‘It’s Your Fault’: U.S. Gets the Israel Treatment Over Iran
Israel is often in this position. Its enemies threaten it in unacceptable ways or commit acts of violence just under some unspoken-but-very-real threshold of tolerance (not Israel’s threshold, mind you, but that of the U.S., the UN or the EU). Corresponding Israeli action to protect its people is called “aggression” and Israel is blamed for any resulting damage. In 2002, Israel’s choice was to suffer suicide bombers or to enter Palestinian cities on the West Bank. In 2005, it was to accept terrorist infiltration or to build the security fence. In 2008 and 2009, it was to permit Hamas to rain rockets and missiles on the south, or to enter Gaza to restore its deterrence. In 2010, the choice was to intercept the Mavi Marmara in international waters or to risk having it blow up on Israel’s shores.
In each case, Israel suffered the opprobrium of the uninvolved. Rarely was it noted that if Israel’s enemies would just stop trying to kill them, there wouldn’t be a need for any of those choices.
The U.S. now finds itself in a similar situation, but the belief that America will be at fault if it antagonizes Iran comes at least in part from Americans.
Iran has been pursuing nuclear technology since the days of the shah, but with more overt apocalyptic overtones under the Islamic Republic. While the threat of military action against Iranian facilities is a penumbra around the conversation, the U.S., Europe, and even Israel are first committed to a plan of diplomacy and sanctions to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
But Iran wants nuclear weapons — or at least wants to pursue whatever nuclear capability it wants to pursue without full disclosure and without penalty.
To break the impasse, the U.S. and the West have struggled with the organized evolution of non-military pressure (increased banking sanctions and the decision of the EU to phase in a boycott of Iranian oil). Iran’s response has been to threaten military action to close the Strait of Hormuz, the egress for about 60% of the world’s oil. Ali Akbar Velayati, an adviser to Iran’s supreme leader, said on Iranian television: “Iran will never allow itself to be in a situation in which it cannot sell oil but other regional states can.”
What to do? Well, if you are the chattering classes in Washington, blame the United States for “saber rattling,” “ratcheting up” the tension, and possibly provoking the military activity Iran has announced itself prepared to execute.
Last week, the Atlantic Council gathered representatives of a variety of other think tanks, all heavily populated with former State Department and CIA analysts, to discuss the increased tension in the Persian Gulf. They concluded that President Obama’s statement that he “will take no option off the table” and the dispatch of an American aircraft carrier (along with British and French ships) through the Strait of Hormuz have put us in “a fraught and dangerous situation,” per Bruce Riedel, a former CIA official now with the Brookings Institution.
The major problem is that there is so much anti-semitism in Europe these days. You know that the “Arab Street” would never, ever, give Israel the benefit of the doubt on anything. In fact, they want Israel destroyed. But it’s in Europe where you see the least support for Israel these days. More and more you see a pro-Muslim stand on just about everything, from anti-Israel statements coming from their governments to prosecuting anybody who has anything bad to say about Islam in Europe. The Europeans are probably doing this because of their large and growing Muslim populations, so they feel they can certainly throw Israel, as well as the Jews, under the bus. After all, Jews are not suicide bombers, Muslims are. So the media in Europe will not say anything to support Israel let alone demand that any military moves be taken against Iran. Remember, these are the same people who wasted YEARS negotiating with Iran over their nuclear program and came away with nothing. The Iranians clearly used that time to continue working on their nuclear program.
I sometimes think that if Iran even exploded a nuclear bomb test somewhere, even then the Europeans wouldn’t care. They would simply say that, “Well, Pakistan has a nuclear bomb, why not Iran?” They would simply ignore the dangers this would create not only for Israel, but for many of Iran’s neighbors, such as Saudi Arabia. The Europeans are not about to do anything about this and we had better come to grips with that fact. Sanctions are useless and they know it. Saddam Hussein had sanctions on his country for years and he did just fine, until we attacked him.
Personally, I’m beginning to think that we shouldn’t do much of anything, EXCEPT support covert operations and popular rebellions within Iran in hopes that it will get us regime change. Other than that, I doubt bambi in the White House is going to do much of anything in an election year. So let the mainstream media say we’re rattling sabers all day long. This president isn’t going to do anything before election day, and the Iranians know it.
“I sometimes think that if Iran even exploded a nuclear bomb test somewhere, even then the Europeans wouldn’t care.”
Libertyship46, I fully agree with your sentiment, but I think you are still hedging a bit. Of course the Europeans wouldn’t care if Iran exploded a bomb. They don’t see themselves as being directly threatened by Iran and know that they can always opt for appeasement if the situation gets prickly. Some day in the future when the Iranian nuclear program is fully revealed I expect that the involvement of European companies, especially German ones, will figure prominently as suppliers and contractors.
A war is a handy little thing. It gets people’s minds off of other things like a bad economy, failed policies and all sorts of other things. If Obambi gets it in his head that he might be able to win reelection by starting a war, I doubt he will hesitate. The more it looks like he will lose the more chance he will use that option.
That might backfire. Of all the things Obama is not qualified for, CINC is the most obvious. If he gets us in a war, do you really think the old, “go with the horse we started with” meme would work for him? (Except for the Left, former anti-war types,of course.)
But isn’t that the basic way of Islam, both ancient and modern? Anyone they wish to attack is told that it is their fault they need to be attacked. It seems to me that the only way to oppose Obama, and by extension, Islam, is to make no concessions. Want us to give up land? No. We will take more land. Want us to give up nuclear weapons? No. We will build twice as many. Want us to accept Hamas as part of the Palestinian leadership? No. We will deport them wherever we find them and oppose them publicly in any way we can. Want to lob weapons onto our soil? We will obliterate you. The only answer to warlords is to answer force with twice as much force, and lies with twice as much truth.
I don’t think one can compare the situation Israel is in to the situation the US is in. If the US was reduced to the state of Ohio alone, and all the surrounding 49 states were united and trying to destroy it, then you can say the situation is similar.