DefSec Leon Panetta
One of the big arguments against the Israel lobby theory is that our Middle East policy is driven by the military industrial complex. And so the Iraq war was a war for oil and military spending. This cynical materialist theory (spawned by Eisenhower in ’61) dismisses my cynical theory of history (spawned by realists in 2006), which turns on ideology and religion– that many of the war’s proponents wanted to make Israel safer by invading a country that had attacked Israel.
Well when I was in Cairo recently Issandr El Amrani, who largely agrees with me, said that if American corporate interests really were driving policy in the region, why not have a robust arms race among all the feuding countries there? Why not foster an arms race between Israel and Iran and Egypt– that would be great for profits! End the treaty between Israel and Egypt, let Egypt militarize itself even more…
But we don’t foster an arms race. And Leon Panetta explicitly does not want an arms race. From the Defense Secretary’s conversation with Kenneth Pollack at the Saban Forum Friday:
MR. POLLACK: …What do you think the consequences of Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon would be and why do you – (inaudible)?
SEC. PANETTA:… once Iran gets a nuclear weapon, then they’re not – you will have an arms race in the Middle East. What’s to stop Saudi Arabia from getting a nuclear weapon? What’s to stop other countries from getting nuclear weapons in that part of the world? Suddenly we have an escalation of these horrible weapons that, you know, I think create even greater devastation in the Middle East.
So a key for all of us – for all of us is to work together – together – to ensure that that does not happen. We have made good progress in these efforts. We continue to make good progress in these efforts. That’s where we ought to continue to put our pressures, our efforts, our diplomatic, our economic, experts working together to make sure that that does not happen.
There’s a third theory. It’s the Israeli Security Industry theory. Israel foments the fear, and it supplies the security forces to keep everyone safe. Globally and inside each country. As long as it can get the US to provide the cover of war. Israel gets the profits.
Phil,
First, there is certainly a “convergence of interests” between BIG-ARMS (Eisenhower’s MIC) and BIG-ZION. No contradiction. Maybe also BIG-OIL (where Iraq was concerned). If war with Iran would push up the price of oil in a way agreeable to BIG-OIL, then BIG-OIL would press for war with Iran.
Second, Panetta/USA does not disfavor an arms race, only a race for Nukes. Of course there is an arms race, with USA paying for arms to Israel (as Germany recently paid 1/3 price of nuclear submarine for Israel) and then selling at full price military toys to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc.
Does BIG-ZION play a role? Of course! Look at any election for Congress, for President. Is it the only role? No. Look at arms-race. Look at USA’s military aid to Egypt over many years.
The value of materialist explanations are, they can prove anything, so they can’t be tested. Whatever happens, there’s a materialist explanation. If the US invades a country and the price of oil goes up, the oil companies benefit. If it goes down, all the other companies benefit. In either case, Marxism-for-dummies says ‘war for oil!’.
Of course there’s sometimes a convergence between various interests. It’s only where they diverge you can tell which is dominant. Israel’s and the USA’s interests must sometimes diverge. Yet the USA never acts contrary to Israel’s interests.
I think this is somewhat similar to the “nature vs. nurture” debate. There’s a little from Column A, a little from Column B. But yeah, the test comes with the two interests come in conflict with each other. But even then it’s hard to say, because nearly everything Israel does (or wants to be done) makes money for US defense contractors. A sick and destructive kind of symbiosis.