1. Were Iran to initiate a war with Israel, either directly or via its proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah and/or Syria), Ahmadinejad might sense that he could relieve the pressure building on the streets of Tehran against his regime.
2. Obama continues to draw lines in the sand, and now, instead of the "crippling" sanctions against Iran that had long been threatened at yearend, his administration is considering a "more calibrated approach" involving "targeted" sanctions. Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad has come to regard Obama as a paper tiger.
3. Egypt continues to build a steel wall under its border with Gaza, which could choke off, to some degree, additional military supplies. In the interim, Hamas has fully replenished its rocket supply, and after a cowardly military display during Operation Cast Lead - its forces stripped off their uniforms and avoided pitched battles with the Israel Defense Forces - Hamas may be looking to regain some of its honor. Note the recent Cast Lead anniversary commemoration which was almost entirely ignored by Gazans.
4. Hezbollah's backing and popularity among Lebanon's Shiites is premised in no small part upon its ability to distribute Iranian funding to its social welfare network of schools, clinics, etc. Eliminate their funding, deprive them of their steady flow of Iranian weaponry and training, and the house of cards collapses. As such, Hezbollah head, Nasrallah, will likely abide by any determination of his Persian mentors, notwithstanding the likelihood of sledgehammer Israeli retaliation.
War or no war? It's a coin toss. The more upbeat, flip side of the coin? Here's one possible scenario:
1. The dissidents again take to the streets in Tehran and dislodge Ahmadinejad, who is replaced by Mousavi. Mousavi is anything but a "reformist"; while prime minister of Iran in the past, he refused to tolerate dissent and was responsible for the execution of thousands of opponents of the regime. Also, while prime minister, he refused to seek the release of the U.S. embassy hostages, and he was instrumental in creating Hezbollah.
2. Mousavi, who now claims he is "ready for martyrdom", is nevertheless a pragmatist and a survivor, and as prime minister, he may decide that Iran can no longer afford to pay for its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, given Iran's weakened economy. He might also seek some sort of lukewarm relationship with Obama.
3. Don't get your hopes up too high: Mousavi will still try to pursue Iran's program for the development of nuclear weapons. The name of the game remains Middle East hegemony.
4. Israel is granted a temporary reprieve from what stands to be a brutal war in which Israel's civilian population would be targeted. At least Mousavi, unlike Ahmadinejad, acknowledges that the Holocaust did in fact occur.
When asked by friends what I want most in life, my steadfast reply is "boredom". Let's hope for a "boring" 2010, free of military threats and war.
Boring New Year to you!
ReplyDeleteMany thanks, Marina. Also, I would like to express my gratitude for your wise commentary throughout 2009.
ReplyDeleteJeffrey
I don't know about boring but I don't expect an Israeli strike on Iran in 2010. Hello JG, my name is Chris, I saw your input for Barry Rubin's article on JPost and thought I'd run my own thoughts on this subject past you.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it 2010 will see the final moves of an intricate chess game involving a battle for global dominance(what else is new...). The main players are Russia the US and Iran. China is in the background and Israel is caught in the middle.
Putin's Russia is supplying Teheran with the ingredients and recipe for nukes. The idea is to create a force that's so threatening for the US that it will retreat to a more isolationist foreign policy so Russia can expand it's influence. Problem is that this scheme will only work if Iran could find a way around the mutual assured destruction problem. Chess player Putin has thought out some moves that will accomplish just that. Main ingredients are the suitcase nukes that Obama referred to in one of his election speeches. They could be detonated anonymously by some Iranian proxy (Hizbullah?), taking out one or more US cities or other targets. America would suspect Iran behind the attack but the brilliant part of it is: it can't really do anything about it! It has to consider an Iranian third strike capability to counter the US counterstrike once Iran has completed it's IBM program. Putin made very sure this third strike capability is real by supplying technology for Iran to develop IBM's, but most of all: by successfully pressuring Obama in giving up the Poland missile shield! The Americans know they are very exposed without it and will most likely choose not to escalate. This state of affairs makes the Iranian threat very real to the US and the threat alone will guarantee a more isolationist US foreign policy. This strategy wouldn't work on Israel though. Unlike the US it wouldn't have anything to loose after a nuclear attack. This basically guarantees an Israeli counterstrike. The ayatollah's may hate Israel deeply but clearly a national suicide doesn't really help their agenda of islamist domination. Throwing the US in turmoil or at least keeping it at bay however most certainly does!
I reckon Israel will consider a nuclear Iran a disaster but not an existential threat. The only way to avert the disaster is probably to use tactical nukes to destroy the deeply entrenched Iranian nuclear program beyond recovery. No way Israel will escalate like that and face the military and political fallout if it doesn't consider Iran an existential threat. All signs are that the Americans won't stop Iran by military means either so 2010 is the year that will see Iran rise to the status of a nuclear power. With the likes of Achmadinejad in charge that should make this year anything but boring...
