Israel's New Strategic Position

[mota bhai 2,675]

Israel's New Strategic Position
Geopolitical Weekly
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2013
Stratfor
By George Friedman

Israel's current strategic position is excellent. After two years of stress, its peace treaty with Egypt remains in place. Syria is in a state of civil war that remains insoluble. Some sort of terrorist threat might originate there, but no strategic threat is possible. In Lebanon, Hezbollah does not seem inclined to wage another war with Israel, and while the group's missile capacity has grown, Israel appears able to contain the threat they pose without creating a strategic threat to Israeli national interests. The Jordanian regime, which is aligned with Israel, probably will withstand the pressure put on it by its political opponents.

...

In addition, the Palestinians are divided among themselves, and while ineffective, intermittent rocket attacks from Gaza are likely, there is no Intifada underway in the West Bank.

Therefore, Israel faces no existential threats, save one: the possibility that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon and a delivery system and use it to destroy Israel before it or the United States can prevent it from doing so. Clearly, a nuclear strike on Tel Aviv would be catastrophic for Israel.

...

Israeli officials believe their allies, particularly those in the United States, should share this view.

...

There are plenty of scenarios in which Israel would not be able to manage security threats without American assistance. Thus, Israel has an overriding interest in maintaining its relationship with the United States and in ensuring Iran never becomes a nuclear state. So any sense that the United States is moving away from its commitment to Israel, or that it is moving in a direction where it might permit an Iranian nuclear weapon, is a crisis. Israel's response to the Iran talks -- profound unhappiness without outright condemnation -- has to be understood in this context, and the assumptions behind it have to be examined.

Iran does not appear to have a deliverable nuclear weapon at this point. Refining uranium is a necessary but completely insufficient step in developing a weapon. A nuclear weapon is much more than uranium. It is a set of complex technologies, not the least of which are advanced electrical systems and sensors that, given the amount of time the Iranians have needed just to develop not-quite-enough enriched uranium, seems beyond them. Iran simply does not have sufficient fuel to produce a device.

Nor it does not have a demonstrated ability to turn that device into a functioning weapon. A weapon needs to be engineered to extreme tolerances, become rugged enough to function on delivery and be compact enough to be delivered. To be delivered, its must be mounted on a very reliable missile or aircraft. Iran has neither reliable missiles nor aircraft with the necessary range to attack Israel. The idea that the Iranians will use the next six months for a secret rush to complete the weapon simply isn't the way it works.

Before there is a weapon there must be a test. Nations do not even think of deploying nuclear weapons without extensive underground tests -- not to see if they have uranium but to test that the more complex systems work. That is why they can't secretly develop a weapon: They themselves won't know they have a workable weapon without a test.

...

Of course, there are other strategies for delivering a weapon if it were built. One is the use of a ship to deliver it to the Israeli coast. Though this is possible, the Israelis operate an extremely efficient maritime interdiction system, and the United States monitors Iranian ports. The probability is low that a ship would go unnoticed.

...

Otherwise, Iran theoretically could drive a nuclear weapon into Israel by road. But these weapons are not small. There is such a thing as a suitcase bomb, but that is a misleading name; it is substantially larger than a suitcase, and it is also the most difficult sort of device to build. Because of its size, it is not particularly rugged. You don't just toss it into the trunk, drive 1,500 miles across customs checkpoints and set it off. There are many ways you can be captured -- particularly crossing into Israel -- and many ways to break the bomb, which require heavy maintenance.

...

One of the reasons Israel has not attempted an airstrike ... is difficulty. Israel's air force is too far removed and too small to carry out simultaneous strikes on multiple facilities ... The Israelis can't be certain which sites are real and which are decoys. The Iranians have had years to harden their facilities, so normal ordnance likely would be inadequate. Even more serious is the fact that battle damage assessment -- judging whether the site has been destroyed -- would be prohibitively difficult.

For these reasons, the attack could not simply be carried out from the air. It would require special operations forces on the ground to try to determine the effects. That could result in casualties and prisoners, if it could be done at all ... The United States would be able to mount a much more robust attack than the Israelis, but it is unclear whether it would be robust enough. And in any case, all the other problems -- the reliability of intelligence, determining whether the site were destroyed -- would still apply.

...

Israel's response to the U.S.-Iran talks should be understood in this way.

...

The Israelis could not simply applaud the process because there is, in fact, a strategic threat to Israel embedded in the talks. Israel has a strategic dependency on the United States. Israel has never been comfortable with Washington's relationship with Saudi Arabia, but there was nothing the Israelis could do about it, so they accommodated it. But they understand that the outcome of these talks, if successful, means more than the exchange of a nuclear program for eased sanctions; it means the beginning of a strategic alignment with Iran.

...

On the simplest level, Iran needs investment, and American companies want to invest. On the more complex level, Iran needs to be certain that Iraq is friendly to its interests and that neither Russia nor Turkey can threaten it in the long run. Only the United States can ensure that. For their part, the Americans want a stronger Iran to contain Saudi support for Sunni insurgents, compel Turkey to shape its policy more narrowly, and remind Russia that the Caucasus, and particularly Azerbaijan, have no threat from the south and can concentrate on the north. The United States is trying to create a multipolar region to facilitate a balance-of-power strategy in place of American power.

