| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Bernard Lewis thinks MAD may not work with Ahmadinejad |
| 2006-08-09 |
Bernard Lewis is said to be the greatest living Western scholar of Islam, someone with deep sympathy for the Muslim world, without forgetting its dark side. Writing in the Wall Street Journal online edition today, Lewis now expresses deep concern over an apocalyptic Iran armed with nukes. It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal … The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat. This is alarming. It seems clear that other nations should be ready for some kind of Iranian strike on August 22. The best current guess is that Iran does not yet have a nuclear device, based on the public record, although Tehran could have the ingredients of a dirty bomb. Iran’s neighbors, like the Saudis, are beginning to arm themselves with anti-missile systems. They should put themselves on high alert very soon. It is even possible that Iran may send a team of suiciders with a dirty radioactive device to Lebanon, to place in the path of Israeli troops. There is no foolproof defense against such a move – they could simply load up a small ship or plane with a simple device. However, there is no evidence in the public record that the Iranians have actually tested a radioactive device, though they could have exploded a mockup. If there is any Iranian attempt to strike at Israel or US forces, it would be a nuclear asus belli . The Iranian regime would be rapidly destroyed, and achieve its eagerly-sought martyrdom, taking along innocent bystanders. Ahmadinejad may be mad, but he’s cleverly mad. Today’s Iranian proxy war on Israel was cleverly designed, both strategically and tactically. The mullahs may therefore wait a few years until they have their nukes all lined up. August 22 comes once a year, and 2006 may not be the time they choose. Or they might fire their long-range missiles at Tel Aviv or even Jerusalem on August 22. GPS-guided missiles could be devastating. However, no doubt Israel has make it unmistakably clear what kind of action would trigger massive retaliation. The Syrians at least are not eager for martyrdom. Hitler overreached when he attacked Russia. Ahmadinejad may also overreach. It fits his malevolent paranoid style. The big question today is how many people he will take with him if he does overreach. If the Bush doctrine of nuclear preemption is ever justified, it would be in cases like this. But there are no easy answers. We are just lucky to have a tough-minded administration in Washington, and not the flabby thinkers of the Carter and Clinton years. |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #44 What scares the hell out of me is that Israel will face a challenge so severe it sees no way of winning. The Arabs can afford to lose many times, but Israel cannot afford to lose, even once. The actual threat of losing would be enough for Israel to "go nuclear". The result would be the launch of between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons, ranging from 50Kt to 500Kt, on the major cities of the Arab middle east. Not only would it kill several hundred million Arabs, it would make large portions of the Middle East a not very nice place to live in. I don't believe Iran would be spared. A radioactive "12th Imam" wouldn't do Islam much good, especially if Mecca and Medina were radioactive graveyards. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2006-08-09 23:33 |
| #43 Where does Israel get it's oil ? from dead Paleo puppies and kittens? Don't you get the newspapers?? :-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-09 23:32 |
| #42 #39. No . I meant an airliner with like all the seats and flooras removed and some massive bomb (Dirty or nuclear) inside. LAnd it, crash it ,blow it up low, wherever. ISn't that a viable delivery system, posssibly harder (at least the first time) to innterdict than a ship ? Where does Israel get it's oil ? |
| Posted by: J. D. Lux 2006-08-09 23:29 |
| #41 Simply issue a statement that even a single NBC (Nuclear, Biological or Chemical) attack on American soil will result in all of the Islamic countries getting glassed over. Then sit back and watch the fun as they try to rein in a renegade lunatic like Ahmadinejad. And therein lies the root of the problem - NOBODY believes the United States would actually do such a thing - least of all the Iranians or the terrorists. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-08-09 23:15 |
| #40 http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_belmontclub_archive.html#106401071003484059 Follow the link to a truly frightening alternative known as The Three Conjectures (it was posted here yesterday). |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-08-09 23:10 |
| #39 Not really, an airliner is spectacular but the damage is minimal, on the scale of WMD's. An oil tanker/dirty nuke would be catastrophic on a large scale and lay a large portion of the coast and downwind area to waste. Where does Israel get it's fuel and oil? |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-08-09 22:51 |
| #38 I'm cringing but wouldn't an airliner suffice and not sit there like a ship. ? Also NS, what demands could they make ? Seriously I'm asking what you think. |
| Posted by: J. D. Lux 2006-08-09 22:32 |
| #37 yep |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-09 22:28 |
| #36 None with Iranian flags, of course, but most tankers don't carry flags of origin rather flags of nations that charge less tax. I hope your right on the numbers of ships and containers and their ability to screen them. Israel just has to know if there is a big event such as a dirty bomb or a clean one it is aimed at them. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-08-09 22:22 |
