The fallout of an attack on Iran
In a piece in Tuesday's Guardian, the author and broadcaster Dan Pleisch discusses the possibility of a US / UK / Israeli (pick from two out of those three) attack on Iran.
In many ways, the possibility seems remote. Despite the arduous and ultimately futile attempts of the 'European Three' to reach an agreement to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, and US threats about Security Council sanctions, in a world of natural disasters and impending avian flu Iran is still far from the public's eye. There is nothing like the painstaking effort to create a plausible, if completely false, case for invasion that led up to the Iraq war during the latter part of 2002.
However, as Pleisch's article suggests, perhaps a full invasion wouldn't be necessary. A long-distance offensive from the underused navy and air force could cripple Iran's main cities quickly, decisively and with little threat to American or Israeli soldiers. The thinking goes that such a strike would fatally weaken the theocratic regime, sparking uprisings amongst the Sunni and Azeri minorities and effetively hastening the collapse of the mullah-run state.
Haven't we heard similar stories to this before? The 1991 Gulf War culminated in a US-encouraged uprising by the persecuted Shia, which Saddam Hussein crushed mercilessly while US marines - having been informed that their paymasters at the Pentagon had switched their strategy - gazed on impassively. Quite how the White House believes that another Middle East state is likely to trust American powerful is a disturbing question. There seems to be no conceivable plan to deal with a post-airstrike retaliation which, despite the relative inadequacy of Iran's weaponry, would doubtless threaten millions in Israel. And that doesn't even begin to consider the effect an attack on Iran would have throughout the wider region.
Still, a strike remains a depressing possibility. UN ambassador John Bolton ominously warned this week that, should it fail to deal with Iran, the Security Council would "damage [it's] relevance". All too close to Bush's warnings of the United Nations "irrelevance" in the rush to war during early 2003. Speaking of Bush, the president recently proclaimed that "democracies do not go to war". As a man who is not known for his grasp of world affairs - he once proclaimed that the US and Japan had enjoyed "a century and a half of peace" - even this statement is beyond the pale.
In many ways, the possibility seems remote. Despite the arduous and ultimately futile attempts of the 'European Three' to reach an agreement to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, and US threats about Security Council sanctions, in a world of natural disasters and impending avian flu Iran is still far from the public's eye. There is nothing like the painstaking effort to create a plausible, if completely false, case for invasion that led up to the Iraq war during the latter part of 2002.
However, as Pleisch's article suggests, perhaps a full invasion wouldn't be necessary. A long-distance offensive from the underused navy and air force could cripple Iran's main cities quickly, decisively and with little threat to American or Israeli soldiers. The thinking goes that such a strike would fatally weaken the theocratic regime, sparking uprisings amongst the Sunni and Azeri minorities and effetively hastening the collapse of the mullah-run state.
Haven't we heard similar stories to this before? The 1991 Gulf War culminated in a US-encouraged uprising by the persecuted Shia, which Saddam Hussein crushed mercilessly while US marines - having been informed that their paymasters at the Pentagon had switched their strategy - gazed on impassively. Quite how the White House believes that another Middle East state is likely to trust American powerful is a disturbing question. There seems to be no conceivable plan to deal with a post-airstrike retaliation which, despite the relative inadequacy of Iran's weaponry, would doubtless threaten millions in Israel. And that doesn't even begin to consider the effect an attack on Iran would have throughout the wider region.
Still, a strike remains a depressing possibility. UN ambassador John Bolton ominously warned this week that, should it fail to deal with Iran, the Security Council would "damage [it's] relevance". All too close to Bush's warnings of the United Nations "irrelevance" in the rush to war during early 2003. Speaking of Bush, the president recently proclaimed that "democracies do not go to war". As a man who is not known for his grasp of world affairs - he once proclaimed that the US and Japan had enjoyed "a century and a half of peace" - even this statement is beyond the pale.
posted by DN at 2:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home