Israel’s interests are not America’s
Mankato Free Press
Thursday, October 4, 2012
By Tom Maertens
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has blatantly inserted himself into the U.S. presidential campaign, attempting to browbeat President Obama into attacking Iran before the election, and arguing that the U.S. has no moral right to restrain Israel from taking military action on its own.
Obama has strongly suggested that the U.S. would use military force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. At present, all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies agree that Iran has not taken a decision to build a nuclear weapon, an opinion shared by Israel’s recently-retired intelligence chiefs.
In the meantime, Obama has showered more military hardware on Israel, organized a global coalition to impose tough international sanctions, and cooperated with Israel in a series of covert programs such as STUXNET.
Netanyahu has virtually endorsed Romney and is apparently banking on Romney’s support for war. He was heard on videotape some time back saying that it was easy to lead the U.S. by the nose, suggesting he may be overconfident: a new poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs shows that 70 percent of Americans oppose a unilateral strike on Iran, and 59 percent said the United States should not come to its Israel’s defense if it Israel bombs Iran.
The Neocon “Israel-first” crowd is beating the war drums again, as usual, and, as usual, they don’t talk about the consequences of starting a war.
Most military analysts think an Israeli air strike might slow the program for only one or two years. Iran learned from Israel’s strikes on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981; it dispersed its facilities and placed them deep underground. Moreover, several studies show that the Osirak attack, far from stopping Iraq’s nuclear ambitions, accelerated them.
A new report by the bi-partisan Iran Project, comprised of three dozen national security “wise men,” says that even a sustained U.S military campaign might set back Iran’s nuclear program four years at most and would risk a major, multiyear war. That could put Saudi and other Gulf oil facilities at risk of Iranian attacks, including by its proxies, such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
Further, the idea that Iran would set off Armageddon as soon as it fabricated one or two nuclear warheads is far-fetched. Israel has a major nuclear arsenal (see “The Samson Option”) that would devastate Iran. It’s not credible to assert that Iran is prepared to see its revolution destroyed for the presumed satisfaction of attacking Israel.
A nuclear Iran is not a good situation, and neither is an even more provocative nuclear North Korea, a nuclear Pakistan or a nuclear India, but we live with them. A pre-emptive strike could be counterproductive. Virtually no allies — with the possible exception of Britain — would support a surprise attack.
Moreover, nothing would unite the people of Iran behind the mullahs — and in favor of nuclear weapons — more decisively than a U.S. or Israeli military strike, however unpopular the Khamenei theocracy.
What Netanyahu may really be concerned about is the disappearance of Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. His is the only country there which has not put its program under IAEA safeguards.
Despite the claim that there is a strategic relationship between Israel and the U.S., this is a one-way street that only benefits Israel, which gets 25 percent of our foreign aid while continuing its destructive settlements policy. The principal reason that hatred for the U.S. runs so deep in the Middle East is because of the undeclared war we have been conducting against Muslims on Israel’s behalf, along with our support for authoritarian Arab regimes. The hostility goes
back at least to OPEC’s oil embargo in the ’70s — which cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars — imposed because of our support to Israel during the 1973 war.
Some of Israel’s supporters claim we get great intelligence from Israel, but I read it for years and found it mostly self-serving.
Romney regularly accuses Obama of throwing Israel under the bus and endorses Israel’s right to defend itself, suggesting he is willing to outsource the decision to attack Iran to Netanyahu.
The result could be a regional war, one that would certainly require American resources and possibly American troops before it is over.
During the primary debates, Romney bragged about the secret advice he was getting from Netanyahu on how to defend Israel’s interests.
But what about U.S. interests; how will Romney defend American interests? The danger is that his pandering will encourage Netanyahu to start another Middle East war.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
By Tom Maertens
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has blatantly inserted himself into the U.S. presidential campaign, attempting to browbeat President Obama into attacking Iran before the election, and arguing that the U.S. has no moral right to restrain Israel from taking military action on its own.
Obama has strongly suggested that the U.S. would use military force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. At present, all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies agree that Iran has not taken a decision to build a nuclear weapon, an opinion shared by Israel’s recently-retired intelligence chiefs.
In the meantime, Obama has showered more military hardware on Israel, organized a global coalition to impose tough international sanctions, and cooperated with Israel in a series of covert programs such as STUXNET.
Netanyahu has virtually endorsed Romney and is apparently banking on Romney’s support for war. He was heard on videotape some time back saying that it was easy to lead the U.S. by the nose, suggesting he may be overconfident: a new poll by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs shows that 70 percent of Americans oppose a unilateral strike on Iran, and 59 percent said the United States should not come to its Israel’s defense if it Israel bombs Iran.
The Neocon “Israel-first” crowd is beating the war drums again, as usual, and, as usual, they don’t talk about the consequences of starting a war.
Most military analysts think an Israeli air strike might slow the program for only one or two years. Iran learned from Israel’s strikes on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981; it dispersed its facilities and placed them deep underground. Moreover, several studies show that the Osirak attack, far from stopping Iraq’s nuclear ambitions, accelerated them.
A new report by the bi-partisan Iran Project, comprised of three dozen national security “wise men,” says that even a sustained U.S military campaign might set back Iran’s nuclear program four years at most and would risk a major, multiyear war. That could put Saudi and other Gulf oil facilities at risk of Iranian attacks, including by its proxies, such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
Further, the idea that Iran would set off Armageddon as soon as it fabricated one or two nuclear warheads is far-fetched. Israel has a major nuclear arsenal (see “The Samson Option”) that would devastate Iran. It’s not credible to assert that Iran is prepared to see its revolution destroyed for the presumed satisfaction of attacking Israel.
A nuclear Iran is not a good situation, and neither is an even more provocative nuclear North Korea, a nuclear Pakistan or a nuclear India, but we live with them. A pre-emptive strike could be counterproductive. Virtually no allies — with the possible exception of Britain — would support a surprise attack.
Moreover, nothing would unite the people of Iran behind the mullahs — and in favor of nuclear weapons — more decisively than a U.S. or Israeli military strike, however unpopular the Khamenei theocracy.
What Netanyahu may really be concerned about is the disappearance of Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. His is the only country there which has not put its program under IAEA safeguards.
Despite the claim that there is a strategic relationship between Israel and the U.S., this is a one-way street that only benefits Israel, which gets 25 percent of our foreign aid while continuing its destructive settlements policy. The principal reason that hatred for the U.S. runs so deep in the Middle East is because of the undeclared war we have been conducting against Muslims on Israel’s behalf, along with our support for authoritarian Arab regimes. The hostility goes
back at least to OPEC’s oil embargo in the ’70s — which cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars — imposed because of our support to Israel during the 1973 war.
Some of Israel’s supporters claim we get great intelligence from Israel, but I read it for years and found it mostly self-serving.
Romney regularly accuses Obama of throwing Israel under the bus and endorses Israel’s right to defend itself, suggesting he is willing to outsource the decision to attack Iran to Netanyahu.
The result could be a regional war, one that would certainly require American resources and possibly American troops before it is over.
During the primary debates, Romney bragged about the secret advice he was getting from Netanyahu on how to defend Israel’s interests.
But what about U.S. interests; how will Romney defend American interests? The danger is that his pandering will encourage Netanyahu to start another Middle East war.
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home