Israel vs Iran: An opportunity for Israel to remake the Middle East

Iran is constantly threatening to wipe Israel off the map, but is actually extremely weak in conventional military terms. Syrian and Iraq are also very weak.

If attacked by Iran from Syria, Israel should take the opportunity to launch a large scale combined arms offensive across southern Syria, Iraq and into Iran overthrowing all these Israel hating regimes, breaking these nations up into their ethnic parts and enabling a Kurdish state.

In other words, undo the mess Sykes Picot created and re-create the Middle East (ME) in Israel's image of small, ethnically based states.

Changing a faulty doctrine

Israel has traditionally followed a doctrine of not trying to change the broader region, because of a single failure in this regard in 1982 in Lebanon. Also, perhaps because of US failures in this regard.
It is doubtful whether this doctrine was ever correct.

A single attempt in the most complicated, ethnically riven nation, is hardly a valid basis for drawing broad strategic conclusions. This is especially true as the attempt, driven by General Sharon, was not properly planned at a strategic level or even supported by most of the Israeli government.

The US experience is also not a valid basis for Israel's strategic doctrine for the following reasons:

1. The US simply does not understand the ME, Israel does;
2. US interventions in the ME since the 1980s have been reactions to events with mutually conflicting goals and without any broad coherent strategy;
3. the US has never attempted to address the Original Sin of Sykes Picot and has avoided re-making national borders;
4. the US has operated very far from home, dependent on basing in difficult regional states and has been thus constrained by the current order;
5. Since the First Gulf War (a US success) the US has not deployed to the region (or even been capable of deploying) even a small fraction of the forces Israel is capable of deploying.

Today this doctrine is clearly wrong. It leads to fighting the enemy at the location of their choosing (Syria, Lebanon) where they are stronger rather than hitting Iran at home where they are weak. To just attack in Syria or Lebanon plays into Iran's hands. Iran itself is virtually defenceless.
It also leads to missing opportunities to change Israel's overall strategic position, such as by enabling the Kurds and breaking up enemy states like Syria, Iraq & Iran.

Balance of forces

The balance of forces has also changed dramatically.

Once Syria and Iraq fielded each fielded million men armies with many thousands of tanks, hundreds of fighter jets backed by the might of the Soviet Union.
Today Iraq has virtually no air-force and less than 100 modern tanks (low export quality M1 Abrams for which they have no parts).
Syria's once powerful military has suffered huge attrition in the civil war. Its air and armoured forces are outdated, worn out and barely operational, only good for killing civilians and lightly armed rebels.

The Russians have both limited means and limited goals in Syria. They have no modern armour in the region and are outnumbered by Israel 100:1 on the ground and 10:1 in the air with a substantial quality disadvantage. As long as Israel lets them have an Alawite rump state in northern Syria for their air and naval bases, they will not risk losing what they have achieved by interfering in Israel's operations.

Iran doesn't have a single modern tank, nor a single modern combat aircraft. Its best tanks are untested, home made knock-offs of Soviet tanks Israel easily destroyed 40 and 50 years ago. Its best aircraft are F-14s from before the fall of the Shah. Indeed, Iranian military equipment across almost every area (except missile & nuclear technology) has barely evolved from the Iran-Iraq war. Iran has focussed its military budget on asymmetrical warfare, missiles and developing nuclear technology. Its conventional capabilities are extremely weak.

Today, Israel fields one of the largest high quality armoured forces in the world, with the Trophy APS system which neutralises all anti-tank missiles. This means that infantry, light & medium armoured vehicles and helicopters are as useful before a brigade of Mervaka IVs as Polish horse cavalry was before German Panzers. The only thing that can stop a Merkava IV is another high quality modern main battle tank (MBT). Yet Syria, Iraq & Iran have very few MBTs and none of a quality that can threaten top-class Israeli armour.

Implementation

It is no exaggeration to say that there is no military force in the 1500km between the Golan and Tehran than could stop even a single brigade of Trophy equipped Merkava IVs. Yet Israel can field 75+ armoured brigades.

I propose Israel deploy an Armoured Corps (comprised of the following 12 brigades : 5 x Merkava IV with Trophy, 3 x Merkava III, 2 x Namer AFV with Trophy, 1 x Eitan AFV with Trophy, 1 x Achzarit).

This force would advance across a 100km front from the Golan through sparsely populated southern Syria along the Jordanian border connecting with US forces in eastern Syria. The southern flank will be protected by the Jordanian border (and US forces located there) and a brigade of Merkava IIIs along Iraqi border section. The northern flank will be protected by a brigade of Merkava IIIs. Axis of advance and both flanks benefit from open desert terrain with low populations - perfect tank country.

The force would cross the Euphrates into US controlled eastern Syria where it would be able to resupply in friendly territory and set up air bases.
Once established in south eastern Syria the force would then cross the Iraqi border and head towards Erbil & Kirkuk, liberating it from Iraqi government forces and handing it back to the Kurds. Mosul would be cut off and Kurds encouraged to conquer it with Israeli air and artillery support. Israeli air and ground force bases would be established in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Achzarit brigade would remain in Iraqi Kurdistan to secure the withdrawal route.
The force would then progress east with friendly support and re-supply in Iraqi Kurdistan to the Iranian border.

The force would then advance eastwards into Iran via Kurdish and Azeri areas where local populations will support their liberation. The northern flank is secured by supportive local populations, the Azerbaijan border (friendly to Israel) and a brigade of Merkava IIIs.

The remaining 8 Trophy equipped brigades would advance toward Tehran while securing its southern flank, destroying all Iran Republican Guard Corps (IRGC) forces and bases and calling on the Iranian people to revolt against the Mullahs.

Iran is attacking Israel to distract its people from Iran's economic, social and demographic collapse. Its people want to overthrow the Islamist regime but the IRGC is too strong. If Israel destroys all IRCG bases & regime assets but not other Iranian infrastructure this will not be seen as hostile by the Iranian people and will free them to rise up.

Once either the destruction of IRGC forces is complete or the Iranian people overthrow the regime, the force would withdraw back into Iraq Kurdistan where part of it would remain to support the creation of a Kurdish state in the Kurdish areas of Syria, Iraq & Iran, and deter Turkish intervention.

A Kurdish state, especially one created with Israeli military assistance, will be a strong ally of Israel. It will provide Israel permanent bases to extend its reach and be an excellent trade partner and market for Israel's defence industries. The presence of a strong Kurdistan supported by Israel will restrain all those nations surrounding it (including Turkey) from aggressive actions towards Israel.
The Persian people, freed from tyranny, will likely resume their historic friendship with the Jewish people, or at least be too busy fixing the damage caused by 4 decades of mis-rule to bother Israel.

Thus with only a small percentage of its ground forces, Israel could completely remake the Middle East and permanently eliminate its enemies. Note that Israel is still at war with Syria and Iraq so is perfectly entitled to invade them, as they tried many times to do to Israel.

Ethnically based states do not need to oppress their people to keep order and would not need to stoke Israel hatred to distract from their oppression. Thus this re-made ME would be more stable, less repressive and more friendly to the most successful example of a small ethnically based ME state - Israel.

Israel is far more powerful in the region than the UK & France were when Sykes & Picot created the mess that is the current Middle East. Its time Israel used its great military strength to fix the mess by redrawing the maps to reflect natural ethnic divisions and provide independence to oppresses minorities. By doing so it can create a region that can be at peace with itself and Israel. At worst Israel will have severely punished and permanently undermined its enemies.