At the recent General Assembly session, Israel made it clear that nothing is more important to Israelis than Iran’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is irrelevant. Hamas is secondary. The world economy is not important. Iran’s nuclear program must be stopped, and anything and everything is justified to achieve this goal.
Benjamin Netanyahu called for a ‘red line’ to be set – a certain point in Iran’s enrichment endeavors when military assaults would be justified. He also sweepingly claimed that Iran was weeks away from developing a nuclear bomb and used a crude picture of a bomb on a piece of paper to illustrate his point to an audience of (presumably ignorant and dumb) diplomats. But dogmatic, sweeping statements can only go that far.
One fundamental loophole in the ‘red line’ argument is that Netanyahu purposely ignores the wider implications of such a military action in a highly volatile Middle Eastern region. Such aggression will not only lead to an elongated battle between the two vicious arch-rivals, Israel and Iran but also jeopardize the integrity of the entire region. Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Middle East will not approve of Israeli action, and might as well join the assault against Iran, but also against Israel, causing a three-pronged war. The US has also not declared absolute support for the ‘red line’ plan, so the action will be entirely unilateral, at least initially. Clearly, Israel’s own impulses have clouded its objective assessment of a military action.
Another fatal flaw in this plan is the impracticality of such an action. According to BBC, Israel only partially possesses the capability to war with Iran continuously. Israeli jets will require constant refueling as they fight, and perhaps along the way, which is implausible. In order to reach Iran, Israeli troops will have to cross a huge stretch of territory mostly covered by nations who hate Israel to the core. In addition, Iran is likely to receive support from Pakistan, officially or unofficially in any war against Israel. Israel’s war will be a humongous drain on its resources, unless it is supported unconditionally by the USA, which is not guaranteed at this point in time. And US support is shaky with the upcoming US elections and the global economic crisis in general.
Israel’s statement is also the pinnacle of hypocrisy. A nation engulfed in the ludicrous ideology of nuclear ambiguity, Israel seeks transparency and nuclear program suspension in Iran even though Israel itself is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons and has not even joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel’s Dimona plant is one of the most dubious facilities in the world.
Israel’s justification for military action is also largely based on speculation and assumption. Netanyahu mentioned in his speech that Iran was close to reaching the 90% uranium enrichment milestone, but he did not substantiate this with any valid evidence. He superficially mentions random IAEA reports, but fails to quote specific findings that should cause alarm. Most countries believe that it will take Iran a few years before its apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons reaches fruition, unlike Israel. So who do we trust: 190 other countries or Benjamin Netanyahu?
If a red line has to be set, the ultimatum should be further sanctions or restrictions or non-military measures. A hot war between the two countries could very well erupt into a global war. You may argue that Iran has few allies, and that a conflict will be very one-sided. However, one thing we know from experience is that Iran is frustratingly resilient – it will resist any challenge even if it translates into mass torture and drudgery for its own citizens. The Israel and the US will undoubtedly side together but the other Western nations are unlikely to join in actively. And if Iran does possess a nuclear weapon, it might as well bring two, and potentially three or four (if Pakistan joins in, and Israel possesses nuclear arms) nations at the precipice of nuclear war.
It is high time that the international community focuses more on incentives and prudent compromises rather than throwing hay bales of sanctions at Iran. These measures will only frustrate Iran rather than alleviate the tension. The Iranian solution is a complex and depressingly dystopian. We don’t know what the best solution is or how many solutions are out there. But one thing is clear – red lines and bloodbaths are not part of them.
Arvin Anoop
FY - K
No comments:
Post a Comment