WHY PROSPECTS OF AN ISRAEL IRAN CONFLICT REMAIN LOW
By Gregory R. Copley
Global security concerns continued to
be geared around the possibility of armed conflict between IRAN and ISRAEL, an
issue hedged by a range of other conflicts and issues. The actual prospect of
such a conflict, however, remained extremely low, for a variety of reasons,
despite the near hysteria of media, and even poorly-reasoned reporting from
“professional” intelligence agencies.
Background Information:
See: AIRSTRIKE
UNLIKELY (posted 4 June 2012) http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/06/israel-iran-syria.html
IRAN ALREADY ACQUIRED AT LEAST TWO NUCLEAR WEAPONS FROM
FOREIGN SUPPLIERS
The ostensible cause of the
potential conflict remained the nominal determination of key WESTERN states to
ensure that Iran did not acquire the capacity to build nuclear weapons,
although even ISRAELI Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu has reportedly acknowledged that ISRAEL understood that IRAN had
at least two nuclear weapons already deployed on medium-range ballistic
missiles. These were weapons, how-ever, acquired from foreign suppliers, not
from domestic sources.
In reality, the issue is far more complex, and is particularly compounded by:
THE FACT THAT THE UNITED STATES IS IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR,
In reality, the issue is far more complex, and is particularly compounded by:
THE FACT THAT THE UNITED STATES IS IN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR,
which traditionally inhibits and distorts
Administration decision making, and yet allows for opposition candidates to
exercise strenuous — and often ill-informed and inflammatory — rhetorical
positions;
THE FACT THAT THE IRANIAN DOMESTIC POLITICAL SITUATION IS CLOUDED,
THE FACT THAT THE IRANIAN DOMESTIC POLITICAL SITUATION IS CLOUDED,
as a result of the Majlis elections which
have already severely crimped the influence of incumbent Pres. Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad, who may soon be
eclipsed from power with the end of his term. However, even the present
“Supreme Leader”, “Ayatollah” Ali
Khamene’i, did not gain as much ground in domestic politics as he would
have wished vis-à-vis Ahmadi-Nejad.
This leaves power — insofar as it is concentrated at all — largely in the hands
of the leader of the Quds Force of
the IRANIAN Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC: Pásdárán), Brig. Qassem Suleimani. In any event, all
talk of “reformists” in the IRANIAN clerical scene has evaporated.
THE REALITY THAT IRAN’S STRATEGIC REACH TO DOMINATE THE PERSIAN GULF AND THE NORTHERN TIER HAS BEEN EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL,
THE REALITY THAT IRAN’S STRATEGIC REACH TO DOMINATE THE PERSIAN GULF AND THE NORTHERN TIER HAS BEEN EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL,
and this is compounded by the US/Coalition withdrawal from IRAQ,
and the de facto strategic withdrawal (certainly du jure in a political sense)
from AFGHANISTAN. IRAN has successfully used its influence over Shi’a
populations — often regionally in a minority — to effectively control
situations. The use by the IRANIAN clerics of the “anti-ISRAEL” jihadist
rhetoric to win support from the vast Arab and Muslim populations has, however,
failed: the Sunni populations, while buying the anti-ISRAEL line, have not
coalesced in support for IRANIAN leadership. And the Sunni leaderships of
Sunni-dominated Muslim states have reacted sharply to IRAN’S rhetoric as much
as to IRAN’S real strategic grasp on, for example, IRAQ and SYRIA. As a result,
THE REAL PRESSURE FOR ACTION AGAINST IRAN — TO CUR-TAIL
IRAN’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND TO OVERTHROW IRAN’S ‘ALAWITE ALLY IN SYRIA, THE
BASHAR AL-ASSAD GOVERNMENT — COMES FROM THOSE WHO MOST FEAR TEHRAN: SAUDI
ARABIA, TURKEY, AND QATAR.
Significantly, this is not working, except
at a public relations level. In SYRIA, despite pressures from the
Sunni-dominated Arab League (which
excludes non-Arab IRAN), Pres. Assad seems set to continue to dominate the Islamist-led
Sunni uprising.
THE FACT THAT TURKEY IS NOW FLAILING IN ITS ATTEMPTS TO CURTAIL THE GROWTH OF IRANIAN STRATEGIC REACH.
THE FACT THAT TURKEY IS NOW FLAILING IN ITS ATTEMPTS TO CURTAIL THE GROWTH OF IRANIAN STRATEGIC REACH.
