Israeli-Iran Conflict - Research Paper Example

Does The Israeli-Iran Conflict Pose A Security Threat To The U.S? Insert Insert Grade Insert 10th November Introduction History has it that good relations between Israel and Iran ended since the Islamic revolution during the Pahlavi dynasty. The Iranians refers to Israel as the occupied territories and not as otherwise an independent country. Fears heightened between the two countries (The Islamic republican of Iran and the State of Israel) after the Iranian election that saw Mahmud Ahmadinejad come into power in 2005. Controversies arose on the development of nuclear technology in Iran and also on the operations of two controversial groups; Hezbollah and Hamas. Hamas is an organization committed to destroy Israel by Jihad and according to the authority she receives her financial support from Iran. Hezbollah, on the other hand, is a militant organization that receives her financial, diplomatic, training, explosives weapons and organizational aid from Iran with her main agenda to harm Israel. According to centre for strategic and international studies, Iran is not only posing a security threat to Israel and her neighbors but to the U.S too. Therefore, this research paper is meant to answer the question, “Does the Israeli-Iran conflict pose a security threat to the U.S?” A wide range of threats are evident with the current nuclear production in Iran that includes even asymmetric warfare. Iran acts strategically in this conflict and by gaining her support from Iraq and Afghanistan, she posses even a greater threat to other countries. Global economy runs at a risk if Iran would target the Gulf area, which is the main hub of all petroleum exports to global market. Thus, the Iran-Israeli conflict puts into picture other players such as the United States, Iraq and the southern gulf (Cordesman, 2011, 1). Israel has threatened to strike the nuclear energy plants in Iran for what she calls a bleach of the policy of international sanctions, in which Iran was prohibited from furthering her nuclear weapon production. This was confirmed by a report released by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on 14 September 2012 (Racimora, 2012, 1). Unconfirmed rumors indicate that Israel might be planning a preemptive air strike to the nuclear states in Iran. Much has been speculated on a possible collaboration of Israel and the United States in the preemptive strike mission. This has been discussed in details, spilling over even to the recent presidential polls in the U.S. Speculations showed a possible erupt of a war between the two countries during this time and this was a key campaign issue over the two presidential contenders; Mitt Romney and the newly elected president Barrack Obama. As superpowers, Israel and the U.S explain fears of Iranian activities in nuclear energy that this poses a security threat not only to the individual countries but also to the entire globe at large. Israel fears a heightened tension to her citizens owing to the already existing conflict between the two countries and she feels threatened by Iran operated nuclear plants. However, questions run parallel in a possible production of nuclear weapons by even Israel. This has not yet been confirmed with the Israelian government keeping it a secret. Ehud Barrack, the defense minister to Israel, justifies the mission to strike the Iranian nuclear states saying that given time Iran is about to advance to a state of ‘strike immunity’. This is because she is gradually building up her military power and already the international communities are slow to combat her nuclear activities. He says the only right time to stop her activities is now because she has failed to honor international regulations in nuclear activities. Nevertheless, the U.S is reluctant to buy the idea giving the reason that Iran needs time in order to adopt with the economic sanctions put to her. This, however, according to Ehud will simply give her time to plan counters and this would ultimately make her such a pre-emptive strike proof. Weaponized Iran will certainly be a security threat to Israel and United States. However, policy makers should be aware that military strike would have even greater effects to the two nations at large. Thus, the strike should be the last option to be adopted. Literature Review Regional rivalry has in the recent past invaded Israel and Iran posing a risk of regional military warfare. The two countries perceive each other a rival with each country laying blame on the other. Much research has been done in regard to the looming conflict between the two countries, ranging from direct causes of the conflicts, possible outcomes and possible resolution mechanisms to this conflict. The following are major works cited in regard to this conflict. An article by the RAND Corporation has researched on the political, strategic and ideological accusations to each country and the accompanying implications to the United States regional interests. The paper studied to detail the strategic ideological and political state of threat perception for each other and their possible repercussions to the U.S regional interest. The article found out that the Israel-Iranian conflict has a potential to lead to military conflict. This in effect appeared to have a direct impact to the U.S regional interests with the two countries. Prospects of a future military conflict may be encouraged by the emergence of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. In an effort to thwart the Iranian efforts in nuclear development, Israel might opt to use a pre-emptive air strike to the nuclear cities in Iran. Matters are even perceived to be worsening after Iran supported Hezbollah and Hamas reached Israel’s border at Lebanon and Gaza. This in effect is perceived by analysts as a possible threat to alarm Israel and mitigate the pre-emptive strike (Kaye et al, 2011, 1-3). The study therefore found out that the U.S is strategically placed on the receiving side should the war emerge and thus has a strategic role to play in solving the looming conflict in order to escape the outcome. There are many reports that have been published speculating a possible invasion of the Iranian nuclear industries as a pre-emptive measure to stop Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapons. A report from a research carried out by the congressional research service on the key factors that may influence the decision of Israel as whether to conduct a strike to Iran found out the following; that top security personnel in Israel are contemplating an air strike to Iran citing the reason as the production of destructive weapons by Iran. They argue that a weapon loaded Iran is a great threat to the security of Israel and her counterparts. Israel decision on whether to conduct the strike lies on the views of the country as a republic, the opinions and relationships among the leaders, the regional and international views and the stake of the United States into the matter. The research found that the resultant effects of the war might be far much subtle than any that have ever been. This is not only to the two countries involved but also to the regional players such as the U.S as a whole (Zanotti et al. 2012, 1,56). Thus, the report just as the previous one by Kaye, equally puts the U.S into the picture where she might suffer the consequences of the looming conflict. The threats perceived in the looming conflict lands at a point where a possible exchange of the controversial nuclear weapons may be inevitable. It is perceived that this position may be even ‘more critical’ than the situation at hand. An assumption that Iran has fully operationized nuclear weapons leaves the civilians in the two countries at the worst position could a war emerge. In their study, Toukan and group sought to examine the major effects that would befall the civilians in the region could a missile war erupt. Other Middle East countries such as Damascus and Jordan are equally under threat could a conflict erupt. In the article, they found out that an air strike by Israel would have profound consequences not only to the two countries but also to neighboring countries. There are high chances of a missile missing its flight path and landing on a wrong destination and thus posing a great threat to the innocent civilians in the region. This is not limited to the U.S civilians who work and live around here (Toukan et al. 2009, 3). Observers site possible retaliation of such a strike by Israel to Iran by Iranian sympathizers such as Middle East and the Sunni Arabs. At the moment, sympathy groups such as the Hezbollah continue to harden the Iranian decisions against the efforts of Israel to strike her. It is speculated that any strike by Israel would justify the operations of Iran on nuclear weapon production for her own security. This would be indeed understood by the general international community and as a consequence, Iran would intensify her efforts in nuclear dealings. Iran has a history of taking revenge whenever attacked from the outside world. Speculations are that she might retaliate almost immediately to such an attack from Israel with missiles and airstrikes. This would in essence prevent further planned attacks by Israel. Although with uncertainty, Iran would possibly attack her rival’s nuclear sites so as to target even the U.S. Another way that is presumed a vital revenge mode from Iran is by striking the Israel supporters such as the U.S. This is critical as it heightens the U.S fears of security threat should the conflict ensue as found out by a research carried out by Eisenstadt this year. The study sought to analyze Iran’s possible response to the pre-emptive airstrike by Israel. Key findings were that indeed Iran has been prepared over years over the response to such an airstrike by Israel. The country plans to retaliate by striking Israel as a nation and her nuclear plants at Dimana and also target the supporters of Israel in the mission such as the U.S (Eisenstadt et al, 2012, 1-5). This study therefore equally adds up to the previous studies that a pre-emptive strike would indeed threaten the U.S security. Israel Prime Minister over a recent interview with “Valdai International Discussion club” in a research named, “Israel, Iran and Nuclear Ambitions” admits that Iran has failed to comply with international laws prohibiting her from nuclear weapon development. He, therefore, confidently argues that there only remains one way to combat the development and that is by use of military power. This, however, seems to attract a lot of concerns on the possible retaliation measures to be taken by Iran. The greatest of the concerns remains to be how the international community and more so the U.S will be affected and react to a possible preemptive strike to the nuclear plants by Israel. Analysts, however, argue that the United States may suffer a security threat over all these looming conflicts. The interview found out that unlike in the other cases outlined above, Netanyahu- the Israel Prime minister - is sure that the pre-emptive strike will pose no threat to the U.S security. A threat is only possible if the reaction of Iran would target the U.S citizens (MAGEN, 2012, 1-2). Therefore according to the findings, the reaction of Iran is the only determinant to a possible security threat to the U.S It is a fundamental requirement of article II of the constitution of United States that the president safeguards and faithfully executes the law. Treaties are equally treated as part of the supreme law of the nation. This provision permits the state to adopt methods of self-defense including the military force in responding to an armed attack. However, a preemptive attack is to be considered as a different matter in this regard (Ackerman, 2012, LA Times). In conclusion, earlier studies have been carried out on the looming war between Iran and Israel. Many speculations are that indeed such a conflict would certainly threaten the U.S. However, there are still those studies that oppose to the feeling and think that U. S is far from consequences of such a strike. It is in this disparity that our study still focuses on verifying the possible threat set about if there is any of such a pre-emptive strike to Iran by Israel. Theoretical Framework This section analyses some conflict related theories and explains their part in the conflict in question; the Israeli-Iran conflict. For instance, in the 1960’s, Schelling studied accidental wars. He put forward the theory of accidental wars where he asserted that “accidents do not create war, decisions cause wars.” He defined an accidental war as a conflict that is not actually triggered by the parties involved but by an accident. None of the parties could as well control the conflict. The positive and constructive methods of handling differences are referred to as conflict management. This advocates on methods bringing opposing sides in a difference on to one side by the use of a cooperative