Tinder-Box of the World

Well, what if Israel decided to strike Iran? Not to commit to the dangerous and difficult task to strike the country's nuclear installations, but instead to strike at its vulnerable and exposed energy infrastructure? There would be the risk involved of course in angering the world community wherever Israel chose, in its bid to protect itself by a pre-emptive strike, to hit Iran.

The reaction would be immediate and cause further instability in an already unstable geography.

But if the aim is to harm Iran financially, which is what the UN's various tries at diplomacy and economic sanctions have been all about, and which have all been unsuccessful in persuading Iran to cease and desist with its nuclear plans, directly striking the country's energy extraction sources would certainly be more immediate and painful.

With the destruction of that infrastructure the country would find itself critically wounded.

Unable to transfer funding to its proxy terror militias, Hezbollah and Hamas, let alone supply Syria with a continuing source of armaments. And it would no longer have the means to supply itself domestically with imports of natural gas and refined oil or the means to pay for critical foodstuffs that the country relies upon. Energy sales represent 80% of Iran's export earnings.

A situation of national bankruptcy would most certainly have the effect of halting ongoing nuclear plans to achieve either domestic energy from nuclear sources and/or the enrichment of uranium for the production of nuclear-tipped arms. If Israel were to do this, who would attack it in retaliation?

Hamas and Hezbollah, Iran - and of course Syria is sufficiently distracted with its own problems making it unlikely it would join the fray. With Hamas and Hezbollah helping Iran to counter-attack Israel, what would be Egypt's response?

The Gulf States and Saudi Arabia would breathe a sigh of relief that Iran's nuclear program had received a death knell due to lack of funding. And they would likely respond by increasing their output to make up for the difference in Iranian crude oil supply. But Egypt? Now effectively governed by the Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is a wing?

Egypt appears on the brink of severing its relations with Israel, prepared to abrogate the peace treaty. What Anwar Sadat felt would be to the advantage of his country by agreeing to peace with Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood feels no compulsion to honour. Should the U.S. attempt to intervene, to persuade Egypt not to react, why would the Muslim Brotherhood listen to the U.S.?

Hosni Mubarak is no longer in authority and the ruling generals have been considerably weakened, knowing they have had to make accommodation with the duly elected Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists; Egypt is no longer the accommodating state it once was, even at the risk of cutting off funding from the United States.

And with the inevitable scarcity of energy products until the gap is filled by alternate sources, and the concomitant rise in oil and gas prices the entire world will feel fairly grudging toward Israel which will have risked that situation, balancing it against the security of its existence in the Middle East. Israel would be concerned and busy for quite a while fending off attacks from an economically defeated Iran.

Which, in its newly penurious state would no longer be capable of funding Hezbollah and Hamas, would find itself back to basics in struggling to maintain itself, with no spare time to devote to rescuing its nuclear program, not even with the wan encouragement of Venezuela, whose Hugo Chavez may or may not survive his latest cancer onset.

Speculation with respect to whatever happens in the Middle East is idle and frustrating. In that unstable political, religious, social environment anything can happen to upset expectations. It remains the fragile tinder-box of the world.