WarSclerotic

Israel Hayom | Measuring every step.

American attempts to allow the ayatollah’s regime in Iran to save face and honorably retreat from their nuclear ambitions have been for nothing. In Middle Eastern culture, courtly gestures of this sort are inevitably looked upon as signs of weakness. The Americans, to whom this culture is alien, are now left with no choice. The contempt and scorn heaped upon America by Iran’s leaders during their recent appearance at the Non-Aligned Movement summit effectively made a mockery of U.S. President Barack Obama, the “champion” of an approach that favors dialogue with various extremist Islamists.

In recent years, the American defense umbrella has been increasingly perceived as hesitant and worn out by both its allies in the region and its adversaries. This is mainly due to the fallout from the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the battered American economy, and the closely contested presidential election that means, for all intents and purposes, that all major strategic decisions are on hold.

The Sunni Muslim Arab states, along with Turkey are watching with alarm as a coalition led by Shiite Iran (which, with the backing of Russia and China, is promoting a vision of a new world order), is butchering their brethren in Syria, while the U.S. and NATO stand on the sidelines, unable to intervene. Recent statements by U.S. officials attest to the fact there is now a new bipartisan consensus whereby the world’s mightiest superpower must rebuild its battered image and regain its preeminent position in the eyes of both its allies and enemies.

Iran, ever mindful of the domestic scene in the U.S., is in a race against time. If Iran succeeds in quickly building an atomic weapon before the Americans come to their senses, it will irreversibly position itself as a member of a new, violent club. Going nuclear will enable Iran to do something it has not been able to do in the past – impose an expansionist agenda and “right a wrong” by asserting dominance over the Gulf region and the Arab oil sheikdoms. It will also be able to deal a blow to Saudi Arabia, the entity which most embodies the bitter, centuries-long rivalry between Sunnis and Shiites.

The remarks made by Iranian officials before and during the NAM summit left little room for doubt. If one were to judge by their rhetoric, Iran’s self-confidence appears to be at an all-time high. How else to explain their bombastic arrogance and their boastful intention of one day evicting America from the Middle East and establishing a new world order, with Israel and the U.S. on the outside looking in? Such blunt statements would never be made if the ayatollah’s terrorist state did not perceive itself on the cusp of going online with its nuclear project.

Iran’s mischief is not limited to words. The regime has undertaken provocative maritime actions near Abu Musa, the tiny island in the eastern Persian Gulf whose sovereignty has been a point of dispute with United Arab Emirates. Iran has also exacerbated tensions with its tiny neighbor Bahrain. The most recent report commissioned by the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed suspicions that Iran is progressing rapidly toward assembling a nuclear bomb, hence the regime feels its braggadocio is justified.

Those who are well acquainted with intelligence and concealing information know full well that there is still much we don’t know, and that the IAEA and the west have only touched the tip of the iceberg of the Iranian nuclear program. Tehran has made this possible by denying international inspectors full access to its facilities. The IAEA and Western diplomats do not have the full picture of Iran’s secret program to develop nuclear weapons.

The assumption guiding policy in Moscow and Beijing, the two governments that back Iran and its patrons (the Iraq-Syria-Hezbollah axis), holds that the state of paralysis in which the U.S. and NATO find themselves prevents them from going after their ally, the bloodthirsty regime of Bashar al-Assad.

These factors are inhibiting the U.S., which has historically tended to assume an isolationist stance and to attack only when it is physically hit (like in Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 atrocities), denying it the ability to go after Iran. This is why it is likely that Russia and China will continue to operate according to this assumption, even if Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee who has made hawkish statements regarding Iran, replaces Obama in the White House. The Russian-Chinese-Iranian perception of American weakness will only gain more traction once Iran comes into possession of a nuclear weapon. The atomic bomb will elevate Iran to the position of hegemon in the Gulf region at the expense of the Americans.

This state of affairs is compounded by the widely held view that Obama has little use or interest in Israel and the Middle East. What really matters to Obama is winning re-election, which explains why his election campaign can be summed up by the famous phrase, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden, seemed to confirm this sentiment when he accused Romney of being ready to drag the U.S. into a war with Syria and Iran.

In light of this situation, Israel’s decision to send up a cry for help is a good move, as it focuses world attention on the threat facing Israel in the event that Iran, whose government openly expresses its wish to liquidate the Jewish state, arms itself with nuclear weapons. The disadvantage is that it temporarily obfuscates the real, genuine threat posed by Iran’s ever-tightening nuclear noose on the Western world as well as Arab states.

The full scope of the danger has not been adequately appreciated until just recently. Western intelligence assessments indicate a shift in attitude toward Iran, one that is more closely in tune with Israeli assessments. This shift, however, is more a byproduct of Western interests, rather than the interests of the Jewish state.

Through Iranian eyes

Iranian leaders deserve a round of applause for their threats to wipe Israel off the map. By appealing to the incited masses, they have created the conditions for any Arab state that collaborates with a military strike on Iran to be perceived as one who opposes “the liberation of Palestine and Jerusalem.” We witnessed a similar spectacle in 1991, when Saddam Hussein launched Scud missiles at Israel and Israel was forced to turn the other cheek for fear that any retaliation would lead to a collapse of the Western-Arab coalition against Iraq.

