Shalit deal / What would Israel do if Iran captured an IAF pilot?
Israel must prepare for the possibility that if it strikes Iran's nuclear sites, not all of the pilots will come back.
By Amir Oren Tags: Israel newsIsrael possesses nuclear weapons. This, simply, without blinking or wincing, states a senior American general, who served as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the first part of the current decade. In his recently published memoirs, titled Eyes on the Horizon, U.S. Air Force general Richard Myers describes the tumultuous years leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks, and those that followed. In the book, it is as though he forced himself to describe Israel in two words, and came up with "nuclear-armed."
In the American defense establishment, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff is not a military commander, as opposed to the Israel Defense Forces chief of staff; rather he serves as the principal advisor to the president and the secretary of defense and coordinates between the service branches of the U.S. armed forces. He also charters the National Defense University, and oversees the quarterly newsletter it publishes.
In the latest newsletter, to be published in early 2010, the professor of military and strategic studies at the U.S. Air Force Academy, Brent Talbot, explains why Israel is capable of attacking Iran's nuclear facilities, even though such an operation appears impractical or unlikely at first glance.
The American armed forces, Talbot stresses, are not deployed to protect the homeland, but rather to punish, in their own homeland, anyone who dares attack. This reality is very different from the one dictated to Israel by its neighbors, and existential threats such as those posed by the Syrian, Iraqi and Iranian nuclear programs.
Talbot reports that in June he visited the offices of Israel's Military Intelligence Director, Amos Yadlin, and interviewed him. In the interview, Yadlin confirmed that the Iranian nuclear ambitions topped Israel's security concerns, more than the threats posed by Hezbollah or Hamas, both of which have engaged in war with Israel in the recent past - and both of which would likely refrain from renewed conflict, Israel believes. According to Yadlin, Talbot says, Israel can handle both Hezbollah and Hamas, even if Iran steps up weapons shipments and encourages attacks on Israel.
While Yadlin did not mention a specific plan to strike Iran, it is important to remember that Iran poses the final existential threat facing Israel, and that Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who was recently reelected, has urged Muslim leaders to wipe Israel off the map, and that Israel has planned and prepared for operations as large-scale and long-term as a successful strike of Iran's nuclear facilities would be. Therefore, the U.S. should immediately ready itself for the ramifications of such an attack, Talbot says.
Talbot's impression following his talk with Yadlin is a good example of the Israeli pendulum that swings between secrecy and public relations. In order to create deterrence Israel must display its capabilities, but if the opponent is not impressed, this display could undermine the element of surprise and the effectiveness of the operation. This is the opposite to the phenomenon of the boy crying wolf: here the wolf himself is threatening to attack, and in the end fulfills his threat but his victims believed him all along and were ready for him. And sometimes, the wolf turns out to be a sheep in wolf's clothing.
A decision to go to war against Iran remains in the very distant future. At the end of 2009 it is too early, and unjustified, to make such a decision. Contrary to popular belief, even behind the most closed doors, in talks with the most sympathetic allies, there are no secret plans or plots.
But in a different sense, an Israeli-Iran war is already being waged, and not in the familiar context of the actions of Iran's proxies in Lebanon and Gaza. Following the Yom Kippur War, U.S. intelligence made a pointed distinction between a "war" and an "attack," taking upon themselves the responsibility to warn of an imminent war, but not of an imminent attack. In the case of a war, the CIA vowed to pass intelligence along to the national decision makers, indicating that a nation or alliance was preparing to wage a war or was on a path that greatly increased the likelihood of a coming war and taking steps to prepare for war. On the other hand, in the case of an attack, the CIA was to pass along intelligence indicating that not only was the enemy preparing its army for war, but also planning an attack in the near future.
The CIA refused to commit to providing the second type of warning. Both U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served in the most senior CIA posts, and Israel's Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who has held the post of director of Military Intelligence, have a deep understanding of the elusive reciprocity between an intelligence evaluation and a decision. The problem is that Tehran also understands this, and could seek to pre-empt Israel.
