Will Israel attack Iran?

Global Intelligence News
This article was originally published on opendemocracy.net under a Creative Commons license. Read the article in its original form.

Paul Rogers

The eight-week window before the new United States president takes office is causing high nervousness among those wondering about Tel Aviv’s intentions vis-à-vis Tehran, says Paul Rogers

27 – 11 – 2008

The discussion in the last few years about a possible United States assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities has often been accompanied by the coda that if Washington refrained from targeting this member of the “axis of evil” proclaimed by George W Bush in January 2002, then Israel might – with or without American collusion or forewarning – act on its own account. Several columns in this series have examined the possible circumstances and consequences of an Israeli attack, including the likelihood of involvement of the US itself after expected Iranian retaliation (see, for example, “Israel, the United States and Iran: the tipping-point” [13 March 2008] and “Iran, Israel, and the risk of war” [24 July 2008]).

Now, the interregnum in Washington before the inauguration of Barack Obama on 20 January 2009 is coinciding with a fresh round of nervous speculation about Israeli plans and intentions. Two recent reports widely circulated in the Israeli press serve as a reminder of the continuing risk of a conflict involving Iran. The first was that Iran had on 12 November conducted another test of a medium-range ballistic missile capable of hitting targets right across the region (see “Amid nuclear tensions, Iran says it successfully launched rocket“, Ha’aretz 26 November 2008); the second was that Iran claimed on 26 November now to have installed 5,000 uranium-enrichment centrifuges. 

Much is being made of Iran’s new missiles, both in Israel and the United States. Uzi Rubin – the founder of the Israel Missile Defense Association (Imda) – argues in a leading US defence journal that the new Iranian Sajeel/Ashura missile is far more advanced than any previous type (see Uzi Rubin, “Iran’s Game-changer“, Defense News, 24 November 2008). Most Iranian surface-to-surface missiles have been based on North Korean technology, especially the No Dong series of missiles, which themselves use technology based on the Soviet Scud missiles of the 1950s.  

Rubin, however, claims that the Sajeel/Ashura “is a brand-new missile, an original design more advanced than anything available to the North Koreans themselves.”  This may be rather over the top, but it does appear that the new missile is a relatively advanced two-stage solid-fuel system, which would certainly be a generation ahead of the liquid-fuelled No Dong (see Lauren Gelfand & Alon Ben-David, “New missile marks ’significant leap’ for Iran capabilities“, Jane’s Information Group, 14 November 2008).

To add to the sense of unease in Israel, the Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak told the Knesset on 24 November that Hizbollah now has 42,000 missiles, three times the total available at the time of the July-August 2006 war. Most of these are short-range unguided Katyusha-type rockets; but others have a range sufficient to reach all the significant populated centres in Israel as far south as Beersheba in the Negev desert (see “Hezbollah missile stock ‘tripled’“, BBC News, 24 November 2008).

A time of choice

None of this, of itself, means that Israel is preparing for a military attack on Iran. But there are dangers and these need to be put in context. The overwhelming view in security circles in Israel is that a nuclear-armed Iran is completely unacceptable, either now or in the long term (see “Israel won’t allow a nuclear Iran“, Jerusalem Post, 29 August 2008). In this perspective, Israel’s regional nuclear dominance is essential for its security for as long into the future as can be foreseen. A nuclear-armed Iran is out of the question in its own terms, but also because it might also set in motion a regional proliferation of nuclear capabilities involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and ultimately even Syria.  This might be over a twenty-to-thirty-year timescale but that is not long in terms of Israeli security thinking.

Furthermore, for the more immediate future, Israeli military planners can point to the potential for a rapid Iranian “break-out” from its current civil nuclear-power ambitions. There are a number of western analysts – usually but not always of a hawkish disposition – who claim that Iran will shortly have enough low-enriched uranium to be able to run it through the centrifuge cascades. They would further enrich it to the point where there might be enough weapons-grade material for a single crude “gun-type” uranium-based bomb (see William J Broad & David E Sanger, “Iran Said to Have Nuclear Fuel for One Weapon“, New York Times, 19 November 2008).   

Whether Iran has the technology to actually produce such a device is unclear, and there have been reports that Iran’s supplies of uranium ore are so contaminated with heavy metals that the resultant bomb would not work. No one can really be sure; in any case, producing a nuclear arsenal that could serve any kind of military purpose could still take years and there is no indication that Iran intends to take this path. From the Israeli perspective, though, the possession by Iran of even one “inefficient” device would be an act of huge political symbolism, both in terms of domestic Israeli concern and its perception of its military status across the region.   

