Bruce Krasting wrote a post today about the likelihood of an Israeli strike on Iran. I would like to add my two cents worth on the issue and describe I think it is unlikely. Here is what he wrote:
Will Israel allow Iran to develop a nuke? Not a chance in hell.What is the “over - under on timing”? Certainly less than two years.Does Israel have the capacity to take out concrete hardened facilities in Iran? Yes, but this is by no means an easy task.
The latest question is where I differ from Krasting. An Israeli strike on Iran isn`t the same as past strikes on a single reactor in Iraq, which involved a single target. Consider the logistics of an air strike on Iran. Most of the analysis that I have seen indicate that a strike on Iran would involve simultaneous strikes on between 40 and 80 targets. Here is one example out of many that I`ve found [emphasis added]:
There are 25 to 30 installations in Iran which are exclusively or predominately dedicated to the nuclear program. Six of them are targets of the first rank: the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, the conversion works in Isfahan, the heavy water reactor in Arak, the weapons and munitions production facility in Parchin, the uranium enrichment facility in Fordow, and the Bushehr light water reactor.
Iranians have air defenses. It isn't just a simple case of taking out these sites, some of which are hardened and buried under tons of rock. You have to hit radar sites, communications sites, SAM sites, air bases, etc. Once you add it all up, 80 or site separate air strikes is a realistic number. Krasting also put up a map of the region and wrote that a route over Syria and Iraq is the most likely possibility, a conclusion with which I agree.
Supposing that the Israeli cabinet authorized airstrikes on Iran. Consider the questions:
Whatever you think about Iran and her nuclear ambitions, any operation that contemplates the bombing of Iran is fraught with risk. The Israelis likely don't have that capability. Even if they did, they would have to do it with the approval of the Americans, who have that kind of capability of cruise missiles and air assets. Consider the blowback if the Israeli cabinet decided not to inform their American allies of a strike on Iran. First, such a massive air armada would have to transit Iraqi airspace. While the Iraqi wishes may be ignored, the US still has military assets in the region. How would American commanders react to a surprise air armada transiting Iraqi airspace? Does the Israeli cabinet want to take a chance of having engaging American fighters (if they chose to intercept) or allowing IAF planes to be shot down by the Americans? That's why I believe that any decision to bomb Iran must be done with the approval of the United States, which is unlikely. Obama, or any other president, will know that the Iranians will interpret a bombing campaign as being done with the approval of America, which will leave American troops in Iraq and elsewhere in the region vulnerable to guerrilla attacks as well as expose the American homeland to higher risks of terrorism. Notwithstanding the political and costs to American standing in the Middle East and Muslim world., I wrote before the United States cannot afford another war and I stand by that analysis. In short, any strike on Iran by Israel must be done with American cooperation - and the US is unlikely to give the green light to such an action given the political risks and fiscal costs involved.Cam Hui is a portfolio manager at Qwest Investment Fund Management Ltd. ("Qwest"). This article is prepared by Mr. Hui as an outside business activity. As such, Qwest does not review or approve materials presented herein. The opinions and any recommendations expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not reflect the opinions or recommendations of Qwest.None of the information or opinions expressed in this blog constitutes a solicitation for the purchase or sale of any security or other instrument. Nothing in this article constitutes investment advice and any recommendations that may be contained herein have not been based upon a consideration of the investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs of any specific recipient. Any purchase or sale activity in any securities or other instrument should be based upon your own analysis and conclusions. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Either Qwest or Mr. Hui may hold or control long or short positions in the securities or instruments mentioned.
updated Mar 01, 2012
Sign up to get our newsletter with money saving tips, travel hacks and more - no spam.
discounts & deals from all banks in one app?
At GET.com we compare credit cards and rate them objectively based on the credit card's features, interest rates and fees.
Cards are rated by our team based primarily on the basis of value for money to the cardholder. The GET.com team rates each card based on its annual fee, rewards, benefits, bonus, introductory APR, ongoing APR, flexibility (in how its benefits can be used and how rewards are earned and redeemed), and other card features.