Despite all the noise of the past few
weeks, Israel is unlikely to attack Iran in the
immediate future - but the escalations are
remarkable indeed, and the warning has been
received, not just by Iran, but also by Europe and
to a lesser extent by the United States. It is a
well-timed warning which serves both offensive and
defensive goals - it concerns not only the Iranian
nuclear program, but also all other developments
in the Middle East that threaten Israel's
security.
It is hard to tell how much is
true of speculation that Israel was behind the
explosion at an Iranian missile base on Saturday.
[1] Iranian officials themselves have made
contradictory claims to the media. Surely,
however, the incident was a major setback for the
Iranian missile program, one of the worst in
recent years. ''The incident happened during a
research program which could have become a severe
punch on Israeli regime's mouth,'' a high-ranking
Iranian military official reportedly acknowledged
on Wednesday. [2]
A top Iranian missile
expert, General Hassan Moghaddam, was killed,
alongside at least 16 other Islamic Revolutionary
Guards Corps. Dozens were wounded, and the blast -
according to some sources, two separate blasts -
was so powerful that it reverberated throughout
Tehran, over 40 kilometers away.
A
probable alternative to the theory that Israel was
behind it, acting through local Iranian militants,
is worth noting: the Iranians may have
unsuccessfully tested a new missile, or at least a
new warhead for an existing missile (the base
where the blast occurred is reported to store
Shehab-3 and Zelzal missiles, both of which can
reach Israel). The presence of Moghaddam at the
base seems to suggest that something unusual was
going on.
''Testing new types of ballistic
missiles is dangerous,'' American think-tank
Stratfor writes. ''Numerous instances of failed
missile launches have caused significant
casualties, most notably the October 24, 1960,
death of Soviet Marshal of Artillery Mitrofan
Nedelin during a failed test of the newly
introduced R-16 ballistic missile. It is not
inconceivable that Moghaddam died during a similar
missile test mishap.''
The truth could
also be somewhere in the middle: sabotage could
take many subtle forms, including cyber-warfare
and supply of faulty equipment. It is not
inconceivable that Russia or China, two of Iran's
main suppliers of sophisticated technology, helped
(or at least closed their eyes to) a clandestine
effort to sabotage the Iranian missile program.
What makes the incident particularly
important is its timing - the mere suggestion that
Israel was involved amplifies the Israeli threats
against the Islamic Republic's nuclear program.
Israeli war games over the past weeks have
included simulations of long-distance air strikes
and home-front drills of attacks with chemical
weapons. More recently, on Monday, the Israeli Air
Force leaked information to the press that its new
unmanned long-distance drone which can reach Iran,
the Eitan, would become operational shortly. [3]
These developments come on top of some
ever tougher Israeli rhetoric. ''[Last week's]
IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] report
[alleging that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons]
only detailed information that can be proven;
facts that can be presented in court,'' Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly
announced at a government meeting on Sunday. ''In
practice there are many other things we see, and
hence the leading states in the world must decide
what to do in order to stop Iran ... The efforts
thus far did not prevent Iran from progressing
towards a bomb, and it is closer to acquiring it,
sooner than what people think.'' [4]
Netanyahu seemingly did not forget those
analysts who are more concerned when Israeli
leaders fall silent than when they make loud
proclamations, either. (In terms of military
strategy, Israel has generally preferred to use
surprise when launching daring military operations
in the past). For them, the Israeli propaganda
machine provided a media leak; on Wednesday, the
Israeli daily Ha'aretz wrote:
According to sources in Jerusalem,
the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
turned to [Defense Minister Ehud] Barak and
[Foreign Minister Avigdor] Lieberman asked them
not to give speeches on Iran, which is one of
the main subjects of the conference [the Saban
Forum in Washington in December], due to the
current international sensitivity of the issue
and Israel's desire to keep a ''low profile'' on
the matter in order to avoid harming efforts to
impose further sanctions on Iran. [5]
Even the admonitions of Meir
Dagan, the legendary former chief of the Mossad
[Israeli spy service] who has been preaching to
Netanyahu publicly not to attack, could be seen as
a kind of bluff, a way to amplify the Israeli
threats. All this suggests that there is more
rhetoric than real intent to act on the part of
the Israelis at present, but the balance is
clearly delicate, and could tilt the other way.