| #35 #29: I'd plant two in ships, have one in reserve on the ocean. Make demands. Detonate one. Make demands, If not met, place reserve and detonate second. Reiterate demands. Target London and NYC. Back up target? Sorry that has NO chance of working, truer scenario, step one,detonate one, step rwo, make demands THIS IDENTIFIES YOU, step 3 now you cease to exist step 4, there is no step 4, any ships you may have in reserve simply vamish in a big hole in the water. If you think this implausable, remember that when FAA realized that aircraft were being used as weapons, they ordered an IMMEDIATE GROUNDING OF ALL AIRCRAFT a thing never done before, giving ALL aircraft 30 minutes to land or be shot down will work on shipping as well. Stating Flatly that "If any vessel aproaches the US coast, it WILL be destroyed" is a huge incentive to all ships to stop right now, those who don't are then easily identified. Boom, instant (Relatively Speaking) sinking. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2006-08-09 22:13 |
| #34 chartered or owned or just a stray container, I'd think the Israelis would detect it before it hit port - they don't get the sheer numbers we get |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-09 22:09 |
| #33 how many Iranian tankers/cargo ships pull into Haifa or any other Israeli port?.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-09 22:08 |
| #32 I think NS is spot on with the ship event. Assmanjohnny constantly talks about blowing ships up to close the flow of oil. But I disagree on the target. I think they will hit Israel, to free Islam of the infadels and get support and ignight fighting from all of Islam. Detonate a diry bomb in an oil tanker in a Israeli port. Then attack from Gaza, Syria, Leb. Israel will be dealing with a disaster and having to defend itself. Then we will come to their aid, of course, exposing us as lackies for jooos and turning Iraq, Afghan, and the Soddies against us. He's a nut case crazy enough to think that this could work and do it. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-08-09 22:06 |
| #31 Backup? The Swiss Banks. |
| Posted by: bombay 2006-08-09 21:20 |
| #30 I have always said we should issue this type of warning. Any NBC incident in the US or to an Ally will be met with destruction of NK and Iran (add others at will). This turns the game from "we have a right to technology and weapons and will use them" to No fair, so-and-so (Israel, hehe) get's to Nuke you and we get blamed? Yeppers, haha. Now they spend time / resources trying to figure out, not just how to nuke us, but how to prevent the other haters from doing the same. Again, expand list as needed. As Jean Baptiste Emmanuel Zorg, "... let's change the beat" |
| Posted by: bombay 2006-08-09 21:20 |
| #29 I'd plant two in ships, have one in reserve on the ocean. Make demands. Detonate one. Make demands, If not met, place reserve and detonate second. Reiterate demands. Target London and NYC. Back up target? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-09 21:17 |
| #28 OK - understood, and I'd have to agree that he'd use as many as they have, inasmuch we could only guess whether he had more, or had allowed them to be shipped to Jersey or Long Beach for detonation. Once you demonstrate you have nukes, are whacko, and willing to use them without fear of retribution ("protect us, hidden imam!"), then all plans are just trash |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-09 21:12 |
| #27 Me too, NS. Once he gets two or three he will use them. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2006-08-09 21:07 |
| #26 My fear is that we in fact overestimate their irrationality - that when it does happen, it won't be *a* nuke; it will be a very well chosen multiple strike. My point is that in the only real world use of nukes, the power that did it had only two nukes. Granted no one else had any. But once Iran is known to have nukes, the rules will change. They have a window between having them and the world knowing they have them in which to use them. So that window closing puts pressure on Iran to use them before they have built a lot of them. I think they'll be burning a hole in Ahmedinajihad's pocket. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-09 21:03 |
| #25 what's that got to do with today's arsenal/plans? Or Iran's? You lost me... If Iran had 10 nukes, and launched one or all, they'd get 20 back from Israel alone |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-09 20:54 |
| #24 The first ones we had. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-09 20:46 |
| #23 when the Japanese had no chance or MAD. 61 years ago. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-09 20:15 |
| #22 That's what we did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-09 20:11 |
| #21 It might be a single, but they're going to have reserves. Only the U. S. fires off all the boomers it has at once. huh? Since when is that the plan? no second strike capability? No single or selected number launch possibility...WTF? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-08-09 19:59 |
| #20 It might be a single, but they're going to have reserves. Only the U. S. fires off all the boomers it has at once. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-09 19:13 |
| #19 Good point Botec. http://docisinblog.com/archives/2006/01/24/ apollyon-appears-ilooking-back |
| Posted by: SR-71 2006-08-09 18:45 |
| #18 I hear a lot of people talking about *a* dirty bomb, *a* nuke, *a* city, and others saying that if they (mostly referring to Al Qaeda but sometimes to Iran) had *a* nuke that they'd use it right away. My fear is that we in fact overestimate their irrationality - that when it does happen, it won't be *a* nuke; it will be a very well chosen multiple strike. If I were Ahmadinejad and I wanted to bring about the post-apocalyptic dominance of Islam, of course I'd strike Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, but I'd certainly not neglect the heart of Christianity - Rome (yes, Protestants might disagree, but Crusade-obsessed Muslims surely wouldn't). There are several other targets that would be high on my list, if I were sufficiently sane to wait until I had more than one deliverable warhead. |
