Why Israel Will Strike Iran

I’ll save you the suspense. Israel is going to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in three months.

Of late, many have been discussing the virtues, challenges, risks, and potential consequences of an Israeli strike on Iran. Depending who you ask, a preemptive attack is an absolute necessity, the lesser of two evils, unwise, or reckless.

Unfortunately, no well-informed and intellectually honest individual could say that they know
the right course of action. There are rational arguments on all sides of this debate, but I’m not going to discuss why I think Israel should or shouldn’t attack. I’m going to tell you why they will attack. It’s already a done deal.

First, Israeli leaders believe that a nuclear Iran poses an existential threat to Israel and the Israeli public agrees. 90% think Iran is building nuclear weapons and 43% of the country support a military strike. Israeli leaders genuinely believe that they have a responsibility to keep the Jewish people safe and take a threat of this magnitude very seriously. The phrase “Never Again” isn’t just rhetoric and Israeli leaders aren’t just posturing when they say that a nuclear Iran is unacceptable.

Second, Israeli leaders know that world powers will not stop Iran. Israeli warnings have been ignored for nearly a decade. The sanctions being imposed today may have had an impact, if they had been instituted when Israel first sounded the alarm. For Israelis, it’s too little too late. By time sanctions take full effect in July, the Iranian nuclear program will be so deep underground that even the world’s most powerful munitions may not be able to reach it. The Israelis know that the US is not going to attack Iran. The US fears an increase in Iranian-sponsored attacks on US forces in the Middle East more than they fear a nuclear armed Iran. Israel knows that it is on its own and its people are OK with that.

Third, Israeli citizens are willing and able to face the repercussions of an attack on Iran. The Israeli public has demonstrated tremendous resiliency in the face of daily missile and terror attacks. Even though Israelis rightly expect that thousands of missiles will be launched from Lebanon and Gaza, Hezbollah and Hamas might not attack. Hezbollah and Hamas know they will pay a heavy political price for instigating devastation on Lebanon and Gaza just to please Iran. Both terror organizations have restrained themselves over the last five years because they each lost power and influence after the last time they picked a fight with Israel. They know another attack on Israel will further diminish their power at home. In any event, Israeli leaders aren’t letting concerns about a Hezbollah and Hamas retaliation impact their decision because they know the Israeli public will endure the repercussions of a strike on Iran.

Fourth, Israelis like proving that every challenge can be overcome. As with Iran today, many experts believed that Israel could not destroy the Iraqi Osirak nuclear plant. It was deemed too far and complicated given the distance and Israel’s resources. Israel gleefully proved them wrong. Syria used one of the world’s most sophisticated anti-aircraft systems to protect its secret nuclear facility. In 2007, Israel essentially found the defense system’s off switch and destroyed the facility in minutes. Iranian facilities are highly distributed and much better protected than anything the Israeli military has encountered before, but Israeli planners will come up with an innovative solution to the problem. They always do. Only time will tell if it works, but Israeli leaders will believe that success is possible and that will give them the confidence needed to authorize IDF commanders to strike.

Fifth, Israeli security depends on a strong deterrence. Israel makes the price of attacking it so high that its enemies think twice before attacking again. This deterrence is the reason why Arab nations stopped conducting all-out wars with Israel. In 1973, when Israel overcame the surprise attack and decimated the Arab armies, the Arab nations finally understood that attacking Israel was a pointless exercise. This is why Sadat came to Israel and signed a peace agreement. Hamas and Hezbollah have been restraining themselves since their last fight with Israel. A successful attack on Iran – especially if it also includes effective operations against Hezbollah and Hamas – will significantly strengthen Israeli deterrence. Israeli leaders also recognize that they have been talking about the Iranian threat and Israel’s readiness to preemptively strike for years. If Israel does nothing and Iran builds a nuclear weapon, Israel will appear weak in a neighborhood where weakness is a cardinal sin. Israeli leaders know inaction will lead to a surge in attacks from the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon and perhaps even Egypt and Jordan.

Israelis see the Iranian nuclear program as an existential threat, they know that the world community will not stop the Iranians, they believe they have a way to accomplish the mission, see themselves as being prepared for the backlash, and predict that the price of failing to act is much higher than the price of taking action. For these reasons, Israel will attack the Iranian nuclear facilities.

Given the timelines leaked to the media, it looks like Israel will strike in the next three months. To those Israeli soldiers who are participating in the operation, I wish god’s speed, good luck, and a safe return home. For those Israeli citizens who will likely bear the brunt of the storm that follows, make room for one more – unless, of course, I can be of use by donning a uniform again.

