What is behind the rhetoric about war on Iran

By Alireza Saeli

MEHR NEWS - Over the past few days, Western media outlets have created a brouhaha about the possibility that the Zionist regime may make a unilateral military strike against Iran.

The commotion broke out last week after some Israeli media outlets reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is looking for cabinet support to launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

According to a report in the newspaper Haaretz, a high-ranking Israeli official has said that Netanyahu is seeking to build a consensus for a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

However, Haaretz also reported that a number of Israeli military and intelligence officials are opposed to the plan to launch a strike on Iran.

Later, The Guardian reported that the British armed forces have been ratcheting up contingency plans in response to a “new aggressiveness” in Iranian foreign policy and the belief that the U.S. may decide to launch targeted missile strikes against Iranian facilities.

On November 4, Israeli President Shimon Peres said that the likelihood that the military option will be used to prevent Iran from obtaining “nuclear weapons” was increasing.

Meanwhile, Israel recently test-fired a ballistic missile, purportedly capable of reaching Iran.

It should be noted that the Israeli military, which is usually secretive about its activities, allowed media people to report on the event.

What is the purpose of the commotion created by Western media outlets about the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran?

It is clear that a military attack on Iran cannot be a viable option for Israel.

There are a number of good reasons to rule out the possibility of such a strike.

(1) They know that a strike could not stop Iran’s nuclear program (which they claim would be the purpose of the strike), but it would justify Iran’s drive to acquire access to various types of weapons to defend itself.

(2) Even Israeli and U.S. strategists, who believe that the strike could delay Iran’s nuclear program, say that the strike would only set back Iran’s program for two years, and thus it would not be worth the trouble to start a war with Iran.

(3) Any attack against Iran would strengthen Iran’s national cohesion, and the Iranian people would call on officials to give a firm response to the Westerners. As a result, no one in Iran would support the opposition groups anymore, dashing the Westerners’ hopes to overthrow the Islamic system through providing support to the opposition.

(4) Iran has shown that it is totally prepared to counter any military threat and is capable of involving regional and extra-regional countries in any possible war, so they know that any act of adventurism against Iran would be dangerous and that the stakes are high.

(5) U.S. and Israeli intelligence and military officials do not believe that Iran’s nuclear program is their number one threat. They know that the Arab Spring is a much greater threat to their interests.

So, what is the reason behind the new political game directed at Iran?

It seems that the Israelis are trying to set the stage for the imposition of stricter sanctions on Iran, but the biggest obstacle is the fact that Russia, China, and some members of the European Union are strongly opposed to new sanctions.

All this rhetoric about war is being used to compel these countries to stop opposing the moves to impose new United Nations Security Council sanctions on Iran, which they prefer to the outbreak of a dangerous war, which could have serious repercussions for the world.