The current escalation in US and Israeli sabre-rattling against Iran is probably no more than that, writes Amani Maged Although the UN, the US and the EU have separately adopted new sanctions to force Iran to abandon its nuclear programme, and in spite of the relative calm that has since prevailed between the Western and Iranian camps, Israel evidently feels that the sanctions are not enough. Claiming that the sanctions will not work, Israel has begun to advise its friends not to rule out "other options", meaning war. Tel Aviv's advice coincides with US moves in the region that most analysts have interpreted as signs of a renewed bout of American sabre-rattling against Tehran, followed by an exchange of rhetorical broadsides familiar to observers of the Iran-US relationship since the days of Bush Senior. When such statements have been made in the past, many in the international community have feared that war was inevitable, only to learn that it was all psychological smoke and mirrors. However, things are not so clear-cut today, and it is by no means certain that what is happening today is a game designed to test the other side prior to fierce wrangling round the negotiating table. As part of the US-Israeli campaign to increase the pressure on Tehran, Washington has announced that it will be dispatching envoys to China, the UAE, Lebanon and other countries in order to persuade them to enforce the sanctions. Robert Einhorn, special advisor to the State Department on anti-nuclear proliferation and weapons monitoring, also revealed that he had held a meeting with top Israeli officials to discuss the Iranian question. Following the meeting, Israeli sources confirmed that the recent Israeli air manoeuvres in Romania, during which six soldiers died in a helicopter crash, were conducted with a view to possible operations in Iran and neighbouring Arab countries. The head of the US joint chiefs-of-staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said that the US had plans to deliver a strike against Iran in the event that the country acquired nuclear arms, adding that all options remained open. In another development, Israel secretly transported several bombers across Georgia to military bases in Azerbaijan, according to many news reports, leading to conjectures that an aerial assault against Iran could be launched simultaneously from these and other bases in Saudi Arabia. Adding weight to such conjectures are reports of the construction of an Israeli base in Tabuk in Saudi Arabia, said to be intended as a forward logistics base in the event of war in the region. According to the reports, the Saudis closed Tabuk airport to civilian flights on 17 and 18 June while the Israeli airforce landed jet fighter aircraft, military equipment and personnel. Riyadh has categorically denied the reports, saying that it would never allow Israel to violate its sovereign territory. A Saudi aviation official denied that civilian flights had been cancelled on 17 and 18 June, saying that all flights had proceeded on schedule. Saudi Arabia would never become a staging-post for an attack on Iran, a Saudi government spokesman said. However, Iran is taking precautions. According to Debkafile, an Israeli military affairs website, Iran has declared a state of alert in its northwestern border region. The website quoted Iranian sources as saying that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard had deployed its forces and equipment near the Iranian shore of the Caspian Sea. A stream of fiercely worded statements also issued from Tehran. According to Iranian ambassador to the UN Mohamed Khazai, "if the Zionist regime commits any assault on Iranian territory, we will set Tel Aviv on fire." Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs Manouchehr Mottaki warned that in the event that Israel or any other party started a war in the region, that war would not be limited, adding that Iran was prepared for military confrontation and would stand alongside Syria, Lebanon and other countries. Mottaki's remarks followed a statement from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that predicted war in the region within three months, though analysts suggested he was referring to a possible conflagration in Lebanon and Syria. The Iranian regime also engaged in muscle flexing, with Iranian airforce officials announcing that they would be conducting extensive manoeuvres. Dozens of jet fighters, bombers and pilotless aircraft would take part, and new tactical and combat training would be offered, said Iranian General Seyed Mohamed Alawi. While the military manoeuvres were meant to convey a message of peace and friendship to all the countries of the region, they were also intended to convey the warning that Iran was determined to defy any threats, he said. Couching such warnings in stronger words, political affairs assistant to the Revolutionary Guards General Command, Brigadier Yadallah Javani, said that any US "adventure" would jeopardise the security of the region. "Security in the Gulf is for everyone or no one," he warned, while at the same time seeming to shrug off the possibility of Israeli attack. "The reason the Zionists haven't used military force against Iran is because they can't," he said. Nevertheless, such assessments have not prevented Iranian forces from strengthening their defences in the northwest. According to an Iranian military source cited by Debkafile, the forces and equipment that the Iranian army has been pouring into that area are in response to intelligence indicating a build-up of US-Israeli forces at Azerbaijani airbases and the possibility of a strike against Iranian nuclear installations. While there has undoubtedly been an escalation in rhetoric and some signs of military build-up, it is still not clear that war is on the horizon, however. There is a huge gap between planning for a war and deciding to prosecute one, and Washington and Tel Aviv have long had more than 10 scenarios for military operations against Iran, their military experts having produced dozens of plans and counter plans. The decision to go to war is a political one, and it has to take into account a much broader range of possibilities than those relating to the field of battle alone. The most immediate consideration in this case would involve assessments of the likely reactions of Iran, the political and economic repercussions, and the overall toll that these might exact on the US and the international community. Thus far, nothing seems to have altered the American assessment that war against Iran would come at too high a price. It was for this reason that the US Congress in 2006 refused to give former US president George W Bush a mandate for war against Iran. Unlike Iraq, Iran has a formidable, well-trained and well- equipped army. It also sits atop the Gulf of Hormuz, through which 40 per cent of the world's oil supplies pass, a considerable amount of them from Iranian oil fields. Iran is the fifth-largest oil producer in the world and the second-largest producer of natural gas. War could drive up the price of oil to more than $200 a barrel, which would be unacceptable to countries such as China that are heavily dependent on oil imports. A third factor is that the US is still mired in Iraq and Afghanistan and would likely find it difficult to stretch its forces to a third front. Iran has also become a major player in these two countries, as well as in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and some African countries. In issues relating to these areas, the US would be more comfortable with a cooperative, or at least neutral, Iran, than an aggressive or hostile one. For all these reasons, many US politicians have concluded that war against Iran would be disastrous, making the current rhetorical escalation probably no more than that.
