the USA, Israel, and national interest

I also would express a little bit of pique, the same annoyance I heard this week in the voice of lefties calling in to NPR to speak with Francis Fukuyama. His new book basically says that Iraq was a big mistake -- that he was wrong -- and as a result, a lot of his former neo-con buddies don't speak to him anymore.

Anyway, my pique comes from the fact that after say, 40 years, hitched to Israel's wagon, after we have SO alienated the Muslim/Arab world, NOW they say a more circumspect view of Israel would be valuable. Mearsheimer is probably right, but at this point it's too little too late. Especially in terms of US national interest. More pressure on Israel might lead to peace but I'm not sure how much Arab-Israeli peace would actually help the US now.

I think it would help immensely, in the same way that, when a shoe is rubbing you raw, it helps to take off that shoe. The healing isn't instantaneous and much of the pain remains for a time, but at least it removes the pressure from the sore spot.

Pertinent companion reading, perhaps: http://foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3359

hese individuals are more likely to turn to terrorism when the economy is weak and jobs are in short supply. When the economy is good, “high-quality” persons generally have access to lucrative jobs relative to their “low-quality” counterparts, and the cost of leaving a good job in order to participate in a terrorist movement is relatively high. That helps explain why engineers and other technical persons with a history of underemployment get involved in terrorism. They are both available and desired by terrorist organizations, particularly during periods of economic stagnation and downturn.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/furniture/northern_ireland/understanding/parties_paramilitaries/ira_290.jpg

After all, what harm does Israel actually do to the region outside of its immediate vicinity (Lebanon, the territories)? I suppose once Arab powers could have argued that Israel was an expansionist threat, but since it gave back Sinai and hasn't made any attempts to grab land beyond its wranglings within the territories I don't think this is a legitimate argument anymore. What military action Israel has taken in the region has always been on the pretext of threats to its own security, which are largely quite real.

Certainly the plight of the Palestinians is dire, but it's an awfully big leap of logic to say that it justifies a man from Yemen or Pakistan attacking American civillians.

I think it's dangerously naive to assume that if we cut support to Israel we'd be any closer to ending the threat of terrorism or improving our situation in the Middle East.

M&W's stuff about Israel is very zeitgeist... I have had loads of hits (well, three or four) on my boring academic blog because I mentioned them and their article. That's more than it normally gets in a month! Go Mearsheimer and Walt!

Mearsheimer's entry on Wikipedia suggests that, like most Realists, he is a raving lunatic.

Otherwise, I do sometimes wonder myself what the US gains from the alliance, but I assume it must gain something. Perhaps it sees Israel as a kind of last resort ally should the rest of the region turn against us. I imagine there's a lot of intelligence information exchanged.

I think the case that our support of Israel is due to the Israel lobby and "Jewish vote" is greatly exaggerated. Jews are a small minority in this country, and though they may tend to vote in blocs, the majority of Jews went against Bush, the candidate perceived to be giving Israel freer reign. The lobby is powerful, but I think its power is overstated, including by AIPAC itself. Lobbyists like to exaggerate their influence because it helps them pull in money. There are plenty of equally or more powerful lobbies that could counter the Israel lobby were support of Israel truly against their interests -- the oil lobby in particular comes to mind, and that's our primary "practical" interest in the region in the first place, isn't it?

except for oil, as you mention, but oil isn't hurting from present US policy. the autocratic regimes currently in power in oil-rich arab countries allow US oil companies to do their thing, right? i don't know for sure but i suspect that US oil companies are doing well in iraq at present, and will be as long as it is being occupied by the US military. the bad case for oil companies is identical to the bad case for israel: islamist regimes coming to power.

even if what the authors reprehensibly label "The Lobby" (which btw they explicitly state is not synonymous with the "jewish american vote") is not the sole or even the major mover behind US israel policy, i'm still curious about the question of "if a voter decides it isn't in the US's best interests to remain israel's strong ally, can s/he vote for anyone who will represent his/her view?" and if the answer is no, is that a problem?

