|
Zonie63 -> RE: * What is Bibi's game? (3/4/2015 10:14:06 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The longer term role of the Israel-US alliance is increasingly questioned in US foreign policy circles. One school of thought* holds that:
In recent years, all US Middle Eastern policy has as its #1 priority the promotion of Israeli interests, even if that means downgrading US interests to second place. However Iraq has demonstrated the limited ability of the US to convert military superiority into political advantage. It follows that the US cannot be the leading Power in the region.
Generally not, although much of that has to do with the delicate balance of power in the Middle East that the US has been trying to promote. If US policy in the region was solely limited to supporting and protecting Israel, then the task would be considerably easier. But we also want the oil and to protect the oil fields and transit routes from potential aggressors. This system of dual policies in the region has often worked against itself, which limits and weakens our ability to maintain hegemony. That's why, for decades, US Mid East policy has been a matter of "living from crisis to crisis" without any real end in sight.
quote:
So the US's interest is to develop an balance of power between the region's leading countries - Turkey Iran Saudi Arabia and Israel (internal issues in Egypt keep it off this particular list). We can see the beginnings of this reconsideration of interests in the fight against IS, where longtime enemies and ideological antagonists, the US and Iran are co-operating while Israel is sidelined, not even a player in that particular fight. This is in line with other regional conflicts eg Iraq where Israeli involvement was surplus to needs. Indeed an Israeli presence in Iraq would have proved to be so counter productive it would have led to a fracturing of the 'coalition of the willing'.
That's what makes it all the more complicated, since there are multiple factions and all kinds of strange bedfellows we've ended up with. And the players and whose side they're on can change quite easily. Our installation of the Shah in Iran in 1953 made that country into a close friend and ally of the United States against the Soviet Union, but once he was overthrown, Iran became an enemy overnight. We also helped the Afghan rebels against the Soviet invaders, but they also eventually turned into an enemy. Even Saddam Hussein became a temporary "friend" of the United States due to his war with Iran. But then he became an enemy, too. Once Saddam's regime was out and a US-friendly regime was installed, suddenly they became "our Iraqi allies."
From the US point of view, I think there's a sense of noticeable weariness and skepticism from all this phony Orwellian BS, with shades of "we have always been at war with Eastasia." The interventionists and warmongers seem to be aware of this too, as they're doing all they can to maintain public support for their incoherent dual policy in the Middle East.
quote:
If this analysis has merit, then it follows that Israel will be very uncomfortable with a potential downgrading of its alliance with the US and Netanyahoooooo's complaints and manoeuvres can be seen in this light - one of Israel's goals is to keep Israel's position as a leading Power in the region and to maintain its stranglehold over US policy towards the region, a stranglehold that has served Israeli interests so well, to the detriment of the US's own interests.
OTOH, Obama is more concerned with re-establishing a US policy towards the region that prioritises US interests, in reversing the one sided US-Israel alliance which is proving increasingly counter-productive to US interests and restoring more balance to US policy, in short a US policy that is genuinely American and not one written in Jerusalem
* For a more complete analysis from this perspective see: https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/netanyahu-obama-and-geopolitics-speeches
The article linked here is informative and well-written, and I mostly agree that Netanyahu's speech will not likely have much of a long-term effect on US-Israeli relations. It won't really weaken our relationship, nor will it really strengthen it. Netanyahu's ties to America are probably stronger than most world leaders, as he lived in America and was educated here. He speaks like an American, and he clearly understands the nuances and realities of American politics, both foreign and domestic.
As for the United States, I think it's way past time that we do a serious re-evaluation of our foreign policy and define "US interests" in a more coherent and sensible manner. We've been operating under a reactive "management-by-crisis" philosophy for far too long, and that's been the underlying flaw. We also need to look at it with honest and clear eyes, without the rose-colored glasses or the usual "Captain America making the world safe for democracy" BS. That's the Big Lie that makes all the little lies possible.
As for US-Israeli relations, there are different factions which believe that the US should support Israel for various reasons, not all of which are in accord with each other. Likewise, those who oppose US support of Israel aren't all of one like mind either.
Netanyahu might have to play his cards carefully, not so much because he has to worry about offending a lame duck President, but that it could stir up a larger public debate over US support of Israel in general. Obama doesn't have to worry about this either. He doesn't have to worry about reelection, so whatever happens, he'll likely retire as a respected elder statesman and get book deals and speaking engagements and do pretty well for himself.
I doubt that this will have much of an effect on either party in next year's election, as other issues may hold greater prominence in the eyes of the voters. But the rabid interventionists, war hawks, and the "we-must-support-Israel-because-it's-God's-will" crowd might have their work cut out for them. They want to push for this agenda, but they can't push the voters too much, since that may backfire on them, as more and more people are getting weary of all this and would rather the government focus more on the problems of America than on the problems of the Middle East.
|
|
|
|
