News reports from Israel feature army generals threatening Iran with imminent destruction if it refuses to return to the JCPOA nuclear deal which Donald Trump axed (though Iran itself never formally withdrew). The chief of staff threatened an attack and the latest news features a claim that the new budget will allocate $1.5-billion for an all-out attack on the country’s nuclear facilities:
It includes funds for various types of aircraft, intelligence-gathering drones and unique armaments needed for such an attack, which would have to target heavily fortified underground sites, the unsourced report said.
The series, planned by the 780th Test Squadron and performed by the 40th Flight Test Squadron, began on July 23 and marked the first time the 2.5-ton bomb was loaded, flown and released. Times of Israel claims US military tested this new weapon–which could be used against fortified Iranian nuclear facilities–with data provided by Israel from its air attacks on Gaza tunnels last May.https://t.co/16ylG30aRz
— Stars and Stripes (@starsandstripes) October 14, 2021
During meetings in Washington, the Israelis even prevailed upon Secretary of State Antony Blinken to switch from warning that “other” options would be on the table should Iran bail from negotiations, to “all” options. The subtle difference purports to show the US is ready to entertain military options as well.
People–as the Crosby Still Nash song lyrics say: “We have all been here before.” And not in a good way. Israel has been threatening such an attack for nearly 15 years and over the terms of three different prime ministers. Former intelligence chiefs have even recounted that they personally stood in the way of such attacks. Regardless, Israel never followed through on the threat. In some cases, a US president (Bush, Obama) rejected an attack. In other instances, it was the generals and spooks who stood up to the PM.
Pres. Biden has already made clear that the Middle East is no longer the priority it once was under previous administrations. We’ve backed away from our former Saudi allies (and they in turn appear to be warming up to their former Iranian nemesis). Despite statements to the contrary, there will be no major peace initiatives arising from this President. Given that, why would Biden agree to an Israeli attack, let alone join one with Israel? Why would he want the headache of dealing with the fallout from such an operation?
Events over the past few years have shown that China is our most powerful global rival, which threatens our alliances with numerous Asian nations. While Obama announced a pivot to Asia, and Trump introduced draconian trade sanctions, Biden is feeling the full brunt of the Chinese play for power on the global stage. Given this, Biden has absolutely no stomach for an Iranian diversion.
Would Israel attack Iran in defiance of Biden? Or if the US gives tacit approval, but refuses to join the assault? I strongly doubt it. My sense is that PM Naftali Bennett’s budget announcement is a political gambit meant to shore up his right flank. Bennett’s main rival is former PM Netanyahu, who will watch for any opening to mercilessly attack Bennett. He’s already harangued the Knesset claiming, in a page ripped from the Trump playbook, that Bennett “is not a real prime minister.” Now the latter can wave that budget at Bibi when he launches his attack and say: “I won’t make the mistake you made by letting the Iranians inch ever closer to a bomb. I’m going to be ready to attack when the time is right.” But he’s no more likely to actually attack than Bibi. Which means this is all for show. Israel is the boy who cries wolf once too often, till no one believes him when the wolf is at the door.
In case you’re asking yourself: what sort of country spends billions to prepare for a war its leaders don’t intend to fight? Ah, that’s the $64,000 Question. If you can answer it, you may understand Israeli politics and consciousness even better than I.
But in the unlikely event Israel does attack, what would be the outcome? Yes, there would be considerable damage done to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Some sites would be destroyed and some damaged. But with months or at most a year or two, Iran will be not only right back where it was in terms of its capabilities, but even farther along. And what will Israel have to show? It mowed the grass with a dull lawnmower blade. The grass will grow back even taller and stronger.
Iran is no pushover. It is prepared to withstand punishment if necessary to protect its prerogatives and interests. You can give it a bloody nose, but you cannot land a knockout blow. Unless you’re prepared to mount a ground invasion and topple the regime. But that’s definitely not in the cards.
Not to mention that anyone who attacks Iran will pay a heavy price on the global stage. Israel is already under investigation by the ICC for potential war crimes during its 2014 attack on Gaza. Such new military adventurism will only strengthen the case for serious sanctions. Israel will lose what few friends remain, and further alienate its enemies, motivating them to harden their defenses and advance their offensive capabilities against Israeli threats.
‘In case you’re asking yourself: what sort of country spends billions to prepare for a war its leaders don’t intend to fight? ‘
That would be a country that can always get more billions. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if we wind up being the ones made to fund this.
It’ll be a ‘compromise.’ Israel will need the money so she can spend it and be prepared. We care about Israel’s security, don’t we?
Hi Colin and Richard,
‘In case you’re asking yourself: what sort of country spends billions to prepare for a war its leaders don’t intend to fight? ‘
Isn’t that the very definition of ‘deterrence’?
@ Cillian: No. It’s the definition of a dysfunctional country which refuses to behave as a pragmatic one would and instead bluffs its way to potential regional catastrophe.
de·ter·rence
/dəˈtərəns/
noun
@ Cillian: No. Nuclear deterrence, if it works at all, only does so when there is mutual deterrence. When only one side has WMD, then that side has a distinct advantage permitting itself to be even more bellicose & aggressive than if it merely had conventional supremacy. Google the blog. I’ve written about this before & quote & link to academic/think tank papers written on this very subject.
But if you agree with the assertion by nuclear analysts that mutual deterrence works then I’d be happy to see Iran get WMD so that there is a balance of terror in the region. Or alternatively, I’d be delighted if Iran, Israel and every other major country in the region signed an agreement for a Nuclear Free Zone.
A dictionary definition of a phrase has nothing to do with real world geostrategic reality.
No more comments in this thread.
Do you think because you brought ab academic paper saying so and so that this is the truth and only truth??
You have here two rivals and you predict the future like a prophet.
‘arik’ tikkun olam, dude
Well the Israeli 1981 destruction of Iraq’s Osirak reactor is an interesting case, too. The reactor was unfinished and couldn’t produce the plutonium needed for nukes. In fact, Osirak was a type of reactor that could not be used for development of nuclear weapons, which is one reason no other government was prepared to sanction Saddam for it. But that didn’t phase Lebanon invader-occupier/terrorist Begin. Begin bombed Osirak for political reasons thus well illustrating Israel’s militarism…. which threatens the world to this very day. After all, who is threatening to wipe whom off the map? And which country has the resources to do that? .. not to mention backing of the world’s largest and most belligerent warfare state! Not Iran. As for Saddam, Israel’s internationally condemned strike on Osirak actually caused him to engage in bluster and boast regarding his virtually non-existent nuclear program, which — as we historically and famously now know — was just that, bluster and boast.
Btw I hear W is still looking for those WMD’s…
@Steve Brown: Please restrict comments to directly dealing with the topic of the post.