The specter of war in the Middle East is a constant one, but for the first time in many years, the symptoms are ripe for more than the occasional police action or civil unrest. Many players in the Middle East have reason for a war this summer, and here's why.
Israel
Israel believes they face a threat to their existence and future as a Jewish state from a nuclear-armed Iran. The main threat is not the specific one of being nuked into the sea, but of the brain drain that would result, inevitably, from the idea that they could be nuked into the sea. For examples of this, you can look at virtually any brewing war and immigration trends. Before war, or the idea of war, the intelligentsia and wealthy are the first to leave. German scientists like Einstein fled the Nazis, while Enrico Fermi fled Italy during Mussolini's takeover. The great brain drain from the Soviet Union in the 1950's through Berlin led to the creation of the Berlin Wall; throughout time, when war's in the making, the people with skills and money get somewhere safe. That's a lifelong threat to the existence of a Jewish state; that they would be left without the intelligent people which prop up any economy, weakening them progressively.
Thus Israel is not bluffing when they declare they will not allow Iran to get to the "point of no return", which is when they can no longer prevent the construction of an Iranian bomb. If Israel believes that a decision must be reached between attacking Iran directly or tolerating a nuclear Iran, they will choose the former.
A nuclear-armed Iran also means a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia and possibly a nuclear-armed Egypt. The immediate response to being under a nuclear threat from their regional rival would be to purchase a nuclear capacity, and the Saudis have the means to do that. There are also people who have the ability to sell that capacity; see, Pakistan, who would also not be terribly happy to see a nuclear-armed Iran. Israel is about as happy about a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia as they are a nuclear-armed Iran, and the same goes for Egypt, who may or may not currently have the ability to buy a nuclear capacity, what with their economy and political situation in shambles.
As they have in Syria and earlier Iraq, Israel will launch first-strike attacks to cripple an adversary's nuclear capacity. Iran presents a much more difficult target, but Israel will be willing to shoulder the short-term cost in money and lives in order to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.
Iran
The motive of Iran's rulers, like any autocratic ruler, is to maintain power. The world has learned from the examples of Pakistan and North Korea- the world superpowers are squeamish about attacking a nuclear armed country. Nuclear capacity effectively means protection from invasion and overt attack. With that protection, the ruling class only has to protect from revolt from within. Soviet Russia did it for almost four decades after they got the bomb, China's doing quite well at it now. North Korea shows no signs of stopping; merely signs of torches being passed.
Iran's major interests are served by acquiring a nuclear-missile, or having the capability to quickly produce one. Declaring that they are working on that ability opens them to immediate assault and loss of protection from their patrons, Russia and China. Thus, they tread a line of looking for a nuclear energy capacity.
First conclusion- The main players involved have no reason to change their current courses, and more reason to attack each other than listen to their superpower sponsors.
The Definite Actions If War Breaks Out
People are terrified of an arms race in the Middle East simply because there are so many possibilities that a definite course could not possibly be plotted. There is a basic shape to how the opening days of a Middle East war would play out however. The possibility begins to change rapidly depending on the actions taken by each player.
The first action would be an air strike on Iran by fighter-bombers, drones, and possibly cruise missiles, targeting nuclear sites, radar installations, and retaliation capacity. Israel would commit no ground troops into Iran, as seizing territory would not be an objective for them, and the Iranian army drastically outnumbers the Israeli army. Technology wins wars, but not if you get into foolish engagements. The idea of a first-strike Israeli attack would be to cripple Iranian nuclear capacity for years, in one strike. Israel cannot afford to leave Iran with the opportunity to scavenge parts of their nuclear program; the idea will be to cause as much damage as quickly as possible. This attack would likely not be joined by any US kinetic assets, but we would almost certainly provide assistance from our intelligence assets (satellite, radar, espionage, etc.).
We can count on Iran to respond through Hezbollah and Hamas, and there will be an escalation of the intifada. This is a risk Israel would be willing to accept. Iran would also likely respond through unofficial asymmetric assets, like state terrorism against Israel's allies. The rest of what they would do depends on how well Israel's first strike went.
Where Things Get Iffy
The key to this war- whether it will be another successful Israeli first strike, or whether it will be a prolonged war- will depend on how successful Israel is in attacking Iran's retaliation capacity. This means Iran's air force bases and their cruise missile installations. Iran isn't able to march a land army to Israel, and a lot of people who surround them would be just fine with an Israeli attack.
If Israel's first strike is successful, Iran will quietly capitulate. The price of oil will spike- alarmingly- but will settle as investors realize that the short-term risks in the region are small. It won't be a permanent solution, but we've been living without permanent solutions in the Middle East since 1948.
If Israel isn't completely successful in their attack on Iran, here's what Iran can respond by doing. There are 40 United States bases within missile range of Iranian missiles, which would certainly be attacked if Iran had the ability. We aren't in the position to execute a prolonged war against Iran right now, and their leaders understand that. The risk from direct invasion from the United States is a real one, but a small one. The only reason Iran's rulers would refrain from attacking the United States is if they felt the loss of political prestige (not a small item) from not attacking was less painful than the United States' response. You can rebuild military sites, it's what they're designed for.
Israel, to say the least, would get a very severe test of their anti-missile system.
Iran would also respond, if able, by attacking battleships in the Strait of Hormuz, in an attempt to bottle up world commerce and reduce the duration of a war. Increased oil prices would benefit them in a long war, oil being their primary export. They would be able to find buyers eventually; buyers in Russia, China, India, and other countries are hard at work finding ways to transfer oil in currencies other than the dollar, and they will be able to do that without much time going by.
This is the scary situation, because no one can really have any idea what happens next. Does Iran attempt to draw Saudi Arabia into a regional war? How would Israel respond to a counter-strike? These are major X-factors, but all of them result in pick-your-price oil this summer.
Israel has all the motivation to attack Iran, who has no motivation to stop the activity that Israel will attack them for. Both sides believe they can eventually "win" (achieve their ultimate goals) through their present course. Since these courses are directly opposing, you can bet your bottom dollar that conflict will result in war.
Israel
Israel believes they face a threat to their existence and future as a Jewish state from a nuclear-armed Iran. The main threat is not the specific one of being nuked into the sea, but of the brain drain that would result, inevitably, from the idea that they could be nuked into the sea. For examples of this, you can look at virtually any brewing war and immigration trends. Before war, or the idea of war, the intelligentsia and wealthy are the first to leave. German scientists like Einstein fled the Nazis, while Enrico Fermi fled Italy during Mussolini's takeover. The great brain drain from the Soviet Union in the 1950's through Berlin led to the creation of the Berlin Wall; throughout time, when war's in the making, the people with skills and money get somewhere safe. That's a lifelong threat to the existence of a Jewish state; that they would be left without the intelligent people which prop up any economy, weakening them progressively.
Thus Israel is not bluffing when they declare they will not allow Iran to get to the "point of no return", which is when they can no longer prevent the construction of an Iranian bomb. If Israel believes that a decision must be reached between attacking Iran directly or tolerating a nuclear Iran, they will choose the former.
A nuclear-armed Iran also means a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia and possibly a nuclear-armed Egypt. The immediate response to being under a nuclear threat from their regional rival would be to purchase a nuclear capacity, and the Saudis have the means to do that. There are also people who have the ability to sell that capacity; see, Pakistan, who would also not be terribly happy to see a nuclear-armed Iran. Israel is about as happy about a nuclear-armed Saudi Arabia as they are a nuclear-armed Iran, and the same goes for Egypt, who may or may not currently have the ability to buy a nuclear capacity, what with their economy and political situation in shambles.
As they have in Syria and earlier Iraq, Israel will launch first-strike attacks to cripple an adversary's nuclear capacity. Iran presents a much more difficult target, but Israel will be willing to shoulder the short-term cost in money and lives in order to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.
Iran
The motive of Iran's rulers, like any autocratic ruler, is to maintain power. The world has learned from the examples of Pakistan and North Korea- the world superpowers are squeamish about attacking a nuclear armed country. Nuclear capacity effectively means protection from invasion and overt attack. With that protection, the ruling class only has to protect from revolt from within. Soviet Russia did it for almost four decades after they got the bomb, China's doing quite well at it now. North Korea shows no signs of stopping; merely signs of torches being passed.
Iran's major interests are served by acquiring a nuclear-missile, or having the capability to quickly produce one. Declaring that they are working on that ability opens them to immediate assault and loss of protection from their patrons, Russia and China. Thus, they tread a line of looking for a nuclear energy capacity.
First conclusion- The main players involved have no reason to change their current courses, and more reason to attack each other than listen to their superpower sponsors.
The Definite Actions If War Breaks Out
People are terrified of an arms race in the Middle East simply because there are so many possibilities that a definite course could not possibly be plotted. There is a basic shape to how the opening days of a Middle East war would play out however. The possibility begins to change rapidly depending on the actions taken by each player.
The first action would be an air strike on Iran by fighter-bombers, drones, and possibly cruise missiles, targeting nuclear sites, radar installations, and retaliation capacity. Israel would commit no ground troops into Iran, as seizing territory would not be an objective for them, and the Iranian army drastically outnumbers the Israeli army. Technology wins wars, but not if you get into foolish engagements. The idea of a first-strike Israeli attack would be to cripple Iranian nuclear capacity for years, in one strike. Israel cannot afford to leave Iran with the opportunity to scavenge parts of their nuclear program; the idea will be to cause as much damage as quickly as possible. This attack would likely not be joined by any US kinetic assets, but we would almost certainly provide assistance from our intelligence assets (satellite, radar, espionage, etc.).
We can count on Iran to respond through Hezbollah and Hamas, and there will be an escalation of the intifada. This is a risk Israel would be willing to accept. Iran would also likely respond through unofficial asymmetric assets, like state terrorism against Israel's allies. The rest of what they would do depends on how well Israel's first strike went.
Where Things Get Iffy
The key to this war- whether it will be another successful Israeli first strike, or whether it will be a prolonged war- will depend on how successful Israel is in attacking Iran's retaliation capacity. This means Iran's air force bases and their cruise missile installations. Iran isn't able to march a land army to Israel, and a lot of people who surround them would be just fine with an Israeli attack.
If Israel's first strike is successful, Iran will quietly capitulate. The price of oil will spike- alarmingly- but will settle as investors realize that the short-term risks in the region are small. It won't be a permanent solution, but we've been living without permanent solutions in the Middle East since 1948.
If Israel isn't completely successful in their attack on Iran, here's what Iran can respond by doing. There are 40 United States bases within missile range of Iranian missiles, which would certainly be attacked if Iran had the ability. We aren't in the position to execute a prolonged war against Iran right now, and their leaders understand that. The risk from direct invasion from the United States is a real one, but a small one. The only reason Iran's rulers would refrain from attacking the United States is if they felt the loss of political prestige (not a small item) from not attacking was less painful than the United States' response. You can rebuild military sites, it's what they're designed for.
Israel, to say the least, would get a very severe test of their anti-missile system.
Iran would also respond, if able, by attacking battleships in the Strait of Hormuz, in an attempt to bottle up world commerce and reduce the duration of a war. Increased oil prices would benefit them in a long war, oil being their primary export. They would be able to find buyers eventually; buyers in Russia, China, India, and other countries are hard at work finding ways to transfer oil in currencies other than the dollar, and they will be able to do that without much time going by.
This is the scary situation, because no one can really have any idea what happens next. Does Iran attempt to draw Saudi Arabia into a regional war? How would Israel respond to a counter-strike? These are major X-factors, but all of them result in pick-your-price oil this summer.
Israel has all the motivation to attack Iran, who has no motivation to stop the activity that Israel will attack them for. Both sides believe they can eventually "win" (achieve their ultimate goals) through their present course. Since these courses are directly opposing, you can bet your bottom dollar that conflict will result in war.