Thoughts on Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and Tehran’s Regional Role
The Israeli position is clearly explained by President Shimon Peres in an interview:
The problem is the following: If we would say only economic sanctions [will be imposed], then the Iranians will say, “Okay, we will wait until it will be over.” Now what the Americans and Europeans and Israelis are saying is, “If you won’t answer the economic challenge, all other options are on the table.” It will not end there. Without that, there is no chance that the sanctions will [work]….The Iranians must be convinced [the threat of a military attack] is not just a tactic.
Dagan was also right in saying that Iran’s influence is waning in the Middle East. The last year has been a disaster for Tehran’s regional ambitions. With Sunni Islamists in the ascendancy throughout most of the Arab world, these countries and movements have no need for Iran.
The Palestinian Hamas group will take Tehran’s money, but it is now in the orbit of the Muslim Brotherhood that is going to be controlling Egypt. Iran’s influence is thus limited to competing in Lebanon (where its Hizballah ally is in a strong position), Iraq (where its influence is real but limited), Syria (where its ally is under sharp attack by rebels), and Bahrain (where it backed the losing side).
Thus, while Tehran getting nuclear weapons in, say, 2010 would have had a dramatic effect in boosting its regional power, that is no longer true today and will be less so in the future. There are certainly shortcomings in Western thinking: How can the United States contain Iran when its leadership’s willpower and courage is not taken seriously in Iran, Arab capitals, and Israel? And since containment is defined so narrowly, only in terms of blocking an Iranian launch of nuclear missiles, how can you counter Iran’s — albeit more circumscribed — ambitions?
Iran’s moment in the region as a whole is over, though it can still do a lot of damage in the Persian Gulf area. But we are now about to enter a new era in which Egypt, under Sunni Islamist leadership, has the option of playing the leading role. The last round of such Egyptian activity began almost precisely sixty years ago today with the Arab nationalist coup of July 23, 1952. Today it is revolutionary Islamism that is sparking likely efforts from Cairo to promote revolution abroad and to make some futile new effort to wipe out Israel. The new regime’s first priority, though, is going to be consolidating power at home and fundamentally transforming Egyptian society.
The idea that the threat of a nuclear armed Iran is a nuclear attack on Israel is far fetched. The real threat is of an Iranian bully intimidating its neighbours to keep them inline with Iranian policies or even worse intimidating Europe.
If Iran intimated that Greece and southern Italy (both within range) were in danger if, for example, they did not vote in the United Nations against Israel, what would they do?
Who cares if Greece votes against Israel at the UN? They didn’t even recognize Israel until 1991
Not true, Greece recognized Israel in the 1940′s. Currently both states’ interests coincide. They enjoy a mutually beneficial military and economic relationship and I’m happy to say one that is steadily growing. The Greece/Cyprus corridor is important for Israel’s future hydrocarbon exports and logistics/strategic depth in the case of a general ME confrontation.
If we would [sic] say only economic sanctions will be imposed, then the Iranians will say, `Okay, we will wait until it will be over.
I don’t understand this assumption that the sanctions are temporary, that they will somehow go away as soon as Iran has managed to make a bomb. Indeed, how can the sanctions work at all unless Iran is made aware that the sanctions will remain in effect until Iran has completely relinquished its nuclear weapons program?
Stan, sanctions cost Europe. Once the Mad Dog Mullahs finish their nukes, the sanctions become moot. Why should Europe continue to pay the costs? All the sanctions accomplish is to lower the cost of OIL for China. The ONLY solution possible for Iran is a military one.
Either we bomb them back to the stone age or they build nukes and use them in a de-capitation strike on the USA. No other realistic alternative. Anyone that thinks there is a third way is delusional.
To further Barry’s point that Iran’s power is waning it is important to remember that the brand of Shia Islam that rules Iraq is a relatively recent radical strain brought forward by Kohmeini in 79 which is very different from the traditional quietist form currently led by Grand Ayatollah Sistani of Najaf. As I understand it, the Shiites have historically tended to avoid being too political because they have been a minority required by the Sunni majority to keep a low profile. I think radical Islamism in Iran has run its course and that the Iranian people would prefer a much less fanatical approach to Iran asserting its proper role in Middle Eastern affairs. As the revolutionaries of 1979 age Iran almost certainly will change. I agree an Islamist Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood is more likely to be the greater threat going foreword.
The logic of that second to last paragraph completely escapes me. In the universe that I inhabit when psychos are challenged or even backed into a corner, they become more dangerous, not less. The emergence of Egypt as a radical Islamic state would more likely serve to increase Iran’s determination to become more threatening rather than decrease it. And if Iran’s power and influence really are waning (which I find to be highly debatable) why wouldn’t that fact serve to solidify Iran’s determination to be the only Middle Eastern state with its own nuclear arsenal? My guess is they will have nuclear weapons built within a year or so, and delivery systems can be bought on the black market far more easily than the weapons themselves. If I was Israel I would be bombing already. It’s like the gangster in “Casino” said: “Why take chances?” Goooo Israel!!!
Regarding Iran, you are assuming that the mullahs running the country are rational people, not Islamic religious zealots. What if Iran DOES get nuclear weapons and then decides to obliterate Israel simply because they think their religion demands it of them? Osama bin Laden was willing to destroy the United States simply because of his religious beliefs. Would HE have attacked the United States if he had nuclear weapons? Of course he would, and everybody knows it. Who is to say that such religious fanaticism isn’t possessed by the Iranian mullahs as well? This is a very dangerous road we are going on and to think that Iran is losing its influence in the region misses the point. They may not care about “influence” as much as they do care about buying time until they get nuclear weapons. Relgious fanaticism is a dangerous weapon, almost as dangerous as nuclear weapons. An Iran armed with both could prove fatal to both Israel and the world.
Thank you Libertyship46 for stating what I was thinking (but probably better than I can).
It seems to me that the religious zeal and semi-irrational fervor of mullahs in their belief that Makhdi will come when ALL of the Jews in the world are annihilated still remains the ultimate grand prize.
In addition, Iran also reached out to Turkey initially to gain acceptance, influence, status and attention in the islamic world. I think Iranian egos, like the fragile nature of muslim egos in general, will not just sit there and let the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies just take first place in the islamic scene without a lot of vying for attention of its own.
If the Sunnis are dominating the islamic world and Iran feels left out and irrelevant, it has all the more incentive to build a (functional) nuclear arsenal as if to say, “hey, you’d better pay attention to us because we have nuclear weapons.”
Like little bratty children who haven’t been recognized and rewarded for behaving nicely, the Iranians may be tempted to act out even more irrationally and dangerously to get their spot in the limelight, and get their due thanks and recognition for destroying the “Zionist entity.”
I suspect that there’s going to be serious competition here for who can do more damage and projection between these two groups.
Egypt poses a threat to Iranian influence only if the Brotherhood chooses to export its own revolutionary ideology. If their first priority is securing power at home and transforming Egyptian society, that would suggest Iran, far from fading, will remain a dominant player for years to come.
“I think radical Islamism in Iran has run its course”
Evidence please! It seems to me that you and Mr. Rubin are engaged in wishful thinking instead of critical thinking. The ONLY thing sanctions accomplish is making smugglers rich.
Sanctions might work against democracies but they are not needed against a democracy.
In the end the only solution to the Iranian problem is the application of high explosives at critical points. Fortunately, both the US Navy and Air Force specialise in such endeavours.
The longer we wait, the more difficult it becomes. If Jimmy the wabbit Carter hasd a set of nads, He would have asked Congress to declare war on Iran and after the Air Force and Navy bombed them back to the stone age, the ME would be at peace today. See Germany, Japan. Peace ONLY comes thru superior Firepower.
History is on my side in this argument. Cuba has been under sanctions since 1958. Hasn’t changed a thing. Sanctions NEVER stopped Kim from getting his Lobster (Maine) and washing them down with champaign (California).
So stop with the wishful thinking and draw a bead on reality.