TURKEY is also now itself becoming
isolated at a time when its leader — and the real architect of TURKISH
strategic “revival” — Prime Minister Reçep
Tayyip Erdogan, is in rapidly-failing health. He is likely to be replaced
either by Pres. Abdullah Gül or by
Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, both of whom are radical, but neither of whom has domestic
political strength of Erdogan.
Meanwhile, the ruling Islamists still have not mended their fences with the TURKISH
Armed Forces, and TURKEY continues to suffer from an inability to address
domestic KURDISH insurgency. If TURKEY alienates IRAN, then IRAN has made it
clear that it has the capacity to stimulate activity in TURKEY by that
country’s very large (20-million) Shi’a population, as well as stepping aside
while KURDS gain more support from abroad.
Background information:
See http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/08/turkeys-erratic-foreign-policies-all.html
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Turkey
THE FACT THAT THE CORE OF THE ISRAELI DEFENSE FORCE (IDF) AND THE ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY ARE TOTALLY OPPOSED TO A MILITARY STRIKE AGAINST IRAN’S “NUCLEAR FACILITIES” because they recognize that:
(a)They cannot identify or reach all of IRAN’S nuclear facilities;
(b)IRAN already has deployed nuclear weapons [probably more than the two known to be deployed on al-Shahab IRBMs] which may have a chance of surviving ISRAEL’S extensive anti-ballistic missile (ABM) network;
(c)There are few real options to follow-up an air/missile strike against IRANIAN targets;
(d)An ISRAELI first-strike against IRAN would actually coalesce IRANIAN sentiment around the ruling clerics and against ISRAEL; and
(e)The UNITED STATES Government would unreservedly oppose an ISRAELI strike.
THE PROBABILITY OF A UNILATERAL ISRAELI STRIKE WOULD ONLY
OCCUR IF AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT ACTUALLY PRESENTED ITSELF TO ISRAEL
What is also not understood by most
commentators and foreign governments is the reality that Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have been attempting to
persuade the Obama Administration in
the US of the desirability of decisive military action against IRAN. This has
not been a campaign to tell the US that ISRAEL would act unilaterally against IRAN.
So what has not been seen is actual
evidence of the probability of a unilateral ISRAELI stance, which would only
occur if an existential threat actually presented itself to ISRAEL. At present,
this is not perceived to be the case, even though Mr. Netanyahu portrays the IRANIAN nuclear weapons situation has being
ultimately an existential threat.
The IDF, the ISRAELI Intelligence
Community, the ISRAELI opposition parties, and so on, all categorically reject
the idea of an ISRAELI first strike at IRANIAN targets, despite acknowledging
that elected leaders (Netanyahu, Barak)
might try to insist on such an action. But, absent tacit or express US approval
for such an action (which even Netanyahu
and Barak acknowledge requiring),
such an attack would not occur.
A UNILATERAL ISRAEL AIR STRIKE WOULD BE VIEWED GLOBALLY AS
HAVING US SUPPORT
Moreover, the US Government is aware
that any action by ISRAEL — even if it was opposed by the US — would be seen
globally as having US support; thus the US is committed to ensuring it does not
happen.
The US Obama Administration has intentionally continued to leak reporting
which would hamper such a step by ISRAEL, even “disclosing” that ISRAEL had
arranged for the use of bases in AZERBAIJAN to stage air attacks into or
exiting IRAN. That was a canard: the use of AZERBAIJANI facilities and air
space was considered some years ago when ISRAEL had access to TURKISH air
space, which would be essential to allowing access into and from AZERBAIJAN.
That is no longer feasible. However, US
reports that ISRAEL lacked the reach or technical capability to undertake a
first strike against IRAN are incorrect. ISRAEL has this capacity.
THE PERSIAN-ISRAELI LINK HAS BEEN MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL FOR
TWO-AND-A-HALF MILLENNIA
The reality that the PERSIAN-ISRAELI link has been mutually beneficial for two-and-a-half millennia, and the recent IRANIAN clerical rhetoric against ISRAEL was for tactical purposes, although, in fact, reflecting the radical interpretation of Shi’ism and Islam by the clerics.
The reality that the PERSIAN-ISRAELI link has been mutually beneficial for two-and-a-half millennia, and the recent IRANIAN clerical rhetoric against ISRAEL was for tactical purposes, although, in fact, reflecting the radical interpretation of Shi’ism and Islam by the clerics.
