Israel and Iran between a preventive strike and the painful historical compromise
THE IRANIAN NAVY TAKES PART IN A MILITARY EXERCISE IN THE STRAIGHT OF HOMRUZ IN THE OMAN SEA, 28 DECEMBER 2011, FOLLOWING RENEWED SPECULATION ABOUT POSSIBLE ISRAELI AIR STRIKES AGAINST THE COUNTRY'S NUCLEAR SITES.|EPA/ALI MOHAMMADI
The Israel-Iran confrontation is coming to its final stage as Israelis are very much aware that Iran is getting close to become a proper nuclear power. This may well mean that Tehran will gain a seat at the nuclear powers negotiating table and Tel Aviv will lose its supremacy in the area.
Israel, very simply, cannot afford that. If Iran becomes a nuclear power, the balance in the region will be upset and Israel, which now with its nukes means it it strategically dominates the middle east, will be marginalised. In this context Israel will not be in this position any more, repeating similar to the Gaza recent events, and in the medium term its influence in middle east affairs will not be determining any more. Thus, a preventive strike against Iran, although with the total disagreement of the United States, cannot be ruled out.
The American administration, in matters of foreign and defence policies, is expressing a wider compromise of Democrats and Republicans which is rather defined and does not change with the changes in power of the two big parties, over this matter is divided. The (presently) prevailing opinion is to let Iran develop into a kind of semi-controlled nuclear power proper, get it in the negotiating table as an equal partner and on the long term be on the safe side with no "black swans" emerging all of a sudden. All this, in (secret and informal) agreement with the Russians.
The so called "hawks" of the Washington administration believe that by letting Iran become nuclear proper the later will go more intolerant, more arrogant and rather sooner than later will be the one to preventively strike Israel. In this case a Third World War with nukes seem a possibility exceeding the margins of the statistical error. However, this possibility is rather remote as the Americans are conscious of the real situation in the area. Indeed, the geopolitics of energy is at stake in the wider middle-east and central Asian. The West has to chose (if it is asked) to decide between two evils, Iran becoming like Turkey or Turkey becoming like Iran. The first possibility, although tough for the West, is much better than the second.
In Europe, many believe that the situation is similar to the Cuba missiles crisis when America was about to confront the Soviet Union. However, after a secret negotiation concerning the dismantling of the Jupiter IRBMs deployed in Italy and Turkey targeting the Soviet Union, the crisis, which lasted two weeks, ended in October 28, 1962. Indeed, the present crisis is not similar, as in real terms it is negotiated between the US and Iran (similarly to the US and USSR in 1962); the third party being one of the interested parties, in this case Israel, having nuclear weapons and thus it de facto has a voice in this chapter contrarily to Cuba, which at the time although primarily concerned did not have access to nuclear missiles and thus it was not a part of the equation.
The Iran-Israel crisis is the hard core issue in the middle east, and combined with the geopolitics of oil and gas in the wider area, becomes difficult to assess equation as, so far, it included many unclear elements. NEW EUROPE ON LINE
BC
Comments