If I were an Iranian intelligence officer, I would take note of the fact that since its existence, Israel has assumed a purely defensive stance, preferring to avoid friction and conflict with its neighbors, including Iran. As such, I would assume that Israel would not hasten to attack Iran unless it felt it had to undertake a strictly defensive action that it viewed as essential. This assumption stems from a number of factors, including Israel’s size, its relative lack of resources, and its ability to inflict damage on an actor that threatens its defenses.

This line of thinking, which holds that the probability of an Israeli attack is low, should also take into account the many adversaries who are eagerly hoping that Israel’s position becomes weaker. Nonetheless, I would not ignore Israel’s purported capability to inflict apocalyptic damage in any second strike against any one of its enemies should the need arise.

I would still, however, take caution over the IAEA’s recent report, which expresses the Western belief that Iran is in the advanced stages of developing a nuclear weapon, and that therefore there is no alternative but to attack. Any military operation would not be carried out for Israel’s sake, but rather for America, which is eager to recover its waning prestige as a regional power, and to reduce threats to its interests and those of its allies, irrespective of the aforementioned reservations.

A preemptive American strike, which would be perceived as being carried out at the behest of, and in cooperation with, Israel, will probably prove beneficial to Obama ahead of the upcoming elections. But it would damage the element of surprise and complicate his vital task of building a coalition with Arab states and Turkey.

Since Israeli involvement would spoil the element of surprise, make it more difficult to build this coalition, and make it harder to gain public sympathy for an attack, even among the target audience (Iran’s internal oppositionists), it is reasonable to assume that Obama would have to take Israel out of the game despite the temporary damage it would do to his political standing among U.S. Jews. But in any case, this would only be short-lived if the attack goes ahead before the elections.

If I were an Iranian intelligence officer, my assessment would take into account that any possible attack would be waged from the air so as not to put American forces at significant risk. Hence the chances that the attack would succeed are relatively higher than the damage that one can expect to be inflicted on American interests and those of their allies in the region, and higher than the damage that can be expected if they wait for Iran to come into possession of a nuclear bomb before attacking.

I would note that a preemptive strike on Iran would elevate Obama, the man who took out Osama bin Laden, into the pantheon of great American leaders, right alongside those that led the nation to victory in World War II. If he loses the election, Obama will miss a historic opportunity to do so.

If I were an Iranian intelligence officer, I would point out that Obama is currently in the midst of a dilemma. If an American attack fails to destroy the nuclear project and to generate a wave of anti-regime sentiment that would eventually bring about the ouster of the government, the president will be blamed for undertaking a populist ploy that lacked wall-to-wall consensus, a pre-election gimmick. Nonetheless, I would conclude that under the present circumstances, Obama would be willing to take that risk and attack.

Telltale signs

Experience teaches us that Obama believes in deceiving the enemy before an attack. This was how his people acted in the days leading to the assassination of bin Laden. All of the “telltale signs” indicate that Obama is “evicting” Israel from the equation as part of his sleight of hand strategy. These signs include the blunt statements delivered by U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, the downsizing of U.S. troops scheduled to participate in joint military maneuvers with Israel, and the deliberately orchestrated frictions between the Obama administration and the Israeli government.

The Iranians must anxiously prepare for the red lines that the Obama administration is set to spell out. This time, there will be no more play on words or “dialogue.” Rather, it will be an ironclad commitment to take action. As such, Iran should view with suspicion the recent criticism by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of Turkey, an ally and fellow member of NATO. Instead, Iran should be concerned by the emerging military partnership between Turkey and the U.S. as well as the scheduled visit to Ankara by the head of the CIA, David Petraeus, this coming Sunday.

Iran can no longer accept the Turkish explanation that its military preparations are the byproduct of Ankara’s frustration over its inability to establish a safe zone for Syrian refugees within Syria. Iranian officials would do well to understand that the Americans are intent on dealing with the “symptoms” in Syria by means of eliminating the virus in Iran.

We now know that the Iranians, who have yet to fully grasp the scale of the American-made destruction heading their way, continue to manufacture the bomb. Their analysis of the “telltale signs” has led them to hold an anti-aircraft exercise next month. They are indeed preparing for an American attack.

Like any rat on a sinking ship, we now have the anxiety-stricken Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah making noise and issuing hysterical threats at the behest of his Iranian masters. Nasrallah warned of missile barrages against civilian targets in Israel. This is another one of the “telltale signs” that Iran and its satellites know well – that the moment of truth is imminent.

In order to explain the game of diplomacy, snooker is the preferred metaphor used by bespectacled professors who teach international relations and political science. The application of force against states is similar to the way in which a snooker ball hits another ball as part of a chain reaction. This helps the player to hit the target and down the ball into the appropriate hole.

According to the snooker method, a decisive American blow in Iran would halt the nuclear program. But, no less importantly, it would deal a death blow to the murderous regime in Damascus. Such a blow would signal to the axis of evil – China and Russia – that America “means business.”

The snooker effect would also reach terrorist states like North Korea and organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, which we have noted is already showing signs of panic. Such an operation would bolster U.S. allies, solidify the quid pro quo basis of relations and defense ties between Western states and the Arab oil producers, provide a boost to Turkey and the NATO alliance, and cut Russia and China back down.

This is the way for America to return to its rightful place as the enlightened superpower and global hegemon. Obama, it’s your turn. Step up to the plate and take a swing.

This entry was posted on September 7, 2012 at 1:29 PM and is filed under Uncategorized. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments. You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.