Britain, Europe, Government, Iran, Israel, Middle East, Politics, Society, United States

The stakes are high for any target Israel chooses

MIDDLE EAST

THE idiom that “revenge is best served cold” doesn’t apply in the Middle East, because retribution is delivered swift and white-hot.

For in this febrile part of the world, failure to respond to military aggression can be fatal. Enemies smell weaknesses and will readily strike again.

And so, following Iran’s unprecedented missile strike against Israel earlier this week in this rapidly unfolding conflict, it is no surprise that Israel is already planning revenge.

The fact that a seemingly large proportion of the 200 or so Iranian rockets fired were neutered by Israel’s famed “Iron Dome” is irrelevant. Israel will strike back. The question now is just what form that military response will take.  

There are three likely options for retaliation. First, and perhaps most dangerously, Israel may well seize this as an opportunity to strike at the heart of Iran’s nuclear bomb project. Although Iran does not yet have the Bomb, its nuclear programme is alarmingly well advanced. Israel has long believed Iran’s nuclear ambitions poses an existential threat to its security and existence.

Writing on social media, former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett called this “the greatest opportunity in 50 years” to “destroy Iran’s nuclear programme”.

The most likely target for such an attack is the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Centre in the centre of Iran, 300km from the capital Tehran. Earlier this year, Israel bombed a nearby military site, a symbolic warning to its Islamist foe that it has the Isfahan centre in its sights.

It houses research reactors, a uranium conversion plant, and a fuel production base. It’s essential to Iran’s nuclear programme. A knock-out blow against this, or a similar facility, would certainly appease the hardliners in Benyamin Netanyahu’s government whose support the leader relies.

However, this strategy would mark a grave escalation in the conflict and poses the ugly risk of significant collateral damage and unintended consequences.

Such a strike could blast radioactive material into the air, unleashing a Chernobyl-style cloud of atomic pollution across the region. In the worst case, a strike on a reactor could even trigger a nuclear “chain reaction” – leading to widespread destruction reminiscent of the 1945 atomic strike on Hiroshima.

Israel must also consider that Iran’s mullahs may retaliate by spiking its future warheads with radioactive waste, creating “dirty bombs” that could have ramifications far wider than a regular missile – because even shot down by the Iron Dome the radioactivity would still disperse.

Another of Netanyahu’s options is that he could try to disrupt Iran’s military arsenals with smaller, localised strikes using its fleet of American F35 and F16 fighter jets. However, considering Iran boasts thousands of missiles and drones across the country this would not nullify the threat of a further strike by the mullahs similar to that seen this week.

Realistically, the most effective method of reprisal would be to attack command-and-control centres, the only places from which Iran can fire its long-range weaponry. Although these are buried deep underground and are incredibly well fortified, they will now be vulnerable to Isreal’s so-called “bunker-buster” bombs such as those used to assassinate the Hezbollah leader last week in Beirut.

There is, however, one further option, though fraught with danger – not just for the cauldron of the Middle East but for the world. If Israel really does intend to shake the foundations of the Iranian regime, rather than just give it a bloodied nose, it could choose to attack Kharg Island, Iran’s only oil export terminal in the Persian Gulf and the foundation of the Iranian economy and the mullahs’ riches.

If Israel does this, the price of oil will sky-rocket far beyond anything we saw during the early days of the Russia/Ukraine conflict. Shia Iran will then likely retaliate – as it has vowed – by attacking oil infrastructure in Sunni Saudi Arabia, its enemy, with the goal of further disrupting the global oil supply. This would lead to a severe world shortage with inevitable energy rationing in Europe and the UK.

So far, Israel’s political allies – notably the US and the UK – have stood strong with Netanyahu. But if Israel upsets global energy supplies, international support could rapidly dissipate.

There’s a cruel irony to all this. Because if Israel does strike Iran’s oil industry, Europe could even face the ignominy of going cap in hand to purchase Russian oil – albeit through proxies and intermediaries.

Netanyahu and his war cabinet must choose their next move very carefully indeed.

Standard
Government, Iran, Israel, Lebanon, Middle East, Politics, United Nations, United States

Israel widens the war. Iran could soon be the arch enemy

MIDDLE EAST

NOT since the Saxon nobility were wiped out in the Battle of Hastings, including King Harold and his brothers, almost 1,000 years ago, has one side annihilated the leadership of its arch enemy so suddenly and thoroughly.

First the Israelis killed, blinded, and maimed thousands of middle-ranking Hezbollah fighters, by triggering explosions in their pages and walkie-talkies.

Then, in the last few days, in a series of surgical strikes – precise as they were powerful – Israel’s air force dropped up to 16 bunker-busting bombs onto the underground lair where Hezbollah chief Hassan Nasrallah was huddled with his top brass.

They must have believed they were safe in their reinforced concrete hideaway, but for so many essential figures to be gathered in one place displayed reckless hubris which was ruthlessly punished.

Around 20 senior militia commanders were killed, including the security head of the organisation, Ibrahim Hussein Jazini, and Nasrallah’s closest confidante, Samir Tawfiq Dib. Nabil Qaouk, a key figure in Hezbollah’s central council, was killed in a separate air attack.

By any sane rationale, the war between Israel and Hezbollah should be over. But fanatics are neither sane nor rational.

This is a fighting force whose lower ranks are obsessed with martyrdom. They have been comprehensively defeated, but that does not mean they will surrender.

