Israel says it has reasons to attack Iran and may create the opportunity, although it lacks the means. The United States has the means, but lacks reasons, although it cannot be ruled out that its support to Tel Aviv may lead to war.
Israel says it has reasons to attack Iran and may create the opportunity, although it lacks the means. The United States has the means, but lacks reasons.
Tel Aviv says that a nuclear Iran jeopardizes its safety, an argument lacking all value for Washington. With or without nuclear weapons, from a military point of view, Iran is a Lilliputian vis-à-vis the United States, although it is also the axis of a perfect paradox: a Persian country may be destroyed, but not occupied.
In its short existence as a state, Israel has fought four wars – 1948-49, 1956, 1967, and 1973 – and has won them all, because of the effectiveness of its army and the incompetence and lack of motivation of its opponents.
The bombing of the nuclear reactors under construction in Iraq and Syria, the aggressions to Lebanon, the blockade of the Gaza Strip and other operations may be added to those actions. Through these events Israel appropriated the territories of Palestine and other states, some of which are still under occupation.
All this had American backing and an effective political marketing that has given the Jewish state an aura of invincibility which may be now put to the test.
Israel has not operated militarily against Iran because of just one reason: it cannot beat it or, at least, is not sure of winning.
To defeat a country it has to be occupied and, leaving the bravado aside, the Jewish state lacks the required means, training and tradition to vanquish Iran, among other things, because the targets are almost two thousand kilometers away, and three states – all of them Muslim – and the Persian Gulf stand in the way between both countries.
The United States has a vast experience in naval landings, some of them anthological, like that in Normandy, successful as those in the Pacific during World War Two, or failed, like that of Bay of Pigs, but all of them bloody and exceedingly expensive.
In some cases, like in Okinawa, Japan, the commanding officers and the troops were covered with glory. In others they looked ridiculous, as in 1898 during the Spanish-American War, when the cavalry under Theodore Roosevelt’s command boarded the saddles, the fodder and the riders, but not the horses.
In its brief history, the state of Israel has stood out because of its capacity to carry out flashing land operations with motorized units against incompetent, scarcely motivated and badly fortified opponents, and always had full control of the air; but it has never fought a battle in the sea or made naval landings on hostile and fortified coasts.
Tel Aviv lacks a corps similar to the United States Marines and the number of its landing craft is probably minimal.
Although the Zionist state can carry out air and naval operations against targets in Iran, it is obviously exposed to an answer.
Its planes, ship and submarines are not invulnerable nor its cities and nuclear installations are out of reach for the Persian aviation and rocketry and, although through difficult maneuvers, Iran vessels and submarines might enter the Red and Mediterranean Seas and return the blows.
It should not be forgotten that Israel’s air defenses have never been put to test and the Israeli cannot expect moderation or chivalry from Iran, which will use all the resources within their reach to harm them.
The use of nuclear weapons, Israel’s main military argument, will endanger all the states in the Persian Gulf, northern Africa, southern Europe, Russia and Israel itself.
The winds from the Sahara drag the dust of the desert not only to Spain but also to the Caribbean. A nuclear attack of Israel against Iran will have an unavoidable global effect, which may be lethal.
For the United States, a war against Iran is an exceedingly costly military operation and an adventure that, instead of solving problems, may increase them, especially those having to do with terrorism.
But, in the dilemma of Israel being unable to and the United States not wanting to, there is no guarantee to a peaceful solution of the conflict.
There are too many falcons in positions of power, too many lunatics on the loose, passions are running high, rhetoric is aggressive, and troop maneuvers are dangerous
As during the Cold war, a lost shot by a recruit or an accident may lead to war.
The only reasonable thing would be moderation by the parties or the emergence of a qualified mediator. The UN or the European Union are not to be taken into account because, by becoming parts in the conflict, they are disqualified as such and, after the failed negotiations by Brazil and Turkey, who attempted them but were thwarted by the United States, the position is vacant.
An arbiter trying to give peace a chance is needed. Urgently needed.
Translated by Gertrudis Ortega