D-day is just over the horizon for Israel. Either it decides to attack the Iranian installations where uranium enrichment is proceeding apace or it lives with an Iran armed with nuclear weapons and the capacity to deliver them.
Timing is critical since the Iranians are about to install sophisticated Russian radars and missile ground to air defenses that will make penetration of Iranian airspace very problematic.
Those who argue that deterrence will work dismiss Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric as empty rants. They contend that the mullahs are basically sensible and realize that Armageddon is not in anyone’s interest. While nuclear weapons will give Iran hegemonic leadership in the Middle East, proponents of deterrence claim the “bomb” is a political instrument that offers cover for surrogate terrorists such as Hezbollah, but is not a weapon of preemption.
Those who argue for a military assault, on the other hand, contend that Ahmadinejad’s comments cannot be taken lightly. He has vowed to “wipe Israel off the map” and he indicated that a conflagration precedes the return of the twelfth Mahdi to Earth. While so-called moderates in Iran have tried to provide private assurance that these words aren’t representative of the government, Ahmadinejad has not been repudiated by the mullahs in the Leadership Council.
Moreover, very recently Iranian Vice President Esfandyar Rahim Mashai said, “The Islamic Republic of Iran did not, does not and will not recognize the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. No Iranian citizen or party will ever accept this.”
Is this incendiary comment to be taken at face value? Or, perhaps it would be more appropriate to say, can this comment be ignored when Iran possesses nuclear weapons?
Of course, the costs and benefits on both sides of this strategic ledger also have to be addressed. For “the deterrence only” crowd an Iran with nuclear weapons will be acknowledged as a regional leader. Even Sunni states such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt would attempt to cut a deal in order to avoid conflict. A nuclear weapon would also mean that Iranian surrogates, namely Hezbollah and even Sunni led Hamas, could expand their terroristic activity with the “bomb” looming as a brake on their adversaries.
While European leaders have offered many “carrots” for the cessation of the Iranian nuclear program, Iran does possess missiles with sufficient range to reach every European capital. Would extortion enter the political equation if Iran is in possession of nuclear weapons?
The “attack now” crowd maintains that Iran is a threat to regional stability and possibly a threat to Europe. As Senator McCain has noted “the only thing worse than bombing Iran is Iran with the bomb.” There is no doubt, however, that this stance has many risks.
Iran is capable of closing the Gulf of Hormuz which could increase oil prices to $300 a barrel and might create a worldwide depression. It is also likely that Iran would retaliate against American troops in Iraq and Israel with chemical and biological weapons unless its second strike capability is neutralized. There is also the issue of collateral damage and world opinion. Clearly Israel and American detractors will seize on any attack as yet another example of U.S. imperial ambitions, even if the attack is conducted unilaterally by Israel.
Since these are “life and death” questions for Israel, glib assertions won’t do. If the attack does occur, it would have to be a near perfect assault to thwart retaliation. If it doesn’t occur, Israel would be forced to enhance its nuclear delivery system and prepare for an attenuated war with Hezbollah and Hamas on two fronts with the distinct possibility Arab states would be emboldened to join Iran in attempting to wipe Israel off the map.
Difficult choices and ominous events await the future. For Israel, the inexorable movement of history goes on whether it acts or refuses to act.
Herbert London is president of Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New York University. He is the author of Decade of Denial (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001) and America's Secular Challenge (Encounter Books).
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 492
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entryComments (14)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Stuart W. Mirsky , August 15, 2008
The issues are well put in this article, i.e., both pros and cons have been effectively and succinctly laid out. Alas, it offers no guidance as to what should be done, nor could it in the end.
All the options appear to be poor ones, whether to live with the situation and see what develops, despite the bellicosity of Iran's leadership, or to act pre-emptively now and run the risk of things going wrong. (This would be a much larger, more complex and more telegraphed effort for Israel than any it has previously undertaken while Israel's recent track record in Lebanon is not cause for optimism.) Worse, even if things go "right" in such an operation and the Israelis (or Americans) pull it off near perfectly, the blowback is likely to be substantial including increased antagonism and conflict, both regionally and globally, plus the setting of a very bad precedent, i.e., if one acts pre-emptively, before the pre-empted party has had a chance to demonstrate its ill intentions, the pre-emptor gains the reputation of aggressor.
Had the West pre-emptively dealt with Hitler, thereby avoiding the horrors of World War II, Hitler would have gone down in history as the aggrieved party. Pre-emption, unfortuantely, looks a lot like aggression as we have discovered vis a vis Saddam's Iraq and the credibility of the pre-emptor is impugned accordingly. This has other adverse implications, such as allowing others to act aggressively while justifying their behavior as no different from the pre-emptive act of defense (see Putin's current invasion of the Republic of Georgia).
Israel, of course, as Herb London suggests, has its own existential fish to fry and cannot worry too much about all the possibilities if it is faced with a serious threat from a nuclear armed Iran (and it has plenty of reason to see such a threat as real, today). But Israel cannot act with tacit American backing and we have to look at the bigger picture. That may not please some Israelis or some Israel supporters but this is a global game and we are all intricately involved.
It's unlikely any kind of negotiation with Iran is going to solve this, as the recent history shows. And it's unlikely the Bush administration (or any incoming administration, even a McCain government) would want to run the kind of risks entailed by the envisioned pre-emption. The world economy could be massively damaged. More extensive war could break out all over. Our claim to the moral high ground may be too badly damaged by the appearance of collusion with what is certainly an act of war (even if justified as pre-emptive defense). The U.S. is unlikely to sanction an Israeli attack (despite an unwillingness to take this off the table) and it is certainly unlikely to do it itself.
What's left to do? We need to push full steam ahead for a massive and sophisticated missile defense system despite Democrats' opposition to this kind of expenditure. No missile defense system is going to be foolproof, of course, but a really good one could certainly act as a deterrent to other countries' foolishness and give us (and Israel) enough protection to promise a substantial and devastating response. No one wants such an exchange of nuclear armed weaponry, at least no one sane does here in the West (I make no claims about what some end-of-time religious fanatics may dream of). But if that kind of threat is what it takes to manage a world in which aggressive and fanatical regimes are armed to the teeth with nuclear weaponry, then we are stuck with it.
In a better world, the stronger nations would have banded together to enforce nuclear non-proliferation. Such a unified front would have enabled us to force the Iranians to bring their efforts to an end. But the European states have been negligent and we can't do it alone. It doesn't make sense to initiate a war to prevent one without the kind of massive clout needed to make it so one-sided as to be a fait accomplis. America alone can barely handle Iraq and Afghanistan (with a little help from a few European states in the latter). It certainly can't hope to manage a third front. That, after all, is part of why we must tread so carefully with the Russian bear again on the prowl.
It's back to MADD for us, I fear, only this time in a world of multiple competing hegemonies, the kind of world order that gave us World Wars I and II. Best get cracking on that missile defense system!
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , August 16, 2008
the complication of this topic is discussed further here...
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JH14Ak01.html
"Still, the historical bond between Iran and Israel's Jews, dating to Cyrus the Great's famous edict in 538 BC, liberating the Jews from their bondage and allowing them to return to their homeland and to build the Temple in Jerusalem, is so strong and, indeed, so fresh in the minds of Iranian people, that it has definite policy connotations. That is, it militates against any extremist, let alone exterminist, action against the Israeli people. Like Mashaie, most Iranians are proud of Iran's history and what is commonly referred to in Iran as the world's first human-rights declaration in Cyrus's edict."
"Iran cannot attack Israel because of the weight of history that puts Iran on the side of defenders of Jewish rights to a homeland and by the same token Israel cannot attack Iran because, first, it would be acting against its own conscience and, second, it would be making a strategic error by weakening the non-Arab bloc in the Middle East," said a prominent Tehran political scientist."
Talk of this nature makes me feel that the "war of words" between Iran and Israel could potentially be the creation of internal politics in both countries and, potentially, neither has much of an interest in overt military action at this time...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , August 16, 2008
I don't think Israel has any choice now. They must eradicate Iran's nuclear capabiliity or they will surely face a potential nuclear conflict in the not too distant future.
