Iran Crisis Should Prompt Rethinking of U.S.-Israeli Ties
- Print print this page
- Discuss 35 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
The recent concurrence of several events should bring a loud call for an examination of the U.S.-Israeli relationship.
The most notable of these was the Obama-Netanyahu discussion of the threatened development of a nuclear device by Iran.
That discussion ended with two reaffirmations.
First was the reaffirmation by Israel of its intent to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iranian facilities whenever, in its judgment, such a strike was necessary.
Second was the reaffirmation by Obama of the U.S. position that, while military action was still “on the table,” the sanctions being imposed on Iran should be allowed to work in inducing Iran to forgo development of a nuclear capability. Obama added, however, that should Israel attack Iran, it had this country’s “back.”
At the heart of the Iranian issue are two questions — what are Iran’s nuclear weapons intentions, and at what stage are its weapon development capabilities? On this issue, three items have recently been the subject of media coverage. The former head of the Israeli secret service stated in several interviews that he did not believe the Iranians were close to developing a nuclear weapon and did not support an Israeli strike.
Reportedly, neither did the Obama administration believe that, even if Iran’s intention were to join the nuclear club, it was close to possessing a nuclear weapon capability. Also, reportedly, this position was shared by U.S. intelligence agency personnel.
Finally, it was reported that DOD had conducted a classified “war game” to assess what would be the likelihood and consequences of a regional war growing out of an attack on Iranian facilities. According to The New York Times, the commander of all U.S. forces in the Middle East and Southwest Asia “told his aides that an Israeli first strike would likely have dire consequences across the region and for U.S. forces there.”
The Times also reported that American officials were stating privately that “they believed Israel would probably give the United States little or no warning” of their decision to attack. As to the effectiveness of such an attack, it was estimated to set back Iran’s nuclear program by only one year, and only two more years if the U.S. joined in an attack.
In light of these assessments of Iranian intentions and risks, it seems fair to ask: Why is the U.S. willing not only to accept unilateral action by Israel but “have its back” in that action?
The answer to that question is obvious — the political pressure to support Israel without question that is generated by the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) in league with evangelical premillennialist Christian action committees.
The creation of Jewish settlements in Palestinian territory has been denounced as illegal by each of the last nine presidents of the United States. There are now more than 300,000 Israelis living in such settlements.
Over the past 50 years, Israel has received from the U.S. more than $100 billion in grants and billions more in loan guarantees. It is currently receiving $3 billion annually to be used only for military purposes. Israel has recently concluded an agreement to purchase three advanced German submarines with nuclear missile launch capabilities. One could reasonably assume they are being purchased with U.S.-originated dollars.
Given the vast financial and unstinting international political support this country has given Israel, at what point might we reasonably say “enough is enough” — while what it proposes to do may be in its national interest, it is not in our national interest, and we will take whatever actions are necessary to protect our interests including termination of financial assistance to Israel.
Our government takes many actions for what are plainly “political” reasons. The monies flowing from AIPAC to our political parties and to a host of politicians goes far in explaining why both the Congress and the administration yield to its entreaties.
It does not explain yielding to the premillennial-Christian interests. That amounts to formulating a foreign policy driven, in part, by biblical interpretations of the Old and New Testaments. Acknowledging the depth and sincerity of the adherents to premillennialism, biblical interpretations should remain in the realm of religion and apart from national policy-making.
I am neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Christian — I am ardently dedicated to the view that this nation should strive to act in its own interests and avoid or foreclose actions that are not in its interest.
J. Thomas Tidd is a retired attorney living in Pinehurst.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
nothingspecial 1 year, 1 month ago
Sure agree with you, Mr. Tidd that we need to circle the wagons a little more than we have in the past. But with the exception of some European nations, Canada and Mexico, why support any country other than Israel? Let's ignore the mostly dishonest complaints about Israel and look elsewhere for needed cuts in aid to other countries. Israel is a law abiding democracy surrounded on all sides by tyrannical nations who would love to see it's destruction. President Obama is right to support Israel. Israel's stated threats to the Iranians are the kind of statesman like, wise statements made by highly professional diplomats who know that the Iranians only respect strength.
teufelhunden 1 year, 1 month ago
"Acknowledging the depth and sincerity of the adherents to premillennialism, biblical interpretations should remain in the realm of religion and apart from national policy-making."
Maybe to you it should remain apart, but not to them.
teufelhunden 1 year, 1 month ago
You see, the whole conflict IS biblical.
geoffcutler 1 year, 1 month ago
Mr. Tidd, take Israel out of the equation for a second. Do you believe that the free world has nothing to worry about once Iran reaches Nuclear capability?
With allies like TIdd, good thing Israel has no enemies!
OldPilot 1 year, 1 month ago
The true anti-Semite is the one who takes pains to assure you that he or she isn't an anti-Semite.
Bentpan 1 year, 1 month ago
Mr. Tidd the vote is in, you are at best a naive dullard, at worst an antisemite dullard. I tend to believe the latter.
geoffcutler 1 year, 1 month ago
Old Pilot, You took the words right out of my mouth. I didn't say it, but you tapped logic 101.
geoffcutler 1 year, 1 month ago
This is a bizarre piece which couldn't get agreement from either Democrats or Republicans in Washington, or most of the rest of the free world. Steve... time to take a few more lunches with the solicitor. The anti-Israel thing is pushing the limits of reason and credibility.
AFCHIEF 1 year, 1 month ago
I wouldn't worry about Israel attacking Iran anytime soon, Obama's people keep leaking all details of any planned attack to take out Irans nuke facilities
dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago
The true anti-Semite is the one who takes pains to assure you that he or she isn't an anti-Semite.
Would that not also apply to those who become incensed when referred to as racist?
Would that also mean that my declaring myself an anti-Semite means I'm actually not? How does one escape the charge of anti-Semitism, given the conditions you've set?
dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago
Bentpan 2 hours, 12 minutes ago Mr. Tidd the vote is in, you are at best a naive dullard, at worst an antisemite dullard. I tend to believe the latter.
Name calling again...tisk tisk. So much for the new, kinder, gentler posting regime. One certainly hopes you don't get taken to task for it.
dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago
Obama's people keep leaking all details of any planned attack to take out Irans nuke facilities
One would eagerly anticipate viewing any proof of this extraordinary accusation, Mr. Sledz.
AFCHIEF 1 year, 1 month ago
DR, if you would watch the news you would see the proof
OldSpook 1 year, 1 month ago
Mr. Tidd, Respectfully, I would suggest you consider Israel's geographic location. From a military standpoint it is to our advantage having a "friendly" country in the midst of those that are considerably less than cordial. From a diplomatic standpoint, Israel does present some unique problems but again, this "Jewish Nation" in an area that is predominantly Muslim again works to our advantage. Having served as a Foreign Service Officer, and having been in Israel, I assure you it is considerably more benefitial to the United States in maintaining Israel as an ally.
dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago
DR, if you would watch the news you would see the proof
Mr Sledz, I assume this means that you do not have any proof of your own to offer? I do, actually, watch the news, and read it from multiple sources, and have not heard, seen or read anything regarding the US leaking Israeli plans, even on Ha'aretz, which I would assume would be quite interested in such a story, since what you are claiming would be considered an act of war against the Israeli state.
Perhaps you could point me to something that would verify this most extraordinary claim.
dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago
Even the more right wing http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ fails to report this story. It's very puzzling.
JER 1 year, 1 month ago
I'll continue to ask these questions until someone, anyone, answers them: 1) Does Israel have nuclear weapons? Your choice for answers are: A) Yes; B) No; C) I don't know for sure. 2) What are the reasons for preventing Iran from becoming a member of the "nuclear weapons club"? 3) Since there are already several nations in possession of nuclear weapons, why should other nations be prevented from obtaining the same level of "deterrence" that these "club" members already have? (Note that I have used the term "deterrence" because that is the purpose of having a nuclear weapons capability. Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons as a weapon of war, so if you believe that some countries are not capable of using them only as a deterrent, then the United States Of America must be the first country to have them removed.)
JimHeim 1 year, 1 month ago
As long as Israel has nukes, every other country in the region has a good reason to acquire the same. The right to self-defense is fundamental to any nation-state.
dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago
I'll continue to ask these questions until someone, anyone, answers them
I wish you much luck.
geoffcutler 1 year, 1 month ago
1) c. 2) if you have to ask the question..... 3) same answer as that to 2)
Question to both of you. When has Israel ever threatened to wipe from the face of the earth any of its neighbors? You want to believe that Iran has peaceful deterrence aims. What evidence, considering Iran has armed its terrorist allies with weaponry to use against American forces, leads you to believe Iran's aims are peaceful?
Would you, knowing what you know now about Hitler, have been saying before WW2, that it's no biggie if Germany builds up its military arsenal?
AFCHIEF 1 year, 1 month ago
Heim, WOW, really so it is your position that it is OK for Iran to have a Nuke?
jimt 1 year, 1 month ago
Jer, I thought we'd been through all the reasons why Iran is different from Israel, and why the prolieration of nuclear weapons poses unacceptable risks to overall global security.
