Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress last week highlighted the dilemma of being caught in the middle of two mortal enemies on a seeming apocalyptic collision course.
Back in what now seems like the good old days, MAD stood for Mutually Assured Destruction, meaning that ours were pointed at them and theirs at us and that a push of the button means the end for all.
Today, in a world with a nuclear-armed Israel, an Iran with nuclear aspirations and a very possible nuclear arms race in a very unstable region, MAD might now be interpreted as Mutually Assumed Destruction.
For the U.S., regardless of the administration, the reality is this: Iran cannot be ignored. Especially now that, as has been widely reported, it is the Iranians who are on the ground in Iraq, providing forward support to the Iraqis in the battle for Tikrit and elsewhere, a role many have advocated the U.S. take.
There is virtually no place in the region that Iran is not a player.
And then you add on top of that the deal to put off Iran’s nuclear ambitions in exchange for removing crippling economic sanctions.
The particularly vexing nature of Iran is our dynamics with its people, as former CIA acting director Mike Morell recently pointed out at a dinner in Tampa.
Unlike most of America’s Arab allies in the region, who have governments that like us but people who don’t, the Iranians, who aren’t Arabs, have a people who like us but a government that doesn’t. And that has to be a huge factor in any consideration of hostilities against that nation. And then there is the fact that historic U.S. actions toward Iran have played a role in the ongoing dysfunctional relationship between the two nations.
Netanyahu’s now-famous line about the enemy of your enemy being … your enemy, was powerfully dramatic, but simplistic in a region where nothing is simple.
There is no doubt that in many cases, Iran, the enemy of our enemy Islamic State, is also our enemy. Just look at all the U.S. troop deaths and injuries that resulted from Iranian support, in both training and supplies, across the region.
But sometimes, the enemy of our enemy is harder to peg.
The Iranians, for instance, back the Houthis in Yemen, whose attack on the capital caused Yemen’s government — our ally — to flee. But the Houthis are also mortal enemies of al-Qaida, who are mortal enemies of us and vice versa.
So in Yemen, the enemy of our enemy is our … frenemy?
In Syria’s five-sided war, Iran is a horse of many colors.
They support the barbarious dictator Bashar al-Assad, who is still our enemy, but we kind of tolerate him because we need his airspace and his barbarism is often aimed at some of our enemies. So Assad, an enemy of our enemies is an enemy we are not prepared to deal with quite yet.
Also in Syria, the Saudis, who are keeping fuel prices low and contribute to the airstrikes against Islamic State in Syria, are fighting a proxy war with the Iranians. And are spoiling for a fight with the Houthis in Yemen, which is to Saudi as Mexico is to us geographically. But many say the Saudis were complicit in the 9/11 attacks. So this enemy of our enemies is an ally of convenience,
And then there are the al-Qaida elements who are battling with the so-called Syrian Free Army which we support, who are battling with Islamic State, with al-Qaida and Islamic State battling each other for the right to the No. 1 Jihadi Franchise. So the enemies of our enemies are our enemies and friends.
And let’s take it back to Israel, which is frequently battling Hamas and Hizballah, which are backed by, you got it, Iran.
So in Israel, the enemy of our enemy is … Israel, an extended calculus that I am fairly certain Bibi clearly did not mean to imply.
❖ ❖ ❖
Regardless of treaties, the Iranians are hell-bent on the bomb.
And that’s something Israel, with little strategic depth, is not prepared to live with, simply because it does not believe the Iranians, who repeatedly talk about annihilating Israel, will let it.
The thing about Israel is that unlike the U.S., it won’t just talk about a red line, it will just draw one and once crossed, it’s clobbering time.
The problem for the Israelis, though, is that their ability to clobber Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, is limited at best with a conventional attack. Relying almost fully on U.S.-built F-16s to deliver both tactical and strategic strike limits both the amount of conventional munitions that can be delivered because unlike the B-52 and B-1 bombers which can deliver up to 70,000 pounds of ordnance a piece, the F-16 is pushing it at just over 15,000.
Then factor in range.
It’s about 1,000 miles from Israel to Iran. The F-16s have a range of about 1,200 miles. Given the lack of Israeli refueling capability (those 16 old gray KC-135s at MacDill Air Force Base may not be sexy, but try running an air war without them) and the ability to hit secondary, let alone tertiary targets, is virtually nill. Can the Israelis do damage with their deep-penetrating conventional ordnance? No doubt. A knock-out punch that will end the Ayatollah’s nuclear dreams? Not so much. The days of Osirak are long gone.
Aside from likely being unable to meet its goal, a unilateral Israeli strike on Iran would create tremendous regional blowback, with the Iranians very likely to respond in kind with missile attacks not just on Israel, but on the many Sunni governments in the region, plus the U.S. bases stationed there.
Which would very likely drag the U.S. into a fight it does not want.
So sometimes, the enemy of your enemy is your cranky uncle who pulls out a gun when faced with a threat on his life.
Which brings up the unthinkable.
Could Israel, backed into a corner, let loose with its arsenal of nuclear weapons it does not like to acknowledge? Could it place them on Jericho missiles and on bombers and launch a devastating nuclear first strike, deviating from its defensive doctrine?
There are those who believe that may be Israel’s only option.
While global reaction would be fierce, the Israelis have repeatedly shown that their own survival in one of the world’s toughest neighborhoods trumps world opinion. Bedsides, while its neighbors, like the Saudis, Qataris, Jordanians and Egyptians, would publicly join the outcry, privately none of those governments want to see a nuclear Iran.
So sometimes, the enemy of your enemy is your secret friend.
❖ ❖ ❖
The Pentagon has announced no new U.S. troop deaths in support of the ongoing operations in the U.S. Central Command region, the longest such stretch since Operation Enduring Freedom was launched in October, 2001.
But the Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve on Sunday announced the death of a Canadian soldier in support of that mission.
Sgt. Andrew Joseph Doiron, a member of the Canadian Special Operations Regiment, was killed in a friendly fire incident during an Advise & Assist mission with Kurdish Security Forces supporting Operation Inherent Resolve in Northern Iraq on March 6.
Three other Canadian Soldiers were wounded in the incident and are being treated for their injuries. One was transported to Landstuhl, Germany for further medical care.
This incident is under investigation.
There have been three U.S. troop deaths in support of Operation Inherent Resolve and none in Operation Freedom’s Sentinel.