When people like Daniel Pipes and Bernard Lewis try to influence political decision makers in America by painting a false picture of Iran it worries me. Today, men of such nature hold the belief that Israel’s existence is in imminent danger of a nuclear Iran and therefore this threat must be eliminated through what has been coined as a “strategic surgical strike” on the country’s nuclear facilities in Natanz (near Isfahan) and near Qom (holy city of Iran). General David Petraeus on CNN’s Amanpour echoed this belief that America still reserves such an option in case dialogue between the P5+1 countries and the government in Tehran failed to achieve its objectives.
Evidently the talks have broken down and so my question is why is the option of dragging America into yet another war in the Middle East is still on the table when there is a low cost alternative plan available that will meet regional stability goals more effectively? Why are the so called experts trying to push for military confrontation based on false assumptions much like those presented to support the war against Iraq? The facts are clear but let’s recap for a second.
Fact – Many in the nuclear science community including the IAEA have come out on record stating that Iran’s capabilities for acquiring nuclear bomb grade enrichment is far from reach and while president un-elect Ahmadinejad likes to make outlandish statements against Israel, the reality on the ground is that his rhetoric’s are more for domestic consumption and political posturing in the region than anything else. Today Mr. Ahmadinejad has lost all credibility both in Iran and abroad.
Fact – With the current turn of events in Iran since the June 12th 2009 election and the emergence of a movement that now demands democracy, human rights and peaceful engagement with the world, any talk of a military confrontation will derail this revolt and unite the nation behind the Islamic regime against a foreign enemy.
Fact – Any form of military strike on Iran under international law is an act of aggression and an act of war, and Iran has the right to use any and all means to defend herself. This will not only mean direct military confrontation through traditional warfare but what is of grave concern is the launch of unconventional warfare with the awakening of sleeper cells across the Middle East and in Europe.
Fact – One of Iran’s strategic retaliatory moves will be to destabilize world markets by cutting oil flow through the straits of Hormouz in the Persian Gulf. This will have catastrophic impact on the global economy.
Fact – A war on Iran will unite Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other Islamist groups in Iraq and Afghanistan against America. Once this conflict escalates the Arab countries in the region, unlike their position during the US – Iraq war will also be pulled into the conflict against Israel. We are already hearing the murmurs from some of the rulers of the Arab countries. Furthermore Russia and China will take sides once America backs Israel and we could potentially be looking at world war 3. And last but not least,
Fact – Israel, without the United States will have no chance in a war against Iran and for this reason it needs to think long and hard before it draws up battle plans.
So why are so-called supporters of Israel sounding the drums of war in Washington once again, well the answer in my view is three fold.
A) They sense that once Iran and America rekindle new ties Israel may potentially lose its most favorite nation status and therefore become less important as an ally of the United States in the Middle East. It will also put a lot of lobbyists in Washington who raised millions of dollars in the name of Israel out of work but I digress.
B) In the absence of any regional distraction, Israel will have to focus on dealing with the Palestine issue and addressing the final status agreement for a two state solution. In doing so it is certain that Israel will be encouraged by the Obama administration to make hard concessions on key issues such as stopping settlement building on occupied land, the border disputes and the status of Jerusalem. And,
C) To neutralize A and B Israel will need a war to eliminate Iran’s hopes of bettering ties with America and at the same time by taking out Iran’s involvement in the Arab – Israeli conflict win a decisive victory on the two state solution with more favorable terms.
In my view those who take a hard-line stance benefit from a doctrine of conflict even when it is at odds with the will of most Israeli’s whom today want nothing more than peace, first and foremost with the Palestinians and second with their Middle East neighbors.
And so I strongly believe that war between Israel and Iran is not the right answer when we have a much better option before us, supporting the people of Iran to achieve their rights to a free and democratic regime. I hope America will understand what’s at stake.