Sunday, March 15, 2015

The Current Weird Perfect Window for Israel to Strike Iran

Before digging into this idea, I will preface this post with some statements to get the knee-jerk thinkers taken care of. I do not like nuclear proliferation especially in the age of 4th generation warfare. I do think Iran has a nuke program, and not just for energy, which is in their regime's interest. I do think Iran has played "the game" incredibly well. I do think Israel should be worried. I do think if they want to do something about it, they should. I do not think the US should help them. This is pure speculation from an amateur, but the time and circumstances feel set up for an Israeli strike on Iran's nuke facilities.

Here is how oil fits into everything. The economic recovery or slumpcovery handled $100/barrel oil for years after the '08 crash. The Saudis are the big culprit for the drop in oil as they keep pumping to hurt their opponents and get Assad out of Syria. It also hurts Iran, and it also sets the Israelis up well. With oil around $45-60/barrel, any major brouhaha in the Middle East would push oil prices back up to $80-100/barrel. What is a conflict there worth to oil's cost? A jump that high is a nearly 100% increase, and it just goes back to levels the economy handled just 6-9 months ago.

Yes, the big news last month was an accusation that the Obama administration said they would shoot Israeli jets out of the sky years ago if Israelis went after Iran's facilities. This is a repeat of a prior accusation from 2011-2012. The Obama admin also was accused of begging Netanyahu to not bomb Iran in 2012. These snakes deserve each other. The great thing about all of that public leaking, the Israelis can use Saudi airspace. It is a longer flight and would require a mid-air refueling, but it would avoid US interference. The Saudis hate the Iranians, and per Wikileaks always seem to be "willing to fight the Iranians to the last American". Now the Saudis can use Israelis for that work.

All of these leaks and this public bickering is perfect cover for an Israeli strike. The Iranians have stated that any attack by Israel they will lay at the feet of the Americans. This is a nice threat. Iranians can respond to an Israeli strike in a myriad of ways to make the USG nervous. Of course, an American response would cripple their oil infrastructure and probably lead to internal chaos. It may be a bluff, but if it is not, why not spend months bickering back and forth publicly to create plausible deniability. A strike actual improves the American negotiating position by setting the nuke program back, and creating a better alternative for Iran. Imagine new negotiations where the US says, "Develop along this path with nukes, and we'll guarantee no new strikes by those bad Israeli." Obama and his Democrat cronies dissing Netanyahu on his American visit is perfect theater. The entire left might welcome a strike and subsequent spike in oil prices, so they could blame any economic decline on that external event and not their post-'08 policies as they look to '16. Whatever terrible deal Obama is desperate to sign will most likely spur the Saudis to get a bomb. Nick Land has noted the Janus like spread of nuclear weapons, and it applies here, but not solely in a religious manner. Saudis are Arabs, Iranians are Persians, so it is not only religious differences of Shia-Sunni but tribal, blood differences.

It puts the onus back on Iran. Say the Israelis strike, using Saudi airspace, and the US condemns the strike. What does Iran do? Does it really attack America for an Israeli action that the US publicly disavowed? Here are some alternatives. Iran could simply close off the Straits of Hormuz. Draw the US into the region and then cause an eyeball to eyeball moment, which the USG might not want to risk thousands of sailors lives over. Iran could attack Saudi oil infrastructure. If they knock Saudi platforms offline, a counterattack on Iranian oil infrastructure might be too much for oil markets to handle, and we'd see $140/barrel oil. Does the US risk it? If they do not, those security agreements for decades look phony now. Iran could take an even safer route. Use those missiles on oil tankers. Just destroying some oil tankers would wreck insurance costs for international shipping, cause ecological damage and make the USG ponder those choice matrices a bit longer.

This is the perfect time and set up. I previously thought winter 2008 was perfect for similar reasons. Talks with Iran have a deadline at the end of March, and a new moon is around March 20th. The USG knows what the deal is shaping up to look like, so Israeli friendly elements in USG can whisper back, "You're screwed". The same necons going beserk on Russia with that peculiar ethnic flavor still have a hand in what comes down to their co-ethnics being threatened by Iran. I have a hard time thinking they just screw over Israel, even if the American Jews are blue state Jews and Israelis are red state Jews (as an analogy). I put weight in this ethnic coordination despite how many signs show that the Blue Empire is willing to upset and possibly junk two Red Empire clients for a potential new client in Iran. The extra comedy being that Russia and China have laid groundwork in Iran for decades now, and get dibs on anything of importance. The old Twin Pillars Middle East strategy employed by Nixon and Kissinger was difficult, and there is no way those two skilled players would have wanted either of those players to be toying with nuclear weapons.

