Israeli strike on Iran: analysis and implications

¶ … Israel and Iran to the extent that the level of cooperation often varies relying on political changes region wide. This distinctive relationship is based on religious and cultural status attributed to both nations in the neighborhoods of Arab. To this point, there are different recognized dynamic factors. Firstly, Israel and Iran are consistently depicted as affirmed enemies engaged in endless conflict as much a product of intertwined histories and shared cultural flight as it is one of tactical concerns and discrepancies resulting from politics. Additionally, Anti-Iran irrational fear in the Israeli communal sphere is portrayed as protrusion of professed domestic threats to the existing Israeli ethnocraticre structuring. Israel anti-Iran phobias are derived on the same level from home-based nervousness about the Jewish's ethnic and religious identities. Secondly, it is obvious that Israel and Iran have traded on enmity and exaggerated rhetoric on both sides encouraging the potential for further acceleration of the attack. Apparently, the roles of internal politics in both countries are typically left out for discussion of the attack. Finally, because the rocket-launching systems were manufactured under Iranian supervision in Gaza, the Iranian military experts are active in the Gaza Strip and in Sinai. At some points back, Iran fired rockets at Israel and this is their source of confident for the attack. On the other hand, Israel had also engaged in a warfare before with Iraq and they succeeded without any Plane crash neither death of their military worries, and so with their skilled militaries and powerful weapons, they believe they can make it again with Iran.

Thesis

Israel antagonism with Iran has quickly increased from Lukewarm to Volatile especially after 2006 Lebanese conflict. Israel's focus shifted to the terrorist organization Hezbollah and viewed it as sponsored by Iran. Israel is most likely to attack Iran because the Hezbollah issues combined with the Iranians possession of nuclear technology and possibly weapons has exposed them to imminent future attack and they have to act before they are acted upon.

Israel Leadership believes Iran will attack

Israel leaders leery of Iranian possession of nuclear bomb components are convinced that it will eventually attack Israel and that quick action is necessary before Iran gets the weapon. Ehud Barak the defense minister is quoted as saying that it is better to stop Iran now than waiting it to acquire nuclear weapons; this will be complex, dangerous and costly in loss of lives and economically (Myre). Just as Barak, majority of leaders in Israel believe that Iran poses a threat to Israel. According to Harmon, the political leadership in Israel believe that it is their responsibility to protect the Jewish from a threat of this magnitude, they cannot accept by all means a nuclear Iran.

In addition, intelligence assessments suggest that the regime in Iran is able to completely manufacture a destructive weapon within five years. Yossi Baidatz the head of military intelligence in Israel's research division is certain that Iran has all it needs to build a bomb; he says that Iran had already enriched over 1 ton of Uranium enough to build more than 1 bomb (Jerusalem Post). Other intelligence also preempt the likelihood of Iranian building of a nuclear weapon. Mike Mullen, the chairperson of the U.S. Joint Chief of Staff gave indication that there is no time to waste in stopping Iran (Wall Street Journal). Furthermore, the International Atomic Energy Agency report outlined the revelation of 460 pounds of low-enriched uranium that Iranians hid. Gary Milhollin expressed concern saying that it was not what they expected and that it was alarming that the production was not properly reported (Jerusalem Post)

No Country Is Able to Stop Iran

Israel believes that the world is unable to stop Iran from producing nuclear weapons. The United States of America still holds on diplomacy and urges Israel to show restraint. Both the United States and European Union have implemented stringent sanctions on Iran waiting to see if it will comply.

Yaakov Amidror held talks with European officials in preparation of talks on the controversial Iranian nuclear programme in Baghdad on May 23, 2012. Many critics speculated the possibility of a deal to allow Iran to continue enriching uranium. This increases Israel's fears that no country is able to step in and stop Iran. In addition, despite the copious U.S. official threats various reports reveal that Benjamin Netanyauh does not believe that the United States contemplates military action against Iran.

It has taken the world ten years to heed Israel's warnings on Iran. According to Israel, the sanction imposed on Iran would have worked if they had been implemented ten years ago. They feel that the world needed to have responded to their alarm earlier and that there is no more time left. Israel believes that by the time the sanctions take effect mid-2012, the Iranians will have progressed and that the world powerful nations will be unable to reach it. Israel is aware that the reason the United States will not attack Iran is because they are cautious about their troops security in the Middle East against Iranian sponsored attacks than the eventuality of a nuclear-armed Iran.

International Support

According to Weiss, the president of the United States gave all indication that he approves of Israelis attack on Iran. It is widely believed in Israel that Obama will side them in case they attack Iran and reports also indicate that Israel is indeed preparing for the attacks. Weiss believes explains that Israel's Premier presented to the Knesset examples where his predecessors defied U.S. directives and took decisive actions to defend Israel, this included "the declaration of independence in 1948, the Six Day War in 1967 and the bombing of the nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981" (Weiss). Moreover, Netanyahu also hinted that the U.S. president gave his approval for an attack on Iran. He added that Obama would speak against it but will allow it just as his predecessors did during the settlements in the territories. According to Benn,

