THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume X, Issue # 203, August 17, 2008
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
THE IRAN SCENARIOS
By Alan Caruba
ISRAEL & IRAN: WILL ISRAEL TAKE MILITARY ACTION AGAINST IRANIAN FACILITIES REFINING FISSIONABLE
MATERIALS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS? WHAT WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH ACTION?
A CONSIDERATION OF THE DIFFERENT POSSIBLE SCENARIOS
FULL STORY:
These days you can read as many different scenarios regarding the likelihood that Israel will attack Iran’s nuclear facilities
as there are experts putting them forth. History, past and present, may have already written the script.
In a recent interview with Der Spiegel, Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert asked, “Why do you need to enrich
uranium if you don’t have the facilities that can make use of this uranium for civilian purposes?” Iran does have such
plants, but both have been in various stages of construction and delay since 1992 and neither has ever produced a watt
of electricity.
The August, 2008, edition of Energy Tribune takes on the question of an Israeli military action against Iranian
facilities refining fissionable materials for the development of nuclear weapons. John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to
the United Nations, is quoted saying that Israel has “a window” in which to conduct the strike. It would be between “the
day after the November 4 U.S. election and closes with the swearing-in of George W. Bush’s successor on January 20,
2009.”
On August 10, 2008, the Jerusalem Post quoted U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saying:
“We don’t say yes or no to Israeli military operations.
Israel is a sovereign country.”
The U.S. election in November, 2008, could have a tremendous effect on whether Israel acts or not. Senator John McCain's
support of Israel is not in doubt. An Obama administration would be filled with officials whose antipathy to Israel is well
known.
Iran’s Islamic Revolution began in 1979, when the revolutionists took U.S. diplomats hostage and held them for 444 days.
They were returned the same day Ronald Wilson Reagan was sworn into office. When Saddam Hussein declared war on
Iran in 1980, he had the understandable backing of the United States, but the war ground to a stalemate in 1988, after
costing Iraq and Iran hundreds of thousands of casualties.
The experience left Iran’s leaders in a cautious mood. Militarily, Iran has remained a provocateur, not an active belligerent.
The Iranians have preferred to fight proxy wars with Israel via their support for Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, and Hamas,
based in Gaza. Even their involvement in Iraq has been through proxies. There would appear to be limits to the courage of
the Mullahs that rule Iran with an iron hand.
Militarily, Iran would prove to be an extremely difficult nation to invade or conquer. Thus, an Israeli strike would be limited
to destroying or at least significantly delaying Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. At issue is when Iran would be capable
of manufacturing and delivering its own nukes.
The next question to be answered is what benefit Iran’s leaders would perceive in their launching a nuclear attack on Israel?
Any use of nuclear weapons by any nation would come with a huge price. Iran is already a pariah nation, despite its oil.
Since 1979, the Iran government has deemed the U.S.A. the Big Satan and Israel the Little Satan. When people spend nearly
thirty years shouting “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” history teaches that it is folly to ignore them or to suggest
reasons to believe that it’s just bluster.
Writing in the August issue of Energy Tribune, Michael J. Economides and Peter C. Glover bluntly say:
“We see no reason to change our opinion that an Israeli
or Western air-strike is the only realistic way to prevent
Iran’s ideologically-driven extremist regime.”
These two experts on energy and geopolitics estimate that $55.00 of the price per barrel of imported oil represents
“geopolitical tensions, fear, and resulting speculation.” Put another way, the United States of America is sending billions
to oil-producing Middle Eastern nations (and other oil producing nations) as the price we pay for the threat that Iran is
presumed to pose. That threat would escalate, if it gained nuclear weapons.
History since the end of World War II, however, offers another scenario. Despite the nuclear capability of the former
Soviet Union and later Red China, the U.S.A. and other nations preferred a patient containment policy which reduced the
potential of a major war. As we are witnessing in Georgia (Gruzia), the Russian quest for power is never static and always
subject to change.
An Israeli attack, if followed by the collapse of the Iranian regime, would likely result in a relatively brief disruption in the
flow of oil from the Middle East. The opening of the Strait of Harmuz would become an international priority, but the
U.S.A. would not likely to be seriously affected, since it imports much of its oil from Canada, Mexico, and Central and
South America. The disruption in the flow of Middle Eastern oil would surely increase the growing demands for the U.S.
Congress to open up to oil drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) in Alaska and to authorize off-shore oil
exploration under the Atlantic and Pacific continental shelves of North America.
Israel put an end to Saddam Hussein’s ambitions when it destroyed the Osirak reactor in 1981, and reduced the Syrian
threat in destroying a Syrian nuclear facility in September, 2007. However, Olmert will be gone as Israel’s Prime Minister
by the end of September, 2008.
A new government, even one led by Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, is not likely to take on the huge risks involved in an
attack on Iran without explicit reassurances of U.S. approval and possible involvement. The problem for Israel is that such
an attack would trigger war by a heavily rearmed Hezbollah based in Lebanon and a Gaza-based Hamas.
The irony is that all of Iran’s Arab neighbors would love to see Iran removed as an obstacle to peace in the region.
Moreover, Iran represents Shiite Islam, whereas other Muslim nations, with the exception of Iraq, are parts of the majority
Sunni sect. No love loss there.
Speculation will exist as long as the Ayatollahs and the crazed Mamoud Amadinejad remain in power. In the end, like the
sudden invasion of Georgia (Gruzia), the issue will be resolved by action, not talk.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
The Middle East & the Problem of Iran
Israel & the Arabs -- The Israeli-Arab Conflict
American Foreign Policy -- The Middle East
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
International Politics & World Disorder:
War & Peace in the Real World
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
Alan Caruba is a veteran business and science writer, a Public Relations Counselor, and Founder of the National Anxiety Center, a
clearinghouse for information about media-driven scare campaigns. Caruba writes a weekly commentary, "Warning Signs," posted
on the Internet website of the National Anxiety Center, which is located at
www.anxietycenter.com.
Caruba has a daily blog at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com.
Caruba’s new book, Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy, has been published by Merril Press.
© Alan Caruba 2008
Published with Permission of Alan Caruba
ACaruba@AOL.Com
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume X, 2008
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity