THE short answer of course is ‘No’. However, what the current Israeli government want is that this will be their last war for a generation. The ground was laid months ago with the highly successful air attacks on Iranian production facilities and air defence, and by the targeted killing of Iran’s terrorist clients through sabotaged cell phones and pagers. The surprise is that the operational pause has been as long as it has. The current wave of attacks is also clearly based on accurate intelligence, as Iran’s ability to retaliate is shrinking by the day.
What are Israel’s objectives? First, to take down Iran’s nuclear weapons production in terms of both warheads and delivery means. Netanyahu will not go to the negotiating table on this: because he does not have to and because the Iranians cannot be trusted – they have repeatedly lied and evaded undertakings before and will do so again. Second, to remove the regime. Last, as a subsidiary benefit, to destroy what is left of Hezbollah and Hamas.
The big problem when dealing with Iran at the negotiating table is ‘which Iran?’ There are layers of conflicting authority in the regime: the ‘elected’ government, the religious leadership, the military, the Revolutionary Guard, the religious police and the intelligence and security service (MIOS). All are in competition with each other, all are opaque to each other. An agreement reached with one, or more, of these bodies will not be respected by the others. There is, therefore, only one possible course of action for Israel and that is to remove the weapons and their production mechanisms and then, to be absolutely sure, to remove the regime.
Removal of the weapons can be done partly through air strikes, but only partly. Some facilities are so deeply buried that perhaps only American power can provide the means to destroy them, although the Israelis should never be underestimated. The Pentagon, of course, does have a detailed plan to take out Iran’s nuclear capability and has had for years; it is regularly updated and refined. It includes not only air and cruise delivered munitions, but also the insertion of marines, airborne forces and Delta Force to destroy those facilities that cannot be readily and completely destroyed from the air, and to kill the scientists and military men who operate them. This plan will be the basis of the discussion on Tuesday between Donald Trump and his National Security Council.
Removal of the regime does not mean war against the Iranian people – quite the reverse. There have already been several attempts to remove the Mullahs and their power base in the intelligence and security service and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) but as it is they who control the weapons, uprisings will be brutally repressed. Removing the regime means killing the Mullahs, decapitating the intelligence and security service, and neutralising the IRGC by killing its key leaders and destroying its arms, barracks and communications. To do this will require a much longer and more widespread military campaign than has been seen to date – but it will not end in the occupation of Iran. No one wants another Afghanistan and Iran is far too big and far too complex in its human and physical terrain.
Aside from those who stand to lose their jobs – and their heads – with the Mullahs, who cares if they disappear? Large sections of the Iranian population will clearly be happy to see them go: Iran has only a bare majority of Persian population and the large minorities, including Kurds, Arabs, Allawites, Azeris, Baluchis and Turkmen, are at best second-class citizens. Iran also has a very young population: of its 91million people, almost half are under 35 and the average age is a mere 32 years. To the fury of the Mullahs, most of these youngsters, especially in the cities, are far more interested in Manchester United than in Muhammad. Disobedience to the diktats of the regime on dress and conduct, particularly those targeted against women, are widely flouted. Without the baleful influence of the current regime, it is possible to see a democratic, secular society emerging in Iran.
In the wider region, Iran’s neighbours will not lift a finger to help the Mullahs. Iran’s major competitors are all Sunni Muslims, opposed ideologically to the Shi’ites. A nuclear-armed Iran is as much a threat to them as to Israel, and one wonders what quiet understandings have had to be reached between the Saudis, the Turks and the Pakistanis on this. Do not expect to see the Saudis, or the Emiratis, Bahrainis and Kuwaitis, come out in support of Israel, but privately there will be some gloating – not least because the end of the Iranian regime also means the end of the Houthis. The view from Baghdad will be an interesting one, given Iraq’s split personality over its relationship with Iran in recent years. Moscow will doubtless be dismayed, but given the engagement in Ukraine, no help can be expected from there.
From here on, with or without American support (and probably with), Israel cannot hold back. Netanyahu knows this is his one and only chance to secure Israel and to secure his own position. The Iranians may well have overplayed their hand at last.
