Two men to decide the fate of the embattled mankind in a
matter of weeks are Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. The issue at stake is
Iran's determination to achieve deliverable nuclear
weapons, which has the inherent potential to spark off
the dreaded Third World War. This is presumably so with
the Israeli readiness to attack Iran as early as this
November to stop the belligerent nation from arming
itself with the finisher weapon. Israel has made it
clear that it will not tolerate the threat of a nuclear
Iran.
For Israel, the name of the game is survival or
self-preservation. According to Israeli Intelligence
since made public Israelis believe Iran will have the
bomb within two years since they started and that once
they have the bomb it will be too late, and Israel will
have no choice than to strike with or without America
rather than live at the mercy of Iran.
A French apothecary and reputed seer, Michel de
Nostredame (14 December or 21 December 1503– 2 July
1566), latinised to Nostradamus, was the one who brought
in the issue the way it should scare even the fool.
Better known as ‘the man who saw tomorrow’, the popular
press credits him with predicting many major world
events, from the Great Fire of London, the rise of
Napoleon I of France and Adolf Hitler, to the September
11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.
Despite doubts raised about the predictive validity of
his works, the seer has been largely right.
To be certain, World War III is the hypothetical future
successor to World War II (1939–1945). And that future
appears to be now. In fiction, the war is often
suggested to be nuclear and extremely devastating in
nature. This war is anticipated and planned for by
military and civil authorities, and explored in fiction
by many authors all around the world. Concepts range
from purely conventional scenarios or a limited use of
nuclear weapons to the destruction of the planet.
Historically, the threats of Third World War have always
been there though the present threat is ever more potent
and closer to the predictions of Nostradamus, who pinned
it down to the Middle East as source of its instigator.
During the Suez Crisis of 1956, Soviet Premier Nikolai
Bulganin sent a note to British Prime Minister Anthony
Eden warning that "if this war is not stopped it carries
the danger of turning into a third world war."
The Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 is generally thought to
be the historical point at which the risk of World War
III was closest, and Robert McNamara claimed that if it
were not for Vasili Arkhipov, who prevented a nuclear
launch on the B-59 Soviet submarine during the heat of
the crisis, World War III would have broken out, saying
at the Cuban Missile Crisis Havana conference, "A guy
called Vasili Arkhipov saved the world."
On 26 September 1983, a Soviet early warning station
under the command of Stanislav Petrov falsely detected
five inbound intercontinental ballistic missiles. Petrov
correctly assessed the situation as a false alarm, and
hence did not report his finding to his superiors.
Petrov's action likely averted a nuclear conflict, as
the Soviet policy at that time was immediate nuclear
response upon discovering inbound ballistic missiles.
According to a report by Geoffrey Forden, published for
the Cato Institute, the most likely culprit for the
false alarm was the Cosmos-1382 satellite belonging to
the Oko early warning system.
During Able Archer 83, a ten-day NATO command post
exercise starting on November 2, 1983, the Soviets
readied their nuclear forces and placed air units in
East Germany and Poland on alert. Some historians
believe this exercise was a close call to a start to
World War III.
On 12–26 June 1999, Russian and NATO forces had a
standoff over the Pristina Airport in Kosovo. In
response, NATO commander Wesley Clark demanded that
British General Sir Mike Jackson storm the airport with
paratroopers. Jackson is reported to have replied, "I'm
not going to start the Third World War for you”.
Today, though the scenario is considerably different,
the dangers it carries are potentially the same. Israel
has said it will never allow Iran's nuclear and
ballistic missile programmes to reach fruition because
it would leave its very existence at the whim of its
staunchest adversary.
We need to also recall that Israel has not previously
accepted such risks and cannot therefore be expected to
accept it now. It destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor in
1981 and a Syrian reactor being built by North Koreans
in 2007. One major new element in Israel's calculus is
the Obama administration's growing distance (especially
in contrast to its predecessor).
Let’s deconstruct the emerging third world war threat
scenario: two things are now certain: Iran isn’t giving
up its nuclear programme and Israel just issued what
many see as the final warning to the west to prevail on
Iran to dismantle or Israel will have no choice other
than to use force to stop it. If this happens, Tehran
will most likely decide to retaliate against the actual
attacker, Israel. Using its remarkable missile and
perhaps air force capabilities, Iran could do
substantial damage in Israel, especially to civilian
targets. Of course, one can only imagine what Iran might
do once it has nuclear weapons, and this is part of the
cost-benefit analysis Israel must make before launching
attacks in the first place.
Direct Iranian military action against Israel, however,
would provoke an even broader Israeli counterstrike,
which at some point might well involve Israel's own
nuclear capability. Ordinarily, Iran's Revolutionary
Guards would have to think long and hard before
unleashing its own capabilities against Israel. But
Israeli strike against Iran can spin things out of
control and each side fighting to save face can draw
other interests into the fray that can span the earth.
For example, the conflict once ignited is more likely to
draw in the Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel. By
process of elimination, but also because of strategic
logic, Iran's most likely option is retaliating through
(but not limited to) Hamas and Hezbollah and by directly
throwing in its military. Increased terrorist attacks
inside Israel, military incursions by Hezbollah across
what they call the Blue Line, and, most significantly,
salvoes of missiles from both Lebanon and the Gaza Strip
are all strong possibilities.
