Sunday, September 20, 2009
Nice:
In a little noticed interview with the Daily Beast (presumably little noticed because serious people don't read the Daily Beast), Zbigniew Brzezinski suggests that Barack Obama do more than just refuse to support an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites -- the American president must give the order to shoot down Israeli aircraft as they cross Iraqi airspace:
DB: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America's worst interest?
Brzezinski: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?
DB: What if they fly over anyway?
Brzezinski: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren't just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.
Contrary to Brezinski's half-hearted disclaimer that no one wishes for such an outcome, there are plenty on the left who would delight in a pitched battle between the United States and Israel. Democrats in Congress routinely support resolutions affirming Israel's right to take whatever steps it deems necessary to assure its own national defense. And Obama has at least paid lip service to the concept. But hostility to Israel among the rank and file is very real on the left -- and among "realists."...
I'd correct that to read Left and Right, though closer to the mainstream on the left. Imagine the talk show invitations that Walt and Mearsheimer would receive in the aftermath of such an event. The scenario is unthinkable, of course, (not because it would be horrible, but because it's not going to happen) and some blame goes to the interviewer for pushing the question, but Brzezinski's a big boy and it was his choice not only to answer the question but insert the Liberty reference. It sort of shows what direction his thinking goes in.
For the record, the Israelis have always maintained that they didn't know the Liberty was an American ship, yet in the imagined scenario we would certainly know who we were shooting at. So what kind of a "Liberty in reverse" would this be, outside Zbig's fevered mind? While the US, even this administration, has always maintained it was up to Israel to determine what was in its best defense interests, American consistency hasn't exactly been of world-class caliber lately.
h/t to Eli Lake for the 'Tough Love' bit, and Omri tweets: 'MJ Rosenberg's next article: "It's 'pro-Israel' to shoot down IAF jets"' More truth than poetry, as, though the scenario itself is almost unimaginable, the argument in the aftermath by the J Street types -- and even the rest of the anti-democrats on the Israeli left -- is all too imaginable. 'They were saving the Israelis from themselves.' [cue the antisemites showing up to rant about the Liberty in 10, 9, 8...]
To reach Iran, Israel has to fly over either Jordan or Syria and then Iraq, or over Turkey or Saudi Arabia, or follow a crazy European route, before reaching Iran. The path through Jordan and Iraq is the most likely, but there are going to be serious objections by both countries who, if they don't want to be seen to be at permanent war with Iran, will not permit these overflights. Israel risks elevating its pariah status if it chooses to violate these nations' airspace.
An interesting criticism, David. But Israel has done this before, and if need be, can do it again. (The bombing of the Osirak reactor in 1981 required a squadron of 8 F-16s and 8 F-15s, I believe, to overfly Jordan on their way to Iraq. There's a persistent rumor that the squadron was flying in such tight formation as to appear to Jordanian radar as a single 747-sized aircraft... and that, when a sharp Jordanian radar operator spotted them and demanded identification, one of the pilots broke radio silence to respond -- in Arabic! -- that they were indeed a commercial airliner. That bought them enough time to get them to the border.)
If Israel conducts such an operation, Jordan will protest mightily after the fact, and may make wild claims about why they couldn't do anything about it at the time.
Nor will Iraq kick up much of a fuss, if the United States quietly allows the mission to happen. Iraq is dependent on the American military in an increasingly dangerous neighborhood, and they know it.
As for the Israelis, they're less concerned with their 'parial status', as you put it; they're concerned about survival. (After all, Ahmadinejad has made it quite plain what fate he has in mind for Israel.) Not long ago, Israel's Chief of Staff was asked how far Israel was willing to go to prevent Iran from going nuclear. He replied: "two thousand kilometers".
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
This stuff from Zbig is awful.
What on earth is he thinking?
I just read this article declaring that Ahmadijenad is "proud" of his Holocaust denial:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran
So here's Zbig declaring we should attack - Israel.
Boy this makes a lot of sense.
Please note, I hope that diplomacy succeeds and no attacks on Iran by anybody are necessary. The people of Iran seem to be rallying against repression and lies. This regime is staying in power, I think, because of force. I don't think this can last forever.
Regardless, I'm shocked that the "realists" are so clearly lacking not only a grasp of reality but also the most basic sense of right and wrong.
This almost sounds like an endorsement of the "final solution", decades later.
It's also a slap in the face of any real progressivism - but then I'm beginning to not be surprised by this. Truly progressive values - liberty, equality, the brotherhood of people - seem to go down the tubes when extremists and so-called realists get involved.
Instead we see expediency and support for the most repressive regimes, magical thinking and even outright historical lies.