Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies hosted this elaborate wargame that saw participation from senior Israeli policymakers and experts acting as the major players. Unsurprisingly, they all stuck to their prior policy positions. Iran stood by its right to produce uranium for peaceful purposes as long as regime stability was unchallenged, the US in the end grudgingly accepted Tehran's ambitions without resorting to violence and the Israeli's felt ever more estranged from their American ally.
Even after an Israeli commando raid on one of the nuclear installations in Iran, the political dynamics didn't fundamentally change even though Haaretz reported "brief brinksmanship" after this attack. Israeli options were running out, it kept pressing its main ally in Washington to escalate the threat of violence against Iran. However, the US failed to deliver on these Israeli requests.
One of the final options Israel could explore in splendid isolation was the possibility of pressuring India to sever its business ties with Tehran. A measure that would surely shock Iran, potentially to such an extent that the Islamic Republic would reconsider its nuclear ambitions. As it happened, this option wouldn't work either. A nuclear Iran thus became an inevitability.
Model games like these are great thought experiments, but in the real world the MacMillan observation is still of unwavering importance.
What has this game involving Israel, Iran and the US taught us?
- Ceteris paribus (intransigent leadership in Iran and Israel) Iran will develop a nuclear capability.
- The Middle East extends as far as New Delhi today, even though most observers don't even list Iran as a Middle Eastern country. Fascinating stuff!
Question to readers: Is this actually proof that having a bomb does make for regional superpower status?
No comments:
Post a Comment