27 Replies to “The Arab-Israeli War of 2014”

  1. The spectre of Iran using nukes to backstop yet another genocidal assault on Israel is chilling. Although the MSM often focuses on more critical stories, such as what David Suzuki is saying, one wonders if a strike against Iran is coming down the pike.
    A Brit paper is reporting that Israel will soon move on Hamastan.

  2. From the Post essay:
    the latest Soviet air-to-ground missiles
    Umm, how do the “latest” Soviet missiles show up in 2014, almost a quarter century after the Soviet Union ceased to exist?
    Frankly, this implausible scenario about 2014 reads like an attempt to justify an attack on Iran in 2007.

  3. Different Stephen writing here (long standing contributor)
    Decent summation of the situation. The iranian nukes are an israeli exstential threat and it is up to them to decide. The Pakistani’s have nukes, but they are focussed on India, so it isnt so much having a Muslim bomb that is the problem, it is those in charge.
    I doubt the Iranian regime can last till 2014. I suspect there will be a collapse. As for an iranian threat to the Europe and America….threaten all they want but an unprovoked attack should mean, and I hate to say this, complete destruction. There is no other choice MAD demands a complete response. It might be called a genocide but under this scenario if Iran nuked Marseilles or Rome, unprovoked, then there is a clear response needed.
    The israeli’s have nuclear missles on submarines. They also need to make that clear. And a nation that cannot defend itself through conventional means? honestly isnt the point then to evacuate Israel, save the people and let Palestinians have it? As terrible a scenario as it is, wouldnt it be better for the 6 million Israeli’s to survive rather than see them slaughtered, which I fear is exactly what would happen.
    At the end of the day, if israel cannot defend itself conventionally, the means, or lacks the will then the rest of the world can accept and integrate the refugees. Isnt that the more moral choice?
    For those who say you have to stop them there. I would say you have to take defensible positions. Israel is increasingly undefandable conventionally and can only be saved by surrounding herself with friends. The keystone is Jordan, if it ever flips then my advice would be to leave israel as soon as possible.
    It is a frightening scenario, lets hope it just remains the stuff of nightmares rather than reality.

  4. I Agree with Steve the second….Iran’s whacko regime will not last long enough to finish implementing its nuke program…too many I ranians know this policy to be an act of national suicide.

  5. Israelies arent going to move.I think that there is a story about a bunch of them on a hill with a high drop off.Rather than suffer the humiliation of surrender and possible death at the hands of their attackers anyway,they chose to jump off and die like men rather than die like sheep.

  7. Again, the situation is not, in my view, about Israel-Palestine. That, despite its deep problems, many of which are caused, in my view, by Israel, is the ‘immediate surface issue’.
    As such, it is immediately understandable in terms of Good vs Bad (you pick which is which), it is highly emotional and highly irrational, and can’t be solved until the Deep Problem is dealt with.
    The deep problem is political tribalism in the whole ME, a mode of governance by hereditary authority, which rejects the emergence of an empowered middle class. This middle class would be in control of the political and economic systems of the country and would rule by election and rule of law. Not by kinship hereditary authority.
    Tribalism is valid only in a small population and non-industrial economy. It is now, in the ME, retained only by totalitarian force – and has led to the emergence of fascism and Islamic fundamentalism in the ME.
    If the Arab states would move into democracy, empower their middle class – then, they would not reject a Palestinian state. Yes – it isn’t only Israel that rejects a Palestinian state; it’s the Arab nations as well. They don’t want a democratic (arab) nation in their totalitarian midst.
    Israel is, as I’ve frequently said, greatly at fault in the I-P conflict, with its occupation, its refusal to recognize a Palestinian state, its massive illegal settlements, and its refusal to compensate the seized lands and homes. I don’t understand why people are shocked when Palestinians react to all of this – with anger.
    BUT – the deeper problem – the fact that the ME leaders are determined to retain their tribal power and prevent the rise of a free middle class and democracy – means that they are using the I-P conflict as a front, pretending that their arming and fights are all about helping their ‘brothers in Palestine’. Nonsense. They don’t give a damn about the Palestinians. Their agenda is retaining their own people in unelected power.
    Will there be a war? I think so – but, not between Israel and the Arab States, but, between the Arab states – and Iran. I think Iran would prefer that it be a war between Israel and an Arab State – and would prefer that this also bring in the West.
    You see, there’s a third agenda in this mess. Iran wants to move into the current chaos (I-P; rise of democracy and the fall of tribalism)..and take over the ME with itself as imperialist ‘King’. Iran is busily setting up its infrastructure for this war. It is controlling Hamas in Gaze; Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria – and is constantly inciting the West to attack it. It most certainly wants Israel to move into war – and it will use that as a cover to further its control of the Arab states (Iraq, Jordan, Egypt).
    AND – Iran is doing all of this, because it doesn’t want the Arab States to fight against Iran! It wants them to fight against the West, and then, in the chaos, Iran will move into control those Arab States.
    What is required – is a war among the ME states – fighting the tribal dictators – and Iran. Iran is trying to get a war between the West and the Arab States – to prevent the Arab states turning against Iran.Remember, Iran is not Arabic; they are Persian.
    I don’t see any other solution. The ME HAS to move out of tribalism and into democracy. They have no choice – their populations are too large for a functional tribalism. Since the old guard won’t give up their power readily – it will have to be a war.
    And- they can’t keep sending their excess population to Europe – because Europe is starting to fight back against this exodus.
    Furthermore, the ME can’t continue to rely on only one industrial resource – oil. It will have to start to educate its people – who are grossly uneducated (all of the oil technology is done by foreigners from the West); it will have to develop non-resource based industries. It will have to permit and enable the dev’t of a middle class and a market economy.
    I think the key point is whether Iran can keep the ME situation as one focused around Israel vs the Arab States (with Iran included)..thus preventing the Arab States from turning against Iran. AND, if Iran can incite the West to attack the Arab States – so that it can set itself up as their Savior…and then, move in to control those arab states.

