War between Israel and Iran seems inevitable – Liberal Article
Last week, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was assassinated, causing tensions in the Middle East to skyrocket. Tensions in Iran immediately exploded; fingers immediately being pointed at America and Israel. Pictures of Donald Trump were burnt in Tehran. Iran seems to move further away from the Western world.
So, after a couple of weeks, what do we know and what could this mean for the month or years ahead? This is not something that will go away any time soon in the Middle East.
Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was head of the Ministry of Research and Innovation, leading Iran into a nuclear age. In 1989, he was in charge of Project Amad, a project to test and create a nuclear bomb for Iran. After the Iran Deal, his aims evolved into Iran’s peaceful nuclear Age. After Trump ripped up the Iran deal, however, Iran’s nuclear research was once again heading into murky waters. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh seemed to be the perfect man for a political or strategic attack on Iranian soil.
Unsurprisingly, Iran has already blamed Israel for the attack. However, Iran’s story of what happened is always changing. But, we can be pretty sure about a few things.
Firstly, another opposition group was involved in the attack. Suspicions about why they were involved are unclear. Although, I guess it was political either pushing for war or removal of Iran’s current ruling establishment.
The second part that has been confirmed by senior officials in Washington, is that Israel had a part in this killing. Their goals being political or tactical are a bit more up for debate, but we can be sure of one thing: retaliation.
Iran is not exactly in the best of places economically and happiness wise. This is due to a number of reasons from sanctions, to their political system. Either way, the assassinations of Iranian figures serve as good distractions for the Iranian government from all the suffering.
This is why, just like the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Iran has been talking a lot about retaliation. Now whether this is just rhetoric or not is something we will never know until it happens, but the future looks worrying.
Iran, I fear, will look for retaliation not just through assassinations, but through possible terror attacks. It is already looking to speed up its nuclear program and not for peaceful purposes anymore. Some will argue actually giving Iran a nuclear weapon will fix the problems. Others, perhaps wisely, will disagree. In such an unstable country, who knows what could happen.
So America will once again have to play the role of the World Police but must go in with a more open mind. Biden’s claim to simply join back into the Iran Deal is naive. Iran will not want to re-enter into a deal America broke after just a couple of years that forced them into an economic recession. America is going to have to suck up to Iran and try to calm the situation.
Israel as well needs to be held to account. It cannot be allowed to simply go around killing other nations’ officials. It only leads to more tension between the two; more bloodshed and hatred. Who knows, this murder could be the start of a new terrorist organisation. Regardless, nations can’t go around killing other national officials.
The US has to, to a certain extent, punish Israel. Even if it is by simply condemning the attack. It is time to suck up to Iran a little. Let’s get to the point that they stop burning American flags in the streets of Tehran. Restart negotiations before it is too late.
Written by Senior Liberal Writer, Max Anderson
Point of Information
War, what is it good for? – A Conservative Response
Thankfully, we live in an age where avoiding conflict is the most coveted course of action when tensions like this flare-up. I would like to think that the policy advisers around the globe maintain this axiom to the best of their ability.
I fundamentally disagree that “war between Israel and Iran seems inevitable”. To think war inevitable in any scenario seems incredibly pessimistic, no matter how strenuous the tensions are.
Iranian-Israeli relations have not always been as tense as they are now, and this is key to remember. Iran voted against the UN partition of Palestine and voted against Israel’s admission to the UN. It was also the second Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel’s sovereignty. As a result, relations between Iran and Israel were friendly between 1953 and 1979. That is, until the Iranian Revolution, where all diplomatic ties between the two nations were severed. It is then that Iran reneged its recognition of Israel.
The point is that relations between the two countries can change rapidly. To throw away the prospect of peaceful resolution is absurd. The situation is very complicated, but hopefully, the increased recognition of Israel’s sovereignty by Arab nations will play a key role in calming down the region.
The normalisation agreement between the UAE and Israel is especially significant. Many believe this could be key to stabilising the whole region, through peaceful settlements and increased wealth dissemination. As more Arab nations end their conflict with Israel, the region as a whole can benefit. Recognition means that belligerent countries like Iran will be forced even further. As it is looking ever more likely that Saudi Arabia will also normalise relations, it is only a matter of time before most other Arab nations follow.
With regards to Israel having taken part in the recent assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh and “senior officials in Washington” confirming this, I would like to ask my fellow writer to provide a source on this. I do not want to claim that they are wrong, but after a long period of time searching the Internet, I found nothing. Such a claim has profound implications and should not be made without evidence.
As mentioned, the story about the attack keeps changing. So, it is evident no one knows the true facts of the assassination yet. I am not sure how my fellow writer can call for the US to “punish Israel” and not have proof of involvement. I also do not believe countries should “punish” each other. International disputes should be resolved in courts with fair processes and not rely on global powers to “punish” others as it is not their prerogative.
American relations with Iran have deteriorated under the Trump administration, but I agree America has to make a big effort in appeasing Iran in an attempt to prevent Iranian possession of nuclear weapons. However, I question the sanity of anyone who says, “some will argue actually giving Iran a nuclear weapon will fix the problems”. In an ideal world, no country will have nuclear weapons and openly giving them to countries is definitely the wrong way to achieve this, and in all fairness, an incredibly stupid idea.
Overall, I do hope that America does not “play the role of the World Police”. I would like to hope that if anything America acts as a mediator. They should be brokering peace rather than heavy-handed bobbies speaking softly and carrying big sticks.
I do not believe war is inevitable. However, I believe the assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh has worsened relations and made normalising relations between the two countries a more difficult task. But as I said, believing war to be inevitable is pessimistic and the wrong way to go about achieving peace. If you believe something bad will happen, it almost always does.
Written by Senior Conservative Writer, Peter Pearce
War is the least desirable outcome, not inevitable – A Labour Response
I have to start this response by saying I implicitly disagree that war is inevitable between Israel and Iran. Yes, tensions are obviously growing and the likelihood of conflict is increasing by the day but this is not to say that a full-scale war is definite.
War under any circumstance is usually the least desirable outcome. In almost all cases, the negative consequences outweigh the benefits for both sides, leaving room for a plausible agreement to be made before the point of inevitability is reached.
I do, however, agree with Max on some level. Any state that commits an act of violence should be condemned to some extent. But this is particularly difficult to effectively enforce on the international platform. This is largely because no one has sovereignty over states. So who’s responsibility is it to express such condemnation? Does it fall down to America as Max suggests, or should it be left to international bodies, such as the UN, who can act in place of the lack of a global government? Neither would go without controversy and discontent. Nor could you ensure their success, as a previous POI article explored.
Ultimately, while I don’t think the situation in Israel and Iran should be left completely alone, sound barriers need to be established before any international interference can be successful. Combined with the lack of desirability for war based on its inevitable consequences, war is not necessarily “inevitable” here. It rarely is.
Written by Chief Labour Writer, Abi Clargo
I am currently in my second year of reading Politics at the University of Exeter. My first interaction with politics was at the tender age of four years old.
I am going into my second year at the University of Exeter studying a flexible combined honour in Geography and Politics. My interest in politics and geography stems from an interest in current events and the wider world, with geography being the study of all world processes.
I’m Abi! I am a liberal, political enthusiast from the Welsh valleys. Since I was young, I have been captivated by politics. I used to spend so much time watching the morning news before school, and have paid close attention to political campaigns for as long as I can remember. It was a lot later that I decided I wanted to pursue politics academically. Now, I have just finished my second year studying Politics and International Relations at the University of Exeter.