process. The theory of social constructivism focuses on human awareness on world affairs. It is an international relations theorem that focuses on how balances of power between countries or states are defined by the distribution of materials, economic capabilities and military power. In our case, the theory applies in the analysis of each country engaging her rival on matters of military empowerment. From the theory of constructivism, this research intends to establish the relationship between the reason of conflict between Israel and Iran and how this may influence the security of the United States. Key factors that are coming up clear are the nuclear development as a security threat to both Israel and the U.S. The Game theory as used in conflict management studies the gains against possible losses on outcome by any action taken from any party. In our scenario, the game theory would evaluate the gains to be realized by Israel taking the lead to conduct the strike against the losses to be incurred by Iran. On the other side, accompanying consequences are expected both to Iran and to Israel in the point of retaliation. The game theory will analyze the possible alternatives involved and the outcomes commonly referred to as payoffs. However, the theory has one weakness; it does not take into account third parties and in this case the United States. This limits our study from adopting it. B (Bjørn Møller, “Conflict Theory” table 6, 28.) Marxist Social Conflict Theory This is a theory on conflict that buys a lot from Marxism line of thinking. From Karl Marx, there always exist two classes of people in the society, the poor and the rich. The rich are generally perceived to be more powerful and thus take the credit to exert ruler-ship or oppression to the poor or the less powerful. From the theory, societies which are powerful take the advantage to oppress the weak and this apply in the case scenario where Israel perceives herself superior to Iran and hence contemplates to ruin her efforts to nuclear development. However, the theory also has a short fall in that it does not have a place for the third party. This limits the Marxist theory in our case. Prospect Theory of Risk Aversion The prospects theorem describes how a decision maker takes into consideration the outcomes to any decision arrived at from a certain reference point. However, the reference point usually depends on some factors that are typically irrelevant to the common utility theory. Unlike the utility theorem, prospects theory is a bit ambiguous in that it is not specific and how a party reaches a decision is not factual. The theory therefore concludes that in the absence of an interval scale for the goal in question then defining the risk attitude is not possible. Our analysis mostly fits the prospect theory as it explains risk aversion in such conflict scenarios (Barry, 2001, 8-9) Research Design and Methods: The research aims at verifying possible speculations of security threat to the U.S should the Israel-Iran conflict persist. The research will target to analyze the views of different players, and of importance, the U.S citizens living in Israel, Iran, the United States itself and also the larger of Middle East countries. The study of U.S citizens will be carried out by sampling method. Sampling procedure is most appropriate as it is less costly compared to other methods of data collection. By sampling the population of United States citizens living in the outlined areas, we are able to get first hand information on the possible feelings and opinions of the citizens. Other target groups for the sampling procedure would be the policy makers and the governments of the countries; Israel, Iran, the United States and other Middle East countries. Targeting other regions for the sampling would bring about lots of biasness as most people would give opinions as opposed to facts. Data would be collected from primary sources by the use of questionnaires. Open ended questionnaires would target high population areas as other methods such as online surveys would target relatively isolated residents. Historical evidence collected from past publications, researches and surveys would also serve as secondary data. Data analysis would follow with the following hypotheses guiding the conclusions. Possible hypothesis would be: Ho: Israel-Iran conflict has no security threats to the U.S H1: Israel-Iran conflict is posing a great security threat to the U.S By analyzing the responses, conclusions are to be deducted by comparing them to a predefined scale to what the likelihood of the threat is evident. Conclusion Israel and Iran are not natural rivals. They have no territorial disputes and do not compete economically. The Islamic revolution, however, created a rivalry that has served the Iranian regimes political and foreign policy interests. This rivalry, on the other hand, has the potential of negatively spilling over to other third party countries such as the U.S. This study, therefore, sets out to identify and analyze the likelihood that the Israeli-Iran conflict would have any tangible effect to the United States. Reference List Abdullah, Toukan and Anthony, Cordesman. “Iran, Israel and the Effects of a nuclear Conflict in the Middle East” Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2009. Ackerman, Bruce. “A Pre-emptive Strike against Iran would violate both U.S. and International law”, 2012 (accessed November 9, 2012). Barry, O’Neill. “Risk Aversion in International Relations Theory”, Center for International Security and Cooperation. Stanford: Stanford University, 2001. Bjørn, Møller. “Conflict Theory” Institute for History, International and Social Studies, 2003, 28. Cordersman, Anthony. “US, Gulf and Israeli Perspectives of the Threat from Iran.” ESISC (accessed November 10, 2012). Dalia Dassa Kaye, Alireza Nader, and Parisa, Roshan. “Israel and Iran A Dangerous Rivalry.” Rand, 2011. MAGEN, Zvi. “Israel, Iran and Nuclear Ambitions.” Fostering A Global Dialogue About Russia, 2012. (accessed November 9, 2012). Michael, Eisenstadt and Michael Knights. “Beyond Worst-Case Analysis Iran’s Likely Responses to an Israeli Preventive Strike.” POLICY NOTES, 2012. (accessed November 9, 2012). Racimora, William. “Israel-Iran, a War in the Making” ESISC, 2012. (accessed November 10, 2012). Zanotti Jim, Kenneth Katzman, Jeremiah Gertler, and Steven Hildreth. “Israel: Possible Military Strike Against Iran’s Nuclear Facilities” CRS Report for Congress 2012.(accessed November 10, 2012). Read More