"Inevitable" War

"Americans tell us there is time and we tell them that they only have about six to nine months more than we do.  Therefore, sanctions have to be brought to a culmination now, in order to exhaust that track."

Inevitable because, well because it just seems that way.  Inevitable because no power on Earth seems to be capable of moving the Iranian mullahs off their position of entitlement to nuclear weaponry.  Simply because Allah wills it to be so.  They are rendering to God that which is His province.  Although they have also stated their willingness to resume talks between the U.S. Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany in Istanbul.


If only to declare once again that the I.A.E.A. is wrong, completely wrong, to accuse the Islamic Republic of Iran of aspiring to nuclear weapons.  Even if one of their own, lawmaker Gholamreza Mesbahi Moghadam has publicly stated his country is equipped with both the knowledge and the skills to produce a nuclear weapon.  But, of course, it has no intention of so doing.  Just saying.

After all, if a country is continually being bombarded by official statements of intention by another country relative to its longevity, it does have an obligation to take those threats seriously.  No entity can afford to be oblivious to the potential of destruction if another entity goes to the trouble of expressly, and publicly iterating and reiterating its demise.

"A war is no picnic.  there will not be 100,000 dead or 10,000 dead or 1,000 dead.  The state of Israel will not be destroyed."

And this, only because the State of Israel will not allow itself to be attacked by means so lethal that the opportunity to lose 100,000 of its citizens would be much enhanced were it to sit complacently by and do nothing to protect itself, as urged upon it by, for example, Europe, which becomes very nervous at the very thought of its secure energy supplies being detained at such a time of fiscal restraint.


Or the United States, its great and good ally, labouring under the effects of a prolonged recession, and the after-effects of funding an excessively expensive set of foreign-based wars that have beggared its treasury.  Wishing at some cost, not to itself particularly, but to a friendly power, to delay as long as possible that which it is not possible to delay much further.


So, should Israel decide it must act: sending Israeli fighter jets to drop bunker-busting bombs on nuclear fuel enrichment plants, submarine-launched cruise missiles at targeted research facilities, aircraft to attack power lines, helicopters to leave Israeli commandos in Iranian uniform and bomb-equipped and -trained dogs to enter deep into tunnels ... and coordinated cyber attacks ... the guessing will be over.


And, of course, the response from Iran would be as close to immediate as feasible.  It would target Israel, and it would target the Strait of Hormuz, and it would target nearby American troops.  As Israel will have responded to an imminent national security threat, Iran will have responded in turn to a present, front-and-centre attack on an impressive scale.


A regional war could ensue.  Certainly, Syria, embattled as it is, would spare troops and artillery, and Lebanon's Hezbollah would move expeditiously to target Israel, and Hamas would do its part.  But it would be Iran's striking at American targets handily available in the region that the U.S. too would respond to, carrying out air strikes on its own on Iran's nuclear facilities.


The U.S. would be aiding an ally, protecting its own military, and performing its international commitment to ensuring a steady flow of oil through the Gulf.  In the process, needless to say, going a long way to destroying Iranian military capacity.  The strikes by Lebanon, Syria and Iran would be estimated to be three weeks in duration.  Already estimated to cost Israel some 300 lives, few more.

"Even the most brilliant operations researcher can not know, in the case of Iran, the actual quality and precision of Israel's intelligence, how successful an attack might be, what the reaction of other regional players might be, how long the Iranians and their proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas or Syria) will be capable of and willing to fight, what will be the Israeli public's reaction to missiles falling on it, and so on."  Avner Cohen, Non-Proliferation Centre at the Monterey Institute of International Studies

And then there is Russia's recently-stated concerns over what it sees as a concerted effort on the part of the U.S. to install another missile defence shield, this time in the Middle East. "The formation of the missile defense system is a new step to signal the possibility of a military strike on Iran, at least in a political context", claimed Chairman Alexey Pushkov, of the State Duma's International Affairs Committee. 

Referring to reports the Pentagon has agreed to the formation of a single missile defence system with members of the Gulf Cooperation Council - Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and Qatar, all Sunni-dominated states that have good reason to be concerned over the potential of a nuclear-armed Shi'ite Iran.  Leaving Russia with the distinct impression that a military strike on Iran may be on the near horizon.


Or not.  None of this is any secret to Iran.  A senior Revolutionary Guard commander warned no place in the United States would be secure from retaliation.  And the country has issued a threat to close off world oil supplies by closing the Strait of Hormuz, and a blitz on U.S. military targets in the Persian Gulf might follow, along with attacks on Israel.


Or not.