An attack by Israel against Iran is not a certainty, by a long shot, which such an action would be. Yet, doing nothing might have serious regional effects, too.
Saudi Arabia is just as worried about a nuclear-armed Iran as Israel, with some high-ranking Saudi officials saying it will seek nuclear weapons if Iran has them. One of the WikiLeaks revelations was a desire by Saudis for Israel to bomb Iran: The enemy of my enemy is my friend scenario.
It was one thing with Israel having such weapons and another a nation such as Iran. The Saudis know Israel, joined to the hip with the US, would not nuke its Arab neighbours. Israel is not a fanatical dictatorship, has no imperial outlook, is not trying to impress its faith on Arabs and such an attack would be disastrous for everyone.
But, Iran is another story. Most things in the Middle East are connected or controlled by tribal and religious affiliations. And most Arabs are Sunni Muslims, while Iran is a Shiite nation. Iraq is the only Arab nation with a majority Shiite population. The hatred between both of these groups, the endless suicide bombings, are examples of the hatred that exists between Shiite and Sunnis in nations such as Syria and Lebanon.
The big goal of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollahs has been to replace Saudi Arabia as the centre of Islam...pushing Shiitism to the front of the Muslim world.
To this end little Israel is the big roadblock in his way. There is literally no reason for the hatred Iran has for Israel. Under the Shah's regime relations were warm and Iran once had a thriving Jewish community.
However, when Iran went fundamentalist in the late 1970s, the country quickly adopted an anti Israel stance. Today that stance, bolstered by the Palestinian issue, helps secure Iran to the Arab world's traditional anti Israel posture.
Iran also knows it can never rise to a preeminent position in the region as long as Israel and the USA hover over the same territory.
For its part, Saudi Arabia may feel very vulnerable to religious and economic blackmail if Iran gets the bomb. Where Iran my be hesitant to Attack Israel, fearing it would also take out Lebanon, Jordan and Syria. Saudi Arabia is a vast desert nation; one they feel could be hit without destroying nearby countries.
Yet all this is only speculation, the stuff that fuels a nuclear arms race. Remember the main purpose of America's MAD (mutual assured destruction) nuclear policy, was to convince enemies not to use nuclear weapons because no one would win such a war.
Iran claims an attack upon it would engulf the entire Middle East. Given what's currently happening in the region, this is a wild overstatement. Some Arab nations, such as Saudi Arabia, would be pleased. Others undergoing internal turmoil, will be preoccupied with their own problems to jump to the defense of non Arabic Shiite Iran.
These may be plus factors for Israel in launching an attack. On the negative side is the counter attack by Iran and its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza. Does Israel want another war that would probably drag NATO in, based on a possibility, not a certainty, of Iran developing nuclear weapons? It may be the only realistic option.
Even if the broad range of economic sanctions crippling Iran work, how can anyone prove to a suspicious Arab world, that Iran doesn't have some bombs hidden away?
Remember, Iran's main goal is increasing its stature within the Islamic world. Unless Israel or the US destroys its nuclear installations, this is now assured. Iran doesn't even have to develop a bomb. Just the belief among nations that it has one will be enough to create fear and tension...and also a possible nuclear arms race in the region.
Follow Dan Ehrlich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/danew13
Nathan Gonzalez: How Sanctions Against Iran Could Backfire
As for Saudis, it's so ridiculous that a major terrorist funding entity is now a friend of Israel. nobody hates Israel more than Saudis, the holiest place for Islam. The very existence of Israel is the most threatening force for Saudis livelihood. Saudis fund many radical Islamist fundamentalists..in fact, Saudi is the birth place of radical Islamist ideology. Iranians have one foot in Saudi--they are not enemies.
If Israel "would never nuke its Arab neighbors", then who else are they for? Israel's nukes are what have given it the gall to invade Lebanon, strike Syria and Iraq with impunity. They would be more agreeable neighbors without nukes.
Iran, if anything , has been rational-because they want to LIVE. Israel wanting a war is way irrational.
In the 1980s, The Sunni govt's helped Iraq against Iran, hence are afraid of what Iran might do. But this is a product of Arab guilt, not Iranian aggression.
The oil-rich regions of SA have majority Shia populations that have been oppressed. Same with Bahrain, Iraq. So forget Iran's "future nukes", the mere existence of Iran worries them because the Shias they've been beating down will have Iran to run to for help.
Moreover, polls shows the arab populations (not the leaders) are for a stronger Iran to counterbalance Israel.
Even if the Saudis began a nuke program today, it would take them decades to catch up to Iran. It's just too late to start. Hence, the "arms race" canard doesn't fly.
I'm tired of war mongers who have nothing to lose and hide behind a desk, uninformed, gung ho with other people's lives and spewing death and destruction. Jounalist, indeed.
No Imperial outlook? Tell that to the people in the West Bank, Jerusalem, the Golan Gaza and Lebanon.
Not trying to impress it's faith on its neighbours? True enough, it much prefers to ethnically cleanse them.
As for the Shah and his "warm relationship" with Israel, well that only makes sense considering the Zionists state was training his torturers.
If this war monger wants a war he should be the first into the fray. Not behind a desk, not reporting from Tel Aviv, but stuck with a gun and puished out of the APC to fight himself. Along side his entire family. If that was the rule I wonder how much he'd be baying for Iranian blood.
False.
"When it comes to WMD, 55 per cent support a region free of nuclear weapons and 55 per cent see Israel's possession of nuclear weapons as justifying there possession by other countries in the region.
A poll of Arabs in 12 countries found that by a 15-1 ratio, Israel as more threatening than Iran
The first of its kind - a poll conducted in 12 Arab countries, representing 84 per cent of the population of the Arab world, in an attempt to gauge the region's political mood - has arrived at some interesting results.
Organised by the Arab Centre for Research and Policy Studies (ACRPS), face-to-face interviews by Arab surveyors with 16,731 individuals in the first half of 2011 revealed majority support for the goals of the Arab revolutions and notably, for a democratic system of government.
The countries surveyed included Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, Sudan, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Mauritania, with the help of local institutions and research centers.
While people seem generally split on the question of separation of state and religion, a majority supports the non-interference of religious authorities in politics."
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/03/20123793355501965.html
That threatening behavior, coupled with W's famous "Axis of Evil" speach, and the disparate treatment of Iraq (invaded based on the lie that it had WMDs) and North Korea (NOT invaded because it actually has a nuclear bomb), makes it self-evident that the only way for Iran to be safe is to have such a weapon for deterrance.
It's obvious, rational, and reasonably foreseeable.
The bottom line for us is simple for us, I am an Israeli. A single nuclear device landing in Israel would destroy the entire naton. A single nuclear device hitting Iran would not have the same magnitde of an outcome. The simple fact is Israel is a very small nation and we are extremely vulnerale to a nuclear strike or n invasn or almost any act of Arab, or Persian, adventurism.
You're making an assumption that every nuclear device is the same while in fact they are very different. Even the most destructive nuclear device, Russian Tsar bomb, is not capable of destroying the entire Israeli nation in a single strike even dropped in the middle of Tel Aviv. Moreover since we don't know what nuclear warheads Israel possess it is possible that they have devices that can cause radioactive fallout through much of Iran if dropped.
First, the U.S. via President Obama is going to decide whether to help Israel or not. There are two ways this can go. Obama agrees to help, and then the progressive base of the Democratic party sits back and watches him lose the 2012 election - that will happen, you can bet on it. Or, Obama disagrees and the republicans jump all over him and rally their base to support another war - they may or may not win that issue, it may or may not actually cause them to be elected - it is probably no more than a 50/50 bet, but one the Republicans will jump on as they have no real alternative.
If Obama helps Israel, he will lose the election, and the Dems will lose both houses of Congress. And the U.S. will spend the next 4 years in a new war, passing bills to put women back in their place.
Another very probably alternative, is that if the U.S. does attack Iran with Israel, it will be the start of WWIII. Both Russia and China are highly dependent on gas from Iran. There are huge NG pipelines from the Iranian oil fields to both Russia and China. They cannot afford to allow the U.S. to turn Iran into another Iraq. When the Chinese start seeing their economy collapse they will move, and that will start WW III.