As far as Israel is concerned, Iran's gradual nuclearization amounts to an indication of a coming war, but not an attack. As far as Iran is concerned, Israel's stated objective to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions is the war warning. It gives Iran the incentive to strike the first blow -distracting and crippling - by means of either Hamas or Hezbollah.
It stands to reason that it was in this direction that Yadlin was pointing when he told Talbot that Hamas and Hezbollah would not be too quick to re-engage Israel in conflict. This issue was also at the center of talks between a NATO delegation and Israel's Foreign Ministry and defense establishment last week. The delegation was headed by NATO Deputy Secretary General Claudio Bisogniero.
The main purpose of the delegation's visit was to sign the 2010 edition of the cooperation pact between Israel and NATO, which includes Israeli plans to dispatch a warship to join NATO's Active Endeavor naval force. However, during the delegation's discussions of Israel, questions about Iran, terror, and Israel's policy regarding the use of force were highlighted.
The NATO delegates wanted to know about the deterrence of terror and if Israel wonders whether it exaggerated its use of force in Beirut, south Lebanon, and Gaza. No, their Israeli interlocutors answered, peace and serenity are preserved only due to the deterrence of Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. This can only be achieved once everyone else is wary they will otherwise "extract the Israeli animal from its cage," if rocket fire renews on the Israeli front.
The Arab exercise against Israel's massive aerial retaliation is now constituted in the Goldstone report. The Israelis attempted to convince NATO representatives that neutering the ability to act against sources of fire within populated areas would only increase the complacency of terror organizations, would hurt their deterrence and would cause the next battles to be larger and deadlier.
The NATO alliance is being managed with difficulty. The maneuvering ability of the new Secretary-General, the former Danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, is limited. Even more limited than the position of his Italian deputy, Claudio Bisogniero. Moreover, the selection of grey personages from Belgium and Britain to stand at the head of the European Union and to manage his foreign policy also reflects a trend of leaving practical power in the hands of countries that are members of international organizations.
Secretary-generals or director-generals who are too independent or powerful - in the UN, NATO, EU, IAEA, or in the Arab League - threaten their members. They can help very little and create a lot of damage. The Six Day war would not have broken out had it not been for the former UN secretary general, U Thant, who rushed to allow Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser to oust the UN forces stationed on the Israel-Sinai border without informing the Security Council. Israel prefers bilateral contacts with a few of the countries that are members in these organizations, and especially with their administrative, intelligence, and military bodies, with which it can share secrets.
When Bisogniero expresses "deep concern" on the Iranian nuclear issue, officials in the NATO headquarters in Brussels see it as a significant signal from the past. When he was asked about the possible deployment of a peacekeeping force to the Israel-Syria border, his negative response was quick and decisive. The NATO council has yet to discuss it. One can guess that when the day comes, if Washington asks ahead of a peace accord after the evacuation of NATO forces from Afghanistan, the response would be a more positive one.
In closed meetings, Israel has been flexing its muscles and saying that it is not worthwhile for Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran to test its seriousness. The behavior during the Gilad Shalit affair contradicts this pose. Israel can shout a thousand times a day that the deal for the release of Palestinian murderers will definitely be the last. But if Talbot and other foreign observers are correct in their assumptions that the burden of an Israeli operation against Iran would fall on the Israel Air Force's squadrons of war planes, Israel must prepare for the possibility that the aircraft will be hit by enemy fire or will encounter technical difficulties - as with missing IAF navigator Ron Arad's Phantom jet - and not all of the pilots will be rescued.
If members of flight crews fall into Iranian captivity, the Iranians will likely put them on trial in order to condemn them to death and open a bazaar of multi-stage negotiations. In return for rescinding the death sentence and reducing it to a life sentence, Iran will demand the release of all the other murderers in Israel; afterward, in return for the release of the pilots, navigators and other captured soldiers, it will demand far-reaching concessions on completely different issues. For example, in Jerusalem; or in the field that General Myers brands a "nuclear-armed" Israel. Would the Israeli public, which persistently pled for the government to sign the Shalit deal, dare to suddenly refuse? Would Benjamin Netanyahu, who is tough-talking but soft in action, not fold again, as is his wont?
|
Missing IAF navigator Ron Arad. |
| Photo by: (Archive) |
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Simple solution: If IAF pilots do not fly into Iranian airspace, they CANNOT be captured!
