It appears there will be an imminent retaliatory strike by Iran for the recent double assassinations by Israel, one in Lebanon, and more consequentially, the other of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh on Iranian soil, which is in violation of national sovereignty and security. Military experts inside and outside Iran say it’s just a matter of time for that retaliation to happen.
While Israel has not claimed responsibility for the assassination of Haniyeh in Iran, it’s understood by most that Israel was behind it and that it was ordered by Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The assassination of Haniyah sends two clear messages: first that targeting Haniyah, one of the chief political negotiators in the ongoing ceasefire talks, tells us that Netanyahu is not interested in ending the war; and second, that targeting Haniyah in Iran (of all places) when Haniyah was there for the inauguration of Iran’s new president Masoud Pezeshkian, also tells us that Netanyahu wants to expand the war into a regional conflict. This has been his intention all along as he constantly raises the benchmark of peace negotiations after Hamas agrees to terms, only to bail out of negotiations.
U.S. officials claim the United States was not notified ahead of time of the Iran assassination and is working diplomatic channels to convince Iran not to retaliate. But Iranian academics say the U.S. failed in containing Netanyahu after Iran’s April strike which was in response to an earlier assassination at the Iranian Consulate in Syria. Iranians gave the U.S. advanced notice of that strike to minimize damage. This time, Iranian analysts say, Iran will most likely send a stronger message – possibly using more sophisticated weapons, launch a surprise attack or perhaps hit important strategic targets.
They also emphasize that Iran is not interested in escalation of a wider conflict and only seeks to establish a meaningful deterrence. Ironically, they view violent deterrence, possibly one that could result in casualties, as an act in favor of long-term peace. That’s what deterrence is in strategic warfare.
Netanyahu’s timing for escalation
Netanyahu’s timing for escalation is calculating. He’s considered, perhaps, that there is a short window to get the U.S. mired in direct war as a new U.S. administration loom. If Kamala Harris wins, there’s a likelihood for stronger pressure for a ceasefire and greater aversion for U.S engaging in direct war with Iran, something Netanyahu has been pushing for decades. Netanyahu understands well the art of war – that as soon as a country directly engages, it’s difficult to bail out. In addition, nationalism and newfound fervor quickly follows the outbreak of direct war. The current, prevailing anti-war movement in the U.S. among Americans could dramatically shift once the U.S. engages and American soldiers’ lives are at risk. His probable aim is to get the U.S. involved in direct war before Harris is elected. With a Trump administration, he gets a green light.
Americans should be asking…
The big question, then, is why should the American government be putting all our backing in Israel? Why are our leaders sleepwalking us into war that most Americans do not want? Clearly, Americans are being jerked and played. The answer if we are honest: it’s in part because of race and religion (relative to Israel’s neighbors), in part because of Americans’ financial interests in Israel, and more importantly, because AIPAC and powerful and wealthy supporters of Israel in the U.S. want us to.
What Americans should remember
Americans must not give into collective amnesia but remember the lessons of the Iraq-Afghanistan wars that cost about eight trillion dollars since 9/11 and an estimated 897,000 to 929,000 deaths (includes U.S. military members, allied fighters, opposition fighters, civilians, journalists and humanitarian aid workers), according to the Costs of War Project at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs.
The study states, “The Pentagon and the U.S. military have now absorbed the great majority of the federal discretionary budget, and most people don’t know that. Our task, now and in future years, is to educate the public on the ways in which we fund those wars and the scale of that funding.”
What historians and most Americans now know is that the Iraq-Afghanistan war was a monumental failure, not just in cost spent and lives lost, but in its objective. The goal was to defeat terror in the Middle East. That obviously did not happen.
What Americans should also consider is that Iran is far larger and stronger than Iraq and is laden with high-tech weaponry (which they did not use in the April — mostly cheap, dumb drones — barrage). U.S military experts are aware of Iran’s military potency which is why the U.S. has been trying to contain Netanyahu from starting a war with Iran.
It is not in the U.S.’s best interest to participate in a major escalation. Rather, the U.S. government should be putting conditional support on Israel, and we should take a hard look at long-term cost-benefits in our relationship with Israel.
Some Middle Eastern academics even make the argument that U.S. enemies in the region are only their enemies because of U.S. backing of Israel. This is a credible argument.
Enforce iron-clad conditional support onto Israel and it will have no option but to comply because Israel certainly cannot win a war on its own. Ten months and counting, and Hamas hasn’t been defeated. Their weapons arsenal is depleted. They do not have a large tax base for weapons manufacturing and must constantly rely on the U.S. The IDF is worn down, so much so that Israel is in the process of forcing their religious Orthodox Jews (Haredi) into enlisting in the IDF, reversing an exemption they’ve had since the country’s founding 76 years ago, which clearly is a sign of desperation.
An escalated regional war would hurt everyone and has the potential to trigger a global recession if oil wells are targeted throughout the Persian Gulf, which Iran could resort to doing. Most Americans remain in a 1990s time capsule when the U.S. reigned supreme. Short of using nuclear arsenal which the U.S. will not use, even as the U.S. is the most powerful military in the world – military experts know the U.S. can be challenged in conventional and new-tech weaponry. And the cost to winning a war in that manner could run up into the trillions, money that Americans do not have, nor care to spend their hard-earned money on.
About Author
+ There are no comments
Add yours