As of July 1, new sanctions against Iran are taking effect, effectively banning crude oil imports to the EU, which accounts for some 18% of Iranian crude oil exports. These new sanctions are coming into play as talks between the Iranian regime and the so called P5+1 nations (the U.S., U.K., China, Russia, and France plus Germany) are not making much headway.

Neither the May 23 meeting in Bagdad nor the June 23 meeting in Moscow resulted in anything substantial. Arguably, Iran is moving closer to the “point of no return” with threats being handed out on all sides and the rhetoric growing fiercer. Although a military solution seems to become more and more likely, there are compelling reasons why an air strike should be avoided at all costs.

An air strike on Iran is neither going be as easy as the Israeli strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, nor the strike on Syria’s reactor near al-Kibar in 2007. Iran, having learned a lesson or two from history, has gone to great lengths to protect their enrichment plants – spread out all over Iran – composing at least a dozen different sites. A top US air-force planner estimates that at least 400 targets would have to be hit, and that at least 75 would require the use of penetrating munitions (such as so called “bunker buster bombs”).

Furthermore, these sites are buried deep under ground, (such as the enrichment plant at Fordow which is located under a mountain), and are protected by sophisticated Russian-made air defence systems.

The air strike would have to be massive, continuous and surgical – and the problem is, it would do nothing but postpone the Iranian nuclear venture, (with some 2-5 years according to analysts). And detriment to the whole cause, a strike would naturally add enormous incentive for Iran to actually acquire the bomb, instead of keeping to peaceful uranium enrichment.

Following an Israeli strike, the Iranians would undoubtedly counterattack. Such a strike would be delivered both by means of conventional weapons such as ballistic missiles towards Israel (Iran has got the biggest stock of ballistic missiles in the Middle East), and also by the use of proxy forces such as Hezbollah who could target Israel with rocket strikes from the neighbouring Lebanon.

Other notable proxy strikes would come from the powerful warlord Moqtada al-Sadr, commander of the Shiite Mahdi Army, who’s openly promised to strike back at U.S. coalition forces in Iraq in the case of a U.S./Israeli strike against Iran.

If such a scenario unfolds, the U.S. would undoubtedly launch its own strike against Iran. The U.S., having built up a presence of some 125,000 troops in close proximity to Iran according to recent CENTCOM figures have the ability to hit some 10,000 targets inside Iran overnight.

However, the aftermath of a potential U.S. strike could prove to be very dangerous, as it would galvanize the other pro-Iranian powerhouses China and Russia, active in the region, and, in a worst case scenario, spark a new cold war.

Furthermore, a U.S. strike would have to be continuous and conducted over a long time span, in order to quell any resumed Iranian nuclear efforts, putting further strain on an already badly overstretched U.S. army, not to mention its economy. And all the while, soaring global oil prices would put the final nail in the coffin of an already badly beaten Western economy.

This is simply a scenario, but makes a rather convincing case why a military strike should be avoided at all costs. But amidst the threats and the gloomy outlooks, there are some positive notions.

Although the conflict has seen some escalations, such as cyber attacks on Iranian enrichment plants, as well as several mysterious and dramatic deaths of leading Iranian nuclear scientists, it has mostly been a war of words up to this point.

Historically, Israel has shown that when they are really intent on striking, such as in the cases of Iraq and Syria, it was done in the quiet, without any warning. The current amount of warnings and threats is thus a sign that Israel is content at keeping it “a war of words,” at least for now. But this rather precarious stalemate is not going to last forever.

Image Courtesy of  Mahmoud Ahmadinejar 

The article Iran, Why all Options Shouldn’t Be on the Table appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

According to the latest media reports, the threat of a possible Israeli attack on Iran seems to be impending. Moreover, Israeli leaders have publicly stated that a military action against Iran is being considered as a preventive form of defense in case Iran fails to halt its nuclear program.

Columnist David Ignatius in his opinion column on Washington Post, wrote that Leon Panetta, the U.S. Defense Secretary, thinks there is the possibility of an imminent attack by the Jewish State against the Islamic Republic, nevertheless not specifying what has led him to this conclusion.

To quote Ignatius, “Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb.”

At this point, the burning questions are many; Will Israel really attack Iran? What would be Iran’s reaction? What will the Western countries do in case of a real attack – especially the United States? Will the attack cause a chain reaction? Are Iran’s allies and “friends” ready to intervene and take part in a possible conflict? Will this be the triggering event for a third World War? Might it be an atomic war – meaning an actual catastrophe for humanity?

It may sound like a far-fetched theoretical scenario, one that we might experience in the comfort of a cinema armchair or sofa, as the heroes and heroines fight off catastrophe on screen, but in the current state of the world, it could become a reality.

If we look back on history, it almost seems that the creation of the state of Israel did nothing more than cause constant instability and insecurity in the Middle East, involving even far-away countries in the West in its never-ending dispute. The majority of world nations have diplomatic relations with the Jewish State, and for some countries like the United States, this relation is exceptionally strong.

On the other hand, since the Islamic revolution in 1979, relations between Iran and Israel have turned hostile and Iran has instead developed good relations with Israel’s opponents and with so-called “rogue states” and their allies. Therefore, it is not surprising that the possibility of a conflict between Israel and Iran might lead to a world disaster.

The question of Iran’s nuclear program, linked to the possibility of a working Iranian nuclear bomb factory, has arisen again recently and it is considered the “safety factor” that would legitimize an Israeli attack and, potentially, the intervention of the United States and other Western countries on behalf of Israel’s cause. It would be presented as a question of world security, as a threat against the entire humanity which must be be stopped, a danger for the world’s populations – especially those of Israel and Western countries – to be dealt with.

After all, it would not be the first time we hear a rhetoric like this. Other wars of this century were waged with the same or similar purposes, other conflicts were created to follow the logic of the “war on terror” which the U.S. and UK were particularly adamant about. Iraq is the perfect example of this, having been invaded in the ‘belief’ that Saddam had WMD’s which he did not have. Now, with Iran, all I can think is “here we go again.”

There is no certainty of a factory for nuclear bomb, as there is no proof of an Iranian plan to attack Israel or the U.S. at an unspecified time in the future. As far as I remember, the only country that used the atomic bomb against another country’s population in the history of man were the United States – also known as “the democracy exporters” –, and Israel, even if it is widely believed that they have nuclear weapons as well, has never been attacked or invaded for disarmament, and is not considered as a potential threat (by Western countries).

What is difficult to understand is why the world should continue to tolerate the never-ending aggressive attitude of Israel and furthermore, why the state of Israel should believe they have the right to attack Iran on the assumption that “[t]he Iranians are, after all, a nation whose leaders have set themselves a strategic goal of wiping Israel off the map” – as the Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told to Ronen Bergman.

Iran is not a democratic and liberal country, that is absolutely true, and surely there is a possibility that it has or plans to gain nuclear weapons but is this not the case of other countries in the world too? Should Israel attack all those countries too, at will? Should other countries attack Israel for the same reasons?

The U.S. and Israel, together with the UK and other Western countries, have so far been the only powers who saw fit for themselves to decide other countries’ future and dominate the Middle East. Nevertheless, the world’s power balance is changing, the financial crisis is getting stronger, and in a potential global war scenario the world society could split up into two new opposing deployments with new big powers rising to prominence with a potential U.S. at one end and a likely China at the other. Has the time come for a new world war?

The article Israel vs Iran, the Possible Scenario appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.