The Sunday Independent's View: Innocents pay the price for Middle East power games

Irish Independent

18 hours ago

Micheál Martin and Simon Harris have been among the most acerbic critics of Benjamin Netanyahu's right-wing government, but followed other EU leaders in falling short of outright condemnation, settling instead for carefully-worded calls for restraint and dialogue.
There could scarcely be a starker illustration of Iran's diplomatic isolation. Irish leaders might not directly support strikes, but nor can they be seen to be batting for the ayatollahs, whose own poisonous ideology has contributed to keeping the region permanently teetering on the brink.
Israel's argument has always been that the West faces the same enemies as it does; Israel just happens to be surrounded by them. Being confronted with this uncomfortable realpolitik was always the risk from burning diplomatic bridges with Israel, as the Irish Government has done lately. If it came down to a wider war between Israel and Iran, Western leaders were bound to stand on the side of the former. France has already pledged to defend Israel from Iranian retaliation.
To acknowledge as much is not to say Israel was right to target Iran. No one knows how close Iran is — or was, before last week, at least — to developing nuclear capabilities. It has been rum­oured to be nudging closer to that goal for many years. However, advanced or not as its nuclear ambitions may be, it is not in the interests of the world that it achieves them.
At the same time, Israel's recklessness cannot be accepted as normal either. The problem with such actions is that at some point someone is going to get hurt — innocents usually, who have little to do with the political tensions for which they always pay the price.
The best hope is that Iran, having symbolically hit back, quickly climbs down
President Trump will be criticised for backing the attack on Iran, even as his own lack of influence with Israeli hardliners is humiliatingly exposed. The truth is that every US president would probably have done the same.
If Trump can be taken to task for anything, it is calling for the people of Iran to overthrow the regime that has ruled the country since 1979 (Libya has hardly been a model of stability since the Western-led coalition deposed Colonel Gaddafi).
Attempts to topple Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad similarly led in turn to all-out civil war and the emboldening of Islamic State. Another war in the Middle East would undoubtedly lead to millions more fleeing the region in search of a safe haven in Europe, where tensions over mass immigration are already dangerously inflamed.
The best hope is that Iran, having symbolically hit back at the wave of attacks by Israel, quickly climbs down.
The Iranian people, if the ayatollahs even care about them at this stage, have nothing to gain from war, and less still from widening it to include the US. Tehran is already weak. The reality of power in the region inevitably means defiance invites disaster.
Israel has refrained from attacking Iran's oil refineries, which would plunge the country's fragile economy into crisis. They may not hold off for long if the tit-for-tat of missiles escalates.
The world can only pray that Mr Trump was telling the truth when he promised US voters in November that the era of America getting involved in foreign wars had come to an end.