Ilan Preskovsky: Examining operation roaring Lion

Key topics:US and Israel justify attacks on Iran over decades of terror and oppressionMoral, strategic, and legal questions surround regime change and interventionUncertainty remains over Iran’s future and the consequences of military action.Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox every morning on weekdays. Register here.Support South Africa's bastion of independent journalism, offering balanced insights on investments, business, and the political economy, by joining BizNews Premium. Register here.If you prefer WhatsApp for updates, sign up to the BizNews channel here..By Ilan Preskovsky.We may only be a few days into the United States of America and Israel’s (hopefully final) war against the Islamic Republic of Iran, but we have already seen events transpire that are nothing less than epochal (the death of the Ayatollah), tragic (any and all civilian deaths), joyous (the celebration in the streets of ordinary Iranians), terrifying (ballistic missiles raining down on much of the Middle East) and, unsurprisingly, incredibly controversial. I believe, quite simply, that this war was both inevitable, unavoidable, and ultimately justified – the Islamic Republic simply cannot be allowed to continue its half-century-long reign of terror – but anyone who believes that something this complex is without huge moral, strategic and legal questions are fooling themselves. I certainly don’t have all the answers. Hell, I don’t even have all the questions. But let’s at least try and break down some of the main controversies around the war, especially the moral ones, and see if we can’t cut through all the noise, partisanship, and disinformation to try and make some sense of a war that may well change the course of human history. The Morality of the OperationTo start off with the easiest case to be made for this operation, the morality of taking down the Islamic Republic is an absolute no-brainer. Since gaining power in the Islamic Revolution of 1979 (whereupon they dispatched their Marxist and secular co-revolutionaries), the Islamic Republic has been a source of nothing but suffering and misery in the world..Read more:.Trump, Iran, Israel and the unknown path to peace: Andrew Kenny.Driven by an extremist, messianic version of political Shia Islam and defined by its violent opposition to the “corruptive forces” of the Great Satan (the USA) and the Little Satan (Israel), whom they believe are the main opposition to the coming of a new “Islamic Golden Age”, the Islamic Republic have violently oppressed the Iranian people under extremist Sharia law and have spent untold billions of dollars creating a worldwide terror network that has claimed the lives of countless people in the Middle East, North Africa, Europe, America and beyond. Just this past January, the regime murdered some 30,000 Iranian civilians over the course of just two days. Its proxies have colonised Lebanon, Syria and Yemen and its IRGC, beyond simply guarding the regime (including from Iran’s own national armed forces!), has helped plan countless terror attacks across the world. “Evil” is not a word I would use lightly, but the Islamic Republic of Iran is Evil, pure and simple.Any opposition to this war on the grounds of supporting this regime, minimising its actions, or presenting it somehow as a lesser evil than the Western/ liberal-democratic civilisation in which most us live (yes, even here in South Africa), is both morally repugnant and entirely unpersuasive as an argument. Indeed, the worst crimes committed in the past by Western civilisation – colonialism, imperialism, religious persecution – continue to be committed by the Islamic Republic of Iran to this very day. Which is why, incidentally, it was so very nauseating to hear our government pay glowing tribute to their fallen “comrade”, the Ayatollah. There are, however, moral questions about and criticisms of this war that do deserve to be taken seriously. And these questions are tied quite closely to the war’s strategic aims and to whether the US and Israel had the right to attack Iran in the first place. Who Really Started This War?The US and Israel have cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which allows a country to attack another, even pre-emptively, in the name of self-defence. The legitimacy of this claim can, indeed, be argued in the case of the United States, but for Israel, it’s not even a question. Iran has been at a “soft war” with the US for half a century and continues to be a threat to American interests in the region. This is undeniable. It literally calls for “death to America” on a daily basis and it has been responsible for the death of hundreds of US servicemen and civilians over the decades. It is also undeniable that this is a regime driven by an extremist religion that sees not only the absolute eradication of America as a holy mission, but whose greatest aspirations are to be martyred in the name of this mission. It is exactly the sort of mindset, in other words, that would not be dissuaded by “mutually assured destruction” and would actually launch a nuclear war against the United States.At the same time, there are conflicting reports of just how close Iran is to building a nuclear bomb and whether it couldn’t be deterred through diplomacy rather than war. But the truth is, even if Iran isn’t that close to nuclear capabilities and even if its nuclear aspirations can be curtailed through diplomatic means (and these are big “ifs”), there are other reasons for the US to still attack - and these reasons have their own profound moral bases. Because even without nuclear weapons, Iran is more than capable of spreading untold destruction in its wake. What it has done to the people of Iran alone makes the case for outside military intervention, and the US has a special responsibility here, as Trump’s promise to stand behind the protesters this January emboldened them and may even have led to more of them dying. The US didn’t intervene then, but it probably still had the moral imperative to attack later. There are many very valid arguments for isolationism, but there are at least as many arguments for responsible intervention, especially when you’re the world’s greatest super power and the people in need of saving have absolutely no way of doing so themselves. Which the Iranian people don’t, simply by being completely and entirely out-gunned by the IRGC. And then there’s the question of the United States’ responsibility to its allies in the region (Israel