Strike it lucky
Israel has taken an audacious but terrifying gamble
The world would be safer if Iran abandoned its nuclear dreams, but that outcome may prove unattainable
FOR THREE decades, Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has warned that Israel’s gravest external threat is Iran.
And no Iranian threat is graver than its programme to acquire a nuclear bomb.
Israel is a small, densely populated country within missile range of the Islamic Republic.
A nuclear-armed Iran would put its very existence at risk.
Early on Friday June 13th, Mr Netanyahu at last acted on this conviction, dispatching wave after wave of Israeli aircraft to strike Iran.
They attacked nuclear installations in Natanz, 300km south of the capital Tehran, as well as officials associated with the weapons programme.
And they also killed the top echelons of the Iranian armed forces, including Mohamad Bagheri, the chief of staff.
Mr Netanyahu once had a reputation as a risk-averse leader, but this strike was audacious, even reckless.
Israel is entitled to take action to stop Iran from getting a bomb.
The prime minister is justified in fearing that a nuclear-armed Iran would hold dire consequences for his country.
He appears to have the support of President Donald Trump, an essential ally.
Friday’s assault could turn out to be a devastating blow against the regime in Tehran.
But it also threatens a bewildering range of outcomes, including some that are bad for Israel and America.
Nobody familiar with the recent history of the Middle East could doubt that Israel is right to see Iran as a threat.
The Islamic Republic has been a malign presence in the region, sponsoring terrorists, violent militias and despotic regimes, including that of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has repeatedly threatened to obliterate Israel.
Iran backed Hamas, which launched a murderous attack on the country from Gaza on October 7th 2023.
An Iranian bomb would make all of this worse.
It could lead countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, to seek weapons of their own.
Even without any proliferation, a nuclear-armed Iran would be perceived in the region as a constraint on the Israel Defence Forces’ freedom of manoeuvre.
In Israel’s eyes, that would undermine the deterrence that keeps it safe in a dangerous neighbourhood.
Israeli officials argue that they would eventually have no choice but to attack Iran’s nuclear programme and that they had a brief window to carry one out.
Iran is weaker than it has been for decades.
Israel wrecked its air defences last year, in strikes undertaken as part of a tit-for-tat exchange.
Not only is the regime unpopular, but its influence in Lebanon and Syria is much diminished.
Hizbullah, the Lebanese militia that was once seen as the spearhead of any Iranian retaliation, no longer has the missiles or organisation to mount a serious reprisal.
More importantly, Israel insists, Iran has never been closer to going nuclear.
It says that, having accelerated its production of enriched uranium, Iran now has enough for 15 bombs.
In a recorded address, Mr Netanyahu claimed to have evidence that Iran is weaponising its technology, saying that it may be close to a device.
His officials believe that, in talks with America about a deal that would halt the nuclear programme, Iran has been creating a smokescreen behind which its scientists were in reality pressing rapidly ahead.
In a post, Mr Trump endorsed that view, accusing Iran of being unwilling to make a deal.
If the talks were doomed, Israel believes, then it had to act now, before it was too late.
Perhaps with American help over the coming days, Israel may inflict fatal damage on Iran’s nuclear programme.
Having killed many Iranian officials, it may have caused so much chaos in Tehran that the regime cannot mount a powerful response.
After being on the receiving end of such a show of strength, the mullahs may be deterred from mounting another attempt to build a nuclear arsenal.
That is the outcome which would best serve the Middle East and the world.
However, Friday’s offensive is also a huge gamble.
For one thing, the urgency may not be as great as Israel suggests.
In March America’s intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard, said that Mr Khamenei had not reauthorised the weapons programme he suspended in 2003.
Even after the attacks, Mr Trump continued to believe that there was scope for talks, calling on Iran to return to the negotiating table and strike a deal.
Should Iran agree, a remote possibility, this could yet become a source of friction between America and Israel.
Mr Netanyahu has never trusted Iran to abide by agreements to limit its nuclear programme.
The strike is also a gamble because of its potential regional and global consequences.
Although Iran is less able to retaliate than it once was, it can still cause a lot of harm.
Already, on June 13th Iran loosed over 100 drones against Israel.
Iran could launch attacks on the Gulf states that are American allies or host American bases.
It can still call on the Houthis, its proxies in Yemen.
And it could also wage a campaign of terror against Israeli or Jewish interests around the world.
If this descended into a regional war, there could be consequences for stability and—via oil prices—for the rest of the world.
Odd as it may sound, a collapse of the rotten Iranian regime, much as it is hated within the country and in the region, could also be highly destabilising.
Iran is a big and complex country without a history of democracy.
Nobody can say what might emerge from the chaos.
But the main reason the strike is a gamble is that it may not work.
Twice before, in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007, Israel attacked nuclear-weapons programmes and successfully halted them.
Iran’s effort is much more advanced and dispersed than those ever were.
Its facility at Fordow, in Qom province, is safely hidden beneath a mountain.
If, as some officials believe, that puts it beyond reach of Israeli munitions, Israel would require ground troops or American help to put it out of action.
Even if physical infrastructure is destroyed, Iran has its own deposits of uranium.
In the past few decades it has mastered the process of enrichment.
Geology and knowhow lie beyond the reach of even American bombs.
If the Iranian programme is restarted, it may return more virulent and threatening than ever.
The prospect is therefore that, within a few years, Israel and possibly America will be obliged to repeat the operation all over again.
Each time will be harder than the last.
Even in a world where the old rules are breaking down, an endless pattern of regular bombing raids on a sovereign nation would carry a heavy diplomatic and political cost.
Eventually, repeated strikes could stretch America’s patience and inflame public opinion there, doing long-term harm to the alliance with America upon which Israel depends.
Mr Netanyahu will argue that none of these arguments weighs more heavily than his country’s survival and that he simply cannot afford to let talks with Iran play out.
It is an all-or-nothing worldview that has led Israel into wars in Gaza, Lebanon and now Iran.
The hope is that Iran’s nuclear programme will be destroyed never to return.
That would be vindication for Israel’s prime minister.
But if not, Israel will have to live with the paradox that Mr Netanyahu engenders.
At a time when the Gulf states are offering a new vision of the Arab world built on the coexistence with Israel that comes from economic development, his eagerness to resort to conflict risks making their plans impossible.
In attempting to spare the Middle East from Iranian aggression, he risks trapping it in a cycle of violent destruction and instability.
In its own way, that poses an existential threat to Israel, too.
0 comments:
Publicar un comentario