War in the Middle East

Over a half century ago, Nikita Kruschev, an open enemy of the West, vowed that the Soviet Union would bury us.  It was not an empty threat. They possessed a massive army and hundreds of nuclear weapons with the means to deliver those weapons anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes, yet they did not start a war and neither did we. It was a stalemate. We spent over 40 years coexisting with a sworn enemy armed with nuclear weapons without going to war with them. The reason there was not a war is because the cost would have been enormous and outweigh any possible gain. Moreover, both sides knew they could not win. Because of that, both sides exercised restraint and did what was necessary to avoid open conflict. The struggle was by proxy and waged on the periphery.

On the contrary, Israel has acted aggressively with near impunity in the Middle East for the last 20 years because they knew if war broke out it would be manageable. They also knew they would win and that the costs would be acceptable. An Iran armed with a nuclear weapon and the ability to deliver it would change that. Israel could no longer be confident it would win a war, or at least escape with minimal damage as it has become accustomed to. Neither would the war be limited. It would have consequences far beyond the Middle East. Israel might not lose, but a victory over Iran could cost them a lot, more than they would like to pay. Certainly more than Israel has had to pay in the past.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S., and by extension Israel, has had a relatively free hand in the Middle East. There is little, if anything countries in the region can do to check U.S. or Israeli military might. We intervene where we please when we please. A powerful and assertive Iran able to defend itself aggressively would alter the equation. More importantly, the virtual invulnerability of Israel would be pierced. Nuclear parity would mean that future attacks would likely have consequences for Israel far more serious than a simple, chaotic rocket barrage. It could mean real bombardment and real war. Parity in the Middle East would change everything.

Despite the growing stridency and heated rhetoric in Washington and Tel Aviv, Iran will not attack the U.S. The fact is it cannot attack the U.S. Neither will it attack Israel. Tehran will not start a war it knows it cannot win. To attack Israel would be tantamount to attacking the U.S. Even if it could fend off the Israelis they could never defeat the U.S.  The costs of such a war would exceed any possible gain to Iran. Indeed it would also would mean the Islamic Republic's destruction. They are bellicose but they are not fools. They will not start a war that would be the ruin of their nation. Perhaps they are hoping that if they do make a bomb they could gain a measure of immunity from Western attacks. If that is their goal and they succeed, we will have to abandon demands and threats and resort to real negotiations.That is what I suspect Iran's nuclear ambitions are all about. They want a seat at the head of the table.

There is much talk regarding the options of "preemptive actions" and surgical strikes", but what we are really talking about is launching a sneak attack on a sovereign nation. We are talking about an act of war.  No doubt it is hoped by those advocating a strike on Iran that it will howl and scream but not much more. It likely would unleash its allies in Lebanon and elsewhere, but it will not strike back by launching an attack on Israel or firing on U.S forces in the region. We are betting Iran will not take up the challenge and go to war. You can point to resolutions and talk of "red lines" all you like but if bombs start falling the first ones will hit the ground in Iran. I am not an international lawyer but as I understand it, dropping bombs on a country is an act of war. We might not call it a war, but it will be war.

Meanwhile Israel is flaunting international laws, treaties, resolutions, and conventions by seizing land, building outposts, expanding settlements, assassinating enemies, and possessing nuclear weapons. It is certainly doing its best to keep tensions in the region high. But I have gotten ahead of myself. As far as the U.S. is concerned, the rules, resolutions and laws that oblige other nations do not oblige Israel. Neither do they oblige us for that matter. The irony in all this is that if we enforced the U.N. resolutions that already exist regarding Israel it is unlikely we would be needing resolutions against Iran today.

Israel is making plans to attack Iran and destroy its nuclear facilities. They have asked Washington for heavy "bunker buster"  bombs to enable them to do so. They have also asked for refueling planes in order to allow their jets to reach their targets in Iran and drop those bombs. If we give them to Israel and Israel uses them to attack Iran we will not be able to stay outside the fray and claim innocence. If you give a person a gun so they can kill someone you are an accessory to murder. If you give a nation bombs and refueling jets so they can drop those bombs on someone you will be an accessory to war. We might claim innocence but no one would believe us. We might as well drop them ourselves. We probably will.

The current conflict with Iran is not about nuclear weapons or ensuring the survival of Israel so much as it is maintaining our free hand in the region. We do not want a stalemate like the one we endured for decades with the Soviets. Until someone can stop us, we will bomb as many countries and overthrow as many governments as we need to get our way. Amidst all the acrimony and accusations we should remember who is threatening who here. We are threatening to attack Iran. Iran is threatening to defend itself. If there is a war in the Middle East it will not be because Iran starts it. It will be because we do.

In our goal to bring peace to the Middle East we are threatening to attack a fourth nation in the region. Peace is looking more and more like submission every day.