Israel is in the news again with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu discussing the possibility for an independent Israeli strike against the Iranian nuclear problems; even in spite of protests from other world leaders, including those of the United States. Netanyahu stated other instances where Israel made policy decisions without the support or acquiescence of the United States, while in a meeting with congressional leaders. One of the major reasons for this comes from Israel feeling closer, and more vulnerable, to the actions and threat of the Iranian nuclear program.
Both parties in the United States
government eschewed promises to support Israel and the staunch
support that policy would continue to be enforced to hinder Iran from
gaining nuclear weapons or nuclear capabilities. Speaker John Boehner
commented that the United States will never let Israel stand alone.
That being said, United States officials call for care in handling
the situation in Iran. There is a valid fear that any misstep can
lead to unforeseen and disastrous problems in the region. To that
end, the government calls for Israel and the United States to be
clear with Iran, and not seem divided on a plan of action.
Ya’acov Amidror, head of Israeli
National Security, stated that the leaders needed to return to Israel
and consider what the other world leaders have said. He stated that
during the meetings with American officials both sides were able to
come together and understand each others positions. Also, Amidror
reinforced Netanyahu's statement that Israel will do whatever
necessary for the continued defense and growth of Israel. To this
end, these men spoke during the American Israel Public Affairs
committee Policy Conference and used historical rhetoric, mainly the
holocaust, to defend the ideas of attacking Iran to secure a future
(for Israel) free of nuclear threat from Iran.
While all of this is occurring, there
is political pressure from Israel for Prime Minister Netanyahu to
reduce the aggressive rhetoric and the call to violence, and comply
with the United States' policies when dealing with Iran. Of course,
the Israeli people are worried about retaliation; and are ill
prepared to deal with the level of retaliatory attacks by Iranians
and Muslim extremist groups. While this is a fear, it is not the
major reason that Israelis push for less aggressive actions. Many
fear that an attack would lead to another world recession; and that
Israel would get blamed for this recession on a global level. They
fear that this action will reduce already shaky support for the
Israeli nation and plight. On top of this, many Israelis fear that
such an action will lead to a strenuous relationship with the United
States, Israel's largest ally, during the upcoming presidential
elections. A number of former military leaders have come out to state
how Netanyahu's stance on the issue is actually hurting Israeli
morale and standing in the world stage.
Considering these factors presents a
number of considerations when considering the national security and
defense of the United States. As stated above, there is a major
connection between the United States and Israel, and any attack on
Israel's part is likely to draw the U.S. into military actions
against Iran. As it stands right now, the United States is ill
equipped to enter into another war; especially on such a grand scale
as would be required in the invasion of Iran. While the American
military could dominate the Iranians, the costs would be more than
the United States can afford; both in terms of manpower and monetary
considerations.
That being said, another concern
surrounds the point made by Israeli citizens about the upcoming
political situation in the United States. With the Presidential
elections on the horizon, there needs to be a hesitancy for any long
term military action. Firstly, and most importantly, any such action
creates a debate among the two candidates that translates into the
appearance of fracturing and weakness on the world stage. If this
happens during the debates, the American resolve could be seen as
weak and another action such as 9/11 could happen in the hopes of
breaking the American peoples' willpower and support of the war.
Along with this, comes the question of adapting the grand strategy of
two quite different candidates to encompass any military action
against Iran. There is the chance that the winner of the next
presidential election takes a completely different position and
shifts policy on the Iranian situation. If this occurs while military
actions are being carried out, then once again there is a major risk
for the United States to be perceived as weak and unwilling to follow
through. This could lead to a loss of respect, or fear, on a global
scale that would have detrimental effects to the defensive power and
threats of the American government and military.
Sources
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment