FIKRI FAHRUL FAIZ

1110114000029
IR INTERNATIONAL/VIII

Review of TRIANGLE OF TENSION: THE UNITED STATES, ISRAEL AND IRAN

By Uzi Rabi
Recently, the triangle tensions between the United States, Israel and Iran have risen sharply.
There is a developing argument that Irans nuclear program provides the potential for triggering
an actual military confrontation. According to Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, a
nuclear-capable of Iran is more dangerous and becomes a threat Israel in the long term.
However, the Obama administration prefers to give high sanctions toward Iran rather than calling
for military action just Israel does. In the other hand, Iran remains defiant, maintaining its
enrichment and proliferation activities and difficult in diplomatic negotiations.
As a matter of fact, Iran has been given some sanctions by international party as the punishment
for maintaining its nuclear program. In March 2012, the Society of World Interbank Financial
Telecommunication (SWIFT) agreed to stop operations with Iranian businesses. This effectively
shut down Iranian banks ability to trade with banks outside Iran, resulting increasingly difficult
of Iran in international markets. In July 2012, the EU and U.S. formed sanctions aimed at
reducing consumption of Iranian oil worldwide by banning countries for importing Iranian oil. In
addition, Obama implemented additional measures designed to punish firms purchasing crude oil
from Iran or trading U.S. bank notes or precious metals with Iranian firms.
Although Iran declared as a self-reliant in oil matter, the sanctions are resulting significant
damage to the Iranian economy. Since January 2012, Iran lost 38% of its value and experiencing
a high inflation which running at around 23.5%, the highest number since the end of the Iran-Iraq
War or 1990 economic crisis. Oil exports are down 40-50%, and food prices are increasing.
However, Iran remains averse in maintaining its nuclear capability since the prestige, national
pride and resources that have been invested. For Iran, nuclear capability is an important
geopolitical asset that would strengthen its efforts to attain regional hegemony.

Considering the behavior of Iran, it results the triangular tensions between Israel, Iran and the
United States which have manifested themselves through what called as shadow war. They
blame each other about relating some issues. Israels Mossad has been accused of assassinating
Iranian nuclear scientists, while Iran has been blamed for the bombing of an Israeli diplomatic
car in New Delhi in 2012 and other cases in Tbilisi, Bangkok, Nairobi and Cyprus. In addition,
in recent years, the US, Israel and Iran have all taken the conflict to the cyber sphere. Iran
accuses Israel and the U.S. of ordering attacks on the computer systems that run Irans main
nuclear enrichment facilities.
For Israel, it emphasized to do all attempts to stop Irans nuclear program that becomes a serious
threat. Israel prefers to establish a military strike, rather than hope for a breakthrough via
international negotiations and sanctions, or accept a nuclear-armed Iran. However, there are
some things that should take into account for Israel to establish the military strike. First, Israel
has to consider the objectives and scope o the attack that will get immense challenges from Iran.
Second is how to avoid Iranian nuclear rebirth. The last is the possible of huge retaliation of Iran
in the future.
In responding the article, my position is in line with the author that explains Israel should take
the considerable measures in taking a military strike against Iran. Iranian military retaliation is
reasonable, due to the characteristic of the Iranian regime to release controversial statements in
international arena. Moreover, such military strike will be accepted with pleasure because it will
give Iran the reason to establish a huge retaliation which then considered as possible war
declaration between Jewish and Islamic society, as what Israel did toward Muslim society in
Palestine.
In the other hand, I also agree with Uzi Rabis argument in his article that as Middle East
regional and internal dynamics continue to be especially tumultuous, each move taken by one of
the respective members of the American-Israeli-Iranian triangle is likely to have wider regional
implications and carry any number of unintended consequences. By this fact, each party in this
triangular tension should take considerable measures toward an action will be taken.