Ex-Israeli spymaster: Iran response to Israeli attack would be devastating

[Hollis]

Doing nothing as Dagan seems to suggest won't make Iran's nuke quest go away. Military action is the only thing the Iranian gov't understand. They will adapt to the sanctions and move forward building several warheads.

I am not sure about that. I hope I you are wrong.

[dangamvura]

This is a very interesting discussion. I'm reminded of 'The Tanks of Tammuz', famous book on the Six Day War. As they rode into battle, the Israeli tank commanders were told that if they failed, there would be no home for them to return to. In that conflict, Israel faced Egypt, Syria and Jordan - seemingly impossible odds - yet Israel won. Would the outcome be the same with today's technology? Will Israel's traditional superiority in the quality of the fighting soldier still be decisive, when war involves missile attacks on civilians? It seems unrealistic to hope that a new regime would abandon the quest for nukes - why should it?

[BogT]

Anyone knows how many ballistic missiles capable of hitting Israel does Iran have? I remember something between 20 Shahab-3 (lower estimate in 2004) and 170 (they wanted to build 150 more in 2004).

The number is not that great (!?) if the warheads are conventional (no chemical or biological either). In case of war, how many conventional strikes can Israel absorb (missiles that would get through the air defense).

If not to many (I assume the population is less inclined to suffer a war compared to 40 years ago), then they will just have to accept a nuclear Iran, assure them that no one is going to attack them and relax the relation between the two parties (keep the fighting through proxy but no direct conflict - a small version cold war). A nuclear Iran is also a solution (just like it was with N.Korea) if the cost of preventing that is to high.

[Climber]

Anyone knows how many ballistic missiles capable of hitting Israel does Iran have? I remember something between 20 Shahab-3 (lower estimate in 2004) and 170 (they wanted to build 150 more in 2004).

The number is not that great (!?) if the warheads are conventional (no chemical or biological either). In case of war, how many conventional strikes can Israel absorb (missiles that would get through the air defense).

If not to many (I assume the population is less inclined to suffer a war compared to 40 years ago), then they will just have to accept a nuclear Iran, assure them that no one is going to attack them and relax the relation between the two parties (keep the fighting through proxy but no direct conflict - a small version cold war). A nuclear Iran is also a solution (just like it was with N.Korea) if the cost of preventing that is to high.

We already lost 6 million of people not so long ago, and these people while far, wage war against us, say we are a cancer, that we should be be erased by the face of earth, and bombs innocent people around the world, or Jewish centers just for being Jewish not Israelis. I prefer a non Nuclear Iran while they have the loons on command.

[Camera]

Anyone knows how many ballistic missiles capable of hitting Israel does Iran have? I remember something between 20 Shahab-3 (lower estimate in 2004) and 170 (they wanted to build 150 more in 2004).

The number is not that great (!?) if the warheads are conventional (no chemical or biological either). In case of war, how many conventional strikes can Israel absorb (missiles that would get through the air defense).

It is said that Arrow 2 has a high probability to destroy incoming BM:

According to Dov Raviv, a senior developer dubbed "the father of the Arrow anti-ballistic missile",^{[x 3][81][82]} a single Arrow interceptor has a 90 percent probability of destroying a target missile at the highest altitude possible.^[21][34][83] In case of failure two more interceptors can be launched towards the target at short time intervals.^[8][21][34] If the first of these destroys the target, the second can be directed to another target.^[83] Using this technique, three independent interception possibilities are provided which raise the interception probability from 90 percent to 99.9 percent, thus satisfying the leakage rate requirement.^[34][83] The Arrow also has the capability to simultaneously intercept a salvo of more than five incoming missiles, with the target missiles arriving within a 30-second span.^[82] Such capability is currently possessed only by the United States and Russia.^[82] According to Raviv, the Arrow can discriminate between a warhead and a decoy.^[82]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(...Specifications

If not to many (I assume the population is less inclined to suffer a war compared to 40 years ago), then they will just have to accept a nuclear Iran, assure them that no one is going to attack them and relax the relation between the two parties (keep the fighting through proxy but no direct conflict - a small version cold war). A nuclear Iran is also a solution (just like it was with N.Korea) if the cost of preventing that is to high.

