The Immunity Zone

Michael Young

Tweet

Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak believes that the oil embargo is not enough to force Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions. Lior Mizrahi/AFP/Getty Images.

On the 23^rd January the EU finally agreed to a new round of sanctions to impose against Iran over its nuclear programme, this time specifically targeting the country’s lucrative oil industry. These have been the harshest sanctions yet – EU member states together import approximately one-fifth of total Iranian oil, and once the sanctions are fully implemented later in the year they are sure to make a significant dent in the Iranian economy. Shortly after the announcement of further sanctions, an essay by Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman was published in the New York Times. After meeting with top Israeli officials in January, Bergman’s conclusion was clear: Israel IS going to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran this year, and will probably do it this spring. 

According to Bergman, Israel has been asking itself three questions. One, does it have the ability to launch an attack, and protect itself from the counterattack? Two, have all diplomatic options been exhausted? And three, would Israel have the backing of the West if it were to launch an attack?

In regards to the first, Israel clearly has the technology and firepower available to launch an attack, however the issue would be defending the country from the hundreds of Iranian Shahab missiles that could easily be fired in the direction of Tel Aviv, not including the missiles that Hezbollah and Hamas could also launch. There has even been some speculation that Syria may feel compelled to back Iran. In regards to the second question, Israel would probably say that if the recent oil sanctions fail to make an impact, then all diplomatic options have been exhausted. 

The third question is the one that is most difficult to answer of all. If Israel were to strike Iran, what would be the reaction of allies such as the US and the UK?

Obama has recently said that it the US is working in ‘lockstep’ with Israel over Iran and will continue to support it, but that does not necessarily mean that if Israel chose to strike Iran tomorrow then the US would be right behind it. The incumbent president will have both eyes on popularity ratings until the November elections, and a military intervention in Iran is unlikely to go down well in Democrat strongholds. It is certainly the wrong time for the US to become embroiled in another war in the Middle East.

Iran’s Shahab-3 Missiles are well within range of Israel. FAS/Jane's Info Group.

But what does this mean for UK foreign policy?

Essentially, the government is able to take a back seat from now. The UK has played its part by being at the forefront of economic sanctions against Iran, and there is now little else it can do. Only time will tell whether the new sanctions will work, but it is of course quite possible that Israel will strike before they take full effect on July 1^st (they would have been implemented sooner if it wasn’t for crisis-hit Greece relying on Iranian oil). 

In the meantime, Stop the War’s ‘Don’t Attack Iran’ campaign is gaining momentum. Various politicians and celebrities recently took to a podium outside the American Embassy in Grosvenor Square calling for the West not to intervene in a country where there is no proof of a nuclear weapons programme. The campaign highlights ten reasons why the UK should not intervene, notably pointing out that wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have all showed that intervention leads to high civilian casualties.

I share a similar view. Iran should be able to pursue a peaceful programme without Western interference. However, Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons would upset the balance of power in the region, and may fuel an arms race across the Middle East. Iran would also become untouchable – should it wish to torment its neighbours, it could do so without the threat of serious international condemnation as no state would be in a position to strategically argue with the regime. 

The ‘Immunity Zone’ is approaching. Israel believes that is has only nine months left to attack Iran, the US with their more advanced military forces have until mid-2013. Beyond that, Iran’s nuclear programme would be so advanced that a strike against it would be pointless – it would have reached ‘immunity’. The new sanctions will not come into full effect until July, which gives Iran five months to reassess the situation and hopefully come back to the negotiating table – the P5+1 talks would be a good start. It is now in Iran’s interest to open the dialogue with the West and resolve the issue for two main reasons – one, if the sanctions do have a serious economic impact then anti-Ahmadinejad protest could erupt across the country, threatening the regime. Two, Israel is serious about this – an anti-Iran sentiment is growing stronger, and some of the Israeli cabinet would not be shy of bombing Iran tomorrow.

The latest sanctions could be the last throw of the diplomatic dice. If crippling Iran’s economy does not make the regime submit to the demands of the West, it is hard to see what actually will. An attack on Iran will not stop its nuclear programme - if the regime is determined to acquire a nuclear weapon, it will succeed eventually. An attack would only delay the programme, and also make it more likely that it will want to use the weapon that it will develop. Not surprisingly, this is the biggest security dilemma that the West has faced in the Middle East since 2003.