.Adapted from article in Outlook Part 2.
. The first reaction from IRAN ,in case of an attack by US will be
to close the entrance to the Gulf cutting off oil supply which will
choke most of the
world''s oil supply resulting in an unprecedented
worldwide economic crisis. To open the straits US will have to capture
and hold a large chunk of Iranian territory which could not be
accomplished without a long drawn battle, thereby this'' short and easy
war '' will ultimately prolong and result in a ''long and hard war''.
Spurred by an , Israel''s attack this war , would surely turn out to
be a long war of attrition for US and may prove to be viewed by
majority of American public as a disaster (as is happening in IRAQ
now). This will create an impression in their minds, a hatred for
Israel, and would blame the Pro Israel lobby and its
allies (mainly Jewish) and neocons and Christian Zionists for dragging United
States unnecessarily into this war,( as they did in the case of
IRAQ). Thus the ''hoped for gains '' may ultimately turn out to be
''large scale losses.''
Mr Ahamedinejad appears in the perception of Israel, a
typical personification of a perfect enemy for them.. He is wide
mouthed ,braggart and shouts often that Israel will be vanished from
the map. He denies the Holocaust and all the protests organised
against him , both in New York and also at Columbia University, turned
them to his advantage and projected himself as a hero catching the
world''s attention .Thus he effectively utilised this as a great
opportunity to propagate his views, some valid and some outrageous on
Israel, to the world community. But
Mr Ahmedinejad is NOT IRAN. The major decisions are taken by the
religious leaders the Shiites who are very cautious and are not
boastful nor vociferous. If IRAN really wanted to have a nuclear bomb
they would have gone about it very secretly and silently and would
not definitely involve Mr Ahmedinejad in it as this would be more
dangerous than the bomb getting into their enemie''s hands.It is a
very unpleasant feeling for any body to see a nuclear bomb in the
hands of IRAN ,for that matter, in any body''s hand.
The disputes re : Israel etc can well be sorted out by talks
and discussions and if necessary , by inducements to and or sanctions
imposed against IRAN.Even if they do not ultimately succeed it will
not be the end of the world for Israel.It is pretty certain that Mr
Ahmedinejad , despite his blabbering ,will not venture to act in a
manner and invite destruction of IRAN for achieving destruction of
ISRAEL .As
Napoleon has said once, "to determine a country''s policy one has only
to look into the map." By doing so, it should be evident that there is
no objective reason for Israel to see Iran as its enemy. Mr David
Ben Gurion , however, had advocated an "alliance of
peripheries". According to this theory it was observed the entire
Arab world were seen as enemies by ISRAEL and hence allies had to be
sought from the countries in the fringes like IRAN,TURKEY.Ethiopia ,
CHAD etc.Alliance were sought even from those inside the Arab world
like Maronite''s COP Ts, Kurds, Shiites etc Looking
back , we find that in earlier periods Shah had connections with IRAN,
some positive, some negative and some sinister. He had helped IRAN in
laying the pipeline between ,Eilat and Askelon,to transporaneanbypassing the Suez canal. Israel
utilised its internal secret service (SHABAK) to train its notorious
Iranian counterpart ( SAVAK ) . Thus ISRAEL and IRAN acted together
to aid KURDS in their fight in IRAQI Kurdistan against their
''SUNNI ARAB Oppressors''. During the Ayatollah revolution this
alliance,however, had gone underground.Tracing
the subsequent events '' WE FIND ISRAEL SUPPLYING ARMS
TO IRAN IN THEIR WAR WITH IRAQ AND AMERICA HELPING SADDAM HUSSEIN by
supplying arms''. This relationship shows one of the rare instances of
divergence in views between Washington and Jerusalem.. However,this
was bridged by America in helping Israel in selling arms to
Ayathollahs, resulting in the famous IRAN-Contra affair . Thus
we see today we perceive an ideological conflict between these two
countries mainly fought on rhetorical and demagogical levels. The so
called brief for Palestine as shown by Mr Ahamedinejad in the
ISRAEL-Palestinian conflict is only a ploy to gain sympathy from the
Arab world. It is to be hoped that sooner or later geography will teach
the two nations, ISRAEL and IRAN to have more cordial and
positive relations as existed before .
ALL these events in history clearly points out to one inevitable
conclusion and that is in the words of Mr URI AVENRY , in
Outlook"whoever chooses to attack IRAN will come to grief . Some
adventures are easy to get in but sadly difficult to get out. Saddam
Hussein was the last one to realise this but it took a long eight
years to understand this ".Let us hope wiser counsels would prevail and America or its allies may not dare to repeat what Saddam Hussein did.
KONTHAI