The Gaza Strip, bordering the Mediterranean Sea, Egypt and the State of Israel, is 25 miles long. At its narrowest point it is less than 4 miles wide, and at its maximum width, it’s 7.5 miles wide — a total area of 141 square miles. With a population of 1.7 million [...]]]>
The Gaza Strip, bordering the Mediterranean Sea, Egypt and the State of Israel, is 25 miles long. At its narrowest point it is less than 4 miles wide, and at its maximum width, it’s 7.5 miles wide — a total area of 141 square miles. With a population of 1.7 million people, Gaza is one of the most densely populated places on earth.
Iran, whose borders include the Arabian Sea to the south, Iraq to the east, Pakistan and Afghanistan to the west, and the Caspian Sea and post-Soviet Muslim states of Central Asia to the north, has a total land mass of 636,000 square miles — about the same as Alaska or Mexico — and a population of 70 million. Yet Foreign Policy CEO and editor at large David Rothkopf recently quoted an Israeli “source close to the discussions” who claimed that an Israeli surgical strike Iranian on enrichment facilities conducted by air, utilizing bombers and drone support “might take only ‘a couple of hours’ in the best case and only would involve a ‘day or two’ overall.”
Is it possible that Israeli efforts to crush Gaza — a small fraction of the size of Iran and adjacent to Israel — are being viewed by some in Israel as a foreshadowing of an Israeli war with Iran, and that success in Gaza seems to be a necessary, even a sufficient prerequisite to a military strike on the Islamic Republic itself?
In the six days between Nov. 14 and Nov. 19, Israel’s Defense Forces (IDF) reported that Israel had launched 1,350 strikes against “terror sites” in Gaza. As this is being written, not only is there dwindling hope of a truce, which Israel denied was in the works, but Amos Harel and Avi Isaacharoff point out that “No one thinks a truce would last forever.” A bus bombing took place today, a grim reminder that before there were rockets being launched from Gaza, suicide bombings were Palestinian militants’ response to targeted assassinations.
Israeli President Shimon Peres is holding Iran responsible for the violence in Gaza, despite Iranian assertions that Gaza does not need Iranian arms. Also in Israeli headlines are Iranian promises to rearm Gaza, replacing the rockets used thus far and those destroyed in Israeli strikes, and Iranian calls for neighboring Muslim states to come to the aid of Gaza. The claim that Gaza is little more than a front base for Iran, implying that Gazans have no grievances or goals of their own, is not new. Fox News considers it “conventional wisdom.” And yet, efforts to reach a negotiated agreement that will halt, if not end, the violence in Gaza do not include Iran at all, but rather are directed at Egypt, whose new president, Mohammed Morsi, has more than his share of challenges to deal with.
One of the arguments that’s being advanced in Israel for a full-scale, no holds barred assault against Islamic militants in Gaza (not all of whom are under the control of Hamas), is that subduing Gaza once and for all would not only eliminate the physical and psychological threats from rockets launched against Israeli towns and cities, but would render Hamas incapable of retaliating as a local surrogate on Iran’s behalf were Israel to militarily attack Iranian nuclear facilities.
Salman Masalha has suggested in a Haaretz op ed that “one could view the attack on Gaza as part of a new plan, a master plan that turns its eyes east to Iran’s nuclear program,” with Gaza the first phase of an attack on Iran that will be followed by another war against Hezbollah in Lebanon:
…the current operation can be called “the little southern Iranian operation,” since it’s designed to paralyze Iran’s southern wing. The next operation will be “the little northern Iranian operation “: It will try to destroy Iran’s Lebanon wing.
In this way, we reach Netanyahu’s red line, the stage of a decision on “the big Iranian operation” – when Israel is free of the missile threat from the wings. That’s apparently the plan of the Netanyahu-Barak duo.
Such promises by Israeli politicians to once and for all remove the threat to Israeli lives and property emanating from Gaza have been made before — such as when Operation Cast Lead was launched — yet in each showdown, Hamas appears to have gained strength and determination, emerging better armed and posing an even greater threat to Israeli civilians during the next confrontation. As a New York Times editorial notes:
Israel’s last major military campaign in Gaza was a three-week blitz in 2008-09 that killed as many as 1,400 Palestinians, and it was widely condemned internationally. It did not solve the problem. Hamas remains in control in Gaza and has amassed even more missiles.
