Maybe this time the Israeli prime minister has gone too far in his bullying and arrogance in dealing with the United States of America—so far as to undermine the habits and attitudes in the United States that have made such swagger possible in the first place. “This time” can refer to Benjamin Netanyahu's attention-getting outburst this week in which he criticized the Obama administration's posture regarding Iran's nuclear program, demanding that the United States impose a clear “red line” and declaring that those who do not impose such lines “don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.” The harshness of Netanyahu's blast took aback even some American politicians accustomed to falling in line in the customary way on matters related to Israel. Senator Barbara Boxer of California said in a letter to Netanyahu, as “one of Israel's staunchest supporters in Congress,” that she was “stunned” by Netanyahu's remarks. Boxer is a Democrat who no doubt was also trying to soften any political impact of this latest indication of ill will between the Israeli prime minister and the U.S. president. But her response was still one indication of how far Netanyahu had gone beyond the bounds of what supposedly is a relationship between friends and allies.
“This time” also could refer more generally to the whole warpath-blazing campaign of agitation about the Iranian nuclear program. That campaign clearly is mainly an Israeli thing, and especially a project of Netanyahu and his rightist government. Historians decades from now will be trying to explain how the superpower of the day allowed itself to get so preoccupied with a still-nonexistent weapon in the hands of a second-rate power that, even if the weapon came into existence, could not pose a threat to U.S. interests anywhere near what the preoccupation implies. Israel, with its longstanding and sizable nuclear arsenal of its own as well as its conventional regional military superiority, also does not face a threat that warrants all the agitation and warmongering. Maybe preventing the mere possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon would mean Israeli leaders would think only once and not twice before the next time they throw their weight and armed might around in Gaza or Lebanon or someplace else. And the drum-beating about Iran does divert attention away from that pesky matter involving political rights and self-determination for Palestinians.
Perhaps there is seeping into the consciousness of more and more informed Americans the realization that Netanyahu—with his drum-beating, his complete rejection (in defiance of the policies of the United States and other Western powers) of the very idea of negotiations with the Iranians, and his demand for red lines—is trying to lead America by the nose into a war that would be profoundly against U.S. interests. And it would be a war fought primarily to maintain Israel's regional nuclear weapons monopoly and—also not in U.S. interests—untrammeled ability to throw its weight around.
Even for those attuned less to specific calculations about U.S. interests and more to general concepts of right and wrong, Netanyahu has provided much to offend. A military attack launched to damage or destroy somebody else's nuclear program—launched, no less, by a state that long has had nuclear weapons completely outside any international monitoring or control regime—would be an act of aggression clearly in violation of international law. The infliction of casualties involved, inflicted to maintain the aggressor's nuclear weapons monopoly, would be an immoral act. And yet Netanyahu says those who may object to any of this “don't have a moral right” to do so. Incredible.
The prime minister's behavior can be interpreted in multiple ways. His latest tantrum may be part of his effort to sink the re-election chances of the incumbent U.S. president, in favor of an alternative who would be beholden to interests whose primary affinity is to the Israeli right, by accentuating Barack Obama's supposed inability to get along with Israel. This is probably at least part of the explanation for the behavior.
Some have questioned Netanyahu's stability and temperament, in ways that go beyond merely having a short temper. Some Israeli commentators have spoken most recently in terms of Netanyahu “going berserk” or being a “mythomaniac” guided by a sense of heroic mission. Given all we have heard, in connection with Iran's nuclear program, about the hazards of irrational or fanatic people with their fingers on the button, perhaps we should ask about Netanyahu: is this a man who can be trusted with nuclear weapons?
Comments
Wow Netanyahu is crazy -- such irrational crazy religious/zionist middle easterners should NOT be trusted with nuclear weapons at all.
Pillar never tires of bashing the Israelis, while the rest of us are growing extremely weary of it.
