Should Israel Attack Iran?

The commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Muhammad Ali Jafari has asserted that,’Israel will be destroyed if it attacked Iran’. This assertion comes amidst speculation that Israel may, in an echo of its strikes on Iraq’s Osirak reactor and the Syrian one, attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. This, if it pans out, would be in the nature of a pre-emptive strike. Whether the commander’s threat is real or in the nature of a signal of Iran’s preparedness against a pre-emptive strike is a moot point. What is of significance, import and alarming is the consequence of the potential strike on the Middle East and the world.

 

The attack would throw world politics and even world peace into a tizzy. Oil prices would shoot up leading to an economic impact whose tremors would be felt globally, the regional political equations in the Middle East would be thrown into disarray, and there would be strains on worldwide and global alliances. Iran will retaliate and its retaliation would be in the nature of overt as well as covert war. It will activate its proxies especially the Hezbollah, and Syria would also come into the picture. The world of Islam will once again be arrayed against the West, with the attendant anti Americanism running rife across the Muslim world and the positions of various players in Palestine would harden. The Arab Spring will, in the process be a victim of this. In short, there will be global pandemonium. The question then is: is the attack worth it? Should the Israeli attack have American blessings? Or should diplomacy be continued to given a chance?

 

Given the consequences of the attack, there should be no doubt about what course of action should be taken. It is diplomacy that will serve the ends of all parties concerned. While criticisms have been leveled against diplomacy and it has been asserted that Iran is playing the game of diplomacy and trotting out old chestnuts to the international community, vigorous and astute diplomacy is still the answer to the problem; not war. The reasons for the latter option have already been adumbrated. The stakes are too high and the consequences and the fallout too negative to countenance war. The United States should devote its energies towards pre empting war and averting it. This is where it will be tested. The question is what should inform the thrust of American diplomacy?

 

First, the United States should understand Iran’s alleged quest of nukes. Nuclear weapons, as is well known, offer a state the ultimate security. Given the nature of the neighborhood that Iran exists in, the country’s security elite may feel that it is nuclear weapons that will allow it to survive in a hostile neighborhood and maintain the nature of its regime. Iran also suffers from a grandiosity complex. Nuclear weapons will accord it hegemonic status and allow it to preen in pride. In short, it is about respect. Having understood this, the United States should reach out to Iran and convince it that it is neither in the cross hairs of regime change, nor will its legitimate aspirations of being a respected member of the comity of nations be thwarted by the United States. In fact, it should be pointed out that Iran’s contribution to civilization has been immense and if the country becomes a ‘normal’ nation state, it would be welcomes by and in the comity of nations.

 

Having established this, the United States should follow this up by injecting life into the moribund peace process between the Palestinians and Israel. Life should be infused into the two state solution with full diplomatic backing by the United States. The country should the take a stance on the denouement and trajectory of the Arab spring. Mere blandishments and rhetorical support is not enough. What this specifically means is coming on the sides of the Syrian people and helping them get rid of the Assad regime. The United States should also change the nature and tenor of its relationships with the Arab regimes. The old policy of supporting autocrats should be given up and the United States should support the aspirations of the people in the region. This may mean some short term pain but will be salubrious and salutary from a long term perspective.

 

These measures will not only obviate anti Americanism in the region but may assuage Iran’s fears and will take away the props around which Iran’s hostility (and support for this)is premised upon.  The quid pro quo that the United States should extract from the Iranians is disavowal of the nuclear program. This is doable. All is requires is strong will and astute diplomacy. An attack which has American blessing-either out of domestic political compulsions or alliance commitments- will be counter productive. Iran is neither Syria nor Iraq. Its response will have regional and global repercussions. It is these that need to be pre –empted. War, as the wit said, is bad politics. And bad politics is not expected from the sole superpower. The time for diplomatic activity is now. Let it not be squandered and let history determine the politics and  political future of the region; not force.