However, so is the Syrian civil war. In that vein, I thought I'd outline a few of my thoughts on the Lebanese Hizballah.
A couple of weeks ago, the EU blacklisted Hizballah's military wing. That was a positive (if long overdue) move. From my perspective, Hizballah should not be able claim the moral sovereignty of a democratic political actor, whilst simultaneously retaining an apparatus of terrorism.
Yet, regardless of the EU, the Lebanese Hizballah faces a growing identity challenge. There's a simple reason why - Hizballah's continued, unrepentant support for the Assad regime in Syria.
Inside Lebanon, Hizballah has long resided upon a carefully cultivated identity as a cross-sectarian resistance force against foreign aggression. The group's support for Assad is irreconcilable with that position. Consequentially, both moderate and extremist Lebanese political actors are increasing their pressure on the group. Currents of sectarian hatred are once again rising to the surface (also see Nasrallah's comments in video link below). Ultiamtely, hypocrisy is the worst enemy of political identity and Hizballah's competitors are taking full advantage of this truth. Of course, it doesn't help Hizballah's legitimacy that the group wages regular terrorist campaigns against their political opponents.
Hizballah's brutality is taking a further toll beyond Lebanese borders. For a start, the organization's reputation is now increasingly tenuous amongst regional populations. Rather than being perceived as an emancipatory force delivering justice to the Lebanesenation, in many quarters, the organization is seen as a bitter sectarian entity that acts in the pursuit of a narrow agenda.
In the long term, these difficulties pose two distinct challenges for the group. First, they serve to fundamentally undercut Hizballah's base of cross-sectarian support. Second, as Hizballah's political identity becomes toxic, there will be less inducement for other political parties to join in coalition with the organization. We're already witnessing this development in Hizballah's evolving relationship with Hamas. In addition, though mainly motivated by other concerns, the recent collapse of the March 8th ruling coalition (of which Hizballah was a key part) illustrates the significant degree to which Lebanese political dynamics rest on uncertain ground. Hizballah's power base is growing more unstable.
Back in the summer of 2011, I argued that Hizballah would eventually abandon Assad through fear of otherwise suffering the political consequences mentioned above. They may still do so. However, I increasingly suspect that such a choice will require far greater western pressure on Assad.
For a selection of my other writings on Middle Eastern security - link here.
Speaking on Fox News yesterday, Rush Limbaugh declared that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be resolved only when ''one side surrendered''; for Limbaugh at least, Kerry's peace efforts are a waste of time. I strongly disagree with this assessment. Instead, I think there are four important reasons why the pursuit
of peace deserves the support of American conservatives.
1) National Security - Resolving this conflict is a critical interest of American national security. The continued suffering of the Palestinian people (both real and perceived) feeds anti-American extremism around the world and in so, helps to weaken the position of
regional pro-American moderates like President Abbas. Islamic extremists thrive in the well of absent justice. As numerous national security officials have stated, a durable peace deal would serve American interests in crucial ways. This isn't left wing hyperbole, rather it's the analysis of top military thinkers like Gen. Petraeus.
Those who argue in implicit support for perpetual conflict are either willfully delusional or poorly informed. Or both.
2) Diplomacy - The US Secretary of State's primary responsibility
is to advance the cause of American diplomacy. Peace building efforts
have always been a central component of this effort. Let's cut the BS. There's simply no reason why the US Government cannot manage the Egyptian crisis
whilst also advancing the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Since when have conservatives favored an America that
seeks only to manage events, rather than taking an active, positive stake
in shaping them? If we believe in global leadership our global efforts
cannot exist in a 9-5 mentality.
3) Legitimacy - In another regard, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict plays an intimate role in shaping delusional understandings
of both America and Israel. These false conceptions of truth serve to
weaken our voice in the Islamic world and beyond. A durable peace deal would empower the US with a newly perceived legitimacy on a range of
other diplomatic issues - engendering further co-operation on
counter-terrorism for example. Our influence would grow.
