b). Iran/Israel/USA war: The declared aim of Iran to develop nuclear weapons and then target and destroy Israel, was not something that Israel could just do nothing about. Over the decades the Israelis had worked at trying to prevent the Iranians from becoming a nuclear weapons power, but were only successful in delaying the Iranian nuclear weapons programme, not getting them to abandon it. When Iran developed uranium enrichment levels enough to become a clear and present danger, and an existential threat to them, the Israelis really had no other option but to involve their ally the USA and go to war, and destroy such capabilities. However, as often happens, they underestimated their enemy, and mis-read the Iranian situation.

They did not properly factor in the fact that Iran is unique in that it has two armies, the regular Army that protects the Nation and also the Islamic Republic Guard Corps (IRGC) which is committed to protect the Islamic regime, and which is better armed and more powerful across the Country than the regular Army, and which not only also polices the Country but operates businesses and industries, and in addition controls and supports all its Proxies against Israel. (HAMAS in Gaza, HEZBOLLAH in Lebanon, HOUTHI in Yemen and other elements in Syria and even elsewhere). Assuming IRGC’s command structure as being according to Western idea of conventional military structures/ institution was being short sighted.

They also underestimated the capability of the IRGC to keep functioning effectively even after their top layers of command were eliminated, and also underestimated the capability of the IRGC to control the protests of their countrymen against the Islamic Regime. The citizen’s protests were ruthlessly crushed and were not allowed to bring forth leaders and gather resources (weapons, communication facilities and funds) to grow and topple the Regime.

The only ‘Face-saving’ way for the USA to bring an end to this war, is to decimate the IRGC Army and its capabilities and calling for integration of the residual IRGC with the Regular Army and support those seeking a Regime change, by propping up any of the existing leaders, political or military, and supporting the cause financially, and with arms and communication equipment and social media influence etc. The US has demonstrated its propensity to effect the regime change in multiple countries over the years, example Iran itself in 1953, and in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Bangladesh, Nepal, etc. Such efforts are presently underway in India too. The tool kit for such activity has been exposed by Greta Thumberg.

Setting up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in each Province to give an opportunity to the oppressed to at least seek and receive an apology from the accused for atrocities committed, and thus allow for a fresh start, as was so successfully done in South Africa on gaining Independence from the Apartheid Regime.

Then it can claim to have not only put an end to a nuclear threat to Israel, but also to the West-Asian Region and even to the World. It can also then claim credit for having broken the evil Islamic regime and brought Democracy and Peace to the people of Iran and to the Region.

c). OP-Sindoor: was a perfect example how an ‘Operation’ should be executed. Clear objectives – a strike against the terror establishment located in Pakistan, and with the proclaimed intention of not to escalate, if not provoked further. Immediate and precise strikes to destroy the key offensive capabilities once the enemy escalated. (Airfields, aircrafts and their hangars, and even suspected nuclear weapons facilities and control centres. Especially those nuclear centres not declared as such as per agreement). Destruction of all their Drones and Missiles and Radar systems, even those provided by their allies, Turkey, China and even the USA, and launched and used against India. Conclusively proving their ineffectiveness against the Indian offensive and defensive capabilities.

The recognition of the deficiencies of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) and the opportunity it offered to force Pakistan to submit and put an end to across the border terror activities, by putting the treaty in abeyance. This was a strategic move. It is a fact that the Treaty was one-sided, offering even more to Pakistan than its equitable share, also putting an end to India’s laxity in allowing much of its share of the waters to flow into Pakistan. It should be recalled that at that time (1960), India urgently needed food support offered by the USA under the PL-480 and was thus in a weak negotiating position. Also that after the signing of the IWT, General Ayub Khan, the then President of Pakistan, had remarked that he had asked for the ‘Moon’ and got it, clearly evidencing the bias in the Treaty. We need to also note that many others upper riparian countries have refused to share river waters with their lower riparian neighbours and some have even unilaterally abrogated existing treaties.

Recognizing all this as a desired and a phased END-STATE, and to not escalate further even as the enemy seemingly out of frustration and with the confidence that India will not retaliate, broke the cease fire agreed to, within hours thereafter using up all existing drones, and only then declared an effective ceasefire in the ‘Operations’. India did not retaliate for this short break and continued to hold for themselves the choice to resume operations even as they held, the IWT in abeyance, subject to stated conditions. This was a good intermediate END-STATE. The END-STATE for the thereafter must have also been thought out.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5