Israel's Success Attack on Iraq and Syria

One of the predetermined catalysts for Israel attack on Iran is the history of Israel success in bombing Iraq main nuclear plant in 1981 and the attack on Syrian nuclear reactor in the year 2007. It came as a surprise to many when Israel targeted Osirak nuclear plant because it was strategically located far from Israel's resources. Syria on the other hand used the most unusual and complex anti-aircraft systems to avoid unauthorized access to their nuclear facilities, but succeeded in entry and destroyed it. These incidences motivate Israel and guide it towards an Iran attack. They believe that they will succeed because Iran's nuclear facilities are extended around the country while others are constructed underground. Iranian nuclear facilities are spread within the country and highly protected. However, it is believed that Israeli planners will come up with a creative solution to find them. Israel has the capability of refueling their military planes mid-air and this enable them to pass over hostile territories like they did in Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Safe attack and victorious operations against Hamas and Hezbollah are also motivations that are likely to strengthen Israeli anticipation. Israel leaders are aware that they have talked about Iranian threats and Israeli's readiness to aggressively attack them. Failure to this until Iran build their nuclear weapon, Israel military will grow weak and the country poisoned by Iran (Myre).

The U.S. Presidential Election Campaign

The main reason U.S. might not get involved in the Israeli-Iranian war or even prevent Israel from attacking Iran is because of the upcoming presidential elections. It would be extremely difficult for President Obama or his opponent to express disapproval of the attack during their election campaign. Israel is highly considered by both the Republican and the Democrats and they both express steady support for Israel's security. Nonetheless, it is a reality that Israel will attack Iran since there is no firm negotiator to prevent it from the attack.

Obama administration officially announced that it did not want to be involved in any new military entanglements in the region, because the last U.S. troops left Iraq in December and still have a long way go in Afghanistan, which borders Iran.

Even though U.S. has not openly talked about the possibility of military action, the allegations are in good faith and growing risk that the two sides could end up in a war particularly over Iran's advancing nuclear program installation. It might not stop Israel's attack on Iran.

American political pundits and policymakers for a longtime have been arguing on the attack on Iran and subsequent eradication of the nuclear facilities by United States. It is clear that the idealistic argument opposes an Iran equipped with nuclear weapons. Detractors insist that if the embargo fails to impede Iran's progress, the United States should as well attack or live with nuclear-armed Iran. In this case, the United States would not deter possible attack by Israel.

Public Support

A recent poll carried out by the Israeli government to gauge Israeli opinion on the Iranian conflict showed the public supported an attack on Iran. Israeli citizens support the striking of Iran especially if the war is carried out with the help of the United States (Clifton). Though the majority supports the attack, a small percentage of the public are wary of the war. A modest forty percent of the total Israeli population support a military strike when Israel has American support and twenty percent advocate for attacking Iran's nuclear facilities without any support from the United States. The Israeli poll was carried out to gauge the level of support for the military action against the nuclear facilities in Iran. Recently the Israeli parliament told Reuters that the Israeli public was well behind the proposal to attack Iran. Though the lack of preparation was blamed on the side of the Israeli military, the parliament was convinced the public was rallying behind the striking of Iran to avert the country's nuclear threats.

Additionally, a poll carried out by Shibley Telhami, a professor at Maryland University showed Israelis believed the military strike if carried out on Iran would ultimately slow down the nuclear progress by more than three years (Gharib). The pollster reveals that the Israelites believe that the attack would not prevent Iran from acquiring more nuclear power. Another survey by Guttmann's center shows the same result as the others. The survey found that 60% of Israelis called for the Iranian attack with the backing of American forces (Clifton, Polling: Israelis Wary of a Unilateral Attack on Iran). The poll found that a good 20% of the Israeli public was convinced Israel was capable of launching a successful attack on Iran without any support from the United States. The remaining part of the surveyed group was against the strike on Iran in any circumstances.

Repercussions of Attack on Iran

The Israeli citizenry has always shown adaptability in the face of daily missile and terrorist attacks. Even though Israelis are aware of the possibility of missile attack from both Lebanon and Gaza, they are well prepared for the repercussions. On the other hand, Hezbollah and Hamas fear the political price they may pay for attacks. All terror organizations have gone under because of loss of power and influence after the last encounter with Israel. They are afraid another attack on Israel might further destroy their power. This makes them vulnerable and less likely to attack or retaliate in case of an Israeli attack. Whatever the case may be, Israeli leaders are not concerned about Hezbollah and Hamas vengeance affect their decision because they are aware the Israeli public will bear the risk of a strike on Iran (Harmon, 2012). Ehud Barak, Israeli's defense minister insisted that any retaliation brought by Iranian for an Israeli attack would be survivable and his government predict that Iran's involvement in a bluff has been a key element in the exaggerated expectation that Israel is considering a strike. However, Iran's highly advanced security services like analysts' caution may maneuver in semi-rogue way, relying on goals that may seem to be illogical to American planners.

Israel's Elections

The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu call for early elections and agitating victory to his party could make the possibility of launching a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities possible. The premier called for elections before the American to reposition himself in the Iranian conflict. This step was to enable Netanyahu to stay steadfast such that he could be able to withstand American pressure on handling of the Iranian warfare.

The premier is looking for early elections and a win for the incumbent American president Obama would see the end of the planned Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Netanyahu looks for a way of winning the election and a victory in the September elections would see the premier attack Iran before the November American elections. This has cast a dark cloud over the strike on Iran with America propagating for an attack on Iran after elections.