Iran/Israel Locked In Mutual Assured
Destruction (MAD) Deterrence Status: …And It's
Potentially Beneficial For Peace In The Region
30 April 2012
By Franklin Lamb
Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), the doctrine of
military strategy and national security policy in
which a full-scale use of high-yield weapons by two
opposing sides would effectively result in the
potential annihilation of both the attacker and the
defender, thus becoming a war that has no victor but
only reciprocal destruction is increasingly becoming
relevant to the Iran/Israel regional confrontation.
MAD is based on the theory of deterrence according to
which the deployment, and implicit menace and threat
of using massive weapons is essential to threaten the
enemy in order to prevent the use by said-enemy of the
same weapons against oneself. The strategy is a form
of the famed mathematician, John Forbes Nash ("A
beautiful Mind") game theory equilibrium in which
neither side, once armed, has any rational incentive
either to initiate a conflict or to disarm. The Mad
Doctrine assumes that each side has enough weaponry
and military tenacity among its forces to destroy the
other side. That being the case, if either side is
attacked for any reason by the other, the country
attacked would retaliate without with equal or greater
force.
Some Pentagon analysts with much experience with MAD
as part of U.S. and USSR strategic doctrine during the
cold war believe that curtailing Israel aggression and
even preventing nuclear war in the Middle East could
best be prevented if neither Iran nor Israel could
expect to survive a full-scale exchange as a
functioning state. Although the Cold War ended in the
early 1990s, the doctrine of Mutual Assured
Destruction continues to apply and increasingly
between Israel and Iran.
In recent months "the imminent threat" of Iran has
become shriller from the US-Israel and its
"international community" allies. The people of the
world on the other hand are increasingly viewing
Iran's strong military position rather differently.
This is true not only among Middle Eastern countries
but also among the 120 member nonaligned countries
that support Iran's right to enrich uranium. An
opinion survey conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org is
also reporting this week that a record high 75% of the
American public favors an immediate withdrawal of U.S.
forces from Afghanistan and a majority does not view
Iran as a threat.
As pointed out recently by Professor Noam Chomsky,
Europeans regard Israel, not Iran as the greatest
threat to world peace and are worried about the
dangers it poses in the Middle East. The survey
concludes that while Iran is disliked by some Arab
regimes but seen as a threat only by a very small
minority. Israel and the U.S. are regarded as the
pre-eminent threat. A majority think that the region
would be more secure if Iran had nuclear weapons: In
Egypt on the eve of the Arab Spring, 90 percent held
this opinion, according to Brookings Institution/Zogby
International polls. Moreover, China and Russia oppose
U.S. policy on Iran, as does India, which announced
that it would disregard U.S. sanctions and increase
trade with Iran. Turkey has followed a similar course.
Their populations tend to favor a strong Iran as
deterrence to Israel's history of aggression.
There is little credible discussion of just what
constitutes the Iranian threat, though we do have an
authoritative answer, provided by U.S. military and
intelligence. Their presentations to Congress make it
clear that Iran doesn't pose a military threat.
In numerous presentation to Congress by U.S. military
and intelligence its strategic doctrine is defensive,
designed to deter invasion long enough for diplomacy
to take effect. If Iran is developing nuclear weapons
(which is still undetermined), that would be part of
its deterrent strategy with potential benefits for
peace in the region.
The understanding of serious Israeli and U.S. analysts
is expressed clearly by 30-year CIA veteran Bruce
Riedel, who said in January, "If I was an Iranian
national security planner, I would want nuclear
weapons" as a deterrent.
One pillar of the current mutual deterrence status
between the growing Resistance Alliances confronting
Israel is the prevailing weapons ambiguity of
Hezbollah. During Israel's 5th war against Lebanon in
July 2006, the National Lebanese Resistance led by
Hezbollah is widely known, for a variety of reasons
including suggestions from allies, including Iran, to
have held back on using its most devastating weapon
(s). This is unlikely to the case in the next war.
Syria also did not contribute to its allies her most
powerful weapons in 2006 and it remains unclear which
of its current weapon systems would be available to
its allies to be used against Israel given the current
uncertainty in Syria.
According to Israeli officials, hundreds of Hezbollah
fighters have been receiving training in the use of
advanced anti-aircraft weapons in Syria and Iran in
recent months; in a development the Israeli military
says absolutely jeopardizes its aerial supremacy.
Russia also sent Syria other modern antiaircraft
missiles last year, including about 40 SA-17 Grizzly
missiles and two medium-range SA-17 Buk systems,
according to SIPRI.
In addition, Israel believes Russia has recently
delivered upgraded versions of the MiG-29 combat
aircraft to Syria and has upgraded hundreds of T-72
tanks every year since 2007, fitting them with far
more modern weapons and that National Lebanese
Resistance fighters led by Hezbollah have been
training on these weapons.
Tactical ambiguity about Resistance weapons and
exactly which weapons of mass destruction may have
been placed along Israel's borders and aimed at key
military centers has led to more frequent Israeli
movements along the northern border of occupied
Palestine with Lebanon and on the Golan heights.
Rumors range from nuclear weapons to "dirty bombs."
What exactly is the truth adds credence to the growing
deterrence status between Iran and Israel.
The understanding of serious Israeli and U.S. analysts
was expressed recently by 30-year CIA veteran Bruce
Riedel, who testified in January, "If I was an Iranian
national security planner, I would want nuclear
weapons" as a deterrent.
Last month, Iranian Deputy Defense Minister Ahmad
Vahidi invoked Iran's deterrence doctrine in warning
Israel against mounting such an attack on Iran: "Any
act by the Zionist regime against Iran will bring
about its destruction."
Speaking at a ceremony honoring past Hezbollah
commanders, Vahidi said that "Israel is weaker than it
has ever been and its army is tired and humiliated…
This is why it is trying to solve its problems by
talking about taking action against Iran. But these
are ridiculous statements. Iran's warriors are ready
and willing to retaliated and destroy Israel and we
have the capacity to do so," he declared.
U.S. and Israeli intelligence staff are said to take
the current growing MAD status between Iran and Israel
as seriously as it was taken during the cold war
period. If both parties continue taking it seriously a
major war in the Middle East might be avoided.
Meanwhile, the 16 agency US intelligence community
continues perhaps its most pressing assigned task and
that is of developing the capacity for the U.S. to
block Israel's triggering a nuclear weapon.
Franklin Lamb is doing research in Lebanon and is
reachable c/o fplamb@gmail.com
©
EsinIslam.Com
Add Comments