Russia, China, Iran to Hold Large Exercise in Syria
http://rusnavy.com/news/navy/index.php?ELEMENT_ID=15374
Why is it an either or? Iran and an Islamist Egypt can BOTH BE A THREAT even if they seem to be working at cross purposes sometimes. I agree that a nuclear Iran is not going to just drop an A-bomb on Tel Aviv but the idea that you can eliminate the nuclear threat from Iran after they have the bomb is preposterous. They will use that nuclear umbrella to work relentlessly to secure their influence between the Zagros and the Mediterranean and along Israel’s northern border in Lebanon. And all the while it will be necessary for Israel to devote more and more resources to its southern border area with Sinai (which they have not needed to do since the 1970s). Israel is a very rich country for its size but its citizens have become accustomed to a certain standard of living which the economy will not likely support for many years if a maximum effort defending of all of its borders like during the 1948-79 period.
Actually, Israel will strike first. They would have no choice. Their only choice would be to start nuclear or wait until Iran went nuclear. Remember, Israel has a functional ABM system. They could wait until Iran launched, let Arrow handle the ICBM then counter strike.
Ballsy, but ‘nads are something Israel has never been short of.
Mr Rubin, how can you be so sure that iran is years away from having a delivery capability ? This delivery capability can be bought for peanuts from North Korea or Pakistan.And you also seems to agree with iran getting without hindrance a nuclear weapon.That will only reinforce its power and threatening power.Egypt rise under the MB will only add a further strain on Israel, but will not at all diminish Iran ‘rise towards a dominating status once it becomes nuclear.On the whole you appear very weak in your argumentation and you deliver mainly wishful thinking.
If I ran Israel, I would do four things in response to an Iranian nuclear weapon:
1. Persuade the US to build an airbase in the Negev, with a couple of armored brigades as guards, and a large contingent of missile defense and advanced radars, also to use Haifa as a home port for a squadron of Aegis ships. The base in the Negev could take the place of bases in the Persian Gulf, would provide tangible evidence of the commitment of the United States to Israel’s security, and Israel’s position under the US’ nuclear umbrella, just as bases in Western Europe did during the Cold War. The armored brigades on the base would deter the Egyptians from adventurism, although it is clear that the Brotherhood ruled country will have enormous problems just feeding itself, and will not have the resources to do anything.
2. Instal advanced anti-missile radars on Mt. Hermon. Make it clear that an Iranian nuclear weapon is the absolute end of any idea of returning the Golan to Syria. There is a price to pay, and Syria will have to pay it on behalf of its protector.
3. Embark on a major civil defense program, to equip every residence and commercial building in Israel with underground shelters with 2 weeks of food and water. A nuclear attack is a devastating thing to absorb, but most of the people who will die in one, will die from radiation and fires that are the secondary effects of the blast. Most of those deaths can be prevented. Further, the Iranians are not so capable that they can be sure of hitting the center of their targets. An Iranian missile aimed at Tel Aviv has a decent chance of blowing up in the sea, but the clouds of radioactive steam that it would create could be deadly, but not to a protected population.
The Swiss created such a system during the Cold War: “La Place de la Concorde Suisse” by John McPhee:
– http://www.amazon.com/Place-Concorde-Suisse-John-McPhee/dp/0374519323/
Israel’s military is based on the Swiss example. Israel’s civil defense, should be based on the Swiss example also.
It would have the additional effect of blunting missile attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah.
4. Make it clear to Iran and the Palestinians, that the Palestinians are hostages for Iran’s good behavior. An attack on Israel will lead to the expulsion of all Palestinians from the land between the Jordan River and The Mediterranean Sea. And that Mosque, it has been mortgaged.
Mr Rubin, your appreciation of the eventual stalling of iranian influence has just been denied by Mohamed Morsi, the freshly elected Egypt president: Morsi just declared Egypt will JOIN FORCE with Iran to create a new strategic balance in the Mideast.I do read in your analysis a very wishful vision of a fragmented mideast which should be less dangerous than what it really is.You sound more and more like Shimon Peres, who pretended for many years that the Oslo agreements were rock solid despite daily bombings by his fatah cherished partner.
Can I simply say what a aid to search out someone who truly is aware of what theyre speaking about on the internet. You undoubtedly know the right way to bring an issue to light and make it important. Extra folks must learn this and perceive this side of the story. I cant consider youre not more fashionable because you definitely have the gift.