Israel vs Iran: Considering The Risks

   During the last months, a number of scenarios were created, regarding the statements of possible attack against Iran, made by Israeli officials. When these plans were initially revealed, it was considered by most as a threatening tactic aiming to some results. First of all, to send a warning to Iran in order to realize that its persistence to continue the classified nuclear program was provoking the international nuclear warfare stability. Second, to direct West’s attention to the Islamic Republic’s possible nuclear weapons plans, indirectly asking for urgent international action. On the other hand, not many were the ones that considered Israel’s threat as a realistic one.

   However, as the time goes by, the statements regarding an attack against Iranian nuclear targets are far from toning down, increasing the likelihood of an action like this to take place. It is important to understand that concerning its words’ reliability and international prestige, Israel may getting close -or has already passed- the point of no return. Passing this point may mean that the planned attack is unavoidable, or else Israel will show weakness and lack of determination.

   Although, since a counter-attack of Iran is more than certain to follow strikes launched by Israel, the progress and the outcome of a possible conflict must be taken under consideration. United States do not seem so willing to get involved in another war, especially in Middle East, so Israel may not have its most important ally by its side. Moreover, Iran has quite effective anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense systems, and despite the quality and ability of the Israeli Air Force, the Islamic Republic, estimating the -expressed- hostility of many capable enemies, has created a powerful shield to protect the precious nuclear secrets. By the same way of thinking, the constantly and publicly expressed dissatisfaction about its uranium enrichment program, has certainly led the Iran decision-makers to the “fortification” of the nuclear facilities, possibly rendering them capable to withstand heavy air strikes. Of course, the ability of Iran striking back is far from debatable, and even if Israel’s defense system has high capability, it cannot guarantee 100 percent success intercepting a rain of ballistic missiles from the enraged Iran.

   It is very important to realize that until today, the secretiveness was the main characteristic of any defense and weapon program of the Islamic Republic. Therefore, there is a possibility of Iranian Armed Forces to already possess Weapons of Mass Destruction, including nuclear bombs that are not so unlikely to have been developed under the shadows of mysticism in the fully equipped laboratories. This scenario, has to be taken under serious consideration and if proven valid, the main tactic of Israel and the West, regarding the nuclear deterrence issue, should be the approach expressed by General Andre Beaufre, who thought that within a nuclear scenario, the military action must be avoided; victory should be achieved by eliminating the enemy through indirect actions and ways.

Initially posted by Giorgos Dimitriadis on The Pryer, UK.

Iran Boosting Assad's Morale

   Alliances has always been an important fact that defined the determination and the morale of an army. Warlords who know that their moves and decisions are backed by third nations perceive this support as an approval of their actions and have, at some scale, the security to go on; from the soldiers' point of view, this support boosts their morale through the sense that there is a power that may provide assistance to them, and justify their struggle.

   During the civil conflict that started in March 2011 in Syria, alliances to both sides have been an issue of discussion in diplomatic circles and international security councils. Nations and international organizations have been involved, siding either with President Bashar Al-Assad or the opposition and the Free Syrian Army, in direct or indirect ways.

   One critical supporter of the Syrian Arab Republic government is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Support to President Assad have repeatedly been expressed by Iranian diplomats and officials, however, the Islamic Republic denied the accusations concerning any military support to the regime, at least until now. To some point, it seems reasonable for Iran, which is dominated by the Twelver Shia branch of Islam, to support an Alawite (Alawites also follow a branch of Twelver school of Shia) leader who fights against a revolutionary army mainly consisting of Sunnis. Even during the clashes in Aleppo, top Iranian officials visited the regime leader.

   President Bashar Al-Assad considers the support from Iran to be crucial in his efforts to establish his power in Syria again. He is aware that there are nations that wish to see him fall, like United States, the nations of European Union, Israel, Turkey, and many more. But what he also knows is that Iran is a considerable power in the wider region. The Islamic Republic keeps an offensive stance towards the West and most of Assad's out-of-the-borders foes, long before the Syrian Uprising. Combining this aggression with a capable war machine and a classified nuclear programme not allowed to be subject to any international control, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appears to be a dangerous enemy to confront, possibly an enemy with no moral limits, able to even use his nuclear arsenal to prevail. And as Carl Von Klausewitz mentions in his work "On War", the one who uses the power with no mercy, will gain an advantage towards his enemy. Westerners may think twice before coming face to face with Iran in favor of Syria; a military intervention could give Ahmadinejad the excuse to move against them, on the side of Assad, something that may lead to a wider, dangerous,  maybe catastrophic for many,  collision.

   The regime President, backed up by a nuclear, unconventional ally, can foresee the skeptical moves and decisions of the  West against him, so he keeps on fighting his war. His army, have not only their morale boosted by this alliance, but also an indirect assistance, since according to sources, Iran specialists have already been sent in Syria, training militia and special paramilitary groups in order to provide the regime's Syrian Army with support and some rest after the 18 months of fighting.

   However, every situation has its limits, and Assad has to realise that a single big ally, no matter how supportive to you, and dangerous to the rest may appear, does not render a de facto sense of security, especially when this ally is a nation always pending to deal with its own defense, security and military issues.

India Ballistic Missile Program Goes On

Agni-II during a parade in India.

   Once more, a successful trial launch of ballistic missile took place in India, and specifically on Wheeler island (Bay of Bengal), within the country's efforts to upgrade its efficiency in nuclear deterrence. As director of Integrated Test Range, M. V. K. V. Prasad said, this user trial that was carried out by army personnel, was 100 percent successful.

   The medium-range missile that was tested, was Agni-II, part of the Agni series that are manufactured in India. Agni-II operational range is 2,000 to 3,000 kilometers, which means it is able to fully cover South Asia, almost all Southeast and East Asia, and part of the Middle East. Of course, the range totally covers the Indian Ocean. Agni-II was first tested in 1999 and since then, is in service, exclusively used by the Indian Army. Its warhead capability is 1,000 kg, and although it is compatible with different types, the strategic nuclear of 15 to 250 kilotons is the most important to be mentioned. The latest version of Agni-II is powered by a solid rocket propellant system, has an accuracy of 30 meters and is guided by an advanced command and control center.

Agni missile series range. (illustration by M. Phoenix)

   India seems determined to ensure and possibly strengthen its position among the nations equipped with nuclear weapons. The ballistic missiles were built mainly having Pakistan and China in mind, the main rivals of India. The entire Agni series is able to strike anywhere in Pakistan and most of the series' missiles are also able to cover the entire Chinese territory. Although Indian officials have repeatedly emphasized the nation's strict "no first strike" policy, the regional arms competition is a fact, mostly among India and the aforementioned two states. On the other hand, U.S. seems to be quite undisturbed by the Indian nuclear program, possibly due to the choice of New Delhi not to manufacture missiles with range over 5,000 km, in order not to ring any alarm bells in Washington.

   Right now, India is the sixth nation with an intercontinental ballistic missile capability, following United States, Russian Federation, People's Republic of China, Great Britain and France.