By Barry Rubin
Here’s a great case study of why so much of the reporting or analysis on the Middle East is so bad. Articles in the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz have led to speculation and concern–even in high levels of the U.S. government–about whether Israel is about to attack Iran. The Guardian and Daily Mail have even predicted that the British government is going to attack Iran. For goodness sake, is anyone actually studying these issues?
In fact, this story is full of holes.
First, Israel has decided not to attack Iran–a point I’m making due both to direct knowledge and direct statements, a few of them made publicly, by those involved in the debate. The reasons for this decision make sense but I won’t list them here to save your time.
Second, there is no new development to prompt such an attack. On the contrary, all of the reports have been about the slow pace of Iranian progress toward obtaining deliverable nuclear weapons. There is no urgency in such an operation.
Third, all the reasons for not attacking Iran are stronger than ever. Israel can expect little international support, the moves toward radicalism in Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, Tunisia, and Turkey (plus a heightened risk-taking by a shaky Syrian regime) make the environment for such an attack far more dangerous for Israel than a year or two ago. And again there is no vital incentive for launching such an attack.
Fourth, the Jerusalem Post article doesn’t even say that Israel is thinking of attacking Iran but only that there is a plan in place for doing so and that Israel’ military is practicing such an operation. Of course that’s what should be happening but that doesn’t mean an attack is imminent any more than did such practicing in previous years. The Haaretz article says that Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu has asked the cabinet to make such an attack. If that’s true there’d be a lot more leaks and since Netanyahu not so long ago persuaded the cabinet not to do it that also sounds doubtful. But again, even if true that wouldn’t be an imminent attack but a start for a new round of debate.
How to explain this story? As I said, it is probable that Israeli forces are practicing for a possible attack if it’s ever needed. There might also be a deliberate leak to scare the Iranians, encourage the West to take the issue of stopping Iran more seriously, or to cover another planned operation. I have a short list of what such an operation might be but I’m not going to write about it today.
What’s impressive here to me is the sloppiness of the response. There have been few good analyses on the points raised above. Don’t journalists know how to read newspapers and don’t they remember some key points that have come out in the past? And where is a serious analysis of the factors leading Israel not to attack Iran.
Okay, I’ll list some:
–An attack would not stop Iran’s program but only delay it while guaranteeing that Tehran would be in a state of war with Israel and far more likely to use nuclear weapons.
–There’s no sense in hitting Iran unless it is on the verge of obtaining deliverable nuclear weapons (a situation that would offer some different targets from those available today).
–Israel has gone for the kind of strategy used by the United States in the Cold War. It is building up both missile and plane forces that would simultaneously provide an effective attack on Iranian facilities and launchers plus the most effective possible defense against Iranian attack.
–Keep in mind two key points: Iran is far less likely to attack Israel with nuclear weapons than many people in the West think (I’ll explain that another time) and Iran needs a fair number of simultaneous firings to launch a serious attack (easier to detect if being planned and requiring far more than one or two nuclear weapons).
–Israel simply cannot depend on U.S. or European support for such an operation and for weathering the dangerous aftermath.
Then there’s the British government and the Obama Administration. Are these two more likely to attack Iran or seek a new deal with Tehran? Is anyone looking at their record, rhetoric, and worldview?
There’s a lot more that should also be part of the discussion. As usual, Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post gets it right. But on watching the response of many others to such developments I keep thinking about New York Yankees’ manager Casey Stengel’s famous lament: Can’t anyone here play this game?
Casey Stengel managed the Yankees for years, but the lament you quoted was made as manager of the Mets, to whom it was directed.
“The Guardian and Daily Mail have even predicted that the British government is going to attack Iran” … uhhh, with what and from where?
you give a reason not to attack now:
–There’s no sense in hitting Iran unless it is on the verge of obtaining deliverable nuclear weapons (a situation that would offer some different targets from those available today).
There is another decision point – the transfer of enrichment activities from Natanz to Fordow. Natanz is vulnerable to the IDF, so enrichment could be stopped. The facility at Fordow is totally underground. The IDF has no munitions that can destroy it.
If the Iranians are about to commence enrichment at Fordow that may be why Bibi is talking about attacking.
I’ve wondered about how one goes about knocking out an underground facility. It seems to me that simply sealing the entrances and exits would make it pretty much useless.
You missed the article in The Telegraph (UK).
The article itself was clueless, similar to the JPost.
But, what I found of interest was the Comments section, approx 600 comments, 95% of them the weirdest, craziest, irrational, attacks on Israel & Jews.
There are a lot of looney Leftists in the UK, no surprise, but you have to see just how crazy, these people are insane with anti-Semitism.
It’s no wonder formerly Great Britain, like the rest of Europe, is going down the toilet.
As to an imminent attack on Iran – believe me, no one knows except Netanyahu.
Terry,
It makes me think that maybe Israel’s next major attack should be against Europe, not Iran.
Eric, that was exactly one of the accusations made by a few of the loonies – that Israel had missiles aimed at Europe & the evil Jews wanted revenge because of the Holocaust. These people are totally nuts. You know, I’m from an Arab country & I’m used to meshuganas but the Arabs were sane compared to the Eurotrash.
Terry, the fact that what we call Western Civilization has so many willfully ignorant, or outright clueless, loons is why I am concerned about a collapse scenario a’la something out of South America/Argentina.
Look at the violence being done by some of the “Occupy” nuts like in Oakland CA. Look at the rioting in Athens Greece. We could get much more of that if we (as in Western Civilization) continue on our present course.
“Eric, that was exactly one of the accusations made by a few of the loonies – that Israel had missiles aimed at Europe & the evil Jews wanted revenge because of the Holocaust. ”
Terry, if Israel were destroyed in a second Shoah, I would hope that she would take down Europe for taking part in both Holocausts. Why should Europe outlive Israel, if Israel has the power to exact justice? Whether that is in her (Israel’s) plans or not, I have no idea – but I assume that an Israel nuclear retaliation that wipes out the Middle Eastern oil supply would merely condemn Europe to death slowly by starvation, freezing and complete breakdown of order rather than by instantaneous frying.
It’s 3 Holocausts, counting from the Romans. But the “deal” with Europe was a genocide every couple of millennia with many pogroms in between. Now the pace seems to have accelerated to a genocide every century. But if indeed there’s a third genocide I don’t think Israel should take Europe down with it because the Euros are doing a very good job at it themselves. That’s what happens when you’re insane.
They are more or less the same. The Arabs imported all the crap from Europe (The Protocols, Mein Kampf etc.) in addition to the crap they already had, and now both of them are beating each other into a frenzy. Soon you’ll hear about Zionist sharks attacking French beaches, Zionist boars demolishing Polish crops, Zionist squirrels spying on Germany, Zionist vultures attacking Buckingham Palace, Zionist chewing gum causing Swedish infertility and so on and so forth.
The decline of Western civilization and degeneration of the Western mind are a catastrophe of biblical proportions, so to speak. It’s the end of the age of democracy, freedom, reason and rapid scientific and technological progress. The moderan age will end together with Western civilization and the world will sink into a new dark age and perhaps will never emerge from it again. We can only hope enough Asians will hold to the moderan lagacy long enough to give it another chance some time in the future.
Many years ago a former United Press International correspondent told me that a tactic, “a” tactic, among and within news organizations was to start some kind of controversy and then sit back awhile to see what developed, and then keep it going with whatever was required.
My distrust of anything the (Manchester) Guardian may say is such that while I could never openly accuse it if doing so in this case, I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if that turned out to be true in this most recent “Bomb Iran” flurry. The militaries can’t and won’t say anything useful, understandably.
As an American, I’m in no way familiar with the domestic politics of either Britain or Israel, but domestic questions in both countries may be provoking this new controversy.
This American is more concerned with our over-extended miitaries in Central/West Asia, and the need to address our own domestic financial and developing social problems. We have to stop being leaned upon everywhere and expected to be scattering bales upon bales of U.S. Dollar-cash in the Third World. That’s a circular drain. The cash simply ends up in offshore personal bank accounts.
It goes without saying that there must be no more American lives sacrificed in that noxious arena of Asia.
I’ve posted elsewhere that if the many pop-up critics of the Military/Intelligence networks ever had had the 24/7 life-and death responsibilities attached to those organizations, we’d hear a lot less criticism and goading.
Psychological warfare with Iran is nearly as effective as a military attack. Israel can raise the costs to Iran’s leaders of taking on Israel. They may not be rational but they can be deterred by the mere threat of superior force used against their most prized assets. Iran’s leaders are not prepared to lose them and they not only have difficulty with nuclear enrichment, they have serious economic and political challenges that prevent them from focusing on Israel for many years. And the West’s economic sanctions have eroded the regime’s standing with its own people. For now, there is no reason for Israel to upset the apple cart unless the forthcoming IAEA report has something we don’t know. Obviously, the benefits to Israel of an attack would have to outweigh the risks. The bottom line is Israel will act alone if necessary to stop Iran but would much prefer the US contain its nuclear ambitions. The current Islamist regime poses an existential threat to Israel; a change of regime in Iran could dissipate that altogether.
well, if I were a US/UK/Israeli leader & was planning to attack Iran, I’d do it when all the op-eds, news stories, rumors, etc. said that that there’d been a decision NOT to attack.
As to the aftermath, remember that the leaders of the Iranian nazi ruling clique put their pants on one leg at a atime like everyone else. It’s been suggested by some columnists that the attack, if there is one, be primarily directed at the individuals who make up the regime, and only afterwards at the nuke facilities. If that goes well, there wouldn’t be much of an ‘aftermath’ to worry about.
Weren’t all or most of your arguments valid just the second before the Israeli PM Menachem Begin gave the order to take down the Iraqi nuclear facilities? Of course, the Iranian facilities are far more difficult to take down, but except that, weren’t all your arguments valid also for the Iraqi case?
And what about the arguments *for* taking down the Iranian nuclear facilities? (Assuming it’s at all possible for Israel). The Israeli government will weigh the pros vs. the cons and not decide according to just one side. To make your argument more convincing I think you should show how and why the cons outweigh the pros. Spengler, for instance, thinks that bombing Iran is a bad idea, but the only idea since all the other ideas are worse, though he’s talking about the US and not Israel.
Funny, I attended yesterday a conference of Stephane Juffa about Iran.
Stephane Juffa is the manager of the “Metulla News Agency”, a french speaking Israel based very dynamic news agency.
They became famous by unveiling the infamous “al dura” hoax…………
His conclusions were opposite to yours .
Should Israel or someone else not Strike iran within the forthcoming 6 months,that country would acquire the bomb !
Finally, Barry Rubin closed the circle. Now he admits Iran is no danger to Israel. And he is right. Iran has no bones to pick with Israel. Iran’s real rivals are Gulf Arabs and Turkey. This is geostrategy: history and geography. Iran is not against Israeli nukes so long as they are directed towards Riyadh and Cairo. Israel does not mind Iran having nukes, so long as Arabs or Turks don’t have it. The real geostrategic competitors of Jews are Egypt and Turkey. So this is no “moderate” versus “radicals” as Barry want you to believe. it is bare knuckle real politik for power and gas and oil. So don’t be surprised if Barry Rubin starts advocating an “ajam” alliance of the outsiders: Iran, Allawite Syria and against Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
What exactly did Barry Rubin mean by “ there is no vital incentive for launching such an attack” and “all the reasons for NOT attacking Iran are stronger than ever” ? Does he mean that he does not believe Iran is capable of starting a nuclear war to bring about the return of the Mahdi? Does this mean that he disagrees with Bernard Lewis, Reza Kahlili, Harold Rhode, Raphael Israeli, John Bolton and Menashe Amir , all of whom believe that Iran cannot be deterred?
MAD is Dead http://www.madisdead.blogspot.com/
hi
i think war whith iran has bad consequences for israel and entire world.
You are my aspiration, I have few blogs and rarely run out from brand
. “To die for a religion is easier than to live it absolutely.” by Jorge Luis Borges.