If the US or Israel bombs Iran's nuclear facilities,
can Iran strike back at Israel with weapons of mass destruction? This is
obviously a vital question to answer before deciding whether to use the
"military option." Unfortunately, there is no one conclusive answer.
Yiftah Shapir, an expert on missile warfare at Tel Aviv University's
Institute for National Strategic Studies (formerly the Jaffee Center for
Strategic Studies), a leading strategic think tank, says Iran might well be able
to retaliate with chemical weapons - meaning poison gas or liquid loaded onto
However, he continues, chemically-armed missiles aren't much more destructive
than conventionally-armed ones, so the damage would be comparable to the
surprisingly little harm caused by Iraqi Scuds in the 1991 Gulf
War. As for the worst-case scenario - an Iranian retaliation with biological
weapons, such as bubonic plague or anthrax, or nerve gas - it's highly unlikely
that Iran has or will have the ability to successfully fire missiles with such
warheads, Shapir says.
Ephraim Kam, an expert on Iran at the same institute, doesn't think Iran can
retaliate against Israel with either chemical or biological weapons - for now.
However, he thinks it could have the ability to do so in another three or four
For yet a third opinion, Dany Shoham, an expert on chemical and biological
weapons at Bar-Ilan University's BESA Center, another leading strategic think
tank, says Iran "in all likelihood" now has the capability to launch
missiles armed with either chemical or biological warheads. To neutralize that
threat, the US or Israel would have to first take out Iran's biological warheads
or missile launchers before hitting its nuclear facilities. Failing that,
Israel's Arrow or Patriot anti-missile batteries would have to knock out Iran's
missiles en route.
But if Iran decided to strike back at Israel with its worst weapons -
missiles armed with plague, anthrax, nerve gas or other catastrophic substances
- and Israel failed to wipe them out on the ground or in the air, the effect of
even one of those missiles landing, says Shoham, would be "bad." Asked
what he means by "bad," he declines to elaborate, saying, "I
don't want to terrify the readers."
THE LACK OF consensus on Iran's strategic profile goes beyond the question of
what sort of WMD it has or doesn't have. Among experts, there are several points
of contention on the sorts of issues that need to be understood before Israel or
the US reaches a decision on their most worrisome political dilemma - what to do
about Iran and its nuclear weapons program.
A lot has been written and said about the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran and
about the possibility of bombing its nuclear facilities out of existence. Much
less, however, has been written and said about the dangers of such a preemptive
strike. However, this is starting to change.
On the eve of his trip to the US to meet with Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice at the beginning of June, Transportation Minister
Shaul Mofaz, a former chief of General Staff and defense minister, gave an
interview to Yediot Aharonot in which he warned of the possible
"destructive consequences" of a US attack on Iran. "An American
attack, Mofaz tells close associates, is liable to set the entire Middle East
ablaze and cause incalculable damage to Israel's population, and even to
European countries," Yediot said.
In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Mofaz warned: "The
potential for a regional escalation as a result of [a preemptive] attack is
great. Iran sees Israel as a target and has ballistic
missiles that can reach every European capital. If it responds, then
Hizbullah will respond and maybe Syria, and we don't even know how Hamas will
respond." (At the same time, though, Mofaz did not rule out the military
option against Iran's nuclear facilities.)
This month, The New York Times reported that the weight of opinion
President George W. Bush now leans against a preemptive strike in the event
that diplomacy fails, because the risks are seen as prohibitive. This is the
stance taken by the State Department and the Pentagon, the Times
reported, while only Vice President Dick Cheney, among
Bush's closest circle, still favors a last-option attack on Iran's facilities -
and his influence is on the wane.
There is an endless array of questions that have to be asked and judgments
that have to be made before a decision is taken on whether to launch a
preemptive attack on Iran. This article is concerned only with the question of
the possible cost in human lives of such an attack. It breaks this question down
into four parts, taken chronologically from the point of impact of the
preemptive strike: 1) How many Iranian civilians would die
or be wounded? 2) What weapons does Iran have for a retaliatory strike
against Israel? 3) How would Iran decide to respond, and how damaging could it
be to Israelis? 4) How effective would Israel's protective measures - the Arrow
and Patriot anti-missile batteries, home security rooms and gas masks - prove
against such an attack?
Not only do experts disagree on the answers to some of these questions, their
answers often are hedged with uncertainty because there are so many unknowns. For
example, Iran's decision on which weapons to use in retaliation might depend on
the extent of civilian casualties it suffered in the preemptive attack.
The views expressed by Shapir, Kam and Shoham (other strategic analysts
declined to be interviewed) make it clear that the question of what to do about
Iran cannot be answered strictly "from the gut." It is too complex for
either a Patton or Gandhi approach. When the moment of decision finally arrives,
the possible human cost of a preemptive strike will have to be weighed against
the possible human cost of a nuclear-armed Iran. Again, because so much
attention has been given to the latter issue, this article deals only with the
Jn:8:44: Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Only Shoham would offer an estimate of Iranian civilian casualties in a
preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities: "From
dozens to thousands," he says, depending on how much radioactive leakage
Iran has a population of 70 million, and several of its major nuclear
facilities are located in or near major cities. The installations are heavily
protected, with some of them underground and covered by dozens of meters of
concrete, while others are in unknown sites. It is considered impossible to wipe
out all of the facilities, but it may be possible to cripple a number of
critical sites and set back Iran's nuclear ambitions by some years. Kam says at
least three or four facilities would need to be hit to do an effective job,
while Shoham puts the maximum number of necessary targets at 15.
Such a mission would require an onslaught of bombs and missiles. The
Sunday Times has reported that the IAF is training to drop bunker-busting "mini-nukes"
on Iran's installations because they are so heavily fortified. The German
magazine Focus has quoted Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert saying it would require "10 days and 1,000 Tomahawk cruise
missiles," a statement he has denied making.
Shoham says the number of civilian casualties would depend on whether the
bombed-out facilities were radioactive and how much radiation resulted. Asked if
radiation were a likely consequence of a preemptive attack, he replies, "The
answer is more likely yes than no." He adds that as time passes, the
likelihood of radiation, and the amount that would be released, goes up.
"Without radiation, there would be dozens of dead and injured," he
says, noting that the missiles can be targeted "very precisely." But
he adds: "If there is a lot of radioactive leakage,
the number of casualties could reach into the thousands, at the maximum."
Iran has missiles - the Shihab-3 - with more than enough range to hit Israel.
However, according to the three experts interviewed, it doesn't have that many,
only "dozens" or "several dozen" or "about 50" of
them, at least for now.
There is no question that Iran has chemical and biological agents that can
cause "mass destruction." However, chemical agents present a much
lower threat than biological weapons.
The Sorry Satan worshipping forged people of their
protocols, speak about Nuking, at the same time they make accusations and
concerns about Iranian Bio weapons, as usual....as usual
The worst chemical attack in history took place over a few days in 1988, when
Hussein launched a poison gas attack on the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja,
which was pro-Iranian in the Iran-Iraq war. As many as 5,000 people died or
suffered terrible injuries.
Yet another Lie from the children of the Liar and he is
the murderer from the beginning
Yet Shapir says a heavy attack with conventional missiles on a village
such as Halabja would likely have caused just as many casualties as the poison
gas. "The Red Army, for instance, never considered chemical weapons to be
any more damaging than conventional weapons," he adds.
But biological weapons, which carry live viruses, are a different story.
While they have been used a few times on a very small scale - most recently in
the post-9/11 anthrax letters to East Coast news media and politicians that
killed five people - they have never been loaded on a missile or otherwise aimed
at a large population. Rudolph
Giuliani's stated fear - that someone would climb to the top of the Empire
State Building and sprinkle biological agents into the air - hasn't
materialized. Such an act, or an attack on a major city with a missile with a
warhead carrying anthrax, plague, VX or another biological agent, could -
if the bomb exploded "successfully" - kill millions.
The first question, then, is whether Iran has the capability of fashioning
its biological agents into a warhead that can be attached to a Shihab-3 missile.
Shoham is convinced it now has that capability. Kam thinks it doesn't, but may
in three to four years. Shapir pretty much rules out the possibility of this
ever happening, arguing that biological weapons are too much of a question mark
to seriously interest military planners in Iran or anywhere else.
