Israel and Hizbollah have exchanged threats in recent weeks, warning of the dire consequences of a new war between Lebanon and Israel. This has detracted somewhat from the possibility of an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, amid growing signs that the international community, and the US in particular, has no decisive leverage to discourage Tehran from building a nuclear device.
No one doubts that Israel has a contingency plan, and the will, to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. However, the political costs of such action may be so prohibitive, and the chances of military success so uncertain, that the probability of Israel going through with it may be far lower than Israeli officials, keen to display their brinkmanship, let on.The motive for an attack is rising by the day. Iran has not altered course, and evidently sees no reason to. The five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany met recently to discuss imposing new sanctions, but China, with its expanding economic ties with Tehran, remained unresponsive. Even there the nature of the sanctions is instructive: they are designed to target regime power centres, such as the Revolutionary Guards – hardly enough to halt the nuclear programme.
Gone from the mix is the use of armed force against Iran. The international community's sole weapon is diplomacy, and if that fails, sanctions. Complicating matters is the domestic turmoil in Iran, which has obstructed progress in two ways: it has validated a view among Iran's interlocutors that internal Iranian divisions make conclusive talks with the regime difficult, which Tehran has exploited to buy time; and it has discouraged the US in particular from resorting to war, since this might unite Iranians and strengthen the regime, undermining prospects that its legitimacy crisis will erode its authority.
document.write('');
All this is alarming enough for Israel that it is surely accelerating its preparations for war. Yet playing against this outcome are several factors, most of them touching on vital US interests. For the Israelis, the optimal situation would be one where Washington undertakes a military operation itself. Given the Americans' deployment near Iran, their naval and guided missile capability, and that their contingency plans include a much wider target list than just nuclear facilities, the Israelis have, sensibly, sought to persuade the US of the necessity of an attack, even as they have asked for Washington's green light to do so themselves.
It is almost impossible to imagine that the Israelis would take action without prior American approval. To grant that approval, however, the Obama administration and US commanders would have to be prepared to absorb the consequences for their own regional priorities. Iran could not only be expected to retaliate against Israel directly, using its long-range missiles, but also indirectly through Hizbollah, firing from Lebanon. That, in turn, could provoke a regional conflagration that draws in Syria, possibly also Hamas, with a very good chance that it would all leave the administration's Middle Eastern peace strategy in tatters.
More significantly, Iran would unquestio
Comment
Israel's war against Goldstone
Read the newspaper as it was printed
Send us your stories and pictures
document.write(''); An Israeli attack on Iran? Don’t hold your breath
Michael Young
Last Updated: January 28. 2010 2:21AM UAE / January 27. 2010 10:21PM GMT
Israel and Hizbollah have exchanged threats in recent weeks, warning of the dire consequences of a new war between Lebanon and Israel. This has detracted somewhat from the possibility of an Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, amid growing signs that the international community, and the US in particular, has no decisive leverage to discourage Tehran from building a nuclear device.
No one doubts that Israel has a contingency plan, and the will, to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. However, the political costs of such action may be so prohibitive, and the chances of military success so uncertain, that the probability of Israel going through with it may be far lower than Israeli officials, keen to display their brinkmanship, let on.The motive for an attack is rising by the day. Iran has not altered course, and evidently sees no reason to. The five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany met recently to discuss imposing new sanctions, but China, with its expanding economic ties with Tehran, remained unresponsive. Even there the nature of the sanctions is instructive: they are designed to target regime power centres, such as the Revolutionary Guards – hardly enough to halt the nuclear programme.
Gone from the mix is the use of armed force against Iran. The international community's sole weapon is diplomacy, and if that fails, sanctions. Complicating matters is the domestic turmoil in Iran, which has obstructed progress in two ways: it has validated a view among Iran's interlocutors that internal Iranian divisions make conclusive talks with the regime difficult, which Tehran has exploited to buy time; and it has discouraged the US in particular from resorting to war, since this might unite Iranians and strengthen the regime, undermining prospects that its legitimacy crisis will erode its authority.
document.write('');
All this is alarming enough for Israel that it is surely accelerating its preparations for war. Yet playing against this outcome are several factors, most of them touching on vital US interests. For the Israelis, the optimal situation would be one where Washington undertakes a military operation itself. Given the Americans' deployment near Iran, their naval and guided missile capability, and that their contingency plans include a much wider target list than just nuclear facilities, the Israelis have, sensibly, sought to persuade the US of the necessity of an attack, even as they have asked for Washington's green light to do so themselves.
It is almost impossible to imagine that the Israelis would take action without prior American approval. To grant that approval, however, the Obama administration and US commanders would have to be prepared to absorb the consequences for their own regional priorities. Iran could not only be expected to retaliate against Israel directly, using its long-range missiles, but also indirectly through Hizbollah, firing from Lebanon. That, in turn, could provoke a regional conflagration that draws in Syria, possibly also Hamas, with a very good chance that it would all leave the administration's Middle Eastern peace strategy in tatters.
More significantly, Iran would unquestionably retaliate against the US and maybe its friends in the Gulf. We should not over-estimate Tehran's capacity to spawn an uprising in Iraq, particularly since the Americans are withdrawing. However, other American allies, such as Saudi Arabia, but also Bahrain, and even the UAE and Qatar, could find themselves in the line of fire. The Iranian rejoinder need not be subtle, or even entirely successful, to create a major headache for the Obama administration, since controlling the consequences would be tricky. Chaos benefits the regime in Tehran more than it does the US, the defender of the region's status quo and pillar of its security order.
Then there is Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iran has plenty of latitude to make life difficult for Nato in Afghanistan, and it doesn't take much imagination to foresee how an American-authorised Israeli attack against Iran would play out in Pakistan, given the mood there. The combination of both factors could cripple Mr Obama's Afghan strategy, which is already hampered by delays in troop deployments and the reticence of American allies.
Iran has the scope to respond in a multifaceted way to any American or Israeli military operation – from Lebanon, possibly from Gaza as well, in the Gulf and in Afghanistan – all areas away from Iranian territory. Neither the US nor Israel can do the same, which will, in turn, make them both more reliant on a rapid escalation of force. In other words, Iran can play on the multiple political contradictions in the region, while the US and Israel, by responding through the only means readily at their disposal, military power, would only heighten these contradictions.
All this still does not mean that Israel will refrain from attacking Iran. But with the potential repercussions so risky and the international community cold towards any sort of military operation, we may steadily be moving closer to an American, and international, Plan B: the acceptance of Iranian nuclear weapons, then containment through nuclear deterrence and other multilateral means. That said, so clear a statement of purpose has yet to be publicly expressed in Washington, and the bureaucracy has not reached a consensus.
Despite Israel's conviction that an Iranian nuclear weapon represents a mortal threat, this view may have to be mitigated. Those entitled to fear Iran most are the Gulf states, who have no nuclear deterrent. Under present circumstances, an Israeli assault would open a Pandora's box with aftershocks that the Obama administration is deeply reluctant to face. And when Washington is helpless, Israel has little room to dissent.
