In 2007, Israeli Air Force jets crossed into Syria and destroyed an
Iranian-backed nuclear reactor. The operation had the backing of the
United States and employed intelligence derived from an Iranian
defector. There was no regional war afterward. Not even an exchange of
fire at the Israeli-Syrian border.
In 1981, Israel struck deep inside Iraq, destroying Saddam’s Osirak
reactor. The attack was universally condemned at the United Nations and
even by Israel’s allies. Had Saddam used it as the basis for a war,
Israel would have had no international support at all. But again no war
followed.
Today, Iran and opponents of any attack on its nuclear program hold
up the specter of a regional war that will drag in the United States,
devastate the region and drive up oil prices. This is the only card in
their deck until the mullahs have their own bomb, and it’s an effective
card to play. But is any of that a serious risk?
Let’s start by looking at the current state of the Iranian regime.
The regime is wildly unpopular at home. It had to use its Revolutionary
Guard corps to violently suppress protests against the regime, it does
not trust its own military and without troops loyal to it close to home,
the regime would be gone faster than you can say Nicolai Ceausescu. (If
you have trouble saying that, substitute the fallen dictator of your
choice.)
Iran has repeatedly attacked American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan;
its terrorists have attacked Israel and Jews around the world, but
those attacks amount to terrorism and guerrilla warfare mostly carried
out by secondary actors. It’s quite different from committing to a major
conflict, which will give the regime a choice between either keeping
its loyalist Revolutionary Guard at home and sending unreliable
conventional troops off to fight and possibly turn on it, or sending off
its trusted troops and leaving its leaders naked to the people’s wrath. More >>
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario