"The destruction of Iranian nuclear and missile facilities along with the destruction, by air and cruise missiles, of the main Revolutionary Guard bases will be enough. It is not an easy task -but one within the capabilities of the US Navy and Air Force." Why do you believe this would "instantly neutralize" Hezbollah? Hezbollah exists to deter this scenario. Do you not think they would immediately send all 150,000 rockets flying at every Israeli population center? Or do you propose wiping out all of southern Lebanon at the same time? Or do you think if Hezbollah saw the destruction of the Revolutionary Guard, they'd lost heart and decide, "We'd rather live?"
Perhaps, but are you sure? You're wagering a lot on this belief. What's the evidence for it?
Hezbollah would continue to exist--with its missiles--even after a decapitation strike against Iran. (Which might not successfully take out the whole chain of command.) And while you don't launch 150,000 missiles at once, Hezbollah has enough rapid launchers and advanced long-range missiles to take out most Israeli population centers in reasonably short order.
You hardly have to persuade me that a nuclear Iran is highly undesirable. But it seems to me what prevents us--the US, that is--from pursuing the course of action you suggest is, well, you. Because you're the hostage. (There are surely Iranian sleeper cells all over the West, too, waiting to explode in such an event, but probably they're not existential for any Western country. The threat posed by Hezbollah is existential to Israel.)
I understand and agree that Iran has become a global presence and have written about that here. Once they are nuclear they are an existential threat to the west due to their being dominant in the mideast and their long range missiles. They will eliminate the US presence in the Persian Gulf and therefore control oil and trade flow there.
If there is regime change in Iran - and I believe that can happen by eliminating the Revolutionary Guard military bases in Iran and senior Guard officials, Hezbollah will have no way to re-arm (unless of course Russia adopts them). A Hezbollah with a finite armed force and no chance at re-arming becomes a neutered Hezbollah.
The solution can't be that the west is deterred from attacking Iran while Iran expands its global presence.
As for Israel being a hostage as the reason why the US can't promote regime change in Iran and destroy their nuclear facilities - well, Israel is better prepared at this moment to take on Hezbollah then they have in the past and will be in the future once Iran goes nuclear. Now, I feel is that 1936 moment - it is the time we in the West can eliminate the (second) major threat to global peace - China being the first.
If we can't do it now because they have a global presence and Israel is a hostage - it will be done later at a cost unbearable to think.
Once Iran goes nuclear the only defense Israel will have will be a pre-emptive nuclear strike. That will not be good for Israel, for the US and for West.
The only way to prevent Iran's dominance aside from regime change is a proper deterrence - one that the west does not yet have.
Can we build that deterrence? That is my next piece.
I'm not sure Israel is in any position to take on Hamas and Hezbollah at once. Hezbollah assuredly has missiles and launchers sufficient to overwhelm the Iron Dome. Israel is in a position to do an overwhelming amount of damage to southern Lebanon in return, but the threat is asymmetrical for the same reason any nuclear threat to Israel is asymmetrical: Israel is just so small. A single modern nuclear weapon (i.e., 10 megatons +) would be the end. China could absorb that, dust itself off, and continue as a recognizably similar polity. Israel could not. Hezbollah's arsenal may not amount of a 10 megaton nuke, but it's enough to do the job. (Also, they may well be able to put chemical weapons on them. They certainly know how to make them if they want to try.) Let's use a conservative estimate of 100,000 missiles and rockets and 2,000 drones. Let's assume they're able to launch roughly 4,000 a day. And let's assume (because we saw this just recently) that once you get into that range, the Iron Dome can't handle it. They don't, as far as I know, have all that many precision-guided missiles, but the accuracy doesn't have to be terrific. They would aim for ammonia and chemical plants in Haifa, water desalinization plants, power stations, natural gas infrastructure, oil refineries, and densely populated areas to ensure maximum terror--they could light up Haifa, Tel Aviv, Raanana, Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Beersheva readily. If 1/100 of those missiles hit their targets, if it survivable?
We now know, for a fact, that the air defenses can be overwhelmed with saturation strikes. And unless Israel has capabilities that haven't been reported, it's not possible to take out all of their launch sites quickly. They're dispersed throughout the country--and they now seem to have air defense systems: https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1348356/does-hezbollah-own-air-defense-weapons.html.
Given this, the question becomes something much closer to a debate in nuclear deterrence. Would Hezbollah *want* to do this? I'm sure they understand perfectly that the cost of this glorious victory would be Lebanon (and their lives, of course). If their paymasters in Teheran met with an unfortunate end, do they really take this "Death to Israel" business seriously enough that they'd want to carry out the ultimate suicide mission to avenge them? Do they actually *want* to be Iran's second-strike capability? Or are they fat and comfortable in Lebanon (and basically just milking Iran for the cash, and because they like being local warlords)?
It's hard to answer that question. So far, Hezbollah seems rational and deterrable. After all, they could have launched all those missiles long ago if their *only* objective was the eradication of Israel. If didn't do it on October 7 (or now), it means this isn't their only goal. So that suggests, "Quite possibly deterrable."
But I do think it is *a* goal. (I mean, guess I don't need to explain that they really do want to kill you. Or that it's unwise to assume that they couldn't really mean that and they've probably mellowed and surely they'd rather cooperate with you on some regional free trade and development plan that would be in everyone's interest. I mean: They're nuts.)
So, there's that
As for living with an Iranian Bomb--I suspect we are already.
If you are right that Israel can't face both Hezbollah and Iran together then we in Israel have really been wasting our money.
While we were not prepared for a Hamas war since we were sure they were deterred we are definitely prepared for a Hezbollah war. This is not something we have been sitting around contemplating but actively planning for. I know since one of my sons is an infantry officer who has been spending upward 40-50 days of annual reserve service planning and practicing for just this situation. Israel now has 500,000 soldiers under arms and less than 10% are in Gaza, according to rumor. Even if we triple that to include support personnel that leaves 350,000. The plan was to be able to neutralize most of the Hezbollah capabilities in a week to 10 days. Will that work? Neither of us know.
But I have been in Israel for nearly 30 years and the fear mongers in the media and the ex-generals who make a nice living in US think tanks have convinced us that we couldn't possibly enter the Kasbah in Nablus or the Jenin refugee camps without 1,000 Israeli deaths. We did that and much more at the cost of 30 dead. We were told we could never surround and enter Gaza city and look where we are now.
We were all told that the US could never destroy Al Quaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan and that was done.
Are we living with an Iranian bomb already? If we are and if they have not yet declared it, we absolutely have to work for regime change. If they don't ... ditto.
I don't know that we disagree with what needs to be done - but I am more confident in Israel's and the US's capabilities than you. Although we might agree on the lack of "will".
"The destruction of Iranian nuclear and missile facilities along with the destruction, by air and cruise missiles, of the main Revolutionary Guard bases will be enough. It is not an easy task -but one within the capabilities of the US Navy and Air Force." Why do you believe this would "instantly neutralize" Hezbollah? Hezbollah exists to deter this scenario. Do you not think they would immediately send all 150,000 rockets flying at every Israeli population center? Or do you propose wiping out all of southern Lebanon at the same time? Or do you think if Hezbollah saw the destruction of the Revolutionary Guard, they'd lost heart and decide, "We'd rather live?"
Perhaps, but are you sure? You're wagering a lot on this belief. What's the evidence for it?
Because without Iran there is no Hezbollah. Because you dont send 150k missiles at
Once. Because a nuclear Iran means game over for the West.
Hezbollah would continue to exist--with its missiles--even after a decapitation strike against Iran. (Which might not successfully take out the whole chain of command.) And while you don't launch 150,000 missiles at once, Hezbollah has enough rapid launchers and advanced long-range missiles to take out most Israeli population centers in reasonably short order.
You hardly have to persuade me that a nuclear Iran is highly undesirable. But it seems to me what prevents us--the US, that is--from pursuing the course of action you suggest is, well, you. Because you're the hostage. (There are surely Iranian sleeper cells all over the West, too, waiting to explode in such an event, but probably they're not existential for any Western country. The threat posed by Hezbollah is existential to Israel.)
I understand and agree that Iran has become a global presence and have written about that here. Once they are nuclear they are an existential threat to the west due to their being dominant in the mideast and their long range missiles. They will eliminate the US presence in the Persian Gulf and therefore control oil and trade flow there.
If there is regime change in Iran - and I believe that can happen by eliminating the Revolutionary Guard military bases in Iran and senior Guard officials, Hezbollah will have no way to re-arm (unless of course Russia adopts them). A Hezbollah with a finite armed force and no chance at re-arming becomes a neutered Hezbollah.
The solution can't be that the west is deterred from attacking Iran while Iran expands its global presence.
As for Israel being a hostage as the reason why the US can't promote regime change in Iran and destroy their nuclear facilities - well, Israel is better prepared at this moment to take on Hezbollah then they have in the past and will be in the future once Iran goes nuclear. Now, I feel is that 1936 moment - it is the time we in the West can eliminate the (second) major threat to global peace - China being the first.
If we can't do it now because they have a global presence and Israel is a hostage - it will be done later at a cost unbearable to think.
Once Iran goes nuclear the only defense Israel will have will be a pre-emptive nuclear strike. That will not be good for Israel, for the US and for West.
The only way to prevent Iran's dominance aside from regime change is a proper deterrence - one that the west does not yet have.
Can we build that deterrence? That is my next piece.
I'm not sure Israel is in any position to take on Hamas and Hezbollah at once. Hezbollah assuredly has missiles and launchers sufficient to overwhelm the Iron Dome. Israel is in a position to do an overwhelming amount of damage to southern Lebanon in return, but the threat is asymmetrical for the same reason any nuclear threat to Israel is asymmetrical: Israel is just so small. A single modern nuclear weapon (i.e., 10 megatons +) would be the end. China could absorb that, dust itself off, and continue as a recognizably similar polity. Israel could not. Hezbollah's arsenal may not amount of a 10 megaton nuke, but it's enough to do the job. (Also, they may well be able to put chemical weapons on them. They certainly know how to make them if they want to try.) Let's use a conservative estimate of 100,000 missiles and rockets and 2,000 drones. Let's assume they're able to launch roughly 4,000 a day. And let's assume (because we saw this just recently) that once you get into that range, the Iron Dome can't handle it. They don't, as far as I know, have all that many precision-guided missiles, but the accuracy doesn't have to be terrific. They would aim for ammonia and chemical plants in Haifa, water desalinization plants, power stations, natural gas infrastructure, oil refineries, and densely populated areas to ensure maximum terror--they could light up Haifa, Tel Aviv, Raanana, Ashdod, Ashkelon, and Beersheva readily. If 1/100 of those missiles hit their targets, if it survivable?
We now know, for a fact, that the air defenses can be overwhelmed with saturation strikes. And unless Israel has capabilities that haven't been reported, it's not possible to take out all of their launch sites quickly. They're dispersed throughout the country--and they now seem to have air defense systems: https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1348356/does-hezbollah-own-air-defense-weapons.html.
Given this, the question becomes something much closer to a debate in nuclear deterrence. Would Hezbollah *want* to do this? I'm sure they understand perfectly that the cost of this glorious victory would be Lebanon (and their lives, of course). If their paymasters in Teheran met with an unfortunate end, do they really take this "Death to Israel" business seriously enough that they'd want to carry out the ultimate suicide mission to avenge them? Do they actually *want* to be Iran's second-strike capability? Or are they fat and comfortable in Lebanon (and basically just milking Iran for the cash, and because they like being local warlords)?
It's hard to answer that question. So far, Hezbollah seems rational and deterrable. After all, they could have launched all those missiles long ago if their *only* objective was the eradication of Israel. If didn't do it on October 7 (or now), it means this isn't their only goal. So that suggests, "Quite possibly deterrable."
But I do think it is *a* goal. (I mean, guess I don't need to explain that they really do want to kill you. Or that it's unwise to assume that they couldn't really mean that and they've probably mellowed and surely they'd rather cooperate with you on some regional free trade and development plan that would be in everyone's interest. I mean: They're nuts.)
So, there's that
As for living with an Iranian Bomb--I suspect we are already.
If you are right that Israel can't face both Hezbollah and Iran together then we in Israel have really been wasting our money.
While we were not prepared for a Hamas war since we were sure they were deterred we are definitely prepared for a Hezbollah war. This is not something we have been sitting around contemplating but actively planning for. I know since one of my sons is an infantry officer who has been spending upward 40-50 days of annual reserve service planning and practicing for just this situation. Israel now has 500,000 soldiers under arms and less than 10% are in Gaza, according to rumor. Even if we triple that to include support personnel that leaves 350,000. The plan was to be able to neutralize most of the Hezbollah capabilities in a week to 10 days. Will that work? Neither of us know.
But I have been in Israel for nearly 30 years and the fear mongers in the media and the ex-generals who make a nice living in US think tanks have convinced us that we couldn't possibly enter the Kasbah in Nablus or the Jenin refugee camps without 1,000 Israeli deaths. We did that and much more at the cost of 30 dead. We were told we could never surround and enter Gaza city and look where we are now.
We were all told that the US could never destroy Al Quaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan and that was done.
Are we living with an Iranian bomb already? If we are and if they have not yet declared it, we absolutely have to work for regime change. If they don't ... ditto.
I don't know that we disagree with what needs to be done - but I am more confident in Israel's and the US's capabilities than you. Although we might agree on the lack of "will".