How the U.S. Military Views an Israeli Strike

On the radar: They don’t want war and especially don’t want Israel to start it; Expert views on bibi’s red line; the Human costs of strikes on Iran; Laser enrichment license; a Legal perspective; and the Missile Next Door.

September 28, 2012 | Edited by Benjamin Loehrke

Big read - “High-level Pentagon war planners have had to ‘fly blind’ in sketching out what Israel might do -- and the challenges its actions will pose for the U.S. military,” writes Mark Perry for Foreign Policy in a detailed analysis of military options being considered by Israel and responses being considered by the United States.

--"One thing is clear: the U.S. military, according to my sources, currently has no interest in a preventive strike...That puts the military shoulder to shoulder with the president. Obama and the military may have clashed on other issues, like the Afghan surge, but when it comes to Iran, they are speaking with one voice: They don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon, they don't want Israel to start a war over it, and they don't believe an Israeli attack should automatically trigger U.S. intervention.” http://bit.ly/ShjzwN

Marker - Speaking yesterday at the UN, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu brought out a cartoon representing an Iranian nuclear bomb and used a marker to literally draw a red line on it. (video) http://wapo.st/Uylw9q

--Rick Gladstone and David Sanger at The New York Times write: “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel told the United Nations on Thursday that Iran’s capability to enrich uranium must be stopped before next spring or early summer, arguing that by that time the country will be in a position to make a short, perhaps undetectable, sprint to manufacture its first nuclear weapon.” http://nyti.ms/SpyOaR

Not before spring - “Without quite saying so, [Netanyahu] has now backed off of the limb he had gotten himself out on. Whereas only weeks ago he was suggesting that Israel might bomb Iran before he finished his next sentence, the upshot of today's speech was that Israel won't bomb Iran before spring,” writes Robert Wright at The Atlantic. http://bit.ly/TN0GIJ

Timeline actually longer - “Prime Minister Netanyahu’s proposed ‘redline’ for military action against Iran is overly alarmist. It makes a number of worst-case assumptions, ignores other relevant considerations, and would serve as a tripwire for a war that would likely prompt Iran to openly pursue the bomb,” write Daryl Kimball, Greg Thielmann and Kelsey Davenport at Arms Control Now.

--The analysts give a technical perspective on the hurdles and roadblocks Iran would face if it were to chose to build a deliverable nuclear weapon - a process that would take years, not months. http://bit.ly/SIHF8T

Wile E. Coyote - “Bibi's ACME bomb at UNGA inspires Israeli meme artists.” Personal favorite: the “Subterranean Homesick Blues” reference. http://bit.ly/QAssVq

Welcome to Early Warning - Subscribe to our morning email or follow us on twitter.

--Have a tip? Email earlywarning@ploughshares.org. Want to support this work? Click here.

Civilian costs - A strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities would pose a grave risk to civilians. A new study by Khosrow Semnani estimates that military strikes on facilities near Isfahan, Natanz and Arak would kill between 3,500 and 5,500 people at the facilities and potentially expose tens to hundreds of thousands of civilians to toxic chemical plumes and/or radioactive fallout.

--”Rather than dismiss them as collateral damage, it is time to factor the Iranian people into any equation involving military strikes,” writes Semnani. Read the full paper: “The Ayatollah’s Nuclear Gamble: The human cost of military strikes against iran’s nuclear facilities” (pdf) http://bit.ly/V5AG9r

Viewpoint - Joe Cirincione talks with Eliot Spitzer on “Why a military strike against Iran is not the solution.” Video here. http://bit.ly/SUqPP2

SILEX - “US grants licence for uranium laser enrichment: But technology raises fears over nuclear proliferation.” by Sharon Weinberger in Nature. http://bit.ly/R0a6uJ

Legal basis - “There has been almost no discussion of whether an attack by the United States would be legal under domestic and international law. This should be a priority. Law is important, especially in issues of war and peace,” write Jeffrey H. Smith and John B. Bellinger III in The Washington Post.

--They provide a tour of the international and constitutional laws regarding the use of military force, and petition U.S> decision makers to explain how strikes on Iran might be justified under the law. http://wapo.st/UTjTrz

Report - “Containing Iran: Strategies for Addressing the Iranian Nuclear Challenge” by Robert Reardon of the RAND Corporation. http://bit.ly/S68pQW

Book - “The Missile Next Door: The Minuteman in the American Heartland” by Gretchen Heefner for Harvard University Press.

--The book “tells the story of how rural Americans of all political stripes were drafted to fight the Cold War by living with nuclear missiles in their backyards—and what that story tells us about enduring political divides and the persistence of defense spending.” http://amzn.to/RodQrZ