Will Israel Attack Iran?
Part 2
With Iran's rejection of a weak sanctions regime passed by the ineffective United Nations, and its continued pursuit of nuclear technology that would allow the production of atomic weapons, the subject of an Israeli first strike is worth revisiting.
It is no secret that Iran, and particularly Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would like to see Israel "wiped off the map." Iran's quest for nuclear technology is part of a grand scheme to gain recognition as the most powerful nation in the Middle East. Iran's power, of course, would be backed by Iran's status as a member of the nuclear club, a status that would negate a major Israeli advantage over its Middle East neighbors.
Israel has maintained in the past that a nuclear-armed Iran is simply an unacceptable risk to Israeli national security concerns. But the reality is that Israel's options for dealing with Iran are severely limited. To begin with, the Olmert government is weak and vulnerable. Last summer's war with Hezbollah was a disaster, with the IDF unable to achieve anything more than a stalemate against the terrorist group and with none of Israel's strategic goals in the conflict accomplished. Public confidence in the government was severely weakened, and Olmert may not have the support he needs to take on Iran.
Second, unilateral military action by Israel would inflame Muslim passions throughout the region, creating problems for the United States in Iraq and increasing the likelihood of a wider regional war. I think it's safe to say that Hezbollah would once again be unleashed on Israeli civilians and the possibility of Syrian intervention in Lebanon could not be ruled out.
It is highly unlikely that President Bush would agree to support an Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. The consequences of such an act are just too severe. What is likely to happen is that the United States, which faces no good options for dealing with the government in Tehran, and Israel, which cannot act on its own, will be forced to accept a nuclear-armed Iran within the next decade.
The geopolitical balance of power in the region will change, and Israel will no longer be the sole nuclear nation in the Middle East. Iran is unlikely to launch a nuclear attack against Israel, despite the incessant bellicose rhetoric, because to do so would be to invite retaliation by Israel, and possibly the United States, that would guarantee the fall of the clerical regime in Tehran. Iran will, however, become more emboldened, and will challenge U.S. and Israeli interests throughout the region. Unfortunately, for the time being at least, there isn't much either country can do about it.
Published by Greg Reeson
I am a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal and a The Veteran's Voice. I also regularly contribute to GOPUSA and The Land of the Free. View profile
Iran - HistoryA history of Iran. 12 pages.- Should Israel Attack Iran?It is shown that Israel has the right and responsibility to preemptively attack Iran's nuclear facilities in order for Israels own survival.
Rainy Halloween Nights: Options for Dealing with ThemRainy Halloween Nights: Options for Dealing With Them- Will and Should Israel Attack Iran?With a mad man in Iran and Israel in such close proximity of his nuclear threshold and threats aimed directly at Israel, what else should Mofaz have said?
- Hurricane Gustav: Thank You President BushPresident Bush declares danger zones states of emergency.
- Will Israel Attack Iran?
- Why Israel Dares Not and U.S Will Not Strike Iran
- The Coming War with Iran
- The Israel Iran Conflict and the Dangers of Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz Star...
- Iran Might Attack Israel, United States with Nuclear Bomb
- Iran: Why Sanctions or Military Force by the U.S. Will Fail
- New Missile Tests for Iran
10 Comments
Post a CommentThey are talking about nuclear energy because they are aware that the oil will not last forever--which is the very same reason Iran is working toward nuclear energy.
I agree with Dan, why is that Sunni countries such as Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are now talking about pursuing nuclear energy (hint nuclear weapons). It's not Israel, they've supposedly had nukes for decades. These Sunni countries are more scared of a nuclear Iran right now.
If Bush "wants" a regional war he is as luny/stupid as Jeff claims. That is not in the interests of anyone. What is happening though is a sudden clear visible agenda by Syria and other Sunni nations to wish stoicly for a balance in Iraq. They can see the danger of that Shiite nation Iran getting a foothold there for what it would mean to them-Bad News. They All know Mahmoud is a Jackal. He wreaks of that essence more than Saddam. If Shiite Iran grasped a hold over Iraq the Syrians, The Sauds and Jordan are all in danger, big danger. They will be almost likely to side with Israel. This is a showdown. It may or may not blow, but it is finally here. It's been coming for decades.
One other thing, the closer Olmert's government gets to collapse, the more risky Israel becomes. He may feel compelled to act to save his government.
Yes, there will be lots of posturing. There will be no dialogue because the characters of both Bush and Ahmadinejad will not allow it to happen.
Greg, I don't think I am being partisan when I say Bush wants a regional war, it is a very important part of the neo-con agenda. There are Republicans who are opposed to him widening warfare and I support them in that. And Daniel, I agree with you about the Iranian President. He and Bush are both peas in the same fundamentalist pod...But as there are those working for the future in Iran, so must there be here. That is why I write against Bush.
Musall, as usual is just nuts. The only thing I do not agree with in this well written and excellently researched article is what is clear to me is an underestimate of Ahmadinejad's tendency to actually "be" what people like Musall think Bush is. I do see in this what you mean with your assertion that Israel could spring. I think Bush will influence that not to happen. There is a need strategically to stabilize Iraq and to show restraint in a venue of strength in Iran's (Ahmadinejad's) face. Mahmoud has lots of plans. He will back down if faced with a real potential of being squashed before he feels he has reached his pinnacle point. For now, he needs to be influenced-and to do so now is actually somewhat late in the game with regard to Iraq-but it needs to happen and he will need to believe that the earth might move under his feet. Look for lots of posturing. That's all we will see for now. Israel is a bit of a wild card though....
Thanks for the comments, both of you. Jim, I agree. There is no foreseeable end to the problems of the Middle East. Jeff, do you really believe Bush wants a regional war? Come on. Don't let the partisanship get the best of you.
You are very correct in observing that the conflict with Hezbollah changed the dynamics of the region. I think that conflict was a huge dissappointment for the neo-cons both here and in Israel. If it would have succeeded, we would already be at war in Iran. Now, they have renewed hope for expanding war. It is vital for the American Congress to stifle the president in his attempts to get the regional war he so wants...I do have more optimism than Jim, however-I think the situation can be dramatically improved in our lifetimes. That is, if we stop bush before he goes to far...
Excellent insight, in my opinion, to a situation that is grave and unlikely to improve in our lifetimes. There may come a point when Israel is placed in the position of acting against Iran or being destroyed by fanaticism and having its very existence challenged. If the Arab states and Iran make the mistake of pushing too far, Israel may feel itself forced to take action against Iran or Syria or anyone else. And if that happens, may the Lord or Allah save us all.