Now this really is 'fright time'!

I saw on TV out of the corner of my eye the meeting a few days ago between Obama and Netanyahu but paid it little heed because I new that little in the way of hard news would be released and the true facts of what was said would not be published for years.  Only the fairly immediate developments on the ground would allow us to make a reasonably accurate guess as to what was, or more likey was not, agreed.  However, Herbert London in The American Spectator sums up the possibilities and probabilities and confirms my worst fears.

According to him, it is now fairly clear that Obama has called a halt to indiscriminate support for Israel and has given the Iranians the nod and the wink to proceed with their production of  enhanced uranium provided they stop short of actually building a bomb. One is forced to ask why, having successfully called the bluff of the Americans, the Iranians should not carry on to the nuclear end?  At which point the focus will swivel in the direction of Tel Aviv and the hard-eyed prime minister who is responsible for safeguarding his country.  What will he do?  According to Herbert London, Obama has made it crystal clear that he will not support Israel if she attacks, indeed, just the opposite, he will lead the way in sanctions against her and suspend military support.  Once again in their history the Jews know that they are on their own and the choice is either surrender and death, or fight to live.  Netanyahu is not the sort of leader likely to accept the former.  In some ways, I guess, it might be a relief to the Israeli leadership - and the nation - to know that their destiny lies in their own hands, untied by restrictions from Washington.  The only difficulty is whether they have the military means to deliver a decisive blow against the Iranian facilities.

One effect is almost certain in the very near future, and that will be the nuclear arming of Saudi Arabia.  There is no way that the Saudis will allow a Persian nuclear hegemony to be established in the region.  They may be starting from behind but with their money they can buy the technology wholesale from the Pakistanis.  If America, in effect, washes its hands of the situation, then perhaps China, constantly in need of oil supplies, will step in to help the Saudis re-establish equality of nuclear force.  In any event, I would not be surprised to see a rapprochement, probably secret, between Saudi Arabia (and some other Arab countries) and Israel.  For years now the plight of the Palestinians has never been held in high regard in many Arab countries who have simply used it as an excuse to strike attitudes but do nothing.

Whatever happens, Obama has taken far and away the most serious decision of his presidency, breaking a policy of support for Israel that dates back to the 1940s.  Whether it will prove to be a stroke of genius, or a gross dereliction of duty, only time will tell, but I know which way I'm betting!

 

Comments

[Stan]

Yep, the Iranians will get their bomb and soon after some suicide maniac will detonate a nuclear device in a van in the middle of Tel Aviv. "Wasn't us!" Iran will shout, the Israelis won't believe them and retaliate - the UN will condemn Israel - followed by Iran launching it's own version of the holocaust using their recently tested MRBM. How big is Israel? How many nukes will it take? 4? 5?

[David Duff]

Indeed, Stan, something along those lines could well happen. The key, I think, is exactly how effective a pre-emptive Israeli strike would be. The experts seem to think that it would not be total but would achieve a considerable delay in Iranian development. Of course, Obama would then be forced 'on side' because it would require the American fleet to hold open the Straights of Hormuz through which 20% of the world's oil is carried.

Anyway, welcome to D&N, Stan, and on the basis of a quick skim read this morning I recommend your blog to my other reader!

[JK]

David, just "skim-watching" I think that rapprochement you speak of is a current event. As to what "Oprah" might have on his wish list doesn't really matter. Should the Israelis discern what they consider a "clear and imminent" threat, they will strike.

I suspect, but given the intellectuallity (is that a word?) of the current Iranian regime, I can't know - but anyway, I suspect even they should realize Israel could (and would) have the war ended within a quarter hour.

JK

[David Duff]

You are more sanguine than me, 'JK'. First, I am not sure (because I don't know) if the Israelis have the bunker-busting bombs needed to make a really long-lasting effect on Iranian sites; second, whilst an effective raid will be OK for them, the closure of the Straights is a war that will have to be fought by the US and with their commitments and economic woes I am not sure they are up to it. In any event, such a war would send international markets into a flat spin. Like I say - 'fright times'!

[JK]

You are correct David, in that it would be "fright times." What I'm saying is quite simple actually, "bunker busters" aside.

Should a nuke be detonated on/over the territory of Israel, Israel will respond. They will not get on the "Red-Line to Washington" and ask for permissions.

Israel has the capacity I think. Do you not agree? I doubt Israel would consider the state of "international markets" al I think Israel would consider is this:

Us - them.

As for Hormuz, recent events show that the strait can be closed cleanly and effectively simply by one side having a surface combatant colliding with an (ostensibly) sub-surface combatant warship. Nevermind surface to surface weapons needing be used by an opponent.

Recall fairly recently, a frogship colliding with a Briter? Of course soon after,the frogs re-joined NATO insofar as NAV-OPS were concerned. But then doggone, a single nation's Navy managing to collide a surface combatant with a nuclear armed subsurface warship exiting - were I Israel, I might think, "Best to go it alone."

I don't doubt your expertise, in fact I admire your study. The simple fact is - it would be 1830 "all over again."

The "supposition" on my part now David is simply this - can you and I depend on what you and I (in the past) depended on.

JK

[David Duff]

'JK', sorry for teh delay in response (see post up above).

I have no doubt that Israel could nuke just about anyone in the middle-east and would do so if 'in extremeis'. The point I was making was that if Obama stepped back as far as it appears, then Israel will not bother seeking permission to attack Iran with conventional weapons, and of course neither would they give international markets a second thought.

The 'Big brother/Little Brother' relationship between nations is an exceedingly delicate one requiring great diplomatic skills on both sides. The history of that between the UK and France leading up to WWI is a prime case in point. If Big Brother commits to fulsomely, then Little Brother will feel free to raise hell; but if you keep strictly hands-off then you lose the power to influence events. We were blessed with Lord Grey, a diplomatic genius - you have, er, Barack Obama. We shall see!