Opinions | Columnists
Iran won't be attacked this year
Simple common sense tells us that whoever plans a surprise strike does not proclaim this from the rooftops.
- By Uri Avnery, Special to Gulf
- Published: 00:22 July 17, 2008
- Image Credit: Illustration by Nino Jose Heredia/Gulf News
If you want to understand the policy of a country, look at the map - as Napoleon recommended. Anyone who wants to guess whether Israel and/or the United States are going to attack Iran should look at the map of the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. Through this narrow waterway pass the ships that carry between a fifth and a third of the world's oil. Most of the commentators who talk about the inevitable American and Israeli attack on Iran do not take account of this map.
There is talk about a "sterile", a "surgical" air strike by the mighty air fleet of the US. Simple, quick and elegant - one blow and bye-bye Iran, bye-bye Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If Israel attacks alone, the blow will be more modest. The most the attackers can hope for is the destruction of the main nuclear sites and a safe return.
I have a modest request: before you start, please look at the map once more. The inevitable reaction to the bombing of Iran will be the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran can seal it hermetically with their missiles and artillery. If that happens, the price of oil will skyrocket - far beyond $200 per barrel. That will cause a chain reaction: a world-wide depression, the collapse of whole industries and a catastrophic rise in unemployment in America, Europe and Japan.
In order to avert this danger, the Americans would need to conquer parts of Iran - perhaps the whole country. The US does not have at its disposal even a small part of the forces they would need. Practically all their land forces are tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The mighty American navy is menacing Iran - but the moment the Strait is closed, it will itself resemble those model ships in bottles. This leaves the possibility that the US will act by proxy. Israel will attack, and this will not officially involve the US, which will deny any responsibility.
Indeed? Iran has already announced that it would consider an Israeli attack as an American operation, and act as if it had been directly attacked by the US. That is logical. No Israeli government would ever consider the possibility of starting such an operation without the explicit and unreserved agreement of the US. Such a confirmation will not be forthcoming. So what are all these Israeli military exercises and the test firing of missiles by Iran in response to it?
Simple common sense tells us that whoever plans a surprise strike does not proclaim this from the rooftops. Menachem Begin did not stage public exercises before sending the bombers to destroy the Iraqi reactor, and even Ehud Olmert did not make a speech about his intention to bomb a mysterious building in Syria.
Since King Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Persian Empire some 2500 years ago, Israeli-Persian relations have their ups and downs. After the Islamic revolution, Israeli-Iranian cooperation was almost restored after Saddam attacked Iran. In the course of the 1980-1988 war, Israel secretly supported Iran. The Irangate affair was only a small part of that story.
That did not prevent Ariel Sharon from planning to conquer Iran. When I was writing an in-depth article about him in 1981, after his appointment as minister of defence, he told me in confidence about this daring idea: after the death of Khomeini, Israel would forestall the Soviet Union in the race to Iran. The Israeli army would occupy Iran in a few days and turn the country over to the much slower Americans. He also showed me the maps he intended to take with him to the annual strategic consultations in Washington. They looked very impressive. It seems, however, that the Americans were not so impressed. All this indicates that by itself, the idea of an Israeli military intervention in Iran is not so revolutionary. But a prior condition is close cooperation with the US. This will not be forthcoming, because the US would be the primary victim of the consequences.
Regional power
No one can deny that Iran is now a regional power. The irony of the matter is that for this they must thank George W. Bush. If they had even a modicum of gratitude, they would erect a statue to him in Tehran's central square.
For many generations, Iraq was the gatekeeper of the Arab region. It was the wall of the Arab world against the Persians. When Bush invaded Iraq and destroyed it, he opened the whole region to the growing might of Iran.
Today, it is already clear that the real American aim was to take possession of the Caspian Sea/Arabian Gulf oil region and station a permanent American garrison at its centre. This aim was indeed achieved and they are now busily engaged in dividing Iraq's huge oil reserves among the four or five giant American oil companies.
But this war was started without wider strategic thinking and without looking at the geopolitical map. The advantage of dominating Iraq may well be outweighed by the rise of Iran as a nuclear, military and political power that will overshadow America's allies in the Arab world.
Where do Israelis stand in this game?
For years now, Israelis have been bombarded by a propaganda campaign that depicts the Iranian nuclear effort as an existential threat to Israel. I repeat what I have said before: I am not prey to this existential angst. True, life is more pleasant without an Iranian nuclear bomb, and Ahmadinejad is not very nice either. But if the worst comes to the worst, we will have a "balance of terror" between the two nations.
On the basis of all these considerations, I dare to predict that there will be no military attack on Iran this year - not by the Americans, not by the Israelis. As I write these lines, a little red light turns on in my head. It is related to a memory: in my youth I was an avid reader of Vladimir Jabotinsky's weekly articles, which impressed me with their cold logic and clear style. In August 1939, Jabotinsky wrote an article in which he asserted categorically that no war would break out, in spite of all the rumours to the contrary. His reasoning: modern weapons are so terrible, that no country would dare to start a war. A few days later, Germany invaded Poland. The most terrible war in human history (until now), ended with the Americans dropping atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Since then, for 63 years, nobody has used nuclear weapons in a war.
Bush is about to end his career in disgrace. The same fate is waiting impatiently for Ehud Olmert. For politicians of this kind, it is easy to be tempted by a last adventure, a last chance for a decent place in history after all.
All the same, I stick to my prognosis: it will not happen.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch's book 'The Politics of Anti-Semitism'.
Share this article
Popular in Opinions
-
Opinions
Speak Your Mind: World hunger
Who is responsible for world hunger? Are there any solution?
Opinion Editor's choice
-
Palin's popularity is surprising
Despite her various gaffes, the former Alaskan governor may still run for president
-
Jobs vital to global recovery
Higher unemployment reduces purchasing power and revenues
-
Leaders must behave rationally
The onus is on the governments of Egypt and Algeria to calm their football fans
