Over the past few weeks, tensions between Israel and the US on the one hand and Iran on the other have rapidly escalated, and yesterday, these tensions reached their peak when Iran tested 9 missiles, including Shahab-3 missiles, a long range model that Iran claims can reach up to 1250 miles. Parts of western Iran are within 650 miles of Israel.
Iran’s war games are an effort to prevent any attack on the regime, as speculation that either the US or Israel may attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. These tests came a day after Iran announced that if it is attacked, “Tel Aviv and the US fleet in the Persian Gulf would be the first targets to burst into flames receiving Iran’s crushing response.”
A few weeks ago, Israel ran what American officials call “a rehearsal for a possible strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.” This drill lit many sparks, and since then, Iran has been making many more hard-line statements.
Honestly though, I don’t see where America is going with this. Attacking Iran would be disastrous for America. Oil prices would nearly double, with some estimates saying that prices would skyrocket to $300 a barrel, up from the current $144. The US already has a tremendous debt because of the Iraq war, and it simply doesn’t have enough soldiers. But then again, an attack on Iran would be very different from the type on Iraq. An attack on Iran would not lead to an occupation of the country, like in the case of Iraq; they would probably only seek to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. This would give Iran an excuse, though, to start attacking Israel. And the Iranian display of missile launching is clearly an effort to show the US and Israel what it can do. Accordingly, the US has downplayed the significance of the testing.
Iran is very easily winning the psychological battle that is going on between these countries, and America has to do a better job at anticipating Iran’s actions, which so far it has simply not been able to do.
Another possible course of action that might be deployed is that Israel strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, and as quickly as possible, before Iran has time to develop more missiles and possible nuclear weapons. In fact, the US has allowed Israel to use Iraqi air space about a month ago, according to Iranian intelligence, and the Israeli Air Force is planning on revealing military aircraft capable of spying on Iran in the near future. In addition, the US has been trying to install a strategic missile defense program, which would be able to intercept possible Iranian missile attacks. Earlier today, Ehud Barak, Israel's Defense Minister, announced that Israel will attack Iran if there is no other option.
14 comments:
As the author very well put it, The purpose of Iran's recent wargames is indeed to intimidate the Israel and the United States, but another purpose of these millatry exercises is for Iran to demenstrate to its own people that it is powerful and can stand up to the United States and Israel. There are probaly many Iranians who are doubting their governtment's ability to defend Iran against possible attack. Therefore Iran feels a sence of urgency to demenstrate to its people that it is capabale of protecting them.
Yet perhaps Iran has gone a little bit too far in demenstrating this to its people and the world in light of a recent report that Iran has cropped in a missile that was not shot into a picture showing a missile launching.
This makes sense, except for the bit about Israel attacking Iran. That would be disastrous as well - it takes the diplomatic option off the table and is not conclusive at all. Iran possesses the technical knowhow to pull off a bomb, and has the money to create new facilities. Anyone attacking, unless the political climate is set up so that Iran won't bother restarting the program once they're attacked, would really contribute nothing positive.
And @above: As the author very well put it? Please learn English. That is all.
first of all i like the way you write and i enjoyed reading you're post.
clearly a significant action must be done quickly, cuz the clock is ticking and it seem's that Iran is making a big progress.
I think US need to be used only as a backup for Israel and Israel must do the attack .
Regarding Dan's comment a number of points must be addressed. First off the diplomatic option has been on the table ever since Iran has started to develop a nuclear bomb. What makes you think that now, when Iran is closer than ever to developing a nuclear bomb, that Iran will now, out of the blue, embrace diplomacy. Perhaps if Russia and China would have stopped blocking attempts by the Security Council to impose tougher sanctions on Iran years ago, then we would not even be talking about attacking Iran today. These tougher sanctions could have crippled Iran's economy years ago and the Iranian nuclear program would have not made the progress that it has made up to this point.
Secondly while it is true that Iran does have the technological now-how and money to rebuild after an attack, this rebuilding process would take many years since no matter how much technology and money Iran has, the uranium enrichment process takes a long time. Furthermore as much as Iran is obsessed with producing its nuclear weapons program, I am not so sure that Iran would be willing to invest tens of billions of dollars and many years to redevelop its program with the knowledge that it could be destroyed.