Nonetheless, another argument is that Israel’s military forces, in demonstrating that they can conduct targeted assassinations in Gaza and in the words of one Israeli politician, “bomb them back to the Middle Ages,” will demonstrate that Israel can do the same thing in Iran. Amir Oren, writing in Haaretz, predicts that Israel may try to use its show of strength in Gaza to pave the way for a strike again Iran:
In theory, a force which is able to strike against Ahmed Jabari would be able to pinpoint the location of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And a force that destroyed Fajr rockets would be able to reach their bigger siblings, the Shihabs, as well as Iran’s nuclear installations. So as not to leave a shred of doubt, the IDF Spokesman emphasized that “the Gaza Strip has become Iran’s frontline base.” At first glance, Operation Pillar of Defense seems to be aimed at the Palestinian arena, but in reality it is geared toward Iranian hostility against Israel.
Even in theory, such inferences that victory in Gaza would mean triumph over Tehran strain credulity. Iran has at least seven known nuclear research sites. Esfahan; Bushehr; Arak; Natanz; Parchin; Lashkar Abad and Darkhovin, some of which are located in or near large cities whose size is many times that of the entire Gaza Strip. The metropolitan area of Isfahan, where Iran’s Nuclear Technology and Research Center (NTRC) is located, spans an area of 41,000 square miles. The site of Isfahan’s Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF) alone spans 150 acres. Not surprisingly, Isfahan’s nuclear facilities — 962 air miles from Jerusalem — are protected by anti-aircraft missile systems. While the weaponry brought to bear would be far greater in impact than in Gaza, so would the scale of destruction.
The danger, according to Amir Oren, is that Israel’s political leadership — buoyed by strong performances from the intelligence services and military in Gaza — might try to extrapolate from this operation and transpose it to other places. In other words, whether Operation Pillar of Defense succeeds or not in crushing Gaza into abject submission, the outcome will nonetheless point to escalation with Iran. If Gaza is “flattened,” as Gilad Sharon, son of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has recommended, the victorious Israeli outcry could be “Yes, we can!” and their sights would be set on Iran. And if Gaza militants somehow manage to keep reaching Israel with rockets, the frustrated war cry from Israel’s leadership may be “Yes, we must.”
In either case, an Israeli assault on Iran in the wake of Gaza may indeed be lurching toward the inevitable, and the US could easily find itself drawn into the disastrous debacle that would follow.
- Dr. Marsha B. Cohen is an independent scholar, news analyst, writer and lecturer in Miami, FL specializing in Israeli-Iranian relations. An Adjunct Professor of International Relations at Florida International University for over a decade, she now writes and lectures in a variety of venues on the role of religion in politics and world affairs.
]]>Marsha Cohen, Lobe Log’s resident Israel-Iran relations expert, tells me that while the 11th Commander in Chief of the Israeli Air Force, Avihu Ben-Nun, is not an important figure in current Israeli foreign policy debates, his viewpoints are reflective of those held by influential people in Israel’s [...]]]>
Marsha Cohen, Lobe Log’s resident Israel-Iran relations expert, tells me that while the 11th Commander in Chief of the Israeli Air Force, Avihu Ben-Nun, is not an important figure in current Israeli foreign policy debates, his viewpoints are reflective of those held by influential people in Israel’s security establishment. That’s why I’m highlighting comments he made in the Israeli daily Maariv’s Friday “Sofshavua” magazine on June 22nd that have been translated by Orly Halpern for American’s for Peace Now’s (APN) indispensable ”News Nosh“.
In sum Ben-Nun argues that Iran will ultimately acquire a nuclear weapon with or without a military attack; an Israeli military attack on Iran will result in more harm to Israel’s interests than good; the Israelis should lobby the United States to “advance all possible sanctions and actions” against Iran; and that an Iranian nuclear bomb is threatening not because Iran would use it against Israel, but because it would give Iran’s leaders serious regional deterrence.
Ben-Nun served in the Israeli air force for 35 years, the last 5 of which as its Commander in Chief, and according to this business information site currently holds a number of advisory positions in Israel, including the Vice President of the Tel-Aviv and Central Chamber of Commerce.