The message behind the Israeli
muscle-flexing seems to have several layers. On
the one hand, Netanyahu is clearly telling the
world to do something about Iran unless it wants
Israel to do it. The more loudly the Europeans
protest a possible Israeli attack (France and
Germany, among others, have spoken out against
it), [6] the more clearly they demonstrate they
have understood the message. It will be hard,
later, to claim that an Israeli attack took them
unaware, and to criticize the Jewish State for not
letting others try out peaceful means first.
Just as importantly, in the meantime
Israel could reap some diplomatic benefits by
allowing the European protests to seemingly stay
its hand. In the context of the Palestinian bids
for international recognition and internal
reconciliation, as well as of the Jewish State's
relative diplomatic isolation, an extra bargaining
chip is more than welcome to its leaders.
Whether Israel can convince Russia or
China of its seriousness is another matter
altogether, and we ought to pay close attention to
any developments at the United Nations Security
Council. The US is reportedly trying hard to twist
the arms of Russia and China into allowing tougher
sanctions against Iran, [7] and Israel seems happy
to supply the bells and whistles - or, to put it
more precisely, the sticks in the "carrots and
sticks" metaphor - as needed.
Proponents
of ''soft'' pressure against Iran claim that there
is still a chance to convince the leaders of the
Islamic Republic to give up their nuclear program.
[8] Failing that, however, the Israeli show of
force might convince US President Barack Obama to
grudgingly take tougher unilateral measures
against the Islamic Republic. These may include,
down the road, military strikes.
According
to prominent analyst David Rothkopf, an American
strike on Iran is not inconceivable:
[I]n the end, as dangerous as an
attack might be militarily and politically, if
the President believes there is no other
alternative to stopping Iran from gaining the
ability to produce highly enriched uranium and
thus manufacture nuclear weapons, he will
seriously consider military action and it is
hardly a certainty he won't take it. From a
domestic political perspective, right now
Obama's strong suit is his national security
performance ... [I]f Iran were to detonate a
nuclear bomb, Obama would be blamed and fiercely
attacked for a policy of engagement that
ultimately proved to be toothless. [9]
On Tuesday, Bloomberg reported that
the US Air Force had received a new bunker-buster
bomb that weighs 15 tons, or six times as much as
its most powerful predecessor. [10] It is hardly a
coincidence that this is precisely the kind of
bomb that would be useful in an attack against
Iran's heavily fortified nuclear facilities.
A military confrontation between the US
and Iran, moreover, could potentially start on
several other fronts, including in Iraq or Syria.
Over the weekend, the Arab League suspended
Syria's membership, starting a dialogue with
opposition groups based in Turkey.
According to Israeli analyst Zvi Bar'el,
this could serve to legitimize a future foreign
intervention in Syria. ''[T]he Arab League is
assuming the role of ''regime maker,'' which acts
rather than merely responds,'' he writes. [11]
On Wednesday, the League gave Assad three
days to stop the crackdown, without making any
specific threats. Simultaneously, France withdrew
its ambassador to Syria, while some of the rebels
in the country, the so-called Free Syrian Army,
announced they had formed a special military
council.
Meanwhile, the clashes on the
ground escalated further, with dozens of civilians
and soldiers killed. Days ago, mobs reportedly
stormed the embassies of Saudi Arabia and the
United Arab Emirates in Damascus, as well as a
number of consulates in the country. With the
country in chaos and the economy in tatters,
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's days seem
numbered, but the manner in which he will go is
uncertain.
''Al-Assad does not want to
create a situation in which the regime's external
rivals, from the United States to Turkey and
France, reach the limits of their rhetoric,''
wrote Stratfor in an analysis from last week.
Given the spiraling violence, that limit might be
very close.
In this context, the Israeli
muscle-flexing serves also as a general warning to
its regional enemies to refrain from striking it
in the event of limited hostilities. Those limited
hostilities may or may not initially involve
Israel, and could take place in Iran, Syria, or
even in Gaza, where the last days have witnessed a
new spike in violence.
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
