Posts
or are they engaged in a mutual backscratching operation?
My good friend Pierre Sprey took exception to the attached analysis by Immanuel Wallerstein, which I distributed in my last blaster (and is repeated below for convenience of reference). Readers may recall that I noted Wallerstein did not address the universal influence of domestic politics in shaping a nation's foreign policy. Pierre addresses the implications of that oversight in the attached comment:
Chuck,
Wallerstein's heart is in the right place and he is certainly right that neither Netanyahu nor Obama have the slightest illusions about the ridiculous uselessness of bombing Iran.
Despite that, I couldn't disagree more with Wallerstein's idea that the two leaders are locked in a lose-lose trap and that "neither Netanyahu nor Obama can figure out what really to do, and how to maintain their own political interests internally." Nor do I see how he can seriously discuss Iran and the balance of power among Mideast players without ever breathing a word about oil.
Given that neither Obama nor Netanyahu (or any other elected leaders) give a fig about foreign policy per se, from their respective points of view there is no lose-lose problem at all:
1. By endlessly bloating the Iranian bogeyman, Netanyahu is succeeding with Israeli voters, distracting American attention from Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing and settlement expansion, and forcing Obama into ever more draconian sanctions to strangle the Iranian economy.
2. By pretending to take seriously Netanyahu's saber-rattling and the need to squeeze Iran into submission, Obama keeps the Zionist money flowing into his campaign coffers; enjoys perfect political cover for simultaneously reducing the world supply of oil, running up the price of gas and grossly enriching his Big Oil campaign sponsors; and makes the Saudis, Qataris and UAEs deliriously happy by giving them a larger share of the world oil market at an even more extortionate price per barrel while helping them in their scramble to keep their thrones by cutting off the head of the Shia snake.
So, outside of the poor bastards in the Arab street and those elsewhere in the world who have to heat their houses, put gas in their tanks or buy oil for their companies, where's the lose-lose?
Pierre
For the record, I agree with Pierre's comments about the implications of domestic politics and those about the implications of Wallerstein's omission of any reference to oil.
Chuck Spinney
Barcelona
Israel: Its Fantasies and Its Realities
by Immanuel Wallerstein, Agence Global, 15 Mar 2012
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel visited the United States in the beginning of March 2012. He came to say, once again, that a nuclear Iran would pose an existential threat to Israel, and that Israel reserved the right to take timely action to counter this. President Obama asserted just as vigorously that, yes, a nuclear Iran would pose an existential threat to Israel, and that the United States could not countenance this, but that the timing of Netanyahu was off. Non-military action against Iran should be exhausted first before thinking of other action.
Let us examine the premises. Why would Iran, with nuclear weapons, pose an existential threat to Israel? That is, who believes that, if Iran had nuclear weapons, the Iranian authorities would use them to bomb Israel? Actually, no one in any position of responsibility in Israel, in the United States, or elsewhere in the world believes this. They only say they do.
Let us start with the ostensible arguments. Israeli officials point to the fact that Pres. Ahmadinejad and others have said that they wish to "wipe out" (or some such phrase) Israel. Of course, many experts have pointed out that the translation is incorrect. But even if it were accurate, does that do anything more than repeat the long-standing position of large numbers of people in the Middle East opposing the concept of a Jewish state and favoring various other outcomes to the long-standing dispute?
Why on earth would Iran bomb Israel? They would kill at least as many Arabs as Israelis, if they did. They would be subject to immediate retaliation by Israel, which is well-armed in nuclear weapons. Iran bombing Israel is a fantasy that no responsible leader believes.
So, if they don't believe it, why do they say it? The answer seems to me clear. Were Iran finally to have a few nuclear weapons, it would indeed change something. It would change the geopolitical balance in the Middle East and weaken politically the position of Israel. It would probably also lead to the rapid acquisition of nuclear weapons by a number of other countries. I think of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey, to begin with.
Were either Israel or the United States to bomb Iran preemptively, there would be enormous political consequences immediately. First of all, it would almost certainly be relatively inefficacious in terms of stopping the Iranian project. Secondly, it would weaken politically the position of both Israel and the United States in the whole world. The two reasons together explain why there is so much opposition by the military and intelligence services of both Israel and the United States to the whole military discourse. What they fear is that the discourse would catch on and permit some political leaders not presently controlling the Israeli or U.S. governments to be foolish enough to start the war.
What Israel and the United States are locked into is a lose-lose situation. Whatever they do, they will lose politically. I believe they are aware of this, and neither Netanyahu nor Obama can figure out what really to do, and how to maintain their own political interests internally. So they spend their time blaming each other and blackmailing each other. In the meantime, the Iranian leadership uses the discourse to wave the patriotic banners and strengthen its internal position, which had been under serious assault not so long ago.
Meanwhile, back to Palestine, which remains a real issue for Israel, not a fantasy issue. Hamas has now made the decision to link its strategy to Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood, which seems to be on the point of controlling the Egyptian government. Fatah clearly fears, correctly, that it might lose control of the West Bank to Hamas. Caught between Hamas and the U.S. government, President Abbas of the Palestine Authority is also in a lose-lose position and also does not know what to do. So he dithers, which does not seem to be the best survival tactic.
The future is with the Palestinian street. And I simply do not believe that it can be kept quiescent. Can Israel come to terms with the Palestinian street? We shall soon find out.
Immanuel Wallerstein, Senior Research Scholar at Yale University, is the author of The Decline of American Power: The U.S. in a Chaotic World (New Press).
