Flea: Agreed wholesale. Israel also has “Iron Dome” its own version of ABM as well as Israel has developed a rather clever small vehicle version of the Aegis system called Iron Fist. And yes the nuclear deterrent Obama is offering is largely a rhetorical weapon for the rest of us as its doubtful MAD has any value to the mad mullah’s as you say. On the quibbling front I suspect that Canada and Japan use a model one might call ‘X weeks out’ meaning that under any given set of circumstances, each nation has the parts shelved so to speak for nuclear weapons and can be in a given state of readiness as they need. So when things get worse, they can move from 8 weeks away from weapon to 3 weeks away and so on. I have no doubts that output from reactors in both nations are always being reprocessed for fresh weapons materials and the parts are being machined at all times. Its likely just about assembly.

Big all also great comments. I believe the land for peace deal would better be called “The land for nothing deal” as it should be crystal clear from Oslo by now that giving up land just creates better locations from which to fire increasingly powerful missiles towards Israeli positions.

WL Macenzie Redux: Iran has over 2000 locations where their various facilities are buried. Nuking them means obliterating Iran utterly. Rumor has it that the US is developing weapons capable of burying themselves deep in the ground before they explode. This is likely a specific weapon to deal with Iran. Iran learned a lot from the Israeli take out of the Iraqui facility. De localize. This is a very dificult military proposition. The logistics of thousands and thousands of sorties on Iran’s locations and equipment requires the use of Iraqi air space and a lot of men and equipment. Very had to do secretly.
Thanks everyone great comments. I hope lots more come.

It would also send a message to trigger-happy Putin and KJ-II that the US will not allow mental foamers to diddle with the global nuke balance and will act decisively and swiftly when threats to the balance are flaunted for political leverage.

There is so much flux in our interrelations will all the verious parties here. Iran, basicly is a sound country somewhat run by a mini madman. How much longer will he hold power, and what his true athority is… speculation. Israel is facing an election that may swing that country far right or far left. Land for peace, or nothing for nothing. Flux. Obama hasn’t really shown his hand, for he might not even know what his hand is yet. It really depends on who around him has the most influence over him. I don’t believe he has any pure thought on any of this. Time will tell.

There are strong rumors of Obama offering to set up a ‘nuclear umbrella’ for Israel but in fact there is already a US base operating an ABM site and has been for some time albeit a ’secret’ one so Obama’s offer is nothing at all new.

I am afraid the latter assertion does not follow from the reported rumour. The American nuclear umbrella is retaliatory, not preventive. What incoming President Obama has reportedly offered is to extend the benefits of nuclear retaliation against a nuclear attack by Iran (it is not clear if this would extend to any mass casualty WMD attack, as is the current American policy in its own defence). This is not the same thing as a ballistic missile defence shield meant to prevent an attack from succeeding. Both provide an umbrella of sorts as each provides a form of deterrence.

The trouble is not that Israel is already protected by an American nuclear umbrella, the trouble is that – unlike, say, Canada or Japan – Israel has no need to call upon American nuclear deterrence as Israel is widely known to be a nuclear armed power itself (Japan does not have nuclear weapons of its own and Canada stopped purchasing nuclear weapons from the United States after 1984). If reports of the Samson Option are to be believed, every power hostile toward Israel has already been informed of the consequences of a catastrophic attack. Obama’s offer, therefore, is for a deterrent Israel already possesses.

Worse yet, of course, is the fact that the Samson Option may pose no deterrent to Iran’s Twelver government. Mutually assured destruction was an effective strategic response to a Soviet superpower governed by nominal atheists with only one life to lose. It holds no fear for jihadis to whom martyrdom is not a bug but a feature of their strategic thinking.