4) Israel - American conservatives (myself included) have always regarded Israel as an important ally. But we do no service to our friends if we lack the courage of boldness. Again, the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would greatly advance
the interests of the Israeli people. From trade to security, peace would empower Israeli society. Though some like to claim that Israel's security wall has won the Israeli people a secure future, the facts speak to another reality. For years, successive
Israeli Prime Ministers (including Netanyahu) have entertained serious compromises in pursuit of peace. They recognize that a lasting deal is crucial for Israel's security.
Fazit
Let me be clear, I'm not advocating that Israel make all the concessions - Palestinian reciprocity must be equally forthcoming and energetic (and Palestinian recognition of Israel's Jewish existence is obviously non-negotiable). Nor am I blind to the nature of Israel's enemies - Hamas are anti-Semitic totalitarians and the Lebanese Hizballah are anti-democratic thugs. These enemies will not cease to exist when a peace deal is eventually signed. However, they will be weakened.
In the end, I firmly believe that by using the existing negotiating templates of Camp David 2000 and Olmert 2008 (which have addressed numerous issues of contention: right of return, West Bank, water etc.), a just peace is reachable. Peace is always a noble ambition worthy of our support.
Khaled Meshal, the Hamas Chairman (leader) paid
a visit to Gaza yesterday. He had some interesting things to say,
including the line below.
“Palestine, from the river to the sea,
from north to south, is our land, not an inch of it can be conceded.”
Many commentators like to argue
that Hamas has moderated its tone and substance in recent years. They suggest that Hamas is
more open to compromise and negotiation with Israel in
pursuit of a durable, long term two state solution. This analysis is flawed. For
Hamas, the solution for peace is to drive Israel
into the Mediterranean Sea. In short, the group retains an existential
commitment to the destruction of Israel.
This commitment was first enshrined in
the highly anti-Semitic1988 Hamas covenant. An organizing statement which included the affirmation that:
'[Peace] initiatives... are in contradiction to
the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement...
There is nosolution for the
Palestinian problem except by Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and
international conferences are buta waste of time, an
exercise in futility.'
There are positives - the fundamentals of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement are already largely agreed upon - see David 2000 and Olmert 2008. Unfortunately, the ability to reach a final deal is made exceptionally difficult by intransigents on both sides. I say both sides, because when Hamas spouts its idiocy about the destruction of Israel, those words empower Israeli extremists who also oppose peace.
While I believe that a peace deal will be achieved in the next fifteen years, I also strongly believe that such a deal will be impossible until Hamas either loses power or relinquishes the most extreme tenets of its ideology or, is just ignored by the Palestinian Authority.
We appear to have a cease fire. As I noted in posts below, at first appearance this agreement makes little sense from an Israeli perspective. Until you consider the following factors.
1) As I thought, the key reason for Netanyahu's acceptance of a cease fire was the pressure that the US placed on him to acquiesce to the Egyptian peace plan. Netanyahu knows he has to deal with a second term Obama and that he will need US co-operation on Iran going forwards. He evidently decided that he could not afford to alienate the President.
2) The Egyptian Government of President Morsi committed to the US and to Israel that he would prevent Hamas smuggling into Gaza from Egyptian soil. At least at the present level. Israel wants a positive relationship with Egypt and is evidently willing to bend in order to achieve this. Israel wants to see if Morsi can live up to his word. And as Netanyahu put it when announcing the cease fire, Israel has the power to use greater force against Hamas if it becomes necessary.
3) President Obama has committed to Netanyahu that he will increase US support for counter-Iran action vis-a-vis Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups. This is crucial for the Israelis. Linking to point 1, Netanyahu has obviously decided that the Gaza question is peripheral to the Iran question.
In conclusion, whilebyagreeing to the Egyptian accords Israel has granted Hamas an unprecedented propaganda victory,Israel also appears to have gained significant concessions from the US with regards to other Israeli national security concerns. In essence, the Gaza cease fire has its roots in concerns far broader than Israeli threat perceptions re-Hamas. As I noted a couple of weeks ago (see my latest daily caller piece), policy decisions in the Middle East are currently being made with reference to regional rather than local dynamics.