On public discussions about an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities:
I am completely against discussing this subject in the media or in the Israeli public. What’s happening here is just scandalous. Every public discussion about the Iranian nuclear project just gives the Iranians more ideas and information and teaches them about the decision-making process. We didn’t do anything yet, and already they want the State Comptroller to investigate. It’s unbelievable…
On alleged Iranian aspirations for a nuclear weapon (emphasis mine):
I don’t think for a moment that the political echelons will finish the Iranian story face-to-face. The prime minister and defense minister travel to Washington to update and be updates over every bleep on the subject. And still I think that the Americans need to do the act, not us. And also, that if something is done, it will postpone the bomb, but it won’t cancel the threat. In the end, with an attack or without one, Iran will have the nuclear bomb. We need to live with it. Today, it seems like we can’t, and so we need to advance all possible sanctions and actions, but only by the Americans. We need to keep a low profile and to take into account that we have an enemy which is not a child and not sterile, that will take advantage of the fact that it has a bomb to achieve a concensus with all the Arab oil-producing states. And since it will have a bomb, the Arab states will have to line up with it and in the future prepare their own bomb. If the Iranians get the bomb, the first to be harmed will be the gulf countries, which will follow Iran. 40% of the world’s energy is in the oil fields in those places, so it’s not just our problem.
On why Israel should be concerned about an Iranian nuclear bomb:
The Iranians wouldn’t dare send us a bomb because they know the response. The Iranian bomb was not meant for use, but to create the status of a country that has deterennce against its neighboring states. This status is no less dangerous than the use of a bomb, becuase it will make all the countries on Iran’s borders do as Iran demands of them. The opposition to the bomb is not becuase someone fears that they will drop it on us, but because of their ability to control with its help every possible area.
On what an Israeli attack will result in (emphasis mine):
An attack could cause a war of 10 years, like the one between Iran and Iraq. Israel cannot withstand continuous missiles, even conventional ones, for a long period. If a missile falls on Tel-Aviv every week, what would happen here without the nuclear bomb? We need deterrence, not attack. Much of the actions by the prime minister and defense minister and foreign minister is to make clear to all the countries that Iran is not only Israel’s problem, but of the whole West, which needs oil, and that if there will be an Iranian bomb, even if the Americans offer defense to the other Arab countries, it won’t help, because they will all break the sanctions.
On what the US should do to counter the threat it perceives from Iran (I write “the US” instead of Israel because Ben-Nun says above that Israel should get the US “to act”:
]]>Make them hurt badly with regular weapons. Attack all their targets, they have at least 10 targets that could significantly slow down the enrichment of uranium. More economic and commercial sanctions. Iran has very high unemployment and an intelligent public. I became aware of this when I was the head of the organization for Ron Arad (the missing helicopter navigator), ‘Born to be free.’ We operated advanced internet systems in the whole Arab world so that whoever has information can pass it to us in exchange for a prize of $10 million. That’s how we became aware also of the Iranians. People there sit on the internet and information sources very intensively. They know how to crash social network systems and advanced computers because the regime harms their rights. One needs to know how to move them to make a new revolution.
Interviewer: They tried and failed.
So what? They should try again.
A senior Israeli official told Haaretz that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak voiced their displeasure about Dempsey’s remarks to the US National Security Adviser Tom Donilon while he was in Israel last week:
“We made it clear to Donilon that all those statements and briefings only served the Iranians,” a senior Israeli official said. “The Iranians see there’s controversy between the United States and Israel, and that the Americans object to a military act. That reduces the pressure on them.”
Today on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe“ Richard N. Haass of the Council on Foreign Relations said Dempsey made a “mistake” by calling Iran “rational”:
To call Iran a rational actor is code talk. Let me just make it clear, if you call them rational, that means that detterence works and that means that you’re willing to live with an Iran that has nuclear weapons.
After meeting with Netanyahu, Republican Sentaor John McCain also said during a press conference in Jerusalem that he found it “hard” to see Iranian behavior as “rational”. McCain added that there should be “no daylight” between US and Israeli assessments of the “threat” posed by Iran and emphasized that it is “unacceptable for the Iranian regime to develop a nuclear weapons capability.”
Dempsey’s admission to Zakaria that an Israeli strike on Iran at this time would not be “prudent” was echoed this week by British Foreign Secretary William Hague who said it would not be a “wise thing”. Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov also argued on Wednesday that any military attack on Iran would be “catastrophic for the region and for the whole system of international relations.”
On Wednesday, Haass and Michael Levi declared in the Wall Street Journal that an alternative to a “a classic preventive attack” on Iran are more negotiations which are nevertheless “unlikely to resolve the problem for all time”. The authors recommend that if Iran agrees to increased monitoring mechanisms and limits on its nuclear program, the most recent round of sanctions that have been imposed on it should be scaled back. Haass characterized a reduction of some sanctions as Iran’s “honey” on the MSNBC show.
Haass and Levi’s strategy outline concludes by stating that before the option of war is embraced “it is important to demonstrate—to domestic and world opinion alike—that a reasonable policy was explored.” They argue that if war results the “political, economic, military and human responsibility for any conflict should be with Iran.”
]]>