Pape: Precision Strikes Will Not Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Program—or Its Government

12 comments

1. UChicago political scientist Robert A. Pape argues that Israel’s precision air strikes against Iran will ultimately prove futile. On the basis of no country in history has successfully toppled a government and eliminated its major military capability using airpower alone, Pape argues that Israel will not succeed in that either, despite being the strongest military power in the Middle East. Pape evaluates the impediments facing Israel in knocking out Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and also the potential for the United States to join the conflict.

2. A couple of more days like the last days… and Israel would have so much control that it could be simply fly in some special unit to conquer the reactor and bomb it from within. They don’t really need USA for the practical job of eliminating the reactor it’s just political, and maybe it’s even a prior deal between the Israel and USA

3. Israel is the tail that wags the American dog.
   Israel does what it thinks it needs to do and ‘Murica goes along for the ride.
   This relationship will continue here. ‘Murica is already involved as a weapons supplier, they will soon give direct support and then ramp up to active fire missions.
   Give it time.

4. As usual, nobody has anything constructive to say about what Israel should do. Only criticism that Israel should not do whatever it is doing.

   Surely Israeli planners recognize that striking the Iranian nuclear program is a fraught path to safety. But what other path is there?

5. I genuinely don’t understand the argument Pape and others make that these strikes make it more likely for Iran to get a nuclear weapon.

   They weren’t following the NPT. They weren’t following the JCPOA.

   Every time they have reached a deal, they’ve gone behind it and continued working on nuclear weapons programs in secret.

   They not only enriched uranium WAY beyond any civilian application but nearly doubled their stockpile of 60% enriched uranium in the past few months. They have enough enriched uranium at this point for multiple warheads.

   However this ends, not striking their nuclear facilities would almost certainly end in Iran becoming a nuclear power.

6. It’s not like we have half a dozen of examples of vastly more lopsided air wars not ending in regime change, and basically none to the contrary.

   1. Iraq – got bombed and crippled by sanctions for over a decade, in the aftermath of already getting roughed up in a 10-year war with a neighboring power. No regime change until boots were deployed on the ground
   2. Serbia – Was getting blasted by NATO at the absolute apex of its power, yet held out for 3 months before only conditionally capitulating after being threatened with a ground invasion. No regime change until over a year after the bombings were over; while the air campaign ultimately did factor into this, it was far from the only catalyst. Yet this is probably the closest thing there is to a purely air campaign inducing a regime change (with some delay). The power disparity between the two sides was also *vastly* more lopsided than between the US+Israel and Iran.
   3. Lebanon – Air campaign was combined with a ground invasion; though it ultimately did result in Israel achieving its goal of pushing Hezbollah away from its borders, it did not result in the decisive end of Hezbollah’s power, which is licking its wounds but still in power.
   4. Yemen – Was being bombed on and off for the better part of two years by the Western coalition, no regime change. Was also being attacked both via air and ground by Saudi Arabia for even longer than that beforehand, also no regime change.
   5. Ukraine – Has been absorbing brutal missile and drone strikes for three years now, in addition to fending off one of the largest armies in the world. No cracks in their state’s cohesion.

   Obviously none of these examples are a perfect 1:1 with Iran, but I’d argue that, in most of them, the odds were even more lopsided against the defender than the current situation. I’m fairly certain Fordow will get blown to shit fairly soon and the “delay nuclear weapons” part of the equation might be chalked up as a success, but I still very strongly believe that anyone that believes there will be regime change in Iran from air strikes alone is really fooling themselves. Basically every historical example we have teaches us how bloody difficult of a feat that is.

7. Are there fractions within Iran that can replace the current government and is also acceptable to US/Israel?

8. Even if we are not successful we can kick the can down the road for future administration to deal with it 

9. Another failed state with a power vacuum at the top isn’t what we need, even if their nuclear program is destroyed. In lieu of the Ayatollah, would the IRGC assume control in a Junta-type situation to stabilize the country and surrender? Then what?

10. Attacks on its oils infrastructure might.

11. “Or its government”? I think Nasrallah had exactly that thought a while ago.

12. Nobody is trying to fully destroy either of those things. The Iranian population is being *taught* actively their government has zero power. That is the goal, break the will of their people by showing them how weak the regime really is, right before their eyes

Comments are closed.