In one sense, none of these short-term developments matter as much as the real concerns among Israeli military strategists. This is that the Iranians do not seek to develop nuclear weapons in the coming years. Instead they work hard to develop their civil nuclear infrastructure – building more nuclear power stations (six more are planned after Bushehr), as well as research reactors and enrichment plants (see “Russia and Iran: crisis of the west, rise of the rest“, 21 August 2008). All the time, they would be acquiring comprehensive nuclear expertise that could allow them to develop nuclear weapons at any time of their choosing over the next decade.

An Israeli nightmare

There is a further political context for this kind of worst-case scenario, one that combines developments in Iran and the United States (see Trita Parsi, “The Iran-Israel cold war“, 28 October 2005). Over the past couple of years, power has become more and more concentrated in Tehran in the hands of the elderly supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. For all his populist anti-Zionist rhetoric, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is little more than a puppet, but he is presiding over a deteriorating economy that combines 30+% inflation with a budgetary crisis, the latter worsened by the recent halving of oil prices to around $50 per barrel (“The party’s over”, Economist, 20 November 2008). He faces an election in June 2009 and it is by no means certain that Khamenei will back him; Khamenei might prefer another “principalist” who would help distance the supreme leader from the current problems.

This is becoming more and more necessary since, as one current analysis puts it: “the Islamic Republic is facing an urban, educated, healthy and informed population, but has yet to deliver political liberalisation to accommodate prevailing societal realities, while economic difficulties threaten living standards” (see “Republic Enemy: US policy and Iranian elections”, Jane’s Intelligence Review, 13 November 2008 [subscription only])

If Ahmadinejad is dumped and if a Barack Obama administration is willing to engage with Khamenei, then many things become possible (see Mehdi Khalaji, “Problem with Engaging Iran’s Supreme Leader“, RealClearPolitics, 13 November 2008). They could include a continuation of nuclear developments under really strict International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision; serious diplomatic talks; and an easing of sanctions leading in turn to the ability to import badly needed oil technologies (see Jan De Pauw, “Iran, the United States and Europe: the nuclear complex“, 5 December 2007). The result could be something of an economic turnaround that would preserve the religious principalists under Khamenei and reduce the threat of a reformist comeback (see Nasrin Alavi, “Iranians’ interrupted freedom“, 8 October 2008).

For Israel’s strategists this is getting close to a nightmare scenario: a rearmed Hizbollah and an easing of US-Iranian relations while all along (at any time between around 2014 and 2040) the Iranians increase their ability to “go nuclear” at short notice.

A crucial timescale

This, again, does not make an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities imminent, but two further things have to be factored in. The first is that the Israeli Defence Forces, with all their supposed power, were efffectively humbled by Hizbollah in southern Lebanon in mid-2006 (see “Lebanon: the war after the war“, 11 October 2006). There is, as a consequence, a deep-seated desire to regain their status, both within Israel and across the region. An attack on Iran coupled with an overwhelming response to any Hizbollah action would do just that.

The second aspect is that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would not be comprehensive in its impact since Israel simply does not have sufficient air power. The intention, instead, would be to incite an Iranian military reaction directed not just at Israel but at US forces in the region, especially in Iraq. That would bring the United States into the war, which really would result in serious damage to Iran’s military capabilities, including its nuclear programme.

This is where the Barack Obama changeover is so significant. The George W Bush-Dick Cheney axis would be well-nigh certain to order just such a massive air power response. An Obama administration, on the other hand, might be just too canny to fall into the trap (see Karim Sadjadpour, “U.S. Engagement with Iran: A How To Guide“, Middle East Progress, 25 November 2008). It would recognise that US forces are so stretched in the region that a massive military response to Iranian attacks will pull the United States into a third war in the region.

This is why the current timescale is so crucial, specifically the next eight weeks through to Barack Obama’s inauguration. It also explains the deep unease in the upper echelons of several western European governments, amid a sincere hope that those eight weeks pass without incident.

This article is published by Paul Rogers, Global Intelligence News, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines.

About the author:

 In addition to his weekly openDemocracy column, Paul Rogers writes an international security monthly briefing for the Oxford Research Group; for details, click here

Paul Rogers’s most recent book is Why We’re Losing the War on Terror (Polity, 2007) – an analysis of the strategic misjudgments of the post-9/11 era and why a new security paradigm is needed

Image of the Natanz nuclear facility in Iran
Author: Hamed Saber
Wikimedia Commons.
Image of Ahmadiejad
Wikimedia Commons – Public Domain Image

 

Popularity: 35% [?]