Dagan has his own opinion and there's nothing new about it.
30 years ago, the Mossad head and the Military Intelligence head were both opposed to the strike of Osirak. Their arguments were quite similar to the ones of today's opponents.

[Empulse]

But Camera, the situations cannot be compared. Back in the days, a successful strike would and did destroy the threat entirely. Right now, there's dozens of targets that need to be hit to stop Iran from becoming nuclear. The probability of success is simply much smaller due to higher complexities and retaliation risk.

[Camera]

But Camera, the situations cannot be compared. Back in the days, a successful strike would and did destroy the threat entirely. Right now, there's dozens of targets that need to be hit to stop Iran from becoming nuclear. The probability of success is simply much smaller due to higher complexities and retaliation risk.

The situations are different and dealing with the Iranian facilities will necessitate a larger operation.
The thing that is comparable are the arguments of the opponents to the strike on Osirak in 1981 and the ones of the the opponents at the present. Among other things, they said that destroying Osirak will just delay the Iraqi nuclear program for 3 years, because the reactor will be rebuilt. Retrospectively, it did not happen. Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions but he never reached such capability.

[toad]

The situations are different and dealing with the Iranian facilities will necessitate a larger operation.
The thing that is comparable are the arguments of the opponents to the strike on Osirak in 1981 and the ones of the the opponents at the present. Among other things, they said that destroying Osirak will just delay the Iraqi nuclear program for 3 years, because the reactor will be rebuilt. Retrospectively, it did not happen. Saddam did not abandon his nuclear ambitions but he never reached such capability.

Not disagreeing with your statement. But in retrospect....to make sure, the US bombed the living crap out of it 2 more times.

/just sayin'

[Pitchup]

Iran never showed missiles&warheads with terminal or mid-course corrections, so they have pure ballistic(i.e. burn-time) spreading, I doubt that they can retaliate to Israel in sense of damage scale.

[Camera]

Not disagreeing with your statement. But in retrospect....to make sure, the US bombed the living crap out of it 2 more times.

/just sayin'

If Osirak was not destroyed in 1981, the reactor would produce enough plutonium for some 9-10 nukes by 1991.

Ten years later, US Secretary of Defense D!ck Cheney presented Ivry [the IAF Commander in 1981] with a photo of the bombed-out reactor taken by a US satellite after the First Gulf War.

At the bottom of the photo, which hangs in Ivry’s Tel Aviv office as a constant reminder of the threats and challenges that Israel continues to face, Cheney wrote: “With thanks and appreciation for the outstanding job you did on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981, which made our job much easier in Desert Storm!”

http://www.jpost.com/Features/FrontL...aspx?id=228397

[BogT]

We already lost 6 million of people not so long ago, and these people while far, wage war against us, say we are a cancer, that we should be be erased by the face of earth, and bombs innocent people around the world, or Jewish centers just for being Jewish not Israelis. I prefer a non Nuclear Iran while they have the loons on command.

It's not about the preference... who wants nuclear weapons in the hand of any fanatics anyway... it's what are you willing to do about it and what are you willing to sacrifice to obtain it.

@Camera - thanks for the info.
How many Arrow 2 missile (or in the same class; BM interceptors) does Israel has? The logic is to have more more interceptors then they have range capable BM.

From the number you provided, in case of a saturated BM attack (let's say they have 100 BM) you will use 100 Arrow 2's (only 90% successful) and an additional 20 more for the ones that got through. So Israel should have at least 120 interceptors ready to have 99.9%. Also, the 99.9% successful rate sound to good. What I mean is that even at 98-99% Iran should still get 1 or 2 missile through. I would guess that Tel Aviv (the main target) would lose a few neighbors (tragic loss of civilian life) but it's survivable in the large scheme of things.

This is of course just a rough armchair strategist analysis, but if this happens as a wost case scenario, you have to justify it. If you say that as result of this Iran has lost the capability to build nuclear weapons it could be OK. But simply delaying things for 2 years, it's not worth it. Especially since Iran would be much more determined, militaristic and even more united afterworlds.

[IRN34]

One thought and I think, Iran will think about it too. They retaliate, what will Israel do or the US. Surely they know about MAD. I tend to think Iran will use a measured response. That would guarantee their survival. Is their nuclear program worth a nuclear confrontation? I would think the answer would be, NO. Probably more Hamas and Hezbullah hitting Israel. Iran would want Syria to join in, but they probably won't with their problems at home. Could Iran, influence Egypt to join the fight? Maybe not directly but maybe in some supportive way.

There wont be any war in the first place, nevermind Iran allying itself with Egypt

[Camera]

@Camera - thanks for the info.
How many Arrow 2 missile (or in the same class; BM interceptors) does Israel has? The logic is to have more more interceptors then they have range capable BM.

The precise data of the number of missiles Israel has is OPSEC. However it is publicly known that Israel has two Arrow 2 batteries that cover the whole country. And I remember I read somewhere a third battery should enter service (I think in 2012, but I'm not sure).

2 batteries of 8 launchers X 6 launch tubes per launcher = 96 missiles ready for use before reload.

Reload time is 1 hour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(missile)

From the number you provided, in case of a saturated BM attack (let's say they have 100 BM) you will use 100 Arrow 2's (only 90% successful) and an additional 20 more for the ones that got through. So Israel should have at least 120 interceptors ready to have 99.9%. Also, the 99.9% successful rate sound to good.

I'm not an expert but a salvo of 100 BM seems impossible to me.
The Arrow was constantly upgraded since it entered service and it is at its Block 5 already.
There were publications suggesting that the first tier of defense will be performed by armed Heron TP UAVs that could intercept BM at their launch in Iran, but few is known about it.

What I mean is that even at 98-99% Iran should still get 1 or 2 missile through. I would guess that Tel Aviv (the main target) would lose a few neighbors (tragic loss of civilian life) but it's survivable in the large scheme of things.

I agree with you. If the data provided by the Israeli officials is accurate, few BM could make it through the defenses. Besides, the population is equipped with shelters and the homeland defense uses a proven system to provide it with early warning. So casualties should not be high.

This is of course just a rough armchair strategist analysis, but if this happens as a wost case scenario, you have to justify it. If you say that as result of this Iran has lost the capability to build nuclear weapons it could be OK. But simply delaying things for 2 years, it's not worth it. Especially since Iran would be much more determined, militaristic and even more united afterworlds.

The duration of the delay is a point of dispute between the experts.
Anyway, during the delay many things can happen. I gave the example of Iraq as a case in which the announced delay, which was accurate in theory, was retrospectively wrong in practice.

[JGXL836]

This is of course just a rough armchair strategist analysis, but if this happens as a wost case scenario, you have to justify it. If you say that as result of this Iran has lost the capability to build nuclear weapons it could be OK. But simply delaying things for 2 years, it's not worth it. Especially since Iran would be much more determined, militaristic and even more united afterworlds.

This is your mistake.

Two years later - another strike.

[BogT]

...
I agree with you. If the data provided by the Israeli officials is accurate, few BM could make it through the defenses. Besides, the population is equipped with shelters and the homeland defense uses a proven system to provide it with early warning. So casualties should not be high.
...

Since I live in a peaceful county , I completely forgot about shelters... it's true, civilian victims should be much lower in this case.

This is your mistake.
Two years later - another strike.

And two years after that another strike?! How about if each strike is accompanied by 1000 Israeli casualties (civilian and military), would you still support that? For one, I don't think it's a sustainable strategy.

The duration of the delay is a point of dispute between the experts.
Anyway, during the delay many things can happen. I gave the example of Iraq as a case in which the announced delay, which was accurate in theory, was retrospectively wrong in practice.

During the delay many things can happen... like a even more radical Iran just paying "an arm and a leg" for nukes from N.Korea or maybe even Pakistan. Left by themselves, events can also get worse.

Rather then making an air attack and hoping for the best, I would support a plan to force the issue all the way (regime change). For that, we would need the help of some of the elements of the Iranian dissident movement. A situation like in Libya would be more favorable and it should be pursued (IMO), rather than something like Iraq (even if the West was able to pull it of in the case of Iran, it would bankrupt us). What I am afraid is that in case of an attack, we might lose the support of all Iranians and therefore the chance of a permanent solution, with a minimal effort.