Strategic consequences
We cannot predict the future, but two developments seem certain, that Iran will eventually develop a nuclear weapon and that the US under Pres. Obama will do nothing about this. As Caroline Glick argues in her latest column "A guide to the perplexed," (http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=184613), Pres. Obama has no intention to strike at Iran under any circumstances, he supports sanctions, he will go thru the UN Security Council, but he will not attack any Muslim country! The necessary conclusion from this is that Israel will have to strike Iran unless something significant happens, such as regime change in Tehran.
Such a strike by Israel could have dire consequences, not least of which would be some kind of counter-attack by Iran. How Iran could carry out a counter-attack is unclear, its air force is inadequate and could not readily penetrate Israeli air space, its ballistic missiles, while under development, are probably not operational, and its land forces could not attack Israel without first going thru the territory of Iraq, Syria and/or Jordan, a very unlikely eventuality. Nevertheless, Israel must be ready for such a counter-attack. Also, other Muslim countries might join Iran in opposing Israel, but the major Sunni countries, namely Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, whatever they say, will probably heave a sigh of relief if the Iranian nuclear option is stopped, even if only temporarily.
What would be the outcome of such an Israeli strike? It would be a realignment of strategic power in the Middle East. By not taking action against Iran the US would have lost credibility as a guarantor of the independence of the Sunni Muslim States. This would be opposite to the effect that Pres. Bush Sr. had when he attacked Iraq to free Kuwait and then when his son Pres. George W. Bush attacked Iraq to remove the dictator Saddam Hussein. Whatever the merits of these actions, they sufficed to show that the US was the main actor in the region and was the guarantor of Sunni Arab independence. By retreating from Iraq and not facing up to Iran, the US under Pres. Obama has squandered that position. If Israel is left to "go it alone" and Israel succeeds, not only will Israel's deterrence be restored, but its strategic position will be enhanced as the main guarantor of Sunni Arab independence from Shia Iran.
This would not be the first time that Israel has "saved" a Sunni Arab State from destruction. In 1970, Syria threatened to attack Jordan, following the Jordanian Legion's destruction of the PLO forces in Jordan that threatened to overthrow King Hussein. Jordan appealed to the US for help and the US stood by while Israel mobilized its forces and threatened Syria that Israel would not accept the entry of hostile forces into Jordan. Syria backed down, and in effect Israel became the guarantor of Jordanian independence. So whatever King Hussein says, one should remember that he retains his throne only because of Israeli power. Such an Israeli attack on Iran would in effect expand that role and replace the US as the guarantor of the independence of all the Sunni Arab States.
Such a strike by Israel could have dire consequences, not least of which would be some kind of counter-attack by Iran. How Iran could carry out a counter-attack is unclear, its air force is inadequate and could not readily penetrate Israeli air space, its ballistic missiles, while under development, are probably not operational, and its land forces could not attack Israel without first going thru the territory of Iraq, Syria and/or Jordan, a very unlikely eventuality. Nevertheless, Israel must be ready for such a counter-attack. Also, other Muslim countries might join Iran in opposing Israel, but the major Sunni countries, namely Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, whatever they say, will probably heave a sigh of relief if the Iranian nuclear option is stopped, even if only temporarily.
What would be the outcome of such an Israeli strike? It would be a realignment of strategic power in the Middle East. By not taking action against Iran the US would have lost credibility as a guarantor of the independence of the Sunni Muslim States. This would be opposite to the effect that Pres. Bush Sr. had when he attacked Iraq to free Kuwait and then when his son Pres. George W. Bush attacked Iraq to remove the dictator Saddam Hussein. Whatever the merits of these actions, they sufficed to show that the US was the main actor in the region and was the guarantor of Sunni Arab independence. By retreating from Iraq and not facing up to Iran, the US under Pres. Obama has squandered that position. If Israel is left to "go it alone" and Israel succeeds, not only will Israel's deterrence be restored, but its strategic position will be enhanced as the main guarantor of Sunni Arab independence from Shia Iran.
This would not be the first time that Israel has "saved" a Sunni Arab State from destruction. In 1970, Syria threatened to attack Jordan, following the Jordanian Legion's destruction of the PLO forces in Jordan that threatened to overthrow King Hussein. Jordan appealed to the US for help and the US stood by while Israel mobilized its forces and threatened Syria that Israel would not accept the entry of hostile forces into Jordan. Syria backed down, and in effect Israel became the guarantor of Jordanian independence. So whatever King Hussein says, one should remember that he retains his throne only because of Israeli power. Such an Israeli attack on Iran would in effect expand that role and replace the US as the guarantor of the independence of all the Sunni Arab States.
posted by Jack Cohen at 10:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home