POLITICS-THAILAND: Violence Shakes Elite Myth of Thai Unity

Global Intelligence News / IPS

Marwaan Macan-Markar

BANGKOK, Nov 30 (IPS) – Stories of Thai men getting into fatal fights during a night of drinking are common in the local press. But the killing of Somchai, a 37-year-old man, reveals something more ominous.

The murder justified the fears of some Thai analysts that the country is being torn apart by Thais attacking each other in political rage stemming from the clashes between a right-wing, anti-government protest movement and pro-government sympathisers.

On Nov. 27, Somchai and two male friends had been drinking on the side of a road in a residential part of Samut Prakan, an industrial town south of Bangkok.

It was a little after 10 p.m. Their conversation centred around the siege of Bangkok’s international airport earlier in the week by the right-wing protesters,
throttling the country’s important tourism and economic lifelines. The three men were angered by this siege, which is still continuing.
Read more

Popularity: 14% [?]

Middle East Concerns About India – Pakistan Tensions

Global Intelligence News
Read the Article as Originally Published on Middle East Analyst

By: Meir Javedanfar

30/11/2008

The recent terrorist attacks in India should be viewed with major concern in the Middle East. After the weekend’s events, its a question of when, not if India retaliates against Pakistan.

However such an attack will force Islamabad to pull its forces away from the Afghani border, thus enabling Al Qaeda to expand its operations in Afghanistan.

Furthermore, tensions between India and Pakistan will mean that Barack Obama will have to focus his efforts there, as soon as he enters office, or even before. This could reduce US involvement and focus on the Iranian nuclear program, the situation in Iraq and the Israeli Palestinian peace process. In all cases, conservative, anti-peace parties could make use of the reduced US focus to expand their activities.

There is also the economic angle. There are hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis living abroad, due to troubles at home. These troubles could send them fleeing in larger numbers, thus putting more strain on the economies of Middle Eastern countries, especially those belonging to the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council.

Iran in particular has much to worry when it comes to its economy. It was placing much hope on the peace pipeline running through Pakistan and India. It was hoping that through the sale of gas to these two energy hungry giants, it could increase its income and political leverage in the region. With relations between India and Pakistan worsening, this now seems much less likely.

The current crisis between India and Pakistan is not just a test for Barack Obama. Its a challenge for the entire international community, including the Middle East. Despite the difficulties ahead, Middle Eastern countries, especially those who have leverage over Pakistan, should try to contain the current situation by pressuring Islamabad to curb the activities of terrorists on its soil. Saudi Arabia could lead the region in this case. Having emerged as the recent rescuer to Pakistan’s financial crisis, it could use its leverage over Islamabad. After Washington, Riyadh is the second biggest door opener in corridors of power in Pakistan. This could be put into good use.

The current crisis can also be viewed as the first test for global multilateral diplomacy as a tool to resolve crisis in the post Bush era. The international community should try not to fail.

© Copyright 2008 Meir Javedanfar – Middle East Analyst. All rights reserved.

Popularity: 31% [?]

POLITICS-THAILAND: Status as Regional Leader in Doubt

Global Intelligence News / IPS

Marwaan Macan-Markar

BANGKOK, Nov 29 (IPS) – For years, Thais affected an air of superiority when talking about their regional neighbours on mainland South-east Asia. Such pride came from the country’s record of political stability — despite numerous coups — that attracted foreign investment.

But the siege of Bangkok’s international airport by a right-wing anti-government protest movement, which entered its fourth day on Saturday, is shredding the superior edge Thailand had enjoyed.

This is the fourth airport in the country that this right-wing movement has succeeded in shutting down since it took to the streets in May to force a democratically elected government to resign.
Read more

Popularity: 21% [?]

ECONOMY-US: Past Crises Could Inform or Haunt Team Obama

Global Intelligence News / IPS

Abid Aslam

WASHINGTON, NOv 29 (IPS) – Faced with the worst crisis since the Great Depression, President-elect Barack Obama ditched tradition this week, naming his economic team before anointing a secretary of state — by custom the first and senior-most cabinet appointment.

His choices will marshal an unprecedented government effort to revive the economy and right the financial system. They include key figures familiar with both crisis and controversy.

Paul Volcker, central bank chief under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, is to head the new Economic Recovery Advisory Board modeled on an Eisenhower-era panel of nonpartisan national security advisers. He is credited with quashing U.S. inflation in the 1980s — but with policies also blamed for a severe recession.

Volcker recently blamed the world’s ”broken financial system” on Wall Street executive pay schemes that provide ”tremendous rewards and payments of magnitude for presumed success and not much penalty for failure.” No wonder, he added, that they turned into ”alchemists”, using exotic derivatives in a ruinous attempt ”to turn dross into gold.” He favoured breaking up banks into smaller units ”so that the failure of one can’t upset things.”
Read more

Popularity: 59% [?]

