If you've watched the news lately or listened to the increasingly bombastic rhetoric of world leaders, you would be lead to believe that Israel is gearing up for a preemptive military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. The Israelis, fearing that the Iranians are attempting to build a nuclear bomb that would be used on their country, believe that the time for a diplomatic resolution to this crisis has almost expired.Their Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has asserted Israel's right to defend itself with or without American and international approval. Iran’s leadership has stated that any attack on their country will be answered with a counterattack. And American politicians, particularly the GOP Presidential candidates, have openly advocated an American preemptive strike on Iran. Rick Santorum said that “if (the Israelis) do not tear down those facilities, we will tear down them.” and frontrunner Mitt Romney accused President Obama of being “feckless” in dealing with Iran. Obama has been much more guarded in his language, but even he has stated that a preemptive U.S. military option is not off the table.
By now we’ve all heard about what will happen if Iran’s nuclear program isn’t crushed. We’ve been told that America and Israel will be in constant danger, a nuclear arms race will begin in the Middle East, and geopolitics will take a breathtaking turn for the worst. But what will happen if Iran is attacked? Will Iran simply surrender if their nuclear facilities are destroyed? Could an Iranian counterattack be staved off just as easily as attacks by Saddam Hussein’s army on American forces in 2003 and 1991? And will pro-Iranian nations and organizations simply stay silent as their ally’s infrastructure is assaulted? The answer to those questions is no. An attack on Iran wouldn’t simply be another 30-90 day Middle Eastern war. There are many variables at play that could potentially turn an Israeli-Iranian war into a massive global conflict with devastating economic and humanitarian casualties. This isn’t a war that any nation should be brazenly rushing into, and the general population needs to be made aware of the potential consequences that such a conflict could produce. Here are the five biggest reasons why we shouldn’t blindly rally behind the drumbeating for war.
5. A Preemptive Strike Will Strengthen, Not Weaken, Iran and Radical Islam
The biggest assumption being made about Iran’s nuclear program is that it will simply vanish after a few rounds of strategic bombardments. Not true. According to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities won’t definitively stifle the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions. He estimates that a military strike may delay the program’s progress by three years, at most. So military action cannot be used like a magic wand. It can delay, but not eliminate, the Iranian nuclear program. Panetta also warned that attacking Iran could have “unintended consequences” that would adversely affect the region and American interests.
Those “unintended consequences” could be the acceleration and elaboration of the Iranian nuclear program. Many experts believe that the program is purely energy-centric and that no nuclear weapon is being produced (a point I will discuss shortly). However, they say that if the facilities are bombed, that would potentially motivate Iran to expand the nuclear program into the military sector. A preemptive attack would also undoubtedly be a PR victory for the Ayatollah Khamenei and terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. These entities thrive off of anti-Semitic and anti-American ranting, so they would portray a preemptive strike as an act of persecution by the “Zionists and evil Westerners”. The people of the Middle East tend to gobble up these types of narrow-minded diatribes, so Iran could successfully get the whole region to rally behind their Stone Age regime.
Deterrence and diplomacy are much more reasonable tactics than the military option. Even if Iran does get “The Bomb”, they won’t be the first ideological regime to acquire it. Pakistan and North Korea, two nations that are lead by rouge cabals, have multiple nuclear weapons. And yet they have never used them against their bitter rivals, India and South Korea. That’s because they know that if they use them, they will suffer quick and cataclysmic destruction. The same can be said of Iran.
If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, they should be reminded of what will happen if they choose to use them. Until then, aggressive diplomatic negotiations should be the only direct action taken to combat worries about their nuclear program.
4. War Could Be Instigated On False Pretenses
This scenario applies strongly to American citizens. We have a right to be very cynical about what our government tells us in terms of the need for military intervention in other countries. Over the years, we have been fed fabricated facts and hyperbolized propaganda in order to win over our support for wars that ended up being fought for unnecessary and duplicitous reasons. Take, for example, the Iraq War. The Bush administration told us that an invasion of Iraq was necessary because Saddam Hussein’s government was stockpiling “weapons of mass destructions”, or WMDs for short. They also said that there was a direct link between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 hijackers, a claim that later turned out to be completely bogus. However, most Americans believed these claims to be true, even though prominent individuals such as UN weapons inspector Hans Blix said that more evidence was needed to substantiate these claims. The invasion was carried with initially large support from the public.
But WMDs were never found in Iraq, leading many people to believe that their governments had lied to them. Then, detailed reports published by former U.S. diplomat Joseph Wilson and BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan confirmed that much of the pre-war evidence supporting an invasion was inaccurate or just plain false. The war, in essence, was instigated on faulty terms.
