Posted on 05/09/2018 5:29:57 AM PDT by SJackson
Both in word and deed, Israel is firmly committed to its red lines.
Given their mutual resolve in meeting their completely contradictory objectives – Iran’s resolve to turn Syria into a forward base of direct Iranian operations and Israel’s resolve to prevent it – the prospects of a war breaking out between Iran and its proxies and Israel are high. The war will be mutually destructive but Israel has one advantage – a public that will be firmly behind its democratically elected government.
Both in word and deed, Israel is firmly committed to its red lines, the reddest being that Israel will not permit Syria to be turned into an Iranian forward base and a manufacturing center for precision-guided missiles.
Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is equally committed to its objectives – turning Syria into a forward based of direct Iranian operations and a manufacturing center for precision-guided missiles.
The prospects of a war breaking out are thus high, certainly high enough to consider how such a war might play out and the ramifications of such a deadly conflict.
If such a war breaks out, it will signal the end of the era ushered in by the Yom Kippur war in 1973 and formalized in the peace treaty with Egypt, the most powerful enemy state in the Middle East at the time, that spelled the end of the wars between Arab states and Israel.
Most of the conflicts in the four-and-a-half decades since took place between Israel and nonstate actors, including the long, low-intensity conflict between Iran’s proxy Hezbollah and Israel in southern Lebanon and then the larger conflagration in 2006.
The prospects that Iran will directly attack Israel or alternatively activate its proxy Hezbollah is the first scenario that must be addressed. (One can safely assume that the Syrian army has its hands full completing the defeat of the Sunni opposition forces in northeastern Syria in the Idlib area and preventing their resurgence).
Iran might decide to attack directly for two major reasons. One is the Iranian perception that the activation of a Hezbollah-directed missile war might not be sufficiently costly to Israel to deter it from continuing to attack Iranian infrastructure in Syria, especially since it brings it its wake the danger that Israel might decide to retaliate directly against Iran.
Hezbollah’s war-weariness might be another factor in an Iranian decision to either attack directly alone or at least share the pain of war-making with its proxy.
Hezbollah draws its ranks from a small community of less than two million people and is responsible for the blood-letting of its youth continuously from 1982 to 2000, primarily against Israel but also against the Sunnis in Tripoli and the Palestinians in the “war of the camps” in 1985, as well.
The blood-letting came to a temporary end with the Israeli withdrawal/hurried retreat from southern Lebanon in 2000 and the disintegration of its Maronite-supported militia, only to re-emerge six years later as Hezbollah suffered hundreds of deaths in the 2006 confrontation with Israel.
That war, however, proved to be only another brief respite. Six years later, Hezbollah was once again bleeding the community’s youth in the bloody civil war in Syria, which continues to this day. The lack of popularity of what is probably the deadliest of Hezbollah’s wars to date can be seen in the major media sites linked to the organization.
These sites hardly report on Hezbollah’s participation in the Syrian fighting, and the sophisticated videos the organization produces to immortalize the fighters (“martyrs,” as it perceives them) are ensconced in the sites in a way that makes them difficult to access. Obviously, they are intended for the families alone, not the general Shi’ite public, which seems opposed to Hezbollah’s involvement in Syria, not least because the Shi’ites do not want to antagonize their Sunni neighbors in Lebanon and risk once again a deadly civil war.
Demographic data also shows that the birth rate of the Shi’ites in Lebanon (as indeed in Iran itself) has plummeted, reaching in 2004 a “European” fertility rate – that is, below replacement rate. This means that new recruits will be increasingly coming from four-member families, for which loss of life is particularly harsh.
Iran, then, will probably attack directly.
Since it has no air force and very little capacity to dispatch troops from Iran (they would be prey to Israel’s air force en route), the war on its part will be a missile war, in which Hezbollah will probably take part.
