Annihilation So Thinkable

Yesterday’s post addressed the issue as to why it seemed Israel was still holding back from its otherwise much touted assault on Iran. (Naturally, I run the risk of being outdated as soon as I post today).

I mentioned, in particular, the possibility, first, that Hezbollah’s successful highly-precise drone strike on one of Netanyahu’s houses might have ignited a sudden sense of vulnerability among Israeli leaders, and, second, the leaking of what many people regard as authentic US intelligence documents to the Middle East Spectator detailing what US intelligence believes about the status of Israeli preparations for an attack on Iran.

If these documents are indeed authentic, then it is quite easy to understand why Israel would need to delay its preparations and readjust. One expert commentator came away with the impression that they suggested a lack of urgency on the Israeli side. They should also have communicated to Iran what they need to do immediately in order to hone the likely success of a preemptive attack by Iran on Israel, although it seems unlikely that this is currently being considered by Tehran.

Some US commentators opine that the leaking of these documents may be a covert way by which official Washington unofficially seeks to block Israel from launching a regional and possibly a world war.

There is an increasingly sharp division within the alternative commentariate, therefore, between those who think the US, its foreign policy in thrall to the neocons, will willingly be seduced into a war with Iran on behalf of Israeli regional expansion, and those who think that there are many in Washington who consider this sad history has gone far enough and that Israel must be stopped. Within this group are those who consider it is possible, even if not likely, that Israel may use nuclear weapons against Iran, perhaps even pre-emptively.

I am still inclined to think that an Israeli attack on Iran (or support for some kind of NATO-Ukrainian attack on Kazan) during the BRICS summit in Kazan, which some Global South sources or their supporters are hailing as the development of the century (while the UK press, apparently - according to Alexander Mercouris this morning of October 22, California time - cannot even bring itself to mention the term “BRICS,” but only makes reference to an international meeting convened by Russia, an indication of Great Britian’s pathetic dependence on the control of press narratives to buttress the dimming embers of a collective West in decline) - would hold some appeal to Israel, since Iranian President Pesezhkian will be at the summit, and Russia is now Iran’s most important ally.

Both could be severely embarrassed. And the BRICS would be embarrassed. For the moment, though, we may hope there will be no such incident, and that the BRICS under the six month chairmanship of Russia will proceed to navigate the group’s progress towards a new financial architecture, many of whose foundations are already in place.

Western mainstream media, meanwhile, will doubtless intensify their propaganda against both the BRICS and the idea that any process of de-dollarization is possible. I think it is difficult to overstate this propaganda dimension namely, that de-dollarization is an existential threat to the interests of the collective West and that therefore the empire’s media poodles will lie in whatever way they deem necesssary to try to prevent it from happening.

De-dollarization has and is already taking place, with the dollar now accounting for less than 60% of foreign reserves, a fall of 11 percentage points since 1999. This steady descent will enhance trade between countries of the Global South; reduce and eventually reverse the consequences of the otherwise deadly influence of Western sanctions; enhance the independence of local economic production and initiatives of the Global South; fence countries of the Global South from the toxic manipulations of Western politically-manipulated finance instruments and institutions; and protect their assets from the constant threat of seizure.

In recent posts we have taken note of threats emanating from Zelenskiy that if the collective West doesn’t do what he wants (to point: allow Ukraine into NATO, NATO boots on to the ground of Ukraine, NATO missiles firing against targets in Russia, and loads more money and equipment for Ukraine), Ukraine will build its own nuclear bomb. It is not clear what exactly he proposes to do with it.

An advisor to Zelenskiy some months ago, according to a report in a German newspaper (the sensationalist Bild Zeitung) claimed that such a bomb could be made within two weeks. Indeed, as Putin and others have acknowledged, the technology to make bombs is no longer a scientific rarity, especially in an industrialized economy with nuclear energy plants. Nonetheless, many in the alternative commentariate who have discussed this matter appear unimpressed by such claims and say that to actually make the bomb, attach it to a missile, test it, and proceed to production would likely take a year or more.

However that assessment does not appear to be shared by Scott Ritter - who can certainly claim a measure of expertise - in the case of Iran.

For Consortium News Ritter notes, first of all, that the conflict between Iran and Israel appears to have changed Iran’s stance against possessing a nuclear weapon. At least three official statements since April signal the possibility of religious edicts against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons being rescinded. Ritter believes that the rest of the world should assume that Iran has already made the decision to obtain nuclear weapons. The means to do so are already in place and this decision can be implemented in a matter of days once the final political order is given. Religious fatwas are not immutable.

Ritter assesses that Iran has the ability to manufacture and weaponize nuclear explosive devices and could construct in a matter of days a simple gun-type weapon that could be used in a ballistic missile warhead.

“In June Iran informed the IAEA that it was installing some 1,400 advanced centrifuges at its Fordow facility. Based upon calculations derived from Iran’s on-hand stockpile of 60 percent enriched uranium hexaflouride (the feedstock used in centrifuge-based enrichment), Iran could produce enough highly enriched uranium (i.e., above 90 percent) to manufacture 3-5 uranium-based weapons in days”.

As a consequence, the calculus behind any Israeli and/or U.S. attack on Iran is forever changed. In February Iran had accumulated all the necessary components for a nuclear weapon, minus the highly enriched uranium. Two weeks later a senior Iranian source claimed that, with Khomeini’s permission, Iran would be within a week of testing its first nuclear bomb. Ritter says that a simple gun-type nuclear weapon would not even need to be tested. Iran would need between 75 and 120 pounds of highly enriched uranium per gun-type device. Fired at Israel there would be a near 100 percent certainty that it would hit its target.

“Iran would need 3-5 nuclear weapons of this type to completely destroy Israel’s ability to function as a modern industrial nation…

“Iran has expanded its nuclear program by installing advanced centrifuge cascades used to enrich uranium and scaled back International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring of its nuclear program. In short, Iran has positioned itself to produce a nuclear weapon on short order.”

I would add however that the calculus as to whether or not to use a nuclear bomb must include as assessment of the damage that it will cause not just to the country that it hits, but also to the people that it destroys and, in the case of Israel, this could include many millions of Arab Israelis and Palestinians, and must also extend to consideration of the impacts (radiation and fire, included) across the region as a whole.