Like George W Bush did in Iraq, if Israel breaks Iran it will end up owning the chaos that could ensue
Israelis are good at tactics, poor at strategic vision, it has been observed.
Their campaign against Iran may be a case in point.
Short termism is understandable in a region that is so unpredictable. Why make elaborate plans if they are generally undone by unexpected events? It is a mindset that is familiar to anyone who has lived or worked there.
And it informs policy-making. The Israeli offensive in Gaza is no exception. The Israeli government has never been clear how it will end or what happens the day after that in what remains of the coastal strip. Pressed privately, even senior advisers will admit they simply do not know.
It may seem unfair to call a military operation against Iran that literally took decades of planning short-termist or purely tactical. There was clearly a strategy of astonishing sophistication behind a devastating campaign that has dismantled so much of the enemy's capability.
3:49
But is there a strategic vision beyond that? That is what worries Israel's allies.
It's not as if we've not been here before, time and time again. From Libya to Afghanistan and all points in between we have seen the chaos and carnage that follows governments being changed.
Hundreds of thousands have died. Vast swathes of territory remain mired in turmoil or instability.
Which is where a famous warning sign to American shoppers in the 80s and 90s comes in.
Ahead of the disastrous invasion that would tear Iraq apart, America's defence secretary, Colin Powell, is said to have warned US president George W Bush of the "Pottery Barn rule".
The Pottery Barn was an American furnishings store. Signs among its wares told clumsy customers: "You break it, you own it."
0:36
Bush did not listen to Powell hard enough. His administration would end up breaking Iraq and owning the aftermath in a bloody debacle lasting years.
Israel is not invading Iran, but it is bombing it back to the 80s, or even the 70s, because it is calling for the fall of the government that came to power at the end of that decade.
Iran's leadership is proving resilient so far but we are just a week in. It is a country of 90 million, already riven with social and political discontent. Its system of government is based on factional competition, in which paranoia, suspicion and intense rivalries are the order of the day.
After half a century of authoritarian theocratic rule there are no opposition groups ready to replace the ayatollahs. There may be a powerful sense of social cohesion and a patriotic resentment of outside interference, for plenty of good historic reasons.
But if that is not enough to keep the country together then chaos could ensue. One of the biggest and most consequential nations in the region could descend into violent instability.
That will have been on Israel's watch. If it breaks Iran it will own it even more than America owned the disaster in Iraq.
Iran and Israel are, after all, in the same neighbourhood.
Has Israel thought through the consequences? What is the strategic vision beyond victory?
And if America joins in, as Donald Trump is threatening, is it prepared to share that legacy?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Don't trust two-tier Keir on Palestine Action. He hasn't turned sound
If a mystic with a crystal ball asked you last week to guess which political leader would try to ban a group with 'Palestine' in the name, you'd have plumped for Donald Trump. Turns out, however, it was Keir Starmer. I speak of Palestine Action, the neo-Corbynite clowns who infiltrated RAF Brize Norton on electric scooters to sabotage strategic aircraft. The Government says it will ban them as terrorists for their trouble. Has the Prime Minster finally gone sound? Has he heck. The petulant hoodlums will complain that unlike Hamas and the other groups on the list, they weren't trying to bomb anybody. That argument will probably prevail; the ban must win the support of both MPs and peers before coming into force, so it may never materialise. No, it's all about the headlines. Nigel Farage demanded that Palestine Action be proscribed in the morning and by the afternoon, Starmer had claimed the oxygen for his own. This created the impression that the Government takes our national security seriously, stands against the irritating Gaza radicals and is determined to crack down on treason. No need to vote Reform then, eh? He's a slippery fish, that prime minister. This is the most unprincipled government in living memory and its playbook is always the same. Wrongfoot and gaslight the public while advancing an agenda that nobody has voted for. Mark my words. After this, Starmer's betrayal of Israel will continue apace. Take the child sex gangs. The inquiry was a controlled explosion of a political landmine with senior Labour figures protected by spin. Meanwhile, this was Death Week, with infanticide and geronticide, neither of which were in Labour's manifesto, forced through the Commons. Thus the Government emerges as the shadowy winner while the country and its despairing people have lost. The same pattern can be seen in everything from the economy to immigration and defence. Starmer talks tough, cracks out a little U-turn, then when the heat has passed, pushes on with his agenda, making superficial modifications to throw us off the scent. Last week, for instance, it emerged that our rising defence budget will also fund Heathrow's third runway, reduce food prices and bolster supply chains. The Prime Minister told us he was serious about defending the realm, but he didn't really mean it. The Palestine Action episode is the same. This government is now the most Israelophobic since the Fifties. It has suspended arms export licences while continuing to provide them to the repressive regimes of Qatar, Turkey and Egypt. It has sanctioned objectionable Israeli ministers while leaving far more chauvinistic regional figures untouched. The Tunisian president, for example, demands 'all the land of Palestine' for the Arabs. No two-state solution there. No British sanctions, either. It has presided over crackdowns on free speech and two-tier policing of the Gaza mobs. Just as sensible voters reach the end of their tether, however, Sir Keir throws sand in their eyes on Palestine Action. Now it is the turn of his Corbynite Left to feel the burn. But this is nothing more than an exercise in damage limitation; as always, the pendulum will swing back the other way, only – crucially – not as far as its original position. Thus public rage is subdued while the Overton Window creeps inexorably leftwards. You can feel it, can't you? You know you're being conned but you can't quite put your finger on it. As the months pass, a browbeaten and confused electorate finds the country drifting away beneath its feet, little by little becoming unrecognisable.
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
BBC must reveal if money for axed Gaza film ‘ended up in the hands of Hamas'
BBC bosses are under pressure to establish whether licence payers' cash used to make a cancelled Gaza documentary ended up in the hands of Hamas. MPs and peers said the broadcaster must launch an investigation into the money spent on commissioning the film Gaza: Doctors Under Attack. The show was pulled from the schedules on Friday after its director branded Israel 'a rogue state that's committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing'. It is the second documentary about Gaza that the BBC has been forced to cancel, amid accusations that it is 'biased' against Israel in its reporting. The corporation was forced to apologise in February after it aired a 'propaganda' film that was narrated by the son of a leading Hamas minister. In light of that controversy it had already delayed the planned release of Gaza: Doctors Under Attack, and has now said it will not be shown at all. In a statement, the BBC said it had cancelled the show because it ' risked creating a perception of partiality ' about its coverage of Israel. Stuart Andrew, the shadow culture secretary, said the decision ' raises yet more serious questions over its coverage of events in Gaza'. 'The BBC must provide a full accounting of how it ended up commissioning the abandoned documentary and whether any money ended up in the bloody hands of Hamas terrorists during the production process,' he said. Lord Austin, a former Labour MP, said that staff responsible for commissioning the cancelled documentary should face disciplinary action if any wrongdoing took place. 'What we need to know is whether the makers of this programme paid Hamas terrorists or anyone linked to them,' he said. Call for 'urgent investigation' 'There must now be another urgent investigation to find out what has happened. When is the BBC going to start sacking those responsible for these appalling failures?' Baroness Deech, a crossbench peer, added: 'An urgent investigation is needed to assure the British public that its licence fee hasn't ended up in the hands of Hamas terrorists. 'Questions must be urgently answered. What went wrong at the BBC, whether Hamas received money for granting access to Hamas-run hospitals, and whether the national broadcaster has breached counter-terrorism legislation by funding a proscribed terror group.' The decision to pull the documentary came after Ramita Navai, its director, appeared on BBC Radio 4's Today programme to discuss it. She said: 'Israel has become a rogue state that's committing war crimes and ethnic cleansing and mass-murdering Palestinians'. Last month, a letter signed by 600 people, including Harriet Walter, Miriam Margolyes, Maxine Peake and Juliet Stevenson, called for the release of the film. In a statement on Friday, the BBC said: 'For some weeks, the BBC has been working... to find a way to tell the stories of these doctors on our platforms. 'Yesterday, it became apparent that we have reached the end of the road with these discussions. 'We have come to the conclusion that broadcasting this material risked creating a perception of partiality that would not meet the high standards that the public rightly expect of the BBC. 'Impartiality is a core principle of BBC News. It is one of the reasons that we are the world's most trusted broadcaster.' Gaza: Doctors Under Attack is the second film to have been pulled by the BBC, coming after controversy over Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone. That programme, created by production company Hoyo, was aired, before being removed from the BBC's iPlayer amid huge controversy. BBC bosses apologised after it emerged a major contributor was the son of Ayman Alyazouri, a Hamas minister, which was not disclosed to viewers. The corporation insisted it was not aware of the Hamas link, but Hoyo later claimed it was. A BBC spokesman said: 'We can confirm that no money spent on this documentary has been paid to Hamas. As we said yesterday, production of the documentary was paused in April, and any film made will not be a BBC film.'
Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The best outcome from the Iran conflict? Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan
Two major conflicts – Ukraine and Iran – are creating seismic upheaval in the tightly meshed world of post-Cold War alliances around the world. The biggest losers in this lethal game of musical chairs will likely be smaller nations who can no longer rely on the protection and patronage of greater powers whose priorities have been radically realigned. The immediate result is a panicked race to seek new partners, a desperate rush of diplomatic blind dating in which those newly exposed smaller countries have very few cards to play other than to make painful concessions. This week's meeting between President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia – the first ever official bi-lateral visit between the heads of these two countries is a case in point. Armenia has for decades turned its back on two of its immediate neighbours – Turkey and its ally Azerbaijan, with closed frontiers and no diplomatic relations. That has only been possible because of Yerevan's ability to depend on two other major regional powers – Iran to the south and Russia to the north. Those alliances created a confidence which translated into a fatal overreach when Armenia, three decades ago, invaded Azerbaijan and occupied a fifth of the Azerbaijani territory of Karabakh, forcibly expelling some 800,000 Azerbaijanis and establishing a mono-ethnic Armenian state. For a generation, Azerbaijan's attempts to regain its territory through negotiation and diplomacy, despite resounding support for their sovereign rights over Karabakh from the UN Security Council, came to nothing. Russia, the former colonial power, could always be relied on to preserve the frozen conflict in ways which maintained Moscow's grip on its 'near abroad'. Then came 2020. In that year cross-border tit for tat between the two neighbours became a full-blown 44-day conflict, with Azerbaijan liberating much of Armenian-occupied territory. In 2023 what was not returned three years earlier was finally secured by Azerbaijan. To Yerevan's utter dismay, in both 2020 and 2023 its long-standing patron and formal military ally in the Kremlin was nowhere to be seen. Russia's Western imperial ambitions had exhausted its ability to maintain its old role of Caucasian puppet master to the south. Armenia was left to sink or swim. Azerbaijan's combat victories, cemented with a ceasefire but still today without a peace treaty, can be read as definitive proof that Russia had left the stage as far as Armenia was concerned. That might have led Pashinyan to seek urgent reconciliation with Turkey. Instead, Yerevan doubled down on its relationship with its one remaining regional protector, Iran. Arguably he had no option: decades of virulent anti-Turkish domestic and international rhetoric would probably have made any pro-Ankara realignment fatal to his own government at that point. And why risk alienating your one remaining powerful friend, Iran, by reaching out to its long-standing opponent Turkey? Just as the Ukraine war provoked one crisis for Armenia, the Iran war has provoked a second. But this time Iran's troubles and dramatically exposed weakness, with the Islamic Republic itself now friendless in a world where its ally Assad has fallen and the leverage of its proxy Houthi, Hezbollah and Hamas militias has been decimated, have left Yerevan not with one but with zero dependable allies. Even Armenia's ability to call on its once powerful diaspora lobby groups in the US and France is no longer a realistic strategy in today's climate, given the deeply problematic Iran connection. This is the sequence of events which has left Armenia with literally nowhere to turn but Ankara. Pashinyan, an intelligent politician who has shown some ability to negotiate within the desperately narrow space afforded by the tensions of geopolitical reality and domestic nationalist opinion, will need every ounce of skill to emerge from the current talks with a result which has both substance and domestic credibility. For now, concessions – if he is wise to take them – are his best card. Turkey will not contemplate normalisation of still less supportive friendship with Armenia unless Yerevan formally commits to a peace deal with Azerbaijan. The country's President Ilham Aliyev has long maintained such a peace deal needs to entail a rewriting of the Armenian constitution to remove extra-territorial claims on Azerbaijan's internationally recognised sovereign territory, the establishment of a formal right to return of Azerbaijanis expelled from Armenia during the break-up of the Soviet Union, and agreement on a land corridor through Armenia (would earn huge income) enabling Azerbaijan and countries from Asia the swiftest land route to Europe. Some in Armenia will see these as too painful to concede. Wiser heads will see them for what they are: economic and diplomatic opportunities to move forward after over three decades of conflict. If Pashinyan can take this unpalatable medicine – and if by some miracle he can sell it to his electorate, Armenia stands to benefit. A chance of establishing new partnerships with more reliable neighbours, the enormous benefits of regional economic and energy integration after decades of impoverished isolation, a chance in fact for normalisation, peace and prosperity. The alternative is too foolhardy to contemplate.