I believe, as does the author of this blog, that Iran's goal is clear: to establish itself as a superpower in the Middle East. And the way to go about doing so, is energy independence -- something that no other country has yet attained. With nuclear energy, Iran will be exporting oil completely for profit, and no longer depends on its nonrenewable resources for energy. Additionally, in the radical Muslim world, a country within 1000 kilometers of Israel with 2000K range missiles equipped to carry tactical nuclear warheads is a flag to rally around. And a leader whose rhetoric is frequently about the need to "wipe the Zionist regime off the map" is the flagbearer. There has been much exchange lately, verbal and written, among Imams and Mullahs in the Middle East, about the need for a united Islam. Ahmadinejad, like Gamal Abdul Nasser long before him (though quite differently), would love to unite Islam under the common cause of bringing the Holy land under the Flag of Islam, and, moreover, energy independence and nuclear teeth would give him the clout to do so.
b, I don't know who you are, but you're being a toolbox. The reason they might suddenly embrace diplomacy might be the very strong contingent of anti-Ahmadinejad Iranians that's forming as a result of the sanctions. Not to mention the incentives packages they're being offered. Not to mention the lack of allies they'll potentially have should Israel succeed in isolating them (look at the paper, that's what they're trying to do). Not to mention the general threat of an Israeli attack. All of these add up to pretty good odds - whereas Israel simply doesn't know enough to destroy the nuclear program with any certainty (unless they're hiding some info from the U.S. which is highly unlikely) and can't even guarantee destroying the facilities they do know about without practically guaranteeing a tremendous amount of political fallout and some lives lost or captured - and god knows all hell will break loose if Iran captures an Israeli pilot. All this, for a "solution" which is at best temporary and which is at worst detrimental.
You discuss the downsides of attacking Iran and taking down their nuclear facilities like we have an option to simply ignore the situation. Yes, gas prices may skyrocket if we attack... but stand back and wait for Iran to initiate its next move and we will surely be sorry. Gas prices will be the least of our problems if Iran begins attacking Israel or US bases. We can't afford to wait any longer to see what else Iran has up her sleeve.
Thank you for ignoring the whole bit about the sanctions working. The dramaticism didn't stop you from being wrong.
There is, I should add, a tendency among Zionists, and readers of right-wing papers in general (not to exclude myself at all from the first category, or totally from the second)to be melodramatic and downright illogical about Iran as a military threat. The words "Mutual Assured Destruction" come to mind often enough when contemplating the matter of nuclear war between Iran and Israel... or anyone and anyone, for that matter. Yet somehow, people who are in a rush to get panicky gloss over this point. We don't need to fear Iran's approaching nuclear arsenal as a thing-in-itself. Its danger is its creation of a Muslim banner, its creation of a Persian Gulf economic superpower (and a Shiite one at that), and its creation of a viable military threat, NOT nuclear, but conventional. No politician who isn't a religious madman of Bin-Laden calibre (and that includes both Ahmadinejad and the late Saddam Hussein, a point that was generally swept under the rug five and six years ago) would press the button, knowing that Tehran (or once upon a time, Baghdad) would go up in mushroom flames within five minutes of the command to launch. Politicians, religious or not, protect their own interests. And yes Ahmadinejad is a quasipuppet, and no the Ayatollah isn't omnipotent to the point where he can be the only person in a country to desire nuclear war and have his way.
And therefore, in summation, the notion of a pre-emptive strike as the first thing on any rational agenda because ohmygod we're about to be nuked is a silly misconception of the mind that fails to see enemies, or perhaps Muslims, as human beings with interests.
Well, I don't think thinking of Iran with nukes as Iran-nuking-Israel and Israel's-nuclear-deterrent-neutralized is all that different. But it's irrelevant; if the sanctions are working, and an attack is an unlikely victory with guaranteed casualties, why should we contemplate attacking?
Dan suggested I comment. Please excuse my usual verbosity.
