Within the business very few people believe that Israel wants to attack Iran over its nuclear program. Instead Israel wants to use the issue as a pre-text to provoke a wider regional conflict in order to seize more territory from it’s neighbours and alter the terms of negotiations with the Palestinians. So what Israel wanted from Syria was low level but continuous peaceful protests that would trick the Syrian government into trying to rally a restive population behind a war against the old enemy. However that situation has long since gone out of control due to the involvement of the Gulf and other Monarchies.
Through the Strait of Hormouz drama and associated naval rescues the United States got Iran to look as though it wouldn’t retaliate by issuing an empty threat to block a US aircraft carrier entering the Strait. This was done to reduce Israel’s incentive to attack. Leon Panetta’s comments about Israel attacking Iran between May and June 2012 were designed to gauge Israel’s reaction to the development but Panetta gave away far too much information for my liking.
The attacks against Israeli diplomatic vehicles in India and Georgia were Israel’s response. They were designed to strengthen internal support for an attack on Iran and put pressure on the US to confirm its position. The attacks in Thailand that followed were designed to convince that the Indian and Georgian attacks were Iran’s work. They were most probably achieved by Israeli intelligence infiltrating an Iranian intelligence cell and then just killing them with the assistance of the Thai authorities.
So in summary – while trying not to lay down a challenge – I actually think the chances of an Israeli attack on Iran are at their lowest in several years. However Iran will still have to deal with Israel’s policy of assassination and crippling economic sanctions such as expulsion from the SWIFT banking system that in the long run will do them more damage then a war.
No comments:
Post a Comment