Why Not to Attack Iran (Yet)
Image Credit: US Army

Why Not to Attack Iran (Yet)

0 Likes
16 comments

Israeli leaders and officials may be giving careful consideration to the possibility of launching a strike against Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. But the more they consider it, the more they are forced to think again.

Why? After all, an Iranian regime armed with nuclear weapons poses a clear existential threat to Israel and, given its ideological and even theological fervour, it’s not unreasonable to believe the regime might decide to follow up on its oft-declared suggestion of wiping Israel off the map. Indeed, it’s almost certain Iran will, given an opportunity, seek to destroy Israel, expel Western influence from the region and become a regional hegemon (or at least at the eastern end of the Middle East around the oil-rich Persian Gulf). Indeed, this process is well underway, with Iranian influence extending into Iraq, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and parts of Afghanistan. In addition, Iran can also count on allies including Syria and perhaps even an increasingly pro-Islamist Turkish government.

Faith in its advancing forces, a belief that the West is weak and in retreat and the strong expectation that God is on its side—it’s a potent mix.

But even if it did secure nuclear weapons, how would it proceed? Its fanatical, bellicose language undoubtedly raises the possibility of Iran’s government firing nuclear-tipped missiles at Israel or handing over nuclear weapons and know-how to terrorist groups.

Yet Iran’s regime has another option, and one that seems more likely: to wage a long and varied campaign to intimidate or subvert neighbours as it looks to build an empire and exploit Arab weakness and Western uncertainty. Of course, Israel would still be destroyed in the process, but the Iranian regime could see this as a welcome by-product rather than a dedicated plan.

At present, Israeli analysts believe this second approach is more likely. If they’re right, the result will likely be a decades-long situation comparable with the Cold War, with Iran using its nuclear weapons as a defensive ‘umbrella’ to deter others from doing anything about its aggressive strategy.

So is Iran seeking to possess but not fire nuclear weapons? No one can be sure. But the fact is that with Iran still a few years away from acquiring nuclear weapons, giving Israel and other nations vital time to prepare a response, there’s simply no need to rush into an attack.

Of course, if Israel could hit and effectively destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, obtain strong international support for doing so, ensure that Iran can’t build nuclear weapons for decades and be faced with little prospect of retaliation, then launching such an attack would still be an attractive option.

This, of course, isn’t the case.

Comments
16
Educated
December 10, 2011 at 01:20

Every day in Iran is a Holiday huh? Your English not being good is the least of your worries, you should worry about your brain.

People may argue however they please but do your homework, no I am not doing it for you. If the current Iranian regime develops a nuke they will use it.

IF Syria continues on its current path, then its irrelevant anyways Israel will have won with the fall of Assad. Then when the next generation of Palestinians come into power a two state solution without dissolution will be possible, not before.

ali
August 9, 2011 at 09:57

I totally agree with u.

Ryan
August 2, 2010 at 15:10

Thanks for posting the link Nick. I do try to be educated but I had never heard about Ahmadinejad being misquoted (though I am not too surprised)…

In Nick’s defense Mr. Morgan, I think that Mr. Nolan was simply trying to inform people of some possible misinformation that had been espoused by most branches of the media. If you read his comment carefully, he didn’t mention his own opinion as to the situation – an exercise left to the reader, no doubt.

Furthermore, ‘regime’ does not denote illegitimacy… it has connotations of illegitimacy but technically just refers to a particular administration of government.

Simply reposting because it is a very interesting read, for those of you that haven’t…

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16218.htm

Hatem
July 31, 2010 at 05:14

I think Israeli claims that they are mere political propagands..

1- They are the ones who have a huge arsenal nuclear weapons, no other nation in the region would dare to use nukes against them…

2- If Iran actually attacks Israel, they would be also attacking the Palestinians and Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem.. which they can’t really afford..

