The Middle East: Is the World Going Up in Smoke as Trump Said? By James Reed
Just after Iran blasted Israel with- reports vary – up to 180 missiles, hypersonics to boot, President Trump posted on X: "THIS WAR WAS TOTALLY PREVENTABLE. IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED. IF I WERE PRESIDENT, IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED! He has a point with all the money that Biden-Harris give to Iran, with $ 6 billion for a hostage deal alone and an additional $ 10 billion it can access: https://mast.house.gov/2023/11/biden-handed-over-16-billion-to-iran;
In any case, the big question now is how this will all blow. Some Christian thinker such as Michael Snyder think that this could be the conflict which truly leads to World War III: https://michaeltsnyder.substack.com/p/scholars-have-been-warning-of-a-great
Not knowing exactly what would spark World War III I asked the computer oracle Chat GPT:
What is the probability that the missile attack by Iran on Israel will lead to a nuclear exchange?
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
The probability of a missile attack by Iran on Israel leading to a nuclear exchange is difficult to quantify precisely, as it depends on a complex mix of political, military, and strategic factors. However, there are key reasons why the likelihood of an all-out nuclear exchange remains low despite heightened tensions. These factors include:
1. Mutual Deterrence
- Israel is believed to possess nuclear weapons, although it has never officially confirmed this (a policy of ambiguity). This nuclear capability serves as a strong deterrent against any direct nuclear attack.
- Iran, on the other hand, does not currently possess nuclear weapons, although concerns about its nuclear ambitions have been a significant source of tension in the region.
- Both countries are aware that a nuclear exchange would have catastrophic consequences for the region and the world, making any direct nuclear use highly unlikely.
2. International Pressures and Diplomacy
- The international community, including major powers like the U.S., Russia, and China, would likely intervene diplomatically and apply pressure to prevent an escalation to nuclear warfare.
- Any move toward nuclear escalation would risk global condemnation, sanctions, and possibly military intervention by other powers, making the costs of such an action exceedingly high.
3. Military and Strategic Calculations
- Conventional missile attacks or military skirmishes, while dangerous, are unlikely to provoke a nuclear response unless they are perceived as an existential threat to either party.
- Israel's military doctrine emphasizes a strong, rapid conventional military response to threats, and it would likely respond to an Iranian missile attack with conventional forces or airstrikes rather than immediate nuclear retaliation.
4. Rational Actor Model
- Both Iran and Israel, despite their hostilities, generally operate within the framework of rational state behavior. This means they are likely to calculate the consequences of any escalation carefully, knowing that a nuclear exchange could lead to mutually assured destruction or widespread devastation.
5. Role of Proxies and Regional Dynamics
- Conflicts between Iran and Israel often play out through proxy forces (e.g., Hezbollah or Hamas) or in other regional theaters like Syria, reducing the likelihood of direct state-to-state warfare escalating to the nuclear level.
6. U.S. and International Alliances
- Israel is a close ally of the United States, which has a strong military presence in the region. The U.S. would likely be involved in any major conflict, acting as a moderating force to prevent nuclear escalation.
In summary, while the risk of military conflict between Iran and Israel is real, the probability of such a conflict escalating to the level of a nuclear exchange remains low. The presence of deterrents, international diplomatic intervention, and the catastrophic consequences of nuclear war act as significant barriers to this worst-case scenario."
Comments