Such a missile war and the subsequent massive use of Israeli air power will demonstrate the mutual vulnerabilities of the two countries, despite the massive difference in terms of population (80 million for Iran as opposed to 8.5 million for Israel) and even more substantially in size (1.65 million sq.km. for Iran compared to only 21,000 sq.km.
for Israel).
That Iran is as vulnerable as Israel despite these differences can be attributed to three existential vulnerabilities. The first is that Iran exports 90% of its oil and gas from one port (essentially an island), Kharg, 160 km. southeast from the tip of the Iraq-Iran border, on the Persian/Arab Gulf.
The revenues Iran derives from that oil and gas amount to at least 40% of government expenditures and around half of Iran’s foreign reserves.
Meanwhile, the port of Bandar Abbas (“bandar” is “port” in Farsi) on Iran’s southern tip is responsible for 90% of its container trade. The goods brought in by container represent only 15% to 20% of total trade, but they are the goods that make the difference between the 21st and 19th centuries as far as most Iranians are concerned.
One can safely assume that the Israeli air force has given much consideration to addressing these two major points of Iranian vulnerability.
The war, then, will be very destructive and very disruptive not only for Israel and Iran but for neighboring states as well. Israel might feel compelled to attack airports in Lebanon, Syria and even Iraq to prevent the movement of Iranian troops and equipment.
Israel shares Iran’s vulnerability, due to its small size and dense population, especially in its coastal areas, but it has one advantage – Israel’s citizens will be firmly behind its democratically-elected government.
This might not be the case for the fundamentalist regime of Iran, whose population has been paying dearly for the regime’s imperialist ambitions and will be paying a hundred times dearer if a war breaks out.
Who knows? To stave off its downfall, this leadership might even decide to avert a war with Israel, which never wanted a conflict with Iran in the first place.
..................
In all wars past, Israel is leading only to be reined in by the USA president whether it be Bush, Clinton, Obama etc.
I can probably say with some certainty, that if Israel starts kicking butt, say in Lebonon, Syria etc. Trump will not try to rein them in, but will provide all the support possible short of sending troops in.
This fact is grossly un stated in this article.
Strongly agree.
Omitted from that analysis is the two day old Iranian political victory in Lebanon, and the Iranian client Hamas.
US and allied forces in the area are on alert and are actively surveilling Iranian and its clients movements.
We already have troops stationed in Israel (in the Nagiev). They will be a target in any conflict, due to the nature of their MOS.
Um, no.
The Iranian Mullahs are basically cowards unable to prosecute a real war. Iran must carry on very limited war prosecuted through surrogates. Iran can’t project beyond the adjacent borders except through surrogates.
As soon as there is a real devastating, destructive, attack on the Iranian homeland The war will be over.
Israel will NOT attack Iran’s oil facility or container port. Doing that takes away a future governments ability to raise much needed revenue.
In my humble opinion, Israel will have a 3 pronged strategy. The first will be to use their intelligence apparatus and kill every Iranian, Hezbollah and Hamas leader wherever they may be. The second will be to destroy every military facility from Gaza, to Lebanon, to Syria to Iran. In Iran they will target the mullahs.
The third prong will be the destabilization of Iran. What Obama failed to do in 2009-2010, Israel, with US backing will bring forth a revolution in Iran which will turn Iran back into a secular state. There is a history between Israel and Iran and there are people from both countries who remember it.
The goal will be to ensure Iran never again takes up arms against Israel whether by proxy or on their own.
Iran will posture and rant against Israel, try to intimidate it with stealthy mobile missiles positioned in Syria, encourage attacks by surrogates such as Hamas and Hezbollah, but Iran will, despite almost all perceived provocations ( such as the targeting and killing of Iranians in Syria), will not directly attack Israel. It would be a strategic disaster for Iran. Even if some of their missiles were able to launch and penetrate Israel’s Iron Dome, Israel would have a devastating, comprehensive response. Israeli missiles, air attacks, creative Mossad sabotage within Iran would target the Iranian military, especially the revolutionary guards, key nuclear, missile and political assets and personnel. Iranian casualties and damage would be extensive and humiliating. The medieval ,corrupt mullah regime might fall. The mullahs are not stupid and know an attack on Israel could end up destroying them.
Actually have some suspicion that Netanyahu would love a valid excuse to execute such an attack on Iran which has no doubt been planned and ready to go. Netanyahu takes very seriously the threats that Iran has made to destroy Israel. If he does not definitively deal with this threat while he holds office, he no doubt will consider his career somewhat a failure and will be haunted by inaction for the rest of his life. Netanyahu knows history and what happens when action is not taken. In the early 192’s,German Jews had the power and means to destroy Hitler and his thugs. To the eternal detriment of Western civilization and of course to the Jewish people, they for whatever reason did not act. Netanyahu does not want to ignore. the Iranian threat. Its a good bet that somehow, sometime before his tenure is over, he will deal with it in a definitive manner.
We have a lot of Army units in Jordan at the moment as well.
Iran will never attack Israel directly. The repercussions from Israel and the USA (at least while Trump is president) would be devastating. They will continue to use their surrogates in the region.
Any bets on whether Israel already has nukes inside Iran, ready to be set off in the event of an attack on Israel? :-)
Agreed 100%.
And we should.
You argue your point well, but...if ordinance begins falling on Israel delivered by Iran, they won’t give a second thought to any future consideration of any future government, even a potentially friendly one.
Your other points are well said.
I would normally agree with you. One thing to consider though: “Hezbollah’s war-weariness might be another factor in an Iranian decision to either attack directly alone or at least share the pain of war-making with its proxy.” The significance of the possibility of new sanctions on Iran means that they might not be able to support Hezbollah as they have in the past. That being the case, Hezbollah might require to Iran to be front line partners with them this time. I don’t think that they would be willing to take on Israel alone without Iranian direct involvement or commitment. Same goes with Hamas.
IMHO all this is happening in a wider context. There is chronic violence, instability and order made possible only by extreme suppression in the Islamic world. This inherent instability and crisis is because Islamic culture cannot cope the ongoing challenge that the institutions, values and practices of modernity pose. People don’t want to remain ignorant and shackled. Thanks to modern telecommunications and technology, they know there is a better way to live. The barbaric jihadists and medieval mullahs are bewildered reactionaries that are clinging to power and wish for a variety of reasons to maintain the old order. In the end they will fail and the Islamic world will evolve. However it is a fine line from provoking positive change versus more repression. Israel while it has considerable power must act as the aggrieved nation. If it appears to be the overt aggressor, the world will turn against it and there will only be more repression and violence.
So are you like Obama who took bribes from Iran .5B and back down or do you confront the Evil; siding with evil in never a good option. That option of siding with Evil has been taken off the table. Iran will now have to back up its ONE SHOT WAR where all Iranian resources such as business people, diplomatic and stealth visitors launch attacks on the Jewish (or American) populations worldwide in a quick bid.
The time is perfect to push back Iran. Their infrastructure in S. America is crumbling as the regime they supports dies under its communist leadership; as the money dries up but the military and proxy military forces are at their height but unable to sustain, and Russia is faced with further pushback from American Military-Political-Economic pressure(s). Iran will not recover her economy and will not sustain their Revolution much beyond the current period of time based on Over Reach. The hate they spew (loved by the UN elites though) cannot be sustained much longer without pullback into their borders and becoming another North Korea - you do see the picture.
Israel will do several things in a war with Iran. They will dispatch or have already done so dispatch security experts to protect Jewish peoples worldwide working in concert with their leadership; Israel will use tactical weapons. If Israel is over run or Tel Aviv is destroyed, she will respond in kind by destroying the rival's cities. One IDF officer once told me of a grid square type approach to war in the middle east. They will either cut up Gaza or drop bombs in a pre-set capacity designed to either neutralize or destroy forever the capacity to wage wage for 10,000 years - his words and not mine.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.