”Credible experts,” wrote New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof in March, “overwhelmingly” view an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities as “a catastrophically bad idea,” deeming the benefits uncertain and the consequences dire: An effective strike would require multiple “sorties over many days,” and an attack on that scale could inflame the Muslim world, spark a regional war and disrupt global oil supplies.

Israeli attack on Iran nuclear facilities would be lower profile than one by U.S.
By Evelyn Gordon

”Credible experts,” wrote New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof in March, “overwhelmingly” view an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities as “a catastrophically bad idea,” deeming the benefits uncertain and the consequences dire: An effective strike would require multiple “sorties over many days,” and an attack on that scale could inflame the Muslim world, spark a regional war and disrupt global oil supplies.

While “overwhelmingly” may be a stretch, many analysts certainly do hold this view. Yet their doomsday scenarios rest largely on a fallacy: the belief that an Israeli strike would necessarily employ the kind of massive force America would employ if it attacked Iran.

U.S. defense officials told The New York Times in February that any strike would require “at least 100 planes,” including bombers, fighters, midair refuelers and electronic warfare planes, and would probably involve combat with Iran’s aerial defense forces. If so, war would indeed be a likely outcome: An attack by over 100 planes culminating in dogfights over its territory isn’t something any country could ignore; Iran would have to respond massively.

Click here to read the full article

The post JINSA Fellow Evelyn Gordon’s Piece Appears in the San Diego Jewish World, 5/4/2012 appeared first on JINSA.