The Israeli-Arab Alliance Against Iran
The unlikeliest of alliances has been created. Many Arab states, including ones who do not even recognize Israel’s right to exist, are finding themselves in the same corner as the Jewish state their populations are taught to hate. Radical Shiite Iran is seen by Sunni Arab governments as more aggressive and a greater threat than Israel. They understand that Iran has the desire to overthrow their regimes.
Anyone with connections in the Middle East, foreign policy apparatus, or intelligence community can tell you that the Arab governments and much of their populations look at Iran with fear. Arab media consistently warn of the regime’s designs, and officials constantly speak of the dangers of neighbors meddling in their affairs — careful not to call Iran out directly, but clear enough to sound the alarm. The anti-Iranian rhetoric has reached levels only rivaled by the vitriol expressed toward the Israelis. Sunni Arab governments have frequently attributed domestic unrest by their Shiite minorities to the Iranians and, in the cases of Saudi Arabia and Yemen, have directly seen Iran wage an undeniable proxy war against them.
The Arab states clearly see Iran’s strategy. The Saudi royal family is well aware that its eastern province, where 90% of the oil is located, has a majority Shiite population that is unhappy with their treatment. The Saudis have publicly accused Iran of harboring al-Qaeda members targeting the kingdom.
Bahrain is a majority Shiite country, and Iranian officials have even talked about annexing the country. The Bahrainis have accused Syria, Iran’s ally, of training terrorists that are targeting them. Kuwait has busted a seven-strong cell of Revolutionary Guards agents that prepared attacks in the country in the event of an attack on Iran.
The United Arab Emirates is about 15-20 percent Shiite and has frequently clashed with Iran in its disputes over three Gulf islands. Even Fatah in the West Bank has publicly taken an anti-Iranian line, consistently denouncing Hamas as a proxy for the regime and attributing Iranian influence to their sabotaging of any negotiations. Remarkably, the Saudis and Fatah placed the blame on Hamas for the 2009 offensive in Gaza, and the Saudis even arrested a prominent cleric who said that attacks on Israelis were permissible in light of the Israeli offensive.
No country has suffered from the ideological extremism and terrorism of Iran and their Syrian allies more than Iraq. Even Israel cannot say that tens of thousands of its citizens have been killed indirectly and directly by the Iranians, with violence threatening to propel the country into civil war and cause the collapse of the government. Former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, a secular Shiite, and his secular Sunni allies who won the most votes in the most recent national elections are perhaps the most outspoken opponents of Iran’s activity in their country.
Prime Minister al-Maliki, whose coalition came in a close second, isn’t vocally against the Iranian regime but he used his military to fight a wide-ranging offensive against Iranian-backed militias. The view of the relationship between religion and government in the majority Arab Shiite country of Iraq makes them a distinct threat to the Persian extremist Shiites that rule Iran. A new poll found that only 18 percent of Iraq’s Shiites have a favorable view of Iran’s role in their country and only 17 percent have a favorable view of Ahmadinejad. The rest of Iraq’s sects, the Kurds and Sunni Arabs, have an even greater disdain for the Iranian regime.
Egypt and Jordan know they are targets of Iran for their peace with Israel — an unforgivable sin to the mullahs. When terrorists tried to kill two Israeli diplomats in Jordan in January, the government immediately suspected Iran’s involvement, investigating whether Iranian diplomats had brought the explosives into their country. The security services believed individuals connected to al-Qaeda were responsible for launching the attack, but had done so with financing and material from Iran.
You can’t count on Arab support for anything. The Arabs will hedge their bets, waiting to see who wins. They will go to the strongest side much as Turkey has moved into the Iranian axis. They see America retreating from the Middle-East, they see America abandonning Lebanon. Better yet, they see America abandon Israel. If America can abandon an ally like Israel, how can they count on America? It is wishful thinking to believe there can be any kind of Arab/Israeli alliance against Iran. Granted, some regimes would do literally anything to maintain their hold on power, even support an Israeli strike on Iran. But at the same time, very powerful forces in these countries (and at the highest levels) see only an opportunity to destroy Israel. On the very day that Iran obtains a working atomic weapon, every Arab state will align itself with the new strong man of the Middle-East.
While it is always true that the Arab dictators back the stronger horse, it is equally true that their hold on power is their motivating factor.So, in order to hold onto power they have to hold onto their main asset-oil.One is contingent on the other.
