Hard on the heels of Evelyn Gordon’s stingingly accurate analysis, the news comes that Iran is offering a naval escort for the next flotilla. The UK Guardian quotes a top Revolutionary Guard official speaking this past weekend:
“Iran’s Revolutionary Guard naval forces are prepared to escort the peace and freedom convoys that carry humanitarian assistance for the defenceless and oppressed people of Gaza with all their strength,” pledged Hojjatoleslam Ali Shirazi, Khamenei’s personal representative to the guards corps.
This is not an empty threat. Iran’s navy has deployed units to the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea for antipiracy operations since December 2008. The Iranians have taken great pride in expanding their maritime operating range across the region; extending their navy’s reach into the Eastern Mediterranean is now an incremental step, something no longer obviously beyond their force’s capabilities.
This is the kind of move President Obama could have deterred by affirming U.S. support for Israel’s right to secure borders and self-defense. Iran has been emboldened to take this step — one that must provoke a regional showdown — by the perception that Israel stands condemned and alone.
With his response implying U.S. disengagement, however, Obama has ensured that we will ultimately have to do more to protect our own interests. If Iran makes good on this offer, Egypt will quickly face the game-changing decision about whether to allow Iranian navy ships through the Suez Canal for such a mission. And if the U.S. is not acting overtly to give Egypt what the military calls “top cover” — political support and material backing for a negative decision — there is no guarantee that Arab regional fears of Iranian militarism will govern the Egyptian thought process.
Indeed, the long-term effects would be worse than the immediate consequences of an Iranian tactical triumph. A self-imposed posture of impotence on America’s part would drive nations like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia to turn elsewhere for patronage. In addition to giving them a reason for accommodation with Turkey and Iran, passivity and incoherence on our part would open regional doors further for Russia and perhaps for China, as well.
Events are moving quickly now. It was clear a year ago that Israel’s national security could not be put in question without a feeding frenzy erupting in the Middle East. The past week has demonstrated that Western nations need not actively repudiate Israel to galvanize Israel’s terrorist enemies. Simply withholding affirmation of Israel’s rights as a nation works equally well.
The enemies of Israel are also the enemies of Western civilization — and they are emboldened today to press for what they want. They do not want the global stasis on which our way of life depends, with its liberality of trade, travel, and culture. Obama still has a little time to avert the battle they are preparing for — a battle that will unfold excruciatingly over weeks and months of probing Israel and the West by unconventional methods — but now is the time to act. If he fails to do so, he will rapidly lose control over what the fight is about and what America’s role in it is to be.
What is this, pre-school? Israel has to follow Olmert over a cliff to avoid “international criticism”? For all I know, he’s motivated by spite.
With so many ways to worry about Olmert, this seems an odd angle.
Do you really see even the slightest possibility of reaching a deal? On absolutely every issue, but first and foremost on right of return, is there really anyone sane who can imagine Abu Mazen making anything even approximating appropriate concessions?
Barak’s error at Camp David and Taba — the consequences of which still reverberate today of course — was in seeking a deal where no partner for a deal existed.
This is Mr. Olmert’s error today, and if I believed in the legitimacy of an American president second-guessing on matters of security the judgment of even a corrupt, lameduck Israeli PM (and even on the basis of such president’s correct judgment of true Israeli public sentiment), I’d be thrilled if Bush would stop Olmert’s reckless efforts immediately.
I don’t believe this is legitimate, however; and I know precedent so set could not but be the basis for all manner of mischief by future American administrations.
With respect to the plainly academic scenario you describe — where his current efforts instead prove not to have been reckless and Mr. Olmert finds a partner in perennial non-partner Mr. Abbas — kal v’chomer, the Bush administration cannot contradict the Israeli government.