It is all about influence in the region.. My opinion is that the region needs another nuclear power to balance Israeli misused power.

nick
July 30, 2010 at 21:57

Did you ever think the Iranian leader was talking in a moral sense not a physical one. As a Lawyer you should know all the tricks , esp the ones of the hasbara, but Ahmadinejad has clearly clarified his position yet the media in the West do not report these clarifications.. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article16218.htm

adam
July 30, 2010 at 12:42

The US should attack Israeli state lead terrorism

Adam
July 30, 2010 at 12:40

Israel is already a failed state… I think Israel has less than 40 years left as a state, as the balance of power shifts to China/India/Iran the US will be unable to assist Israel in a Iranian, Lebanese, Egyptian, Turkish/Palestinian/Syrian/Jordanian, and a hasbullah lead attack on Israel. if you as me… Israel deserve everything that is coming for there disgusting behaviour…

I’ll be cheering for the people who were victims if Israeli crime since the 1940′s just as much as i support the Jews case throughout the war. Jews .. your time of Sympathy has expired because of how you treat your neighbours.

commandante
July 26, 2010 at 18:08

US Should Attack also vatican ?

http://www.siofok-plebania.eoldal.hu/archiv/iobrazek/31

http://amnestyinternational.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/pope.jpg

It is ridiculous!

Yousef Namin
July 24, 2010 at 03:48

Here is Why US Should Attack Iran

http://namin.org/US_Attack_IRAN.html

saeed
July 22, 2010 at 06:29

Sorry my English is not good
I have some questions:
1.Iranian atomic bombs is world problem or Israel’s problem?
Islam and Jews are in conflict in theology and they have problem with another but why us spend money and going to Iranian war hell?
2.if iran have bomb can they use this? look:Islamic republic of Iran and Israel have in conflict if Iran doesn’t have nuke bombs and Israel have they can attack Iran with nuclear bombs (and some people die) but if both of them have nuclear bomb no one can attack another because they have time to get revenge. Israel fears that and wants to tell the world’s people iranian hard religious liner attack to world but this is lie and they fear because if Iran have bomb they usefulness of Israel atomic bomb going down
3.since I think 7 years age they say want to attack Iran but why they don’t do it? Because they can attack Iran but they cant pay the cost. see the map where is “tangeye hurmoz” It is a sea with 40km width that i think 60% of world oil is transport from there. if war begins Iran will close it and u cant go to your work with car!
Iran have range missile can attack Israel. Israeli people fear people and went from israel(same as lobnan war)and Israel going to holiday but iran didnt have this problem becuse every day in iran is holiday!!!
behind the Israel we have Lebanon and Syria they are Shiia same as Iran and they r friends.so they can make problem for Israel.
and at last western people only see western channel and don’t know all information(they can see only the information west like it)
they don’t see war they don’t see killing people if they see it they didn’t say going war with Iran
thank u if u read

Talut
July 21, 2010 at 21:57

Not only every Iranian but also every Muslim around the globe wants Iran to gain nuclear power. Its not a matter of the Mullah attitudes or fundamentalism. Even the non-Iranian Muslim boy dancing in the Disco of Morocco or Turkey wants it, now leave the Iranian people alone. The whole Middle East still doesn’t want the European/American Jews to be in Israel. There’s no problem with the Jews of the Middle East. But why place Polish/German/European Jews in Israel throwing out the native people and putting them in hell? Israel has already done enough mess to derange the next generations for decades. They are getting ferocious and vindictive and becoming arch-enemies of Israel. Israel has already established the worst examples of the violation of human rights in Gaza strip and West Bank. This situation can never be tolerated naturally by them. Even if all the Hamas/Hizbullah/Iranian forces are annihilated, there will be new opponents born around Israel again. It’ll never be stopped until those un-welcomed European Jews are expelled from Israel. Peace will never be established in that area! The only way to peace is get the European/Non-Arab Jews out of Israel. Whats in that hot sandy miraged desert for them? Nothing ! They don’t belong to there. They must return to America/Europe’s luxurious and comfortable atmosphere. They belong to there! They need another mass diaspora for the sake of the peace on earth!

kai pan
July 21, 2010 at 15:07

I believe Israel is looking for a solution from the wrong.

