If it happens, here's how it would go down.
If you were asked to summarize the feelings within the White House and the U.S. State Department this week, they lie somewhere between ecstatic and relieved. Ecstatic, because President Barack Obama has succeeded for the time being (assuming that Congress doesn’t override a presidential veto) in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear-weapons capability over the next ten to fifteen years. The administration is relieved because, despite all of the saber rattling over a U.S. military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Washington was able to remove the nuclear file from the table through diplomacy. “This deal demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change,” President Obama remarked in the East Room of the White House, “change that makes our country, and the world, safer and more secure.”
There is one person, however, that firmly and sincerely believes that the agreement that was signed by all of the parties is a bad one. And he represents the state of Israel, America’s closest ally in the Middle East: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
WNU Editor: I just do not see such an Israeli strike happening at anytime in the future. The Israeli political/intelligence/military community are divided on the threat that Iran presents, there is no support from Washington for such an attack, and the neighboring states will not be supportive of a prolonged campaign. There is also the question of logistics, having the proper intelligence, and whether or not the Israeli air force has the means to launch and sustain such a campaign. Again .... I do not see these issues being resolved or in place in the foreseeable future. This "Master Plan" is primarily based on hope and luck .... and there is not much of that either.
2 comments:
Perhaps we are looking at this problem with the wrong set of eyes. Governments and their military planners look at correlation of forces. When the correlation of forces are not in their favor, aggressors typically hold their forces back waiting for the right time and set of circumstances.
However, when major disruptions in force structure, technology, or other actions destabilize military calculations a new calculus takes over. How long until my country becomes so weak in relation to our enemy that it can no longer attack with some certainty of winning or how long until deterrence is lost. At that point countries are willing to take chances that would normally seem counterproductive or illogical.
It is likely that Israel is now in this position. Over the next year or so Israel will start to lose their edge over Iran (e.g. reported 100 refueling aircraft Iran will reportedly receive from Russia in the next 5 years). This makes the destabilized situation very dangerous for the region. Add to this the current U.S. and European posture towards Israel and you can see how it might create a situation where Israel will roll the dice rather than watch the danger level rise to one it can no longer significantly control or influence.
Israel often uses conventional weapons in unconventional ways. It could do so again with Iran.
For example, rather than attack hardened targets, Israel could destroy Iran's power grid, rendering its nuclear capabilities inert. Such an action would also lead to the collapse of modern infrastructure and activities. Once the grid is down, Israel could then take the grand tour and take out the infrastructure they consider most dangerous or strategically important.
Planning for the last war or using outdated attack and defense scenarios is what loses wars. Israel cannot afford to do retro think again (e.g. 1973 war and subsequent effects).
Israel, throughout its history, has shifted alliances to survive. Once the Israeli's find themselves feeling trapped or against the wall, the U.S. relationship might not seem as necessary as their national survival. While those on the outside might see this as counterproductive to their long term survival, a nation feeling cornered and abandoned might not agree. That is how wars start.
Nations often look at their interests through their own eyes. That is not how historians teach students to look at international relations and the prevention of war. At this point in time, Europe and the U.S. are treating Israel as through it was their bad younger sibling needing punishment and education to see the light. In reality, Israel is a nuclear power with a strong military and a memory of being abandoned and abused by the world. If you were an Israeli watching BDS from Europe, rising antisemitism, and treaties that are contrary to your national interests, how would you feel right now? My guess is that you would be quite nervous and looking at how to reach out and touch Iran, a country still dedicated to your destruction.
Anon,
This is a very insightful analysis. I have had much the same thoughts but have been unable to express this as well as you have been able to!!
"How long until my country becomes so weak..." this sentence along with the rest of your second paragraph pretty much describes Israel's position. It also pretty much described America's position relative to Saddam Hussein's Iraq prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. America and its allies launched this attack with huge opposition and the prospects of success were remote. Iraq posed and existential threat to America that was getting stronger while the American position was weakening. As such, had America waited just six more months any chance of a successful military action would have likely been completely lost. The fact that the initial phase of the operation went far better than could have reasonably been expected served to give some a false sense of security but that's getting off topic.
As for these 100 refueling aircraft from Russia, what can be done to get Russia to change its mind? Russia is the world's most powerful country in the world militarily and is on the cusp of becoming the greatest power in world history in both relative and absolute terms. As such, they are going to do pretty much anything they want and there is little anyone can do or say that is going to stop them. With that said, there could be avenues of negotiation that could be pursued. Perhaps the US could agree to alter its positions on Ukraine and Eastern Europe. In exchange, Russia could agree not to sell these refueling planes to Iran and would agree to assist us ensuring Iranian compliance with nuclear agreement. Such actions would have the benefits of improving American national security and make it less necessary for Israel to attack Iran and would go very far towards promoting "regional stability" that POTUS has talked about.
Post a Comment