The US should be prepared to help them control the air and seas with our navy and airforce. This is in our strategic interest as well.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Stuart W. Mirsky , August 17, 2008
If it could be done with minimum harm to civilians, no blowback or loss of credibility for us on the world stage and be guaranteed to end the Iranian nuclear threat, I could agree. But none of these things are possible. Not only that, given the scope of the effort required, Israel's recent performance in Lebanon and the U.S.'s recent experience in Iraq and ongoing commitments in both Iraq and Iran, I don't think we can possibly sustain anything more if any of the things I've noted don't work in our favor.
Therefore I see little choice in the matter. As long as the world won't do this together (the bulk of the major nations), neither the U.S. nor Israel nor the U.S. and Israel can hope to pull this off. It's nice to dream that it can all be handled in one fell swoop but it's a darned big "swoop" needed in this case with little likelihood we can do it right.
The only alternative is to forge ahead building the best missile defense system possible and increasing our vigilance against terrorists who might be drafted by the Iranian leadership to deliver a nuclear weapon covertly into this country.
War is sometimes the best answer but it is generally hard to justify or sustain in a democracy and almost always very unpleasant and difficult to manage within the parameters originally envisioined.
Better to hang back on this one on balance than to try another pre-emptive action.
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , August 17, 2008
I disagree with the parameters you set here Stu. Why should there be a minimum loss of life required? Blowback? What blowback and from who?
Not to mention the comment about loss of credibility. How exactly do you measure that? We supposedly had great credibility in the 90's when nobody seemd afraid to attack us. Embassies, our Navy, and of course two times in lower Manhattan. Is that the kind of credibility we seek?
I prefer the kind we have now. Let them complain as long as they are too afraid to attack us.
Besides, we can let Israel do the heavy lifting on this one. All we should do is provide some cover and tactical assistance. They can then destroy the Iranians nuclear facilities and head home.
Or we can let Iran develop nukes and then sit back and just wait and mark the days on the calendar until they fire one off into Israel. Even the state of the art missile defense system that they currently have deployed is no guarantee that a nuclear missile or a Mig with a nuclear bomb won't get through.
I wouldn't even take that chance. Too many western lives are at risk here and the time to act is now.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , August 17, 2008
the problem for Israel is that the Leaders of the world will not end the threats against it's existence.
This, I assume, comes from a combination of anti-semitism and a general displeasure with how, where and/or why Israel was created in 1947.
Either way, Israel has both difficult diplomatic and military considerations and this one attack will certainly not get the Jewish state out of danger...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Stuart W. Mirsky , August 17, 2008
I wish I could agree with your assessment Robert but we are engaged in two wars now and have lost much credibility around the globe whether justifiably or not because of this. A third war, or even an act of war as you are proposing, just doesn't seem feasible. It's nice to imagine we could simply send in the planes and clean out the nuclear threat from Iran but there is absolutely no reason to think we can do that effectively enough to avoid adverse consequences, especially after Iraq. And there's no question that such an act as you propose would 1) enrage even more overseas populations against us while 2) further blurring the distinctions between good states which act pre-emptively for just reasons (as we like to think of ourselves) and bad states which act pre-emptively for suspect reasons (Russia in Georgia). In the end, we could bring on a third world war, with devastating consequences, just by acting pre-emptively to prevent one.
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Jay Golub , August 17, 2008
this is why the recent actions of the state of Russia will actually help improve our standing in the world at a time when many nations have started to doubt both our intentions and our principles.
America is NOT the bad guy of the planet. We have been in the unfortunate position of being the only superpower out there for a few years, so countries tend to put blame for the ills of the world on a country like ours.
as Russian imperialism starts to set into the mindset of the nations of the globe, America's "standing" will improve daily - creating the opportunity to deal with the world in "good faith" enough to control true imperial aggression like that seen from Moscow.
Eventhough action may be necessary, patience should be the central virtue of our next group of leaders...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Stuart W. Mirsky , August 18, 2008
It's not just a resurgent Russia, Jay. What we're witnessing is a change in the distribution of geopolitical power across the globe. The failure of Europe to come together behind us vis a vis Saddam Hussein exposed us to the ire of other states and populations, and left us to resolve a sticky conflict we stepped into ourselves. It looks like we can resolve it but we have been somewhat weakened and undermined in terms of our credibility (thus losing the incentive to continue to act proactively as planetary policeman). The result is a devolution of influence and power to many states around the world.
