This is serious, scary stuff. And it's all intertwined with domestic politics in the U.S., Israel, and even Iran: a change of leadership looms in all three countries. (Olmert and Ahmadinejad are both unpopular at home and likely to be unelected; and rattling the saber is often a good way to hang onto power a little longer).
The problem for America is that, even if we don't aid the Israelis with our air bases or satellite intelligence, nobody will clear us of complicity in the event of an Israeli attack on Iran. Everybody knows that Israel won't act without Bush's go-ahead.
Even worse, as this article concludes, even if Israel does decide to "act alone," it may not be capable of wiping out all of Iran's possible nuclear sites without U.S. help. Then Bush-Cheney would be sorely tempted to step in and finish the job.
I see one possible way around this problem, and it would be a real re-making of the Mideast: a complete halt to all U.S. military aid to Israel. The first message of such a step would be: "Israel, you're on your own now." For Israel is certainly capable of defending itself without U.S. help. At the very least, it's capable of buying U.S.-made weapons on the open market at market prices. The second message of a cut-off of U.S. aid would be: "America takes no responsibility for Israel's military actions against Iran, or in the Palestinian territories." As a strong, democratic, sovereign nation, it would finally be Israel's prerogative to decide for itself issues related to its own safety. Israel would probably do some unsavory things that we wouldn't agree with, but... don't they already? For instance, when Condoleeza Rice called for temporary cessation of hostilities during U.S.-initiated Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, Olmert ignored her, terribly hurting U.S. credibility.
For sure, America couldn't disentangle itself from Israel overnight, but halting the $ billions of military aid that we send every year to Israel would be a good start. It would also bolster our credibility as an "honest broker" in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, should we choose to continue pushing for peace.
Finally, this is not to say that America couldn't or shouldn't come to Israel's aid if Israel faced an existential crisis. Indeed, America would probably come to the aid of any democratic, Western-oriented country if it faced annihilation from an aggressor.
President George W Bush Backs Israeli Plan for Strike on Iran
By Uzi Mahnaimi
July 13, 2008 | The Times Online
[Excerpts:]
'Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an "amber light" to an Israeli plan to attack Iran's main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.'
'"It's really all down to the Israelis," the Pentagon official added. "This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn't believe that anything but force will deter Iran."'
'Senator Barack Obama's previous opposition to the war in Iraq, and his apparent doubts about the urgency of the Iranian threat, have intensified pressure on the Israeli hawks to act before November's US presidential election. "If I were an Israeli I wouldn't wait," the Pentagon official added.'
'Yet US officials acknowledge that no American president can afford to remain idle if Israel is threatened. How genuine the Iranian threat is was the subject of intense debate last week, with some analysts arguing that Iran might have a useable nuclear weapon by next spring and others convinced that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is engaged in a dangerous game of bluffing — mainly to impress a domestic Iranian audience that is struggling with economic setbacks and beginning to question his leadership.'
'"Maybe the Israelis could start off the attack and have us finish it off," Katzman added. "And maybe that has been their intention all along. But in terms of the long-term military campaign that would be needed to permanently suppress Iran's nuclear programme, only the US is perceived as having that capability right now."'
No comments:
Post a Comment