By Paul Iddon
Israel's estimated 'month-long' conflict with Iran which is predicted to follow a potential preemptive strike by the former on the latter's nuclear facilities will be anything but a short conflict.
It was recently speculated by Israeli military analysts in the run-up to the 1991 Persian Gulf War that the Iraqi military had the capacity to kill hundreds, maybe, thousands of Israelis. However the military analyst I am referring to made clear that Israel could destroy a large part of Iraq's military capabilities as well as its economy.
Recently we're hearing that Israel could expect after a preemptive attack on Iran to lose about 500 of its people. Such an attack is also being predicted to lead to a 'month of conflict.' The fact that such an attack – coordinated with the United States which has a list of 10,000 potential targets to take out in such a bombardment – is predicted to last a mere four weeks boggles the mind. One doesn't need to be a military analyst to see how devastated a U.S.-Israeli bombardment would leave Iran if the latter were to retaliate – with its own missiles or through its proxies.
Also, one doesn't have to be a regional analyst to see the effects it would have on the wider Middle Eastern region. It was only the other day that Danny Yatom the former chief of the Israeli Mossad intelligence agency said that to stop any rocket attacks from Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza in the near future Israel would need to “act with great force against infrastructure in Lebanon and Gaza,” and added that “it is possible that the price that Lebanon and Gaza will pay will be horrible.”
Such a war will certainly change the power structure in the Middle East and will make the Iranian people hostile towards the west since their sovereignty would have been grossly violated and havoc wrecked upon their infrastructure. This will not be a war of necessity, and certainly not a war justified by the Iranian regimes rhetoric or its cruelty to the Iranian people, on the contrary, it will be a war of aggression.
Iran's nuclear ambitions – be they civil or nuclear – predate this regime. Instead of sabre rattling the United States and Europe should be helping Iran construct its nuclear reactors in accordance with world class safety standards. Similarly, as I never tire of advocating, California's finest engineers -- in the field of earthquake proofing buildings -- should lend their expertise to making Tehran and other major Iranian cities resistant to earthquakes that could potentially needlessly devastate them and their residents.
Iran should also be recognized as a regional player which will act with regard to its own short and long term interests. If Iran is producing its own nuclear weapons capability – a possibility that one shouldn't rule out – it is to more than likely to give itself an edge over its neighbours military abilities and alliances, something it couldn't as feasibly do with its relatively antiquated military. One sincerely doubts that Iran would use such weapons in a quixotic and preemptive attack or under any circumstances except for retaliation from a nuclear attack on it. That being said the political leverage would instil unprecedented fear in Iran's regional rivals if the current regime in Tehran does acquire a nuclear weapons capability.
Of course the idea of this regime assembling nuclear weapons isn't a prospect that one would rejoice in seeing it realized, however one also has to recognize the many factors that would contribute to present day Iran's decision to acquire nuclear weapons – again if indeed they are. Factors such as the encroachment and encirclement it faces on several fronts along with the physical sanctions and the mental intimidation that has in the past been and continues to be leveled against it.
If the United States wants to truly prove itself to be the main promulgator of democracy, human rights, the friend of those seeking freedom, and a benevolent rather than aggressive international power which is capable of paying dues, reparations and admitting wrongdoing for its past crimes against Iran and her people it cannot convincingly do so by dropping 1,000 pound bombs on it and them.
An attack would also likely rally Iranians behind the current regime and prolong that regimes lifespan as a result. It also has the potential to plunge the region into more chaos and the destruction. The misery this will bring will surely instil within Iran and the regions people more grievances and paranoia and prove to have been at its core a regressive action. The resulting burdening conditions that will be created by it will most probably be borne on the people of Iran and other peoples throughout the region.
Israel's estimated 'month-long' conflict with Iran which is predicted to follow a potential preemptive strike by the former on the latter's nuclear facilities will be anything but a short conflict.
It was recently speculated by Israeli military analysts in the run-up to the 1991 Persian Gulf War that the Iraqi military had the capacity to kill hundreds, maybe, thousands of Israelis. However the military analyst I am referring to made clear that Israel could destroy a large part of Iraq's military capabilities as well as its economy.
Recently we're hearing that Israel could expect after a preemptive attack on Iran to lose about 500 of its people. Such an attack is also being predicted to lead to a 'month of conflict.' The fact that such an attack – coordinated with the United States which has a list of 10,000 potential targets to take out in such a bombardment – is predicted to last a mere four weeks boggles the mind. One doesn't need to be a military analyst to see how devastated a U.S.-Israeli bombardment would leave Iran if the latter were to retaliate – with its own missiles or through its proxies.
Also, one doesn't have to be a regional analyst to see the effects it would have on the wider Middle Eastern region. It was only the other day that Danny Yatom the former chief of the Israeli Mossad intelligence agency said that to stop any rocket attacks from Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Gaza in the near future Israel would need to “act with great force against infrastructure in Lebanon and Gaza,” and added that “it is possible that the price that Lebanon and Gaza will pay will be horrible.”
Such a war will certainly change the power structure in the Middle East and will make the Iranian people hostile towards the west since their sovereignty would have been grossly violated and havoc wrecked upon their infrastructure. This will not be a war of necessity, and certainly not a war justified by the Iranian regimes rhetoric or its cruelty to the Iranian people, on the contrary, it will be a war of aggression.
Iran's nuclear ambitions – be they civil or nuclear – predate this regime. Instead of sabre rattling the United States and Europe should be helping Iran construct its nuclear reactors in accordance with world class safety standards. Similarly, as I never tire of advocating, California's finest engineers -- in the field of earthquake proofing buildings -- should lend their expertise to making Tehran and other major Iranian cities resistant to earthquakes that could potentially needlessly devastate them and their residents.
Iran should also be recognized as a regional player which will act with regard to its own short and long term interests. If Iran is producing its own nuclear weapons capability – a possibility that one shouldn't rule out – it is to more than likely to give itself an edge over its neighbours military abilities and alliances, something it couldn't as feasibly do with its relatively antiquated military. One sincerely doubts that Iran would use such weapons in a quixotic and preemptive attack or under any circumstances except for retaliation from a nuclear attack on it. That being said the political leverage would instil unprecedented fear in Iran's regional rivals if the current regime in Tehran does acquire a nuclear weapons capability.
Of course the idea of this regime assembling nuclear weapons isn't a prospect that one would rejoice in seeing it realized, however one also has to recognize the many factors that would contribute to present day Iran's decision to acquire nuclear weapons – again if indeed they are. Factors such as the encroachment and encirclement it faces on several fronts along with the physical sanctions and the mental intimidation that has in the past been and continues to be leveled against it.
If the United States wants to truly prove itself to be the main promulgator of democracy, human rights, the friend of those seeking freedom, and a benevolent rather than aggressive international power which is capable of paying dues, reparations and admitting wrongdoing for its past crimes against Iran and her people it cannot convincingly do so by dropping 1,000 pound bombs on it and them.
An attack would also likely rally Iranians behind the current regime and prolong that regimes lifespan as a result. It also has the potential to plunge the region into more chaos and the destruction. The misery this will bring will surely instil within Iran and the regions people more grievances and paranoia and prove to have been at its core a regressive action. The resulting burdening conditions that will be created by it will most probably be borne on the people of Iran and other peoples throughout the region.
