So the Israelis land troops on the vessels who were equipped to handle "activists" in a non-violent mission, and were surprised to face armed resistance (steel bars and whatnot). The "activists" attacked the outnumbered Israeli boarders, seizing some of their weapons; and then the Israelis went to work to rescue their people under attack, killing at least 9 "activists."
So, of course, the world community is outraged--at Israel. Yes, Israel screwed up. They planned for peaceful protesters and got an ambush by the people on the vessels. And to keep the situation from turning into a hostage situation with their own soldiers held by Palestinians, the Israelis then responded with heavier force. The Palestinians and their enablers are delighted, naturally. If they are really lucky, some of the dead are women and children. That's how they think.
Israel can learn from this lesson. If the world community is outraged over this situation, what won't the world community get upset over?
I'm guessing that the level of outrage over attacking Iran's nuclear infrastructure won't be much greater than this episode. What other conclusion is as logical?
UPDATE: This news fits the logic:
Three German-built Israeli submarines equipped with nuclear cruise missiles are to be deployed in the Gulf near the Iranian coastline.
The first has been sent in response to Israeli fears that ballistic missiles developed by Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, a political and military organisation in Lebanon, could hit sites in Israel, including air bases and missile launchers.
The submarines of Flotilla 7 — Dolphin, Tekuma and Leviathan — have visited the Gulf before. But the decision has now been taken to ensure a permanent presence of at least one of the vessels.
The article says the subs are to deter attack, conduct intelligence, and land Mossad agents. I doubt the Israelis would risk a nuclear asset for the latter two missions. And I doubt that Israel views the sub as a deterrent. If Israel believes Iran can be deterred, Iran isn't an existential threat to Israel, eh?
In my assessment of Israel's ability to knock Iran's nuclear program down, I've offered the caveat that Israel is limited (but far from helpless) in what it can do, assuming Israel does not use nukes. Conventional cruise missiles could have a secondary role in a conventional strike, but they would not be decisive. But nuclear strike by cruise missiles could destroy Iran as a functioning entity, erasing the Iranian nuclear threat.
Not that Israel would want to do this. But it is something the Obama administration will need to keep in mind as it debates internally how to surrender to Iran's nuclear ambitions without appearing to surrender. The administration might have to seriously consider how we could destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure.
The subs aren't a deterrent, they are leverage.
