Despite US attempts to coax Iran into cooperation, Israeli pre-emptive action, and consequent war, remain closer than many believe, writes Mohammed Herzallah* Is the world about to witness another war in the Middle East? Many point to Iran's expanding military reach as evidence of a soon-to-come military showdown with Israel and the United States. However, another important and overlooked source of worry has little to do with Tehran and much to do with Israel's nervous state of alert. Iran has recently tested a new missile that has enough range to hit Israel, launched a satellite into space, sent its navy deep into the Gulf of Eden, and apparently tried to smuggle weapons into the Gaza Strip. According to recent reports, Iran's ally in Lebanon, Hizbullah, has been attempting to deploy anti-aircraft SA-8 batteries in South Lebanon and organising and training militant cells in Egypt and Yemen. Despite all these developments, few analysts anticipate any sort of military adventure by the regime in Tehran, especially that its nuclear programme is still a work in progress. Iran has traditionally advanced its regional goals through its allies -- Hizbullah, Hamas, and Al-Mahdi Army. This approach has proved effective and has saved Tehran the costs and risks of a direct military engagement with Israel or the US. It would not make sense for Tehran to voluntarily ditch this successful strategy. There are other factors that make surprise military action by Iran even less likely. First, ideology is giving way to pragmatism within the ranks of the Iranian political establishment. The three candidates challenging Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the coming presidential elections have voiced support for dialogue and negotiations with the US. Remarkably, the only conservative challenger to Ahmadinejad, Mohsen Rezaei, who is a former chief of the Revolutionary Guards, has stated that he intends to patch up ties with Washington if he wins the race. A second important consideration is the severe economic stress that has characterised Ahmadinejad's term in office. High inflation, soaring unemployment, international sanctions, and low oil prices are preoccupying the public mind in Tehran, not Israel. Despite all this, Israel's tendency to view every move made by Tehran as a sign of aggression remains unchanged. Doubtless, the antagonistic rhetoric coming out of Tehran, along with its material support for Hizbullah and Hamas, provide the air that is necessary to keep Israel's expectations of war fired up. This state of nervous alert could lead Israel to misread some future Iranian action as a prelude to military aggression. Such a misinterpretation is very likely considering that Iran's offensive military posture is almost indistinguishable from its defensive one. Iran's focus on its long-range missile programme and on arming Hizbullah and Hamas are the primary cause behind this strategic ambiguity. The history of modern warfare in the Middle East indicates that military offence typically has the advantage. This has been most evident in 1967 and 1973. Because Israel could not afford to allow Iran the convenience of choosing the time and occasion for war, it would opt to deliver a pre-emptive strike at the first signs of imminent military aggression, regardless of whether these signs are credible or not. Sceptics underscore the tremendous operational difficulties associated with an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran as a sufficient source of reassurance. But the evidence shows that Israel is fully capable of carrying out a military mission of this nature. Over the past few years, Israel has purchased a considerable number of modified F-15s and F-16s fitted with special fuel tanks to carry out long-range air strikes. Israel's air force has been conducting long-range training missions over the Mediterranean, in the United States, Canada, and other countries. Only last year, Israel's air force carried out a major military exercise over the eastern Mediterranean. The exercise included hundreds of combat aircraft, helicopters, and refuelling tankers that flew around 900 miles, the approximate distance between Israel and Iran's enrichment plant at Natanz. Israel's ability to conduct long-range air strikes has been demonstrated on several actual combat occasions during the past few years. Earlier this year, the Israeli air force carried out an air raid in a remote desert area in northern Sudan against a convoy of arms smugglers allegedly heading towards the Gaza Strip. In September of 2007, Israeli jet fighters destroyed a suspected nuclear site in northern Syria, near the Turkish border. For Israel's military strategists, the long-range precision air strike is not a new or experimental tactic. In fact, attacks of this nature provided an option that the country often deployed in dealing with adversaries, with examples including the bombing of the Palestine Liberation Organisation headquarters in Tunis in 1985, the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, and runways used by the Egyptian air force in 1967. More importantly perhaps, Israel has shown that it is prepared to deal with the violent consequences of a possible military action against Iran. Last week, Israel carried out the largest and most comprehensive civil defence drill since its inception, which consisted of five days of simulated war with Hizbullah, Hamas, Syria and Iran. This was preceded by an air force exercise, to practice deploying combat and transport aircraft for a major war on its southern and northern fronts. Not only does the Israeli government have the technical and logistical capacity and combat experience to carry out a pre-emptive attack against Iran and the level of preparation necessary to deal with its consequences, but also the political conditions that make such an endeavour affordable. Over half (51 per cent) of the Israeli public backs an immediate attack on the nuclear facilities of Iran according to a recent poll published by Tel Aviv University. According to an earlier survey commissioned by Bar-Ilan University, a vast majority (66 per cent) of Israelis would support military action if international efforts failed. Remarkably, the United States has refrained from asking Israel to abandon the idea of pre-emptive military action. In a recent interview, President Obama stated that Israel's "calculation of costs and benefits are going to be more acute. They're right there in range and I don't think it's my place to determine for the Israelis what their security needs are." Following his visit to Washington, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was quick to declare that the United States and Israel see eye to eye when it comes to Iran. More often than not, war takes place because of misperceptions and miscalculations. Unless Iran addresses the ambiguity of its regional military posture by making clear that its actions are defensive in purpose, and unless Israel pulls its finger off the trigger, war between the two regional powers will continue to be a real possibility. * The author is former research fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