...

Right now, Israel does not need the United States, nor American aid, which means much less to them now than it did in 1973. They need it as a symbol of American commitment ... the real Israeli fear is that the United States is moving away from direct intervention to a more subtle form of manipulation. That represents a threat to Israel if Israel ever needs direct intervention rather than manipulation. But more immediately, it threatens Israel because the more relationships the United States has in the region, the less significant Israel is to Washington's strategy.

...

In the end, Israel is a small and weak power. Its power has been magnified by the weakness of its neighbors. That weakness is not permanent, and the American relationship has changed in many ways since 1948. Another shift seems to be underway.

...

What Israel has lost is twofold. First, it has lost control of America's regional strategy. Second, it has lost control of America's political process. Netanyahu hates the U.S.-Iran talks not because of nuclear weapons but because of the strategic shift of the United States. But his response must remain measured because Israel has less influence in the United States than it once did.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/israels-new-strategic-position

[GandD 5,966]

If Iran nukes Israel, Israel will eventually recover and Iran will lose (badly) a retaliatory war. I don't think they are that dumb. I assume that government would like to stay in power.

[mota bhai 2,675]

If Iran nukes Israel, Israel will eventually recover and Iran will lose (badly) a retaliatory war. I don't think they are that dumb. I assume that government would like to stay in power.

Putting aside the fact that Iran is nowhere near being able to nuke Israel....

Israel has no strategic depth at all. Tiny country. About the size of New Jersey. Any country that is able to nuke Israel wins. What's an Israeli government to do? Start learning how to make friends with your neighbors. Start making them need you as much as you need them.

[GandD 5,966]

This shift has a lot to do with this administration. Typically, the religious right will come together again at some point and elect another Jesus proclaiming republican. At that point, Israel will be able to rest assured. IMO, it will be quite some time before American's side with the Arabs over the Jews.

[mota bhai 2,675]

This shift has a lot to do with this administration. Typically, the religious right will come together again at some point and elect another Jesus proclaiming republican. At that point, Israel will be able to rest assured. IMO, it will be quite some time before American's side with the Arabs over the Jews.

Persians aren't Arab so I'm not sure we're on the same page here.

Edited December 3, 2013 by mota bhai

[GandD 5,966]

Persians aren't Arab so I'm not sure we're on the same page here.

Yeah yeah, they're Persians. Sorry, I mean Muslims.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

If Iran nukes Israel, Israel will eventually recover and Iran will lose (badly) a retaliatory war. I don't think they are that dumb. I assume that government would like to stay in power.

Not dumb but there are radicals there that can end up in positions of political power from time to time... If I remember right Israel supposedly has around 100-200 fusion bombs. No doubt these are placed so as to protect them from a (relatively) low yield fission device. At best for Iran it would be mutual suicide.

Edited December 3, 2013 by OnMyWayID

[mota bhai 2,675]

A well placed first strike would end Israel's existence. This is why Israel, if it is to remain a viable nation-state, either needs to make friends OR territorially (Chrome says that's not a word) expand substantially (while forcing out Muslim inhabitants).

Making friends is easier.

Edited December 3, 2013 by mota bhai

[Hotter Otter 1,211]

I read a really interesting article last week that pointed out that Saudi Arabia and Israel both don't want Iran to develop nuclear weapons as it would change the balance of power in the region and both feel left out in the cold by recent US policy regarding the Middle East. It suggested that things might happen between the two countries behind the scenes. Working on the principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", it kind of makes sense. While they'd never work together openly both countries are pragmatic will do what is best for themselves to hinder Iran.

[mota bhai 2,675]

There is a cold Sunni-Shia war going on right now in the Muslim world and rapprochement with Iran strikes me as a good way to fan those flames, drive them further apart.

[GandD 5,966]

You guys really think Iran wants to end Israel to the point of suicide? Any non-Western nuclear strike on another nation state would be met with Western intervention.

[mota bhai 2,675]

You guys really think Iran wants to end Israel to the point of suicide? Any non-Western nuclear strike on another nation state would be met with Western intervention.

You keep talking about suicide as if the West would go in and end Iran. I think that's wishful thinking.

[GandD 5,966]

You keep talking about suicide as if the West would go in and end Iran. I think that's wishful thinking.

The West would end any country that actively deployed a nuclear weapon. Well, assuming that country wasn't an actual power.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

A well placed first strike would end Israel's existence. This is why Israel, if it is to remain a viable nation-state, either needs to make friends OR territorially (Chrome says that's not a word) expand substantially (while forcing out Muslim inhabitants).

Making friends is easier.

Too bad they care about where they live.. They could buy Baja California from Mexico and move the lot of them there.

[mota bhai 2,675]

The West would end any country that actively deployed a nuclear weapon.

"End any country"? That's naive. The West would do no such thing.