Until now, the Islamist militia was rigidly disciplined, with Nasrallah wielding supreme control. But with the decapitation of their leadership and the destruction of their communications network, the minions of Hezbollah will have nothing to guide them but their own maniacal – and perhaps suicidal – initiatives.

As much as half their stockpiles of rockets, shells, and artillery has been destroyed, but there is still a mass of weapons at the disposal of local commanders eager to burnish their own combat reputations and leadership ambitions.

Israeli prime minister Benyamin Netanyahu will probably feel he has no choice but to order a ground invasion of southern Lebanon to stamp out the smouldering remains of Hezbollah. But that is a high-risk strategy for three reasons.

Firstly, Israeli casualties will be higher. In the featureless plains of Gaza, their enemy has nowhere to hide. But in the hilly terrain of Lebanon, it can dart in and out of cover and wreak havoc with its armour-penetrating missiles.

Secondly, a ground invasion will create a huge refugee crisis. In the past week alone, some 80,000 civilians have fled Lebanon for makeshift camps in Syria. The Lebanese prime minister Najib Mikati has warned up to a million people could be displaced.

This exodus could be the perfect cover for Hezbollah’s scattered remnants to spread insurgency across Europe. Unable to attack Israel, some might prefer to increase international pressure by exporting misery and violence to Israel’s supporters – with Britain chief among them.

Thirdly, perhaps ominously, the sheer effectiveness of Israel’s megaton assassinations is likely to accelerate the Iranian nuclear weapons programme.

Israel has already shown it has no compunction about killing enemies on Iranian soil, with the elimination in July of the Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh. Now, the knowledge that no underground bunker is safe will galvanise Iran’s leaders. While under huge internal pressure to retaliate against Israel directly, they fear the consequences – be they their own assassinations, or airstrikes against their nuclear facilities.

The mullahs will not want to provoke such an attack, especially as they are only weeks away from producing enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb, according to the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

They are likely to conclude it makes more sense to challenge Israel using its proxy militias, such as the Houthis in Yemen, whose rocket attacks on international shipping in the Red Sea are designed to strangle Israel economically.

For Iran to create a viable nuclear weapon, it will also need a detonator – not an easy piece of technology to build. But this project, too, could be near completion, possibly with North Korean help.

If Iran does successfully test an atom bomb, international efforts to avert nuclear war will become increasingly hysterical. The UN Security Council could attempt to persuade Iran to freeze its nuclear programme in return for a ceasefire, but this would have little chance of success without the cooperation of the US, who might take the view there is no way to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle once a test has been conducted.

It appears that Israel has won a spectacular tactical victory over Hezbollah. But the main strategic enemy could soon be a nuclear-armed Iran. Armageddon beckons for one side – or both.

Standard
Britain, Economic, Government, Politics, Society

Labour will be judged on deeds not words

LABOUR PARTY

THE CHANCELLOR, Rachel Reeves, with a rictus smile glued to her face at the Labour Party conference this week has sought to change the government’s central message from one of unremitting gloom to one of hope.

After weeks of relentless negativity over alleged black holes, broken Britain and “tough decisions” ahead, the Chancellor has laid out her vision for the promised land to come.

No one could argue with most of it. Who wouldn’t want a fairer society, great public services, better schools, higher growth, and a strong economy? However, Ms Reeves offered no discernible strategy for achieving these admirable goals. Nor did she touch on the price we will all have to pay.

Many will be surprised to hear her say there would be “no return to austerity”.

For millions of pensioners stripped of their winter fuel allowance it has already arrived and the Budget on October 30 is expected to be an assault on the finances of middle Britain.

The Chancellor claims she will not raise taxes on “working people” but what does that mean? Does she include those who have worked all their lives but are now retired? Those whose efforts and talents put them in the higher tax brackets? Entrepreneurs? Savers?

More likely she will deliver selective austerity, in which the private sector will be fleeced to ratchet up the pay and pensions of state employees.

The process has already begun with inflation-busting wage increases across the public sector which, incidentally, account for around half of the £22billion black hole supposedly left by the previous Tory government.

There will be a crackdown on welfare, fraud, and worklessness. The Government has said it will make special provisions in law for the most vulnerable.

The Trade Unions, far from being grateful, are ravenous for more. RMT chief Mick Lynch is demanding nothing less than “the complete organisation of the UK economy by trade unions”.

Mr Lynch wants to sweep away the Thatcher reforms and make it easier to shutdown workplaces and even entire industries if employers fail to meet demands on pay and conditions. Welcome back to the 1970s.

Other unions are coming in hard and fast. The Royal College of Nursing (RCN) said the recent 5.5 per cent pay award for nurses in England was not enough and must be improved.

By giving train drivers 15 per cent and junior doctors south of the Border 22 per cent, Ms Reeves has begun a wage spiral which could strangle any hope of economic growth.

Hardened by years of industrial trench warfare with the Tories, union barons are not about to bow down to a weak and inexperienced Labour government. On the contrary, they believe they can control it.

The constant talking down of the economy is having baleful effects. It is now hard fact that UK businesses are freezing both vital investment and the hiring of staff ahead of the Budget. There is an alarming collapse in business confidence.

Ms Reeves has said this would be “the most pro-business government we have ever seen”. But with the constant negativity and parlous state of the UK economy why would anyone invest in a country when its Chancellor has been saying for weeks that it is effectively a basket case?

This speech was an attempt to inject some positivity into the Labour narrative, but she will be judged by her deeds, not her words.

Standard