Israel Will Not Attack Iran

For years the world has been listening to Israeli threats to attack Iran as a response to their nuclear program. Going back to 2009, Israel was emphatic that their threat was not a bluff.  Fast-forward three years to more recent months and the same debate is ongoing: will Israel really attack Iran? I’m sorry, but I just don’t see why we are still debating this. Would it be bad for the U.S. if Israel attacked Iran? Undoubtedly. But is the threat of an attack a credible one? I think not. While two of Israel’s leaders, Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu, may foolishly support an attack on Iran, their individual influence will not result in Israel being irrational as a state.

A recent article in Foreign Policy Magazine by Shai Feldman supports the notion that the debate is over. Feldman claims Israel will not preemptively attack Iran for two reasons: first, Israeli president Shimon Peres publicly spoke against such a strike; and second, a former defense advisor publicly questioned whether Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu were suitable leaders for Israel. Feldman has a solid point and it is likely that he is correct in his conclusion. This should not be surprising to anyone, though. While this argument cites only two individuals in opposition, their voices represent the view that the majority of Israeli’s hold: striking Iran is not beneficial.

I believe that if we analyze Israel's threats using the Rational Actor Model, as summarized by Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow in their book Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, we will finally be able to move on to more important issues.

The Rational Actor Model tells us that states will make decisions that are utility maximizing because they are rational actors₁. Israel is showing itself to be rational, evidenced by Shimon Peres’ open opposition to an attack and former defense advisors questioning Barak and Netanyahu’s position.  Admittedly, Israel is right to be concerned about Iran's nuclear program.  Tension in the Middle East is palpable and in 2005 Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did allegedly said that "Israel must be wiped off the map".  It follows the Rational Actor Model that Israel would be compelled to at least address the threat.

This is where we can begin to make inferences based on the utility of different reactions to the Iranian threat.  Israel could decide to attack Iran.  This would be a unilateral attack, at least at the onset, and a shortsighted one at that.  While Iran may not have the capabilities to immediately undergo a devastating counterstrike on Israel, it is likely that any attack would result in a more aggressive pursuit of a nuclear bomb.  Their immediate retaliation would be damaging, but more importantly it could involve non-state actors, such as Hezbollah or Hamas. These groups do not have the same constraints as states do and would be able to cause significant damage to Israel.

Theoretically, the only way Israel could attack Iran without facing devastating retaliation would be if it were a joint venture with the United States.  It has been made clear, however, that the U.S. will not support a preemptive strike.  Yes, the U.S. and Israel are allies, but Israel cannot hope to know, without any hesitation, that the U.S. would choose to become involved rather than rethinking U.S.-Israeli friendship. This being said, it is not realistic to think that Iran would not retaliate simply because the U.S. is involved. I think if Israel were to drag the U.S. into this conflict,it could be the breaking point in U.S. dedication to friendship with Israel.  Insummary, Israel would face both immediate and long-term retaliation from Iran,which could likely spread to retaliation from other states that embrace Islam. Israel could not withstand such attacks for long without support, and support from the U.S. is not guaranteed.  I must conclude, then, that there is no way that attacking Iran would benefit Israel.

This supports the dissent we have seen in Israel over the past years on whether Iran should be attacked. It is also why there are those who question Israel's leaders for supporting such a plan of action.  While hype over whether there would be an attack on Iran may have attracted a lot of attention, it is merely Israel taking a defensive stand against a potential nuclear threat.  Using the Rational Actor Model provides us with a way to predict what the optimal choice of action for one state is.  In this case, it may benefit Israel to bluff about a preemptive strike, but in no way would Israel be better off if they were to actually carry out an attack.

1. See Allison, G. & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. pp 23-27.