Op-Ed: Iran comments on possible Israeli attack

If wars start as a result of talk fests, Israel and Iran have raised the volume, if not the standard of conversation, quite noticeably. Iran’s deputy air commander says it could respond with air and missile attacks.

There’s been a lot of muttering about a war with Iran lately. France has warned of a possible confrontation over the Iranian nuclear facilities. An alleged air strike on Syria referred to Israel reconnoitering a possible attack route to Iran. The US has been stolidly “refusing to rule out the military option” regarding Iran in the last month or so. Iran doesn’t officially consider an Israeli attack likely, (see BBC article) but the facts are less optimistic. Israel did attack an Iraqi nuclear facility in 1981 and destroyed it. Iranian sources commented they didn’t consider Israel capable of attacking Iran by air. That is highly debatable. Israel doesn’t advertise its capabilities, and when Iraq was attacked, it was with F16s, relatively short range planes. The Israeli Air Force (IAF) now has F15Is, long range, multi role, air superiority aircraft, as well as F16Is, which are much longer range than the 80s version. There’s no doubt whatever that these aircraft could hit Iran. Nor is the idea of attacking Iran's nuclear sites new to the Israelis. According to this Global Security.org article, the matter’s been under serious evaluation for years, since at least 2004. Iran, also, is said to be capable of retaliation “throughout the Persian Gulf region” against Israeli and US targets. It may also respond using its allies in the region, or perhaps globally. Militarily, any Israeli attack wouldn’t be for show. There would be something to be gained, and that’s the problem. Depending on what’s hit, it would be possible for the Iranian nuclear program to be seriously damaged, perhaps even curtailed. The process by which Iran obtained its nuclear technology would be difficult to repeat. Western contractors have been largely weeded out. North Korea’s out of the picture, and Pakistan has problems of its own, as well as a clear understanding of the American views on supplying Iran with anything. Russia has no reason to support Iran, given its support for the Chechens. **** Note: when viewing Global Security, ignore a flashing thing on the top of the page that says “This is not a joke, you’ve won”. It’s freelotto- ultra spammy-scammy. Some people claim to have won with it, but there’s never been a big winner identified. I bumped in to a version of it, and the spam was unbelievable. Rather a lot of complications arise from the fact that any Israeli attack on Iran would probably have to pass through American controlled Iraqi air space. That would make the US a party to the attack, at least in theory, if the US didn’t try to stop it. In practice, it’s doubtful that Iran would need to go looking for a reason to hold the US responsible. If attacked, Iran will definitely respond in some form. Iran has been anti-Israel since the revolution, and has supported groups like Hezbollah. The hostility between the two parties is deep and real, and neither party is likely to back off. Most Middle Eastern issues eventually resolve into a total refusal to depart from an ideological/political position. The reasons range from old colonial borders created with no attempt to define historical claims of different groups, putting hereditary enemies together, to ethnic and religious issues to local politics, but each and every one of them is a reason for bloodshed. The potential for international escalation is equally serious. Al Qaeda could fire all their publicists. In the Arab world, it would be a justification for the hardline anti-Israeli factions. Political alignments would be polarized, in the rest of the world. The Israelis are used to acting on their own initiative, but the rest of the world isn’t. Nobody would support the attack, but few would have been under any delusions that it wasn’t going to happen. Globally, anything and everything could be the reaction. World War One started as a result of national rivalries. World War Two was the direct result of World War One. The Cold War and resulting political alignments and local wars which killed millions, were the direct result of World War Two. World War Three is probably going to be the result of political dogma, and the inability, despite a lot of historical evidence, to understand the likely results of starting wars rather than stopping them. This inability to learn after frequent lessons is often called stupidity.