Here's something new, a response to an article written in the Wall Street Journal this week. Readers, please let me know if this sort of thing floats your boat, and I may do more in the future.
Below is the link. The title pretty much sums it up:
Obama to Israel: You're On Your Own
No 'red lines' for Iran and no time to meet Netanyahu.
Now we all know this is not the first time we hear word of a rift between American and Israeli interests regarding security in the Middle East, but to say that the Obama administration has abandoned Israel entirely because of cautious diplomacy on the part of the State Department really does go a bit too far.
As some of you may know, the major difference in policy here is how to treat a potentially nuclear Iran. Both President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu have stated that their intent is to not see a nuclear-armed Iran, but the United States would like to do so in as diplomatic a matter as possible, whereas Israel is much more prepared to take pre-emptive military action. Sure, these approaches are different enough to cause at least some unsettling, but nowhere near the same level as this article suggests.
Apparently, a cross-atlantic bout of words between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and PM Netanyahu over whether or not to set given deadlines/limits to Iran is enough of a sign from the United States that they have decided to not take things seriously. This idea though seems half-baked because there already is a red line drawn by the United States; no nukes for Iran, plain and simple. Also, President Obama not having the time to meet with PM Netanyahu should be taken as a sign of a withering alliance? I am almost positive that both world leaders have access to Skype if need be. IT jokes aside, it seems ridiculous to me that should the need arise for the two world leaders to coordinate on regional security issues that they would have to force a publicly known gathering.
If anything no news of talks is a very good sign for Israel's security, not a bad one. Keep in mind the meaning of "pre-emptive". Israel will only do such a strike should they have absolute information of one headed their way. Given the fact that 1) Israel gains more international support by remaining the "underdog" (one small country surrounded by many openly belligerent ones) and therefore not pre-emptively striking whenever it pleases and 2) Israel's Mossad takes its task of protecting Israel rather seriously and does it rather well considering Israel's success in the aforementioned neighborhood, meaning a botched pre-emptive strike is rather unlikely. So, given that a pre-emptive strike would more than likely
come under a situation where an overwhelming amount of information points directly to Iranian hostilities, simply because Israel cannot afford to be wrong, nor obviously does it want to be.
That being said, so long as President Obama is not cancelling other events looking to rush over to PM Netanyahu, then we can assume that Israel has not yet found enough justification for a full scale pre-emptive strike, meaning Iran's nuclear program is at best not worrisome, meaning the effective line in the sand drawn by the United States is more than enough to effectively capitulate their message of a nuclear-free Iran. It should then follow that the United States is not telling Israel to be on their own, but rather that a diplomatic approach based on more than reliable intelligence has better long term effects than spinning revolvers at one another.
Liked what you read? Want to know when the next post is up? Then Subscribe via email (top right tab bar) or by RSS Feed.
That being said, so long as President Obama is not cancelling other events looking to rush over to PM Netanyahu, then we can assume that Israel has not yet found enough justification for a full scale pre-emptive strike, meaning Iran's nuclear program is at best not worrisome, meaning the effective line in the sand drawn by the United States is more than enough to effectively capitulate their message of a nuclear-free Iran. It should then follow that the United States is not telling Israel to be on their own, but rather that a diplomatic approach based on more than reliable intelligence has better long term effects than spinning revolvers at one another.
Liked what you read? Want to know when the next post is up? Then Subscribe via email (top right tab bar) or by RSS Feed.
RSS Feed
Or join the Academy Facebook Page to stay up to date on everything Academy.
1 comment:
Well thought out article, but I am still thinking that because of the capabilities of the two nations( US and Israel) are quite different, the "line in the sand" is going to be different for both of them. The article may have been exaggerating the situation because a mere few gestures from each countries respective politicians, however I think they may be on to something. Military capabilities play into a large part in each of the countries "respective" time tables.
Post a Comment