Linked is a sober analysis from a Council of Foreign Relations guy, Steven Simon, pointing out that Israel probably has the capacity to effectively strike Iran’s nukes and probably will, unless we try really hard to be nice to Bibi’s government. In short, Israel, flush with American aircraft, ordinance, and weapons systems, has the capacity to do great damage to American interests throughout the Mideast–huge spike in oil prices, we would be blamed, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan threatened–and the only way we can prevent it so be really really accommodating to Israel, so the Israelis don’t feel isolated. Guess we shouldn’t even think of not vetoing any resolutions about Goldstone in the UN, much less BDS.
How did this happen to my country?
[From Simon:
[send high-profile visitors to Israel on reassurance missions; a presidential visit to express solidarity with Israel...
[Above all, Israel must not be left to feel alone...
[...while Israel may be amenable to American arguments for restraint, those arguments must be backed predominantly by concrete measures to contain the threat and reaffirmations of the special relationship, and only secondarily by warnings of the deterioration of the relationship, to be persuasive.]
I’m not sure how you concluded “How did this happen to my country?” from the link or your math of the relationships.
One of the key elements of your math is “we would be blamed, our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan threatened. ”
The effect on oil prices are an objective concern. But, bely an injustice that the beneficiary of the sale of oil should be the local state, that arbitrarily is situated on oil reserves. It is not a result of effort, thought, work, but a gift from nature. Second, the price of petroleum products in the US is unnaturally low and subsidized in ways, to the extent that it distorts rational economic decisions at every scale.
We would be WELL-SERVED by permanently increased oil prices, to conserve (the root of the term “conservative”) rather than squander.
The more important concern of mine in your post is the “we will be blamed” part, as in ways controlling American foreign policy. You criticize the degree that American foreign policy, American sovereignty is taken from us, but your criticism rests on the effects of others opinion, whether we bend to Israel or bend to Iran.
A better approach is that we DECIDE what affirms American principles, not the choice of which power to pander to.
The “we will be blamed” as such a primary driver in the math, indicates a functional cowardice, and to blame that on Israel rather than on our own character, is a faulty logic.
You seem to acknowledge that the US empire is in gradual decline, which I agree that it is, but do not advocate for the measures that would enhance its prospects, specifically a radical effort for energy independance primarily driven by conservation and simplicity, and sufficient public planning to return primary value-addition activity to American shores.
Anyone else going to take limited vindication in the notion of a future Witty (as another brilliant commentator put it eloquently) up to hips in elephant crap, complaining about how it all mysteriously got there? I know I am.
” . . . .specifically a radical effort for energy independance primarily driven by conservation and simplicity.”
Until we get to that point where conservation is the key element of our energy policy, are you suggesting that the US ignore policies of other nations which would devastate our economy?
As far as your “how did this happen to my country” comment–are you suggesting that you don’t know how it happened or, are you suggesting that it has not happened?
I’m primarily saying that a foreign policy that is based on “what will they say about us”, is not a foreign policy, but a pandering policy. It goes far beyond choice to develop relationships, to cowardice and willing abdication of sovereignty, and to rumor.
Obviously “what will they say about us” has not been our foreign policy in the Middle East since at least 1967. Where has it got us? Begging Israel not to put us in the soup
evermore, as if Israel, not China and India, was keeping us afloat, and as if we haven’t been keeping Israel Uber Alles afloat at our expense for many decades. As W & M said, Arab oil has not even been a player, nor has Big Oil corporations. No, “what will AIPAC do to us in US government” has been our foreign policy, dictated by domestic politics, as it has been since Truman except for Ike and Kennedy.
Wow. sounds like the same fears on the Iraq war……….
Scared of an Israeli retaliation and strike, so we’d better do it.
What a crock.
Now you have me wondering what would be worse — the United States doing the bombing runs, or Israel. I suppose the same type of planes dropping the same bombs on the same targets, all funded out of the same taxpayers’ pockets… so functionally, is there even a difference anymore?
I don’t suppose the notion of bombing Israel has occured to anyone?
There is something perverse about having to wonder which side of that Rahm Emanuel would be on. Or rather, what he would do, with the power he has and the side he would choose.
The only reason Washington is trying to put brakes on Zionazi train is – because, not only Iranian, but most of the non-ZOG countries will blame the US if IOF ever attacked Iran. This not a guess – but the last 60-year history shows that Israel has never dared to attack its neighboring countries with the moral, military and economic help of the US administration. As Gilad Atzmon wrote in one of his recent articles that “since 1967 – Zionazi state has not one a single battle.”
The Zionists have become so paranoid that even the mention of one fals-flags become a grave threat to the so-called “Jewish state”. For example the latest speech by Chavez, in which he called the Carlos the Jackal – a “freedom fighter”….
Chavez’s “good guys”
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
Remat… look man, I think you’re going off the deep end a bit here. Lenin was born to an Orthodox Christian family, from what I understand, and later became a self-proclaimed atheist. He wasn’t Jewish.
As for Ramirez Sanchez, I wouldn’t call him a hero by any stretch but I will say there’s a horrendous double standard whereby he gets singled out and vilified as a terrorist, whereas Mossad assassination squads roamed free in Europe, and likewise Contra death squads in Latin America. He was a reaction to existing terrorism — terrorism funded by the United States, in no small part — not the originator.
We would be WELL-SERVED by permanently increased oil prices, to conserve (the root of the term “conservative”) rather than squander.
I’m sorry. This just can’t be ignored. The spike in oil prices as SW Asia descends into further destruction and bloodshed as the result of an Israeli attack on Iran is a good thing? My nine year old is studying conservation in 3rd grade, but as I review her workbook I don’t recall WWIII being promoted as part of the ‘greening’ of America.
Utterly insane.
Do you understand why he upsets me so much now? Witty would literally stab you in the back then try to convince you it was for the best. Metaphorically, that’s exactly what he’s already doing: laying the first layer of foundation of his defense of further Israeli aggression and war crimes. And this from the same man who denounces the BDS movement as “violent.”
Chaos, I don’t disagree that he is disingenuous, to put a polite spin on it. All I’m talking about is channeling energy productively. His presence here is designed to irritate and obfuscate. That much he is good at. But honestly, no, I have not seen a single productive bit of information come from his finger tips in the two years that I have followed this site. And I don’t expect to in the future. His die is cast.
Yes, but if his goal is to lay out the framework for responses to a thread, he succeeds. And I am as guilty as anyone of responding to him and enabling that goal.
Ignoring him isn’t going to change anything. At least if Witty is confronted, he gets discredited.
It’s really simple, Witty reaps the benefits of living in the USA; he’s done so all his life. Simultaneously, he sticks to Israel as a place to run to when the inevitable American pogroms come into view, even though the worst you can say about US history regarding the Jews is that they were treated like any new immigrant group that were not WASPs. And we know that the WASPS are no longer in power; in fact a coalition of assimilated gentile groups along with
less assimilated American Jews, control the country.
Phil gets it, Witty does not. That’s why they are always at odds.
Steven Simon wrote:
“Above all, Israel must not be left to feel alone.”
The absolute crux of Simon’s article, and yet the most illogical as well. (And thus perfectly representative of the kind of thinking that almost invariably seems to guide the U.S. in its policy when it comes to matters the involve Israel: Up means down, down means up, 1+1 can equal anything but 2, and etc. and so forth.)
After all the ostensible point of Simon’s whole article is how to prevent Israel from striking Iran. (Since, as he acknowledges, this would mean bad things for the U.S. such as a huge rise in the price of oil, although of course Mr. Witty would have us *thanking* Israel if it does inflict that upon us.)
And yet … the common logic that would seem to apply to try to restrain one from attacking another is to tell the possible attacker just how alone they *would* be if they attacked, and stress to them how lonely their position would be if they did so.
To his credit Simon does somewhat deal with this—albeit indirectly—by noting that with Israel we might be dealing with a special case: A “never again” Holocaust mentality, in essence. But, still, illogical.
Indeed what’s funny is how completely Simon just seems to accept that the tail does and should wag the dog, talking all the while about how much an Israeli strike on Iran could hurt us. Never once however, at least so far as I see, does he talk about the U.S. could easily avert a good deal if not all of that harm, much less advocate it.
For instance, the U.S. could rather easily signal publicly—right now—that it very clearly opposes any Israeli strike, and indicate it will not keep it secret if it detects it about to happen. It could indeed refuse to give the IFF code to Israel so it couldn’t overfly Iraq, and on and on and on.
None of this is really advocated by Simon however; instead he just seems to accept that if Israel attacks the U.S. will have to support it, and this is just breathtaking when you consider what that means and what it means in terms of this seeming to be the mainstream opinion too:
For instance, mentioned even by Simon, even one of the very probable *known* outcomes of any strike on Iranian facilities will be the release of at least some and very possibly a great deal of radioactivity. And no-one can possibly know just how much this will be, nor where it will go: The vagaries of the wind might take a cloud of it right over Teheran, over our troops in Afghanistan, over Pakistan, and it might be quite deadly.