Well, according to the article's claims, it should matter very much to big oil what Israel does in the territories, because that's supposedly one of the big reasons we have a problem with fundamentalist Muslims. But if that were true, wouldn't big oil want to do something about it, since Islamic fundamentalism is probably the biggest threat to our access to oil? Yet the big oil administration we have now seems to take less interest than any past administration in what Israel does in the territories. And again, most Jews vote Democrat.

i think this is a good question and i'd be interested to know if there is a debate about this within the upper echelons of big oil, how they deal with this in their strategic vision, etc. there is a question of the importance of looking at short term interests (supporting israel so status quo does not change) vs long term interests (brokering a peace before future trends harmful to israel [demographic shifts for instance] make israel's position less tenable)

Yet the big oil administration we have now seems to take less interest than any past administration in what Israel does in the territories.

this could be seen as evidence of a differences in the relative influences of "The Lobby" and big oil (just saying)

After all, AIPAC may be powerful, but Bush, his family, and his cabinet are probably more tied to oil than to any other single influence.

I thought you might like to ponder the relative death statistics of children killed by the Israeli government and those killed by the variety of non-state actors issuing forth from an occupied territory. Or indeed the ratio of deaths in this conflict.

I'd hate to get all human rightsy on yo asses, but you know, it kinda misses the point to get all pol-sci when the root cause here is that the majority of people in the territories, doing their wrangling shit, aren't influenced by the fact that AIPAC exists. they react through the moral indignation of seeing a country praised for being 'one of us' in lib-dem western industrial circles whilst engaging ion shit which, well, I thought we invaded folks for doing.

In other words - if Israel is a genuine liberal democracy, then it shouldn't do what it does. If it isn't a genuine liberal democracy, then we're being myopic in our selection of one side in this conflict. That seems to be the long and short of it.

Let's pretend, though, that we have handed bucketloads of cash, military technology and a lockstep vote at the UN to China. How does that rebound badly for the US? At just a strategic, pragmatic level, over whatever timeframe you want to give it? It's hard to see. With Israel, it's not hard to see at all.

You asked: Is it pragmatic or strategic to ally oneself to the hilt with a country that assassinates people and doesn't even lie about it?

Well, why isn't it, to be perfectly cynical?

These relationships pale with the cash, diplomacy, technology and support the US has given Israel. You can't compare them.

you can't compare US presence in the stans w. support for israel?

in this case it is important because of who are saying it - arch securocrats like Mearsheimer & Walt, not liberal pinko pantywaist t-head lovers.

Is it pragmatic to grant most favored nation status to a nation that jails dissidents and tortures Tibetan nuns?

Bear in mind that Mearsheimer advocates the cutting of trade ties with China, because he fears that in the future China will become the USA's enemy. One of the reasons he gives for being down on the Israel alliance is that they are treacherously passing technology on to China.

A more sensible Realist might say that being friendly with China is a good idea because they are powerful and important, while Israel is only powerful and important because the USA is friendly with it.

I don't see where I've been talking about morality at all.

I said: Is it pragmatic or strategic to ally oneself to the hilt with a country that assassinates people and doesn't even lie about it?

To which you asked: Well, why isn't it, to be perfectly cynical?

I guess my answer would be a set of questions: who are they assassinating, in what part of the world is it, what are those peoples' feelings about our unqualified support? If the answers are "Palestinians," "The Middle East," and "violent resentment" I'm not sure if I'd call that support very "strategic."

It would be quite interesting to see what would happen if Arab countries made a concerted effort to punish the interests of "US" oil companies because of support for Israel -- say through joint ventures with Russian companies, for example. I don't know the exact links well enough to say what levers there are. The point being directly pitting "big oil" vs. the "Jewish lobby."

what's your point? it's be 'interesting' to see the US economy get further stiffed by energy-holding dictatorships and the destruction of israel?

They're careful, to a point, to refer to the lobby as the Israel Lobby, not the Jewish Lobby.

But oil-producing states would probably not do that because of Israel, and if they would, it would have very little to do with the plight of the Palestinians.

Mid-east governments like to use Israel as a scapegoat and a political issue with which to distract the "street," but have otherwise shown little sympathy for the Palestinians.

Their interest in Israel may also have to do with a perceived military threat, but if that's truly the case it kind of suggests that the U.S. does in fact have a strategic reason for its alliance. Iran, for example, probably has two reasons for being so loud about Israel -- 1) the potential threat to its nuclear ambitions, and 2) It makes a good political scapegoat.

Frankly, if Israel does pose any real threat to Iran's nuclear ambitions then the U.S. has good reason to support it.

OTM - see my born-again Chinese tax person who, upon finding out I was Jewish, told me how great her last trip to Israel was, what a beautiful holy land it is, and how I should go there immediately and see where Jesus walked...

And I'm not enough of a scholar to give a thorough answer, but I'm sure one of the main reasons is that the Arab nations sided with the USSR during the cold war, so obviously they were out of the question during the time when we began supporting Israel so heavily (which was really post-1967, from what I understand.)

well, they kind of tried this with iraq didn't they!? and they did try to bring round other countries in the cold war, but it just didn't go over.

When does it become 'wise' to backdate to? After the morally problematic stuff like the Stern and Orgun gangs had packed it in?

The IAEA report, the most detailed to date on the Iranian program's military scope, found no evidence that Iran has made a strategic decision to actually build a bomb. But its nuclear program is more ambitious and structured, and more progress has been made than previously known.

I am sorry, but this reminds me a little bit too much of Colin Powell's mistake about Iraq. I don't mean the IAEA has a political agenda or stance, but they basically only signal that there is more progress than "previously known".

Options:

International community continues and stiffens sanctions.

Possible results:

Delgitimizes already shakey regime. May cause more internal chaos even among political class. Bad side: Russia unlikely to ever fully support. This is essentially their Monroe doctrine territory and they will be dicks about it.

mordy i think we probably do disagree since your range of options are all "doing something to stop x from happening", which i don't think is possible.

i think we need to start thinking of what life will be like in a world with iran having some kind of nuclear capability, because that world is going to be real at some point. it can be delayed, but probably not stopped, even by bombing. bombing might well hasten it.

this technology is 70 years old, if a nation wants to have a nuclear bomb it can get one. america's ability to cause iranians to want one less is basically zero.

^^^ this

Options:

Israeli strike (for shits and giggles, let's assume success or realtive success - I kind of trust the Tsahal to be pretty badass)

Possible results:
Bad PR pretty much all around including the sovereignty-minded Chinese, the NIMBY Russians and the Arab/Muslim world, much of which is undergoing very useful and helpful reform.

In Iran? Who tf knows but it wont be good amongst the Greens many of whom support Iran being able to do anything that Israel/Russia/France/Britain, etc... can do, not to mention those newcomers in Pakistan.

Ok Max, that's the disagreement. I believe that Israel should do something -- tho I am not saying that something should be an airstrike -- and the other side of the argument here is that Israel shouldn't do anything but prepare for a nuclear armed Iran bc it's inevitable.

If we had been adjacent to the USSR...

Key question is do you believe you/Israel (I'm confused by your usage of "we"), are/is at this point now? Do you support a so-called pre-emptive strike?

― I certainly wouldn't have, but hey. (Le Bateau Ivre)

Ftr, the 'we' in that example is the United States, of which I am a citizen, and not 'we' Israel, of which I am not a citizen.

(I don't believe I've ever used 'we' to describe Israel since I don't consider myself a part of the Israeli State - tho I may have accidentally. I certainly don't consider myself an Israeli in any way and have no plans to make Aliyah now or in the future.)

they could always do both, delaying actions aren't necessarily a bad thing. unless they make the situation worse, which they might.

the 'inevitability' is the crux of it. if the iranian's having a bomb is not inevitable, then all the strategic calculus changes. but i think it basically is.

xp

I'm not sure that I believe that a nuclear weaponized Iran is inevitable. I do believe that a nuclear weaponized Khamenei is preventable tho, and desirable.

