The Gathering Middle Eastern Storm: Israel’s Dilemma — Part Four – The American Spectator

Editor’s Note: This is the fourth of a four-part series on Israel, Iran’s nuclear program, and the U.S. Part Three addressed Iran’s nuclear quest and failed efforts to stop its program. Part Four turns to how vulnerable Israel is to the Iranian nuclear threat, how it might resolve its timing dilemma, and what enduring lessons should be learned.

Israel’s Extreme Nuclear-Attack Vulnerability

Let’s begin with the full measure of Israel’s vulnerability if its conflict with Iran goes nuclear.

In the event that a nuclear Iran strikes Israel, a nuclear retaliatory strike would likely be launched by Israel. A 2007 estimate by Anthony Cordesman, a strategist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, estimated that in the first 21 days, Israel would suffer 200,000–800,000 killed, while Iran would lose 16–28 million. Israel would survive, but Iran would cease to exist as a functioning society.

Two key factors should influence these estimates: (a) Israel’s multi-layer ballistic missile defense may destroy many warheads before they land; and (b) Israel’s arsenal includes weapons that yield one megaton, vastly greater in destructive power than the estimated 100 kilotons for prospective Iranian warheads.

However, a grave concern that Iran does not understand is that the threat arises out of a Dec. 14, 2001, sermon delivered on Al-Quds Day (the last day of the month of Ramadan) by the late Ali Akhbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, then a former president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In the version published by the regime, Rafsanjani said this of an Israel–Iran nuclear exchange:

Muslims must surround colonialism and force them [the colonialists] to see whether Israel is beneficial to them or not. If one day … the world of Islam comes to possess the [nuclear] weapons currently in Israel’s possession — on that day this method of global arrogance would come to a dead end. This … is because the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam.

In a quotation that emerged later, not in the official transcript, Rafsanjani states that in a nuclear exchange, Iran might lose 15 million and Israel 5 million, but Israel would be destroyed whilst Iran would survive as a country. This unconfirmed quotation is fully consistent with the thrust of Rafsanjani’s officially published remarks.

This view that Iran would survive and Israel extinguished is directly opposed to the calculations made by Cordesman, who knows a lot more about nuclear arsenals than Rafsanjani did. But if today’s Iranian leaders believe, as did Rafsanjani, that an exchange would “leave nothing on the ground” in Israel but would “only damage the world of Islam,” they might launch an attack, with catastrophic consequences for both countries, the region, and the wider world.

In addition, geography portends a vast difference for geostrategic vulnerability to a nuclear strike. Consider these projected world area, population, and population-density figures, as of July, from the U.S. Census Bureau’s U.S. and World Population Clock (for U.S. figures) and U.N. population division data (for international figures) reported by Worldometer: Israel’s 9.1 million people (it ranks 100th among all nations) are crammed into a space that is almost exactly the same size as New Jersey, which has 9.3 million. The U.S. population, ranked third behind China and India, is now 335 million, 37 times that of Israel. Iran’s population size ranks 18th worldwide, with 84 million, roughly 9 times Israel’s.

Comparative areas (in square kilometers) are 9.1 million for the U.S., 1.6 million for Iran, 22,600 for New Jersey, and 21,640 for Israel. Iran’s area is 99.4 percent of the combined areas of France, Spain, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Population densities per square kilometer are 36 per square km for the U.S., 52 per square km. for Iran, and 400 per square km for Israel; Israel’s population density is thus roughly 8 times Iran’s and 11 times America’s. Israel — far smaller and far more densely populated — is vastly more vulnerable to nuclear attack. Put into national security terms, it lacks spatial — i.e., geostrategic — depth.

Israel’s Dilemma: Attack Before Nov. 3, 2024, or Await U.S. Election Result

Israel faces two possible ways Iran can trip a redline: (a) Miniaturization becomes small enough to mate a warhead to a deliverable device; or (b) Russia deploys the S-400 system to protect Iran’s nuclear facilities and key regime sites. If Israel decides to attack, it will have to go it alone, as Team Biden is pantingly eager to make some sort of JCPOA 2.0 deal. Thus, as with Suez in 1956, Israel will have to keep the Americans in the dark as to the actual launch date, details, and duration of the mission, or else Team Biden will likely tip off the Iranians. (In 2012, when Biden was vice president, the U.S. leaked Israel’s efforts to gain access for a refueling stopover in Azerbaijan, thus killing the idea.)

The Biden administration assessment by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), released July 10, finds that Iran hasn’t carried out “the key nuclear weapons-development activities that would be necessary to produce a testable nuclear device.” Yet the ODNI notes that “Iran has emphasized improving the accuracy, lethality, and reliability of its missiles.”

But the ODNI arrived at its conclusions by using what nuclear expert David Albright, founder of the Institute of Science and International Security, called a “defective, overly defensive” definition:

It is a matter of how Europeans define a nuclear weapon program vs. USA intelligence community’s definition, combined with a serious post-Iraqi WMD [Weapons of Mass Destruction] analytical paralysis. It is amazing that U.S. intelligence community is still digging its heels in and using the defective, overly defensive 2007 NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] framework.

The timing of Iran’s efforts is especially significant. Iran essentially halted its nuclear program after then-President Donald Trump exited the JCPOA in 2018; Iran then resumed its efforts immediately after the 2020 election of Joe Biden.

Supreme Guide Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has denied that his country is making nuclear weapons but added to his disclaimer a boast:

We’re not pursuing nuclear weapons due to our Islamic principles. Otherwise, if we had wished to pursue them, no one would have been able to stop us, just as they haven’t been able to stop our nuclear development up until now and won’t be able do so in the future.

Research and Development (RAND) analyst Gregory Jones published a mini-paper on March 16, concluding that 82.5 percent highly enriched uranium (HEU) suffices as weapons-grade material; he notes that South Africa’s nuclear bombs were enriched to 80 percent. Jones flatly stated that Iran’s 83.7 percent HEU is weapons-grade. According to European intelligence sources, Iran is working assiduously to shorten the breakout time to be able to test a nuclear device.

In 2019, the deputy head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps stated that Iran’s “strategy is to erase Israel from the global political map.” On June 5, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said that, contrary to a March 4 agreement, Iran’s compliance per the agreement is limited to a “fraction” of its commitments. Iran is constructing a new facility near the Zagros Mountains in central Iran, likely to be buried 80 to 100 meters underground (260 to 328 feet).

Iran’s arsenal of ballistic missiles is by far the largest in the region. It is the only country on the planet to have developed a 2,000 km (1,250 mi.) range ballistic missile without a nuclear warhead yet ready for it to carry. Named the Shahab-3, it is a liquid-fueled, road-mobile, medium-range ballistic missile (MRBM denotes ballistic missiles with a range between 1,000 and 3,000 km., equal to between 625 and 1,875 mi.).

Against these growing threats, Israel has a vast array of weaponry it did not have a decade ago: vastly superior air, land, and sea assets, plus entirely new drones, etc. Iran’s military capability is far inferior. Islamic Jihad’s May 2023 fusillade of rockets was thwarted by the three-layer missile defense Israel has deployed: Iron-Dome for short-range intercept, which has a 96 percent intercept success rate; David’s-Sling for medium-range; and Arrow 2 and 3 for long-range. Israel’s defense minister says these defenses can intercept Iran’s alleged hypersonic missile. And coming soon is Iron-Beam, a laser system that not only will intercept missiles but also artillery shells, drones, etc., made by Rafael Advanced Systems, whose chairman states that the system will be deployed partially in 2024 and full-scale as soon as 2025. Moreover, Israel has become a leading worldwide supplier of advanced…