+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Israel should consider the Arab response to a military strike on Iran

In 1981, the Arab world accepted passively Israel’s strike on Iraq’s nuclear reactor. Today’s Middle East is a very different place. Young revolutionaries have broken through the fear barrier, political Islamism is on the rise and  the Arab uprisings are ongoing. All these developments would have implications if Israel were to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.

By Nervana Mahmoud

On 7June 1981, Israel attacked and destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak. That was the day the Arabs lost their nuclear ambition.

The code name was, Operation Opera, but the opera wasn’t Nabucco and its chorus of Hebrew slaves, but rather Aida and its triumphal march. The Israelis had managed to catch everyone by surprise, and the result was a perfect example of Sun Tzu’s philosophy and Donald Rumsfeld’s infamous slogan “shock and awe.”

As Israel seeks to reaffirm its long-term strategy of deterrence and pre-emption 30 years later, we are facing a similar scenario; but this time it is the Iranians’ turn. The world is pre-occupied with the possible military strike against Iran and its potential risks and benefits. However, very few have considered the implications for the Arab world and how the Arab street would respond to such an attack.

There is no doubt that predictions in such crises are unwise and even foolish, though there are some realities in the Arab world that would be unlikely to change regardless of the outcome of any military scenario, even if this outcome were decisive, successful and without any retaliation.

First, forget the shock: in contrast to 1981, when many Arabs didn’t know about Saddam’s nuclear reactor and those who knew didn’t expect it to be destroyed easily, the endless debate and the tough rhetoric from various Israeli leaders have eliminated any element of surprise this time round.  Even my taxi driver in Cairo, during my last visit, asked when –not if —  Israel would bomb Iran.

Second, forget the awe: The young Arab men and women who defied teargas, live ammunition, bombing and ruthless murderers are very different from earlier Arab generations. They were not deterred by dictators; and they won’t be frightened by an Israeli strike on Iran. Deterrence, a policy that has been ingrained in the psyche of Israel since its establishment, is detested by these fearless youth who view it as demeaning and counter-productive.

Third, the Islamic awakening: Islamists in many Arab countries are the new emerging power. They have fewer links with Iran, but share its hostility to Israel. Their sponsors in the Gulf States would probably be relieved if Iran lost its nuclear capabilities but would not be grateful to the Israelis and won’t change their ideology accordingly.

Fourth, old players won’t disappear. A defeated Iran would certainly weaken its allies in the region, but would not make them vanish from the scene. In Lebanon, Hezbollah has established itself firmly with a robust financial, economical and social network. The Party of God might abandon the Almighty, but would not disarm and can cause Israel an incurable migraine.

Any successful attack on Iran would be just like the one on Osirak- a Pyrrhic victory.  Following the initial “we did it again” celebration, Israel would soon realize that it had replaced a loud, reckless, distant enemy with one located geographically closer, equally hostile, but not as reckless. Islamic groups in the Arab world acknowledge their inability to fight Israel in the near future, but they haven’t dropped the idea from their long-term agenda- yet!

The era of easy territorial conquest is past. Any future war would be urban, with many potential non-conventional players involved. Sooner or later, Israel would be forced to revise its long–standing strategy.

For years, Arabs and Jews have been locked in a bitter conflict. Rather than focusing on a viable solution, both sides have invested so much in a meaningless cycle of deterrence versus resistance; neither concept is decisive, but both are hollow. Therefore, the conflict is likely to continue until someone is brave enough to break the futile cycle and invent a different wheel, hopefully a peaceful one this time.

Nervana Mahmoud is a British-Egyptian anesthesiologist and a Middle East analyst. She blogs at Nervana and tweets at @nervana_1.  

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. AIG

      Not convincing whatsoever. The Islamists will hate Israel whether or not we attack Iran and won’t base their plans on whether we attack Iran or not.

      Furthermore, I hope the writer understands that if the plan of the Islamists is to fight Israel, we would be justified in bringing the war to them. So they better be very careful about what their position is.

      Reply to Comment
    2. Henry Weinstein

      Heil AIG

      Reply to Comment
    3. zayzafuna

      If Iran bring the right of return of Palestinians, we will convert to Shia Islam

      Reply to Comment
    4. Piotr Berman

      It really seems that the only purpose of the uranium enrichment program is a diversion/trap. To begin with, the assets that Iran may loose in a bombing are probably not worth much, unless Israeli government goes bonkers and attacks, say, port facilities. Some of these assets exists ONLY to make difficult targets, buried in a mountain and probably surrounded by air defenses, but apparently with rather few centrifuges.

      In attacking, Israel would defy USA and all big allies in Europe, so diplomatic position “one day after” will be pretty bad. This would prompt “one shot” strategy, which is tricky: normally there would be separate waves of attack to disable air defenses followed by bombing of actual targets. Electronic warfare has countermeasures familiar to Iranians who intercepted “stealth” drone of Americans. In a very complicated large scale actions things go wrong, planes are lost. Iranians will declare victory and defiance, and with bad luck for IDF, they may have a convincing case.

      There is a huge chance that one way or another attack on Iran will be followed by an exchange of fire with Hezbollah and possibly Syria. Both would prefer Israel as initiator/aggressor. Before the dust would settle, a major part of the port and industial zone of Haifa may be heavily damaged.

      Israel clearly has more powerful weapons and will prevail, but with a start on very bad diplomatic footing, she may be forced into early ceasefire, with the doctrine of defense through retaliation with missile fire being validated.

      The point is that there is large risk that it would not be even a Pyrrhic victory.

      The risk for Iran is that this expensive bait will not take. Hence the speeches on toothless barking. But if Netanyahu talks himself hoarse and does not attack, Iran will gain some credibility.

      Reply to Comment