Iran Is Not an Easy Target for Israel
By Mohammad Ali Mohtadi, Middle East affairs analyst
Dr. Mohammad Ali Mohtadi, university professor and Middle East affairs analyst comments on the likely intentions and repercussions of the joint US-Israeli maneuver:
Israel and the United States have carried out several military maneuvers in east Mediterranean so far. Both insist that the maneuvers are not against a third country and are only search and rescue exercises. However, since the humiliating defeat against Hezbollah in summer 2006, Israel has frequently conducted marine and ground maneuvers. Recently, it also carried out a maneuver in Golan Heights as a preparation against a likely Syrian attack.
Naturally, marine maneuvers are also executed to boost the spirit of the Israeli army. With such maneuvers, the United States’ is also trying to ensure Tel Aviv about its security. The superpower is pressuring Israel on different issues, including the peace talks. Since Israel’s primary concerns are of a security nature, with taking part in joint maneuvers Washington tries to hearten Israel and alleviate its concerns.
But let’s not forget that principally, Israel is a state based on aggression and expansionism. These two factors are inherent in the Israeli state and the function as the aim of any maneuver. Militarily speaking, based on the deterrence theory, Israelis believe that they should be superior to each country -and all countries- of the region in order to preserve their security.
Iran follows its own deterrent strategy aimed to stop other countries of even pondering an attack. According to this strategy Iran should be capable of defending itself, while having the ability to strike painful blows on the aggressor. As to Israel’s likely attack, Tel Aviv insists that a military option against Iran is still on the table, adopted inevitably if nuclear negotiations do not reach a fruitful conclusion.
A few days ago, Dmitri Medvedev claimed that the Israeli President Shimon Peres has assured Russia that his country has no plans to attack Iran. Russia has always opposed any military plans to attack Iran. However, the Russian president’s remarks were later denied by the Israelis who said that a military option against Iran is still possible. With questions emerging about their changing stance, Israelis said that presidency is a ceremonial position in Israel and the country’s official stance is stated by the prime minister. It seems that despite all the political and military constrictions they face, Israelis keep the propaganda alive to make Iranians concerned about their security. Nevertheless, the distance between Israel and Iran’s nuclear sites makes it an implausible military goal for Israeli fighters to attack these facilities.
Another point is the missile defense shield which was once going to be installed in Poland and the Czech Republic. The project had deeply irritated Russians, forcing them to show serious reaction. In the last months of his presidency, George W. Bush claimed that the system is aimed to offset Iran’s threats and has got nothing to do with Russia.
No one bought Bush’s words however since Iran’s missiles cannot reach Europe and after all, there are no goals in Europe for Iran to attack. So it was quite natural to disregard Bush’s claims and think that the defense shield was an effort to threaten Russians’ interests.
Obama administration has also repeated Bush’s remarks on the aim of missile defense shield. Even if we accept the assumption, shelving of the project means that U.S. should find alternatives to the Czech Republic and Poland. This has led to speculations about a security deal between Washington and Moscow. The two world powers may want to establish a joint security system in the region, or they may have had a backstage tradeoff which somehow relates to Iran’s nuclear program. These are mere conjectures and we have to wait and witness Middle East developments in near future.
Israel and the United States have carried out several military maneuvers in east Mediterranean so far. Both insist that the maneuvers are not against a third country and are only search and rescue exercises. However, since the humiliating defeat against Hezbollah in summer 2006, Israel has frequently conducted marine and ground maneuvers. Recently, it also carried out a maneuver in Golan Heights as a preparation against a likely Syrian attack.
Naturally, marine maneuvers are also executed to boost the spirit of the Israeli army. With such maneuvers, the United States’ is also trying to ensure Tel Aviv about its security. The superpower is pressuring Israel on different issues, including the peace talks. Since Israel’s primary concerns are of a security nature, with taking part in joint maneuvers Washington tries to hearten Israel and alleviate its concerns.
But let’s not forget that principally, Israel is a state based on aggression and expansionism. These two factors are inherent in the Israeli state and the function as the aim of any maneuver. Militarily speaking, based on the deterrence theory, Israelis believe that they should be superior to each country -and all countries- of the region in order to preserve their security.
Iran follows its own deterrent strategy aimed to stop other countries of even pondering an attack. According to this strategy Iran should be capable of defending itself, while having the ability to strike painful blows on the aggressor. As to Israel’s likely attack, Tel Aviv insists that a military option against Iran is still on the table, adopted inevitably if nuclear negotiations do not reach a fruitful conclusion.
A few days ago, Dmitri Medvedev claimed that the Israeli President Shimon Peres has assured Russia that his country has no plans to attack Iran. Russia has always opposed any military plans to attack Iran. However, the Russian president’s remarks were later denied by the Israelis who said that a military option against Iran is still possible. With questions emerging about their changing stance, Israelis said that presidency is a ceremonial position in Israel and the country’s official stance is stated by the prime minister. It seems that despite all the political and military constrictions they face, Israelis keep the propaganda alive to make Iranians concerned about their security. Nevertheless, the distance between Israel and Iran’s nuclear sites makes it an implausible military goal for Israeli fighters to attack these facilities.
Another point is the missile defense shield which was once going to be installed in Poland and the Czech Republic. The project had deeply irritated Russians, forcing them to show serious reaction. In the last months of his presidency, George W. Bush claimed that the system is aimed to offset Iran’s threats and has got nothing to do with Russia.
No one bought Bush’s words however since Iran’s missiles cannot reach Europe and after all, there are no goals in Europe for Iran to attack. So it was quite natural to disregard Bush’s claims and think that the defense shield was an effort to threaten Russians’ interests.
Obama administration has also repeated Bush’s remarks on the aim of missile defense shield. Even if we accept the assumption, shelving of the project means that U.S. should find alternatives to the Czech Republic and Poland. This has led to speculations about a security deal between Washington and Moscow. The two world powers may want to establish a joint security system in the region, or they may have had a backstage tradeoff which somehow relates to Iran’s nuclear program. These are mere conjectures and we have to wait and witness Middle East developments in near future.