Israel-Iran face-off

September 8 2004

New clear crisis in the Middle East
pv vivekanand

CONVENTIONAL wisdom says that Israel or Iran is unlikely to launch any attack on each other at this juncture in time despite the heightened tensions in the wake of American and Iranian statements.

The situation in the region is too tense for such a course of action and everyone involved knows too well that an Israeli-Iranian conflagration could trigger unpredictable consequences.

The US military is bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire and any Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities could be not only be disastrous to American efforts to pacify the Iraqis, particularly the Shiites in the south, but also would also herald grave dangers to its soldiers present in Iraq as well as Afghanistan.

It is no coincidence that Iran, which is not believed to have developed a nuclear weapon, has warned the US of "pre-emptive" strikes against American soldiers in the region. Tehran has also warned to hit back at Israel if the Jewish state attacked Iranian nuclear installations.

The Iranian-Israeli military equation burst forth again following the successful testing of Israel's Arrow-2 missile last month. Two weeks later, Iran test-fired a new version of its ballistic Shahab-3 missile, which it said had been upgraded to match Israel's' weapons development. The Shahab is already capable of reaching Israel, and Israeli experts said Arrow-2 missile needed more work to be able to hit and destroy Shahab-3 while on flight to targets in Israel.

Obviously, Tehran is disturbed by unexplained American military movements across the border in Iraq as well as in the Gulf and feels that it had to deal with the issue on the international scene particularly after recent American statements that any means would be adopted not to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

For the moment, the US has opted avoid a war of words with Iran after the warning by Iranian Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani of the possibility of pre-emptive Iranian action against US or Israeli forces in the region.

State Department Deputy Spokesman Adam Ereli said he was not interested in "chasing statements" by foreign officials. But he said he would certainly characterise Iranian concerns about the US presence in Iraq as "unwarranted."

Ereli argued that the US military is part of a multinational force in Iraq at the invitation of the country's interim government and in line with UN Security Council resolutions. He said they are present to help support the stability and security of Iraq so there is "no cause" to see them as a threat.

However, Iran, and indeed the rest of the world, is aware that the US is working behind the scenes to stir trouble for the theocratic regime in power in Tehran and a hyped up situation brought about by military action could be the forerunner of an American effort for "regime change" in Iran with help from what Washington considers as restless Iranians.

Apparently, Iran also fears that the administration of President George Bush might be tempted to use the Iran card to create a new situation where the American voters would not have a choice but to rally behind Bush in November's presidential elections.

At the same time, there is no definite clue to what course of action the Bush administration against Iran.

It is known that "regime change" in Iran is one of Bush's priorities in the Middle East. He has pledged to topple the Iranian regime if he is re-elected for a second term at the White House. If he remains true to his promise, then he is unlikely to undertake the risky action of military strikes against Iran ahead of the elections.

Simultaneously, there are signs that Israel, which is believed to have at least 200 nuclear warheads and the ability to deliver them, is getting impatient to close the "Iranian nuclear file" by decimating Iran's nuclear facilities. And Tehran asserts that neither Israel nor the US would launch any attack on its nuclear facilities because it has the ability to hit back at anywhere in Israel with its Shihab-3 long-range missiles. Iran needs only medium-range missiles to target American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Interestingly, the Israeli expert opinion that the Arrow-2 missile system — said to the most effective missile defence network — needs more work to be effective against Shihab-3 missiles is seen by many as a ploy to drag Iran into a long-range missile war where Israel would feel free to use its own long-range missiles as well as fighter bombers against Iran.

In 1981, Israeli long-range warplanes bombed Iraq's Osirak nuclear plant saying Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons.

Israel does have a strong military edge against Iran. It has an advanced Dolphin-class submarine patrolling the Arabian Sea, keeping an eye of Iran's as well as Pakistan's nuclear facilities. The sub is said to be equipped with long-range missiles capable of hitting anywhere on the Indian subcontinent as well as Iran if fired from the right range.

Apart from newspaper editorials, there has been no Israeli response to the Iranian statements.

Military analyst Zeev Schiff wrote in the Haaretz that Iran might have sensed that Washington had given Israel the green light to attack Iran's nuclear facilities when Bush's National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said that all means are being considered to prevent Iran and North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Schiff argued that Tehran now believes that until after the US presidential elections, Washington will not dare to open another military front.

That is definitely what Shamkhani had in mind when he said: "America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq."

"The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.

In the hyped-up situation, the ball is in the Israeli court since as long as it stays away from carrying out a pre-emptive attack against Iran the situation is unlikely to worsen. But if it does, then the biggest loser is likely to be the US, whose forces would be sitting ducks in Iraq and Afghanistan.