American appeasement and the Iranian bomb

Saudi King Abdullah took the US president sternly to task over his emerging policy on Iran, Syria and Iraq, accusing him of giving the Islamic Republic free rein for its nuclear, expansionist and terrorism-sponsoring Middle East policies. (Source: http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=6012)

In 2003 President Bush invaded Iraq and completely upset the balance of power in the Middle East. Iraq under Saddam's Sunni regime was enemy and deterrent to Iranian hegemonic ambitions. By replacing Iraq's Sunni regime with one under Shi'ite control, Bush removed the single strategic threat, deterrent to Iranian ambitions. With the removal of Saddam, for all practical purposes the Persian threat to the Arabian Peninsula jumped from the Iraqi to the Saudi border.

And, having upset the balance between Sunni and Sh'ia inside Iraq, Bush set the stage for continuing sectarian strife in that country. Under these conditions the US grew increasingly dependent on Iran to control their Shi'ite militias. In the end Bush needed Iran to provide the fig leaf of an apparently successful "surge" which allowed the US to exit the quagmire with at least the appearance of dignity. For services rendered Bush compensated the Iranian president with the long-sought prize of US recognition of Islamic Republic legitimacy: Bush opened a State Department interest section in Teheran bringing to an end America's thirty year policy of containing the threat of the Iranian revolution.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (17)

Is McCain good for the Jews?

Over the years Israel has tended to favor Republican over Democrat presidents. This is not the place to analyze this phenomenon and I raise it only as backdrop to the present question: which, if either of the two candidates for the US presidency, is more likely to benefit Israel over the next four to eight years? Each was clearly addressing Jewish voters in proclaiming, when refering to the nuclear Iran issue, that he would never allow another Holocaust. But rhetoric aside, how can we assess how each might be expected to exercise the levers of power available to the president should a crisis, such as dealing with a more critical Iranian threat, arise?

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (22)

Requisites for a real friend of Israel

The 2008 Presidential campaign has brought forth statements from all the major candidates, both Democrat and Republican, of the depth of their support for the State of Israel, and their commitment to maintaining the close relationship that exists between the United States and the only real democracy in that area of the world. On the face of it, there would appear to be very little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans regarding support for Israel. The politically naive would be able to look at all the candidates and seeing their near equal "support" for Israel, come to the conclusion that a choice for one's candidate could be made upon other criteria, since all major candidates support Israel.

Rarely has the statement "a little knowledge can be dangerous" had more applicability. Based on their respective records as well as their campaign statements, we know that all the major candidates believe that Israel has the right to maintain itself as a "Jewish State". But the fact that all these candidates support Israel's right to be Jewish, doesn't translate to each one turning out to be equally helpful to Israel to maintain her existence in a very hostile neighborhood. With the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) issuing daily threats to Israel, and Iran's proxies - whether Hizbullah in Lebanon or Hamas, Islamic Jihad or the PFLP in Gaza - attacking Israel and Israelis with relative impunity, it is crucial for the next president of the United States to understand that what occurs in Iraq has direct consequences to Israel's security just as surely as events in Ciudad Juarez effect conditions in Texas, or those in Toronto effect New York.

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (6)

Bush and the Diplomacy of Inadvertence

A recent Jerusalem Post article quoting documents obtained by Vanity Fair magazine 'Bush approved plot to oust Hamas', gives an insider look into decision-making in the Bush White House. While the article deals only with the Palestinian elections and the resulting Hamas victory, it throws light on how this administration arrives at other decisions such as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, its encouragement of an Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

But let's start with the article's focus, the Palestinian elections and their aftermath. In pursuit of what can only be called his Dogma of Democracy, Bush not only disregarded input from Abbas and Olmert, both of whom clearly foresaw the Hamas victory and warned the president, but he also chose to ignore the advice of Cheney's chief Middle East adviser David Wurmser who, according to the article, "resigned a month after the Hamas takeover." Even Muhammad Dahlan, Abbas' security chief and designee by Bush to carry out the military coup against Hamas is quoted in the article as saying, "Everyone was against the elections, everyone (that is) except Bush. He (Bush) decided, 'I need an election. I want elections in the Palestinian Authority.'"

Read the rest of this post   |  Comments (2)