Israel should plan a devastating, long-term attack on Hamas in Gaza and Hizbullah in Lebanon. Israel should not end the fight until there is a total end to both groups.

In this way, it can send a clear message to Iran.

If Israel cannot wipe out Hamas and Hizbullah, Israel is not ready to deal with Iran.

Oh, if Iran foolishly decides to come to the aid of its Arab allies, well, that’s where Israel’s nuclear option can be used.

Keevan D. Morgan
July 21, 2010 at 10:55

So, Nick Nolan defends Ahmadinejad on the basis that his comment about wiping Israel off the map was mistranslated and really “only” means: “the imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”

Hmm. now, of course,the use of the term “regime” in itself denotes illegitimacy. Then, the “occupying Jerusalem” further describes Israel as illegitimate because (a) anybody occupying Jerusalem other than an properly authorized Muslim authority is illegitimate in general, and (b) the authority actually in power there–Israel–is illegitimate in particular. and finally, that illegitimate x 2 “regime” is, upon the highest worldly authority–the aforementioned “the imam” must “vanish from the page of time”–i.e. cease to exist forever.

Well, as a lawyer, i can tell you that the defense, “I’m guilty as hell” usually doesn’t equate into a “not guilty” verdict.

Ahmadinejad well bears out the third through fifth letters of his name, and he is guilty as charged.

Here is to the great Persian nation (and the non-Persian components of Iran to boot)making the current regime in Iran vanish from the earth for all time–and you can quote me.

keevan d. morgan, esq., chicago

Hassan
July 20, 2010 at 22:24

I think everyone is looking at this wrongly.

Think about it. Irans enemies are Israel and to an extent the Gulf States and Israels truthful enemies are Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. If Iran goes for nuclear power (not weapons) the Gulf States will want Nuclear power and they are likely to get that along with Egypt and Jordan. This will then lead to the development of weapons on all sides.

The Arabs will not attack Iran because the Muslims will not be happy (sunni/shia divide doesn’t matter) and vice versa. That leaves one link – Israel.

We all know Israel has weapons but they won’t be much use if the rest of the people get weapons and Israel would be foolish to even attempt to attack Saudi Arabia. So all in all no matter what happens Israel is the eventual loser.

People may comment on the so called Nuclear Weapons Free Middle East but thats a load of rubbish heck rumors even have that Pakistan has 20 long range nuclear missiles stored in Saudi Arabia in case anything happens to them.

Nick Nolan
July 20, 2010 at 20:51

Please, mr Rubin, could we all finally stop using the “Wipe Israel Off The Map” mistranslation. Yeah, IRNA made foolish mistranslation, but you can ride using it when the thing has been corrected time after time.

Ahmadinejad was hoping regime change, not wanting to destroy Israel using military attack and this is what they repeatedly say and is their official policy.

If you read the speech in the context, Ahmadinejad was expressing his future hope that the Zionist regime in Israel would fall. Ahmadinejad’s phrase was ” بايد از صفحه روزگار محو شود ” according to the text published on the President’s Office’s website, and was a quote of Ayatollah Khomeini. Ahmadinejad’s statement should be translated as, “the Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).

Jonathan Steele from Guardian has gone trough all this using four different translations and from different respectable sources:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155

An Iranian Activist
July 20, 2010 at 19:10

That’s the only way to sttop Mullahs in Iran.

They are preparing to govern an International Islamic Empire getting ready for their Mesia Imam Mahdi!

Don not hesitate to face another SS…

Share your thoughts

Your Name
required
Your Email
required, but not published
Your Comment
required

Newsletter
Sign up for our weekly newsletter
The Diplomat Brief