Neither Force nor Intervention Can Bring Down Iran. So Why Does Israel Need Another War?
No one in their right mind can dispute that the Iranian regime is bad news for the region. But neither a Mossad operation nor an American B-2 bomber will bring peace to the Middle East, or freedom to Iranians
Are we really so eager for the Americans to attack Iran, and for the Iranians to attack back and for Israel to be attacked and join in? After all, if Operation Rising Lion was a success story, why do we need another one? And if it was a failure, why do we think that another one will bring better results?
In Israel, it's widely held that June's war was a smash hit. It is said that Iran's nuclear program was severly damanged, its top officials killed, the country's air defenses were almost entirely destroyed and half its arsenal of ballistic missiles was destroyed. Some 900 targets struck in 5,100 sorties brought Israel tremendous achievements.
Yet seven months later, here we are needing to stage a second attack. If this is true, then Rising Lion achieved almost nothing.
No matter, the Israeli public supports a war. There is not a single courageous mainstream politician anywhere in the country who has questioned its wisdom. Across the board, Israel wants war, regardless of the price.
Almost no one would dispute that the regime in Iran is bad for the Middle East. Israel and the United States want to eliminate it, as do a large number of Iranians. It is an important and laudable goal. But an expert has not yet been born who has successfully made the case that there is a connection between an American-Israeli attack and freedom for Iranians. Neither American B-2 bombers nor the talents of the Mossad can achieve that goal.
Would an attack achieve other goals? Stopping Iran's interference in the region through its proxies? Eliminating its nuclear and ballistic capabilities? Rising Lion did not achieve many of these. Iran remains a threat, as it did before the operation. Its ballistic missiles and enriched uranium still present a danger.
In international relations, some phenomena cannot be eradicated, certainly not by force and not by outside intervention. The continued survival of the Iranian regime is one of them. It is okay to detest it and yet oppose the attack due to its futility. One can think that an Iranian nuclear weapon is an intolerable threat and also oppose another round of war, because it will not solve the problem. The blows will be dealt with, and Iran will recover and arm itself.
You can look west of Iran for an example: Two-and-a-half years of war of annihilation in the Gaza Strip did not lead to the collapse of the Hamas regime, one that is much weaker than the Iranian one.
This is not a call for peace now, even though it may have no less logic and potential than the threat of another war. Nor is it a moral call to stop killing so many people, and to start seeing war as a last resort, not as plan A. But it is a call to examine the war option according to its consequences. The wars against Hamas and Iran should have been questioned, and this time, they should be questioned as well. An agreement could yield greater benefits. It would be an act of complete blindness to rush into war now.
Ask almost any Israeli what he wants, and he will say that the United States should attack, even knowing that Israel may join it.
What would be considered a success for Benjamin Netanyahu in his meeting with Donald Trump? That he succeeds in coaxing the U.S. into war.
What would be considered a failure? That Trump succeeds in reaching an agreement, even if the terms are good.
The country wants missiles landing on Soroka Hospital, cafes, the oil refineries, the IDF headquarters at the Kirya and the Weizmann Institute, as well as the destruction of thousands of homes. For what? For what was achieved the last time around – almost nothing.