he willingness of the US to see its own cities and citizens incinerated in retaliation for  nuking Iran.

- bl462

July 26, 2009 at 9:10pm

irony,

...and the "grim triad" of nuclear horrors that Iran could potentially deploy didn't include other horrors that Iran or its proxies could retaliate with, such as bio or chemical weapons .  

- bl462

July 26, 2009 at 9:18pm

The recent Iranian election injected a level of instability into the Tehran regime. Obama can be a hero to me by simply refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the reelected Ahmedinejad government and demanding that the international community follow suit. No bombing, no invasion, no violence of any sort, not even an idle threat, just pure diplomacy. The burden of proof would be on the mullahs that they retain popular support. Any sanctions that followed, whether through the UN or ad hoc among those nations that supported us, would be aimed at establishing popular rule. Any military action aimed at Iran belongs as a Plan B in case the current rulers succeed at repressing the majority, which is now more difficult now that the genie is out of the bottle.

- nbarry

July 26, 2009 at 9:25pm

It will be curious....should Iran get "the bomb"....how the U.S. reacts if Saudi Arabia, Egypt and our other "allies" in the Middle East go down the same path.

After all, only WE get to decide that right?

For years we turned a blind eye when Pakistan and India started accumulating their own nuclear arsenals. Instead, with various carrots and sticks, we sustained a relationship with them that revolved basically around co-opting both the homegrown plutocracies there and the military mandarins that propped them up.

It's always been that way. Once the Bilderberg oligrachs agree a regime poses a threat to their economic interests, the huffing and the puffing begins. Then it's only a matter of waiting to see if the huffing and puffing leads to a more agressive posturing backed by sanctions. Or [as in the case of Iraq] all the way to war.

So, how does this all fit together?

Follow the money.

george walton

- iambiguous

July 26, 2009 at 9:35pm

rhubarb: we do need to be pulling out all the stops to ratchet up pressure on Iran

george:

This is part and parcel of the circuitous narrative that loops endlessly in the tugs back and forth between Us [the good guys] and Them [the evil guys].

Neoconservatives, along with their "war is good business" allies in the military industrial complex, beat the drums for invading Iran every chance they get. So: Why in the world would those who own and operate the Iranian government NOT want to pusue "the bomb"?

Consider:

1]

Did or did not BushWorld append Iran to the "axis of evil" list.

2]

Did or did not BushWorld invade and blow to bits the first country on the list

3]

Has or has not Washington resisted the same sort of bellicose posturing on the Korean peninsula?

Indeed, Bush himself trod down the negociation route there, right?

Sure, the Iranian ruling class may well be a bunch of theocratic thugs. But that doesn't make them stupid. Given the manner in which the "war on terror" has loosed the most belligerent [if rhetorical] thugs right here at home they would truly be stupid if they stopped their nuclear program.

In other words, we are creating the very conditions that motivates those in Iran who want the bomb to go full speed ahead with the program.

george walton

- iambiguous

July 26, 2009 at 10:27pm

Ginzy says:

"Iran's nuclear infrastructure can be destroyed, without invasion, without resorting to nukes, such that it would take them many years to rebuild if at all."

Seems like hogwash to me, based on the technology, the availability of uranium ore in Iran, and the ability to disperse and bury centrifuge cascades.  The last time you made this unsupported claim it included the wildly incorrect statement that any cascade must be very large indeed.  Not so at all.  As long as the output of enriched uranium fluoride gas is constantly recycled as input, enrichment continues.  It is the number of centrifuges that is the major constraint, not particularly the size of an individual cascade.  Got anything better?  Or do you just like to assert this technological nonsense to attempt to score political points against Obama whom you plainly dislike if not despise?

Did the tough-talking Bush achieve results more to your liking, or simply waste eight years dissipating any goodwill that the US might have employed to gain allies in this struggle?

- roidubouloi

July 26, 2009 at 10:59pm

Furthermore, roid, the U.S. Joint Chiefs have reported publicly that they do not believe a campaign of air strikes of any duration can do more than slow Iran's nuclear program. Only a regime-toppling invasion and long-term occupation can force a permanent end to Iran's a-bomb program. (Or a preemptive nuclear strike, I presume, but contra iambi, the military doesn't contemplate committing preemptive genocide like that, so that option doesn't get put in reports.)

Perhaps more credibly to some here, Israeli military and civil officials speaking in public in the United States in the last year have also said that any campaign of airstrikes is unlikely either to hit all Iranian nuclear assets or to do more than delay by a matter of some dozen months Iran's a-bomb program.

People who claim that Iran's nuclear infrastructure can be destroyed without invasion, such that the a-bomb program would effectively be ended, either have better intelligence and military acumen than the United States and Israeli governments, or they regard the 1990s campaigns to find and destroy Iraq's WMD programs as a great success, even though having actually destroyed Iraq's WMD programs, the West spent 14 years imposing sanctions and conducting air raids and still Iraq was able to drop credible hints about still having WMD capability. Since Iran doesn't actually need a-bombs to be treated as a nuclear power by its neighbors, but merely needs credible doubt that Iran might have an a-bomb to be treated as a nuclear power by its neighbors, I do not regard the Iraq model of prevention-by-repeated-airstrikes as a promising model. If sustained campaigns of airstrikes couldn't even assure us of the destruction of a WMD program that was actually destroyed, what hope is there that sustained campaigns of airstrikes can assure us of the destruction of a WMD program that actually exists and that Iran will at least attempt to sustain and reconstitute?

- rhubarbs

July 27, 2009 at 7:21am

Ginzy wrote: "First of all, Obama lost almost all the "street cred" he once had (and it wasn't great - about 35-40% at its height) among Israelis [..]. The percentage of Israelis that trust Obama to have Israel's best interests at heart is down to around 6%."

Interesting data. Where are those from? They seem to square less than perfectly with the findings of a Pew survey published this week - pewglobal.org/.../264.pdf .

That survey found that:

-> the US is viewed favourably by 71% of Israelis;

-> 53% of Israelis approve of Obama's international policies;

-> 56% of Israelis is confident that Obama will do the right thing regarding world affairs;

-> 56% of Israelis think President Obama will take into account Israel's interests when making international policy decisions;

-> the election of President Barack Obama lead 40% of Israelis to have a more favorable opinion of the US and 40% a less favorable opinion;

-> and 53% of Israelis believe Obama will be fair in dealing with the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Now those numbers are somewhat dated: the Pew survey covered 25 countries, and Israel was surveyed between May 18 and June 16. But that's still just a month to two months ago. Most strikingly, the numbers are significantly more favourable for Obama than you assert they *ever* were.

- jobeek2

July 27, 2009 at 10:39am

Something else is puzzing here.  The Iran that should be hit preemptively without mercy -- I wonder, is that the same Iran whose rebellious population was being praised to the skys here a month ago?  The same Iran for which Obama was being excoriated for not standing in the Rose Garden and declaring himself the leader of the oppostion of?  The same Iranian opposition whose leader Mousavi has declared himself in favor of a nuclear capapbility?  Incidentally, is the Rafsanjani mentioned by ginzy as a theorist of Iranian nuclear brinksmanship the same Rafsanjani who was cheered by said opposition a week or so ago for bringing serious ideological splits within the religious leadership to the surface?

You know, I have some sympathy for the Iranian oppositon -- it must be confusing to read TNR threads and realize you've gone from being the Romantic incarnation of democratic virtue to being the forgettable collateral damage in a preemptive strike in about four weeks.

- ironyroad

July 27, 2009 at 12:33pm

Ooops!  Something may have been "puzzing" -- but I meant puzzling!

- ironyroad

July 27, 2009 at 12:34pm

I know I'm late to the party, but whatever b1462 is smoking, I want some.  Iran has no blue-water naval capabliity, and will not have one for the foreseeable future +50 years.  They have no long range air capability.  All they will have is a land-based missile threat after they get nukes (which they will, at some point).  The Iranians can no more threaten the US homeland with nuclear weapons than I will be the keynote speaker at the Dem Nat'l Convention in 2012.

Deterrence is what we've got, it's what we know, and contra ginzy, if I'm sitting in Tehran thinking about launching a nuke toward Israel, I'm not sure I'd bet that the US (never mind the Israelis) won't turn that wonderful civilization they're always yapping about into sand.

- butchie b

July 27, 2009 at 2:48pm

Last but not least, "dirty bombs" do not incinerate cities.

A dirty bomb is simply a conventional explosive with a small amount of live radioactive material inside, which creates an additional environmental hazard (radiation) in the area of the explosion.  It does not produce an atomic explosion of any kind, and is far from the kind of threat that people talk about when they discuss /actual/ nuclear capabilities.  The difference in deadliness is far starker than that between firing a gun and throwing the bullets.

- austinexpat

July 27, 2009 at 3:29pm

butchie - My favorite part of all of ginzy's comment are the parts about America threatening a post-nuclear-attack Israeli government with withholding humanitarian aid unless Israel agrees not to retaliate against Iran. Can you imagine that kind of ultra-pacifist and/or vehemently anti-Israel U.S. government? I think that not even a President Kucinich would be inclined to try that kind of crazy.

(A close runner-up is the depiction of a sad, sad Israeli government remnant begging the Hague for the right to retaliate. Not since the '04 election have I seen such pathetic strawmen.)

- janus

July 27, 2009 at 3:39pm

"The Iranians can no more threaten the US homeland with nuclear weapons than I will be the keynote speaker at the Dem Nat'l Convention in 2012."

Well, you sound so sure, butchie, but you know how the president is always ready to transcend partisanship and bring oppositional voices into the fold . . .

- ironyroad

July 27, 2009 at 4:14pm

A few comments:

To clarify an important point.  I don’t care about political parties.  I have no party loyalty.  (One of the more frustrating things I find about the Israeli proportional representation system is that you ONLY vote for a party in the national elections, never a given candidate).  I do care about policies.  A lot.  So please lay off  the “talking points” arguments (Bush did this, never did that & Sharon did something else).  These are not relevant.  The election is over.  That Bush may have been wrong on any given policy issue does not make Obama’s approach ipso facto correct, even in purely binary choice situation, and even more so in a real world with a far wider dynamic range of options.

Delivery Systems

Some have raised the question of whether or not an Iranian nuke endangers the USA directly.  An interesting question and in theory the answer is yes.  Not via a missile attack at least for a while.  Although Iran has progressed in its missile development, my impression is that it will be a while before they have missiles that could reach the US mainland from Iran.  Also (although I could be wrong) I don’t recall them having missile carrying subs, let alone long ranger bombers or an aircraft carrier.

However it would be possible to load a nuke, even a crude nuke, into a shipping container, leaving plenty of room for dummy cargo, load the container on a cargo vessel (with a gazzelion other containers) and then send it off to a US port.  It doesn’t even have to be an Iranian flagged vessel or even the same vessel that left Iran and could even be transshipped between ships by truck over some distance.  Although slow, the weapon would nonetheless be delivered, and remotely detonated by something as simple as a cell phone.  One major advantage – Iran avoids the need to miniature and carefully balance the bomb to travel inside a missile warhead.  Also it need not be done by Iran.  A subcontracting terrorist group (excuse me, a “man caused disaster” organization)of which there are many would be happy to do it.  The ultimate in suicide bombs (assuming a ship hand does the final deed upon docking.

Enriching Uranium

UF6 is enriched via cascades of thousands of centrifuges for a reason.  If you keep recycling what you spin you may end up with some enriched UF6 but a very very tiny amount.

The reason cascades are used is that you can feed in fresh feed stock at one end of the cascade and at each step enrich it progressively more without diluting what you’ve enriched with more unenriched UF6 gas (I confirmed this with a chem engineer in my office).  At the end of the cascade the U-235 enriched UF6 gas is chemically processed to restore the U-235 to the metallic state.  UF6 gas is highly toxic, corrosive, and reacts violently with water, even water vapor in the atmosphere.  The temperature of the centrifuges needs to be carefully controlled (early on one of the technological problems Iran had to lick was keeping the centrifuges from over heating).

U235 is found in concentrations of about 0.7% in natural uranium.  A bomb requires at least 90% enriched U235 (maybe higher).  I believe a single atomic bomb requires about 5-10 Kg of U235.  So assuming 100% yield in enrichment, in recovery of the enriched metallic U235 (100% yield does not exist for any process let alone a large scale industrial process), you have to spin more than 700-1400 kg of UF6 to get enough U235 for a single bomb (weaponization, a separate process would likely be carried out at a separate facility; and that has its own efficiency yield problems). Given the inevitable inefficiencies of these sorts of processes enough U235 for single weapon means starting with a lot of a highly toxic, corrosive, reactive, and radioactive substance and processing it in a controlled, sealed system that is itself subject to mechanical & other breakdowns (for an interesting & reasonably recent analysis of what Iran has in low enriched uranium & the road to weaponization see here: www.isisnucleariran.org/.../LEU_Iran.pdf) and then further processing it at a stage where it is more toxic (uranium metal is in of itself toxic), more radioactive (U235), and over all more difficult to work with.