And yet … despite the reaction this would likely elicit from the entire world, the depths of absolute *hatred* this would mean, Simon just seems to accept that gee, if we fail (“pretty please!”) to stop Israel from striking Iran that the U.S. would just have to support it and suffer this and all other consequences too.
*And this is so even though not once does Simon indicate how bombing Iran would be in the U.S.” interests, and indeed even seems to agree that doing so would be *contrary* to it.
And yet … he suggests we would have to support it.
Given how this would seem to represent the sort of mainstream sentiment that exists in the U.S. foreign policy community that counts, a frightening illustration how just how our policy towards Israel causes us to corrupt our thinking even as to our most fundamental of interests.
Pingback: Who’s the boss?
There was a Twilight Zone episode about a little boy who was omnipotent. His family was trapped inside the house with him, constantly watching cartoons and having the same junk food for dinner because that’s what the little boy wanted. And if he didn’t get what he wanted ALL THE TIME, he would do terrible things, and his family went around with false smiles on their faces, desperate not to make a mistake.
That reminds me of Israel, and the rest of the world is trapped in the house with him, smiling and laughing and trying to keep him from setting off the nukes.
I was thinking in terms of a more pedestrian case of violent insanity, or a psycopathic hostage-taker. The soothing voice, reassuring concessions (a steak dinner, pulling the SWAT team back a few yards) and grandiose promises (a fuelled jet and a million dollars) are supposed to be tactical however, waiting for the nutcase to lower his guard, so you can nab him and put him in a padded cell. Simon seems to be advocating the “don’t upset the psycho” approach as an endgame strategy – actually keeping the extravagant promises rather than using them as a ploy. So who else is insane here?
Israel deliberately cultivates the image of a psycho state to intimidate opposition. This is a central element in its policy of deterrance – “don’t set off the psycho.”
But only a real nutcase would be supplying the psycho with napalm and bombs.
Well, actually it’s just the run-of-the-mill US gentile politicians. Witty’s right that
they are to blame, and the same goes for the US gentile masses. Even when they are moved by something core beyond self-service (material gain), and beyond, white gentile PC guilt (for the Shoah)….er, what else moves them? It’s certainly not larger US interests, nor larger Israel interests, nor larger world interests–so what is it? I submit, nothing. That’s the ingredients for the soup we are in.
“Above all, Israel must not be left to feel alone.” Is just a euphemism for – “you better support all of its atrocities to reach its main goal, Eretz Yisrael.” Don’t make it feel like it is actually doing something unacceptable or wrong, if you know whats good for you.
EXTORTION – The use, or the express or implicit threat of the use, of violence or other criminal means to cause harm to person, reputation, or property as a means to obtain property from someone else with his consent.
Following the colossal failure of the Iranian air defense exercise over the weekend, they will soon realize that they are weak and unprotected. Without the S-300s there is no chance they’ll continue their ‘strong talk.’ They will cave to the pressure and give up both their clandestine nuclear weapons program and their ballistic missile program.
Once the people of Iran realize they are suffering for an ass backwards 60s era defense infrastructure they will surely rise up against the crumbling regime.
Oooh! Tell us “Goldilocks and the Three Bears” next, I love that fairy tale! It’ll no doubt be better (and more credible) than the one you’ve just told.
Yonira,
Before talking about clandestine nuclear weapons programs, try looking up the word evidence.
Israel wouldn’t be talking tough about bombing Iran if they didn’t have the skirt of the US to hide behind once things get nasty. And don’t get too cocky about defense systems. Israel’s military is provided free of charge at US taxpayer expense, and even then, with all that fancy hardware, they still got their asses handed to them in 2006 by Hezbollah because the IDF are ultimately cowards when not sitting 30,000 feet in the air, and dropping cluster bombs or white phosphorous on children.
In fact, Israel couldn’t even pull an attack on Iran off without the US permission or help them.
Iran isn’t Gaza. Israel may have convinced itself that it got’s it’s mojo back shooting fish in a barrel, but they will bite off more than they can chew if they take on a country 3 times the size of Iraq and 60 million people who will certainly rize up, not against their own people.
Rest assured, it will mark the end for your pathetic 3rd world state.
yonira – are you auditioning for the Neocon Chorus?
Yes,
I am quite proud of my performance to date.
Your critical standards aren’t very high.
In psychiatry the definition of toxic people in your life is the following: ones who are easy to upset and hard to please, who let you down time after time, who dont cooperate or play fair, or who constantly make excuses and blame other people.
This is now Israel. And if this piece of shit country bombs Iran or does another job on Gaza, the entirety of the USA will think that of it…and will resent paying for its parasitic existence. Because that is exactly what the bush-cheney-like leadership in Israel has become: us for the past eight years: pieces of shit, despicable, and living off someone else’s teat.
If it is in US interests to keep strong relations with Israel, which I think it is on the basis of many many interactions in multiple spheres, then it is NOT irrational to assist in Israel’s defense.
If it is the US policy to not encourage its allies to agress on others, then the US should state that.
I object to the conditions by which the US is made permanently dependant, and to me that rests on energy.
It is also not US’ place to define for other countries what their foreign policy is. If there is any behavior that is imperial, it is that. So long as Iran threatens Israel in any substantive way and the US continues to demonstrate impotence to resolve conflicts with Iran, then it is rational for Israel to consider its options for its viability.
MANY important US relationships in the world are similar to the relationship with Israel, with many aspects of economic, social relationship that are independant of military or geo-political strategy. If the US is seen as pandering, which the McConnell description represents, then those relationships will be less than confident. (India, Southeast Asia).
Oil and energy is the weak link. That the US has not and still does not endeavor on really radical energy conservation efforts, indicates that it doesn’t care about its sovereignty in the slightest. Addicts, lazy, fearful, willingly obeisant to international oil and international manufacturing.
Its a petty Princetonian irritation that the US seems to be moderately subordinating its foreign policy to Israel, while NO light on the materially subordination of foreign policy to imported oil, still.
The US manages to have good relationships with many countries without giving them huge welfare checks. How about if we cut off the check to Israel? Is that a hostile act or does the money belong to Israel in the first place? Could we still have “strong relations” without this payment? No pressure, no manipulation, no coercion, – just no subsidy. I’m curious.
@homingpigeon
We, in Britain, deserve a huge welfare check or two for giving the US Tony Blair’s help and support for two illegal and disastrous wars. (his reward was being nominated as ‘Middle East Envoy’ !!!??, since when, apart from the average afternoon a week he’s actually spent in Jerusalem doing his job, he’s made $5m from other sidelines ).
No, the money doesn’t belong to Israel in the first place. It’s payment for a discreet form of blackmail (Think “Holocaust!!??” – how many Ashkenazi political leaders never fought Germany but took over most of Palestine?)
Many USA politicians have, and now are talking to the public about getting off our dependence on oil; it’s a regular political stance on both sides of the aisle. Compare the uniform silence (except for a very few, such as Kucinich and Paul) regarding
our subordination to Israel’s policies right or wrong.
Anyone who wants to can obtain on the internet the deep extent of our “special relationship” with Israel; see if we have any other comparable enmeshment with any other country, and compare the extent of substantially one-sided benefits net (to Israel).
Oil and energy is the wink link for all nations not naturally oil rich; the cost-effectiveness of developing alternative energies is always an issue, and will remain so for a long time.
We are not “moderately subordinating” our foreign policy to Israel. It’s in contrast,
a MAJOR subordination, and this MAJOR irritation has been detailed for over two years straight on this very blog.
@MRW
I agree with you 100%, except for one major mistake. Israel has been behaving like this for 60 years (and its forebears for longer), not just eight.
The only solution Obama has is to start withdrawing aid; not publicly, but very very quietly, from ‘secret’ programmes. Otherwise he would start off a shitstorm of protest, and he’s got enough on his plate.
And he should get his juniors to do the talking, like Rose Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary of State, who suggested that Israel just might join the NPT.
link to inss.org.il
If that doesn’t work, he’s got to get in and exercise his own very powerful clout – “Right – No more white phosphorous, DIME, cluster bombs, Apaches or F16s – until you start behaving yourselves. And you can start paying back your debts – we’re up shit creek ourselves”.
@Simon’s article
I don’t brown-nose my dog when it barks or misbehaves. Why should the most powerful state on earth do this to a pissing, little miserable Levantine country like Israel? (Because of the Israel Lobby, you a**hole).
When my dog shits on the floor, I give it a ‘friendly’ slap. When it terrorised my cats, I kicked it, hard. Now it noses up to the cats in (almost) quite genuine friendliness.