This probably was inevitable anyway because we were never strong enough to impose any sort of long term peace on the other nations of the world. But it has been accelerated. We are now in a situation where regional powers will grow in strength and influence and compete to dominate their own backyards, gradually establishing a newer world order (reminiscent of the pre-World War I order!) in which more international friction will arise in terms of regional struggles for dominance and, ultimately, conflicts between the regional hegemonists that arise. This is inherently unstable, at least during its formative phase, and so increased risk to world peace, stability and prosperity is in the offing.
A unified West behind America might have avoided this condition but George W. Bush wasn't able to win enough support for Saddam's forced removal and the outcome in Iraq has been too messy to allow us to have called it a real victory or to have enhanced our credibility and strategic position from it. Now we have a world where Russia is resurgent, China is on the move militarily (see Tibet and, at some point, Taiwan), and Iran looks poised to dominate its part of the world. I see many more conflicts and instability ahead.
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , August 18, 2008
Stu, you repeat your assertion that we've "lost credibility" w/o explaining any further or addressing my comparision the 90's when we supposedly had credibility. As I said, I prefer the kind of credibility we have now, the kind where terroristists are too afraid of us to attack us.
As for how effective the Israeli's might be in destroying Iran's nuclear capability, that is a chance I'd be willing to support. Even a severe setback would be a step in the right direction.
As for the populations of people you seem worried will think less of us, they are already predisposed to think the worst of us so I'd rather put our security first instead of trying to please the impossible to please.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +1
written by Jay Golub , August 19, 2008
I think both of you are mixing "situations" as if they are all one in the same.
The War in Iraq, as justified originally by Bush, had nothing directly to do with the War on Terror. Therefore, one can't say that action was a part of keeping "terrorists too afraid to attack us." That happended, it's true, only because Al Queda decided to go that and try to undermine our Iraqi effort.
As well, the War in Iraq, and the international relation problems caused by it, wasn't the reason why Russia and China have become resurgent. They were on their way there anyway.
I'd particularly like to say that Energy prices are the main reason why Russia has decided to move forward in Georgia now the way it has. remember, as cross-posted on another thread, Europe gets 40% of it's natural gas and 25% of it's oil from Russia. Therefore, their hands are tied diplomaticly.
Russia will try to do what all powerful countries do - take control of territory on thier borders when possible.
I agree that the international environment has taken a turn for the worse, but i think these things have less to do with Bush - as foolish as he has been - than the natural turn of world events...
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Stuart W. Mirsky , August 19, 2008
Robert, I agree we are not going to be able to please the world. But we also cannot afford to alienate vast swaths of the world. No man is an island and neither is any country (except in the strictly geographical sense, of course). Had Iraq gone better, had we found the wmd we claimed was there, this would look different. But Iraq hasn't turned out well for us, even if we can still succeed thanks to the surge.
As to Israel, well I am not willing to take the chance you are. The situation is too risky and we have already lost too much credibility. A nation like ours, to have influence, must also have the respect of other lands. They will, of course, envy us and there will be bitterness and backbiting. But we must be seen as successful, honorable and competent. If we continuously involve ourselves in conflicts we become the problem, not the solution.
However i don't agree with Jay that Bush has been foolish (I think he has gotten a lousy deal from the media and the party out of power who implicitly worked together to undermine him). Nor do I agree that we can simply allow Russia to "rule" its sphere of influence. Russia at the end of the day is an imperial power (see a very good piece in today's Wall Street Journal) and will not stop, under Putin, until it has reasserted its status in that regard. While we in America can live with that, shall we just leave the peoples of that area to the reborn Russian bear?
I don't think we can or should go to war over Georgia but it can no longer be business as usual with Putin's Russia. A line needs to be drawn, if only diplomatically and economically. If Russia wants to roll over its neighbors once more, then we cannot condone it, even if we cannot go to war to stop it.
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Robert Hornak , August 19, 2008
Stu, exactly how does helping Israel put Iran's nuclear ambitions in check "alienate vast swaths" of the world? I disagree with your oft repeated but unquantified assertion that we have lost credibility.