"The Iranians don`t care for international law" And neither does Israel, now does it? If it did, the settlements would vanish, the seige would be lifted, and the wall would come down. Israel has no moral standing to complain that another country does not regard International Law.
Tell me again. Just what did Israel do to Iran? Cross its borders? Shoot down its planes? Attack its oil facilities? Sink its warships? Confiscate its assets? Exactly why is Iran threatening Israel?
Many Israeli pilots have been taken prisoner in the past. I tried to post the names of a few dozen of them, but apparently such threatens security or propaganda or a censor. Attacks would be deep in defended airspace, not like pummeling Lebanon or leveling Gaza, there would be active defenses. Moreover, the strikes would be happening far beyond the range of IAF helicopters, and thus with little hope of rescue. Those that postulate no pilots would be captured ares simply living in a fantasy world. That MIGHT be the outcome, but it might not. One can have a bad day even within walking distance of home. And when one is far from walking distance from home, any bad day means a long stay. 'Five-foot-two, eyes of black but oh how they can put up flack has anybody seen my chute? When you go up there you better be prepared for walking back home chained to their guns so they can't run but oh how they can hose my Hun has anybody seen my chute?" - A Genuine Vietnam War Folk Song
is those little words, "prolonged war". Once the fighting starts, the enemy are not going to be hiding in plain view ready to execute their captive if Israel gets too close. The war will be ongoing. An existential war for both Iran and Israel. Or at least for the mullah regime in Teheran. Israel cannot get away with a single strike as with Iraq and Syria. It will need to neutralize the Iranians ability to counterstrike. Given the Iranian's aversion to surrender, even with huge casualties, any type of prisoner exchange would be unlikely for years anyways. Perhaps a condition of armistice will be the exchange of ALL prisoners. Perhaps the UN might be capable to handle at least that little without prejudice. Will Israel declare war in the UN prior to an attack?
The fear of an "existential threat" is felt not just by Israelis...I remember Nikita Khruschev threatening to bury the US...I imagine that if the US had no nukes then...the aquisition of nuclear weapons would have become Joe Average American's #1 priority.
Israel fails miserably to make a dent in Iran's military capabilities, AND end up with many of its pilots killed or captured?! That is a more realistic scenario than the one you are pushing.
The author is making a very valid point that Israel should expect quite a few of its pilots to be shot down in Iran and paraded on TV making "confessions". Do you disagree?
Also of the torture and death if captured.Syria a Hezballah/Iran ally being a prime offender in the past You might try talking to some Israelis instead of at them.
Thats just an ignoarnt broken man statement!nukes aren't supposed to be used at all.If you can't fight then serve.And thats what most humans do.
The biblical story of David with his sling is a warning "even GIANTS can lose"! Israel must rachet back this insane rhettoric and the world game of "chicken"!.....the Samson option gets closer and closer, make peace before its to late!.....PEACE EVER?
Your daydreaming about sea-launched cruise missiles skips the fact that they do not have bunker-busting warheads.
" No pilot was shot down in the attack on the Iraqi reactor in 1981. No pilot was shot down in the more recent attack on the Syrian site" Foes the term "sustained air campaign" figure in your vocabulary?
There,s really no time for the humanistic activities you mentioned Sarah as the Muslims are too preoccupied with killing each other in Pakistan,Afghanistan, Iraq,Iran ,Yemen,Somalia ,but don,t point this out to Viper ,he might get upset?
Hey world citizen what world are you living in as your dear Ayatollah like his brother Nasrallah have the most to lose in a war .All that power now dissipated ,all that territory lost ,all those uprisings and revolts against the ruling elite ,if that,s what you wish for so be it ,but in the meantime find a cave somewhere in Tora Bora next to Osama and Mullah Omar as the 20-000 pounders are on the way .