I have little doubt that once they covertly assist Israel-and then condemn her to kingdom come-they will continue their plotting to destroy us.However, first things first, and first they MUST protect their interests against Iran.They are terrified of her hegemony in the region.
This is a fact.
Adina.
Unless you assume that we will blow Iran off the face of the Earth with nuclear weapons, any military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities will leave Iran quite capable of causing a great deal of harm in the region. The Saudis & others would have to believe that America would immediately join the war & complete the job we started. In all likliehood, we would be very busy with Syria & Lebanon, possibly with Hamas, even the possibility (slim) that Turkey would come to Syria’s aid. This is quite a risky scenario for the Saudis, Jordanians, & Gulf States – they may not believe Obama will go to war, they would risk Iranian revenge, this is quite a risk for such risk averse regimes. I doubt if the ruling elites in these countries would reach a consensus on such an enterprise.
So, while I suppose that the possibility of such cooperation might exist, it is not the most likely probability.
Then, we have to consider IF Israel will launch such an attack. This is not a certainty.
Personally, I feel that as long as Ehud Barak is Defense Minister, indecisiveness will be the prevailing mood of our gov’t.
A more likely scenario is for Iran to create troubles on our borders, north & south. This could indeed escalate very quickly into a full blown war & make a strike on Iran immediately necessary.
While I would be the first to recommend a military strike on Iran & her proxies ASAP, I can see that our gov’t. is seemingly in no hurry. The fact that we did not react to the transfer of Scud missiles to Hezbollah & the recent offer by our most disgusting president Peres to cede the Golan to Syria if Syria would distance herself from the Iranian axis says quite a lot.
I have no doubt that American pressure to do nothing enters into our gov’t.’s calculations as a major factor.
This reminds me of the circumstances before the 1973 war.
Adina.
One factor that I didn’t mention is the inherent instability of this situation. By this I mean that there is a great advantage to the side which strikes first. And since we know almost nothing about such an opaque regime & there is no communication to speak of & the same circumstances operate in reverse, indeed the Islamic paranoia of the Iranian regime only increases their belief in our first strike – well, you can see that such instability makes a conflict inevitable.
Terry, you are certainly correct about the distinct military advantage that a preemptive strike would give to the attacker. In fact, I like to compare now, or this summer, with the month or two before the ’67 war.
Then, psychologically, Israel was very scared. Then, LBJ would only utter quixotic statements of tepid support while huge numbers of Israeli children were being airlifted out of the country to the USA for safety. Today, Obama offers untrustworthy support. Furthermore he openly relies on the advice of people like Zbigniew Brzezinski who all but said the US should shoot down any Israeli planes it detects flying towards Iran. And lastly, I think it’s safe to say that today, Israel, as a whole, is equally frightened – at the least of incurring a significant number of casualties in any exchange with Iran. It’s true, unlike 1967, graves are not being dug out in the open. On the other hand, in 1967 there was a much longer “ramp up” period during which everyone knew that the Arabs were gearing up for a major onslaught.
In any case, putting aside such comparisons, I would have to disagree with your fundamental point of disagreement with the author (that is to say, I agree with the author). While I certainly agree that one “cannot trust” Arab dictators as a “general rule”, one can make the rational calculation that they are far more scared of a nuclear Iran than a nuclear Israel (with whom they have been living for over 50 years now and who has refrained from ever firing a nuclear weapon even during times of war).
My point being that while they wouldn’t shed a tear to see Israel destroyed, they would prefer that Iran is deterred first. And if it takes Israel to do that, then so be it. In fact Saudi Arabia has all but said this in the open, and “loudly” to every vising US official including Hillary Clinton for over a year now!
There is no question as to the fear of the mostly Sunni regimes of a nuclear, 12th-Mahdi-believing Iran. Iran has not acted in a rational manner.
Now certainly we can argue as to the effectiveness of any alleged Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear program. But a couple of things are worth mentioning here.
1) Israel finally was allowed delivery of the bunker busters, including the all-important J-Dam variety that had been promised by Obama a LONG time ago, but which were waylaid to the island of Diego Garcia until about a month ago. The point is that Israel now possesses the means to at least make a reasonable “run of it” at Iran’s nuclear sites.