Today's bomb attack on an Israeli civilian bus, apparently conducted by the Al-Asqa martyrs brigade, will weaken the short term prospects for a peace deal. That Al Asqa would conduct such an attack suggests the group is concerned with Hamas taking ownership of 'the resistance'. Al Asqa's links to the Fatah movement of President Abbas further accentuate my impression that there is a Palestinian political motivation behind this attack, as much as there is an anti-Israel component. As I have argued over the past few days (please see previous posts), Israel does not want a cease fire that has little durable meaning and power. Hamas does not want to be seen as weak, but also neither can continue to suffer such significant military losses. Fatah does not want to be seen as an impotent bystander. There is little question that Israel retains the upper hand with negotiations. The IDF is degrading Hamas power infrastructure and is thus affording a great deal of flexibility for Netanyahu's policy options. Israel can demand major concessions from Hamas as a condition for peace-expect a final cease fire to address Israeli concerns overHamas smuggling operations from Egypt into Gaza.
In conclusion, I expect that today's bus bombing will cause an escalation in near term violence but that Hamas will ultimately make greater concessions over the next few days- leading to a cease fire. Hamas cannot continue to absorb the damage that they are suffering.
The conflict between Israel and Hamas shows few indications of de-escalation. From my perspective, the Israelis are conducting an effective campaign against Hamas. The IDF is weakening Hamas military infrastructure, degrading Hamas command and control apparatus and exerting huge pressure on the group's fighters. As a result of these successes, the Israeli Government believes that it has the power to impose a tough price tag on Hamas demands for a cease fire. This was evident in yesterday's failed talks in Egypt. At the discussions, in addition to requiring that Hamas end their rocket fire as a prerequisite for a reciprocal halt to IDF operations, Israel also demanded a longer term Hamas pledge to disavow violence and accept that Israel would have theenduring right to launch pre-emptive attacks in case of 'imminent' threat intelligence. In essence, the Israeli leadership made demands that would fundamentally alter the status quo. Why? Israel does not want a cease fire which only allows Hamas time to regroup and reconstitute for future attacks. I'm sympathetic to this approach. A cease fire is supposed to be an agreed termination of combat, designed to provide political space for a broader negotiation framework. A cease fire is not supposed to exist as a tactical retreat which services the pursuit of Hamas broader strategic end; the destruction of Israel. This distinction is fundamentally important indriving Israel's perspective on when Operation Pillar of Defense can end. Put simply, Israel wants a cease fire that portends a more durable peaceful reliability.
As a side note, it is crucial to remember that Hamas and their allies are extremely astute to the regional and international political environment. They understand that media reporting of Palestinian casualties in Gaza produces diplomatic difficulties for Israel. They understand that engaging Egyptian and Turkish Government anger over Gaza, in turn increases pressure on the US/EU to then pressure Israel for a quick cease fire.This dynamic informs why Hamas and the PIJ use Gaza's civilian infrastructure for cover. For these groups, Gaza civilians are little more than a shield and a propaganda tool. Fortunately, even amidst Hamas efforts to immerse themselvesamong the people, Israel has been effective in their clinical application of force. For an example, see this morning's highly discriminate attack on an Islamic Jihad leader who was operating out of one floor of a media building.*
It is my opinion that until Israel believesa cease fire will be
durable and will lead to a real rather than fake peace, the state will not
accede to Hamas demands to end the violence.
*Contrary to what some might say, if an enemy agent is operating in a media capacity that focuses on the command and control and mobilization of his forces, then that agent is not a journalist protected under international law. He is an enemy combatant and a justified military target.