The same can be said of the Vietnam War, which was intensified by the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. It should really be called the Gulf of Tonkin Non-Incident. On the evening of August 4th, 1964, The USS Maddox, an American naval destroyer radioed that it was being attacked by North Vietnamese forces. Only it wasn’t. Its radar and sonar equipment had become jumbled thanks to inclement weather over the waters it was stationed in. Nevertheless, President Johnson gave a national radio address informing the country of the “attack” just a couple of hours after the incident occurred. Soon thereafter, the media engaged in an anti-North Vietnam blitz, and the nation was ready for war. All thanks to a glitch in a ship’s detection equipment.
As Winston Churchill once said, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”
Now, the same thing may be happening with Iran. According to a February 24th report in the New York Times, all sixteen American intelligence agencies have stated that there is no concrete evidence that suggests that Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons.
That’s right. Every American intelligence agency is saying this. They also believe that Iran abandoned any attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon way back in 2007. And yet our political leaders insist that Iran is only months away from getting a nuke. Something isn’t adding up.
Perhaps the real reason behind the desire to attack Iran is because they are the 4th biggest producer of oil in the world. Or maybe it’s because there is a fear that the Iranians may gain too much influence over the flimsy, American-supported government in neighboring Iraq. Either way, a healthy dose of cynicism and skepticism is needed here in order to prevent us from getting involved in a new Iraq or Vietnam.
3. Vladimir Putin & The Russians
Iran doesn’t have many allies that have significant political clout on the global stage. However, they do have a stable, albeit ambivalent, relationship with Russia. The Russians don’t want Iran to acquire nuclear weaponry, but they don’t favor military action against Iran either. They’ve also spoken out aggressively against some of the sanctions imposed upon Iran by America and other European nations. At first, it may seem odd that Russia is willing to stick its neck out so far for an isolated regime such as Iran. However, a close look at the two countries’ economic ties reveals that both sides are rewarded nicely from their relationship.
Iran’s isolation from most of the Western world has given Russia an excellent business opportunity. They invest and trade almost exclusively with the Iranians, giving them a steady source of national income that is uncontested due to a lack of competition. Russia has even forayed into Iran’s nuclear program. They were heavily involved in the construction of Iran’s Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant, which went operational last September. The Iranians benefit from all of this because the Russians are now so deeply invested in their country, that an attack on Iran would viewed as an attack on Russian interests by the Kremlin. This means that the Russians would in all likelihood retaliate, at least passively, against American and Israeli interests around the world.
It’s not a far-fetched claim. Vladimir Putin, who was just once again elected to the Russian Presidency after a brief stint as Prime Minister, isn’t known for tolerating threats to his nation’s interests. When Georgia attempted to invade the Russian-influenced territory of South Ossetia back in 2008, then-President Dmitry Medvedev (who was really just Putin’ puppet) responded by forcefully beating back the Georgian invasion. Acts of provocation by Chechnya (a federal subject of Russia) also prompted Putin to go to war with the Islamic militants there in 1999. Russia has repeatedly warned Israel not to bomb Iran in recent months, saying that such action would be “catastrophic for the region and for the whole system of international relations." This doesn’t mean that Russia would take direct military action against Israel or the U.S. However, it does mean that Russia would strengthen their ties with Iran, especially in terms of military investment and added support for their nuclear program. Putin could also use an Israeli-Iranian crisis as a distraction from the growing opposition protests against his power.
If the Cold War (and Hollywood B movies) has taught us anything, it’s not to mess around with the Russians unless it is absolutely necessary. And right now, the situation in Iran is not dire enough to unnecessarily irk Putin and company.
2. High Gas Prices & A New Global Recession
The skyrocketing cost of gas hasn’t gone unnoticed by the majority of people in recent weeks. Currently, the national average for a gallon of gas in the U.S. is $3.76. That is $0.25 more expensive than this time last year. This sizeable spike in prices has even shocked many economic analysts, who weren’t expecting prices to be this high until around May. Now, adjusted predictions are indicating that gas will hit $5.00 a gallon by midsummer. There are numerous factors that are playing into these soaring costs, such as an increasing demand around the world for oil. But most of the blame can be pinned on the unethical business practices of Wall Street speculators. These speculators essentially drive the price of goods and other commodities up based on how they feel future events will play out.
And they don’t like what they’re seeing in terms of a potential war with Iran.
So, we now know that even the threat of war can jack the price of gas up. But what will happen if a war actually occurs? Well, the Iranians may respond to an attack to their nuclear facilities by closing the Strait of Hormuz. The Strait of Hormuz is the narrow waterway passage between Iran and Saudi Arabia that connects the oil producing nations of the Persian Gulf to the open sea. The Iranians could shut the Strait down by places mines and warships in it, meaning that 20% of the world’s oil supply would be temporarily eliminated from the market. Most experts believe that they only have the ability to shut the Strait down for about a month, but that would still have dire consequences for the global economy. Gas prices could exceed $7.00 dollars a gallon, making travel by car next to impossible for a large part of the population. The price of shipping food and other items would also jump, meaning inflated prices would become the norm at grocery and retail stores for a period of time. These increased prices will lead to a sharp decline in spending. Then, companies will start laying workers off.
