"Just another quick afterthought to yesterday's post about how the U.S. presence in Iraq has altered the strategic logic of the U.S.-Israel relationship. Setting aside all of the non-strategic aspects of the relationship, which is admittedly a huge component, Israel has historically functioned as a U.S. proxy in the region -- the surest and most reliable ally in terms of the broad alignments on which U.S. interests depend, and a security firewall that has come close to resembling a forward outpost.Now notice what's changed in the above equation.First, Israel's current posture -- obstructionist with regard to Israel-Palestine negotiations, belligerent with regard to Iran -- no longer overlaps with America's (read: Centcom's) immediate interests. Second, the U.S. now has a security firewall in the region that actually is a forward outpost. It's called MNF-Iraq.In other words, Israel's posture is jeopardizing U.S. interests at the very moment that its utility has diminished. By all indications, Israel's obstructionist wing has not yet realized that.
Grunstein forgets a third and most important factor of 'change': Israeli deterrence suffered irreparable damages in July 2006'/ Lebanon & January 2009'/ Gaza
1 comment:
To summarize, this is not about "insulting the US," it is about "US national security."
Grunstein makes the key point that US and Israeli security do not overlap and points out that this is due to Israel's current "obstructionist" posture. I wish he had emphasized this distinction, which is critical to the debate and often confused in the U.S. No one is talking about opposing the security of the Israeli people; the discussion is about opposing the policy of what Grunstein correctly labels the "obstructionists" currently ruling Israel. It is they who threaten Israeli security, as well as that of the U.S. and its troops in the region.
But that is not all. Grunstein also left out of his brief statement any recognition of the greatest threat to U.S. security posed by its close alliance, indeed subservience, to the Israeli obstructionists: their campaign to push the U.S. into war with Iran.
Israeli behavior in recent days makes it quite clear that the obstructionists have little real fear of Iran, yet they persist in their campaign to create a crisis (which Ahmadinejad kindly feeds with choice words from time to time to promote his own career).
The crisis atmosphere benefits the obstructionists by justifying their holding office, by distracting attention from the Palestinians, by opening wider the spigot of the US arms pipeline, and by keeping Israeli liberals completely off balance (publicly articulate in Israel's laudably open media but unable to organize for political action).
As a political scientist, I would caution that pouring gasoline on the fire is dangerous, but Israeli obstructionists seem to calculate that it is risk-free: "Obama does not want a war and Iran is incapable of posing any real threat, so there will be no war, leaving us free to pour on the gasoline."
Whether this is an accurate assessment of the immediate war risk or not, Israel's campaign to foment tension between the U.S. and Iran deceives many Americans, including more than a few in public office, and in that sense at least constitutes a grave longer-term threat to U.S. national security.
Petraeus has good reason to be concerned.
Post a Comment