The conflict between Israel and Hamas shows no signs of abating. Neither Netanyahu nor Hamas believe that they can back down at this point. As I have written (see posts over past few days), both Israel and Hamas have broader reasons for their actions in this conflict. This overarching dynamic has not weakened, instead it is exacerbated with each new death. However, by effectively injecting themselves into the conflict, the Egyptian Government's actions will lead to two evolutions. First, Israeli-Egyptian relations will further deteriorate (both now and in the medium term): at some point this may lead to a skirmish along the Egyptian/Israeli border. Second, Egypt's engagement gives Hamas a huge, (although I would argue unwarranted) PR boost. Having said this, the Israeli Government will not significantly alter their operational planning because of the presence of Egyptian officials in Gaza. When the Egyptian PM visited Gaza earlier today, Israel implemented a cease fire. However, when Hamas continued to fire rockets during that cease fire, Israel responded with further air strikes. The Israelis will be anxious to send the message that they will not allow Egypt to provide a form of 'human shield' for Hamas. Earlier today a friend who lives in Jerusalem (and who is a top Israel-Palestinian conflict expert) told me that he cannot understand why Hamas is firing on Jerusalem. As he noted, many Palestinians live in that city and the rocket fire risks damaging the Dome of the rock. I think this shows the faux morality of Hamas 'liberation' narrative.
I believe that this conflict will continue for at least a few more days; Israel's targeting of Hamas PM Haniyeh signals Netanyahu's strategic intent to strike a major blow against the group. But one thing is important. Regardless of individual attitudes surrounding the debate over 'right versus wrong' in this particular operation, it is important that observers do not become pawns for Hamas propaganda.
Hamas is not a liberation force struggling valiantly for freedom. They exist on a platform of overt hatred towards Jews, the destruction of Israel and the imposition of an ideological tyranny on the Palestinian people. Think about these truths. For Hamas, a bus is not a method of transport, but instead an opportunity for murder. A nightclub is not a place of celebration, but instead a place to blow up kids. An apartment block is not a place for living, but instead a place for a targeting post. A college is not a place for learning, but instead for a bomb factory. A Palestinian civilian is not a fellow citizen deserving of protection, but instead a human shield.
1) The conflict between Israel and Hamas is reaching new levels of escalation. As I predicted on Tuesday, the day before the conflict erupted, both Hamas and Israel have their own reasons for taking a tough stand. Regardless, in terms of my analysis now that the conflict is underway, I have a number of thoughts. First, in my view Hamas is to blame. Before Israel began to respond, Hamas had fired hundreds rockets at Israel settlements. No state can tolerate the continuation of such aggression. Israel had to respond. Now that Israeli forces are committed, Israel's objective should be to degrade Hamas ability to fire rockets at Israel and to challenge Hamas consideration of the consequences that such rocket attacks will incur. Second, in military terms, Israel should focus on air power rather than a ground force engagement. Facing an enemy such as Hamas, which revels in the use of human shields, any Israeli ground force action will inevitably cause significant civilian casualties (as well as put Israeli service personnel at far greater risk). In addition to the moral component of these casualties, Israel would suffer a strategic defeat in the public affairs narrative that would follow in media reporting. Populist sympathy among Palestinians would be driven towards Hamas and away from the more moderate leadership of President Abbas. Iran and Syria would attempt to use this narrative to drive a divide into the present anti-Assad alliance between Israel and Turkey. Iran and Syria would try to use such a narrative to distract attention away from their own activities in the region. In contrast to the risks inherent in a ground operation, the Israeli Air Force can continue to inflict severe damage on Hamas military infrastructure without ground force-comparative risks. The Israeli intelligence apparatus has extensive intelligence capabilities in Gaza and these assets enable effective targeting from the air.
2) The Petraeus 'scandal' rumbles along. It seems to me that this scandal represents the worst element of media sensationalism. The 'scandal' has seemingly not jeopardized any national security imperatives and yet the media are still baying for blood. General Allen, the ISAF commander, is now being dragged through the dirt for supposedly having committed the crime of the century - 'sending flirtatious emails'. Give me a break.
3) The coronation of the next Chinese leader is underway. Xi Jinping appears to be a pragmatist with some positive feelings towards the United States. We shall see. A strong relationship between China and the United States would be great for both countries. However, such a relationship must be built on a foundation of open dialogue and trust. Again, we shall see.