I see that living in a new country didn't make you more humanistic. All you have in mind is bragging about the weaponry of your old country. How about bragging of achievements in other fields like technology, literature,medicine, Nobel Prizes? Can't you find any?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/4691464/Syria-rebuilding-chemical-weapons-capability.html Syria 'rebuilding' chemical weapons capability Syria is rebuilding its chemical weapons capability, according to satellite images analysed by Jane's Intelligence Review.18 Feb 2009--"Syria has maintained stockpiles of chemical weapons, including Sarin gas and blister agents, for decades. But satellite images from two operators, GeoEye and DigitalGlobe, appeared to show significant efforts to update known facilities. The Janes's report said that new structures for warehousing and manufacturing complex chemical materials had been built. The buildings had sophisticated filtration systems and cooling towers. Bays for specially adapted Scud missiles had also been built. It has long been suggested in intelligence circles that Syria had acquired chemical weapons munitions from Iraq in the run-up to the US-led assault on the country. An analysis by JIR suggested that the work on the al-Safir facility in the north-west of the country had started in 2005, in the aftermath of the Iraq war, and was continuing last year. Jane's analysts said that al-Safir was among the most significant chemical weapons production, storage and weaponisation sites in Syria. "Its presence indicates Syria's desire to develop unconventional weapons either to act as a deterrent to conflict with Israel or as a force enhancer should any conflict ensue," said Christian LeMière, editor of JIR. "Further expansion of al-Safir is likely to antagonise Israel and highlight mutual mistrust, even as peace talks between the two neighbours progress intermittently. "--
everyone around the world knows the truth. israel is a paper tiger who cannot take on iran alone without US military and economic support from taxpayers. israel can say all it wants, but the proof is in the pudding. they would be suicidal fools to attack iran. anyway, there is no way that 7 million israelis could survive for the long term against 400 million arabs in the middle east (this number will be 500 million in 20 years). i advise israel to withdraw and make peace today or sufffer even more down the road.
what if Israel "attacks" Iran? who is the attacker in this "what if" question? seems to me that even in hypothetical situations, Israel is always the aggressor.
the iran problem will be decided exclusively on the basis of probable success in destroying iran's nuclear and military capabilities. even possible civilian casualties caused by missile attacks from lebanon will not necessarily deter idf planners if the threat from iran keeps growing as it is. the possible capture of members of the iaf will not factor in, except for instructions on how to avoid capture. since iran is considered to be an existential threat by israel, no other considerations than the above will factor in. iran will do well to understand the above.
The first nation to use nukes will be virtually destroyed by many other nations in response. Possibly WWIII. Israel and Iran must be sure that Ashkenazi, Netanyahu, and the Ayatollah don't go nuts over this! I think Iran knows better; but Israel tries so hard to get the USA to do her dirty work I tremble! Fortunately even the Republican Party in the USA. which stands to gain most from another war, said NO. Lets hope it stays that way.
Israel needs a pact with US forces in the region (Iraq, etc) to assist with the extraction of any downed IAF pilot. Work on it if plans are not already established.
"The Iranians have already stated many times that their goal is to export their Islamic revolution." Just as the USSR tried to export its ideological revolution, only to find that it cost too much and they had to give it up. Religious leaders, like the Ayatollah, are too absorbed in their religious idealism to make good politicians, too absorbed in grasping for power to be decent religious leaders. They must resort to force if they are to retain their own cushy position. As soon as they resort to force, they lose their credibility. Eventually their revolution crashes down around their ears. The 2nd Law of Religious Faux-Politics states that: A religious leader who resorts to force disenchants his following, disenfranchizes himself, and passes into obscurity. Add to that the fact that the first nation to drop a nuclear bomb today will be instantly crushed by many, many other nations. So I ask: what are you so worried about?