Options:

Non-Israeli entity strikes sites (let's assume more or less successfully. Regardless, it will delay the day they actually have anything)

Like Shamir's decision not to respond to Iraqi SCUD provocations, this negates some of the anti-Israeli concentration on the issue and makes it international.

Does it make Iran want nukes less? Not one bit. "Poor us. The world hates us."

Does it keep them from getting one? For the time being.

Domestic Iranian politics? Manna from heaven for the establishment. However, who is the establishment? I think it's increasingly clear that it isn't Ahmedinejhad. Does this expose the mullahs as the un-democratic, un-progressive force that they are in so brutal a way that the people abandon them or do they cleave to them from nationalism? Who tf knows.

Likely? No, but man I would love to see a Republican candidate or just a neo-con squirm on this.

I'm an ex-commie turned moderate liberal, so I think the secret to politics is to make as many ppl as possible as rich (comfortable) as possible and make sure the poor are sufficeintly tended to that they become relatively tame. The problem w/sanctions is they hurt and offend the very people who should be rising against this repressive state. Otoh, the patriotism of an ancient ppl like Iran probably cannot be sounded. They are immensely proud and bitter about the West, going back to Alexander

Some interesting details in this Economist article: http://www.economist.com/node/21538177

It seems like the logistics of carrying out a successful strike would be much more challenging in Iran than they were in Syria in 2007. Also, Iran has more formidable resources to retaliate with.

"Second, Syria’s internal chaos may take Iran’s most important regional ally out of the game. Third, the departure of American forces from Iraq removes both a focus for Iranian retaliation and a constraint on America. Fourth, if Messrs Netanyahu and Barak reckon that they need America’s military might to complete what they start, there may be no better combination to ensure that than a politically weak president whose Republican opponents have made unquestioning support for Israel a wedge issue a year before a presidential election."

I wonder what the thinking Jiddah is, right now?

...had intelligence that suggested they were trying to develop nuclear weapons, I imagine an airstrike would have been on the table then too, and without the benefit of hindsight (that thank god a nuclear exchange never happened) it would have been the right move imo.

Mordy, you have just moved into bed with General Curtis LeMay.

There was clearly a period, post-WWII, when the USSR was seen as a HUGE threat to Europe and, by extension, to the USA. They did not yet have nuclear weapons, but were known to have a development program underway. There were many hawks in the army air force, with LeMay as the most prominent, who strenuously advocated nuking the living shit out of the USSR, asap, purely on the grounds that they'd soon have nukes themselves and we'd lose our strategic edge of being the sole nuclear power.

No provocation for this war was suggested, other than we could probably win if we got on it quickly enough, but if we waited, we'd be SOL and the commies would be nuclear, too.

Afaics, that argument is precisely in alignment with your thinking.

Sure, except for the part that I'm not advocating nuking anyone.

And that I'm not saying that Israel should perform airstrikes to keep their status as the only nuke possessing nation but to mediate the possible ramifications of a particular administration in a particular country developing nukes.

Act of war. You never know where that's going to lead.

what exactly are you advocating mordy

So what's your argument? That any advocation of using military strength for any purpose is synonymous with advocating nuking another country to maintain your hegemony?

If Iran agreed to cancel all civilian and military nuclear activity, with UN inspection teams, western troops to guarantee Israel's safety blah blah, in return for Israel's nuclear disarmament, what do you think Israel's response would be?

xp to darraghmac

Yes, bombing Iran is a last resort and one that carries a lot of risk and potential repercussions. No one in this thread (at least certainly not me) is suggesting that bombing Iran is the right thing to do. I don't know what the right thing to do is! But I acknowledge that the equation here -- balancing the potential risks of an airstrike against the potential risks of a nuclear armed Iran -- does not have obvious answers.

I think they would continue to deny that they possess nuclear weapons. xp

Mordy's advocating airstrikes, apparently. Dropping bombs on Iran. Very large bombs, but only conventional high explosive ones, presumably. Then, afterwards... ? Everything goes back to normal, right?

What's your opinion of such denials, Mord? (I sympathise with you being the only one in your corner, don't wish to appear that I'm piling on or anything)

Like do I think those denials are... what? Ethically correct? Politically expedient? Regionally important?

Aimless, please show me something I wrote that indicates that I'm advocating dropping large bombs on Iran?

All three really - if you were in charge of Israel's policies would you deny having nuclear weapons? If so, why?

I'm not saying that Israel should perform airstrikes to keep their status as the only nuke possessing nation but to mediate the possible ramifications of a particular administration in a particular country developing nukes.

To clarify the syntax:

Israel should not perform airstrikes to do X, but {Israel should perform them} to do Y. You may not have meant it that way. I don't know. But this is what you wrote.

Mordy, wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?

To be fair, dude, I've been pushing this entire thread that I don't think Israel should rule that option out, but that I couldn't say whether it is ultimately the best or right option. I pointed out in the very beginning that the wager is between something probable and safe (that even w/ nukes Iran wouldn't be a threat) and the unlikely, but possible, and catastrophic (that Iran would use nuclear weapons on Israel). You then compared the scenario that I was discussing to a general who wanted to nuke the USSR to maintain a US nuclear hegemony. I pointed out the major differences between what I was saying, and that particular general. My pointing that out wasn't intended to suddenly embrace the position of bombing as advocacy, but to defend the point I was trying to make the entire time.

Now, it could be that you want to make leaving a particular option on the table synonymous with advocating for that option. I don't think those two things are synonymous. For one, I don't know the particular intelligence that the Israeli government is looking at when making this decision. I do know what the IAEA says, but I'm not sitting down at the desk with all the intelligence. If I felt from gathered intelligence that a) the Iranian government was close to developing a working nuclear weapon, that b) other methods of interrupting the process were insufficient, and c) that there was reasonable evidence that the Iranian government would use those nuclear weapons, then in that theoretical situation I would advocate for using targeted airstrikes, such as were used in Syria, to set back the nuclear program.

I don't think that means that I'm advocating bombing Iran, that I feel that Israel should nuke Iran, or whatever other strawman argument you want to affix to me.

xp

But you did say it would have been "the right move, imo" to engage in pre-emptive attack on the USSR, under certain circumstances, and then you listed the circumstances:

If we had been adjacent to the USSR, subject to 'eliminationist' rhetoric from them, and had intelligence that suggested they were trying to develop nuclear weapons, I imagine an airstrike would have been on the table then too, and without the benefit of hindsight (that thank god a nuclear exchange never happened) it would have been the right move imo.

...which circumstances are strangely identical to known circumstances for Israel in regard to Iran. Forgive me if I jumped to the conclusion that you thought that a pre-emptive airstrike would also be the right move for Israel to make.

I freely grant that you weren't really contemplating "nuking the shit out of" Iran, but then again, Israel has nukes and if this led to a war with Iran and Israel thought it ran the risk of annihilation due to its starting a war with Iran... someone would start contemplating it pretty seriously don't you think?

I'll let you think that over. I have to go to dinner with my wife (our 27th anniversary today). Don't change that dial!

Happy anniversary and all, but tbh, I don't really get what your challenge or question or whatever is here so I'm just going to let things be. I guess you're trying to make some kind of slippery slope argument but I don't think you're really addressing anything that I've said...

Like, you're saying that bc I advocate using an airstrike in a very particular situation, and bc using an airstrike might lead to open war between Iran and Israel, and bc in the course of said war Israel might feel existentially at risk, and bc if they feel existentially at risk they might decide using a nuclear weapon, that means that I should never advocate an airstrike in any situation?

Iran has a lot to lose by really pushing the nuclear issue: a European oil embargo, sanctions on their central bank, and even (if the situation with Syria is an indicator) some potential action by the Arab League?

http://s1184.photobucket.com/albums/z328/userwvf/

http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z328/userwvf/rockflagneagle.png

^^fb profile pic for someone from my high school

have you ever seen those "Don't worry America, Israel is right behind you" t-shirts?

some potential action by the Arab League?