4) The BP settlement re- criminal justice sanctions, should draw a line under the Horizon explosion. Compensation has been paid, people have been fired. But we don't need a situation in which populist anger is allowed to drive the situation onwards into perpetuity.
In my view, Jones's argument is weak; indicative of the author's poor understanding of international affairs and his embedded anti-american sentiment. Below, I have responded to the major arguments that Jones makes.
After all, it was difficult to defend an administration packed with such repulsive characters, like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, whose attitude towards the rest of the world amounted to thuggish contempt.
Cheney and Rumsfeld may be controversial characters (I often disagree with their positions), but I reject the notion that they are 'repulsive'. From their perspective, the US faced critical national security challenges that required robust policy responses. I respect that both men did what they thought was right for the United States. Jones seems to think that because Cheney and Rumsfeld disagreed with his European leftist world view, they were beyond reproach. He is wrong.
Many will shudder remembering that dark era: the naked human pyramids accompanied by grinning US service personnel in Abu Ghraib; the orange-suited prisoners in Guantanamo, kneeling in submission at the feet of US soldiers; the murderous assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah.
I take issue with everything here. In response to the despicable abuses at Abu Ghraib, the US Military rightly punished those responsible. The actions of these personnel were an aberration from the fine conduct that the US armed forces exemplify 99% of the time. It is disgusting that Jones asserts that Abu Ghraib was a deliberate action on the part of the US Government.
On Guantanamo, the photo that Jones refers to was taken in January 2002, just after the first prisoners had arrived. The photo shows nothing more than the detainees sitting in a control position. However, for those on the hard-left like Jones, the photo serves a natural metaphor for their inherent disgust towards the notion of military justice. I always find it amusing that people like Jones have no concerns about the military justice system when it is used against military personnel, but get incredibly upset when it is used against terrorists.
Fallujah - Jones's most idiotic point. Jones evidently has absolutely no understanding of military operations in urban environments. They are always bloody, always destructive and always unpleasant. However, prior to its Fallujah operation, the US Military took great effort to evacuate the city of civilians. As a further indication of the US Military's desire to prevent civilian loss of life during the operation, only 10% of requested (pre-ground force entry) air strikes were authorized. Pre-November 2004, Fallujah was the primary base of operations for Al Qa'ida in Iraq. It was the place where car bombs were constructed to be used to murder innocent Iraqis, it was the city where hostages were held, tortured and executed. It was the physical and ideational home of those who wanted to destroy Iraq. It was where men like Janabi murdered Iraqi patriots who simply wanted to bring justice to their communities. Put simply, the US had no alternative but to take Fallujah. Had we not, thousands more Iraqis would have died at the hands of the insurgents and Iraq's stability and security (already endangered) would have been placed in much greater jeopardy. (See one example of Al Qa'ida in Iraq actions).
This week, the UN's Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism, Ben Emmerson QC, demanded that the US allow independent investigation over its use of unmanned drones, or the UN would be forced to step in.
Good luck UN. The US is at war. We have the right to defend our citizens. I wonder if like me, Jones visualizes this when he writes that the UN will be 'forced to step in'. Note- I am simply arguing that the UN is an impotent joke that serves dictators rather than democracy. I am not endorsing feeding UN officials to sharks.
In one such attack [predator drone] in North Waziristan in 2009, several villagers died in an attempt to rescue victims of a previous strike.
It might be unpleasant, but the US must address those who threaten us. It would be militarily absurd to allow our enemies to be withdrawn from the battlefield, to then be able to plot against us once again.
According to Pakistan's US Ambassador, Sherry Rehman, the drone war "radicalises foot soldiers, tribes and entire villages in our region". After the latest strike this week, Pakistan's foreign ministry said the attacks were "a violation of its sovereignty and territorial integrity and are in contravention of international law". Its Parliament has passed a resolution condemning the drone war.
I have little doubt that the drone strikes help cause the radicalization of some Pakistanis. This is regrettable. However, in my opinion the US has no choice but to utilize the drones. Extremist groups in Pakistan pose a substantial threat to the security of the United States. Pakistan may complain, but Pakistan is in bed with these terrorists. Perhaps if the Pakistani government/military got tougher on extremists, Pakistan would have a logical argument with which to persuade the US to end the drone program.
