Why an Israeli strike on Iran would be counter-productive

16th November, 2011 by Chris McCarthy

Israel, the principle state-agitator for military action with Iran, has rattled its sabre before but the suggestions are that this time the lobby for unilateral action is gaining momentum and already has several of the key principals on board. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak were reported to be seeking cabinet support for military action, Israeli President Shimon Peres warned that an attack on Iran is become “more and more likely”, and the issue dominates Israeli press coverage.

Ben Phillips was right to stress on these pages last week that the consequences of war with Iran would be disastrous for the region and none more so than for Israel itself. At best, an Israeli air strike – and it’s not conclusive whether America would join a pre-emptive attack – could retard Iran’s nuclear programme by a few years. Yet even under that scenario neither Israel’s short or long-term safety would be improved.

Assuming – and it is a big assumption – that Iran’s entire ballistic missile capabilities were disabled, we can still expect Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza to retaliate. Iran would surely redouble its efforts to develop nuclear weapons, driving the project further underground and away from the purview of international inspectors. Critically, Iran would be gifted a reason to actually launch an attack. Unless Israel is prepared to launch periodic strikes, it is difficult to rationalise what they hope to gain from a pre-emptive attack other than biding some less than comfortable time.

The key issue here is not, however, as Ben proposes, the logistics of an Israeli strike or even the immediate Iranian response, direct or otherwise. The critical point is why, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the Israeli government would seriously countenance launching a pre-emptive attack. If they genuinely believe they face a real and imminent existential threat from Iran, they would have to concede that the Iranian regime would, in effect, be signing its own suicide note. The American response alone would be enough to cripple the country for decades and its unfathomable that the UN would tolerate a second holocaust.

President Ahmadinejad, for all his predictable unpredictability, and Ayatollah Khamenei, the real power in Iranian politics, are not, contrary to their posturing, about to extend an invitation to its most loathed adversary to bomb them back to the Stone Age. Logistically it’s also unclear how exactly a nuclear weapon helps Iran “drive the Jews into the sea”. The fallout would make the land inhospitable to Palestinians for years and the Arab casualty rate would be unacceptably high: 1.5 million Arabs live in Israel, which is only nine miles wide at its narrowest point, accounting for 20% of the population.

Possibly Israel is posturing for tighter sanctions to stymie Iran’s nuclear programme but it’s a game of brinkmanship that must be taken very seriously. Can Israel be expected to cry wolf much longer? Iran, for its part, could do much to walk both parties back from the brink by cooperating more fully with inspectors, explaining why it was conducting computer modeling relevant to a nuclear weapon, and answering questions on current and planned levels of nuclear enrichment.

The international community has four options: they can continue to squeeze Iran’s nuclear programme through more onerous sanctions (coupled with other covert efforts) and hope the regime has an uncharacteristic change of heart over the project; they can launch a pre-emptive military strike and brace for the fall-out; they can begin preparations for a nuclear-armed Iran in the Middle East and the subsequent shift in the regional power balance; or they can keep pursuing all diplomatic options until they are thoroughly exhausted.

Iran is not going to acquiesce to Western demands if they are presented with a large stick in one hand and a clenched fist in the other. Conversely, Israel seems unwilling to tolerate much longer what they perceive as dangerous inaction. Despite the evidence to the contrary and the self-defeating consequences of a pre-emptive strike, Israel is preparing to walk itself to the brink. If they do they will return to a very different and significantly more hostile situation. Sadly the reality in these situations can mean nothing. Perception is everything.

• Facebook
• Twitter
• StumbleUpon
• Digg
• Reddit
• Delicious

Latest video:

Street Politics London: Boris Johnson

April 22nd, 2012

Would you go on a date with a politician? How about a political date? In the third episode of our Street Politics series, we take on Conservative candidate and current mayor Boris Johnson and challenge him on what he will do for young people. Has Boris convinced you? Why not vote in our poll and [...]

Read more