If we are to believe what we are hearing and reading from a variety of confirmed and unconfirmed sources, in Israel and the U.S., some day in the next few months we may wake up to the news that Israel has bombed Iran's nuclear facilities. Or maybe not.
The Israelis appear to be deeply divided on the issue, sending mixed signals, almost daily, about their intentions, their capacity to execute such a mission, and even whether or not Iran's reputed program poses an imminent danger.
The U.S. is tied up in knots of its own making. Being in the throes of an election, no one wants to appear critical of Israel. And so while concerned with the consequences of a unilateral Israeli strike, statements from official Washington or from presidential aspirants range from hand-wringing and feigned powerlessness to full-throated support for any action Israel may take.
Last week's New York Times Magazine had a feature piece arguing that Israel's calculations as to whether or not they should go forward with a strike against Iran would be based on answers to a series of questions -- whether they thought they could; whether they could withstand the "blow-back"; whether they could count on at least tacit American support; etc. With the answers to all of the above in the affirmative, Israelis might go forward with an attack.
For their part, the Iranians, apparently loving the attention they are receiving, have engaged in provocative actions of their own and their fair share of rhetorical excess. Lost in this deadly game are a number of serious issues that should be considered -- but, in all probability will not be.
In the first place, the matter of whether or not Iran is on a trajectory to build a bomb is not an incidental one. The last IAEA report, despite efforts to mischaracterize its findings, was not conclusive. At best, it hedged.
Next to consider is the exact nature of the threat posed by a nuclear Iran. While Israel projects itself as facing an "existential" challenge from Iran, this is hyperbolic nonsense. An Iranian attack on Israel would amount to Iran signing its own death warrant. It is a horror even to imagine, but the reality is that a nuclear attack anywhere in Israel, would murder tens of thousands of innocents, Jews and Arabs, with radiation fallout spreading death and deformity over a wide radius that would infect hundreds of thousands more in the neighborhood (depending on the wind, to Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan or the occupied Palestinian lands). In other words, in the aftermath of any attack, not only would Iran be destroyed, but its fate would be sealed forever in the Arab and Muslim world -- a consideration that could not be lost on the regime's leadership. The bottom line: There is no "first use."
Iran's real intention is the dangerous game of bragging rights. And their target audience is across the Gulf. Their recent effort to recast the "Arab Spring" as an "Islamic Awakening" being led by the Islamic Republic provided a case in point. Hoping that no one would notice their own brutal repression of their home-grown democracy movement and their support for the bloody crackdown against the uprising in Syria, the Iranians still seek to prey on Arab anger at the West projecting themselves as being in the vanguard of Arab revulsion at the excesses of imperialism and Zionism.
If this is the game, then Israeli saber-rattling and American outrage play right into Iran's hand. By exaggerating the threat posed by this regime, by pretending that it is a menace equal to Nazi Germany of the Soviet Union, the West succeeds only in giving the Iranians what they want most -- an inflated sense that they are a real power to be feared.
Make no mistake, the regime in Tehran is a meddlesome menace and their aspirations for regional hegemony do pose a threat, not to Israel (which serves more Iran's foil, then its target, and vice versa), but to the Arab Gulf States -- whose concerns are rarely, if ever, considered in U.S. political discourse.
My concern is that the escalating rhetoric by all sides poses a danger, in itself. The region is a tinderbox, and it is as if everyone is too busy playing with matches to think of the consequences of their behavior.
Better than threats, which only serve to embolden Iran, I would suggest a combination of direct engagement (which has been tried too little), continued targeted sanctions (which are having a real impact) and a bit of ridicule. What, one might ask the leaders of Iran, will they do with their nuclear program and their provocation? Can it feed their people, rebuild their neglected and decayed infrastructure, give hope to their unemployed young, or secure their role in the community of nations? Rather than play their game, reduce them down to size. Look at the region, as it is. As democracy movements advance in North Africa, and as the Gulf States make significant progress, providing a model for development and growth, Iran remains trapped in an archaic system which feeds off of fear and anger, and goes nowhere.
There are lessons to be learned in order to avoid a confrontation from which no one will emerge a winner. Those in the U.S. who point to Israel's 1981 strike against Iraq, conveniently ignore the fact that Saddam emerged undeterred. The next two decades witnessed Iraq and Iran engaging in an orgy of blood-letting, in part leading to Iraq's fatal occupation of Kuwait and all that followed. Then there were Israel's repeated invasions, occupations and bombardments of Lebanon which only devastated that country, leading to the emergence and empowering of Hizbollah. Or Israel's war and strangulation policy against Gaza which only resulted in death and destruction, increasing bitterness and a deepening Palestinian divide, making the search for peace more difficult.
The point is that it would be wise to call a halt to the escalating rhetoric for an attack on Iran; recognize the real danger posed by Iran to its own people and to its neighbors; stop enabling the Israeli and Iranian game of "chicken" with each other, when the unintended consequences of their continued dance with death will be felt not only by themselves, but by so many others; and develop a sane approach to dealing with a problem that must be faced and can't simply be bombed or threatened away.
Follow James Zogby on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AAIUSA
Trita Parsi: Are We on the Brink of War With Iran?
Imam Abdullah Antepli: Islamophobia: America Becoming Europe
Jayshree Bajoria: The Iran Diplomacy Puzzle
There are over 100,000 NATO soldiers fighting a poorly armed Taliban. A force that the US has problems supplying. What would happen to this force if Russia stopped the use of its land route and Pakistan stopped the use of its air route. What would happen to the NATO forces if the US and Israel attacked Iran's nuclear facilities and Iran then cut off the land route used by Iraq and Turkmenistan to supply fuel to Afagnistan. You would have an outraged public that is freezing, and we have seen what an angry public can do in Afagnistan.
A leader in a regime that wanted to eliminate the Jews stated during his trial for war crimes. Thereby acknowledged what the regime had done to gain the support of the people.
That regime wanted to eliminate the same people that Iran is now threatening. Goering’s party came to power with a minority of the people supporting it.
Iran’s leadership is claiming the Holocaust never happened, and is doing now what Germany’s leaders did in the 1930s- just before commencing hostilities on it’s European neighbors.
Germany made a military buildup (in defiance of the rest of the world, and the treaty of Versailles) prior to their commencing hostilities, proclaiming much of it as peaceful.
I see similarities between Germany and the beginning of WW2, and what is occurring in Iran today. What if the world had the “balls” to do something about Germany prior to their commencing hostilities.
The most popular insult is still calling someone al Yahood - a Jew. Lara Logan's rape in Tahrir Sq was to chants of "Jew Jew Jew" - this is nothing we all aren't aware of and yet where are the Muslim voices condemning it?
Sorry James, but you are wrong. When people in the Islamic world begin to step up and declare its wrong to continue teaching the vile racist supremacy being taught about the Jews - as well as Christian Hindu and Buddhist - but the Jews in particular, and Muslims respond positively, then that would be a different story. Until then, the Jewish people are more then justified to feel insecure and threatened by those who see them as sub human.
Ill also remind you Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside israel. A Jewish population that predates the State of israel by 2500 years.
Zogby forgets the unilateral withdrawal of the Israeli army from Lebanon and Gaza from which Israel dismantled its settlements. Did that bring peace?
In fact the Israeli attacks on Lebanon and Gaza were always preceded by the shelling of Israeli towns or attacks on Israeli forces with Israel. All this while no Israeli occupation of neither Lebanon or Gaza.
What would have happened to Iran if Saddam had nukes? Could we have kicked him out of Kuwait if he had nukes?
One could argue that if not for Israel 1981 strike, Saddam would be alive and in charge of the region including its strategic oil reserves.
Zogby tries to reinforce the antisemitic stereotype that da Jews control the elections and can not be challenged this year. Also this statement implies that if not for the elections, it would be obvious that we would be told that Israel is wrong for contemplating an attack on Iran.
Zogby also tells us that "The Israelis appear to be deeply divided on the issue, sending mixed signals, almost daily, about their intentions". I guess he forgets to mention that the Iranians are not sending mixed signals.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/ayatollah-kill-all-jews-annihilate-israel/
Next, Zogby talks about the Israeli perception of an Iranian threat as "nonsense", just the "murder tens of thousands of innocents". I guess a nuke on Tel Aviv will "only" kill les than 5% of its more than 2 million people.
Finally, Zogby put Iran and Israel on the same page. "stop enabling the Israeli and Iranian game of "chicken" with each other" forgetting than when Israel wins a war the Arabs and the Muslims continue to live but if Israel lost the war Jews would all be killed. Never mind that Israel is an ally and a democracy and Iran is an enemy and a religious dictatorship.
The doctrine includes wiping out Israeli assets and Jewish people worldwide. [I did not see the part about "Jewish people worldwide" - EoZ.]
Calling Israel a danger to Islam, the conservative website Alef, with ties to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the opportunity must not be lost to remove “this corrupting material. It is a “‘jurisprudential justification” to kill all the Jews [see above] and annihilate Israel, and in that, the Islamic government of Iran must take the helm.”
The article, written by Alireza Forghani, an analyst and a strategy specialist in Khamenei’s camp, now is being run on most state-owned sites, including the Revolutionary Guards’ Fars News Agency, showing that the regime endorses this doctrine.
Because Israel is going to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran is justified in launching a pre-emptive, cataclysmic attack against the Jewish state, the doctrine argues.
On Friday, in a major speech at prayers, Khamenei announced that Iran will support any nation or group that attacks the “cancerous tumor” of Israel. Though his statement was seen by some in the West as fluff, there is substance behind it.
1. Iran started its nuclear program years before any Arab Spring, winter or any other season.
2. Saddam was very much deterred by the 1981 bombardment as not only the missiles he threw at Israel in 1991 did not carry any mass destruction weapons (as he previously did against Iran and the Curds) but also didn't carry conventional explosives.
So I agree that an Iranian bomb on Israel will harm many innocents, Arabs and Muslims included (although - Sunis) and that it is likely to hard Iran very badly, not only the option cannot be simply dismissed (the author will not care much if he is wrong and that happens), but also there are other consequences, such as the threat of using it when, say, the Iranian backed terror organizations strike over and over again behind Lebanese, Gazan, or Syrian (if still relevant) backs.
The analysis offered thus has a grain of truth, but a grain out of a bushel is not that much...
Yet, Israel that has nuclear weapons is accusing Iran - that keeps asserting nuclear program is for peaceful usage - of trying to make an atomic bomb.
That's beyond hypocrisy, double standards and paranoia, that's just pure hate and determination to invade and destroy Iran, and suck the western world specially USA into making the most effort in realizing that goal of Israel's.
What was USA, France and Russia's reaction ? "The deal did not build enough confidence about the peaceful nature of Tehran’s atomic program", which further proves my point, nothing will give the west 100% guarantee Iran won't make a bomb, cause Iran simply can not prove that she won't do something she didn't do.
West will only be happy when they control Iran's nuclear facilities themselves which Iran will never accept like any other free country.