MUMBAI: LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE

INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM MONITOR—PAPER NO.462

Global Intelligence News

By B.Raman

While the picture of what happened in Mumbai between 9-21 PM on Wednesday and 8 AM on Saturday, when the terrorist situation was finally terminated, is still incomplete and confusing, certain facts available should give an attitude of the magnitude of the strikes, the like of which the world has not seen before:
Read more

Popularity: 19% [?]

AUSTRALIA: Do More Regionally to Stop HIV/AIDS Gov’t Told

Global Intelligence News / IPS

Stephen de Tarczynski

MELBOURNE, Nov 28 (IPS) – While HIV infection rates remain relatively low in Australia, the peak non-governmental organisation representing the country’s community-based response to HIV/AIDS wants the government to do more to fund prevention measures here and in the region to counter rising infection rates.

”We made such massive, excellent inroads early on into the HIV epidemic in Australia and our real concern is that we’re actually starting to see all that investment go to waste as infection rates start to climb,” says Graham Brown, president of the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations (AFAO), the nation’s peak HIV-response body.

A report released in September by the University of New South Wales’ National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research (NCHECR) shows that the number of new human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) diagnoses in Australia has increased each year since 1999, when 718 people were reported to have been infected with the virus. In 2007, there were 1,051 newly-diagnosed cases of HIV, representing close to a 50 percent increase on the late 1990s.
Read more

Popularity: 18% [?]

DR CONGO: Peace in a Discriminatory State?

Global Intel Net / IPS

Terna Gyuse interviews ERNEST WAMBA DIA WAMBA, academic and senator

CAPE TOWN, Nov 28 (IPS) – War broke out in the eastern part of DRC again in August since which time 250,000 people have been displaced.

The CNDP headed by Laurent Nkunda has seized large parts of the province of North Kivu, threatening the provincial capital Goma.

In an email interview with IPS, Ernest Wamba dia Wamba — an academic and political theorist with perhaps unique insight and experience into the conflict in Congo as both the former leader of the Rally for Congolese Democracy during the Second Congo War (1998-2003) and as senator in the DRC’s parliament — examines the forces at work in the current crisis.

IPS: Ethnicity is often put forward as the key factor in the conflict in this region. You have a different view: what is the conflict really about?
Read more

Popularity: 21% [?]

Mumbai massacre brings Pakistan on India, US firing line

Global Intelligence News

By M Rama Rao, India Editor, Asian Tribune

New Delhi, 26 November: The Mumbai massacre will bring Pakistan into the firing line of India and the United States, say American and Indian intelligence experts.

The shape of the crisis will consist of demands that the Pakistanis take immediate steps to suppress Islamist radicals across the board, but particularly in Kashmir. New Delhi will demand that this action be immediate and public. This demand will come parallel to U.S. demands for the same actions, and threats by incoming U.S. President Barack Obama to force greater cooperation from Pakistan, a commentary by Stratfor has put out even as the Mumbai events were unfolding in their full terrorist fury.

Stratfor opines that as a consequence of Islamist attack on Mumbai, India and Pakistan would plunge into the worst crisis they have had since 2002.

“If the Pakistanis are understood to be responsible for the attack, then the Indians must hold them responsible, and that means they will have to take action in retaliation — otherwise, the Indian government’s domestic credibility will plunge”, the commentary points out.
Read more

Popularity: 20% [?]

INDIA: Empathy, Grief in Pakistan at Mumbai Mayhem

Global Intelligence News / IPS

Analysis by Beena Sarwar

KARACHI, Nov 29 (IPS) – The terrorist attacks unleashed in the Indian port city and financial hub of Mumbai continue to reverberate through Pakistan at a personal level and on the media.

The crisis, that began Wednesday night and lasted through Friday, dominates conversation, newspaper headlines, television coverage and Internet chatter on indigenous websites and e-mail lists run by Pakistanis at home and abroad.

As a frontline state in United States’ global ‘war on terror’ Pakistan is only too well acquainted with the effects of terrorism, with such attacks in the country having more than doubled and the number of deaths quadrupling from 2006 to 2007, according to a report released in May by the U.S. State Department.

However, even the most high profile attack in Pakistan which destroyed the Marriott Hotel in the capital Islamabad on Sep. 20, that some analysts termed Pakistan’s ‘9/11′, pales in comparison to the events in Mumbai that have claimed over 155 lives already, that many are now calling India’s ‘9/11′.
Read more

Popularity: 17% [?]

Next Page »