James Edward Johnson

Although most fear an Israeli attack on Iran, Smith lays out the case for much broader support for an attack.

Note: This piece is cross-posted at View From Damavand.

Lee Smith, a rising star in the Middle East analysis world, has an excellent exploration over at Newsweek of the alliance against an Iranian bomb in the region.

Although most fear an Israeli attack on Iran, Smith lays out the case for much broader support for an attack.  Indeed, he presents an Israeli attack as a backup to a far more compelling case for an American-led attack on behalf of Arab states.  In the final paragraph he notes:

Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal explained to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that sanctions against Iran did not offer the immediate solution required to stop the revolutionary regime’s push for a nuclear weapon. This sentiment was echoed a few weeks back by the United Arab Emirates’ ambassdor to Washington, Yousef Al Otaiba, who calculated that bombing Iran was preferable to an Iranian bomb. Even as the ambassador later backtracked, the Middle East’s worst-kept secret was now in the public record: the Arabs are even more concerned than the Israelis about an Iranian bomb.

via Our Proxy War in the Middle East – Newsweek

The Persians have a history of being closer to the West than do the Arabs.  The alignment of so many disparate interests against Iran is a sad reflection of the disastrous course that the Ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad have taken.  They have converted the Persian nation into a uniter of some of the world’s most bitter enemies … and against Iran.

Read the rest of Lee Smith’s Our Proxy War in the Middle East.   If you want to read more of his insights, he writes a regular column for Tablet Magazine.