Based upon recent statements of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad one may get the impression that Iran wants Israel to go away. One means toward that end would be a nuclear strike upon the Jewish state. Hence the development of nuclear energy, which could be a way towards making nuclear weapons of war:
...was embroiled in controversy regarding statements he made supporting Holocaust denial and for commenting that "the occupying regime" would, according to various translations, be eliminated, or "vanish from the pages of time." The New York Times reported this as a call for the destruction of the State of Israel when the phrase was translated as "wiped off the map" by Ahmadinejad's official website and Iranian state run media.[source: Wikipedia]
Iran has denied this, but are their denials credible, given their warlike proclamations? How to assess their intentions? From all appearances, their intentions are indeed warlike, and that leaves Israel with a serious problem.
Could the Iranians follow a different path that would show good intentions? There could be another way forward with their nuclear program. One that could lessen the risk of proliferation and weapons development. This way could be towards a LFTR type reactor design. These reactors do not use uranium directly, and it is not feasible nor practical to make bombs with them. The design is not technically too difficult. The technology was developed in the USA over 40 years ago.
In any case, the development of a reactor design which would allow the recovery of plutonium which could be used for bombs is the issue. Perhaps there are reactor designs which would make this difficult, if not impossible, but that has yet to be demonstrated. If it can't be demonstrated, it would leave Israel no choice but to attack-- or take the risk of a nuclear Iran. It is up to Iran to show their peaceful intentions, but that doesn't appear to be the case at the moment. If Iran is being misunderstood, whose responsibility is it to change this? If you want to be understood as peaceful, you should conduct yourself that way.
So, what is Iran up to? Are they forcing Israel to attack? To bring about what result?
Let's say that Israel attacks. Let's also say that they are successful in knocking out their nuclear facilities. What comes next? Iran would probably want to retaliate, but how would this retaliation take place and in what manner? A tit-for-tat retaliation may mean a missile attack upon Israel. But that is not likely to be successful. Israel is too well-defended for that. Iran must know that-- so why the provocation? Is it to unite the Islamic world against Israel, so as to eliminate the Jewish state with a united military effort? Iran may want to do an invasion, but they would have to go through some other countries before they could get to Israel. This means a much wider war than just an missile exchange- tit-for-tat. That seems unlikely. Without a united effort, a move against Israel doesn't seem likely to be successful, so why provoke an attack for such limited purposes?
This leaves out a discussion of how Israel may take out the Iranian installations. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that a way exists for Israel to do that and do it without the use of naval or land forces. Then Iran's only response isn't likely to be successful unless it can lead to a broader effort to wipe out Israel on the ground. An Israeli attack may unite the Islamic World, but to what end? To what extent is that unity going to be useful for any purpose-- the Islamic World is already divided. How would they unite behind Iran? Are they willing to go to war with Iran as an ally?
It would seem to be a game of chicken, which is silly. It seems much too silly to be taken seriously, yet this is what could be happening. The Iranians may be deluding themselves into thinking that Israel doesn't have the will to do anything-- or the ability. They also may be deluding themselves into thinking that the world will unite with them in wiping out Israel. They may be provoking an attack that will only demonstrate their impotence in stopping it and their impotence in retaliating against the effects of it. They may be provoking an attack which only demonstrates that they can make Israel defend themselves with a preemptive attack, while deluding themselves into believing that Israel can't nor won't be able to do this effectively. Israel may behave in a manner consistent with a local saying that it is better to be judged by twelve than to be carried by six. Or to put it another way, it is better to be judged alive than admired dead.
Iran may be provoking a war in which they have little to gain. Also a war in which their adversary has everything to lose if they don't act. To what end? It makes little sense unless the whole exercise is to make Israel look bad on the world stage. But if the matter is about Israel's survival, why should the Israelis care about that? How does that help Iran?
Frankly, it doesn't make much sense. Unless it is a big game of chicken. If that is the case, the Iranian regime needs to grow up.
No comments:
Post a Comment