OldPilot 1 year, 1 month ago
The problem is there is an ingraned culture of prejudice against Israel and Jews making it hard to separate legitimate political commentary from cultural bias. When Jews are characterized in Palestinean publications as subhuman pigs and monkeys, when Hamas expressly states in it's charter that Israel has no right to exist, when Iran's clerics and president call for the use of any and all weapons to wipe our Israel, one has to be aware of the probability that columns such as Tidd's have a substantial element of "socially acceptable anti-Semitism". His current column and his prior column "Israel Is Sorely Trying U. S. Patience", The Pilot, 4/7/10, are shot thru with half truths, hearsay, innuendo, misstatements and omissions of fact and outright false statements, all presented as fact, when in truth Tidd is doing nothing more than arguing his opinions pursuant to his personal agenda. To Tidd and his ilk the issue of Iran and nuclear weapons is an interesting philosophical argument, to Israel and it's citizens it's an existential issue. Given the sale of nuclear weapon technology by Pakistan if Iran developes a nuclear weapon wonder who will be the first to buy one to use againt the US?
AFCHIEF 1 year, 1 month ago
Guess Obama never heard of Operational Security
http://frontpagemag.com/2012/04/03/obama-leaks-israels-attack-plan/
dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago
Here's the key quote:
[John] Bolton said that, while he didn’t have hard proof of it, “Clearly, this is an administration-orchestrated leak.
But the story provides nothing beyond this conclusory statement by Bolton and similarly unsupported conjecture by a supposed "Israeli military analyst" who also provides no proof for his accusations.
It's also curious that the story cites a writer named Mark Perry as the source of this supposed leak...yet immediately sets out to discredit Perry by referring to him as having an "anti-Israeli bias", then citing several sources that say Perry's claims that Azerbijan is providing Israel with airbases to strike Iran are pure moonshine in the first place.
In short, there's simply nothing there but an unsupported assumption (by someone who himself has a clear anti-administration bias) that a story that's unlikely to even be true was leaked by the administration.
What else you got?
geoffcutler 1 year, 1 month ago
Well said, and nicely handled, Old Pilot. Pretty see through, isn't it?
JER 1 year, 1 month ago
So Mr. Cutler cannot bring himself to actually put into words his responses to my questions #2 and #3. He just leaves an impression of an answer that can be fashioned into whatever he wants it to mean at some later date. OK, Geoff, we know you hate to be pinned down but your non-answer tells me more than enough. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that Israel is CURRENTLY threatening Iran with a military attack. And what leads you to believe that Iran is not seeking a deterrent. If they wanted to actually wipe Israel off the face of the earth, they could attempt it at any time, given their size and numbers advantage over Israel. Can I also conclude from your comments about Germany pre WWII that the US should have attacked Germany in the 1930's? Should we be attacking China? They have a big military. Should we be attacking Russia because we can't trust what they might do? I have a great deal of respect for the insight that jimt brings to these discussions. We had several discussions on other threads regarding this same subject. I agree 100% on his reasoning concerning nuclear proliferation. I am trying to make the point that if those who already have nuclear weapons are unwilling to GIVE UP their weapons, then countries who feel threatened by them have no other choice but to obtain their own. The ONLY way to stop nuclear proliferation is for those who have them to liquidate their supply and institute a world wide body to police the planet to insure nobody develops new ones.
geoffcutler 1 year, 1 month ago
And about 20 threads ago, I agreed with your point. You must have missed it.
Courseaire 1 year, 1 month ago
In answer to JER's questions:
.
BigE 1 year, 1 month ago
Too often the tail is wagging the dog and if someone speaks out about it they are a bad person. It's okay to question our approach to Israel and the Middle East. What we have done in my lifetime does not appear to be working or leading to a happy ending.
dustyrhoades 1 year, 1 month ago
Israel is going to do what they think is in their best interest. Nothing wrong at all with that.it's what countries are expected to do.
We need to remember, though, that what they decide to do may not be in our best interest, especially since we may not want to get dragged into a war that they start. We go to war, or don't, on our own timetable, not Israel's. And THAT is what the President is talking about.
geoffcutler 1 year, 1 month ago
Mr. Netanyahu's last visit with the president saw the prime minister once again explaining Israel's unique position regarding Iran, and how it will be masters of its own destiny. And once again, Netanyahu put the president in a position with little wiggle room, even if he wanted to wiggle. There's an election coming up. If this were already Obama's second term, it's fair to guess what other positions he might hold regarding Israel and Iran. After all, just look at what he was caught saying to Medvedev.
LSM 1 year, 1 month ago
The real implications of the North Korean (and Iranian) missile launch:http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/the-axis-haaretz-iran-blog/the-real-implications-of-the-north-korean-and-iranian-missile-launch-1.422605 Some might be interested in reading this. Actually the Chinese are providing the ballistic missles capable of hitting the US.
JER 1 year, 1 month ago
Courseaire: Thanks for answering all three of my questions. As a follow up: Would it be responsible and aid stability if Israel did not have nuclear weapons or access to them?
jimt 1 year, 1 month ago
LSM: "Actually the Chinese are providing the ballistic missles capable of hitting the US."
Source please. The article you provided a link to did not mention China at all. So what is the basis for your accusation?