Iran strike? Part 2

Rumours concerning the possibility of a military strike on Iran will continue to swirl in the Middle East this week.  But this time, they will be more difficult to dismiss.

Throughout President George Bush’s second term in office there has been constant, low-level concern worldwide that the United States might consider a pre-emptive attack on Iran in an (almost certainly) counter-productive attempt to retard Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.  This danger was always wildly exaggerated (see Iran strike? Part 1), and failed to account for:

• the hostility of the Pentagon to such a scheme, which would likely fail to accomplish its objective and expose US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to retaliation;
• the constraints imposed by the current US political environment; and
• the potentially disastrous economic consequences that might follow, such as an oil price ‘super-spike’.

But now the rumourmongers suggest that an Israeli attack, perhaps with tacit US support, could be in the offing.  The signs are ominous:

• Israel in May conducted a military exercise over the Mediterranean that some experts considered a ‘dress rehearsal’ for a potential strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
• An Israeli cabinet minister, former IDF Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz, last month suggested that a strike would be inevitable if Iran did not alter its present course.
• According to a recent article by US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, there is disquiet within the Pentagon about the possibility that high-level White House officials could privately signal Israel that a strike might be acceptable.
• Some Israeli hawks have suggested that if Israel fails to pre-emptively strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, it would be the equivalent of former Prime Minister Golda Meir’s failure to seize the strategic initiative in 1973 (a debatable point, in historical terms) .  Instead, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat struck first -- and almost defeated Israel in the Yom Kippur War.

Of course, there are factors mitigating against an Israeli strike -- not least the fact that most of the world (apart from Israel) still believes that Iran is years away from building a nuclear weapon.  An attack in the current circumstances is unlikely to go over well on the international stage, and might even risk antagonising US opinion.  As Iranian obfuscation increases, and its progress towards acquiring nuclear technology becomes apparent, this will change.  Until then, Israel is more likely than not to keep its powder dry.