It is generally held that there are between nine and 15 months before Iran acquires the ability to produce nuclear weapons. Israel believes that Iran is unlikely to launch a direct attack, even if it is able to produce nuclear weapons. This is because Iran prefers indirect warfare to direct war. For this reason, Israel assumes that a nuclear attack against it may be staged from Gaza or Lebanon. Such an attack would prove fatal for Israel, a country with a small territory. Even a single attack would be enough to deal a deadly blow to Israel.
Experts are certain Israel will launch missile attacks against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Israel sees this attack as its last chance for survival once the point of no return has been reached and it is left no option but to attack. Moreover, there is an increased likelihood that it will carry out the attack without consulting the US, which sees Israel as an integral part of itself, as well as without consulting the Russian Federation. This is because Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who speaks Russian fluently, has had to postpone the attack every time he consults the Russian Federation and the US. Israel does not have the capability to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities completely, as these facilities are dispersed throughout the country and built underground. However, Israel believes that it has the power to take Iran’s nuclear program back three to five years and that it has a missile shield system that will ward off Iranian missiles.
There are two dates that appear critical with respect to the timing of the Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Will this attack come before or after the US presidential elections slated for November 2012? Whether a Democrat or Republican candidate wins the elections is particularly important for the timing of the Israeli attack. Second, will Israel wait for the Assad regime in Syria to collapse and Iran’s influence over Syria to wane?
In addition to these possibilities, we must also take into consideration the fact that as was the case with Iraq, Israel may turn this business with Iran completely over the West. In such a case, we would need to add some disaster scenarios to the list of possibilities. That is, some terrorists affiliated with Iran may set off a mini nuclear bomb in a Western city with a population of several hundreds of thousands in the West -- most likely in Europe -- just like the 9/11 attack. This may in turn lead to nuclear war waged by the European Union against Iran with the approval of the US. In addition, shocked by this attack, Muslims living in Europe may be forced to return to their respective homelands. This may also pave the way for the rebuilding of the ethnic roots of Europe.
Iran’s nuclear program is a source of pride not only for the Iranian administration, but also for the Iranian diaspora, and it has come to be seen as the second most important factor, after Shiism, that unifies the Iranian people. Indeed, even Iranian dissidents living in the West support Iran’s nuclear program. For this reason, negotiations with Iran are unproductive. Iran stands pat with its program. Increasing the dose of sanctions has not been effective either. There is not a single regime in the world that has collapsed due to economic or political sanctions. Still, the worst option would be to use military force against Iran. A military operation against Iran would trigger a new cold war with the Middle East. Thus, the 20th-century Cold War that saw the polarization of political systems may be replaced with a 21st-century cold war that is based on the polarization of religions. This possibility would be a disaster for the parts of the world where democratization efforts are in bloom.
Time is the best solution for everything. As Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu noted, “Countries that understand the flow of history will prevail.” The rest will be swept away by the flood of history.