It [drone program] is armed aggression by the Obama administration, pure and simple.
BS. It is self-defense justified by moral and strategic necessity.
Two months ago, former US President Jimmy Carter described drone attacks as a "widespread abuse of human rights" which "abets our enemies and alienates our friends". He's not wrong: the Pew Research Center found just 7 per cent of Pakistanis had a positive view of Obama, the same percentage as Bush had just before he left office.
You don't fight a war based on opinion polls.
[Re-Afghanistan]US involvement in a senseless, unwinnable war in the country – ruled by a weak, corrupt government that stole the 2009 presidential election with ballot stuffing, intimidation and fraud – continues.
Under Obama, the US role in the Middle East remains as cynically wedded to strategic self-interest as ever. Despotic tyrannies like Saudi Arabia are armed to the teeth: in 2010, the US signed an arms deal with the regime worth $60bn, the biggest in US history. Obama has resumed sales of military equipment to Bahrain's dictatorship as it brutally crushes protesters struggling for democracy. Last year, Saudi Arabia invaded Bahrain with tacit US support. And even when the US-backed Mubarak dictatorship was on the ropes in Egypt, Obama's administration remained a cheerleader, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arguing that the "Egyptian Government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people".
I actually broadly agree with Jones here. The US should have withdrawn support for Mubarak far earlier - he had become a despot beyond redemption. The US must also exert pressure on Saudi Arabia to improve human rights and democracy conditions. Unfortunately as I have previously argued, until we get rid of our oil addiction, America will remain on the Saudi leash. My concern with Jones is that he doesn't realize how hypocritical he is being when he criticizes US pro-democracy action in Afghanistan and Iraq, but simultaneously demands pro-democracy action everywhere else.
Coupled with the US's ongoing failure to pressure Israel into accepting a just peace with the Palestinians, no wonder there is rising global anger at Obama.
Peace will not come until the Israelis and Palestinians desire a lasting settlement. Jones plays the typical card of blaming Israel, even though the Israeli peace proposals in 2000 and 2008 - rejected by the Palestinian leadership - were bold and generous. I am hopeful that Netanyahu will be increasingly able to isolate extremists in his coalition who oppose peace. I also hope that HAMAS inability to improve the lives of Palestinians in Gaza will lead to their collapse (sadly I doubt HAMAS cares much for democratic tradition).
The US share of global economic output was nearly a quarter in 1991; today, it represents less than a fifth. The financial crash has accelerated the ongoing drain in US economic power to the East. Latin America, regarded as the US's backyard since the 1823 Monroe Doctrine claimed it for the US sphere of influence, is now dominated by governments demanding a break from the free-market Washington Consensus.
China will face major problems as it seeks to deal with a large population who lack freedom and economic mobility. With strong leadership, the US can retain its position as the world's foremost power. Jones comments on S/C America are hilarious. He neglects to mention that the major economic powerhouses of Brazil and Colombia have rejected the wacko Chavez aligned movements which are falling apart at the seams. I always find it staggering that the European left worship men like Chavez and Castro. Chavez has destroyed Venezuela's economy while supporting a band of murdering rapists in Colombia. Castro rules over a country in which only 5% of the population have cars and from which many Cubans risk crossing shark infested waters to escape the 'communist paradise'. For Jones to embrace these regimes is both morally foul and intellectually bankrupt.
the Iraq war not only undermined US military prestige and invincibility, it perversely boosted Iran's power in the Middle East.
The hard left love using this line, yet Maliki (albeit too autocratic) is by no means an Iranian stooge. The Iraqi people determine their own future now. Jones apparently mourns the 'safe hands' of Saddam Hussein.
With the last remaining superpower at its weakest since World War II, there is an unmissable opening to argue for a more equal and just world order, restricting the ability of Great Powers to throw their weight around. And a word of warning: if we don't seize this opportunity now, one superpower will simply be replaced by another – and our world will be as unequal and unjust as ever.
