Israeli yellow card for US on Iran
By Victor Kotsev
ISTANBUL - Though a military conflict in the Persian Gulf does not appear to be imminent, the situation in the region today somewhat resembles that in Europe just prior to World War I, a top Russian security analyst told Asia Times Online. While nobody wants a war, the different actors could easily be drawn into one, said Dr Victor Mizin, vice president of the Center for Strategic Assessments in Moscow.
It is conceivable that the Iranians might try to weaponize in the future their nuclear potential, Mizin said, much like the Indians did in the past, largely under pressure from their own nuclear scientists. In this case, Israel would likely "be doomed to use
force" despite pressure from Washington and military assessments that a successful operation would require the attacker "to knock out immediately some 2,000 targets" including nuclear facilities, military and missile bases, and air defense installations.
For its part, Moscow would probably restrict itself to "strong pronouncements" in the event of a hypothetical attack, though it would try very hard to prevent Israel from attacking. Likewise, Mizin said, Russian diplomats have been trying "two to three times a month" to persuade the Iranians to cooperate with the international community on the nuclear program, so far with little success.
These assessments are largely supported by the latest exchanges between Israel and the United States. Israel continues to stand up to apparent American pressure to leave the Iranian nuclear program to Washington, despite a series of reciprocal high-level visits and a recent arms deal which was hailed by American officials and analysts as unprecedented.
True, last week the White House officially reversed its former opposition to selling Israel aerial refueling tankers and other advanced hardware, including V-22 vertical take-off planes and anti-radar missiles. However, while they welcomed the acquisitions, Israeli analysts claimed that the deal was meant primarily to rein in any unilateral action by the Jewish State and to serve narrow American interests.
Besides, the subsequent insistence of Israeli officials that the United States had allowed its own red line on the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be violated without any consequences - which was followed by a mini-storm in American political and security circles - as well as claims that Iran was fast approaching the red line set by Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, came as a slap in the face for US President Barack Obama. Just Monday, an unnamed senior Israeli official told journalists that he had seen "proof and even beyond proof" that the Syrian regime was gassing its citizens, reportedly further angering the Americans.
Former top American negotiator Aaron David Miller argued recently that the American hesitation to intervene in Syria might be in part dictated by the possibility that it would soon have to attack Iran. "[Obama] is going to need Russian and Chinese support for whatever he does - and he isn't going to get it on both Syria and Iran," Miller wrote in an article in Foreign Policy Magazine. "Staying out of the Syrian crisis will give him more flexibility and options on Iran." [1]
But others have argued that the White House would ultimately prefer to deter a nuclear Iran than to prevent Iran from going nuclear. In a recent research paper, Anthony Cordesman of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies claimed that Israel, too, was in a position to deter a nuclear Iran, at least through 2020. "In practice, Israel now poses a more serious existential threat to Iran than Iran can pose to Israel in the near term," Cordesman wrote. [2]
This sort of argument doesn't go well with Israelis, who are concerned that the sheer difference in size between their country and Iran would amplify manifold the impact of any Iranian attack. We can interpret in this vein the series of recent leaks, not least that the Iranians had not converted a significant portion of their 20% enriched uranium into solid fuel rods, as previously assumed, but had "made them into oxidized uranium in powder form that can be reconstituted and shifted back to the military nuclear program" within a fairly short period of time. [3]
A tentative indication of Israel's intentions can be gleaned also from the recent request by Jerusalem to buy some US$2.67 billion worth of jet fuel and other petroleum products, [4] though it is important to take such information with a grain of salt. Last time a similar large-scale purchase took place, in 2010, a number of analysts announced that a big war was probably imminent, because the shelf-life of the jet fuel was relatively short. Almost three years later, they have been proven wrong.
The intentions of the Israeli government appear to be two-fold; to gradually prepare world public opinion and its own military for a unilateral attack, and to push the US toward more decisive action. The Israeli statements also came days after a resolution to back Israel in a war with Iran was endorsed by the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. [5] The Times of Israel, meanwhile, published an analysis encouraging the Americans to seek Chinese support for an attack on Iran in return for yielding ground on North Korea. [6]
(The latter argument may serve only rhetorical purposes. Asked to comment on it, Mizin, whose area of expertise covers also the Far East, characterized it as "sheer nonsense". China did not trust the West enough to make such a deal, he asserted, and would not willingly risk a major portion of its oil supply in a war in the Persian Gulf.)
In any case, the Americans appear to be pursuing multiple agendas, which include both buying more time for negotiations and building a credible regional coalition against Iran in case they decide to launch a strike in the future.
The prominent Israeli analyst Ron Ben-Yishai indicated in a recent article that the latter two goals, alongside the desire to prop up the US arms industry, motivated the $10 billion arms deal with Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Pointing out that "the aircraft and systems it will receive as part of the deal will most likely not be used by Israel in any attack on Iran that is launched before the end of 2016", Ben-Yishai also argued that the United States Congress would never have allowed the deal with the Gulf countries to go through without Obama giving Israel systems that would maintain its qualitative military edge in the region.
Moreover, he wrote, "the Americans are building a regional coalition which will be able to assist them in case they will have to act in Iran, Syria or other countries." [7]
Analysts say that there is still a chance for a peaceful resolution of the Iranian nuclear crisis, especially after the Iranian presidential elections in June. Last month, a report in al-Monitor claimed that the Iranians were "considering suspending 20% enrichment for six months and converting their 20% stockpile to oxide for medical use". [8]
However, this window of opportunity would hardly last long, a few months at most, and a large-scale war with disastrous consequences would most likely break out in the Middle East if it is wasted.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