Please consider the clash of cultures; America approaches the Alliance with neogtiations and yes compromises while the region considers that method a mark of weakness. So If Mr. Netanyahu gets more than he had before, he still gets upset because he didn't get everything he wanted.I'm glad you articulate the tough nuances; thanks. -T.
Historians will certainly not 'puzzle' over how we were played like a cheap violin by Israel.=.We were played like a cheap violin because Israel's Israel Lobby in the US acted like an organized crime family to PLAY us like a cheap violin.=. Let's drop the pretense of 'historians will wonder' and realize the raw naked power of the Israeli Lobby and how they (the Neocons, and the rest of the Israeli Lobby) lied us into Iraq and came within a whisker TWICE (first with Bush/Cheney which only the public resignation of Admiral Fallon and the 2007 NIE by the US intelligences services managed to stop the first time) of hoaxing and lieing us into attack Iran.=.Understanding the enemy is critical for successful defense - we must understand the Israeli Lobby for what it and Israel are.
Hear hear.
Is it really so very difficult to understand why Israel might want "to preserve its regional nuclear monopoly" when so many states in Israel's region have historically declared a desire to eradicate Israel including, most recently, Iran?A little thought experiment might be in order for Mr. Pillar to help him to understand why Israel might want "to preserve its regional nuclear monopoly". Imagine, Mr. Pillar, you have children, and they happen to live in Texas. Further imagine that Mexico declared its intention to "wipe Texas off the map". Now imagine that Mexico did not yet have nuclear weapons but had embarked on a program to develop them.Would you want the United States government to take all steps possible, including military action, to prevent Mexico from developing a nuclear weapon? Or would you simply suggest that your children move to Minnessota?Israelis have no other state to move to, Mr. Pillar.The next time you speak of another nation's arrogance, first ask yourself if you might not nonchalantly be dismissing existential concerns of a sort about which your barren imagination is unable to conceive. Your piece tells us much more about your arrogance than it does about Israel's. And clearly, it is more broadly Israel that is the target of your ire, not just Netanyahu.Israel is acting arrogantly, Mr. Pillar, only if one was to concede that its concern for its existence was arrogant.
dpinsker, I'm struggling to understand that argument you describe which I've heard before - never know how to ask anyone for some clarity; I hope I'm not beeing rude........-Did Iran say wipe "Zionism" - like Soviets - off the map or he meant the actual State of Israel? They see Zionism anEuropean and alien invention imposed in their region (my interpretation) which is not their business to decide I agree............-did the leader of the Shas party also make a pronouncment that God should destory Iran? I read an article to that effect but don't believe it............-If Mexico builds a nuclear capability, it might not be good but it means we're not likely to invade Mexico. If Mexico dared to contemplate an offensive option, it would be mass suicide. Then also, our anti-missile defense as demonstrated in several scenarios would build a higher breach for them to overcome. Also I would question Mexico's standing if it managed to kill Mexican-Americans in the US and how its future standing might erode in the Hispanic community..............Having said all this, I realize the State of Israel must make its own decisions and not outsiders; I have to admit though: when the Prime Minister of a great country is rude to the US President and expects a second meeting, or the same Prime Minister screams at the same said country's official, I tend to not listen anymore.........Thanks, T.
-Also please explain: The US has lived with that threat you describe and managed the fear since the Cold War began. It deosn't matter where we live (Texas or Minnesota): the intercontinental missiles from Russia or China can hit the US in 30 minutes. Thanks, T.
