Israel wird Iran angreifen? Quatsch.

Von 27. Februar 2012 um 14:41 Uhr

Meint jedenfalls Barry Rubin in der Jerusalem Post:

… the war hysteria with Iran. Iran doesn’t have deliverable nuclear weapons. It is not about to have deliverable nuclear weapons. Israel is not about to attack Iran. The United States is certainly not about to attack Iran. The whole idea that the leaders of Iran are crazed, suicidally minded people who expect the twelfth imam to arrive next Thursday is simply not true.

Yes, the Iranian regime is radical and yes, it throws threats in all directions and yes, it is the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism. Yet after 32 years in power the Islamist regime in Tehran has yet to do something really adventurous abroad. This regime wants to stay in power and it has shown restraint. When it committed terrorist attacks against Americans in Lebanon, Iraq and Saudi Arabia it did so with the correct calculation that it could get away without paying any price.

(…) Iran’s government is bad enough, but the caricatures we are seeing go far beyond the reality. The country’s main goal, like that of Pakistan, is to make itself immune to any reprisals for terrorism and subversion by having nuclear weapons. In part, the rationale for the nuclear program is outdated, though that certainly won’t stop Tehran from pursuing it. The project was launched to make Iran into the leader of the Middle East, and even of the whole Muslim world.

Yet the rise of Sunni Arab Islamists, notably the Muslim Brotherhood, has sharply reduced Iran’s potential sphere of influence. Tehran’s broader ambitions have been shrunk to include only Lebanon, Syria (where its ally is facing major problems), southwest Afghanistan, and Iraq (where its clients are proportionately small in size). Throw in some ambitions toward Bahrain and the ability to scare the Persian Gulf Arabs and that’s about it. Turkey has its own ambitions; the newly empowered Sunni Arab Islamists hate Iran and don’t think they need Tehran at all.

That doesn’t mean Iran might not some day attack Israel if and when it has nuclear weapons. Obviously a mixture of containment, defensive measures and the ability plus willingness to stage a preemptive attack if necessary are vital for Israel, which isn’t going to depend on Iran’s good will or assume that Tehran will never attack.

At the same time, though, the chances of avoiding a nuclear war are overwhelmingly positive. What is Iran going to do, put two to six missiles on launching pads to shoot at Israel without being detected beforehand and having no second wave that can be used? Is Iran going to attack Israel out of spite, from blind fanaticism, knowing not only that Iran will be devastated but that Israel has a high likelihood of preempting and destroying them on the launching pad or shooting them down?

To start a war with Iran now doesn’t make any sense. It will not stop that country from getting nuclear weapons and it would make a nuclear war in the coming years more rather than less likely. Israel has no international support. Russia is practically threatening a war against Israel if it does launch such an operation.

The logistics of an attack are difficult, though not impossible. A lot can go wrong. You don’t want to try such an operation unless you really have to do so. The bottom line is that an Israeli attack on Iran at present is simply not necessary. A lot of the Israeli rhetoric is clearly intended to press the West toward greater activism and tougher sanctions.

Indeed, all of the reasons why Israel is not about to attack Iran are just plain ignored in the media. Defense Minister Ehud Barak explains that no decision is made and that Israeli policy is only to attack if Iran is about to get deliverable nuclear weapons. He suggests that this won’t happen in the next year. The biggest Israeli critic of launching an attack states that Israel decided not to do so and his worst complaint against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is that he wants to keep discussing the possibility, not that he has decided on an attack.

President Barack Obama – a man who would never attack Iran or support an Israeli action – has publicly stated that Israel isn’t about to do so. The president of the United States, whatever his other faults, would not say such a thing unless he has been clearly promised by Netanyahu that it isn’t going to happen. If Israel were to break that promise the entire bilateral relationship would blow up in a way that would make recent tiffs seem like a picnic.

In short, the whole idea is nonsense. Numerous reasons can be given to explain why it is not on the agenda for this year. But the media and various analysts – many of them self-proclaimed experts – simply ignore all the evidence. Some want to get Israel into a war with Iran to please their own ideological agenda; others want to claim Israel is going to attack in order to prove their thesis that Israel is the evil cause of all regional – or even world – problems.

This hysteria really should stop. Israel isn’t going to get into a long, bloody and avoidable war because bloggers and op-ed writers are screaming for it. (…)

Kategorien: Iran, Israel
Leser-Kommentare
  1. 1.

    Ein Israeli mit Augenmaß – wie außerordentlich beruhigend.

    Antworten

  2. 2.

    “The whole idea that the leaders of Iran are crazed, suicidally minded people who expect the twelfth imam to arrive next Thursday is simply not true.”

    Im Iran sieht man das gelegentlich etwas kritischer.

    “He has been “associated” with the “deviant current”, or “perverted group … ”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esfandiar_Rahim_Mashaei

    Ist aber – zugegeben – eher schwer durchschaubar.

    “The country’s main goal, like that of Pakistan, is to make itself immune to any reprisals for terrorism and subversion by having nuclear weapons.”

    Um nichts geringeres geht es. Einen Konklikt mit der Hizbollah ohne angemessene Vergeltungsmöglichkeit; “Abschreckung” – zugunsten von Terroristen; atomar gedeckter Terror.

    “In part, the rationale for the nuclear program is outdated, ”

    Und zwar dann, wenn die Hizbollah die Luft herausgelassen bekommt.
    Das könnte passieren, aber ganz so weit sind wir jetzt noch nicht.

    “Tehran’s broader ambitions have been shrunk to include only Lebanon, Syria (where its ally is facing major problems), southwest Afghanistan, and Iraq”

    Wo sie überall Zunder kriegen und machen, only.

    Wer ist denn wohl derjenige, der sich eine entscheidende Schwächung des Iran herbeisehnt ? Israel – Nein*, denn der Iran spaltet und schwächt die sunnitischen Araber**. Letztere könnten sich nach einiger Eskalation von Assad, dem Iran und vielleicht noch Mad-Moqtada so gebeutelt fühlen, dass sie eine Entlastung gut brauchen könnten.

    *Außer bei Akutheit der Terrorkonstellation mit der HB
    **in posttyrannischen Zeiten

    Aber ob Israel das für DIE machen sollte, ist in der Tat die Frage.

    Antworten

    • 27. Februar 2012 um 15:46 Uhr
    • Thomas Holm
  3. 3.

    @ TH: Warum könnte man gegen Hisbollah nicht mehr vorgehen, wenn Iran die Bombe hat? Würde Teheran dann Tel Aviv nuken, im Angesicht der israelischen Zweitschlagsfähigkeit? Scheint mir nicht plausibel. Zwischen den Atommächten des Kalten Krieges sind ohne Ende Stellvertreterkriege ausgefochten worden, ohne je einen atomaren Ernstfall nahe zu bringen. Die kubanische Krise war etwas anderes: Da ging es um eine Stationierung von Waffen, die das Gleichgewicht verändert hätte.

    Antworten

    • 27. Februar 2012 um 16:10 Uhr
    • Jörg Lau
  4. 4.

    Noch n paar Highlights des Artikels:

    Briefly, here are some other myths that deserve to be abandoned as soon as possible:

    • There is an Israel-Palestinian peace process.[...]

    • The Muslim Brotherhood is moderate. Wake up and smell the jihad.

    • The Syrian regime is about to fall. The opposition knows that without international intervention – which isn’t going to happen – they can’t win.

    • Turkey is the very model of a moderate Islamic democracy. Actually, it’s a repressive Islamist dictatorship in training. Look at the massive arrests, the trumped-up treason charges, the trampling of free speech and the assault on the country’ armed forces.

    Antworten

    • 27. Februar 2012 um 16:18 Uhr
    • Serious Black
  5. 5.

    @ JL

    Ob sich die Ayatollahs im Angesicht des Gleichgewicht des Schreckens ebenso rational wie Russland verhalten, darf bezweifelt werden.

    Das ist aber nicht mehr der entscheidende Punkt. Sollte Iran die Bombe haben, wird die ganze Region nuklear nachrüsten. Die Saudis können angeblich innerhalb weniger Monate ein ‘schlüsselfertiges’ Atomprogramm von Pakistan kaufen.

    Den guten stabilen Zeiten des NPT können wir dann nur noch nachtrauern.

    Antworten

    • 27. Februar 2012 um 16:31 Uhr
    • Serious Black
  6. 6.

    @ SB

    Den guten stabilen Zeiten des NPT können wir dann nur noch nachtrauern.

    Dem Messias sei Dank.

    Antworten

    • 27. Februar 2012 um 16:36 Uhr
    • marriex
  7. 7.

    @ marriex, SB: zum NPT eine schöne Fussnote hier in dem Interview mit Efraim Halevy, ehemaliger Mossad-Chef, ebenfalls heute in der Jpost:

    “The world accepted us as a member of the community of nations, and yet we always demand that they recognize our right to exist.”

    Halevy questioned why Israel needs such assurance, and cited a conversation that he had engaged in with a prominent Palestinian, who had told him that Israel’s insistence on recognition, would suggest that if the Palestinians don’t recognize Israel, Israel would lose its right to exist.

    Israel has convinced the free world that if Hamas doesn’t recognize Israel’s right to exist, “we won’t talk to them,” said Halevy, who implied that this was so much hogwash. “We talk to them all the time,” he said, then later corrected himself, saying that Israel may not be talking directly to Hamas, but communicates with Hamas.

    As for the Iranian nuclear project, Halevy disclosed some of the details of a meeting on nuclear non-proliferation that he had attended in a European capital. There were several high ranking Iranian representatives at this meeting and the Iranian ambassador had declared that Israel must be forced to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

    *Israel has never said that it has nuclear weapons, nor has it said that it hasn’t,” said Halevy, who had seized on the Iranian ambassador’s remarks and had told him that he was absolutely right, because only legitimate states sign international treaties and that this was the first time that the Iranians had recognized the State of Israel.

    The ambassador had tried to bluster his way out, but the point made by Halevy had prevailed.

    Antworten

    • 27. Februar 2012 um 16:53 Uhr
    • Jörg Lau
  8. 8.

    @ JL

    Halevy sagt aber auch, daß der Konflikt niemals enden wird.

    Was er nicht erklärt:

    Wenn der Konflikt nicht zu lösen ist, wieso sollte Israel durch die Gründung eines weiteren feindlichen Staats in unmittelbarer Nachbarschaft seine Bevölkerung in noch größere Gefahr bringen?

    Dieser iranische Botschafter hat mit diesem Statement seine weiteren Karriereaussichten sicher etwas limitiert. ;-)

    Antworten

    • 27. Februar 2012 um 17:11 Uhr
    • Serious Black
  9. Kommentar zum Thema

    (erforderlich)

    (wird nicht veröffentlicht) (erforderlich)

    (erforderlich)