This is the problem of empire. We avoid President Washington's advice for avoiding entangling affairs in Europe for a while but since WW2 have jumped into the worst den of backstabbers in the world: the Middle East. That region deserves each other, their common misery and violence that seems to go on without end. I just do not want the regional fights to be nuclear armed. Does this happen? Most likely no. A secret about Jews: you have to be firm and have a spine with them, then they usually back off their silly threats and hysterics. A business trick they often try is this: "Oh you won't do this huge exception for a shitty case I want which will pay me dearly, well I'll just write it elsewhere, we never do anything I want, oy vey, boohoo, we could make money." A proper response is to detail every exception they've received, stand firm on how no one will make money but them and then tell them you can't close every deal. Another trick is: "I'm just going to resign if X continues/you don't fire X/I don't get my way." A proper response is to let them know it is okay if they resign, but to do it tomorrow. Even after laying out why the situation is right for Israel, I do not think Israel will strike on Iran because they are cowards who just desperately want the US to do it.


nikcrit said...

I don't have nearly enough context and thus confidence to even venture opinion o Mideastern affairs and politics, but i'm curious how the alt-right feels about the whole obama-vs-netanyahu thing; my cynical side imagines the alt-right in a Catch 22: suspicious of Israel's self-interest socially and politically and the country's stateside allies on the left and in the synagogues, yet nonetheless loving the fact that he had the balls to usurp that uppity negro in the White House in a way unprecedented for a sitting u.s. president; ditto for the congressional letter signed by GOP members.
I also wonder if the AR thinks this sets up a certain pre-anarchistic-like precedent?
Or is there even uniform opinion among the AR on this matter?

PA said...

Great questions Nikcrit. We'll hammer it all out at the next AltRight National Conference and get back to you.

nikcrit said...


I thought the final sentence of my comment would protect me from such snark?


eah said...

I do think Israel should be worried.

I don't. Do you mean to say you think they should be worried because Iran is likely to launch a nuclear attack on Israel? While it may not be talked about anymore, we still live in the age of MAD = mutually assured destruction. And considering the general military competence level of both, I think Iran's destruction is far more 'assured' than Israel's should they do something so evil and idiotic.

I think the US should be more concerned. The US Navy anyway. At any time, the Navy probably has at least two Nimitz class carriers within striking distance of Iranian missiles. And as long ago as the Falklands War it was very apparent how vulnerable big warships are to surface hugging missiles that cost a few million, as opposed to the billions a carrier costs, not to mention the planes etc on it.

HMS Sheffield

Portlander said...

Someone say vulnerable warships?

One of War Nerd's all-time classics. On the flip side, in the provocation hierarchy, sinking a US aircraft carrier is just below 'nuclear first-strike on the US mainland,' and I give it 50-50 odds on receiving the same response. So, I don't see any nation-state attempting such unless they really want do want to provoke a WWIII.

eah said...

Re part of what I wrote earlier:

...I think Iran's destruction is far more 'assured' than Israel's should they do something so evil and idiotic.

It's virtually 100% certain that not only does Israel possess fission weapons, but it also has thermonuclear weapons -- the H bomb (after all, it was disproportionately Jewish physicists who developed these weapons). And Iran is likely developing nothing more sophisticated than an implosion type fission weapon -- using either plutonium or U235 -- with a modest yield in the tens of kilotons.

So they'd have to be nuts to chuck one of those at Israel (assuming they have a missile accurate enough to deliver it). Of course maybe they are nuts -- the possibility cannot be excluded.

Son of Brock Landers said...

With 2 nuclear Muslim nations, they could feed a nuke to a terror group or even just radioactive waste for a dirty bomb and when it goes off, Iran and Pakistan could blame the other with Israel then forced to take on BOTH nations or do squat.