As I said earlier, I believe that those who try to discredit the US over Iraq are predisposed to opposing us. Remember the world's response over Clinton bombing an aspirin factory during the oval office BJ scandal? However, we didn't seem to strike fear in the hearts of terrorists then as we seem to do now. I'd rather us been seen as anything other than wimpy. That is when we seem to receive the least amount of respect.
Meanwhile, it is our own mainstream media that is driving the attacks on US credibility in the war on terror. They and the rest of the far left's echo chamber have just jumped on the bandwagon in a cynical and highly partisan attempt to bring Bush down.
Jay, your assertion that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror is wholely inaccurate. Bush started by declaring Iraq part of the axis of evil for being a terror supporting nation. He then outlined what was basically a chinese manu of reasons that saddam needed to be ousted. Iraq may not have been involved directly in the 9/11 attack, but they were integral in promoting world terrorism and were about to become the new home for al queda.
That there were other reasons as well, such as keeping world oil supplies flowing and taking retribution for the attempted assasination of a former US president, don't take away from the terror preventing aspects of this war.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Stuart W. Mirsky , August 22, 2008
Robert, it alienates us from vast swaths of the world's population the same way removing Saddam did. The world resents the big guy on the block (us, right now) anyway and it certainly feels sympathy anytime a weaker player (Saddam's Iraq) appears to have been harmed (because the rest of the world thinks, wow, that could have been us.
As a result, we can't afford to continue acting as we did in Iraq unless we are either so much stronger than everyone else so that their fear and envy won't matter or we can be sure that we can pull it off speedily and effectively. In the case of Iran's nuclear programs, we can't.
I grant that Israel is facing a grave crisis if the Iranians succeed and that it is looking more and more likely that they will succeed. I also grant that this is also a problem for us because a nuclear armed increasingly bellicose Iran poses a threat to our allies and "friends" in the Middle East (which is to say our interests), increases the risk of terrorists using nuclear capability and would probably prompt even more destabilization (wich possibly more grave consequences) in the form of a nuclear arms race in that volatile region.
But none of these adverse consequences are assured while it is highly likely that an attack by us or Israel on Iran's nuclear development infrastructure would not be sufficiently successful, would be very messy, would enrage the local population driving them further into the mullahs' arms for nationalist reasons, and would inflame the rest of the world since they would again see America as a bully, acting to deny a regional power its own rightful place in the geopolitical sun. Worse, still, acting pre-emptively again would further tarnish our image and muddy the waters as to who is the good guy and who isn't. If one guy keeps attacking to get his way, after a while doesn't he start to look like the cause of all the troubles?
I agree that the mainstream media has clearly worked against the current administration and severely weakened it and its options to act in this case and in many others (the Russian invasion of Georgia comes to mind). But we can't turn the mainstream media off and shouting back at them is unlikely to do any good. They have more access and louder voices than we do and events are serious and Bush hasn't been as effective as one would hope. (I understand that he has had an historically high level of domestic hostility directed against him by the media and his political enemies but he also hasn't been a very effective speaker in his own right or manager of his own administration, unfortunately.)
Anyway, the point is we can't do what you want without taking inordinate risks so the risk-reward ration is way too unevenly balanced against us. Both options, acting or not acting, look problematic, but when there's not a clear and compelling case to act in a bad situation, the best rule, in my book, is to not act, i.e., do no harm. You never know what the consequences of your actions will be in the best of cases, so why take on the added risk when you can foresee so many really bad consequences?
Perhaps things may work themselves out if we sit tight. Or maybe some new options will present themselves (revolution in Iran, the rise of great power rivalry to take Iran's mind off expanding their global reach at our expense, etc.). In the meantime, the smartest thing we can do is press ahead with a comprehensive missile defense system. The big problem here, though, is that an Obama presidency would likely look to shut this kind of system down and Democratic control of Congress may be enough to let him do it. Even a McCain presidency is going to have its hands full with Democrats riding roughshod over the legislative process (see a very interesting piece by Kim Strassel, I believe, in today's Wall Street Journal).
SWM
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
