A Worst Case Scenario If Israel Destroys Iran's Bushehr Nuclear Reactor

Attack Against Bushehr Nuclear Reactor Could Kill Hundreds Of Thousands -- Examiner

Russia has warned the United States (and Israel) against attacking Iran, saying "Moscow sees no evidence that Tehran's nuclear program is aimed at developing weapons", the Interfax news agency reported on Thursday.

"We warn those who are no strangers to military solutions ... that this would be harmful, literally disastrous for regional stability," Interfax quoted Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov as saying.

An attack on Iran "would set off deep shocks in the security and economic spheres that would reverberate far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East region," Ryabkov was quoted as saying.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: The Center for International and Strategic Studies report on the “Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities” is here. Pages 90-91 covers the human cost from such an attack.

Former Israeli Mossad Chief Believes That An Airstrike On Iran's Nuclear Plant Is A "Silly Idea"

Photo by: Ariel Jerozolimski

Dagan: Israeli Airstrike On Iran Nuclear Plant A Silly Idea -- Jerusalem Post

Former Mossad chief warns attack on Iranian reactors would cause regional war in which missiles from Iran, Hezbollah would be fired.

Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan over the weekend stated that an Israeli airstrike on Iran's nuclear reactors would be "a silly idea that would not grant any advantage." Dagan, making his first public appearance since recently stepping down as Mossad chief, made the comments at a leadership and security conference at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Read more ....

My Comment: Of course .... he could not say this publicly when he was head of Mossad. I can hear already the howls of complaints from the Israeli government right now.

Will Israel Attack Iran's Nuclear Facilities -- News And Commentaries

Image credit: Alex Williamson

The Point Of No Return (An Israeli Attack On Iran's Nuclear Facilities) -- Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic

For the Obama administration, the prospect of a nuclearized Iran is dismal to contemplate— it would create major new national-security challenges and crush the president’s dream of ending nuclear proliferation. But the view from Jerusalem is still more dire: a nuclearized Iran represents, among other things, a threat to Israel’s very existence. In the gap between Washington’s and Jerusalem’s views of Iran lies the question: who, if anyone, will stop Iran before it goes nuclear, and how? As Washington and Jerusalem study each other intensely, here’s an inside look at the strategic calculations on both sides—and at how, if things remain on the current course, an Israeli air strike will unfold.

Read more ....

More News/Commentary On The Talk Of An Attack On Iran, And It's Consequences

U.S. Magazine Says Israel Likely To Bomb Iran In Next 12 Months -- Radio Free Europe
'More than 50% chance of attack on Iran' -- Jerusalem Post
'Israel likely to hit Iran, consensus of 40 speculates' -- Jerusalem Post
The morning after the attack on Iran: How will the international community respond the next day? -- Ze'ev Maoz, Haaretz
Repercussions of an Israeli attack on Iran -- Christian Science Monitor
ANALYSIS: Will Israel attack Iran? -- FOX News
Some Straight Talk About Iran -- Joshua Pollack, Arms Control Wonk
Bombing Iran -- Michael Crowley, Time Magazine
Mainstreaming war with Iran -- CAMII
A campaign for war with Iran begins -- Trita Parsi, Salon
Jeffrey Goldberg’s Convenient Facts -- Ken Silverstein, Harpers Magazine
Will Israel attack Iran? -- The Week
Israel’s Going to Bomb Iran? Not So Fast. -- Bellum, Stanford Review

Nuclear Options -- James Bennet, The Atlantic
Gen. Chuck Wald on the Threat From Iran -- Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic
Goldberg on Israel-Iran: First Reactions and the Coming Debate -- Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic
Is An Attack On Iran a Good Idea? -- Jeffrey Goldberg, The Atlantic
Bombing Iran: What is The Atlantic's Line? -- James Fallows, The Atlantic
About Iran, the Atlantic, and... China -- James Fallows, The Atlantic
Bombing Iran -- Clive Crook, The Atlantic

What Will Be The Consequences If Iran's Nuclear Facilities Are Attacked

An Attack On Iran: Back On The Table -- Time Magazine

In late 2006, George W. Bush met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon and asked if military action against Iran's nuclear program was feasible. The unanimous answer was no. Air strikes could take out some of Iran's nuclear facilities, but there was no way to eliminate all of them. Some of the nuclear labs were located in heavily populated areas; others were deep underground. And Iran's ability to strike back by unconventional means, especially through its Hizballah terrorist network, was formidable. The military option was never officially taken off the table. At least, that's what U.S. officials always said. But the emphasis was on the implausibility of a military strike. "Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need," Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote in 2008. It would be "disastrous on a number of levels."

Read more ....

More News On The Consequences Of Attacking Iran

NEW REPORT: Israeli Military Strike Threat on Iran Grows - Risk of Protracted War -- Oxford Research Group
Israeli Attack on Iran Would Start Long War - Report -- New York Times/Reuters
Threatened Israeli strike on Iran would lead to regional war, report says -- L.A. Times
Study: Attack on Iran would be ‘start of long war’ -- Raw Story
Comment: Cost of attacking Iran underplayed -- Financial Times

My Comment: Long time readers of this blog know that I have been very skeptical on the speculation that there will be an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. I am even more so now for the simple reason that none of the assets required to conduct such a strike successfully are in place today. But this is summer time .... and news is scant or uninteresting for those reporters who have not taken their summer vacations yet .... hence these stories.

Israel: Iran Could Attack US With Nuclear Bomb

Image from Ben Muse

From The Telegraph:

Israel has warned that Iran could try to attack the US if it acquired a nuclear weapon.

Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, appealed to world leaders to act now to prevent Iran from continuing its nuclear programme.

"If it built even a primitive nuclear weapon like the type that destroyed Hiroshima, Iran would not hesitate to load it on a ship, arm it with a detonator operated by GPS and sail it into a vital port on the east coast of North America," Mr Barak told a conference of the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University.

Indicating the possibility of an Israeli military strike on Iran, Mr Barak said: "We are not taking any option off the table, and we recommend to the world not to take any option off the table, and we mean what we say."

Read more ....

My Comment: Even a small nuclear device going off in a port .... a 500 ton to 1000 ton explosion (a dud in nuclear speak) will be a catastrophe for world shipping and international trade. The economic cost to the U.S. and world economies will be far worse than what the present financial crisis is creating for the U.S. and world economies, and will last for years.

Ben Muse explored the effects of such a nuclear attack in a 2006 post. The link is HERE.

U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S.

From Newsmax:

Iran has carried out missile tests for what could be a plan for a nuclear strike on the United States, the head of a national security panel has warned.

In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend hosted by the Claremont Institute, Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community “doesn’t have a story” to explain the recent Iranian tests.

One group of tests that troubled Graham, the former White House science adviser under President Ronald Reagan, were successful efforts to launch a Scud missile from a platform in the Caspian Sea.

Read more ....

My Comment: An interesting article, but I do not share its apocalyptic view of what an EMP attack would do to the U.S. I strongly believed that any damage caused by an EMP attack would be quickly repaired, and the grid back on line in a few months.

I live in Montreal, Canada, and we had a catastrophic power failure in the month of January, 1998. Because of an ice storm, the entire electrical grid collapsed. I did not have power for over a week, but for others it lasted almost a month. This occurred in the middle of winter and life was very difficult. But we all survived. People helped each other. Crime was at an all time low (almost non-existant). The shelters worked A-OK. Word got around very quickly on what was happening. People were informed. Hospitals, restaurants, supermarkets ... everyone adjusted.

The same will happen if the U.S. experiences an EMP attack. As for the country or group that launches such a strike .... my gut tells me that they will not be so lucky.