Can you trust someone's judgment if every time they talk about the Middle East they refer to it as "the Levant?" I don't think so. Sandbox author Martin Kramer is not just pretentious, but scary and Israel-centric. Here he is interviewed by fellow neocon Michael Totten arguing that the only way to achieve peace in Israel and Palestine is to take out Iran. Of course once we do that, there'll be some other threat that arises and comes first.
He rationalizes that Israel is holding on to the occupied territories, and beefing up Jerusalem, because it fears an Iranian nuclear attack. So Israel can't get rid of territory till we deal with Iran. Strangelovian.
Also note the emphasis on Israel as the U.S. colonial client state-- the stake driven into the Levant-- and the really screwy geopolitics of my headline. If Israel always comes first, of course you would say such moonbeam stuff. Who has driven this stake?
Now, the Persian Gulf has been—since the United States took over from the British—a zone that is essentially under an American security umbrella. It is as crucial to American security as Lake Michigan. The United States doesn’t use most of the oil coming out of the Gulf, but its allies do,
Iran knows it can’t wrest sole hegemony in the Gulf from the United States, but it wants to create a kind of dual hegemony shared with the United States. Nobody knows where the lines would run, but they wouldn’t run just five to ten miles off the coast Iran into the waters of the Persian Gulf....
Things they allow Americans now—such as basing rights for operations in the Persian Gulf and beyond—will become more and more difficult to negotiate if Iran opposes them. So we would see an erosion of the American position in the Persian Gulf.
I think Iran is a lot less interested in justice for the Palestinians than in establishing their command over the gulf they call Persian...
If there’s a shift of Israel’s assets from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the struggle over real estate up here becomes even more acute. There will be less leeway for Israeli concessions. Concessions are difficult to make in any case. Local security issues can be, in way or another, finessed, but once they play out in this mega arena of confrontation between nuclear states, flexibility diminishes quickly. It would create tremendous pressure on Israel to maintain its right to decide the future of different pieces of turf close to the city.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict only has a chance of being resolved if the Levant can be disconnected from the Gulf. So we have to deal with the Iranian issue first..
Israel is the stake that has been planted in the Levant. Because it’s powerful, it puts a high premium on rationality among all those who surround it. It serves as the basis for the security architecture.
Now, the Persian Gulf has been—since the United States took over from the British—a zone that is essentially under an American security umbrella. It is as crucial to American security as Lake Michigan. The United States doesn’t use most of the oil coming out of the Gulf, but its allies do
what is this cretin blathering on about? can he craft a coherent sentence? the persian gulf lies off the coast of Michigan, and so the arab threat, military and economic, lies at our border, but the gulf is really more important to our ‘allies’ than the US. wtf? and in any event, our unidentified ‘allies’ do not have uniform policies for oil importation. if europe is our ‘allies’, for example, most european countries rely more heavily on russia, norway and the UK for oil imports than the persian gulf.
and this:
Because it’s powerful, [Israel] puts a high premium on rationality among all those who surround it.
rational thought is the natural by-product of power? what a toad.
“He rationalizes that Israel is holding on to the occupied territories, and beefing up Jerusalem, because it fears an Iranian nuclear attack. So Israel can’t get rid of territory till we deal with Iran. Strangelovian.”‘
Is there no limit to the amount of horseshit this guy can produce?
How in the world does holding on to the occupied territories, and “beefing up” Jerusalem serve to counter an Iranian attack?
If the Iranians atatck by air (the only plausible scenario) , this would serve no purpose but to put settlers in harms way.
If the Iranians attack by ground invasion (practially impossible and suicidal), ware we to believe that Iran could sneak through Iraq un noticed by the US, and Israel?
Last but not least, how does buulding settlements repel any Iranain threat?
you can’t see how building a ‘museum of tolerance’ on top of a muslim cemetery in jerusalem will repel the iranian threat? you are blinded by anti-semitism.
As a Chicagoan, I’m very glad that Lake Michigan is vital to the national security of the United States and is protected by … 1 Navy base? And maybe 1 major Coast Guard base?
How many bases are on the Persian Gulf? There’s probably about a dozen.
America’s security interests will be best served by its folding up and mailing home the Persian Gulf security umbrella. This together with a reappraisal of its all out support of the settler-state plus troops out now from Aghanistan/Iraq/Pakistan/Yemen/Somalia/Indonesia will put an end to the so-called Islamic threat, since then there’ll be no cause for which Muslims will be willing to die. But without the spectre of terrorism, what’ll become of the MIC. Oh, I forgot, there’s China, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, all independent-minded with which to replace the Islamic threat.
hmm, lake michigan is crucial to our security. okay.
RE: Can you trust someone’s judgment if every time they talk about the Middle East they refer to it as “the Levant?” – Weiss
MY COMMENT: I think the neocons like to use “the Levant” as a way of appealing to the the fundies (especially Hagee and his ilk). Personally, I find it repugnant.
yeah, between the both of them they said levant about 50 times. maybe it’s code speak.
phil, i found the cherry quote
of course, why didn’t i think of this? The U.S. just has to say that it supports its Israeli ally to keep order in its arena, and the U.S. will take responsibility for keeping order in its arena. Just effectively divide responsibility.
iow, israel gets the levant. we could call it greater israel. how special.
kramer being a fellow at the shalem center something tells me we’re gonna be hearing more of this levant-speak. israel doesn’t want to be part of the middle east anymore. These were two distinct zones. We’ve conflated them in the meantime israel’s ‘arena’ is ‘the levant’.
something tells me we may be in for another propaganda assault.
Aren’t they using the term Levant to distinguish between that part of the ME and the Persian [Arabian] Gulf?
click on the link sumud, there’s a graphic labeled ‘the levant’. it includes all of jordan, syria , lebanon and palestine/i and it’s referred to as ‘the Eastern Mediterranean’ in the article. the first usage is totten but as far as i’m concerned it is a set up for kramer. referencing iran as ‘they’ here’s the first reference:
it’s worth reading just for the amount of sheer chutzpa and the continued propaganda the rest of the ME supports the american umbrella and fears iran. that iran is a global problem more than an israeli problem etc etc. iran doesn’t scare me nearly as much as israel does. they don’t seem very trigger happy, unlike israel and they don’t seem eager to expand their territory, unlike israel. beside we just handed them iraq, kinda.