2) Nobody expects Israel to “destroy” Iran’s nuclear production capabilities completely. All that is expected is that they put a serious dent in them. By “buying” a few more years (at the least) Israel buys the world and themselves a whole host of potential course changes. The simplest is the next US Presidential election. Another could be a potential uprising in Iran either during the Israeli strike or after. A strike of that magnitude brings highly unpredictable results — and that’s the best Israel can hope for: to “shake things up” a bit and buy them additional time.
3) While, again, I agree that we can count on every Arab regime to denounce Israel after the strike, and to, as the author claims, fire some anti-aircraft flak a few minutes after Israel’s planes have safely passed overhead, I cannot imagine that every single Arab regime that is Run by a Sunni will not in fact be praying for Israel to inflict some significant damage on Iran’s nuclear sites.
The alternative is essentially complete enslavement to the (reborn) Iranian empire! The Arabs can try to build a nuclear program, but they’ll already be years behind the Iranians. And the second Iran “announces” to its neighbors that it does possess deliverable nuclear warheads, that is the second Iran instantly rises to king of the mountain — with almost no conceivable way of undoing that new “reality” (certainly not without US involvement).
So, yes, certainly do not expect an Arab regime to openly ally itself with Israel, or to even want peace with Israel. But that’s still a far cry from wanting Israel — a known entity in the Arab world — to fail to destroy, or at least impart damage to Sunni Arab’s biggest enemy. This, especially given the case that the entire world has effectively lost all hope in Obama leading any kind of serious action (blockade or otherwise) against Iran. I don’t think this is being overly naive, but feel free to argue against it.
It seems that the ideal result of a conflict between Israel and Iran, from the point of view of the Arab nations, is for both sides to wipe each other out completely.
Well, from my perch in the heart of the conflict-Israel-I give a thumbs up to this analysis.
I have little doubt that this will play out the way Ryan describes, and will ensue in the coming few months.
Our forces are readying-this is for sure-and our population is doing the same.
I don’t think Bibi expects much from the Arabs. Arab air space will be crossed when Israel hits Iran. Expect a lot of public noise and private celebration. Israel will have to hit Syria and Hezbollah at the same time. This will be an all out war for survival, forget UN ceasefires. Anything short of beating the enemy to a pulp will be a defeat. Obama will be impotent, as always. Does Bibi have the guts?
There will be more too. When Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities, it will do so by crossing Jordanian and Saudi airspace with support from Saudi AWACS, nominally to deconflict the strikes with existing air traffic but actually for full-bore military support. And Saudi AWACS always have American military personnel on board.
If the Obama administration squawks about that, the Saudis will offer to remove the American military personnel and replace them with civilian contractors some of whom won’t be Americans. I.e, the Obama adminstration will grandly ignore the whole thing.
Great analysis. I think it is time for Bibi to call the Arabs on it. After all, the states that enable an Israeli strike will also face the backlash. Many Sunni governments are already quite concerned about the development of Iran proxy cells in their countries. Right before I visited Morocco last summer, the Iranian mission was officially closed down and their diplomatic presence kicked out of the country ostensibly for Shiite proselytization. (Attempting to convert someone is a crime in Morocco.) My guess is that there was more to the story. The truth is, as much as the Arab countries may hate Israel and complain about its “colonization” of Arab lands, they ultimately understand that Israel poses no threat to their existence. Israel will not attempt to subvert their countries in the way that Hezbollah has done with Lebanon. Israel should call them on it.
If Obama knew much about the situation, he would realize that neutralizing Iranian influence is the next crucial step in minimizing terror in the Middle East. Any attempts to settle the Israeli-Arab conflict before this is done will be a waste of time and money and ultimately counterproductive. Will the Israeli’s relinquish control of the West Bank to let it become another Hamas fronted Iranian outpost? Absolutely not. Focusing on apartments in Ramat Schlomo instead of countering Iranian influence may possibly be seen as one of the worst US foreign policy blunders in the early 21st century. With Iran largely out of the picture, funds and training for Hezbollah would dry up almost completely; ditto for Hamas. Syria isn’t going to go it alone and would quickly seek to realign itself away from a neutralized Iran. The lack of Iranian funds and training would also help stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan as well to a certain extent.
Morocco has a long history of religious heresies, all were made illegal & more or less went underground. I can tell you that many very well educated Moroccans admire Hezbollah, they see Shi’ite Islam as quite attractive & successful. Since religion & politics are intertwined, Shi’ite missionary activities are viewed as subversion. The Moroccan king is the ”Commander of the Faithful” – a descendant of Mohammed & the head of Moroccan Islam, the legitimacy of the monarchy is at risk. The recent Lebanon War made Hassan Nasrallah quite the hero for many Moroccans, his claims of ”victory” against the IDF readily accepted as true. Personally, I was quite shocked to hear several of my friends praise the Shi’ite sect. It was bad enough to see the influence of Saudi-style Islam grow in Morocco over the years but the thought of Shi’ism taking root is even more disturbing.
I haven’t personally met any Moroccans who are devotees of Shi’ite Islam. That’s really interesting. I know that many Arabs put aside that prejudice after Hizbullah’s 2006 war with Israel, but I have never really seen any hint that they were ready to switch sides so to speak. (I did see an interesting report about such support in the West Bank.)
You are certainly correct about Morocco’s history. It is considered a great honour to study in the King’s Madrassa, and in Morocco, ostensibly secular holidays are fused with religious expression. The Moroccans have certainly had an uptick in Saudi inspired Wahabi sunni Islam as well. A lot of this influence comes through Moroccans living in Europe where extremist Islam is not as well policed. The government of Morocco, however, presents in some ways a viable alternative to the “death to the Jews” rhetoric coming from other countries in the region. There are quite a few informal contacts with Moroccan jews living in Israel, and Morocco announced an initiative to teach the Shoah to the Arab world. I don’t know what the progress of this effort is, but I feel that some of this sentiment will not even work very well in countries such as Egypt or Jordan that are officially at peace with Israel, let alone Saudi Arabia. I think the government of Morocco would generally back Israel in a war with Iran, as would many other Sunni states. (I would not doubt that even many non-Shiites in Lebanon would do the same in private.)
At any rate, perhaps one of our best allies in the region, the Iranian people, were collectively thrown under the bus last year by Obama and the West in an attempt to curry favour with the Mullahs. Any savvy politician could have seen this as the perfect opportunity to neutralize the Iranian bomb without the need for Russian and Chinese support or an invasion. Too bad he missed that one first time around.
”Switching sides” as you call it is not necessarily a sudden spiritual awakening to the fine points of Shi’ite theology. Rather, it is the expression of opposition to the elites that govern Morocco, particularly the Monarchy, which is often seen to be corrupt, inefficient, oppressive, in thrall to foreign interests, not ”Islamic” enough, not ”militant” enough, is only interested in exploiting the people, etc. etc. – all charges, from a certain viewpoint, which are quite accurate.
What I find interesting is that this phenomenon is absent from the average, poor, uneducated people who are attached to traditional Moroccan-style folk Islam & is instead present in Western-educated financially well-off young adults.
There is a factor here that the author omits.
If Israel were nuked, her retaliation would almost certainly take down the entire Middle East. Every major city and the oil fields would be obliterated.
I suspect the Arabs are more afraid of the Samson Option than of the Mullahs attacking them directly.
2012 is the date the people are watching for. the gop hasn’t yet brought out their strong horse, the left will jump on that one to try and break it. watch for 2010 election cycle if the gop wins control of senate and house it will be different. Arab street will seem to dawdle towards Iran. a lame duck in the white house could be dangerous, Iran might get thrown under the bus too.
Iran already knows this attack will originate out of Saudi. One only need look at a map to know that. There are probably IAF squadrons already positioned at Saudi airbases.
They are going to pay a price depending on how far the Iranians think they can pummel SA before the US steps in to break it up.
Of course after that Iran withdraws from the NPT.
I believe that whatever happens, however it happens, something very bad is coming.
In year or so, Iran will detonate a nuclear device in one of Iran’s northern deserts, and will proclaim to the world that the era of Muslim weakness and docility is over and that the United States and it’s allies better beware. Israel and the Arab states will bitterly complain that they have been betrayed and abandoned by the United States and the international community. Russia and China will quickly proclaim their deep and abiding friendship for Iran, and offer to supply the mullahs with the missile and other nuclear technology to make the Iranian nuclear threat concrete. Barack Obama will give a two hour speech declaring that his diplomatic approach was the correct one, and was largely successful, and shows just how international cooperation can be very effective in obtaining worthwhile goals.
Israel will prepare for attacks from Hizballa, Hamas, and the PA, while the Persian Gulf Arab states will find themselves under constant attack by terrorist gangs trained and armed in Iran and smuggled across their borders.
Barack Obama will then give a three hour speech declaring his eternal friendship and support for Israel and the Arabs but explain that it is not in America’s interest to threaten to use nuclear weapons to retaliate should Iran actually use a nuclear tipped missile to incinerate Tel Aviv. He will then spend a half an hour praising himself for this restraint and tell an innocuous story about his childhood and how he was raised among Moslems and he knows how moderate they are.
A few weeks later a major war breaks out in the Middle East, Iran fires missiles at Tel Aviv, closes the Straits of Hormuz, and sinks a half a dozen American warships in the Persian Gulf, and cuts off all oil supplies from the area.
President Obama gives another three hour speech and calls for restraint, and explains how he understands the frustrations of the Iranians and does not hold them responsible for their actions. President Obama then tells a twenty minute story about how he and his grandmother went shopping and bought some clothes that didn’t fit him and took them back and had to argue with the storkeeper, and how this is the correct model for settling disputes, not guns and bullets, but understanding and hope.
You can finish the story yourself.
That is a very believable scenario. I’ve replayed that scenario in my head before myself when thinking about it. Very unsettling.
As ridiculous as your comments sound, the really sad part is that they are probably true.
God help us
Ahmadinejad is trying to rain on this happy parade of Israeli-Arab cooperation. He is pushing the theory that The Mossad set the demolition charges that brought down the WTC 1 2 and 7; the Muslim aircrews were conned and the piloting was done by terminal guidance systems that overode the autopilots and pilots.
Mr. Besig, thoroughly enjoyed your anecdotal projections. I think you have grasped the situation.
I am not buying this whole Arab cooperation thing. Their religious and ideological hatred of the Jewish state trumps their fear of domination by the Shiite, non-Arab, but still Muslim state.
We are seeing the re-empowerment of non-Arab Muslim states – Iran, Turkey and Syria. Basically it’s a return to the traditional power arrangement of the Muslim world that persisted for most of the last millenia starting around the 11th century when Seljuk Turks and Mamelukes seized control of the Western Muslim world and successive Persians regimes controlled central Asia.
What we can expect from the Arab states is that they will allow Israeli aircraft to use their airspace on the way to Iran. On the return flight, we can expect the Arab states to try to wipe the Israeli planes off the face of the earth. Perfect!
The Arabs encouraged Israel to go to war against Hizbullah. That didn’t stop them condemning the action when it happened. They will support Israel’s action against Iran to the last drop of Israeli blood.
I always look
This is the ultimate “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” strategy. Israel will be forced to attack iran. The arabs are probably secretly hoping that Israel and iran will obliterate each other. It is a pity that the current American government is replete with cowards and appeasers. We should assume that the countdown has already commenced and that Israel will have to do its utmost to defend its population. The irony is that arab regimes will be more helpful to Israel than the obama administration.
Greetings to all. The reasons for Arab-Israeli conflict is the occupation of Palestine.
Palestine Arab Islamic state like the rest of the Arab and Islamic states surrounding
Them. Means that there are Jews and Zionists in Palestine a big mistake, because this entity
Zionist is not consistent with the surrounding area (such as language, customs, traditions and religion)
The only solution to end the Arab-Israeli conflict is the expulsion of Jews from Palestine
All of Palestine. The Jewish people will not rest and will not feel comfortable and stability
But if it gets out of Palestine and the Middle East completely. If people continue to
Jews in Palestine and the Middle East, the death and destruction will continue.
Palestine Arab Islamic state and will remain
You do not know what you are talking about.
There is no such nation as Palestine, never has been.
Israel is Jewish and always will be.
The Muslims will eventually be defeated when Israel gets the right leadership.
The fact that we did not react to the transfer of Scud missiles to Hezbollah & the recent offer by our most disgusting president Peres to cede the Golan to Syria if Syria would distance herself from the Iranian axis says quite a lot.
The Jewish people will not rest and will not feel comfortable and stability
But if it gets out of Palestine and the Middle East completely. If people continue to
Jews in Palestine and the Middle East, the death and destruction will continue.
like the rest of the Arab and Islamic states surrounding
Them. Means that there are Jews and Zionists in Palestine a big mistake, because this
the surrounding area (such as language, customs, traditions and religion)
The only solution to end th