It is quite right to be worried and hesitant about entering a war with Iran. War, as recent events in Iraq and Afghanistan show, is a dangerous, bloody, often dirty mess in which things go wrong, civilians are killed inadvertently, your own side loses people, and goals are not necessarily achieved.
Sometimes war is necessary. That was clearly true in Afghanistan in 2001 but less clear regarding Iraq in 2003. What are the goals? How are they to be achieved ? In what way can a war be brought to an end? How is victory defined? These are all serious issues.
Regarding a war with Iran, all of the above is especially true. Iran is a large country with almost 80 million people. A sizeable portion of that population — the ones with the guns – is ideologically fanatical. The idea that a few planes will drop bombs, return home, and victory can then be declared is naïve.
Once begun, such a conflict will go on for many years and take unexpected turns. Iran’s regime would become desperate, vengeful, and -concluding it had nothing to lose- would be all the more determined to obtain nuclear weapons and far more likely to use them. Understanding that factor might not deter an attack completely but it should be very much taken into consideration in assessing what to do.
At any rate, while war with Iran might eventually be inevitable and necessary, that’s not true at this moment – when Iran is far from being able to build nuclear weapons, much less deliver them on missiles. And such an operation does genuinely pose serious problems for Israel and also – even if it does not participate directly in any way – for the United States.
On the positive side, not a single Arab state would lift a finger to help Iran. The moderates would be happy that Israel bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, hope it succeeded, and demand that the United States keep them out of any fighting. The radical Sunni Islamists would worry about the precedent and broadcast some propaganda, but view the Iranian regime as a rival, not an ally. The Turkish regime would foam at the mouth but do nothing, while the Syrian regime – allied with Iran – is too preoccupied by a civil war and fears confrontation with Israel.
Hamas is happy to take Iran’s money but is now pretty much a client of Egypt. It might want to start its own war with Israel but doesn’t want to risk everything to defend Iran. But the Palestinian Resistance Committees and Palestinian Islamic Jihad will fire rockets on Israel while trying to attack in other ways. Up to a point, Hamas will stand aside and let them do so.
The most serious organized force on which Iran could depend would be Hizballah in Lebanon.
It is likely that Hizballah would fire rockets against Israel and mount some cross-border raids. The question is whether Hizballah would mount an all-out campaign as in 2006 or merely stick to a symbolic demonstration of loyalty to Iran. There are also Iranian forces in Lebanon that would be more active.
The large UNIFIL force supposed to block Hizballah from staging a military build-up in the south and attacking Israel will be useless. Yet Israeli defensive operations could end up accidentally killing UNFIL soldiers.
Finally, Iranian assets would stage terrorist attacks on Israelis and Jews all over the world. The number of attacks might be limited. The question is whether one or some would succeed in inflicting lots of casualties.
Still, Hizballah plus terror attacks is not a price too high for Israel to pay for ending—if that indeed can be accomplished—an Iranian nuclear threat. Yet the picture on the U.S. side is much more complex and worrisome.
In two ways, the U.S. situation would resemble that of Israel. No country other than Iran would hit at America or Americans; terrorism would be a problem. The rest of the story would depend on decisions made by Iran’s government and also by its local commanders.
Ostensibly, the attack on Iran would come from Israel. But even if the United States does nothing overt, Obama’s AIPAC speech is enough to associate America with the operation. Iran has a choice – It could decide to try to avoid confrontation with the United States.
Still, while Tehran’s decision could go either way, the worldview of that country’s rulers is unlikely to foster a calm, cool assessment along those lines. For them, America is the Great Satan, the Islamist revolution’s nemesis and Israel’s patron. Would Iran’s leaders really say: “Yes, let’s be ‘smart’ and keep the battle confined to Israel, using American reluctance to fight as a way to keep that superpower out of the war?”
Again, that might be how Western armchair strategists expect Iran to act but it’s hard to believe that’s what would happen. Moreover, local commanders of either military and naval units or terrorist cells, irrationally confident of an Allah-granted victory, would not easily give up a chance to wage the ultimate Jihad. Then too, Iran’s inability to hit Israel would set off frustration leading to attacks on Americans.Barry Rubin
About the Author: Professor Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.gloria-center.org.
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.
If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.