Mr Frame,How, precisely, would the United States have used its nuclear weapons to wipe the Soviets off of the map, and how would that have differed from wiping Russia (and the other Soviet republics) off of the map? Similarly, how would Iran's use of a nuclear weapon to wipe Zionism off of the map differ from the use of a nuclear weapon to wipe Israel off of the map? Would the nuclear weapons, in both your Soviet example and the Zionist example, be targeted at an ideology rather than a country and its people? That would constitute a revolutionary use of nuclear technology.You are engaging in a semantical exercise in which euphemisms ("Zionists" rather than "Israelis") replace flesh-and-blood human beings. That is the game of totalitarians. Similarly, when al Qaeda speaks of wiping out "Crusaders," it isn't referring to travelling backwards in time through a wormhole to kill medieval Christian warriors. It's talking about killing Americans and Europeans. With respect to Shas, I do not know if that comment was made by that party. But Shas does not rule Israel. By rast, contAhmadenijad, who said Israel - or Zionism (take your pick) - should be wiped off of the map, does hold the presidency in Iran and the mullahs, many of whom have made similar statements, do run the show in Iran.Yes, indeed, the US lived with a grave threat during the Cold War. And had we been able to prevent the Soviets from acquiring nuclear weapons, we likely would have done so. Having said that, the Soviet / US case differs from the Iranian / Israel case in one key respect: the Soviets, as radical and twisted as their ideology was both in theory and in practice, understood that it was in their self-interest not to be incinerated. By contrast, some among the Iranian leadership would welcome a nuclear exchange for the place in heaven it would earn them.
Thanks dpinsker, I appreciate the comments. I honestly didn't realize I come across totalitarian, but you helped me think more clearly. Thanks for teaching me........-I thought the Iranian president was saying Zionism will "disapear" or stop to exist based on some crude analogy he was making with the Soviet system. The US didn't attack the Soviets but the totalitarean system stoped to exist and diseppear from the map. Do you honestly think wishful thinking on his part makes a difference?............ -Yes you're right the Islamist follow a narrow prism and call any western intrusion in the holy region in archaic terms and want to evict Americans. But the Amman Message offers a contrasting approach, for instance, or the majority of Lybians are pro western, and I don't make the mistake of labeling the Zawahiri outlook on all Islam.It's so easy for Zawahiri to send a small group of gangsters to attack consulates and embassies (the latter his preference target I would argue because it's US soil) to make a show of strength that's greater than he really is...............-I agree about the concerns over flesh-and-blood. America has certainly made a lot of sacrifices in the last decade and will not take on a war lightly unless vital interests are involved, and I bet will not fight for emotional reasons.. The good arguments you make is to determine whether those interests are at work now.........-Does the Iranian president control the military? I thought Khameini does and is commander-in-chief. The President and Khameini were constatnly dueling each other last year. I grant you Khomeini (the first supreme leader) was the charismatic leader bent on exporting the revolution in the 80's and 90's, but that vision of being the mahdi is based on one individual. Most mullahs are billionaires and have business interests; even Rafsanjani wants a rational approach to keep that investment safe..............-Iran lost 1million dead or wounded in the Iran-Iaq war; they're jsut as much hyper and about loosing control and is ready to play a nasty game at all cost, but it can't do anything to the State of Israel. Even Admiral Fallon (in above comment said the US can fight them off like ants so there is no existential threat). Iranian history doesn't reveal a tendency to mass suicide (the assassins were a cell developed by a Yemeni-my interpretation), but it plays a patient game of chess (Bernard Lewis); its approach is different than Arab states. Maybe it's difficult to come to grasp with that..............To be honest, I consider Syria a bigger threat to Israel but it's not my palce to tell you that........-As officially stated, the US will not allow Iran a nuclear weapon. Also, Stalin's nuclear weapons and brutal methods (starved millions in Ukraine or his own citizen) made him a nightmare to deal with. I have confidence in America's comeptence.I'm sure I didn't udnerstand the full depth of your comment, but I did read carefully what you wrote. Happy New year by the way and wish you great success.................p.s. I think this quote by a Navy Seal who died in Lybia describes the American approach: "He said Doherty believed the kind of violent jihadists American troops faced were "a very small percentage of the overall mosaic of the Muslim faith," and saw anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States and in the ranks as something that hurt U.S. national security." http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/us/benghazi-victims/index.html........... revised Sep 17.
Mr Pillar, I can't type comments on these pages; the paragraph breaks do not show.Difficult to read. Thanks,T.