Since the end of the Second World War, America has preserved international security and freedom. This has come at significant expense in American treasure and at a high human cost to the American people. Without the US, the world would be at the mercy of violent extremists. The security of the seas (crucial for international trade) would be endangered and the ambitions of autocrats from Russia to China to Venezuela would be unleashed. I have no comprehension of what kind of world Jones wants. Presumably he is one of those leftists who subscribe to the incomprehensible notion that the UN can preserve international order. Just look at Rwanda, Kosovo, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria to see the UN's 'peace' record. Perhaps Jones wants the Chinese to assume the mantle of global power? Again, that might not be so good for those in Asia or those around the world who wish to be free.
In the end, I suspect that there is a deeper motivation behind Jones's words. For Jones as for so many on the hard left, America is an obstacle to their (false) socialist utopia. They wish for a system in which power is centralised with an elite who know what is best for everyone else. Conversely, America believes in and stands for a system via which individuals hold power and enrich society, through communities built upon tangible mutual interests and ideals.
America is far from perfect, but a strong America is necessary for the security and freedom of people everywhere.
The New York Times is carrying a piece today that outlines the complexities that will be inherent in any prospective Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Clearly, it is absolutely true that any attack would be exceptionally difficult. However...... The problem with a lot of the analysis surrounding this Israel-Iran issue is that it often fails to consider the encompassing, strategic conception that exists on the part of Israel. For Israel, consideration of a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities is not just rooted in analysis of the potential risks of that act and its aftermath (IE - failing to substantially weaken the Iranian program and potential Iranian retaliation). Instead, alongside these factors, Israeli considerations are consumed with the perceived threat that a nuclear Iran will pose if it arises. Israel regards a nuclear Iran as a precursor to a second Holocaust. An existential threat that will be unconstrained, undeterred and unleashed in its encouragement for proxies like HAMAS, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. It is in this sense that for Israel, whatever the perceived risks of acting against Iran, the risks of not acting are perceived to be higher. It is for this reason that even if the liklehood of an Israeli strike succeeding is low, Israel will still act.
+ The Saudi Sunni Monarchy is especially concerned by the prospect of a nuclear Iran. The Saudis may grant 'closed eyes' overflight rights to Israel.
Republicans cannot condition support for democracy in the middle east on the basis of our personal affinity for particular ideologies. If the party is to stand for democracy in Iraq, it must also accept the need for Palestinian democracy, Egyptian democracy and democracy in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Without honest, genuine support for democracy across the Middle East, Republicans have a total lack of credibility to argue that america's foreign policy is centred around promotion of freedom. In this hypocrisy, Republican candidates serve to provide politically astute adversaries like HAMAS, Hezbollah and the Sadrists, with talking points to suggest that the US only supports those with whom it agrees. In an inescapable sense, this feeds traditional extremist narratives hostile to US interests..
IE - the argument - 'Don't trust or work with the Americans or their agents, because they have no interest in your welfare but instead only care about pursuing a blindly, pro-Israel agenda'. This narrative serves to unfairly deligitimise the nature of America's regional actions and relationships.
Aside from the diplomatic damage caused, such wilful contradiction between words and reality, ultimately undermines the cause of freedom itself (to which america's extremist opponents in the middle east are ultimately ideologically averse). Supporting democracy does not mean that we should automatically agree with other democracies, but it does mean that we accept the notion that popular power is at its basic but ever developing level, a good thing.
The central point here is that if republicans still believe in democracy as a moderating force (the underlying premise of the Bush ideology that Republicans have overwhelmingly supported since 9/11), then in favour of an ultimately more just, peaceful and stable middle east, republicans must be willing to accept that in the short term, while democracy may not always produce results that we would like, it is crucial to stand in support of freedom.
Israeli military action against Iran is likely to occur but unlikely to lead to a regional war
The growth of Iran's nuclear capability means that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities is becoming likely. However, while the repercussions of an Israeli strike would be extremely serious, such a strike would be unlikely to escalate into a regional war.