On Iraq and Iran, America is Asking the Wrong Question

Democrats, Republicans, and Independents all want the US to succeed in Iraq, but there is wide variance of opinion when it comes to defining success. And even when people agree on what success means, there is often disagreement over the best way to achieve the desired end result.

I would argue that the failure of the current administration to execute a viable strategy for Iraq and the inability of White House opponents to formulate a widely acceptable alternative plan is a direct result of our political discourse being too narrowly focused on Iraq and Al Qaeda. This does not bode well for any emerging policy for Iran.

Over the last five years, the public has been asked to focus on the details - troop levels, casualties, money spent to rebuild Iraq, sectarian violence, enemy combatants, terror warnings, and nuclear proliferation - at the expense of a debate on a larger, far more essential issue. Should America continue to be the world’s policeman and the chief evangelist for democracy?

It is taken for granted that America is responsible for curbing the influence of unruly regimes and resolving knotty issues between aggrieved groups. The US embraced this role throughout the 20th century. But America needs to examine whether this is still aligned with our interests and whether we are still willing to act like the leader of the free world.

The lack of public debate on this critical question leads decision-makers to take half-measures that make it impossible to achieve stated goals. President Bush wants to diminish the threat of Islamic radicalism by implanting democracy in the Middle East, but does not have the political strength to dramatically increase the size of the military to ensure that we have enough boots on the ground. Forced to rely on manpower levels that essentially pre-date Iraq and Afghanistan, the US can only muster 20% of the troops required to provide security and ensure stability in Iraq. This is why the US may be on the brink of failure in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, White House opponents who want to withdraw US troops quickly are unable to gain overwhelming bi-partisan support for their position because they can’t openly articulate how this policy reversal ensures the long-term prosperity of America, outweighs our post-invasion responsibility for the well-being of Iraqi citizens, and makes the US more secure.

Both those in favor of continuing the US presence in Iraq and those against it are in a bind. Those in favor value American leadership in the world, but are afraid to ask the American people to make the sacrifices necessary to keep it. Those against it believe that diplomacy and greater focus on the home front is the best way to keep America secure, but they are afraid to tell the American people that this approach comes with a price - diminished US power and influence in the world.

The lack of public discourse almost guarantees that we won’t be number one anymore. US prestige will be lost if we continue to fight with insufficient forces or if we withdraw in defeat. But America doesn’t have to be number one. We may be better off being more like Britain, France, Denmark, and Canada. After all, these countries are thriving, secure, and beloved by much of the world.

And if a consequence of America reducing its role in the Middle East is that Islamic radicals take control of Iraq and Saudi Arabia or even sweep across the entire region, this won’t really matter to the United States because we will no longer see ourselves as a lone superpower responsible for remaking the world in our image. Like our allies in Europe and Asia, we’ll only care about the uninterrupted flow of oil. And that shouldn’t be a problem. Whether the Middle East remains under the control of kings and dictators or starts being ruled by a single mullah, the region will still depend on the sale of oil to the West.

American oil conglomerates may see their revenues decrease as US power diminishes, but our country can’t make decisions based on their profit margins. And Israel’s challenges will grow exponentially, but they will overcome those difficulties and continue to thrive.

But if America decides to be the leader of the free world, the US must change the way it approaches Iraq, Islamic radicalism, and nuclear proliferation. America will need to project overwhelming power and irresistible influence without hesitation.

For our adversaries, this is all-out war. America will only achieve victory and assert its leadership when the US population and industry are more directly involved in the effort.

Most experts agree that 150,000 troops in Iraq are not sufficient. Many think that deploying 450,000 soldiers would enable security and stability in Iraq. But additional forces would also be required for Afghanistan and we need to be ready to face unexpected threats and challenges.

If America is going to retain its position as global leader, hundreds of thousands, perhaps even several million additional soldiers and public servants will be needed to project power abroad, provide economic development services, and protect the homeland. This would require people recruited from the private sector or conscription as part of a mandatory national service.

But before American leaders make any more decisions that have far-reaching consequences, the country must determine what kind of country it wants to be in the 21st century. Until this essential question is answered, American will not be able to champion its interests and respond effectively to the situation in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, and Darfur.

And as the 2008 Presidential election gains momentum, citizens should demand that candidates provide a clear vision of America’s place in the world.

Perhaps the British have provided a model for America. Although they displayed undeniable weakness when faced with Iranian military provocation, the British were savvy enough to have their soldiers returned unharmed by Easter. Beyond the reminder that Britain no longer strides the world’s oceans like a behemoth, life in Britain will move forward unfazed. But that is to be expected, the British people gave up on being an empire long ago.