  8. “[T]he latest Soviet air-to-ground missiles.”
    Yes indeed, Stephen. If this is all the Arabs will have in their missile arsenals in 2014, then the Israelis can relax.
    And “air-to-ground”?
    Surely the writer is confused?
    Did he actually mean “air-to-surface missiles”?
    Or “surface-to-air missiles”?
    There’s a big difference.
    2014 is seven years away. A lot can happen in that time.
    Try this exercise as a salutary reminder of just how soon the future can get outdated: go back seven years and look at where we thought the world was headed in 2000.

  9. Stephen: attack on Iran does not need justification. It is only about whether the current president of the US is a chicken or not. So far it sounds like he is.

  10. Iran can be deterred, as discussed above. AQ and Islamofascists cannot. So, Iran uses them as proxies (Hezbollah, Hamas). I think it is a fantasy to think the Iranian people will rise up against their leadership. This is an authoritarian state, armed to the teeth, with no regard for rule of law and civil rights.
    On the other hand, if Iran messes up and uses, or credibly threathens to use, nuclear weapons, then the regime will be in serious danger because it’s likely outside powers (Russia, China and USA) will get involved. While AQ and Amadmanjihad are zealots, they are also calculating (remember they are for martyrdom, as long as it’s not them) , but AQ etc, are undeterrable because they want larger conflict and they have really good hiding places.
    I personally think Pakistan is far more dangerous than Iran at the moment, given they already have nuclear weapons, are allied with Taliban/AQ and their border with Afghanistan is a cauldron of Islamist nutbars and warlords.
    Israel will defeat all Arab comers. They tried to defeat Isreal in 1973 with massive help from the Soviet Union and China, and still failed.

  11. Aaron,
    I beg to differ. I think it does need a jutification. Right now the israeli’s have the biggest justification. But an attack on them is not to be taken lightly, given that I think they actually seek it.
    That regime will fall sooner rather than later. Why waste the resources propping them up by giving them hero status.
    If the israeili’s feel they neeed to blow up a reactor then they are big boys and capable of doing it by themselves.
    No need for the US, British or anyone else to be directly involved. It is an Israeli decsision because it is theior existence being threatened. This of course is IMHO and those with a higher paygrade make the actual decision.
    DOnt get me wrong, Iran is a bad boy, no question but there is a time and a place and I think we have learned what stretching pre-emptive does.
    I just think the Israeli’s are capable of doing this on their own. While the American’s have a quarrel with them I think it is not in their interests to widen the conflict. The 130,000 troops in Iraq have their hands full as it stands, why give them another major task.

  12. Also, while I’m prepared to believe that insurgent resistance might well frustrate (but not defeat*) IDF offensive capabilities, it’s a BIG LEAP to believe that, just seven years on, Syrian, Egyptian and Iraqi (?!) conventional forces would be of sufficient quality to take on the IDF.
    * It’s easy to forget that, at the tactical level, Hizbollah did not actually win in the recent Lebanon dust-up with Israel.

