Netanyahu has spoken, pissed off the Democratic Party elite, made Republican Party elite smile, and really said what to anyone who listened? Israeli intelligence analysts and academics who study terrorism and Israel security in general (a closely related thing in Israel) are convinced that should Iran be given any leeway in developing a nuclear program it will be used for offensive weapon development purposes. Therefore, any deal with Iran that allows Iran to continue development of nuclear technology/power is dangerous for Israel, a likely target of Iranian aggression given statements of the religious leaders of Iran--who control political action to some extent and control social activity in Iran to a great extent.
Perspective Sauce is needed here (thanks Steve Saideman for this wisdom, I know I am applying your idea a little differently, but that is what I do with theory/idea, I bend it or break it) for the U.S. public/government. For the U.S. Iran gaining in nuclear technology/power and potentially gaining nuclear weapons is no big deal, or at least so I have argued for a few years. Why? Because delivery technology precludes Iran's ability to deliver a nuclear weapon to a location where grave damage to U.S. security would occur, note I do not say damage to U.S. interests, just U.S. security. U.S. interests and U.S. security do diverge on occassion (but I digress, as this post is not about U.S. foreign policy, or maybe not totally). My point, for Israel Iran is inextricably linked to efforts to deny Israel the right to exist. If you allow such a state to have nuclear weapons you see that state as a greater threat than it is currently. Israel wants to deal with the current threat, not a greater threat (the delivery vehicles exist already for Iran to strike Israel).
In addition to having been a major part of several military efforts to destroy Israel, Iran is the primary support mechanism for Hamas. Israel ties its efforts at securing the present and the future not just to secure borders, but to security internally. For Israelis there is no separation of Iran from Hamas from Syria from Hezbollah and so forth. Israelis live daily with threats to the existence of their state and their own lives from outside and within the borders of their country. I have spoken with Israelis (outside of their academic/analyst community) and their concerns were repeatedly the same--Islamic/Palestinian extremist terrorists and Arab states that they feel do not want Israel to exist as a Jewish state. News flash, Israel is a Jewish state and we have no more right to expect them not to be Jewish than we have to expect Saudi Arabia not to be Muslim.
Israel as a response to being surrounded by often hostile states and dealing with a partially hostile population (Palestinians do not like living in a Jewish state) has developed a fortification mentality. While the western world has dithered and talked about a two-state solution or how Israel should control its expansion and be nicer, gentler, kinder to Palestinians, what has Iran done--fund Hamas. What has Russia done--help Iran overtly and covertly with the development of their nuclear program. Israelis are living in fear of their existence today at the level held in the mid 1980s. Efforts to fix the problems have failed (does anyone reading this blog believe that Oslo did not fail?). I keep hearing Israelis being asked what they are willing to give up for lasting peace, but I do not hear anyone asking Palestinians/Arabs what they are willing to give up for lasting peace. In fact the last I heard directly from a member of Hamas was they would never be willing to accept the existence of a Jewish state period, end of discussion.
For my two cents, Israel has to be concerned for its own security/existence. Israelis hope their long standing ally will support their security efforts. Israel sees U.S. acceptance of any deal that allows Iran to develop nuclear technology further as a threat to their security. I do not believe Israel sees the possible deal as a threat to their political relationship with the U.S. Why anyone is angered over Israel's position and Netanyahu voicing that position is beyond me--what the heck did we expect Israel to say about Iran further developing their nuclear program? Did we really expect that Israel would say "oh thank you, thank you, thank you" that a state who's leaders repeatedly tell their population that Israel should be destroyed is receiving blessings and some support for development of nuclear technology in exchange for a potentially unverifiable temporary agreement to not develop nuclear weapons? If you are that dense, I have property (bridges and beaches) for sale.
Also we must ask ourselves, is the security of Israel cheaper for Israel to provide, or is security of Israel on the dime of others possible? The Israeli perspective is to use whatever allies it can use to help promote its own security (balancing, bandwaggoning, buck passing anyone). Israel is, therefore, making its plea to its biggest ally to do something it believe will promote the greatest security for Israel. The U.S. public/government must now decide whether it is in our best interest to take actions that directly promote Israeli security or promote our own security/interests. One potential choice is that Israeli security is of greater value to us than peaceful Iranian nuclear development and better relations with Iran. This choice is favored by Israel, and thus Netanyahu jumped at the opportunity to speak in front of Congress and attempt to discredit the possibility of a deal with Iran. Why are people angry? Since when are opinions other than our own offensive simply by their existence?
No comments:
Post a Comment