You just have to give lesson examples to these pissing, little miserable Levantines.
Punish them a bit when they’ve done very great wrongs (Gaza). Don’t keep silent when a massacre is occurring (Gaza). And don’t try to silence their critics(Goldstone)
While I think Richard Parker’s idea about the U.S. withdrawing aid to Israel is not likely to happen for the foreseeable future I also think that yonira’s take on what’s going to happen with Iran is not only too sunny in the short run from Israel’s perspective, but in the long run also ignores what I think is going to be the clear and terrible trouble Israel has to look forward to.
Seems to me pretty clear that whatever happens with Iran there’s really no appetite for any military strike other than in Tel Aviv, and that includes Washington too. What with the problems we’ve already got in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, for the U.S. to be striking Iran and possibly unleashing a big radioactive cloud over the region … yikes. Israeli pressure isn’t going to overcome this calculus I don’t think. Might not even have done so with another Bush much less Obama.
So Israel might strike on its own or not, but either way its long-term situation is very bad due to the history of its policies. Say it strikes Iran; okay, but as Simon says in the article Weiss linked to all this really does is give the Iran nuke program a temporary “haircut” at best, and indeed probably just ensures that there will be a full nuke-bomb effort made by it in the future, which will be all the harder if not impossible to destroy, and etc. And it will also create a difficult-to-resist reason for Iran to disseminate what nuke knowledge and resources it has as well, and increase the reason for other arab states such as Syria to get the bomb too. (Not to mention upping the attraction for terrorists to not only continue their anti-Israeli terror, but to up the nature of it as well.)
Maybe Israel can live with this but even if it *doesn’t* strike Iran it still faces huge problems: The surrounding arab states already hate it, there is already the natural spread of nuke info making the creation of some ever easier and more likely as time goes by, and sooner or later even if Israel draws its borders so as to exclude West Bank arabs it still has its own arab citizens with their demographic potential that means that sooner or later Israel is going to have to start treating them harshly to get them to leave, or just deport them wholesale and thereby earning Israel even more opprobrium and hatred.
Thus even absent any Iran strike because of Israel’s policies I just can’t see any way whatsoever that even in 20 or 30 years it will really be at any kind of stable peace with its neighbors or in the region. Indeed as time goes by because of demographics its situation will only get worse, and even in a 50 year window it’s hard to see Israel as being anything but a pariah regional state. After all, even assuming that things *don’t* seem to get worse Israel is still likely to see a jewish emmigration out of it as time goes by and as people get tired of constantly living in a pressure cooker. And this means that even if all the arab world does is maintain the rough status quo and even if Israel keeps gobbling Palestinian land, Israel still loses in terms of its own jewish population and jewish character.
And yet things almost certainly will get worse: That demographic problem will get worse, and what we will also no doubt see is at the very least a clear continuation of the trajectory we’ve seen in the past 30-40 years of energy becoming ever more expensive—esp. with the skyrocketing increased demand coming from China and India—thereby meaning the arab oil states will just get all the more richer, and their influence and allies grow ever more as well. (Something we already see with China I think.) And the net meaning of all this is that supporting Israel is going to look ever more costly.
Israel already seems to have trouble holding on to its people, and to have already picked what low-hanging fruit there is in the world willing to immigrate into it. So already the attraction of living in Israel right now would seem to be problematic. And, as re the big question, can anyone really reasonably foresee *any* scenario in which the attraction of being an Israeli does anything but decline?
If then one is an enemy not just of what Israel has been doing since ’67 but indeed of its very existence as a jewish state all they have to do I think is sit back, watch and enjoy. The Israelis have not only made the classic mistake of over-reaching, but then with the pro-settler’s oh-so-clever “facts on the ground” strategy they have locked themselves into such a situation with no way out. And that situation is looking to get ever more dystopian as time goes by.
A shame I think because I believe the world could have made room for a reasonably sized and a reasonably behaved jewish state. But there’s no way in the long run to force it to do so for any other.
For the sake of the world, Israel must be disarmed.
yes indeed, potsherd, Israel should be disarmed.
American Jews should consider long and hard how perilous their situation really — Americans are experiencing only one/tenth of the economic pain the US has been causing Iran, at Israel’s instigation, yet Americans are whining like two-year olds bereft of their cartoons.
If Israel continues to threaten Iran and Iran retaliates by causing Americans to experience more economic pain, and Americans see more and more of their sons come home via Dover, eventually even Joe the Plumber will turn his gaze toward errant Israel and the American Jews who support Israel.
If Jews are made to feel uncomfortable in the US, whadda they gonna do, make aliyeh to TelAviv, which Bibi will have cleverly situated at the other end of Iranian missile sights?
It’s 15 minutes to Kristal Nacht, right here in the USA. Germans and Jews got on quite well for many, many years, until the tipping point. Jews see the US as their golden land, the land of tolerance, until the tipping point.
For their own sakes, American Jews absolutely must pressure their fellow Americans who advocate for Israel, and Israeli leaders themselves, to repent — to think again, to consider the utter immorality of the campaign of demonization and threats they have been carrying on against Iran for almost 20 years.
The utter immorality of an attack on Iran, not to mention the immorality of the sanctions US is imposing on Iran through the offices of Stuart Levey at State Department, should make every American think with horror of Abraham Lincoln’s statement: “I tremble for my country when I reflect that god is just.”
I have no faith in God or justice, but I have infinite faith in the American public’s reaction to the prospect of $10/gallon gas.
Put high gas prices on one end of the scale, Israel on the other, and it’s bye-bye Special Relationship.
@ Sin Nombre
While I agree with you about yinira’s hopelessly pollyannaish views about the imminent collapse of Iran and the ‘victory’ of Israel (a flea attacking a very large dog with very many more opposing fleas of its own)
- I question your assumption that ‘the U.S. withdrawing aid to Israel is not likely to happen for the foreseeable future’.
I do think it would be very easy for the US to send very discreet messages to the Israelis by denying them aid and arms, without involving the (bought) Congress and Senate.
1) Paperwork and bureaucracy – this could work wonders and could delay or prevent arms shipments until they arrive too late Just put a quiet message down the line that paperwork has to be 100% correctly in order before shipment. This is not a President’s job, but that of an Assistant Assistant
(I have experience in this; I was once denied an export document because I put a comma instead of a semi-colon).
2) Have another look at the Symington Amendment
link to en.wikipedia.org
“The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 was amended by the Symington Amendment (Section 669 of the FAA) in 1976. It banned U.S. economic, and military assistance, and export credits to countries that deliver or receive, acquire or transfer nuclear enrichment technology when they do not comply with IAEA regulations and inspections. This provision, as amended, is now contained in Section 101 of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).
The Symington Amendment is law – the US has been flouting it for decades, so far as Israel is concerned. All it needs, to be re-enforced, is a contingency lawyer (one who will take the case on for a large whack if he wins, which he is bound to do, because he is arguing for the written US law).
All that needs is a few people to get together and hire a lawyer.</b)
Arguing for written law to be upheld is a novel idea! At times, it seems that the government breaks more laws than it makes.
@ Richard Parker:
Oh I completely agree with you Richard that the U.S. or even Obama acting alone *could* start hindering the supply of aid to Israel. I just don’t believe it *is* going to happen. Not even if you find that lawyer you are looking for.
Meetcha back here in a year (or indeed in any space of time you want practically) to see who is right….
@ Sin Nombre
Sorry, I don’t take on wagers that I know I will lose , even if I might hope I could win.
Even after he has been publicly humiliated by that smirking snake, Netanyahu, Obama is still too weak to do much about it.
Pingback: Unnh… ‘Foreign Policy’ should probably just let American Muslims speak for themselves
I don’t believe that Israel will attack Iran without U.S. approval, and I don’t believe that the U.S. will do the fighting or dirty work for Israel this time. Israel’s agents and sympathizers in the U.S. government, institutions and media can only go so far in muddying the waters. Eventually, the reality of the true best interests of the U.S. is too hard to hide. I don’t see a way to interest the American people in fighting Iranians, or to go for another round of “we’re all Israelis now,” which spells trouble for Israel, no matter what happens.
However, if an attack does happen, I don’t believe that Israel’s ties to America will remain, no matter who does the fighting or how much support the U.S. government gives. Unless Israel is able to do in the Middle East what real colonial powers have been unable to do, Israel is in trouble long-term after an attack on Iran. An attack could also spell trouble for the “meritocracy” if their power rests on nothing more than being in the right place at the right time, with the right angle to play.
Eventually, playing the universalist at home, and championing the ethnic nationalism of co-ethnics abroad at a time when the U.S. is being remade from the ground up against the will of most Americans will wear thin. Being hated at home and abroad is a hell of a pickle. It almost makes being Balkanized at home and shunned abroad look good!