  13. Stephen: Our half of the world is going down the toilet because of the people like you who need justification for self-defense.

  14. Aaron,
    People like me….interesting.
    Self Defence. I am not unsympathetic but careening around the workd knocking off regimes isnt my idea of self defence, especially when there isnt a direct threat, not saying there is no threat just not a direct threat.
    Right now the group under the gun is Israel. They are more than capable of dealing with the problem. If they wont deal with it why should this country or any other?

  15. shamrock – I agree; Iran is using proxies rather than direct attack at the moment. But it has a clear agenda of imperialist control of the ME. And, it wants the Arab States to fight, not against it (Iran) but against the West. So, Iran is trying to focus the situation on Israel-Palestine.
    Iran is, at the moment, tightening its militaristic rule over the many moderates in Iran, rejecting and essentially criminalizing dissent, questions, debate.
    Iran is also attempting to weaken the Arab States by running Al Qaeda and internal conflicts. It has taken over Al Qaeda, has taken over the insurgency in Iraq, taken over Hamas and Hezbollah. So, Iran is mounting internal dissension in the Arab States. This will weaken their ability to reject Iranian domination.
    aaron – of course a western attack on Iran needs justification. What are you saying – that the West, by which you presumably mean the USA (why does the US have to look after the world?) – are rogue states, who attack without justification?
    I don’t think that the ME is, now, the same as it was in 1973; Iran is hoping that it can incite Israel to attack (Lebanon, Gaza, Syria) and that the West will come to Israel’s rescue, and that the Arab States, rather than attacking and resisting Iranian imperialism – will attack Israel/the West. Since they will be weak – having been deliberately weakened by Iran’s incitement of internal rebellions – then Iran will move in to these arab states, to ‘protect the Arab States’. And then- run them.
    The agenda is – Iran wants control of the ME.

  16. …If they wont deal with it why should this country or any other?..
    Bring forth DDT – the roaches are sqeaking!
    Iran is today’s East Germany – a puppet for Putin’s Russia, testing grounds for Russian military industry.

  17. I don’t find the possibility of ‘Soviet’ missiles in 2014 all that unlikely. Putin seems to be doing his best to reconstruct the Soviet Union, and it is possible that 2014 could see a belligerent arms-exporting neo-Soviet Union consisting of Russia, Belarus, the Eastern half of Ukraine, and parts of Moldova and the Caucasian and Central Asian republics. Perhaps even more, if gas-pipeline ‘diplomacy’ is sufficiently effective.

  18. “Iran is today’s East Germany – a puppet for Putin’s Russia, testing grounds for Russian military industry.”
    That I agree with, not quite the puppet but testing ground and weapons client for sure, there is definitely lots at play, deals within deals. The “game” looks more like pre WW1 in that numerous powers are backing differing players as opposed to the clear line up of the cold war.
    As for roaches, smoke em if you got em….

  19. i don’t think there will be 7 years until a major war in the m.e. the forces currently lining up around israel will have to be used. you can’t continue to build an invasion force indefinately.

  20. No- I disagree with the ‘Putin/Russia is the ‘root cause’. I think that the basic problem in the ME is its tribalism, which puts a small elite in authoritarian control of the country’s political and economic actions, and mitigates against the dev’t of a middle class.
    Iran is using Russia – not the other way around. Russia needs Iran’s economic purchasing power.
    I agree that the ME war will probably be earlier than 2014.
    aaron- again, with your ‘if they won’t deal with it’…ie, I presume you mean the US – why should it? Why should the American people bear the financial and personal cost of the world’s problems? Well?

  21. ET,
    I dont think anyone is saying Putin is the cause, I think he is meddling in the situation.
    Tribalism etc, yeah its a complex part of the planet, no question. Without an overriding imperative in the past, like the cold war, then the tribalism bubbles up.
    Interestingly the US is now using that in Anbar to acheive its ends. So by eliminating the larger imperative by being nice guys to the tribes, the imperative being islam vs non muslim it turns back to tribes….I guess it cuts both ways (good and bad)
    Curious what you think of the WW1 analogy…it isnt perfect but great power manouvering, secret backing, potential inflection points on “empires” (that could be Islamic empire by the way)
    Who and or what would be the archduke ferdinand incident that causes the trains to leave the station….?