| Posted by: Botec 2006-08-09 18:38 |
| #17 I think that future Americans will be thankful that GWB attempted to bring something better to Iraq. The fact that the asshats wouldn't take it when it was handed to them doesn't devalue the effort. I fully expect that the USA will end up killing massive numbers of these people. We will lose a city or two, but the Umma will lose 100 million. The Iraq War will allow Americans to believe that we tried everything else first. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2006-08-09 18:37 |
| #16 Sorry, Tony. They've gotta be though. It fits in with the trends. The Iranians are looking for disruptive technologies that will negate Dar al Harb's edge in weaponry. Nukes, WiG, rocket propelled torpedoes, MaRVs, GPS guided tactical missiles, etc. The _have_ to have a bio weapons research program. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-08-09 17:10 |
| #15 Hmmm, I hadn't made the obvious connection from the cloning to full-on bionasties 11A5S, 'thanks' for that... |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2006-08-09 16:35 |
| #14 How about EAD? Exclusively assured destruction. That'll work. |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-08-09 16:34 |
| #13 I'm sorry to be so glum. I honestly feel that Wretchard's so called Golden Moment has passed if in fact there ever was one. That Iran is doing cloning experiments scares the pants off of me. If they are cloning, you know that they are doing recombinant DNA and gene splicing. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-08-09 16:22 |
| #12 I prefer the 'Nuke the Moon' scenario. But Mrs Davis's idea works for me too. |
| Posted by: Tony (UK) 2006-08-09 16:10 |
| #11 Reminds me of a Galligar joke I hear a long time ago. Goes something like this (correct me if I'm wrong): We should strap our ICBM to the back of RVs. It will give the soviets nightmares thinking of the average joe-blow out in the wilderness with his drinking buddies, a six-pack, and a polaris. "Here... hold my beer a sec..." |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2006-08-09 15:46 |
| #10 Which is why I will once again recall Mrs. Davis' splendid solution to this niggling problem. Simply issue a statement that even a single NBC (Nuclear, Biological or Chemical) attack on American soil will result in all of the Islamic countries getting glassed over. Then sit back and watch the fun as they try to rein in a renegade lunatic like Ahmadinejad. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-08-09 15:36 |
| #9 Yup, 11A5S. It's a shame, but that's what it will take and everything until then is superfluous. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-08-09 15:26 |
| #8 The first round will probably be states. The second will probably be the civilization. Put yourself in Roosevelt's shoes in 1941 or Wilson's in 1917. There is a terrible war going on. You need to intervene and end it, but the American people are too divided to get involved. The people you need to fight are barbarians really -- crude and greedy. Sometime soon, they are going to come and try to take a chunk out of your ass. Until that time, you won't be able to rally the American people. So you sit tight and wait for a Lusitania or Zimmerman Letter or Pearl Harbor. (IMHO, Roosevelt probably thought that the attack would be on the Philipines or something in the North Atlantic. PH was a miscalculation, but obviously worked to his advantage.) Losing a city will give us the will to destroy a state. The second attack will give us the will to finish the job. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-08-09 14:49 |
| #7 Well threaten The Ummah with AD, not individual "states". |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2006-08-09 14:21 |
| #6 I'm not talking about threats. I know that the West will lose a city or > 10^7 people to a biowar attack sometime in the next few years. I just want to make sure that there is nothing left of the attackers or their civilization afterwards. I want the policy and targeting to be in place. I don't want there to be any hesitation when the moment comes. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-08-09 13:56 |
| #5 You so much as touch us with a WMD, then you as a nation or sponsor of a WMD-using terror organization will cease to exist. That's the problem, the enemy doesn't care if we nuke them. Ahmadinutjob thinks being destroyed will summon the Islamic messiah to save them and bring about the end of the world. Threats don't work against a guy with a death wish. |
| Posted by: Steve 2006-08-09 13:34 |
| #4 Duh! |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2006-08-09 13:19 |
| #3 I would suggest reviving Dulles' Massive Retaliation doctrine. You so much as touch us with a WMD, then you as a nation or sponsor of a WMD-using terror organization will cease to exist. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-08-09 12:27 |
| #2 The reason MAD breaks down as a strategy here is because one side does not care if it gets destroyed. People have sneered at MAD for being madness, but it was a rational strategy against an opponent who shared a similar view of the possible outcomes - we both had the same evaluation function, to use the game theory term. If Ahmadinejad is the apocalyptic nutjob he appears to be then we have a completely different game. Maybe it is time for Herman Kahn to do an update to 'On Thermonuclear War' for the new strategic situation. Yes, this would require re-animating the dead, but isn't that why we have DARPA and the Internet? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2006-08-09 12:13 |
| #1 MAD doesn't apply since there is just one side that's going to get destroyed. Maybe "suicide by police"* is a better analogy. * When someone purposely provokes the police into killing him with the intent of suicide. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-08-09 11:53 |