All of this requires a substantial infrastructure both in terms of facilities and highly trained personnel. And a lot of centrifuges in a cascade.  Not recycling the input.  In short this is not conducive to scattering a few centrifuges here and a few more there.  Indeed the pictures showing Mad Mahmoud inspecting the enrichment facility appeared to show many many centrifuges arranged as a cascade.

By all accounts the main enrichment facility is at Natanz and is a major facility (see here www.isis-online.org/.../natanz03_02.html) designed to hold upward of 50,000 centrifuges, and this facility MAY be limited to producing the low enriched UF6 of about 5%.  The high enrichment phase facility may well be located elsewhere.

Iran has not scattered the centrifuges as it is totally impractical.  At most there may be another undeclared facility elsewhere, but that doesn’t mean its location isn’t known to Israeli and / or US and / or European intelligence agencies (knowledge of these sorts of things tends to be kept secret, even from the NY Times).  What Iran HAS scattered are the separate facilities – the facility for making UF6 is separate from the enrichment facility at Natanz which may focus only on low enrichment.  Hence there may be a separate high enrichment facility and weaponization may be yet at another place.  I never denied this.  Yes, it doesn’t mean hitting them would be easy, but not inherently undoable.

The Military Option

Regarding what Israel and / or the US could do.  Those who really know are keeping there mouths shut (although occasional hints do surface here on occasion, in contrast to what Rhubs is hearing).  Yes it would require a lot of firepower, preferably using conventional cruise missiles for much of the initial strikes.  This the USA has much more of than Israel.

Again, I would want to focus on the key facilities, and their defenses, not a general bombing of Iran to the stone age.  If someone wants to hit Revolutionary Guard facilities in the process, I wouldn't argue.  I suspect that many Iranians wouldn't argue either.  It actually may help the Iranian opposition.  And if someone could come up with a way to bring the real opposition in to power great.

Rhubs.  It is the same Rafsanjani.  And I don't think he (or Moussavi for that matter) have change their tune vis a vis Israel.  If they come to power, I don't see them reestablishing relations with Israel & I don't expect to see El Al flying to Tehran again (I first came to Israel in 1970-71 for my junior year of college at Hebrew U., and I distinctly remember seeing posters advertising El Al flights to Tehran).  It was Moussavi as PM who, under orders from Khomeini, pushed Iran's moribund nuclear program into high gear.  But if they come to power, they may be more interested in consolidating their position by focussing more on domestic needs and de-fanging the Ayattolahs.  For their own reasons.  But that is not happening now.  Also, you may (or may not) recall that I was never all that enamored about Moussavi & co., because in the last analysis they were still vetted by the Ayattolahs

One more thing.  I have absolutely no problem with trying to “engage” the Iranians in a time limited fashion.  Again.  It was tried by the EU-niks and Bush several times.  One of the main arms control people from the EU wrote in the WSJ (I think it was the WSJ; unfortunately I can't find the article & I don't remember her name) how the EU negotiators bent over backward to accommodate the Iranians, including a representative of the Bush administration in a manner that the Iranians found acceptable.  Still no dice.  So if Obama wants to try yet one more time, fine.  All power to him.  But don't say it hasn't been tried before because that is patently false.  And given the results from the dealings with NK, Russia, the Arab States, the EU and the like, please don't tell me that the force of Obama's personality will make the difference.

But given the likely outcome of such negotiations  -- zilch (even Hillary says so) then what?  Tough sanctions would be great but why would they be more likely to be put in place now than they were in the past.  The Austrians still want to develop the Iranian gas fields, and even here at TNR, John Judis  (here: blogs.tnr.com/.../iran-and-the-politics-of-pipelines.aspx) castigated Bush for objecting to Iran feeding its gas into the planned Nabucco pipeline.  BTW, Judis claimed that the Obamanauts took a more equivocal position.  Now what was that about effective sanctions?

Butchie - deterrence.  Please re-read what I've written earlier in this thread and more so what I've written elsewhere on the TNR website.  And you're not sitting in Tehran and you don't think like those who are in charge in Tehran (and I am quite grateful for that).

Israelis' view of Obama

Jobeek- I don't know where Pew got their numbers but the media here have been quoting other polls for a while.  The USA will always be viewed favorably here, the issue is Obama.  The poll in question is here: www.jpost.com/.../Satellite  And as I've noted, when even the left wing columnists are coming down on Obama for coming down on the despised Bibi,  that is a measure of something.

I don't despise Obama; I do dislike him and do not trust him.  Power and vanity can be a dangerous combination.  And I cannot tolerate the personality cult that has sprung up around him.  And as far as expressing final judgment as to what Obama might or might not do, that is how one plans for policy or for that matter decides who to vote for.

