Payback Time for Israel
Now that things are back to normal, more or less, and the euphoria over how Iran’s nuclear infrastructure has been severely disrupted if not entirely destroyed has calmed down, a bit of perspective is called for. Throughout the week that President Trump committed American weaponry in support of Israel’s bold initiative, commentators and pundits were obsessed with figuring out what the long-term consequences of America’s involvement in the war might be. What ripple effects, in other words, were to be expected from this alliance? Flagrantly missing from these analyses and overviews, however, was an answer to one very basic question that was never, oddly, even asked: Was President Trump’s decision to involve the United States even necessary?
During the first week of the war, Israel was, based on reports and press releases, doing rather well. Our pilots were methodically and systematically destroying Iran’s nuclear-building capability as well as steadily reducing the number of missiles and launchers available for reprisal. For once both the political and military components of our government were on the same page; Iran will not be able to hang on much longer. At no time was there an expressed need for external support or a call for help – not to the United States nor to anywhere else. Israel, realizing the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran and faced with no alternative, had to make the first move. Once it became clear that the president’s eleventh-hour attempt at a negotiated settlement was futile, Prime Minister Netanyahu had no choice but to press the button.
The White House, it must be noted, prudently waited. Charges against Israel for warmongering were far and few between, and there was an unspoken consensus that removing the opportunity of Iran from becoming a nuclear power was quickly becoming an inevitable necessity. Only after determining that there would be neither serious domestic nor widespread international opposition did the president flex his muscles. What now awaits as a result of this involvement is more than a little troubling. Israel would have been far better off had the president remained a passive observer and cheered us on from the sidelines.
Granted, the US attack might have sped things up a bit, but, really, not by very much. What, then, was the benefit of allowing President Trump to beat his chest and take credit for recognizing the danger of Iran’s steady progress toward achieving nuclear capability? The last thing Israel needs is to be indebted to the very unpredictable Mr. Trump. Favors from the president, we know, generally come with a hefty price tag. And while there have been some suggestions that America’s B-52’s have the ability to reach positions within Iran that were beyond Israel’s range, I would challenge any assertion that weaponry bearing the blue-and-white were any less effective, over all, than those bearing the stars-and-stripes.
The prime minister wasted little time in repaying the debt. He had barely alighted from the plane ferrying him to Washington when he gleefully announced his intention to nominate the president for the Nobel Peace Prize. Our usually politically astute prime minister has been cornered into not only publicly declaring President Trump to be the Great Savior but to give serious consideration to a potentially harmful and counterproductive ceasefire with Hamas. The president, to be sure, has already made space on his mantle for the Nobel medallion that he so dearly covets. And, believe me, he has no intention of sharing the spotlight in Sweden with Bibi.
Mr. Trump is undoubtedly troubled by the hostage quagmire he finds himself uneasily able to escape from. Very early on, he threatened Hamas with fire and brimstone if the hostages were not released, yet has delivered nary a drizzle. In addition, advisors are most certainly reminding him that most of the hostages thus far freed were released as a result of negotiations and agreements, not by military action. Nor can he ignore demands by most of the families of the remaining hostages for a negotiated resolution rather than enhanced military activity and bombardments. By now he has, albeit reluctantly, adopted a revised position that butter and not guns should be used to free the hostages and bring the war to an end. And if that is not enough, the president saw no problem backing away from his demand for Iran’s “unconditional surrender.”
Israel is learning the hard way not to take anything about President Trump for granted. He is, if nothing else, self-serving, and will always place his needs before his concern for others. And if the world stands ready to accuse Israel of war crimes – including genocide – the president will most certainly not drown himself by going against the tide.
The fallout of America’s involvement in the war is negligible, mainly because Iran is the one country that most of the world loves to hate. More importantly, the strike was executed with surgical precision and incurred loss to neither American lives nor property. It was, in other words, a safe gamble for a president desperate to leave something positive as a legacy. And could anything be greater – or more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize – than ridding the planet of the threat posed by a nuclear-empowered Iran and bringing an end to the Israel-Hamas conflict? What he fails to see, however, is that the threat of Iran has not been entirely removed, and ceasefires provide the terrorists of Hamas breathing room to regroup and rebuild. Hopefully, the Nobel Peace Prize committee will not be similarly nearsighted.
Too bad, then, that President Trump did not remain in the background and wait to see if Israel required support or assistance. Instead, we have become indentured to the White House and must now be wary of what the Great Savior will expect or demand of us.
