web analytics
May 29, 2015 / 11 Sivan, 5775
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post


Defending Israel From Iranian Nuclear Attack


Louis Rene Beres

Louis Rene Beres

(Editor’s Note: This column was written with IDF (res.) Major-General Isaac Ben-Israel, a professor and former Knesset member.)

On January 16, 2003, the private Project Daniel Group first advised then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons.

Our final report, inter alia, urged Sharon to enhance Israel’s deterrence and defense postures, to consider an end to deliberate nuclear ambiguity if Iran should become nuclear, and to refine all pertinent preemption options. It also concluded that Israel should not expect peaceful coexistence with a nuclear Iran, and that active national defenses should be continually strengthened.

Israel’s core plan for active defense remains the Arrow. To protect against attack from Iran, however, this system of ballistic missile defense must always be complemented by improved Israeli deterrence, and by viable options for certain defensive first strikes against appropriate hard targets. Under no circumstances should it be assumed in Jerusalem that a stable “balance of terror” could be created with Tehran.

The core reason is clear. An essential assumption of enemy rationality might not always be warranted. This would not be your father’s Cold War.

Of course, if the Arrow were entirely efficient, even an irrational Iranian adversary armed with nuclear and/or biological weapons could conceivably be kept at bay without launching defensive first strikes, and/or threats of retaliation. But no BMD system can ever be truly “leak proof.”

Moreover, in the future, terrorist proxies in ships or trucks – not missiles – could deliver certain Iranian nuclear attacks upon Israel. In such low-tech but high consequence assaults, there would be no benefit for Israel to any sort of anti-missile defenses.

Israel cannot depend on its anti-ballistic missiles to fully defend against any future WMD attack from Iran any more than it can rely only on nuclear deterrence. This does not mean that Arrow fails to play an important protective role as part of a larger security apparatus. It does play such a role.

Every state has an incontestable right under international law to act preemptively when facing an openly genocidal assault. Israel is no exception. The 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice even extends such authority to the preemptive use of nuclear weapons in certain existential circumstances. But, at least for now, Israel could still undertake “anticipatory self-defense” without such weapons.

If, for whatever reason, Iran should be permitted to become nuclear, Israel would have to enhance the credibility of its presumed nuclear deterrent, and to deploy a recognizable second-strike force. This optimally robust strategic force – hardened, multiplied and dispersed – would be fashioned to inflict a decisive retaliatory blow against selected enemy cities. Iran should promptly understand, therefore, that the actual costs of any planned aggression against Israel would always exceed any conceivable gains.

One last point warrants mention. The substantial dangers of a nuclear Iran would also threaten the United States. While it would still be at least several years before any Iranian missiles could strike American territory, the U.S. could still become as vulnerable as Israel to certain nuclear-armed terrorist surrogates. In this connection, any remaining American hopes for a “rogue state” anti-ballistic missile shield would reveal the same inherent limitations as Israel’s Arrow.

 

Isaac Ben-Israel (Ph.D., Tel-Aviv University) is a retired major general from the Israel Defense Forces and a professor at Tel Aviv University. While a member of Israel’s Knesset, he sat on the Foreign Relations and Security Committee. Dr. Ben-Israel also served on the IDF General Staff, headed the Israel Space Agency and was a member of Project Daniel.

About the Author: Louis René Beres (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) is professor of political science and international law at Purdue University and the author of many books and articles dealing with international relations and strategic studies.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “Defending Israel From Iranian Nuclear Attack”

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
What's happened to NYC's Celebrate Israel Parade?
Israel Rejects as ‘False’ UJA Federation’s Claims about Israel Parade ‘Inclusion’
Latest Indepth Stories
Keeping-Jerusalem

For a peace treaty with the PA, half the Israeli public would agree to divide the Jerusalem

As for the president’s new, softer tone vis-à-vis Prime Minister Netanyahu and Israel, this is most likely being driven by the results of the recent Israeli election.

What especially appeals to us is his grand – some critics would say extravagant –view of what the borders of Israel should look like.

There was something else of great importance in play – something we would have liked to see him take into account before deciding to stand with the boycotters.

The establishment of Hebrew University was a cause much beloved to Einstein who in 1923, during what would be his only trip to Eretz Yisrael, delivered the university’s inaugural lecture on Har Hatzofim (Mt. Scopus) and, discussing the theory of relativity, spoke the first few sentences of his address in Hebrew.

The Golden Square wanted Germany to destroy the British and Jewish presence in their country. The Third Reich craved what was beneath the ground – oil.

Ida Nudel’s account of how the Soviets persecuted and punished her was far worse than imagined.

Swim4Sadna is an annual event benefiting Sadna, an integrative special-ed community in Gush Etzion

Prof. Wistrich, was THE foremost historian of anti-Semitism; committed spokesman & advocate of Jewry

Jewish Voices for Peace’s 2015 Haggadah is a blatant anti-Israel screed crying, “L’chayim to BDS!”

On his shloshim, I want to discuss a term I’ve heard countless times about Rav Aharon: Gedol HaDor

After obsequious claims of devotion to Israel, Obama took to criticizing Israel on peace process

Mr. Obama, Israeli voters have democratically chosen to apply Israeli sovereignty over Judea&Samaria

Netanyahu so disdains Shaked’s appointment he completely ignored her after the swearing-in ceremony

More Articles from Louis Rene Beres

A “Palestine” could become another Lebanon, with many different factions battling for control.

Louis Rene Beres

President Obama’s core argument on a Middle East peace process is still founded on incorrect assumptions.

Once upon a time in America, every adult could recite at least some Spenglerian theory of decline.

President Obama’s core argument is still founded on incorrect assumptions.

Specific strategic lessons from the Bar Kokhba rebellion.

Still facing an effectively unhindered nuclear threat from Iran, Israel will soon need to choose between two strategic options.

For states, as for individuals, fear and reality go together naturally.

So much of the struggle between Israel and the Arabs continues to concern space.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/columns/louis-bene-beres/115331/2013/03/13/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: