A Nuclear Umbrella
The Israeli left-of-center newspaper Haaretz is reporting that the Obama administration will offer Israel a “nuclear umbrella” which will consist of a strategic agreement whereby Washington will carry out a devastating nuclear attack on Iran if the Mullahs use a nuclear weapon to attack Israel. Haartez has unusually good sources within the Obama transition team, so the story should be taken seriously. It is also somewhat similar to the Hillary Clinton pledge to “obliterate” Iran, made during the Democratic primaries, so it clearly reflects the thinking of the soon-to-be Secretary of State. Martin Indyk, Clinton-era ambassador to Israel and a frontrunner to become Obama’s special envoy to the Middle East, has also supported such an arrangement.
If the story is accurate, it raises a number of questions, some of which are being raised by the Israelis themselves. First, the description of the proposed agreement makes it appear that Washington will be responsible for retaliating for an Iranian attack. Given the size of Israel, an Iranian attack, if successful, would virtually destroy the country, meaning that the American pledge would not achieve the objective of protecting Israel. Second, Iran does not have a nuclear weapon now and it is far from clear that it will ever have one. Nevertheless, the guarantee suggests that the Obama Administration accepts that Iran will some day have such a weapon and it appears to concede that there is no way to stop such a development. If the Obama team believes that it is possible to stop the weapons program, there would be no need for the guarantee. Third, what would be the American response under the guarantee if Israel were to attack Iran first, triggering the response from Tehran? The situation would be analogous to allowing Georgia to enter NATO so it can attack Russia. If there are no restraints on Israeli behavior, the United States could be drawn willy-nilly into a nuclear war due to the action of a tiny client state. And finally fourth, what is the quid pro quo? If the United States is willing to guarantee Israel’s security, it should be able to demand something from Israel, like the evacuation of the West Bank and the creation of a Palestinian State.
If providing some form of security guarantees to Israel as part of a larger game that would lead to a viable Palestinian state on one hand and would restrain Israel’s aggressive behavior on the other, it might actually be something worth considering. General James Jones, who will be Obama’s National Security Adviser, has floated the idea of placing NATO troops as a peacekeeping force on the West Bank. The idea has been attacked because it would mean that the soldiers would likely be assailed by both sides, but it would also protect the Palestinians, stop the growth of settlements, and provide some breathing space for a modus vivendi to be worked out.
so after the nonstop torrent on non-interventionist rhetoric at the American Conservative, you guys would deploy troops to protect our valuable strategic allies and vital national interests in …. the Palestinian Authority? wow. sort of playing into the charge that it really is just about hating Israel, isn’t it?
I’ve never heard any reasons for why Iran would nuke Israel. They can’t possibly believe anyone would let them get away with it right? Aren’t they just committing country-cide (I slammed country and suicide together there)? Won’t that piss off a sizable chunk of the remaining Palestinian population? Has anyone thought this thru?
If Israel and/or its partisans truly just want a defensive umbrella against a nuke strike then why doesn’t Israel simply support the idea of a totally nuke-free Middle East, supervised by the rest of the world?
But the fact seems to be that it doesn’t, as this idea has been floated before and as it’s my understanding that in response Israel has always said it will only support same—meaning giving up it’s own nukes—when things get peaceful in the region or in some such similar vague circumstance about as likely to appear as a live Jimmy Hoffa.
Thus the only logical analysis would seem to be that whoever is in favor of this is less concerned about a nuke strike on Israel than they are in seeing Israel continue to be the only country in the region that can do as it pleases and credibly threaten others with obliteration if they object. I.e., Israel as the permanent Middle East hegemon.
Not irrational, but hardly defensive.
Cheers,
We should get out of that mess altogether. A security guarantee is extremely unwise.
Obama may consider it a more benign alternative to war, but even that presupposes that America is somehow and for some reason responsible for the protection of another country. That is the mindset we must shake.
Can someone explain to me why we need to be Israel’s big brother? We’re not playing the big brother role with Taiwan or Georgia, or at least not to the extent that we’re playing that role with Israel. So, why play favorites with Israel? How does that benefit the US? Why can’t we just disengage from the Middle East altogether.
‘Why can’t we just disengage from the Middle East altogether.’
Find another source of oil or any power source with as much stored energy as oil and we’re gone baby.
rawshark wrote:
“Find another source of oil or any power source with as much stored energy as oil and we’re gone baby.”
But rawshark, they can’t drink their oil. So why not, other than offering to trade them our greenbacks for their oil, can’t we just do as George suggests and disengage and stop trying to slay all these perceived dragons over there?
Certainly our engagement in Iraq has only benefitted Iran, and our embrace of the Israeli/Palestinian tar baby has only hurt us with the oil powers over there, not to mention with the peoples over there to such a degree as to persuade a frightening number to become admirers of Mr. bin Laden.
So why not just disengage? That seems to be the kind of non-policy foreign policy originally envisioned by our Founders: The hand of amity towards all except those who first raise a hostile hand against us.
Cheers,
Like it or not we are engaged here, there, pretty much everywhere. And turning back the clock on that is impossible. But I digress. The Iranians are going to get the bomb. They threaten Israel with destruction every other day. One of the things that we Jews picked up in that little interlude 1939-45 is that when somebody says they are going to kill you they mean it. Ergo, Israel is going to have to do something. Pretty much the only way to head that off is for the Iranians to know that no matter what happens, if they touch off a nuclear exchange they go too. And if the AC readers think that we are just going to be able to sit out a nuclear war behind the oceans, well you guys are out of your mind.
Israel has every right to defend herself. Still, it does not follow that the US should supply this “nuclear umbrella”.
Israel has fully operational nuclear weapons, including submarine-launched cruise missiles with nuclear warheads, that can not be found and destroyed by any aggressor in the region. So a full scale nuclear retaliation is swift and certain, regardless of the US. Promising to further incinerate what would remain of Israel’s enemies seems meaningless. The US could not possibly beat the Israelis to the punch, and bombing the survivors would only be like the British nuking Hiroshima again on the following day.
This alleged nuclear umbrella serves no practical purpose. It is a reckless idea that does not increase the security of anyone, and it only makes everyone involved dig deeper into their trenches. This is not change at all, but more of the same.
“Like it or not we are engaged here, there, pretty much everywhere. And turning back the clock on that is impossible.”
Mr. Pearlman, we could very easily disengage and withdraw from the region if we had the political will to do so.
“Given the size of Israel, an Iranian attack, if successful, would virtually destroy the country, meaning that the American pledge would not achieve the objective of protecting Israel.”
Uhm…does the word “deterrence” have any significance here?
http://rightklik.blogspot.com/
This is nothing more than political maneuvering on the part of the Obama Administration to build up its credentials as “pro-Jewish.” With a name like Barack Hussein Obama, virulent left-wing intentions, and open hostility to many other faith-centered political objectives (such as valuing human life for one), Obama has to present three ideas: one, that his name doesn’t mean he’s a Muslim-lover; two that he can be tough on “national security” even though he comes from the Democratic Party; and three, that Christian groups (particularly Dispensationalist Protestants) can allow Obama to pursue other goals that they would ordinarily oppose in exchange for his willingness to support what they see as critical for the millenial rapture. Obama is a genius for offering this guarantee, which effects no change in the Middle East and only builds his ephemeral credentials at home.
Hey Bill, you made a good point: “Israel is going to have to do something”
This is Israel’s problem. But once again, somehow Israel’s problems become OUR problems. The meaning of the statement by Imanutterjob (Ahmadinejad) to wipe Israel off the map (presumably with nuclear weapons) is contentious, at best. I believe the Guardian UK did a write up (or two) on it.
Nowhere (yet) in the Constitution does it say we need to protect Israel. I say this given the numerous violations of international and humitarian law that stretch back to its inception, long before there was a Hamas, PIJ, PLO, etc. In other words, the policies of the Israeli government have always been antagonistic, and they have targeted civilians just as the terror groups have (Deir Yassin, Kfar Kassem, Qana, Qibya, Lebanon ’06, etc etc etc). Israel cannot claim victim status given their own history – in fact it’s hypocritical to do so.
Israel needs to find a way to get along with its neighbors, and America should cut the cord until Israel can halt all unlawful behavior in that region. At this point, thanks to its minions in the US (the ‘Lobby’), we are aiding and abetting, actions that put the American national interest in grave physical danger. And that fact makes the blood of true patriots boil (recall Washington’s Farewell Address – truer words never spoken).