1 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Israel is determined - No, it is a simple, tragic crisis mechanism

Reader comment on item: Panetta Predicts an Israeli Strike on Iran

Submitted by Michel C.Zala (Switzerland), Feb 15, 2012 at 12:08

I believe that the true tragedy is, how little individuals and politicians in either Israel or America actually can influence the situation, since the (present and future) escalation follows the laws of a basic crisis mechanism.

What many, especially in Europe, where a strong anti-Israel trend is clearly manifested, do not see, is the current fragile balance of power in the region, preventing any nation from greater adventures (outright war).

This balance results from a 100:1 ratio in conventional means between Israel and its Arab/Muslim neighbors, albeit equalized by Israel's so far sole nuclear capability. The second, Iran acquires nukes, that balance is out the window, inviting any of the many anti-Israel regimes to engage in such adventures.

Secondly, Iran and its proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah etc. have openly and clearly denied ISR any right to exist, even claimed just last week the wohle of Palestine to be theirs and theirs alone.

In addition to that, Iran, for decades now, has openly proliferated weapons to their proxies and thus led an undeclared war against ISR. The recent bombings and terror attacks against ISR embassy personell lay evidence to that fact as well.

The aforementioned pieces of evidence prove clearly that ISR at present finds itself right smack in the middle of an (undeclared) war already with an enemy who openly, clearly, repeatedly and loudly proclaimed that the state of ISR must be eradicated.

For aforementioned reasons, the simple announcement by Iran to have completed the development of nuclear weapons would have to be understood by the ISR government as a formal declaration of war.

By sheer mechanism, almost automatism, it would trigger the corresponding response - likely an attack with tactical nuclear weapons, which would be the only way to effectively delay their progress, as , according to CIA factbooks of recent years, the Iranians have decentralized their installations in over 40 locations, partly deeply buried underground, partly close to civilian (hospitals, schools, mosques) centers. ISR lacks the logistical and military means to successfully carry out a conventional air assault on that many, well defended and shielded targets in such long distance, remote locations.

My point is: this is not a question, if ISR will attack Iran, should they, as it seems to be the case, pursue their ambitionis and intents to acquire nuclear weaponry - ISR finds itself in a no-win situation, where there is no choice, no wiggle room, no compromise, but must at least trey to take those installations out, as the alternative bears a way too high risk. It is not a question of if - it has become a question of when, since by most accounts, Iran has passed the point of no return already.

Apart from the fact, that one party already leads an undeclared war against the other with clearly voiced and publicised goals for Palestine, the destruction and annihilation of the Jewish state, which is why such efforts must be understood as solely an escalation from undeclared to formal declaration of war, ISR in addition to aformentioned crisis frame conditions has no room for error, because there is no strategic depth. The country is so small, that even one single nuclear explosion, resulting in Tschernobyl type abandoning of a several hundred square miles for generations to come, would likely devastate the nation to the extent of its destruction, while muslims have ample territory to relocate. This is another reason, why ISR can't even consider to allow for any risk so ever and must again see the Iranian efforts as an outright declaration of war. Ifr ISR had the size of America or Russia, they would have the "luxury" to wait for a first move by the Iranians, as the country could absorb a nuclear strike, direct or via proxy, which seems to be the preferred modus operandi of the Iranian regime anyway.

Having said all that, in my humble opinion it boils down to ISR having to select the lesser of two evils. It may well come to the decison between being the hated, despised and by the world condemned "aggressor" , yet still alive or the pitied, grieved victim (again), but this time destroyed.

The currrent ISR risk assessment, I sadly feel, must be seen as being forced to select the "right " moment to hit the Iranian nuclear sites. Will it be a preventive strike, based upon intelligence reports, which does not count for much in the world anymore (WDM Saddam), or will they wait to the very last moment, the official proclamation by the Iranian regime to have developed a nuke, a quite suicidal move by the Ayatollahs, albeit possible due to their often demonstrated hubris. The distinct possibility for an election of a GOP candidate over Obama may also play a role in the ISR decision making process, which however may motivate the Iranians to accelerate their efforts to complete the work before the US election. The current state of the affairs in Egypt, Iraq and Syria, preventing those nations to deliver a concerted effort against ISR in case of a strike against Iran must also be factored into the decision making process.

All current factors considered, I believe that Iran, if they can do it, will try to present the world with a fait accompli before November hoping, that ISR lacks the means to unilaterally conduct such a difficult military operation. If enough indices for that surface, or Iran has the audacity to proclaim such, ISR will be cornered into a strike. If enough evidence appears that Iran needs longer than that, and a GOP President comes to power in America, there might be a chance for the Iranian regime to caving in to the world's demands, even though their often mainfested (religion based) willingness to commit (collective) suicide in the name of djihaad and their clear chartas must be seen as troubling.

Right now, it seems to me that the chances for a war in 2012 are much higher than later conflicts, let alone for a truce or even peace. Unless Iran demonstratively walks away from its nuclear ambitions - translated, formal declaration of war against ISR - a strike against Iran by ISR will remain the logical, foreseeable and automated outcome. Any other reaction by the Israeli government would be criminally negligent, considering it's role of protecting its people.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Israel is determined - No, it is a simple, tragic crisis mechanism by Michel C.Zala

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2021 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)