Will Israel ever physically attack Iran's nuclear infrastructure?

[CountDeMoney]

I think the biggest worry is deniable 3rd party transfer, not Iranian first strike.

It's not a realistic worry. My understanding from proliferation experts is that the origin of a bomb is pretty much traceable through forensic examination even if it has detonated. So even in the case of a supposedly deniable third party transfer, the warhead material could be traced back to the Iranian programme. The attribution pillar of deterrence would hold. If a proxy suitcase-bomb Tel Aviv, Tehran gets nuked.

The origin of the enrichment can possibly be traced, provided there's a sample to compare it to.  Does the West have any, either covertly or through the IAEA, of Iran's fissionable material?
And don't think the Iranians don't already know that. 
They could 1) always swap enrichment material with another party.  What do we do then, if a bomb goes off in Haifa and the enrichment trace goes back to documented production evidence from Pakistan, Russia or China?
And 2) I don't think they really care.  Giving the bomb to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to hand it off to Hizbollah in order to detonate it within Israel is well within the realm of possibilities, because the destruction of the Zionist Entity is the endgame.

As far as the attribution pillar is concerned, that needs to be communicated to Tehran under no uncertain terms:  publicly and very Kennedyesque--if there is a nuclear detonation within Israel, Tehran will be held immediately responsible, whether they are or not.   I really fucking wish somebody would do that already.  Dubya didn't do it, I doubt Obama will.  Maybe the French will, they seem to have to only real balls around here when it comes to Iran's nukes.

[CountDeMoney]

I honestly do not understand people who seem to think you cannot prevent Iran from getting the bomb via air-strikes.

The mowing the lawn approach has been touted, but it isn't very realistic. Actually, it's nigh on impossible logistically for Israel to achieve unilaterally.

There are also other side effects. Right now, despite some obstruction from the Iranian regime, IAEA inspectors have extensive access to Iranian facilities, including some important ones at two hours notice. I know the Languish way is to scoff at any international organisation, but analysts of the Iranian crisis agree that the IAEA regime has provided extremely useful insight into the programme that even Western intelligence agencies draw from.

If you bomb the Iranian programme, it goes underground, both figuratively and literally: no inspections, and even less data on what the Iranians are actually doing, where they're doing it, how and with what.

I honestly do not understand why people seem to think that, if air strikes cannot prevent Iran from getting the bomb, why the concept of air strikes need to be eliminated as an option.   As I have said many, many, many times, air strikes do not need to entail the elimination of the program, just the arresting of it.

Even with their program networked throughout several facilities, some of which are known, some of which are not, the destruction of a percentage of the sites would be enough to slow down the program, as their facilities are task-specific to the program at large.  You remove one part's functionality in the production chain, the rest of the network cannot continue.

The criticism that air strikes would only temporarily retard the program, and not eliminate it, is exactly why it can be accomplished: delaying the program by "2 or 3 years" accomplished two goals:  it buys time to continue attempting Iran to comply with the demands of the international community that the acquisition of such a device is unacceptable, and it provides an escalation of cost for them and would continue to do so.

"But it only delays them 2 or 3 years", the critics cry.  That is fine.  Hit them, delay the program, and hit them again when necessary, and continue to hit them until they come to the realization that pursuing a nuclear device is more costly to them than the device itself.

We kept Iraq under lock and key from a logistical standpoint with an international effort during Northern Watch/Southern Watch for 10 years, administering punitive strikes when necessary, at such great cost to the Iraqi military infrastructure to the point that the Hussein regime was contained and incapacitated from acting offensively.  I see no reason why a similar effort can't be accomplished if the international community is serious about this particular non-proliferation crisis.

Their program is already underground, they lift their skirts to the IAEA just enough to show some leg.  That's not going to be enough.  We need to see some bush with morning dew, or it all comes off by force.  Shaved dry.

And I'm spent.

[Warspite]

I honestly do not understand why people seem to think that, if air strikes cannot prevent Iran from getting the bomb, why the concept of air strikes need to be eliminated as an option.   As I have said many, many, many times, air strikes do not need to entail the elimination of the program, just the arresting of it.

You seem to be addressing a different point to the one we are talking about here, which is about Israeli strikes.

The Israelis do not have the capability, unless I've severely misread their military assets, to launch a sustained, widespread and effective bombing campaign against Iran.

If you want to bring the US into the equation, then yes, the air campaign will be more effective - but, once again, you have the US sucked into a Middle Eastern conflagration. I don't see the political will in DC for that, rightly or wrongly.

And I've never suggested anyone should take air strikes off the table; but it's tiresome to see the same panacea touted when we don't even have proof or credible evidence that Iran has a current weaponisation programme. We do know they had weapons-related activity prior to 2004 - so a key part of the current effort should be some kind of way of getting the Iranians to fully reveal what they were working on back then, perhaps with an amnesty  if there is adequate disclosure that no retrospective punishment will be imposed.

I think the line for more forceful action are clear enough right now, and Tehran seems to have responded, including to coded statements by the previous Israeli government.

If this line is crossed, then fire up the strategic bombing campaign. But it will have to be the US and allies, it can't be Israel alone. And I think the latter know it.

etc "But it only delays them 2 or 3 years", the critics cry.  That is fine.  Hit them, delay the program, and hit them again when necessary, and continue to hit them until they come to the realization that pursuing a nuclear device is more costly to them than the device itself.

I agree with you that it would certainly knock them back three years if the campaign is effective. But if they reconstitute it in a way that makes it harder to knock out subsequently, your next round of strikes doesn't work, unless you escalate to a general punitive campaign.

We kept Iraq under lock and key from a logistical standpoint with an international effort during Northern Watch/Southern Watch for 10 years, administering punitive strikes when necessary, at such great cost to the Iraqi military infrastructure to the point that the Hussein regime was contained and incapacitated from acting offensively.  I see no reason why a similar effort can't be accomplished if the international community is serious about this particular non-proliferation crisis.

Containment came at great political and economic cost to the US and UK too. And then we felt compelled to invade anyway and commit ourselves to another drawn out campaign. :p

Their program is already underground, they lift their skirts to the IAEA just enough to show some leg.  That's not going to be enough.  We need to see some bush with morning dew, or it all comes off by force.  Shaved dry.

OK, so which bits of the NPT is Iran in violation of right now?

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I think the biggest worry is deniable 3rd party transfer, not Iranian first strike.

It's not a realistic worry. My understanding from proliferation experts is that the origin of a bomb is pretty much traceable through forensic examination even if it has detonated. So even in the case of a supposedly deniable third party transfer, the warhead material could be traced back to the Iranian programme. The attribution pillar of deterrence would hold. If a proxy suitcase-bomb Tel Aviv, Tehran gets nuked.

Lets just hope the Iranians know that. ie - their risk assessment guys are better than their fake plane design guys.

They know, their leaders might not care though given that they believe that the return of the mehdi is imminent... and that they're willing to help that return along a bit.

[CountDeMoney]

You seem to be addressing a different point to the one we are talking about here, which is about Israeli strikes.

The Israelis do not have the capability, unless I've severely misread their military assets, to launch a sustained, widespread and effective bombing campaign against Iran.

If you want to bring the US into the equation, then yes, the air campaign will be more effective - but, once again, you have the US sucked into a Middle Eastern conflagration. I don't see the political will in DC for that, rightly or wrongly.

And I've never suggested anyone should take air strikes off the table; but it's tiresome to see the same panacea touted when we don't even have proof or credible evidence that Iran has a current weaponisation programme. We do know they had weapons-related activity prior to 2004 - so a key part of the current effort should be some kind of way of getting the Iranians to fully reveal what they were working on back then, perhaps with an amnesty  if there is adequate disclosure that no retrospective punishment will be imposed.

I think the line for more forceful action are clear enough right now, and Tehran seems to have responded, including to coded statements by the previous Israeli government.

If this line is crossed, then fire up the strategic bombing campaign. But it will have to be the US and allies, it can't be Israel alone. And I think the latter know it.

No, I wasn't addressing Israeli strikes, as I've already stated as fact that, whether or not they have the capability to do it, the fact is they possess the will to do it:  they are not bluffing.  Whether it would accomplish what they think it would accomplish is incidental.  They've struck out on their own regardless of what the US or the world thinks many times before, and whether it accomplished their goals or not, they will absolutely, positively do what they feel they need to do, world opinion be damned. 

So the aim is to prevent them from doing so, and yes, that I am talking about US strikes as an alternative;  ideally, the Israelis wouldn't be part of the equation at all.  More palatable to the region and the world community.  The United States and the world community needs to drive this crisis, not Israel.

In regards to proof of a weapons program, the watered-down IAEA requirements of what does and does not define a weapons program with "dual purpose" bullshit is insufficient, considering Iran's intransigence on answering basic Yes/No questions even to this day.  And, surprise!, IAEA inspectors were still denied access to the Parchin facility last month.  Imagine that.

I agree with you that it would certainly knock them back three years if the campaign is effective. But if they reconstitute it in a way that makes it harder to knock out subsequently, your next round of strikes doesn't work, unless you escalate to a general punitive campaign.

That's exactly what I'm advocating:  if it would ever come to that point, a general campaign designed to punitively reduce their conventional military infrastructure on a parallel track as a cost of pursuing the bomb.

Containment came at great political and economic cost to the US and UK too. And then we felt compelled to invade anyway and commit ourselves to another drawn out campaign. :p

Rather not talk about that one.     But the containment costs were peanuts, and it worked, compared to the costs of the useless adventure in handing Iraq over to its Shia majority and Tehran's sphere of influence simply because you don't mess with Texas.

OK, so which bits of the NPT is Iran in violation of right now?

Who knows?  What they are violating, however, is the international community's cease and desist order.

I'm not advocating strikes now, next month or next year; but there will come a point within the next ten years that Iran will have to face military action in order to prevent them from acquiring the ability to develop a workable device, or demonstrate the cost of doing so is far outweighs its benefits.

[mongers]

Containment came at great political and economic cost to the US and UK too. And then we felt compelled to invade anyway and commit ourselves to another drawn out campaign. :p

Rather not talk about that one.     But the containment costs were peanuts, and it worked, compared to the costs of the useless adventure in handing Iraq over to its Shia majority and Tehran's sphere of influence simply because you don't mess with Texas.

Have to agree with that; victory of the "he have to do something" crowd over the "things are manageable/ticking along" individuals.

[jimmy olsen]

As far as the attribution pillar is concerned, that needs to be communicated to Tehran under no uncertain terms:  publicly and very Kennedyesque--if there is a nuclear detonation within Israel, Tehran will be held immediately responsible, whether they are or not.   I really fucking wish somebody would do that already.  Dubya didn't do it, I doubt Obama will.  Maybe the French will, they seem to have to only real balls around here when it comes to Iran's nukes.

Is it really necessary for anyone to say that?  It's 100% certain that if a nuke goes off in Israel that the Israelis would glass Iran themselves, far more savagely than any Western guarantor.

[CountDeMoney]

Is it really necessarily for anyone to say that?

Yes.  Yes, it is.

[Barrister]

Has anyone mentioned Iran's unveiling of it's brand new stealth fighter?

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/02/iran-new-stealth-fighter-jet-fake/61781/

Iran releases photographs of the new stealth fighter in flight.

World concludes "Photoshopped".

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/02/iran-jet-photoshop/62054/