Michael Young is opinion editor of the Daily Star in Lebanon
Send to friend Print var addthis_pub="noahkhan"; var addthis_brand = "The National"; var addthis_logo = "http://www.thenational.ae/images/the_national_logo.gif"; var addthis_logo_color = "3261A5"; Bookmark & Share function storeCaret(textEl) { if (textEl.createTextRange) textEl.caretPos = document.selection.createRange().duplicate(); } if ((document.all) && (navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Opera')== -1)) { IE = true; } else { IE = false; } function doSubmitMessage(aFormId,aUrl){ aForumForm = aFormId; aCreateUrl = aUrl+"&omniture=0"; aForumMessageUrl = ''; aAjaxDiv = document.getElementById("cpost"); processForum(aAjaxDiv); }
Have your say
Please log in to post a comment try { if (document.getElementById("_userEmail").innerHTML = '') { document.newmessageform.Body.disabled=true; document.newmessageform.post.disabled = true; } } catch(e) { document.newmessageform.Body.disabled = true; document.newmessageform.post.disabled = true; } Other Opinion stories Conflicting views on perceived hotel slump Local market needs local measurement Contending theories abound for plane crash Afghanistan must no longer be the world's chessboard An Israeli attack on Iran? Don't hold your breath Failing the promise of Sri Lanka's peace document.write(''); Top stories Mosque child killer is sentenced to death by firing squad Couple to sue Tamweel over 'unfair' loan UAE dealer examines Toyota recall Fujairah unveils tribute to RAF man Apple unveils $499 iPad tablet Onslaught from the octagon Your View Customer service is improving in Abu Dhabi – but very slowly. What are your views on customer service in the capital?Have you had an experience with a tailgating driver?Why do you think the UAE is a good place to start a business?What can be done to make homes safer for children?What can be done to make better use of the world's energy supplies? Most popular stories Most read Most e-mailed Couple to sue Tamweel over 'unfair' loan Mosque child killer is sentenced to death by firing squad Apple unveils $499 iPad tablet Fujairah unveils tribute to RAF man 'Pleasure squad' defector sheds light on life of Kim Jong Il Onslaught from the octagon Anti- tailgating drive sees 750 fined in two days UAE dealer examines Toyota recall Meydan racecourse under starter's orders 'Lavender' taxi service for women to start in Abu Dhabi New Dubai Land law promises property refunds Beyond boundaries Rethink of Emirati workforce quotas Mashreq customers challenge rate change Goodbye to oil that: the excesses of today's quest for crude Allergy sufferers hit by mystery fungus British servicemen's graves in Sharjah cemetery restored to honour US academics not eager for Gulf life Bijou hotel forced to close by municipality Venture capitalists eye start-ups var countries=new ddtabcontent("countrytabs") countries.setpersist(true) countries.setselectedClassTarget("link") //"link" or "linkparent" countries.init() Products & Services Your View e-polls e-Paper RSS Feeds Home UAE World Business Sport About us Contact us Terms & Conditions var countries=new ddtabcontent("countrytabs") countries.setpersist(true) countries.setselectedClassTarget("link") //"link" or "linkparent" countries.init() Products & Services Your View e-polls e-Paper RSS Feeds Home UAE World Business Sport About us Contact us Terms & Conditions FAQ Site map
© Copyright of Abu Dhabi Media Company PJSC.
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-4452332-2"); pageTracker._initData(); pageTracker._trackPageview(); //-1?'https:':'http:') +unescape('//me.effectivemeasure.net/em.js%22%3E%3C/script%3E')); //]]> var pvar = { cid: "mena-admedia", content: "0", sample_size: 10, server: "secure-uk" }; var feat = { surveys_enabled: 1 }; var trac = nol_t(pvar, feat); var _rsND = trac.getSchemeHost(); var _rsCI = "mena-admedia"; trac.record().post().do_sample(); var doLoad = true; if (doLoad) { updatePollMini(); } s.Account="saxotechthenational" s.cookieDomainPeriods="2" s.pageName="Opinion,An Israeli attack on Iran? Dont hold your breath:20100128:701279938" s.server="S260608AT1VW925" s.channel="Opinion" /* Traffic Variables */ s.prop1="Story" /* E-commerce Variables */ s.events="event3" s.products="Poll;Will you make an extra effort to use a lavender cab?/Will you make an extra effort to use a lavender cab?" /* Hierarchy Variables */ s.hier1="Opinion,An Israeli attack on Iran? Dont hold your breath:20100128:701279938" /************* DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! **************/ var s_code=s.t(); if(s_code)document.write(s_code)
Read Full Article »