Is War with Iran Inevitable?
Oil-rich and with a population of 67 million spread over an area the size of Alaska, Iran aspires to be an atomic power and the leader of the Islamic world, a goal that Washington and Israel have promised to block, with force if necessary. Washington and Tel-Aviv have told Iran that it cannot cross two red lines. First, if Tehran closes the Straits of Hormuz, through which 20 percent of the world’s oil flows, we will use our military to keep the sea lanes open. The fleet is already in place. Second, if Iran fabricates an atomic bomb, we have threatened to employ “bunker busting,” deep penetration bombs to destroy its underground reactors.
While the exact timetable may still be up in the air, it has been reported that Israel is planning a spring attack, since it believes that Iran is just months away from realizing its goal. What we do know is that Israel has acquired four of the most advanced conventional submarines armed with cruise missiles from Germany and has drone aircraft the size of Boeing 737s. Israel’s prime minister has said over and over that Iran poses an “existential threat.” Steeled by a post-Holocaust mentality and an obsession for security, Tel-Aviv is not going to wait for the missiles to arrive. Israel has little faith in sanctions and far less in appeasement, believing Hitler could have been stopped at Munich in 1938 through timely action.
In every crisis situation, there is posturing on both sides and far more goes on behind-the-scenes than the public can ever imagine. One suspects that the public announcements about “red lines” are intended to be a sobering message for the Iranian leadership, while giving time for the sanctions and strident limitations on Iran’s international banking abilities to further harm its economy. Unless Tehran closes the sea lanes, it appears unlikely there will be a war on the eve of the U.S. national election. And military planners in the U.S. are well aware that if either the U.S. or Israel, acting alone or in concert, attack Iran, it would be very messy. After all, the war against Saddam was supposed to be over in weeks. Two years from now the world will commemorate the start of the First World War in August 1914. It was supposed to be over by Christmas. Military plans work best on paper and in war games.
Another factor that may mitigate against a major strike is the unrest in the entire Islamic world. An attack could easily do much to unify the disparate groups in each nation, the common themes being anti-Americanism and a long history of strident anti-Israeli fervor. Then, too, if Israel launches a first strike, it may then be faced with a Palestinian uprising on the West Bank, attacks from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, and missile attacks from Hamas in Gaza. To avoid this, Israel may conclude, as some of its most senior military personnel have, that the risk is too great and there are other ways to deal with the Iranians. Not long ago, a computer virus crippled one or more of Iran’s nuclear reactors and several of its atomic scientists were murdered. One suspects that the Mossad is already working inside Iran and the U.S. may have special forces on the ground. There are alternatives to all-out war.
Despite the allegation in some quarters that Obama is far too even-handed in the Middle East at Israel’s expense, Washington would never abandon the Jewish State and Iran knows this. Tehran also knows that any attack on Israel would bring about far more than regime change in Iran; it would bring about its destruction. We can only hope that the progeny of the ancient Persians and Hebrews follow their better instincts, which have helped them survive for thousands of years.
Recent Comments