Basically, we are talking about a new global recession. Any progress the economy has made in terms of recovering will be wiped out almost overnight.
If Iran is bombed, they will certainly be tempted to do this. They could potentially do a lot more damage to Israel and the U.S. if they wage economic warfare against them, rather than the conventional methods of missile strikes and state-sponsored terrorism. Some experts doubt that Iranian’s have the capacity to actually mine the entire Strait of Hormuz, but the mere threat of this happening should make everybody think twice about preemptive action. By bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, we may end up setting our own economy back for many years too.
1. “The Samson Option”
I just read about “The Samson Option” for the first time a couple of weeks ago. And let me tell you, after reading up on it, I became very frightened. The Samson Option is a term that was first coined by Israeli leaders in the 1960’s, and brought into the mainstream by Pulitzer Prize- winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in his 1991 book by that very title. It refers to a supposedly secret military strategy that Israel would enact in the face of a massive attack that threatened their existence.
This strategy calls for massive nuclear retaliation against the attacking nations.
Upon first glance, it may seem radical to claim that an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities could evolve into a full-blown thermonuclear conflict. After all, the Israeli army is better trained and better equipped than the Iranian army. But a deeper inspection of both nations’ arsenals reveals that Israel could, in fact, face great danger in an Iranian counterattack. Not from a ground invasion, but from missile bombardment. Iran has a medium range ballistic missile model, called the Shahab-3, that can easily hit targets across Israel. U.S. estimates state the Iranians have about 300-400 of these missiles. That’s more than enough to wreak havoc on Israeli infrastructure. Israel says that they have the ability to defend themselves from the Shahab-3, but that is a questionable assessment. Their Arrow-3 missile shield, which is meant to shoot down Shahab-3’s, is virtually untested and still in the development stage. Without the U.S.’s assistance, Israel would be susceptible to missile attacks.
Then, when you realize that Iran may not be the only country to attack Israel after a strike on their nuclear sites, the situation becomes more worrisome. Hezbollah, the strongly pro-Iranian militant organization based in Lebanon, has about 30,000 short range missiles that can hit targets in northern Israel. Syria, one of Iran’s closest allies, is currently ravaged by a civil conflict. However, a perceived act of aggression against a fellow Islamic nation could temporarily cease internal disputes in order to mount an attack against Israel. A couple of weeks ago, Syria’s President, Bashar Al-Assad, said that if the West attempted to intervene in his nation’s internal conflict, he would “shower” Israel’s capital city, Tel Aviv, with rockets. He could potentially choose to do that very thing if Israel attacks Iran.
Egypt and Hamas are also wildcards in this scenario. The Egyptians have a peace treaty with Israel that dates back to 1979. However, their recent populist revolution has put that treaty in jeopardy. The current military leadership has stated that they will honor the treaty, but their eventual successors, the Muslim Brotherhood, are much less willing to do so. They have stated that if they come to power in Egypt, they will let the people choose whether or not to continue the treaty based on a referendum group. The Brotherhood is known as being strongly anti-Israel, so they would probably join Iran in a retaliatory strike. If they are in power when a hypothetical strike occurs. Hamas stated earlier this week that they would stay out of an Israeli-Iranian conflict, but their words are hollow. If they see an opportunity to damage Israel with foreign assistance, they will jump at it.
If all of these countries and terrorist groups banded together against Israel, their existence would very well be threatened. This means that they could enact the Samson Option against Iran in an attempt to quickly and violently quell a regional war. When President Obama and other world leaders talk vaguely about “unintended consequences” this is exactly what they are referring to. Bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities will open a dangerous Pandora ’s Box with only two potential methods of resolution:
1. A wider regional war that could ultimately culminate in a nuclear exchange
2. A massive influx of U.S. troops and equipment into Israel and the Persian Gulf region in order to prevent resolution #1 from becoming a reality.
Either way, a preemptive strike will adversely affect a war weary world and a United States military that is already stretched incredibly thin across the globe. This is the main reason why we cannot and should not support another preemptive war in this region of the world.
UPDATE: Israel does, in fact, have a missile shield that is currently operational. It's called the Iron Dome, and it intercepted about 90% of the rockets that Hamas fired into Israel this past weekend. While it was able to intercept those rockets, its ability to intercept more advanced missiles from Iran is still questionable. Former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan seems to doubtful about it. In a 60 Minutes interview that aired on Sunday, he said that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would have undesirable consequences for Tel Aviv. He also said that attacking Iran now would be a ridiculous idea, and that diplomacy should be the sole focus for at least the next THREE years.
No comments:
Post a Comment