In plain violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution
1701, Iran has not only completely re-equipped Hezbollah
since the 2006 war with Israel, but the longer reach of
Hezbollah's rockets now endangers Israel's entire
civilian population. Moreover, Hamas's rocket
capabilities could easily be substantially enhanced to
provide greater range and payload to strike throughout
Israel, creating a two-front challenge.
Iran may also be arming newer groups here and there. The
shiploads of bombs and other high caliber war weapons
intercepted at Nigeria’s Apapa wharf has been proved by
the nation’s Directorate of State Security to originate
from Iran for Nigerian destination. Equally disturbing
is that the reason for this deadly shipment is yet to be
unraveled. The shipment could be meant for a group like
Boko Haram, which is only growing in impunity and whose
sponsors are yet to be uncovered. If Iran is arming such
groups across the globe, it may well be to externalize
and globalize the conflict, bearing in mind that it may
not survive a positional warfare with Israel standing
alone.
There is no doubt that Israel itself is in a fix for
being unavoidably drawn into a major conflict that may
drag in the whole world and possibly consume it. Risks
to its civilian population will weigh heavily in any
Israeli decision to use force, and might well argue for
simultaneous, pre-emptive attacks on Hezbollah and Hamas
in conjunction with a strike on Iran's nuclear
facilities.
Obviously, Israel will have to measure the current risks
to its safety and survival against the longer-term
threat to its very existence once Iran acquires nuclear
weapons. With its current warning to the US to help stop
Iran, it is now certain it has finally made up its mind
to descend on Iran with its military might. And Iran
will respond in full measure and hope for support from
the Muslim world in the Middle East and beyond and from
their sympathizers.
This brief review demonstrates why Israel's military
option against Iran's nuclear program is so
unattractive, but also why failing to act now is even
worse. Israel is therefore now more bound to strike
Iran. The only question is: when?
Many argue that Israeli military action will cause
Iranians to rally in support of the mullahs' regime and
plunge the region into turmoil. To the contrary, a
strike accompanied by effective public diplomacy could
well turn Iran's diverse population against an
oppressive regime. Most of the Arab world's leaders
would welcome Israel solving the Iran nuclear problem,
although they certainly won't say so publicly and will
rhetorically embrace Iran if Israel strikes. But
rhetoric from its Arab neighbors may be the only quantum
of solace Iran will get. On a 50-50 basis, Iran may well
muster full scale support of the Arab world, depending
on how both sides go about it.
Israel once asked for sanctions against Iran. But the
regime of sanctions imposed on the spoiling-for-a-fight
country has not had any meaningful effect. The new
sanctions currently being discussed with Russia, China,
and other major powers at the United Nations are likely
to be a slightly-enhanced version of the U.N. sanctions
already in place, which, as said, have had no impact on
the Iranian regime.
This explains why Israel is no longer looking for
sanctions to stop Iran’s nuclear programme. Checks
clearly show that the Israeli military is preparing
itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran's
nuclear facilities within days of being given the
go-ahead by the Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. Among
the steps taken to ready Israeli forces for what would
be a risky raid requiring pinpoint aerial strikes are
the acquisition of three Airborne Warning and Control
(AWAC) aircraft and regional missions to simulate the
attack. It is also believed Israel has held nationwide
civil defense drills to help prepare the public for the
retaliation that Israel could face – or is at the verge
of doing so.
With all the military maneuvers and civilian response
training already perfected, Israel wants to know that if
its forces were given the green light they could strike
at Iran in a matter of days, even hours. They are making
preparations on every level for this eventuality. The
message to Iran is that the threat is not just words; it
is real.
Officials believe that Israel could be required to hit
more than a dozen targets, including moving convoys. The
sites include Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges
produce enriched uranium; Esfahan, where 250 tonnes of
gas is stored in tunnels; and Arak, where a heavy water
reactor produces plutonium.
The distance from Israel to at least one of the sites is
more than 870 miles, a distance that the Israeli force
practised covering in a training exercise last year that
involved F15 and F16 jets, helicopters and refuelling
tankers.
And where does the Third World War come into it? The
fact is that in the likely outbreak of war between the 2
archrival nations, the world is not likely to stand by
and watch them sort out. Hamas and Hezbollah and some
other rogue groups and even nations sympathetic to both
the Iranian and Israeli causes will be joining the fray.
This will still not make it Third World War. The
ultimate fear is what USA and Russia decide to do. US
even under Obama will join forces with Israel. But will
Russia stay away or be annoyed sufficiently to join too?
Nobody can tell. But one thing is certain: if Russia
joins, it will be on the side of Iran.
If this happens, the whole world will be mobilized and
polarized to either side. In all this the prayer the
world must keep fervently praying is for this
Israeli-Iranian war not to involve nuclear weapons with
USA and Russia in opposite divides. If it does involve
nuclear weapons now held by even rogue regimes like
North Korea…your guess is as good as mine.
For a quick fix, in the short run, the world must
prevail on Iran to discontinue its nuclear programme
with the commitment to push for a nuclear-free world in
the long run. To insist that some countries can have
nuclear weapons and others cannot is hypocritical and
that is the question Iran has asked by its insistence on
acquiring its own. Yet, no matter the sincerity of Iran
as for its actual intention, Israel also has the right
to live and can respond rationally to genuine threats to
its survival.
The world is caught between and extricating itself is in
its own hands.
• Law Mefor, Author and Journalist, is the Ag. National
Coordinator, Transform Nigeria Movement (TNM);
234)0(803-787-2893; lawmefor@yahoo.com
Published
November 15th, 2010