Cheers to all, even you roid,

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem

- ginzy

July 27, 2009 at 4:20pm

Butchie - clarification.  I would have no problem if the Iranians thought like you but I prefer you "here" (wherever that is) with the rest of us.

hg

- ginzy

July 27, 2009 at 4:28pm

Janus,

My apologies.  I guess I was too subtle.  The bit about going to the Hague to enforce the agreement was a satirical & cynical adaptation of Hillary Clinton's statements about Israel not having an "enforceable" (her term) agreement with the USA regarding the building over the Green Line.  In other words, yes there was some understanding between the Bush administration and Sharon's gov't at the time, an agreement that was critical in getting the government to vote for the disengagement from Gaza (why & what is beyond the scope of this post).  But as Hillary noted it wasn't an ENFORCEABLE agreement and so the Obamanauts were free to renege on it.

My too subtle point is, If there was an "enforceable" agreement what difference would that make if the Obamanauts decide to renege?  Where would Israel go to get the agreement enforced - the Hague?  And so the same reasoning applies to a US nuclear umbrella which supposedly would protect Israel (and other states threatened by the Iranian nukes) under a M.A.D. regime.  If push comes to shove and the USA does not honor such an agreement for whatever reason, even it is signed ratified etc., Israel can't enforce it.

Regarding the denying Israel the right to retaliate, there already is something of a precedent.  One of the members (I forgot the name) of the infamous Goldstone committee investigating Israel's supposed "war crimes" during Cast Lead famously said back in January or February that Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself.

More importantly, the radically left wing supposedly pro-Israel lobby, J Street also came out against Cast Lead when even the far left wing Meretz party in Israel acknowledged that Israel had to strike back against Hamas.  It is now becoming quite clear that J Street has Obama's ear regarding Israel, and they are not at all hesitant about advocating policies (e.g., Beilin's Geneva Initiative) that are far out of the Israeli consensus (James Kirchick has a good exposition of the role of J Street on Obama policy and how far off of the map they are, here: www.forward.com/.../110371 ; I assume it was considered too implicitly critical of Obama to appear in TNR).

So given J Street's intolerance of Israel defending itself against Hamas' Qassams from Gaza, it is not too far of a leap to see how they would vehemently oppose a nuclear retaliation by Israel and how they would lobby Obama to force Israel not to retaliate.

hg

- ginzy

July 27, 2009 at 5:47pm

I wonder if this issue could be dicussed without the wildest, most speculative scenarios being presented as if they were regular agenda items hanging over from last week?  In the case of any kind of nuclear attack by anyone, all bets are off the table.  However, there is a large menu of possibilities and options that obtain between now and that future point.

There's an old boy/wolf issue that bears mentioning here:  if you try to posit the current discussion on the most sensational projection, then it can be difficult to get people's attention later if something of that order suddenly looms -- it's "been there, done that" at exactly the wrong moment.

- ironyroad

July 27, 2009 at 6:34pm

While I've enjoyed the very high quality of debate here, I think that the only real issue here is whether a US "nuclear umbrella" is a credible deterrent and whether any country in their right mind would link their existential security to the willingness and ability of the US to use nuclear weapons to retaliate against an Iranian attack on a third party. I don't think it's credible, others do.  But I also think that whether or not Iran or a proxy currently has a particular weapons system (missile carrying subs) now doesn't mean they or a proxy will never have one.  But that's a diversion from the main issue, which is whether Iran or a proxy could deploy *any* WMD means of retaliation against the US in some future scenario and whether anyone in the US would bet their lives that they can't when the US itself hasn't been attacked.

- bl462

July 27, 2009 at 8:01pm

Ginzy,

Thanks for the link. That's a rather drastic swing in public opinion indeed. For those who did not click it, this is how the numbers changed in the Jerusalem Post poll:

May 17:

The Obama administration is ..

31% Pro-Israel

40% Neutral

14% Pro-Palestinian

June 21:

The Obama administration is ..

6% Pro-Israel

36% Neutral

50% Pro-Palestinian

Basically, public opinion, according to this poll, reversed itself wholesale within one month. Makes me think that opinions, right now, are volatile and fluid. (The poll also has a huge margin of error at +/- 4.5%.) I'd take a wait-and-see approach to see how they will develop.

Personally, I'd prefer the Obama administration to be neutral.

- jobeek2

July 27, 2009 at 9:28pm