What do they care? They're not Arabs. OPEC is unlikely to do anything. The UN won't manage to do much because of Russia. The Sunni members of the Arab league and Iran aren't exactly friends anyway. For all we know, Saudi might secretly welcome an Israeli airstrike.

I'll tell you one country that will likely go apeshit if it happened, tho. Pakistan.

http://ottomansandzionists.com/2013/03/29/george-washington-and-passionate-attachmen

Throwing up the Mordy signal on this one, but anyone else can answer:

How can Trump be "good for Israel" in a realpolitik way while also realigning with Russia? Russia is aligned with supposed enemies of Israel -- Iran and Syria. Is this insignificant?

I don't think Putin sees it as a contradiction to be a patron to Syria/Iran and also on strong terms with Israel. Remember during the Cold War the US fostered alliances/client relationships with Israel in addition to other countries that were antagonistic to Israel - like Egypt before 1978, the gulf states like Saudi Arabia until today, etc. I think Israel prefers having the Syria war continue so that Iran and Hezbollah continue to bleed (and it has already basically ceded any Syrian claims to the Golan practically), so in that sense Putin's interests - ending the war and returning sovereignty to Assad - is not perfectly aligned with Israel. But otoh Putin has given Israel the go-ahead to bomb shipments to Hezbollah passing through Syria and so I don't know that Putin actually cares about Iran's proxy war against Israel and would probably prefer all the countries get along.

Trump is "good" for Israel in a very limited sense - he'll presumably have no interest in pushing a 2SS, or going along with UN resolutions. He already gave the go-ahead for Israeli to annex the settlements if they want, and even if he wasn't gung ho about the settlements it's hard to imagine him taking any active interest in the whole thing. So if you're pro annexing the WB, I guess you would see Trump as good for Israel. Presumably it'll lower some of the BDS heat especially in the US, but also likely it'll take the attention off Israel since POTUS Trump is such a more troubling figure. If you think annexation is a bad idea (maybe because of demographic concerns, or whatever reason you might think the 2SS is still the best solution), Trump will not be great for Israel.

Essentially you've got to think that neither Putin nor Trump really gaf about the Palestinian issue. How you feel about it yourself probably determines how good or bad you think that is for Israel.

I also wouldn't be surprised if Steve Bannon wants to long-term reduce the influence of the Israel lobby in the US.

Does that make sense? Like the bottom line is that even if Putin is snuggling up to Iran, and the US is now going to have a more favorable relationship with Russia, that doesn't mean that either Russia or the US suddenly care about the same things that Iran cares about. From a realpolitik perspective Israel doesn't want the war in Syria to end since that'll give Iran and Hezbollah enough breathing room to start fucking w/ Israel again, but even there they might stand to gain more from having tighter connection to Russia (and therefore some potential leverage on Iran/etc). Even before Trump's election Bibi has been sidling up to Putin - so you could reframe the question as "How can Israel gain from a closer relationship to Russia despite Russia's ties to Iran/Syria" but that question kinda answers itself I think?

I don't get the impression that the Israel lobby is on the Trump administration's radar at all. Isn't Bannon buddies w/ like Horowitz and Geller and Caroline Glick, etc? He seems like the kind of white supremacist that is pro-Israel (maybe bc he sees it as a model of an ethnosupremecist State he'd like to establish in the US). Here's a comment I wrote on fb this week explaining this particular peculiar phenomenon to a friend:

Maybe. There's a strain of white supremacism that chides liberal Western Judaism (generally metonymically represented by the Frankfurt School) for trying to dominate gentiles by diluting the white gene pool through massive migration. This strain 'calls out' Zionism as hypocrisy because Jews support an ethnosupremecist State when it is Jewish but not when it is white. It is not entirely incompatible for them to say (and this is a rarer ideology but one I have definitely seen expressed) that Jews should live in Israel and whites should live in the US and that's the best for each. (iirc this was not an entirely unknown ideological current in pre-Final Solution Nazism.) In that case they might even respect Bibi for so strongly supporting the needs of his ethnic community while disdaining American Jews for undermining their own.

Yes, that does make sense. xp