If anybody thinks he has a better grasp of what's really going on just shoot...
Hello Jeff and Chris,
ReplyDeleteAlthough both of you have some valid points, we would like you to give the Iranian people more credit in your analysis and consider the fall of the Islamic Republic in 2010.This is not wishful thinking, but a realistic attempt on our part.
Jeff, we need the services of people like you in the future Iran to rebuild this country as soon as possible. Let's make it boring productive. Shalom Israel. We love you and Happy New Year.
People of Iran
To the People of Iran,
ReplyDeleteIf you have been following this blog, you know that I passionately advocate open support of the Green Movement by the Obama administration.
I have asked that the brutal oppression of Iranian dissidents be immediately brought before the UN Security Council.
I have also opposed the op-eds of Roger Cohen of The New York Times, calling, inter alia, for "inertia," i.e. noninterference by the U.S. with respect to developments in Iran. I was among the first to challenge Cohen's persistent claim that the Ahmadinejad regime is "not totalitarian." Unfortunately, several of my more recent responses to Cohen were censored by The New York Times.
My heart goes out to you! May you enjoy the peace, democracy, basic human freedoms and prosperity to which you are entitled.
Let's stay in touch, and when the tyrant is toppled, seek a cooperative, constructive, enduring relationship between Iran and Israel!
Jeff
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteWe would like to bring your attention to the following website:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/01/strategic-leaking.html
PBS.org, Frontline, tehranbureau
We would like you to review the following articles:
Strategic Leaking by
Gary Sick.
Turning Point: Where is the Green Movement headed? by Sahimi.
Statement by Five Religious Intellectuals
by Sahimi.
We believe the Green movement is being hijacked.
Our request:
Initially the Green movement was portrayed as one without any central leadership.One based on the freedom aspirirations of the Iranian people.
Yet, little by little certain religious characters or ex-pro regime characters who have been moved to the outside to act on behalf of the regime in situations such as the present time are being introduced into the movement to fill the positions of leadership.
The objective is to secure continuity of the Islamic Republic with a new window dressing.
Would you please analyze the site and should you agree with our conclusion advise us as how to counter their move.
Please refer to the following article where Sahimi talks about his past:
Please read the paragraph below the picture of four: Profs. Ellis Goldberg, Ian Lustick, Keith Weissman and Profs. Sahimi.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/tag/muhammad-sahimi/
He refers to MKO as traitors in his articles today (Frontline. That is fine for Iranians have no love for MKO based on their cooperation with Iraq during the war.
This following article in Payvand's Iran news, although dated 8/13/02, can give you a good feel for the man and his thoughts.
http://www.netnative.com/news/02/aug/1038.html
---------------
We cannot offer you anything except a sincere thank you. It is very important for both of our countries to seek a free, secular and democratic Iran. We must, for many obvious reasons.
People of Iran
Of one Essence is the human race,
Thusly has Creation put the Base;
One Limb impacted is sufficient,
For all Others to feel the Mace.
To the People of Iran,
ReplyDeleteRead the Leverett's latest op-ed in today's New York Times, "Another Iranian Revolution? Not Likely":
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/opinion/06leverett.html
The contentions of the Leveretts:
1. The Islamic Republic of Iran is not about to implode.
2. The Green Movement is leaderless.
3. The Islamic Republic will continue to be Iran’s government.
4. Rapprochement with the existing Iranian regime is necessary.
I read the items that you recommended, and I am familiar with the positions of Sahimi, who views Mousavi as a legitimate leader of the Green Movement.
My recommendation: Mousavi should write an op-ed answering the Leveretts. Tell me where you would like it published, and I will assist. Almost every news organization in the world would be hungry for such a statement of principles.
If Mousavi is unwilling, perhaps Sahimi would like to answer the Leveretts in The New York Times. Again, I can try to assist.
Jeff
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteAlthough Sahimi has repeatedly stated his position as a secularist, Mousavi has never denounced the Islamic Republic and favors introduction of democracy within the current establishment.
Islamic Republic is not capable of reform. The two positions contradict hence, questionable.
We will never see the light of freedom as long as Islam and government are not totally separated and returned to their own proper places.
Israel's right will never trust Mousavi, Islamic Republic with the nuclear program.
We are not in a position to contact anyone.
Iranian People
Dear Iranian People,
ReplyDeleteLet's see if Andrew Rosenthal, who knows me, responds to my open letter (see my blog entry of today).
I am a firm believer in "separation of church (or mosque or synogogue) and state", but it's not easy to achieve or maintain. Note Turkey's current directions.
Let's stay in touch.
Jeff
Hit Iran and witness your destruction and disappearence of israel before your open eyes.
ReplyDelete