Israel Matzav

'Only' 300 dead?

Forgive me for saying this, but I don't have a whole lot of confidence in these types of estimates. The security cabinet was told on Monday that, at most, 300 Israelis would die in a three-week, multi-front war including Iran.

According to the estimates, described as a worst-case scenario, thousands of missiles would be launched toward Israel from Lebanon, Syria and Gaza as part of the Iranian attack. The scenario took into account Israel's defenses as of 2012, with the Iron Dome rocket-defense system not yet at its full deployment.

Missiles would also be launched at Israel from Iran, according to defense experts briefing the ministers, however, they added, Tehran's conventional missile capabilities are limited.

The estimates echoed comments Defense Minister Ehud Barak made last year about a potential war with Iran. Jerusalem does not want war, he said in an interview with Israel Radio in November, but even if it is drawn into a war against its will, fears of mass casualties are unfounded. "There's no chance in such a situation for 500,000 killed, not 5,000 or even 500 killed."

Despite Barak's assurances of relatively low casualties in a war with Iran, Kadima MK Ze'ev Bielski warned in February that Israel's civil defenses are not ready to protect the population in a missile war.

Almost one in four Israelis lack access to bomb shelters, whether communal or reinforced rooms in private homes, Bielski, chairman of a parliamentary panel on home defense preparations stated.

And 40% don't have gas masks - something they don't even mention. Read the whole thing.

Any of you who have been reading this blog for a couple of months know that I believe that someone is going to have to stop Iran militarily from obtaining nuclear weapons, because the entire picture will change if God forbid Iran is a nuclear power. And you also know that I believe that Israel cannot and will not pass on what it sees as its last chance to strike unless the US strikes first. But....

I think we have to be realistic about the consequences. These assessments all assume three things. First, that there is adequate coverage from Iron Dome to stop most missiles from hitting populated areas. That coverage doesn't exist and won't for at least another year. Will the necessity of striking Iran wait another year? I don't think so.

The second assumption that these assessments make is that Iran's proxies will either stand down or will not shoot their not-very-accurate missiles at areas that have large Arab populations. I don't believe that assumption is correct either. In 2006, many of the casualties from Hezbullah's rockets were in 'Israeli Arab' towns in the Galilee. Hezbullah and Hamas could care less about the 'Israeli Arabs' - they are happy to make them into shahidim (and many of the 'Israeli Arabs' are happy to become shahidim). So the idea that Hamas or Hezbullah won't fire missiles at Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria because they aren't willing to risk Arab casualties or damage to Islamic holy sites is... unproven.

Third, the assessments assume that the Iranians won't dare to add chemical or biological ingredients to any missiles they fire at Israel out of fear that Israel will hit them mercilessly. Sorry, but the only people Israel hits mercilessly are 'settlers' and the idea that the Iranian regime cares about an Israeli retaliation against its civilian populace in response to a chemical or biological weapons attack is unrealistic.

Bottom line: I think we may (likely will given who is in charge in Washington) have no choice but to strike Iran, but we have to stop pretending that we won't be hit back. We have to be better prepared than we are today. All assessments like this one do is to convince the politicians that there's no need to act to correct their gross negligence on the home front over the past six years.

Labels: Gaza, Hamas, Hezbullah, IDF Home Front Command, Iranian nuclear threat, Israeli attack on Iran, Lebanon

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:45 AM