This is clearly a no-win situation for Israel, and they will be forced to choose between the lesser of two evils. On the one hand, Iran is accelerating towards having a bomb, and it's never a good idea to let an enemy who talks about wiping you off the face of the earth have WMDs. However, Israel really has to ask the question (I only say Israel because the American military doesn't seem to interested) of what this will accomplish in the long term. Sanctions have started to weaken the country's economy tremendously. Despite all of their oil, they don't have sufficient refinery capacity for their cars, and so gasoline is expensive and scarce. The public is clearly not happy with Ahmadinejad's economic policies, as was demonstrated in recent local elections. It seems to me the best chance we have of undermining their nuclear ambitions is through their population. Nothing would rally their populace around the government and militarism more than the "evil Zionist empire" attacking their home soil. All of Israel's Muslim "allies" (those countries which are not actively attempting to harm it militarily, e.g. Egypt, Jordan, Turkey) would be furious, and Israel needs them if it's ever going to find a solution to its Palestinian problem. It would spell the immediate end of the negotiations with Syria. And what would we get out of this? A temporary setback to their nuclear program. They have the technical ability to do it again, and the potential money, as well - China's growing investment in the country establishes their clear interest in it as a resolution to their oil crisis. (About .4% of the Chinese have cars - as that number begins to take off, any country sitting on oil reserves will start to look pretty good). Further, we just don't know how effective an attack would be (we'd like to think Mossad does, but I'll assume for the purpose of this discussion that they know about as much as we do, since that's what the Americans keep complaining about). That is, we could eliminate their centrifuges, but they've been enriching weapons grade uranium for years, and nobody knows where they've taken it. We could also eliminate their uranium ore processing facilities and their nascent heavy water plutonium reactor, but for all we know they might have enough weapons grade uranium for a couple of bombs, and an attack would be an invitation for them to test.
Thus I would argue that there would be significant negative consequences, both short and long term, with only short term positive consequences. Does the current military situation require these short term positives? I would say it almost certainly does not, because as Mr. S. points out they would never use the bomb knowing what would happen in return.
The best thing Israel can try to do in the short term is turn Syria against Iran and Hezbollah. This is more feasible than some have speculated, as Assad is hardly a religious fundamentalist. It is possible some splitting or outright returning of the Golan might be necessary. But the benefits would be enormous, as Iran would lose its major foothold in Israel's backyard and Hezbollah would lose its source of support. None of this would ever come to pass if there was an attack.
And let's remember, for all the embarrassment the IDF faced for its failure in the Lebanon wars, the one thing it has shown itself capable of time and time again is dealing with enemies which are grounded states. Iran wants to become the new Shiite power to rival Saudi Arabia (a fundamentalist, oppressive Muslim regime, similar in some ways to Iran, and I should note America has kept them quite contented with $$$). But if it tries to throw its military weight around, it will always be inferior to Israel (in the foreseeable future), and would not dare let those bombs out of its sight, knowing what would happen to Tehran. This may well be a containable threat.
Thus while Israel certainly does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons, I do not see how attacking them does more good than harm.
I have to respectfully disagree with Mr. S. on some of the motivations of Iran in this matter, though either way this is entirely speculative. Energy independence hardly seems a priority for them - nuclear power is a huge hassle to deal with, is very expensive to maintain, and they're sitting on the second largest known reserves of natural gas and the third largest of oil. It is much cheaper, and simpler, for them to use their natural gas for electricity, and in their undeveloped economy they don't use enough to make a big difference for exports. As a result of sanctions, they have more oil than they can export (though that will not last, the way the energy market is going now). Practical nuclear plants also take a very long time to construct (and require enormous capital) even here in the US. The only conceivable purpose for Iran wanting nuclear technology is military/political. If all they wanted was power, they would be using Russia's offer to build and administer the plants (and take away the spent fuel) exclusively rather than developing their own. Further, it is difficult to compare Ahmadinejad to Nasser given the current tensions (or mass sectarian killings, in the case of Iraq) between Shiites and Sunnis. It is more likely that they want to establish themselves as an alternative, competing center of power (supported by the east) opposite the Egypt/Jordan/Saudi Arabia/Turkey Sunni axis which is in the sphere of influence of the West. We may have no choice but to let them do exactly that, though taking Syria away from them would cripple their abilities to interfere with Israel. In the end, if China succeeds in turning them into Saudi-style pawns, we won't have that much to worry about - China knows Israel could bomb those oil fields any day, and it hardly wants that. States are not the real threat to Israel anymore - local, semi-organized and mobile groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are. Attacking Iran would just do them both a favor.
A short history of Modern Iran
http://mitspost.blogspot.com/2008/07/7908-history-short-history-of-modern.html
i wrote this to share in the political forums on facebook's mccain fanpage, but desided to post it when the missiles were tested
Post a Comment