Why Israel (and the West) must accept war with Iran, A.S.A.P.

One of the biggest mistakes made by Olmert in the recent war with Hizbullah, was to issue guarantees both to Iran and Syria, that they would not be attacked.

It is obvious that Hizbullah, without the support from Iran, would be nothing. Further, Hizbullah being a terrorist organization that fights in a guerrilla-like manner, hides behind the civilian population to launch its attacks on Israel. This makes it virtually impossible to fight and destroy it in a short, conventional war.

To attack Hizbullah, without cutting its line of supplies (money and weapons, including the rockets launched over Israel the last month), is like trying to stop a bleeding without closing the wound: it’s a waste of time. A guerrilla movement cannot be beaten in conventional war.

What is needed for Israel to beat Hizbullah (and very much the same applies for Hamas in Palestine) is, in the first place, a military offensive in Lebanon aimed at rooting out the guerrilla movement, rid it of its bases of operations, and capture the terrorists. This is impossible to achieve in a quick, short offensive, lasting a few weeks, as pretended Olmert. This requires a prolonged campaign fought with counter-revolutionary tactics, and a full-time occupation of the Lebanese territory that is necessary.

If the government of Olmert did not have the willingness to do this, and bear the full costs (political, military, in human lives and economic), then he should never have given the first step. He should have not initiated the air offensive, much less the ersatz land operation, if he did not really intend to take it to its full consequences.

In the second place, the hemorrhage must be stopped. If Israel does not stop the bleeding of the wound itself, then everything else is in vain. I am referring to Iran. The regime of the ayatollahs is one that openly backs Hizbullah with loads of money and weapons. As regards to money, where do you think comes the money that Hizbullah will use to indemnify the displaced people who lost their homes in Southern Lebanon?

In order to achieve this, Israel must engage in the only policy that has showed, in all of Human History, to work in the face of an enemy that does not want to reason: deterrence. This, as was phrased by the Romans, works like this: si vis pacem, para bellum (If you want peace, prepare for war). As was very well defined by Dr. Strangelove, deterrence is the art of instilling in the mind of the enemy the FEAR to attack. And, of course, for deterrence to work, it must be credible, something which in general you only get if you are really willing to use all your strength to retaliate and crush your enemy. If you don’t have the willingness to do just that and accept the consequences, then the threat of retaliation is not credible, and therefore deterrence does not work.

I repeat: Iran backs with weapons and loads of money the terrorists of Hizbullah, with the objective that this delivers attacks on Israel. The United States went to war with Afghanistan and deposed the Taliban regime, precisely because it sponsored terrorists that were attacking the US. Well, the relationship between the Taliban regime and Al Qaeda, was exactly of the same type as the relation between Iran of the ayatollahs, and Hizbullah.

But that is not all. The ayatollahs are in a race to get something which so far they have not counted upon: the Bomb. If Iran backs so openly the enemies of Israel (and of the West), without having nuclear deterrence in its favor, you can bet that as soon as it acquires a nuclear arsenal, as small as it may be, it will become much more aggressive against Israel and the West in general.

Much in contrast with the Soviet Union, we have very good reasons to believe that the ayatollahs don’t want the Bomb just for deterrence. I don’t think that they are dreaming with a cold war in the Middle East. In any case, to assume that they would act rationally with a nuclear arsenal, is a very, very dangerous assumption. Israel and the West cannot be willing to run that risk. If our worst fears come true and Iran uses its soon-to-be-acquired nuclear arsenal, the West will still win in the end. But with much more sacrifice and cost in human lives, than if we face it now. Just the same as in WWII, we will win in the end, but at a cost exponentially higher than if the Allies had acted as soon as the intentions of the Ahmadinejad of that time were evident.

But I am not talking of Israel (or the West) initiating war with Iran. I am taking of accepting the war that is being thrown upon us, and acting in accordance. Iran is at war with us, whether we want to accept it or not. Just as Hitler was at war with Civilization long before 1939.

UPDATE: Very good article from John O'Sullivan in National Review, pointing in the same direction.

Tweet