Why Israel Won't Attack Iran

by Dave Kimble at www.peakoil.org.au Bookmark and Share

In his article at ForeignPolicy.com, "Why Israel Won't Attack Iran" (June 2009) Steven Cook says,
"In the event of an Israeli attack, Washington would surely be accused of colluding with Jerusalem, severely damaging the United States' position in the region while provoking a ferocious Iranian response in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, and southern Lebanon."
Agreed, but surely that would only be part of the ferocious response. Iran will almost certainly by now have armed itself with supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles and installed them in hardened emplacements all along the Persian Gulf coastline, and especially around the Straits of Hormuz. The Russian 3M-54E series, the Chinese C-80x, and the Indian BrahMos all have ranges that cover the entire breadth of the Gulf. These ASCMs have a short ballistic phase then become sea-skimming with a speed approaching Mach 3 or 1.6 miles per second. They also have the ability to make swerving manoeuvres, making intercepting them virtually impossible.

Currently the US does not have a target missile in this category (Threat Representative "D") to shoot at, and won't have until at least September 2012 when the MSST is built by Alliant Techsystems Inc. Even then the difficulties of hitting a swerving Mach 3 target with a Mach 3 interceptor are of a completely different order to hitting something like a Taepodong-2 which has been under close surveillance from leaving the launch pad.

Add to this the as yet untested abilities of AEGIS under radar battle conditions, and the complexities of layered fleet defense handling multiple incoming missiles from multiple directions, and the outcome is likely to be that the US fleet would sustain heavy damage. There would not be an Admiral that could put his hand on his heart and say that no aircraft carrier would be sunk. If Iraq is to be in the firing line, then surely the US bases at Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain, and the Saudi oil terminal at Ras Tanura would be attacked too. The giant oil de-sulfuring plant at Ab Qaiq is critical too, as without it, Saudi's sour oil is too corrosive to put in tankers and pipelines.

The Straits of Hormuz would undoubtedly be mined, and that would cut off 40% of the world's oil exports. The effect of this on the oil markets would be catastrophic, and not just financially - real shortages would develop immediately as no one will sell oil when the price is set to go off the scale. Venezuela could be counted on to shut its taps in sympathy with its US-defying partner, making matters worse.

Iran has observer status with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and it applied for full membership in March, 2008. They held naval exercises with Russia as recently as July 2009. The reaction of the Russians to having the reactor at Bushehr, that they have just completed, destroyed by the Israelis is hard to predict, but they have their oil and gas supplies as leverage to keep Europe/NATO from becoming involved, and they control the air corridor to Kyrgyzstan's Manas air base that is essential for the US's Afghan war effort. If they were to close off Manas and execute a swift invasion of the rest of Georgia, it would completely change the chess game.

The Chinese only have to show their displeasure by dumping a pile of US Treasury Bonds to start a run on US paper that would be unstoppable. Before you could say "bail-out" the Dollar would have imploded and the Chinese would have re-taken Taiwan. With the dollar trashed, its Gulf navy sunk and oil imports stopped, the US would be in serious trouble. Presumably the US and Israel have considered this, even if Steven Cook has not.

Even if only half of these events came to pass, the pain for the US would be intolerable. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 said that the Iranians have stopped their nuclear weapons program back in 2004, and that the "wiping Israel off the map" quote is only one slanted translation of what was actually said. Would it really be worth it to risk this much pain just to avoid something that may never happen ?

It was back in January 2005, at the start of Bush's second term, when "un-named US officials" first tipped off Seymour Hersch that an attack on Iran was set for June that year. Now you don't tell Hersch these things unless you want to see them on the front page of The New Yorker, and for four years we have had leak after leak keeping the story alive. It is just playing to the gallery. The probability of an attack on Iran spinning out of control and becoming too painful for the US are so high that it will not be allowed to happen.

The Obama administration was supposed to be one of change - one of diplomacy and tact. But just ten days before sending his "Now-ruz" greetings in March 2009, he issued this White House statement :
"The actions and policies of the Government of Iran are contrary to the interests of the United States in the region and pose a continuing unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. For these reasons, I have determined that it is necessary to continue the national emergency declared with respect to Iran and maintain in force comprehensive sanctions against Iran to respond to this threat."
How about that for a slap in the face and then holding out the hand of friendship ? This could not have happened by accident.

Ayatollah Khamenei responded by detailing all his country's grievances, including that one, and then letting loose with this carefully crafted summation :
"Where is the change? What has changed? Clarify this to us. What has changed? Has your enmity toward the Iranian nation changed? What signs are there to support this? Have you released the possessions of the Iranian nation? Have you removed the cruel sanctions? Have you stopped the insults, accusations, and negative propaganda against this great nation and its officials? Have you stopped your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? What has changed? They talk of change, but there are no changes in actions. We have not seen any changes. Even the literature has not changed. The new US President, from the very moment of his official appointment as President, made a speech, and insulted Iran and the Islamic government. Why? If you tell the truth, and there are changes, where are these changes? Why can we see nothing? ... You change, and we shall change as well."
Is that clear enough ? So what has Obama done since then, March 2009, to show a willingness to change ? The short answer is nothing.

Indeed the destabilisation of the clerical regime by threat of color revolution (green this time) has been following the usual template, including the tactic of "swarming" using Twitter for coordination. Secretary of State Clinton defended the administration's position against criticism that it hadn't done enough by saying,
“Now, behind the scenes, we were doing a lot. ... We were doing a lot to really empower the protesters without getting in the way. And we’re continuing to speak out and support the opposition. ... We do not intend to accept nuclear weapons by Iran. They need to think again, because they will render their position less secure, they will trigger an arms race in the region, and they will certainly put greater pressure on the United States to extend a defense umbrella in order to hem in and contain them."
It is hardly surprising, therefore, that in Tehran the official IRNA news agency reports that in response Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Hassan Qashqavi voiced “regret” over America’s support for “rioters and terrorist groups", and the prosecution of these rioters has highlighted the influence of foreign governments.

It is clear that President Obama has no intention of making a friendly diplomatic gesture towards Iran, and that therefore no diplomatic progress will be made. Iran will be painted as the Evil Empire, unwilling to talk, and things will go on as they have done for the last four years. With unwinnable wars ongoing in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the last thing the US needs is another war that may blow up in its face.

Dave Kimble