especially, yes, but the gulf states too) and to its own regional interests as well. Considering how the Islamic Republic has been a thorn in the sides of its enemies in the Middle East, to say the least, for decades, does it not have a responsibility to try and vanquish it when it is at its most vulnerable, as it is now? And even if Trump is doing all this for even the most duplicitous reasons as some have suggested (be it to take Iran’s oil or to draw attention away from his alleged starring role in the Epstein files), does it in any way annul the very valid reasons for America’s involvement? Either way, though, even if you absolutely do not believe that the United States should be assisting Israel in attacking Iran (though who is assisting who is itself a big debate: there are arguments that this is as much about the US weakening China’s grip on the region as it is about Iran), Israel is 100% within its rights to take on and try to destroy the Islamic Republic once and for all. Israel has been at a general state of war with the Islamic Republic ever since 1979, but that status quo became an active, no-bars-held war of survival the minute that Iran’s proxy, Hamas, invaded Israel and committed a series of unspeakable pogroms on 7 October 2023, with the rest of its proxies, and ultimately Iran itself, joining in shortly after. Indeed, however bad things were, it could have been nothing short of Israel’s very existence on the line if the reports are true (and it seems they are) that it was only a miscommunication that prevented Hezbollah attacking Israel from the North at the exact same time that Hamas attacked from the South. Israel did not start a war with Iran a few days ago; it is (we can only pray) ending a war that Iran started two - or 47 - years ago. And, for what it’s worth, if America has a reason to fear a nuclear Iran, Israel has even more reason. It cannot take any chance whatsoever that the IRGC has its hands on nuclear weapons and cannot ignore any intelligence that suggests that it’s anywhere near that point. Ignoring such warning signs would be an unforgivable dereliction of duty for any government of any country in such a position. Regime Change or Just a Kick in the ShinThe biggest and by far the most persuasive argument against Israel and the US’ attacks on the Islamic Republic, then, is less about whether they have the right to do so, but whether these attacks will actually lead to the downfall of the regime or, heaven forbid, to something even worse. And though it’s hard to imagine anything worse than the monstrous Islamic Republic in its current form, it is here that even those who believe most strongly that this war, as horrible as it may be, is entirely justified and sadly necessary, have to bow our heads in humility. No one knows how this will play out and, frankly, it’s not even clear if there is anything remotely resembling a strategy – or even an aim – towards making sure that this doesn’t turn out like every other attempt at regime change in the Middle East by American forces.Indeed, it has to be said that across the political divide, this war is extremely unpopular in America. Not just because Trump may or may not have violated the constitution or because MAGA no doubt feels betrayed by Trump breaking his word and going “all neocon on them”, but because Trump has been, unsurprisingly, quite terrible at laying out exactly what the goals are for this war. And if it is indeed regime change, how he intends to not just make the same mistakes as the US made, so devastatingly, in Iraq and Afghanistan. And what can I say, these are absolutely, without doubt, entirely valid concerns that have not been addressed properly, either by Trump or Netanyahu.Which is not to say, though, that there aren’t any clear objectives in these attacks. There demonstrably are. Stopping Iran from enriching Uranium and making atomic bombs. “Punishing” Khameini for his part in October 7th and beyond. Further crippling the IRGC’s arsenal of ballistic missiles. Giving the Iranian people the impetus to take control of their country.That last one comes with a million and one questions in and of itself – the Iranian people still being completely outgunned being the most important – but there are perfectly understandable general objectives for these attacks, no matter what their biggest critics may suggest.The big problem, then, is less the “why” and more the “what’s next”. Will the US and Israel get “boots on the ground” to help Iranians fight for their independence? Will they pull out of the country in the next few days/ weeks and leave it in complete turmoil with a power vacuum at its centre? If there is to be regime change, what will it look like and who will it involve? Will exiled prince Reza Pehlavi return and will he turn the country into a democracy or just another corrupt monarchy? Will it just be someone else from the existing regime? .Read more:.How a war on Iran could go spectacularly wrong: Ivo Vegter.To throw a couple of extra tons of C4 into the fire, Trump suggested recently that the US and Israel had killed some of “promising possible replacements” for the Ayatollah in these strikes. The implications of this are horrendous. Either they killed leaders of the potential opposition that may come and rule the country after the fall of the regime, or they killed Islamic Republic regime members that Trump, at least, was planning on putting in Khamenei’s place. Someone, in other words, from the exact same regime, just one who may be more... pliable than the Ayatollah. I’m honestly not sure which is worse. Stepping Into the UnknownAs it stands, either no one has these answers or aren’t willing to share them with the rest of us. This whole operation may end up being a complete failure, a complete success or something in between. It may result in regime change or it may just be a warning to other dictators not to follow in the Ayatollah’s footsteps. But, quite honestly, I also don’t know what other choice Israel, the US, and the Iranian people themselves have other than a targeted military operation against this infernal regime. The status quo simply was not acceptable any more. Not for Israel, not for the Middle East, not for the US and perhaps most especially, not for the brave Iranian people, who have suffered for far, far too long under the heel of their occupiers and oppressors. We can only hope and pray that this incredible, but incredibly necessary gamble pays off.

Ilan Preskovsky: Examining operation roaring Lion

Key topics:

Related Stories