  23. stephen – yes, an interesting WWI analogy. My view is that the two WWs were part of the same ‘seismic shift’ in Europe, out of what I call ‘early industrial’ focues around the nation-state (and its colonies) and operating really in a two-class system, to post WWII ‘systems industrialism’, which is global, networked, and heavily middle class.
    The ME is going through a similar ‘seismic shift’ – and fighting like mad against it. It’s impossible, however, to maintain a tribal political structure with that kind of multi-million size population – and in an industrial economy. Externalizing some of the pressure, by massive emigration to Europe, and by the dev’t of islamic fascism (against the West) has only been a stop-gap. Eventually, the ME will have to change its political structure.
    And moving from a tribal to democractic political structure is not a ‘one, two, three’ step. It’s catastrophic. First, you have to essentialy destroy the old infrastructure. That means, you destroy the holders of that structure – the tribal overlords. Then, you have to change the belief system, from kinship obligations to the universal rule of law. Then, you have to develop rights-of-individuals; right-to-think (rather than be passive obedient folowers)…etc, etc.
    It’s a massive, tectonic shift and isn’t something done gradually or even consciously.
    That’s why those who call the Iraq situation ‘terrible’ because it hasn’t been ‘smooth’ – are ignorant.
    What will be the spark to flip the fire? Not sure. Iran is desperately trying to get the West to attack – so that it can “Rally the Arab Nations against the Evil West’..while it slips in the back door to actually run those Arab states.
    But, first, Iran has to weaken the Arab states; it’s doing that by proxy insurgents in Iraq, Hamas, Hezbollah etc. Then, it has to get the West, or Israel, to attack.
    And, it has to prevent the Arab States from attacking Iran! It’s dealing with that by its proxy infiltration.
    Sure, Putin is meddling; I don’t think he’s a great worry. Pakistan could be more of a worry – somehow aligning itself with Iran.
    Iran isn’t going to attack first; it has to get its proxies to do that. It will, in all probability, get the proxies to attack Israel. But, the Arab nations will react to that – telling the proxies to ‘stop it’. So, Iran is going to have to get stronger with its proxies, and also, reduce its own people to passivity by fear.
    Don’t know what else to suggest – what do you think?

  24. Here is the concern. The results of WW1 brought about the changes, partially becasue of the catastrophe of the war….the old elites led them into a war that was anything but the gentlemanly pursuit that was the Crimean or other romanticized wars….the US civil War should have been the hint.
    The destruction wrought helped galvanize things for all the other changes that were around. So the concern is who leads them to war….if it is external then this might reinforce Iranian order….if the mullahs lead them to war then it will be there end.
    An all out battle that involves the US, even conventionally, will slaughter 100,000’s. Like WW1 there are new weapons whose destructive power arent really fathomed till experienced.
    Only a war of attrition or of Guerrilla style combat can cause damage over time to the west and even israel. However a conventional war is required to take land. The israeli’s, are ill equipped to fight guerilla’s other than to keep them out.
    Oddly enough, how the war, if it comes, will depend on who is perceived to have started it. If started by muslim extremists then I think the that order will exhaust itself. If started by Israel or the West….well I fear that this will setup soemthing worse down the road.
    This is why I think the West has to consolidate what it has done and proceed no further on this one except prepare the massive counterstrike that could rid the region of this problem…..but I firmly believe we cannot start it.

  25. Stephen, I think directed surgical attacks, such as attacking Iranian nuclear weapons production facilities, will be the future approach. It may even serve as a pressure release of increasing threshold of use – meaning Iran, in its quest for ME control, along with its proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah and (some argue, I’m not quite sure) AQ, upping the ante as they are sure to do. A surgical strike will achieve the necessary aim of degrading and deterring Iran nuclear ambitions without causing a major uproar in Arab states. An invasion, or Israeli attack, will be a rallying point for the Arab world once again.
    If the West really had its act together, it would target Islamofascists of all stripes, and yes with Israeli help. Deter Iran but destroy international Islamofascist terrorism.

  26. These guys write a disappointing work of fiction. Here’s a more likely scenario; “just when the conflict was at it’s worst, Canadian Prime Minister Jack Layton unveiled his new and brilliant peace plan. His tireless negotiations with representatives of the Arab nations and Israel created a lasting peace in the Middle east.
    Layton thus became the second Canadian to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
    Hmm. Maybe Israel had better develop bigger nuclear weapons in the interim.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation