Iran and Nuclear Weapons and US

Over at The Atlantic is an article by Reporter Jeffrey Goldberg, "Intelligence Committee Chair Describes Explosive Confrontation Between Netanyahu and American Ambassador".

Rep. Mike Rogers, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, says that his much-discussed meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem late last month did, in fact, devolve into an sharp confrontation between Netanyahu and the American ambassador to Israel, the former National Security Council official (and former Obama campaign Jewish liaison), Dan Shapiro.

Rogers told a Michigan radio interviewer earlier this week that he had not previously witnessed such a high-level confrontation, and he described Israeli leaders as being at "wits' end" over what they see as President Obama's unwillingness to provide them with his "red lines" in the effort to stop Iran's nuclear program. He also said that neither the Israelis nor the Iranians believe that Obama would use force to stop the nuclear program.  (UPDATE:  Rogers said as well he believes the Israelis will "probably" bomb Iran if they don't get clearer red lines from the U.S.)

Who knows, it might all be theater.

But, even if it is theater there is the question of Iran getting nuclear weapons.  The first question we in the US face:  "Is it acceptable for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons?"  But, that isn't the only question.

A supplemental question:  "Will it be acceptable to Israel for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons?

Further, there is the question:  "How will Iran view an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear production facilities?"  Put another way, if Israel attacks Iranian nuclear facilities, what is Iran likely to do to the US, including US forces in the Persian Gulf region?  We can't count on Iran assuming we are not involved, even if we are not involved.

But, this isn't the end of the questions.  There is the "Danzig" question:♠  "If we think Israel is right to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, how many Americans are we prepared to see die in support of Israel (military and civilian).

And then there is the question:  If we think an Israeli attack would be wrong, should we, and at what cost, act to prevent an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities?

These are not easy questions and each carries with it the risk of war, death and destruction.

A couple of notes.  We know that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a "Holocaust Denier" and that he has, in various ways, suggested the regime in Israel is illegitimate.  From Wikipedia we have this August 2012 statement:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that "the very existence of the Zionist regime is an insult to humanity" and that "the Zionist regime and the Zionists are a cancerous tumor.  Even if one cell of them is left in one inch of (Palestinian) land, in the future this story (of Israel's existence) will repeat."

On the other hand, there is the myth that Israel is a "one bomb" target.  I believe this to be incorrect.  Yes, the small size of the nation means that one nuclear weapon, large enough, could do extensive damage, but it would wipe out the Palestinians and many Jordanians at the same time.  To take out Israel and leave the Muslim holy sites, including the Al Aqsa Mosque, third holiest site in Islam, and minimize the deaths of Muslims, and in particular, Palestinians, would require a number of nuclear weapons.  I have heard a suggestion of three.  I would place the number at ten, including second weapons on target for assurance.  Add to that ten to deter Saudi Arabia and ten to deter the US and the rest of the West and a couple for testing and you are up at or over thirty weapons required.  Once the first weapon is produced, the next 29 don't come along immediately and automatically.  This site says we had the following:

Year	Number of Weapons
1945	2
1946	9
1947	13

And we were spending billions, in the 1940s to achieve these annual goals.

So, where is this leading?  I was at Mass this afternoon and someone said that he was disappointed that Governor Romney had embraced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.♥  It is to be noted that Mr Netanyahu and Governor Romney worked together at Boston Consulting Group.  That said, this man says he won't be voting for Romney.  It may be the economy, but some are looking at foreign policy.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The Danzig question goes back to the start of World War II in Europe.  The British and French were faced with the question of if they would go to war with Germany to preserve Poland's corridor to the Baltic, which separated the International City of Danzig and Eastern Prussia from German.  Chancellor Hitler wanted the "Polish Corridor" eliminated and the land given to Germany.  Up to this point Hitler had gotten pretty much what he wanted.  The question facing the British Prime Minister was how many British Servicemen he would be willing to sacrifice to preserve the status quo.  As it turned out, the number was 383,800, including those from the colonies.
♥  Note to students, "M.S. degree from the MIT Sloan School of Management in 1977", per the ever dubious Wikipedia.