But supposing that Iran could fire a biologically-armed missile at Israel,
the second question is whether it would do its intended damage on impact. Shapir
says that since such a missile has never been fired, it's impossible to say.
"A biological weapon is made up of living material - you don't know if it
would survive on a [superheated] missile. If it did survive and explode on
impact, you don't know how far it might spread - whether it might eventually
come back at the user's own country as well. Generals don't like to use weapons
they can't control," he says.
Since Shapir discounts the possibility of a biological counterstrike and
considers the remainder of Iran's arsenal to be no more threatening than
Saddam's Scuds, he is not overly worried by Shihab-3 missiles. "I think the
bigger threat is from terror attacks. They'll blow up Israeli embassies all over
the world; they'll blow up Jewish targets all over the world. They've already
shown they can do it. We can expect a lot of Argentinas," he says,
referring to the 1994 bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish community center that
killed 85 people, in which Iran and Hizbullah were implicated.
But which was carried out by the jews for world
Kam says Iran's response would be greater than the Iraqi Scuds, but still
"not very dramatic, not enough to decide the battle." He is figuring
on Iran's use of conventional ballistic missiles with large warheads, "so
there might be high casualties." Otherwise, he basically takes the same
view as Shapir, forecasting attacks on Israeli and Jewish targets abroad, which
are harder to protect.
So in both Shapir's and Kam's view, Iran will simply hit back as hard as it
can with conventional missiles and proxy terror, which is all it has for now.
For Shoham, however, the question of retaliation is extremely iffy because in
his view, Iran has the capability of firing chemical or biological weapons right
now, so it has a much broader range of responses to choose from - and much
greater potential consequences to consider.
If Iran retaliates with WMD against Israel, it is knowingly putting its own
survival in grave, immediate danger because of America's
far superior WMD arsenal, which includes nuclear weapons.
For they Know these Treasonous Vipers in Washington
would trigger the last global War for their master race "Chosen"
Yet Shoham holds that not only is such a move a possibility, it is an
"appreciably" greater possibility than the one that preoccupies so
many Israelis - that Iran, after it developed nuclear weapons, would initiate a
nuclear attack on Israel even at the cost of its own survival. He reasons that
Iran would be much more liable to choose mutually assured destruction after
being attacked by Israel or the US than before.
Shoham divides Iran's possible responses into "maximal" and "submaximal,"
with submaximal probably meaning Iranian and Syrian ballistic
missile attacks combined with Hizbullah and Hamas terror attacks. "The
impact on Israel from this would certainly not be negligible," he says.
As for the maximal response - firing chemical and biological missiles -
Shoham says, "If you refer only to the pronouncements of [President Mahmoud]
Ahmadinejad, then it's clear Iran will decide to retaliate at the maximal level,
but he's not the only decision-maker." The
likelihood, he says, is that an Iranian counterattack would be proportional to
the destructiveness of the US and/or Israeli strike.
The only experience Israel has with protective measures against missiles came
in the 1991 Gulf
War when it fired the computerized, supposedly spot-on Patriots at Saddam's
39 incoming Scuds. Unfortunately, very few of the Scuds were destroyed. In a
1992 congressional investigation into the
effectiveness of the Patriots against the Scuds, MIT Prof. Theodore Postol
testified that postwar studies "indicate that the Patriot's intercept rate
could [have been] much lower than 10 percent, possibly even zero." But that
was 16 years ago; presumably the Patriots have been improved since.
Israeli American Patriots
The front line of Israel's missile defense is now the Arrow system, which has
been tested extensively but never used in battle. "Those responsible for
the Arrow think it could work," says Kam. He and Shapir agree that the more
Shihab-3 missiles the Iranians fire in a single volley, the harder it would be
for the Arrow to take them out. "If the Iranians fire one a day, the Arrow
could intercept all of them. If they fire their missiles all at once, some could
get through," says Shapir, and Kam agrees.
The usefulness of Israelis' personal defensive measures - gas masks and
sealed security rooms - has never been tested against an actual WMD attack
because there has never been one here. Over the years, there have been a litany
of problems with the gas masks, Shoham notes, while adding that these problems
are solvable. Assuming the gas masks were in perfect working order and
distributed to all Israelis in time, they could, theoretically, defend against a
poison gas attack.
However, many biological agents such as anthrax and VX enter through the
skin, so in such cases gas masks would be of no use. A privately-purchased
protective suit could be effective, but outfitting all 7 million Israelis is not
in the cards. And if anthrax, bubonic plague, botulism, nerve agents or the like
were loosed among Israel's population, it's highly speculative whether, or for
how long, people could survive wearing gas masks or even protective suits inside
their sealed rooms.
BUT THE RISKS of preemption are only some of the issues that US and Israeli
leaders are going to have to address if Iran
does not abandon its nuclear project. I asked the three experts whether, when
taking everything into account, they supported or opposed a military strike
against Iran's nuclear facilities as a last resort, if diplomacy should fail. I
got three different answers.
Shoham leans toward the military option. In his view, the danger from a
nuclear Iran is "unbearable." He explains that a nuclear Iran would
raise the tension in the Middle East and the West so high that it would set off
a chain reaction of fear and aggression such that a nuclear war would become
likely. Better, he says, to take the risks involved in preemption.
But Shoham reiterates that the consequences of a possible Iranian chemical or
biological attack on Israel
and/or American targets in the Gulf are so extraordinarily grave that they must
be neutralized before a preemptive strike can be launched. Neutralizing the
risk, he says, means taking out Iran's missile launchers or biological weapons,
which means finding them, which means getting extremely good intelligence. It
also means having dependable back-up protection, which means perfecting the
Arrow. It's a huge challenge, but Shoham thinks it can be done, and since the
threat of a nuclear Iran is, in his view, "unbearable," it must be
Shapir, however, leans against the military option. He says he's "very
skeptical" about the possibility of destroying Iran's nuclear potential
militarily, adding that even if a preemptive strike were successful, it wouldn't
end the threat. Iran would step up its nuclear
program and its reconstructed facilities would have to be bombed again and
Because Iran has such a strong incentive to develop nuclear weapons, Shapir
assumes it will do so. Diplomacy and sanctions are likely to fail, he thinks,
and then Israel and the West will have to learn to live with a nuclear Iran. The
good news is that living with a nuclear Iran is not only possible, he believes,
"The chance that Iran will launch a nuclear first strike is low,"
Shapir says, arguing that it is deterred by American nuclear might. Based on the
62-year history of the nuclear age, what will probably happen, he says, is that
a "dialogue" will develop between Iran and its enemies - as it did
between the US and the Soviet Union, and as it recently did between arch-enemies
India and Pakistan. "Strategic logic is stronger than any ideology,"
Kam says there are too many unknowns for him to take a blanket position for
or against a preemptive strike, explaining that it depends on the intelligence
available at the moment of decision, which will only arrive if and when it
becomes clear that diplomatic measures have failed. Since he believes Iran is
still three or four years away from having the capability of retaliating against
Israel with WMD-armed missiles, the risk to the home front is less critical to
Kam than the risk that a preemptive attack would fail. And
the risk of failure is higher, he says, if Israel does the job than if the US
If the US were to pass on the military option, says Kam, Israel could only
take on such an operation "if we have quite accurate intelligence on what
sort of damage we could do to Iran's underground nuclear sites. If a preemptive
attack could push their nuclear program back several years, that would be one
thing. If an attack could only push it back one year, I'm not sure it would be
worthwhile to take the risk."
So there we have it. On the supreme strategic dilemma of our time - whether
to bomb Iran's
nukes or not - the expert view is: Yes, no, I don't know. On the narrower, but
still fateful question of how Iran would react to such a bombing, there is also
In making a decision on whether to choose the military option, a lesson may
be drawn from the American decision to launch the war in Iraq. Instead of
weighing the risks of invasion alongside those of leaving Saddam in power, the
Bush administration concentrated almost solely on the latter - to bitter
result. Iran now presents an even more dangerous dilemma; this time around, both
of the risks - the risk of Iranian nuclear arms andthe risk of preempting
them - have to be faced, then weighed in the balance before decision time
Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg
is more determined. He knows that in the near future the Land of Israel is
about to expand. He writes, "It is our duty to force all mankind to
accept the seven Noahide laws, and if
not—they will be killed." (Ma'ariv, 10/6/04)