"No pilot was shot down in the attack on the Iraqi reactor in 1981. No pilot was shot down in the more recent attack on the Syrian site " Are you really sure that those targets were genuine reactor sites? I don't recall the details from 1981, but that more recent little building in Syria was more a political strong-arm showoff for Israel than anything else. They even dragged North Korea into it. Good propaganda. Lousy credibility. Not much else.
VAPID:"..and did you also know syrian and iran have HUGE stockpiles of chemical weapons? no, wait and see." I always thought you were pretty silly but that statement just takes the cake. You clearly don't understand the implications of what you are saying. Hopefully your mates in Iran and Syria are a bit smarter than you because if there is even one sniff of chemicals found in Israel, Syria and Iran will be vaporised
They can't have them. Those are outlawed by International treaties. How come you are not upset? As you are about Israel being in violation of International treaties?
"syrian and iran have HUGE stockpiles of chemical weapons? no, wait and see." (sic) FIVE letters for you : N - U - K - E - S. Again, soooooo SCARY.
Israel now has five Dolphin submarines, each able to launch 8 cruise missiles( with one reload). The warheads would be conventional. These 40 cruise missiles would be sufficient to destroy most of Iran's nuclear facilities and even destroy the air vents and access to the Estefan undergroung enrichment plant. Even the underground tunnels for the Shihab missiles could be hit. Israel is a world leader in cruise missile technology. Israel could even use a small and expendable cargo ship carrying a hundred or so shipping containers to launch an attack on Iran. The missiles could be lauched from the shipping containers. Why does everyone expect another Osiraq type operation?
Why don't you invade with ground forces? That way you can go much slower at your own pace. You can have an opportunity to look over the entire country at your leisure. You can if you want remove the missiles and nuclear technology back to Israel. Why must everything be done with a fast air strike? Why can't you invade slowly like 'shooting fish in a barrel'?
ehud, you have no clue, keep thinking that the enemies you have created by your own deeds are duds, hezbollah will show you how hard it will strike, now think logically, if hezbollah has so many missiles, then how many have their suppliers have?, and did you also know syrian and iran have HUGE stockpiles of chemical weapons? no, wait and see.
You negociate with terrorists and kidnappers once, give them what they want, they will do it again, as horrible as the other options, looking back at Munich kidnappings unhappy ending- there is only one real option and the German police knew it then as we know it now.
The Iranians don't care for international law except, of course, when they can bend it for their own propaganda purposes. The Iranians have already stated many times that their goal is to export their Islamic revolution. The world is simply pretending that the Iranians don't exist, and that whatever they say they really aren't saying. Kind of like what the world did before Hitler tried to enslave us all. Iran sits on some of the world's largest oil reserves, yet says it needs to invest tens of billions of dollars in nuclear power for "peaceful purposes", while it's economy crumbles and its people suffer. With idiots like the current crop of buffoons in the UN, no doubt our grandchildren will wake up one day having to convert to Islam or have their throats slit. If they haven't died from the radioactive fallout first.
We always think. Do you? No pilot was shot down in the attack on the Iraqi reactor in 1981. No pilot was shot down in the more recent attack on the Syrian site (very similar defense systems in Syria and Iran). So, what do you think Mark? I said think, not fantasize!
The phrase 'existential threat' keeps being used. But others, including Israeli military establishment on the pages of Ha'aretz, point out that Iran is rational, though dictatorial. And the 'wipe Israel off the map' is probably a misquotation of the wish that Israel would vanish from the pages of time, like Communists and the Shah. Not nice, but not necessarily a threat of violence. Israel has 200 nukes. This is enough to reduce Iran to a sea of molten sand. The Iranian leadership is economically corrupt. It wants to continue enjoying the perks of dictatorship, and exploiting the Iranian people. It is not suicidal. Israeli leaders know that Iran won't nuke them pre-emptively. The real issue is that just a couple of Iranian bombs effectively neutralizes the Israeli bomb. The Israelis can't use their bomb now, without losing a city or two themselves. All that effort, all that money, all that advantage, rendered useless! Let's be honest about what the real issue is.
No Israeli would be shot down in an attack on Iran. Just keep saying that over, and over, and don't think for a minute about Ron Arad.