This is what they say...

By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent

The standard assumption is that a military attack by the United States or Israel to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons would be disastrous for the attackers, and would threaten the stability of the entire Middle East.

Various experts outline doomsday scenarios for such an occurrence, and warn especially of Iran's harsh reaction. Fearing the reaction of the ayatollahs has a paralyzing effect. Even before the first shot has been fired, Iran can credit itself with a success. It created an image of an omnipotent country that will not hesitate to use its power to respond and avenge a military operation against it. This is an impressive psychological achievement.

But a new paper, to be published this month in the U.S. by two well-known experts on the subject, sketches a different and more complex picture. The paper is "The Last Resort," written by Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The main point, notes Dr. Clawson in an interview with Haaretz, is that the success or failure of a military attack depends on many variables, and not just the degree of damage the attack would cause.
Advertisement
What are these variables?

The type of weapons chosen for the attack - will nuclear or conventional weapons be used? Who attacks - the U.S. or Israel? Will the attack cause serious collateral damage to the surroundings, that is causing a lot of civilian casualties? Will only the nuclear sites be attacked, or other regime targets? After the attack, will President Ahmadinejad announce Iran's departure from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty? If the attack completely destroys Iran's nuclear program that is one thing, but if it does not, that is a different story. Then Iran will be able to continue to develop its nuclear program, and the world will no longer care about that. In short, this is subject that is dependent on many variables.

Nevertheless, what would be deemed a success?

If the attack does destroy the nuclear facilities, and it leads to a broad consensus in Iran that nuclear weapons are dangerous for the future of the regime or the nation. In other words, success or failure is determined by the political result of the military attack. The primary objective of the military option has to be to convince Iran to cease its nuclear program, that it's not worthwhile to continue. Destroying the nuclear facilities is not an end in and of itself; it is merely a means to an end. And therefore it is necessary to create the political conditions that will increase the chances for the success of the attack.

And what will be a possible result of an Israeli attack?

Again, my answer is that it depends. Israel has to create the circumstances in which world public opinion will understand Israel and its motives, even if it regrets the attack.

That's more or less what happened with the attack against the nuclear facility in Syria?

Yes, it is quite similar. Israel benefited from President Assad's hostile attitude to the world, and therefore the international community showed understanding of the Israeli air force's attack. Israel did not have to do much because Assad did the job for it. In this respect, Israel also benefits from Ahmadinejad and his statements. They help Israel present its position to the world and explain the threat it faces.

Do you share the sweeping assessment of most experts that Iran's reaction if attacked will be harsh and painful?

No. Iran's record when it comes to its reactions in the past to attacks against it, or its important interests, is mixed. When the Taliban assumed power in Afghanistan and persecuted the Shi'ite minority there, Iran mobilized military forces on the border and threatened to respond, but in the end it did nothing. The same occurred when the U.S. shot down an Iranian passenger airline in 1988: Iran threatened to avenge the incident, but in the end the exact opposite happened. Not only did Iran not respond, but also the incident hastened its decision to agree to a cease-fire in the war with Iraq for fear that the U.S. was about to join the war on Saddam Hussein's side.

In another incident during the war, Iranian boats attacked an American naval force that set out to mine the Gulf. The U.S. did not expect Iran to react, and was surprised. This did not stop it from sinking half of the Iranian fleet in response.

Iran has lately been threatening that if it is attacked it will close the Straits of Hormuz and block the flow of oil, and thereby damage the world economy. But this is a problematic threat, since it would also affect Iran's friends and supporters, such as China and India. I have no doubt that in such a case, they would be angry at Iran.

But most experts estimate that in the event of an Israeli attack, the Iranians will respond with force and launch Shihab missiles at Israel.

It is possible, but first, the Shihab missiles are not considered particularly reliable. Iran deploys them without having done hardly any significant tests. Second, the Shihab's guidance system is not very accurate. The missile's range of accuracy is up to a kilometer. And finally, Israel's aerial defense system - the Arrow missiles would certainly intercept quite a few Shihab missiles. Moreover, Iran's firing missiles at Israel would enable Israel to respond in a decisive manner.

And what about Hezbollah? They will certainly mobilize to help Iran and respond against Israel.

There is no guarantee that Hezbollah will react automatically. They will make their considerations on the basis of their interests, as they understand them. In Hezbollah, they are very aware of Israel's strength, and of the harsh reaction that may result if Hezbollah attacks.