ISRAEL has what IRAN/PERSIA has always valued: access to the
Mediterranean. This is why IRAN courts or
attempts to control SYRIA and LEBANON, but ISRAEL is what cements, or could
cement, IRANIAN reach into the Mediterranean, and such a relationship also
gives ISRAEL the ability to outmaneuver the Sunni populations which constrain
it. Tehran escalated the anti-ISRAEL posture to maneuver against the US during
the US-led war on IRAQ; now it must find a way to back down from this position
(and likewise ISRAEL must find a way to retract from its reactive anti-IRANIAN
stance) so that a rapprochement can be re-developed.
SAUDI ARABIA — ENGAGE IN COVERT “INFORMATION SHARING” WITH
ISRAEL, IN ORDER TO BOOST ISRAEL’S HOSTILITY TOWARDS IRAN
 |
| Israel used Saudi airspace to strike IRAQI nuclear reactor in 1981 |
This was less important to ISRAEL
when it had a strong relationship with TURKEY, but that cannot be assumed to be
salvageable until the last of the present leadership team departs office in TURKEY.
Meanwhile, the Sunni states — and particularly SAUDI ARABIA — engage in covert
“information sharing” with ISRAEL to boost ISRAEL’S hostility toward IRAN, and
this has been particularly effective with Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Background Information:
See IRAN
AT THE DOORSTEPS OF ISRAEL http://geopoliticsrst.blogspot.com.ar/2012/06/syria-israel-iran-and-usa.html
The prospect exists that the RUSSIAN Federation, already concerned over its inability to control two states in which it invested so heavily (IRAN and TURKEY), may well sponsor a revived diplomatic approach to ISRAEL and encourage an ISRAEL-IRAN rapprochement. It is worth noting that ISRAEL has been quiet on the subject of promoting the end to the Bashar al-Assad Government in SYRIA, knowing that it is a close ally of Tehran.
IRAN ALREADY HAS DEPLOYED NUCLEAR WEAPONS, A FACT KNOWN BY THE USA AND ISRAEL SINCE 1991
Western commentators and politicians
have locked themselves into an unsustainable position: attempting to deny IRAN
access to nuclear weapons. The reality, as US and ISRAELI officials have now
acknowledged, is that IRAN already has deployed nuclear weapons, albeit not
domestically-made ones. This has been known, but not discussed, since 1991.
US and Western officials missed the opportunity, with the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), begun under US Pres. Ronald Reagan, to develop a system which would have effectively negated the efficacy of missile-based nuclear weapons. As a result, nuclear weapons proliferation is likely to continue, not just with IRAN, but potentially with TURKEY, which has been developing the capabilities to achieve nuclear weapons production capacity.
As a result of this, and the reality that the size, geography, and capabilities of IRAN — including its alliance structure with NORTH KOREA (DPRK), and now the People’s Republic of CHINA (PRC) — preclude armed invasion (a la IRAQ, a much, much easier target), opponents of IRAN have limited options. One is to seek to create a viable relationship with IRAN so as to preclude the prospect of IRANIAN use (or threats of use) of nuclear weapons.
US and Western officials missed the opportunity, with the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), begun under US Pres. Ronald Reagan, to develop a system which would have effectively negated the efficacy of missile-based nuclear weapons. As a result, nuclear weapons proliferation is likely to continue, not just with IRAN, but potentially with TURKEY, which has been developing the capabilities to achieve nuclear weapons production capacity.
As a result of this, and the reality that the size, geography, and capabilities of IRAN — including its alliance structure with NORTH KOREA (DPRK), and now the People’s Republic of CHINA (PRC) — preclude armed invasion (a la IRAQ, a much, much easier target), opponents of IRAN have limited options. One is to seek to create a viable relationship with IRAN so as to preclude the prospect of IRANIAN use (or threats of use) of nuclear weapons.
ISOLATING IRAN THROUGH SANCTIONS AND HOSTILITY HAS ENABLED
THE CLERICS TO BUILD A SOCIETY WHICH THEY CAN DOMINATE
This, obviously, from a Western or ISRAELI
standpoint would be better facilitated if IRAN was governed by a non-clerical
administration. The question, then, would be how such an outcome could be
achieved. Significantly, isolating IRAN through sanctions and hostility has
enabled the clerics to build a society which they can dominate. Isolation works
both ways; in this case, it has strengthened clerical control of the IRANIAN population.
Attempts to sow secessionist discord among IRANIAN constituent populations have
thus far failed, although the most significant attempts — to create
secessionism in Baluchistan — have actually fueled secessionist momentum in PAKISTANI
BALUCHISTAN and, to a degree, AFGHAN BALUCHISTAN.
Indeed, all realities may change if secessionist movements take root in AFGHANISTAN and PAKISTAN as the present AFGHANISTAN war winds down and the US and Coalition forces depart the area.
Indeed, all realities may change if secessionist movements take root in AFGHANISTAN and PAKISTAN as the present AFGHANISTAN war winds down and the US and Coalition forces depart the area.
LOSS OF US INFLUENCE IN THE PERSIAN GULF, THE NORTHERN TIER
AND CENTRAL ASIA FORCES ISRAEL TO ADAPT NEW GEOPOLITICAL STRATEGIES
As things stand at present, IRAN stands to gain — whether under a clerical government or not — and the US has lost (and continues to lose) influence in the PERSIAN GULF, the NORTHERN TIER, (http://www.answers.com/topic/northern-tier-pennsylvania ) and CENTRAL ASIA. ISRAELI leaders must take account of this obvious reality, and plan for a new strategic framework, one which includes a new energy relationship with the EUROPEAN UNION, a new relationship with RUSSIA, and a new relationship with IRAN (which can also be facilitated by the PRC).
IF THE SUNNI STATES — AND PARTICULARLY SAUDI ARABIA, QATAR, AND TURKEY — SUCCEED IN OVERTHROWING THE IRANIAN-SUPPORTED ‘ALAWITE LEADERSHIP IN SYRIA, THEN ISRAEL WILL FACE A REINVIGORATED “ARAB” THREAT.
As things stand at present, IRAN stands to gain — whether under a clerical government or not — and the US has lost (and continues to lose) influence in the PERSIAN GULF, the NORTHERN TIER, (http://www.answers.com/topic/northern-tier-pennsylvania ) and CENTRAL ASIA. ISRAELI leaders must take account of this obvious reality, and plan for a new strategic framework, one which includes a new energy relationship with the EUROPEAN UNION, a new relationship with RUSSIA, and a new relationship with IRAN (which can also be facilitated by the PRC).
IF THE SUNNI STATES — AND PARTICULARLY SAUDI ARABIA, QATAR, AND TURKEY — SUCCEED IN OVERTHROWING THE IRANIAN-SUPPORTED ‘ALAWITE LEADERSHIP IN SYRIA, THEN ISRAEL WILL FACE A REINVIGORATED “ARAB” THREAT.
Israel is already conscious of the
fact that SAUDI ARABIA and QATAR have almost succeeded in replacing an anti-SAUDI
leadership in Libya (Mu’ammar al-Qadhafi)
with a pro-SAUDI/salafist-jihadist leadership in Tripoli. Significantly, the
non-salafist LIBYAN province of Cyrenaica
has resisted this, and has called — as it did when it started the anti-Qadhafi revolt in February 2011 — for the restitution of the 1951 Libyan
Constitution, which allows for a
federal structure. This would wrest control of the oil from radical
Tripolitania and the salafist interim President of LIBYA, and return it to Cyrenaica, under the moderate and
pro-Western Senussi sect.
These are all inter-related aspects of the current framework which is only superficially addressed in the “international debate” as to whether ISRAEL would or should strike at IRANIAN nuclear facilities. The real issue includes the broader conflict for dominance between Shi’ism and Sunnism, and nationally between TURKISH and IRANIAN competition for historical reach.
These are all inter-related aspects of the current framework which is only superficially addressed in the “international debate” as to whether ISRAEL would or should strike at IRANIAN nuclear facilities. The real issue includes the broader conflict for dominance between Shi’ism and Sunnism, and nationally between TURKISH and IRANIAN competition for historical reach.
Background Information:
Furthermore, on a simpler
perspective on should bear in mind that as long as ISRAEL keeps “publicly
promoting” an attack on IRAN, the chances of it taking place are minimal for
the much needed “surprise effect” has been lost. The minute ISRAEL refrains
from its rhetoric’s and the current geostrategic and geopolitical situation persist;
the chances of ISRAEL striking IRAN could be more imminent. Nevertheless in
most likelihood all the sabre rattling by ISRAEL are pure political tactics.
No comments:
Post a Comment