Although the US and EU remain deeply concerned by Iran's nuclear program, for Israel, the perceived threat runs much deeper. Put simply, Israeli nuclear security strategy is indelibly hardened by the experiences of Auschwitz and Treblinka. Israel regards an Iranian nuclear weapon as a precursor to a second holocaust and thus an outcome that cannot be tolerated. Indeed, unilateral Israeli strikes against an Iraqi nuclear facility in 1981 and a suspected Syrian nuclear facility in 2007, provide clear evidence of Israeli attitudes towards perceived regional nuclear threats. The Israeli government believes that even if Iran were unlikely to use a nuclear weapon, the very possession of that capability would enable Iran's leaders to wage unrestrained aggression against Israeli interests. This could either come through encouragement to allies like the Lebanese Hizbollah, directly through Iran's intelligence services, or through a combination of both.
The central point is that Israel believes that a nuclear Iran would inevitably translate as an Iran that cannot be deterred.
In practical terms and contrary to popular opinion, effective Israeli military options against Iran, though highly complex, are not impossible. The Israeli Air Force has advanced 'bunker busting' bombs capable of penetrating hardened facilities and the Israeli Air Force regularly trains for long duration, deep penetration operations. Critically important also is the fact that Israel's sunni arab neighbours are terrified of a nuclear Iran. These states may well provide logistical support to 'quietly' facilitate Israeli action.
It is true that if Israel attacks Iran, the consequences would likely be serious. In the aftermath of Israeli strikes, Iran would probably attempt to attack Israeli interests worldwide while encouraging HAMAS and Hizbollah to launch attacks against Israel from Gaza and Lebanon. In addition, Iran might attempt to close oil transit routes through the straits of Hormuz. These actions would create regional instability, civilian casualties and would cause significant economic disruption. However, at the same time, the Iranian leadership also know that if they were to engage in major retaliation- for example by attempting to ignite a regional war or using chemical weapons against Israel, this would result in an escalatory dynamic that they could not survive. Iran is fully cognizant of the fact that the US would not allow Israel's survival to be threatened and that any substantial attack on US interests would incur an overwhelming American response. While the Iranian leadership are right in judging that there exists no American appetite for a ground invasion of their country, they also understand that In the event of a war, the US Air Force has the capacity to launch devastating attacks against Iran with relative impunity.
Ultimately, both Israeli and Iranian policy will be born of distinct, changing but rational analysis.
1) The FIFA scandal http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/9481461.stm is a disaster for two reasons. Firstly in the suggestion that the World Cup wins for Qatar and Russia may have been bought. Secondly in that the allegations were not made prior to the World Cup allocation, through fear of defamation suits being brought in English courts. In one example we see the true cost of England's disastrous defamation laws. By the perceived absence of a public interest protection and the heavy burden of evidence that publishers/speakers must present to support their story, speech is avoided and the chilling effect becomes real. Sepp Blatter needs to resign, this should be the final nail in his already heavily nailed coffin. FIFA also now needs to conduct a major investigation into the allegations. If proven, the bid process should be reconstituted and Qatar/Russia stripped of their tournaments.
2) The debate on Afghanistan that is following Bin Laden's death is to be expected, but for me it is also problematic. the Obama counter-insurgency surge (a strategy I wrote in support of -http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/oct/29/obama-mcchrystal-afghanistan) has produced major security and governance gains across Afghanistan. These successes are creating space for political reconciliation by building local empowerment that increasingly rejects the Taliban. While the corruption of the Karzai administration is a major issue and while local governance is no where near the level of proficiency we would hope to see, I would argue that with a little more time (2-3 years) we can and we will reach a point in which violence and meaningful political stability; stability characterized by a just, albeit basic democratic peace will emerge. This evolution will allow an orderly and meaningful withdrawal of forces. We have lost much blood and treasure to the effort in Afghanistan and in a situation where a positive outcome is increasingly possible, we have a strategic and moral responsibility to stay and finish the mission.