In other words, you're basically saying that things are not as they seem? That Iran is like a dog whose bark is worse than his bite?

There's something to that. My assessment is that contrary to the impression that has been formed, Iran's options for responding are limited and weak.

And this is what I say...

First off it's interesting to read the theoretical hypotheses of those working in the strategic military institutes.

There are several factors to consider that have not been pointed out in this argument:

Never before has President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Iranian leadership been less concerned about world opinion vis-a-vis his nuclear proliferation strategy

Never before has Iran been the most powerful military force in the Middle East

Never before has Iran been in a more favorable military position - given American and world fatigue for Middle East wars (following from several years of bloodshed and thousands of casualties in Iraq)

Never before has Iran faced the prospect of an ultra-liberal American President - the likes of which (assuming Barack Obama wins) is more likely to favor appeasement than military action

Never before has Iran commanded so much power in the Middle East in its aggression and rhetoric against Israel. This can be seen with continuing support and training for Hamas operatives and other militants in Gaza; financial support for families of suicide bombers and weapons and financing for Hizballah in Lebanon.

Never before has Iran had access to Nuclear weapons-grade material

Now, things are a little different.

Iran has been estimated to have nuclear-ready bomb material within 1-3 years.

Iranian leadership has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the map.

Iranian leadership flatly denies or at best questions the accuracy of Holocaust reports.

Iranian leadership likened Israel to a rotting corpse (on the eve of Israel's 60th birthday) and promised that it would die.

Iran has been conducting large-scale military operations across it's vast expanses. Huge displays of its military might were made public.

Iran purchased the latest anti-aircraft defense systems from Russia to guard its Nuclear Facility from an enemy attack.

Iran is working feverishly - against UN & IAEA recommendations in fast-tracking its nuclear program.

Iran is looking to purchase ICBMs that are capable of avoiding detection by radar and satellites. Add this fact to the likelihood of potential nuclear warheads and it becomes clear that Iran is intent on striking first and wreaking absolute havoc - so much so that its enemies would be unable to respond.

Iran has defied every single UN resolution requesting it to halt its uranium enrichment program.

Iran does not need nuclear power - it has one of the world's largest supplies of petroleum.

Iran recently apprehended British sailors in international waters and held the world to ransom with their demands that Britain apologize for the supposed incursion.

Given the facts, and we must take history into account, the situation is indeed grave.

President George W. Bush is fast coming to the end of his term. A likely successor in Barack Obama will initially prove too soft to Iran - given Obama's severe short-sightedness in foreign affairs. Barack Obama has one slogan - Change - but that counts for precious little if the change is going to tilt the balance of power in the world in favour of radical Islamic states.

As potential leader of the free world, it is not only Obama's world duty to protect and to preserve the principles of justice and democracy - it is his duty to enforce them. Diplomacy with terrorist states is appeasement. Barack Obama is too self-absorbed in fancy ego-aggrandizement to take criticism of his ill-informed; misguided world politics. What the world demands of America is RealPolitik.

If however John McCain assumes the Presidency then President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and Iran's military dictatorship will face severe recriminations from a powerful Western democracy and its allies.

Either way a US congress of Republicans and Democrats - regardless of who the President is - will not allow a rogue Iran - armed with Nuclear warheads - to threaten the security of the world.

The European Union is exerting tremendous political and economic pressure on Iran to end its enrichment objectives. This has had a minimal effect. Iran has been ratcheting up its anti-Israel slander with increasing alacrity.

This poses the question: will military action incur severe reprisals by Iran?

The short answer - yes.

Whether it is Israel that surprises Iran or a western coalition, Israel will in all likelihood suffer a barrage of missile strikes - the likes of which will make the 2006 2nd Lebanon War look like a walk in the park.

This means that it is necessary to exert maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran. The country needs to be completely isolated from other nations. It needs to feel the isolation. This can be done through a strong multilateral initiative comprising Russia; China; EU; USA; Canada and Australasia. In the face of such sanctions, Iran may consider - being rational - halting enrichment.

If however international pressure is unable to end enrichment in Iran within a short time, then military action must come to pass. There simply is no alternative. The world cannot allow a nuclear armed Iran to threaten another state with extinction. The world cannot allow the leading sponsor of terror to be armed with nuclear weapons.

The world must act and sacrifices will have to be made - it is inevitable that sacrifices will have to be made - but the alternative of inaction will yield grave consequences.