It was clear from the start of the Israeli strikes on Iran that they had been meticulously planned (for well over a year, according to some reports). Everything from incognito operatives on the ground in Tehran to a wide range of cyberwarfare attacks that effectively blinded all Iranian communications for the first six hours of the attack − both military and civilian.
Other layers of planning were also evident: Israeli drones hiding in trucks near Tehran, apparently resting there for some time; surgical strikes all over the country to destroy ready-to-launch ballistic missiles; destruction of military facilities; the assassination of top scientists and military commanders.
All very Hollywood, and if one were a military strategist anywhere in the world, I suspect it would all look very impressive indeed. But there are other matters at play here, as many suspect. The larger narrative, of course, is that Israel seeks to neutralise the Iranian nuclear threat. This was not a surprise − it had been promised by Israel for a long time. When the International Atomic Energy Agency drafted a report indicating that Iran had cheated on its nuclear non-proliferation obligations, the die was cast.
It may have all been avoided had Iran said, “Oops, mistake, we will retreat and negotiate,” but their response was to throw their toys out of the cot and boast that they were now going to step up to refining weapons-grade fissile material. That was the end of the discussion. Everyone, probably even Iran, knew that Israel would attack.
The question of why Iran seemed utterly unprepared is a little puzzling. After the blinding of communications countrywide, Israel essentially has total air superiority and obliterated most, if not all, of their targets. Could Iran have been that incompetent or intelligence-compromised? Perhaps this will come out one day, but it certainly highlights the vast differences in their respective military readiness, notwithstanding Israel’s total intelligence failure on 7 October.
Quickly rebuild
In researching this article, an interesting viewpoint popped up. It was that Israel cannot completely shut down Iran’s nuclear weapon ambitions. There are caves, lead-lined labs, underground bunkers, vast swaths of unmonitored countryside, thousands of skilled nuclear scientists. Israel has certainly delayed matters, but Iran can quickly rebuild, especially if they get quiet help from Pakistan, China, or Russia.
The only way for a permanent peace (whatever that may mean in that fractious neighborhood) would be the collapse of the theocratic regime and its replacement with a more democratic and modern governance structure. If a regime takes over that has better things to do than scream for the destruction of a United Nations member (as they have for decades) and constantly scheme for its own regional primacy, perhaps citizens would have a shot at a better life.
Iran is currently run by four interlinked groups:
- The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)
- The Supreme Leader’s Office (Beyt-e Rahbari)
- Intelligence and Security Agencies (including the Ministry of Intelligence and IRGC Intelligence Organization)
- The Traditional Shi’a Clerical Establishment
Each one of these bodies is suspicious of the others as they all jockey for influence and dominance. Infighting is common, as is corruption. Civic matters are often ignored; civilians are arrested, harassed, tortured, and killed for minor infractions (especially women who seek a sliver of independence).
There are other shaky foundations too. Many younger people are cautiously anti-Islamist as they seek to engage with the wider world; labour strikes happen frequently; there are water shortages and pollution problems; the hijab is widely hated; and Iran is confrontational and not fully trusted by its neighbours.
Recipe for regime change
You put this all together and you have a recipe for regime change, although tempered by the fear of a horrifyingly repressive regime that brutalises citizens without any accountability.
Isaac Saul is the founder of a terrific blog called Tangle. In it, he tackles a current news item, reads both the right- and left-wing reportage, summarises them, and offers his own perspective. It is as objective a coverage as you are likely to find anywhere. He offers the two extreme edge cases for the current outbreak of hostilities between Israel and Iran.
“…this is the best possible realistic outcome: Iran’s response proves completely inadequate, and it becomes apparent quickly that they have been overwhelmed by Israeli military ingenuity and expertise. The regime falls or all of its top leaders are killed. The Iranian people take the opportunity to supplant them with a new, more moderate, regime… A new, moderate government in Iran allows Israel to draw its Arab partners closer without fear of existential reprisal, and the cascading effects open up opportunities for new leadership in Gaza and new relations with Lebanon, all of which bring us a few steps closer to long-term peace.”
And:
“…the worst possible realistic outcome: Iran’s response is stronger than we expect, and it manages to seriously harm the Israeli military, kill Israeli civilians, and draw in members of the intergovernmental organization BRICS (currently composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates) to begin attacking both Israeli and U.S. targets. President Trump decides he must respond to these attacks and joins Israel in the fight… Global powers—perhaps Russia or China—recognize the significance of the power centers in this region changing and come to Iran’s side, either in the form of kinetic or cyber warfare against the U.S. and its allies.”
Currently there is only the fog of war. Reading Israeli and Al Jazeera reports − which do not always report the same facts on the ground, each slanted to their worldviews − makes it difficult to get the measure of things.
What is certain is that Israel has dramatic military and intelligence superiority. Whether that results in lasting peace is far less certain. Neither country is a paragon of virtue, but on balance, well, no one wants a theocratic, autocratic and belligerent regime with nuclear warheads.
[Image: image:reve.art]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend