That there is a conflict existing between the Jewish state of Israel and its neighbors is a known fact throughout the world. From there, however, explaining the conflict further and exploring its roots requires a certain amount of nuance. Most casual observers may equate the conflict over religious differences between two monotheistic faiths or even a dispute over real estate. In large part they would be right. However, there is something more profound just under the surface. What fuels this incredible conflict is something far more tangible than religious disputes and closed borders. What gives the region the awesome force of power to take up arms for their cause generation after generation comes from the concept of ethnonationalism.

Ethnonationalism, or ethnic nationalism, may sound like the latest academic buzzword; but, in fact, ethnonationalism is hardly a new concept. It has been around since humans first developed the sense of kinship, language, tribalism, tradition, religion, cosmopolitans, nation states and so forth. It produces the sources for human spirit and enmity. Ethnonatioalism brought forth Manifest Destiny, the U.S. Civil War, WWI and WWII (which was fueled by extreme ethnonationalism in National Socialism ideology) and centuries long continental and world dominance by the nation states of Europe. The list could literally go on and on. It’s based off a narrow list of identities that fuels the societal belief behind a particular cause. It’s often strong, unwilling to compromise, and lasting. Those in the modern era that may find such an archaic premise troubling, intellectually and morally, haven’t paid attention to how the world has been shaped by ethnonationalism. Take America, our modern thinking polity often times belittles the ideas of ethnic nationalism or a particular national identity. We often pride ourselves as an “open” society where numerous ethnicities live in relative peace.

Social scientist go to great lengths to explain the enduring qualities of a culture, usually described as Western, that is inviting making it easier for different nationalities regardless of racial or religious origins to assimilate. They label this as liberal or civic nationalism. However, the fact that ethnonationalism already won out in North America over a century ago and continues to shape the identity of this country is rarely considered. Jerry Z. Muller (2008) says in his Foreign Affairs article, Us and Them, “The liberal view has competed with and often lost out to a different view, that of ethnonationalism. The core of ethnonatioinalist idea is that nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry.” (p. 20) Over the course of a couple of centuries, migration by a disproportionate amount of white Protestants from Northern-Europe and England brought with them a culture, traditions, laws and language. They, and their subsequent ancestors (that even include us), tamed, created and shaped the U.S. and as a result, the competition between civilizations in North America has been over for nearly 200 years.

Through conquest and industry, ethnonationalism in America reigned supreme and it has been by those standards that others have assimilated and adopted. If the societal equilibrium were to shift away from this because of mass migration or, a separate demographic explosion, it’s not all that unlikely that competing cultures here in the U.S. could rekindle the flames of ethnonationalism.

Ethnonationalism is a strong force in Arab nations. Mainly because of their history, good and bad, and their religion. The modern Arab nationalist/extremist suffers from insecurities, and an inferiority complex. Added to that is a long laundry list of grievances and jealousies suffered by the West. While their history involves Defensive Developmentalism, government incompetence and loose and feuding confederations of tribes, all in which brought on a steady decline of social, military and political capital. Their nemesis in the West represents the antithesis to their situation. Europe’s high sense of identity and righteousness led to a global pursuit of riches, conquest, glory and dominance at the expense of the Middle East. When that episode in their history ran its course, American dominance picked up where Europe left off.

But to get to the point that allowed Western-European dominance and manipulation in the Middle East something binding and energetic was needed in the region. It came in the form of strong nation-states that were emerging in Western Europe. The competition between the competing powers in Europe during the 1500s – 1800s laid the way for increased economic and military expansion. Economic prosperity and ethnic nationalism requires literacy and education to promote communication and common beliefs. What developed from this was set of competing nation states that were very defined, educated and ethically charged, and the results were explosive. Consequently, the Middle East endured centuries of economic and political incursion through colonization by a Western civilization that far outpaced them in almost all aspects of life, and continues even today. Nothing in the daily lives of Arabs pass without a Western imprint on it. From music, to movies, commercial goods and technologies, all are a product of Western civilization. For many Arabs that even means the very country they live in was created or influenced by Western powers.

These are all things that most Arabs are aware of and resent. This, of course, plays heavily on their physic. And herein lies the reason for conflicts, ethnonationalism and the clash between West and Middle-east vs. Israel.If ethnonationalism gives reason to fight along borders or within a region, then hatred, distrust, jealousy and indifference with the Christian West give Arab-Muslims an overarching global cause.Samuel P. Huntington (1996) refers to this movement in his book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (p. 255). It is the overriding force in today’s global politics and particularly in the Middle East. All observable differences have to be considered and accepted as major contributors to the conflict such as different language, religion, culture, etc. However, Western dominance and Diktat runs an equally strong course through the life of the Arab world. In the view of most Arab-Muslim nationalist, Israel’s existence in former Palestine offers a daily reminder of Western dominance and the inadequacies of the Arab world. Jewish Israel is a spur literally in the side of Islam.

Considering Israel’s size and population great wealth, technology, and medical advances provide a standard of living that far exceeds most Arab countries.What’s more, it is the region’s premier military power and has been tested numerous times, in which resulted in embarrassing and disastrous defeats for Arab-Muslim nations. It’s no wonder that the creation and existence of Israel is first on the list of grievances.

Balfour Agreement, Zionism and Hezbollah

The ending of WWI brought the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and with it a great vacuum to fill. The British Empire still had important interest in the region. Palestine stood out strategically because it served as a land bridge from Egypt to India and offered security to the Suez Canal protecting the sea road to India and elsewhere throughout the Empire. Britain, under Lloyd George devised away to bring Palestine under its sphere and serve as an ally in the Mid East. He distrusted the Arabs in Palestine and possible German interference in the region; therefore, pushed the idea of mass Jewish resettlement in the ancient land. David Fromkin (1989) in his book A Peace to End All Peace supports the idea. “There were also those who were worried about allowing the Germans and Turks to retain control of an area whose vital importance had been underscored by the Prime Minister. The assistant secretaries of the War Cabinet , Leo Amery and Mark Sykes, worried that in the postwar world the Ottoman Empire might fall completely in the clutches of Germany. Were that to happen, the road to India would be in enemy hands – a threat the British Empire could avert only by ejecting the Turks and Germans, and taking into British hands the southern perimeter of the Ottoman domains.” (p. 276)

These factors plus Biblical romanticism, Woodrow Wilson’s high-minded and heavy-handed international views, and a growing surge of Zionism led to the Balfour agreement the prelude to the British mandate that created modern day Israel.Zionism was growing in importance in Europe as well as in America. It was fueled from Jewish suffering and centuries of persecution in just about whatever land they settled. Before the end of WWI, they began to be gripped by the idea returning to their ancestral homeland in Palestine as the “Land of Israel”. The idea that they could set up a Jewish government based on self-determination and structured on Western democracy, led to a nostalgic frenzy. Backed by the British government, fear of anti-Semitism and, later the holocaust, migration was encouraged to create a modern Jewish state.

With them they brought valuable trades in medicine, law, education, commerce and a Western sense of culture that previously was absent from the area. All of this was promptly greeted with a revolt from the indigenous Arabs of the region. The areas under control by Arabs were cleansed of Jews and the areas controlled by Jews forced Arabs out to the surrounding Arab countries. During the ensuing years, violence against Jews in Arab countries forced another round of migration to Israel. Jerry Muller (2008) writes about the impact in the region upon the establishment of the Jewish state and Jewish migration. “Some 750,000 Arabs left, primarily for the surrounding Arab countries, andthe remaining 150,000 constituted only about a sixth of the population of thenew Jewish State. In the years afterward, nationalist-inspired violence against Jews in Arab countries propelled almost all of the more than 500,000 Jews there to leave their lands of origin and immigrate to Israel.” (p. 29)

The seeds for ethnonationlsim and true clash between West and Islam were being planted.Hezbollah is a byproduct from the creation of the Jewish sate and Zionism. Though founded only in 1982 out of reaction from the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the group itself is hardly a new concept. Its history goes back as far as Arab-Muslim nationalism/Islamism does and can be seen as a microcosm of Arab/Islamic sentiment towards Israel and Western backing. The force itself acts as troops in the trench on the front line fighting against Western incursion and Zionism. Also, it gives an outlet for uneducated and unemployed young men to serve a cause greater than their lowly existence can muster. Furthermore, Hezbollah gives the Muslim world a chance to cheer and feel a source of pride as it repeatedly thumbs its nose at Israel and, by extension, engages in a proxy war with the West. Naturally, they receive high popularity in Southern Lebanon and support from regional powers like Syria and Iran.

Ethnonationalism, and all the defining and clashing identities that come with it contributed to the Hezbollah-Israeli conflict in 2006. However, something much greater and far reaching was at play.What actually is taking place is the Islamic world’s attempt to do away with the status-quo of Western interference in the region. Israel represents Western dominance and arrogance; therefore, the conflict is one entirely between the West and Islam, with Israel as the battlefront. The West, and America being its standard bearer, represents an image of unimaginable power and wealth — with God like powers that is able to topple governments as well as prop them up. With that comes an arrogance and a global swagger coupled with high minded policies of inclusion, tolerance and the persuasion of Western universal values and systems. While promoting these ideals, the West (mainly the U.S.) sometimes bomb and invade Muslim countries while at the same time preaching restraint, praising human rights, and acting as a global hawk for weapons proliferation. This creates resentment and assertiveness from the Muslim world and sets the path for extremism. The populace adopts an antagonistic attitude and governments begin to cooperate to undermine American-Western aims, as was the case with the 2006 Israeli-Hezbollah conflict.

History is always present and the events of the past leaves the residual necessary to fuel the ongoing pattern of conflict between the West and Islam. There is a source of pride and romanticism that exist in the Muslim world. Muslim dominance was absolute in the Middle East and North Africa by the 8th century. The Arabic armies fought off Christian advances into the Holy Land and by the 13th century the Ottomans were a “world” power that caused Europe to quake. This era was the high-water mark of Muslim dominance and exertion in worldly affairs. From the 16th century on the West, powered by organized nation-states, gained every conceivable advantage over the Ottomans and other Empires in the Middle East.

By the 20th century almost the entire Middle East was under the sphere of Western control. Huntington (1996) writes, “By 1920 only four Muslim countries – Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Afghanistan – remained independent of some form of non-Muslim rule.”(p. 210). Considering all of this, that groups like Hezbollah draws support is hardly amazing. These Islamic groups play up Islamic romanticism and fuel the imagination of a time when Islam and its principles ran supreme. It glorifies an explosive culture, a growing population and draws out on the fundamental differences that exist between Christianity and Islam especially in a time when the American-Western way of life is so heavily promoted and seductive to Middle Eastern culture. It gives a growing population of youth a chance to be a part of a grand cause and an opportunity to advance socially.

More importantly, Islam has showed a propensity for violence and absolutism and with the Western creation of Jewish Israel sitting squarely and defiantly on their land only brings the volatile culture to a boil. Samuel Huntington (1996) states, “Intense antagonisms and violent conflicts are pervasive between local Muslim and non-Muslim peoples.” And again he states supported by a list of evidence. “In the early 1990s Muslims were engaged in more intergroup violence than were non-Muslims, and two-thirds to three-quarters of intercivilazational wars were between Muslims and non-Muslims” (pp. 256, 257, 258).

Conclusion

The ideological, cultural, religious and deeply historical differences between the Islamic/fundamentalist Middle East and the Christian/secular West are likely to continue. A growing younger Muslim population who tend to be more conservative and are likely to be more fundamental will only add to an assertive culture with an absolutist faith. Larger numbers of immigrants from the Middle East to Europe and America will further create antagonisms between the cultures as tensions and conflicts take place elsewhere. Islamic states like Iran who is showing the willingness to assert their power regionally may also prove to be a destabilizing influence.

Israel was created during an age of ethnonationalism and many of its citizens and leaders are still influenced by it. The country and its government was born from 20th century style of European nationalism and still carries with it the policies and sentiment that helped to shape it. Therefore, it is unlikely, at least in the foreseeable future, that Israeli will make any substantial concessions to Muslim demands. As the regional military power, backed by the U.S., Israel will continue to defend itself from threats and protect its interest in the region.

If the Middle East can become stabilized economically during this century, many of the disenchanted youth can find opportunity socially and through education, and not through radical Islamic groups. As opportunities increase and standard of living goes up so will the fortunes of the region. However, radicalism and resentment seems to be the only social/political outlet and current source for Arab-Muslim thinking.

References and Bibliography

Ferguson, N. (2006). The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West. New York: Penguin Books.

Fromkin, D. (1989).A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. New York: Avon Books

Huntington, S. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & amp; and; Schuster.

Muller, J. (2008). The Clash of Peoples: Us and Them. Foreign Affairs, 87 (2) , 18-35.

Time and again, the United Nations, rather than disavowing, condemning, or defeating genocide, has embraced those very countries that happen to be its worst perpetrators.

One of McCain’s best ideas this election season has been the creation of a League of Democracies.

I am not opposed to Wilsonian Multilateralism (or Clintonian for that matter). However, I do disagree with any nation’s foolish reliance on a corrupt organization that protects genocide while denouncing fledgling democracies. The hypocrisy is staggering.

I’m also in favor of regime change when possible and necessary, and with humanitarian intervention when the stakes are high enough. I do believe government’s such as Sudan under Omar Bashir should be toppled for the greater good. Does this mean we need to invest years and billions of dollars in future nation building as we are now in Iraq? It’s hard to say. Certainly international, bi-partisan cooperation could help hasten efforts in places such as Darfur where the question of saving human life is far more urgent than any question of re-building. This does not, however, mean that we should enter countries without international support or proper planning. The first three years in Iraq should be enough of a precautionary tale. The UN, however, is not an international body willing to act in any cohesive or meaningful way.

Could we blend some version of practical multilateralism with the Bush Doctrine? It seems less and less likely that either way is plausible without some help from the other.

An American Century?

America is in the unique position of leadership under such a multilateral foreign policy. McCain’s League of Democracies may be an ideal vehicle for this hybrid of American power and international cooperation. It is my hope that even if McCain loses–and I believe he will lose at this point–that Barack Obama and McCain put their differences aside to work toward achieving this foreign policy. Bi-partisanship will be necessary in the coming years.

The Bush administration entered the White House intent upon a far less interventionist policy than the Clinton administration–indeed, Bush came across far less hawkish than Gore in the 2000 election, disavowing regime change and nation building. However, the events of 9/11, the fear of WMD’s in Iraq, and the overall growing international tension forced the Bush administration into a foreign policy that they did not initially plan. Indeed, Wolfowitz and other neoconservatives used this to their advantage, but Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others were more of the Realist variety, reluctant to fully embrace the hawkish policies that the neocons advocated.

This combination of neoconservative unilateralism and more classically conservative distrust of international powers and institutions led to a United States foreign policy that was anything but multilateralist, and oftentimes unsure of the direction it wanted to move. This goes deeper than the obvious disagreements between a Powell State Department and the more hawkish DOD. Indeed, even during the Rice years, State has been more moderate in its approach to foreign affairs.

The “Coalition of the Willing” in Iraq was, and is, a farce save for Britain. This is not to diminish the bravery of the token troops sent from Poland, Italy, Georgia and the other Coalition nations, but in all seriousness, should America withdraw, these troops would be utterly useless. Even the NATO operation in Afghanistan has been rather more a unilateralist approach than it ought to be, with only the Danish and the British contributing much of anything at all to the effort.

Globalization and Multilateralism

It is my hope that whoever becomes President will continue to push a strong foreign policy agenda, especially against the rogue nations Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and North Korea (not to mention Russia, China…the list goes on). I also hope that they eschew the narrow unilateralism of the Bush years in favor of a more practical multilateralist approach.

This will take very rigorous diplomacy on America’s part, especially since America has reached new lows of unpopularity and mistrust around the world. Ironically, this has occurred simultaneously with the election of some of the most pro-US European leaders to take office in years. It is a promising, ironic, and dangerous world we entrust to the next American President.

Our allies can live up to that title more in the coming years, as can America, and we can do more to convince other democracies that this war against radicalism, proliferation of nuclear arms, and terror is one that we all must face together. It is a struggle that we cannot face alone, and that our allies cannot wish away. America should lead, but it should not leave behind the rest of the free world. Globalization has changed the game. In a world in which economies are inextricably bound to one another, the question can never only be one of national security–it is international security that must be achieved.

If the United Nations cannot bring this about, effectively abandoning its mission, and choses instead to cater to the tyrants and demagogues rather than uphold the principles of democracy and freedom, then America must find a new way to shore up its international support. We cannot go it alone for another eight years, nor can we fall victim to the easy road of moral relativity, tolerating the dangerously intolerant.

The time has come to throw out both options: futile international efforts and cowboy politics, and to seek out new ways to create a safer, more peaceful world, whoever our next President may be.

~cross-posted at <a href=”http://neoconstant.newsvine.com/_news/2008/10/16/2008268-multilateralism-and-the-bush-doctrine”>Newsvine.</a>

Super fly smart guy Michael Oren (O yeah! He got game!) shares that talk isn’t always cheap (not to be confused with talking trash).

“The issue of American dialogue with Iran featured prominently in Friday’s presidential debate. Barack Obama pledged “to engage in tough, direct diplomacy with Iran.” John McCain denounced that notion as “naive” and “dangerous.”

This exchange capped a week in which five former secretaries of state, including Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell, called for talks between the United States and Iran, and when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assured the United Nations General Assembly that “the American empire is reaching the end of the road.”

Amid all of these declarations, though, few questions were raised about the possible benefits of U.S.-Iranian talks as well as the potential pitfalls. What, for example, would be the talks’ objectives — to moderate Iranian behavior and renew Iranian-American relations or, more broadly, to recognize a new strategic order in the Middle East?

(more…)

Andrew Sullivan writes:

I’m increasingly of the view that the United States should think twice before giving Israel a green light to destroy Iran’s nascent nuclear capacity.

Such an act in today’s context would immediately pour gasoline on the Islamist fire, uniting Shia and Sunni in anti-Israel and anti-Semitic and anti-Western fervor. It would recruit a generation of Islamist terrorists. It would risk a new and empowered alliance between Iran and Russia which has the nuclear know-how to give to Iran if it wants to. It might precipitate an Islamist take-over in Pakistan, which would give us an Islamist nuclear state overnight.

This is not to say that a nuclear Iran is not a horrifying prospect. But I don’t believe that Iran’s leadership truly wants to annihilate its entire population in a stand-off with the Zionists. Nuking Jerusalem is not something devout Islamists would easily countenance. But using the nuclear leverage to empower Hezbollah and Hamas is certainly a likely gambit.

Naturally, Sullivan thinks Obama is the right person to handle this tide of conflict that awaits the next President.  McCain’s “unsteadiness” disqualifies him, as does his abysmal choice of Sarah Palin.

(more…)

Daled Amos has the speech Palin would have given at the anti-Ahmadenijad rally.

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator’s intentions and to call for action to thwart him.

He must be stopped.

It’s a good speech.  I wish the Obama camp would come out with something as strong.

By Trita Parsi and Roi Ben-Yehuda

The looming Iran-Israel confrontation has a seemingly deterministic quality to it. Listening to the politicians, one gets a sense that powers beyond our control are pulling us toward a 21st-century disaster. Yet a great deal of the force propelling us into confrontation is fueled by ignorance and dehumanization. Israel is demonized as “Little Satan,” while Iranians are portrayed as irrational Muslim extremists.

Indeed, mutual ignorance of our respective societies plays into the hands of the hard-line leaders who are calling for blood and destruction. They manipulate and distort; above all, they do everything to prevent us from recognizing that the enemy has a face.

Not that either of us is naive enough to believe that mere knowledge of one another will offer a miraculous solution. We do believe, however, that mutual understanding will go a long way toward allowing us to feel empathy and compassion for each other, and to sound off at those calling for bloodshed and war.

	Advertisement

Here are some essential things Iranians and Israelis should know about each other:

1. Israel is a vibrant yet incomplete democracy

On his visit to the United States last fall, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad famously stated that there are no homosexuals in Iran. Well, in Israel there are plenty of homosexuals, and they are the only ones in the Middle East who have an annual gay pride parade in their capital city.

Democracy in Israel means that every citizen and group (Jewish or otherwise) has the right to express him/herself and assemble in public. Also, that every citizen is equal under the law, has voting rights, religious freedom, access to education, health care and economic opportunity.

Undoubtedly, Israel’s democracy is still a work in progress. The fusion of religion and state has limited people’s rights and freedoms (for example, Israelis of different faiths cannot legally marry one another in the country), and the de-facto secondary status of Arab Israelis is an affront to the country’s democratic ideals. Fortunately, many people in Israel are assiduously working to change the system from within.

2. Iran is a vibrant quasi-democracy

It is far from a full democracy, but neither is it a complete dictatorship. Its severe limitations notwithstanding, Iran has a lively civil society and possesses most of the building blocks for a successful democracy down the road. Iranians’ struggle for democracy dates back to the 1906 Constitutional Revolution. Since then, Iranians have learned two important lessons.

First, war and democratization don’t mix. As tensions between Iran and the outside world increase, the first to pay are Iran’s pro-democracy and human rights activists. For Iran to move toward a democratic system, it needs peace and tranquility; bombs and surgical strikes will achieve the opposite.

Second, when you carry out a revolution, you know against whom you are revolting, but not necessarily for whom you are waging the revolution. Iranians have little appetite for another revolution. As unpopular as their current government is, they prefer gradual and manageable change.

3. Streets are named for poets

Just like Iran, Israel puts great value on the written word. In Israel, streets are named for poets - writers who have revived a people and its ancient language. It is the pen and imagination, more than the sword and muscle, that have been responsible for the creation of this nation. Israel’s historical roots are traced in a book; its people are called the “People of the Book”; and its founding father, Theodor Herzl, a playwright, liked to write books. It is no surprise then that Israel leads the world in new book titles per capita, per year.

As in Iran, everyday conversations in Israel are as likely to be peppered with literary references as with practical concerns.

4. Iranians are lonely and distrustful

Much like Israelis, Iranians feel painfully isolated in the Middle East. They are surrounded by people with whom they share neither language nor religion. Iran is majority Persian and Shi’ite; its neighbors are majority Arab and Sunni.

Nor does Iran have many friends beyond the Middle East. If anything, the international community has never treated them fairly, Iranians believe. In the last century alone, Iranians have contended with colonization and decades of foreign intervention, not to mention an eight-year war against Saddam Hussein, in which the entire world sided with Iraq.

The UN didn’t consider Saddam’s invasion a threat to international peace and security; it took the Security Council more than two years to call for a withdrawal. Another five years passed before it addressed Saddam’s use of chemical weapons. For the Iranians, the lesson was clear: When in danger, Iran can rely on neither the Geneva Conventions nor the UN Charter for protection. Just like Israel, Iran has concluded that it can rely only on itself.

5. Zionism is not a dirty word

In a show of disrespect, many leaders in Iran refer to Israel as the “Zionist regime.” While being called a “regime” may not be flattering, for most Israelis, Zionism is not a dirty word.

From within, Zionism is a national liberation movement, whose aim it is to create a safe haven for Jewish people, culture and national identity. Zionism is the Jewish people’s answer to the centuries-old impulse to erase them from history. When Ahmadinejad and his ilk speak of Zionism’s imminent doom, they are in fact strengthening the very movement they seek to eliminate.

Israelis joke that Israel is the only country in the world where the words “dirty Jew” mean a Jew who has not taken a shower. In a way, this joke encapsulates the essence of Zionism. Everything else is commentary.

6. Sympathy with Palestinians, but no desire for conflict with Israel

Ahmadinejad’s venomous rhetoric notwithstanding, Iranians don’t spend much time thinking about Israel. They are far more concerned about Iran’s crippled economy and rampant corruption. While the sympathies of most Iranians fall squarely with the Palestinians, this is not an issue they feel their country must be actively involved in.

Iranians will fiercely defend their independence and territory, yet they have no desire for conflict with Israel. Iranians remember Alexander’s sacking of Persia, the Arab conquest in the seventh century C.E., the Mongol invasion, and the 1953 CIA coup against Iran’s democratically elected prime minister. But there is no recollection of any conflict with the Jewish people because there hasn’t been one. Most Iranians would like to keep it that way.

Dr. Trita Parsi is author of “Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the U.S.” (Yale University Press, 2007). Roi Ben-Yehuda is an Israeli-American writer living in Spain, and a regular contributor to Jewcy and France 24.

Pat Buchanan is once again shooting his mouth off about Israel.  From Holocaust revisionism to describing AIPAC as “Israel’s Fifth Column” here in America, Mr. Buchanan is revealing himself for the anti-Semite he is–exactly the sort of hate-monger William F. Buckley tried to rid the Conservatives of years ago.

Here’s a tidbit from his Townhall column:

The front men for 362 are liberal Gary Ackerman of New York and conservative Mike Pence of Indiana. But the juice behind them is that of the Israeli lobby AIPAC, which is marching in step with Israel.

Last week, Mossad’s chief, Meir Dagan, was here to make the case for war on Iran. This week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak visits Dick Cheney and maybe Bush. Next week, it is the head of Israel’s armed forces.

Israel and its Fifth Column in this city seek to stampede us into war with Iran. Bush should rebuff them, and the American people should tell their congressmen: You vote for 362, we don’t vote for you.

Okay Pat.  Take your tinfoil hat off.  Iran is as much a threat to US interests as Israeli–perhaps not quite so visceral a threat, but still, our interests in the region are very real.  We don’t need Israel to tell us that…

Hat Tip: Little Green Footballs

A weak yet sweetly fitting tribute to fellow Axis of Evil charter member scary scary NoKo Guy and his “6 Scuds and a Dud Day” way back in ‘06 (Great Satan’s BDay to be precise).

Almost 2 years to the day, Iran’s “Payambar e Azam 3″ missile misfire drills featured make believe pics which, alas, fails to impress.

So far, Iran’s Revo Guard Corps English Lang fanboi site has yet to mention anything about it.

Shahab 3 is very much the spiritual grandson of NoKo’s “No Dong” Missile.

In more ways than one!

(more…)

“You should know that the criminal and terrorist Zionist regime which has 60 years of plundering, aggression and crimes in its file has reached the end of its work and will soon disappear off the geographical scene,” - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

“As the Imam Khomeini said, if each Muslim throws a bucket of water on Israel, Israel will be erased,” - Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki

The time for a just and much needed war against the Iranian Regime is drawing near. Israel cannot and will not let these tyrants gain nuclear weapons with which to control and threaten the entire Middle East and beyond.

Perhaps later this Summer, the skies over Iran will be filled with the wings of the glorious Israeli Air Force as they swoop and destroy nuclear power plants and military instillations across the nation. Many will cry foul but the annuls of history will be on Israel’s side, just as it was in the Iraq strike of 1981 and the fabulous victory over the cowardly Egyptian and Syrian armies in 1967. Future generations will for centuries venerate the heroes of 2008, in the mould of the great Bar Kochba. Israel will once again regain it’s aura of invincibility and keep her status as the beacon of democracy, modernity and human rights in the entire region.

The world must support Israel, for a nuclear Iran threatens not just Jerusalem, but the major cities of the civilised world including London, New York, Berlin, Mumbai and Tokyo. For many years Iran’s proxies including the likes of Hezbollah and Syria have been waging war against the Jewish State and the people of Iraq, including the coalition. Now we must strike back and deliver a decisive blow to the head of the snake.

See: Hassan Nasrallah’s speech about Israel.

While electile dysfunction devours huge bits of American attention - certain regimes and their fanboys pay attention too. For years it was widely understood in the ME that Great Satan didn’t act out militarily in an election year - or even the year before an election year. The Lame Duck syndrome.

Only since 911 though - it hasn’t been so clear cut. Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed the general manager of Al -Arabiya television points out the Arab street has fell for the old Great Satan is safe as milk election year jazz before.

“Saddam Hussein was excluding the possibility of such a war, relying on the
views of Arab television analysts. They told him not to worry about the threats
and the massing of fleets. They assured him that anti-war demonstrations, public
opinion surveys, and the approaching end of the President’s first term would
prevent war. How wrong they were! “

(more…)

As electile dysfunction begins to attract and distract Great Satan concurrently with world events, perhaps it’s time to reflect on sexy bits of military diplopolitical history and the resulting nigh indestructable sexy appeal of Straussians, Pentagon Vulcans and neoconservatism in the New Millennium.

Disaster, quagmire, catastrophe, failure. Like witches cackling about a bubbly cauldron, critics and critiques enchant and re enchant a totally cursed cacophony. A pox on Pax Americana, defeat, retreat and repeat.

Such inappropiate (and boring) wickedness summoned something more than shades, spectres and hissing dissing daemoneocon denounciations. (more…)

Well, as per usual, the internet is buzzing with information, news, a wide variety of topics.  I’ve taken it upon me to find just a few of the most interesting, riveting, and thought-provoking bits.

CNN reported on the arrest of over 500 people allegedly linked to al Qaeda.  Liberals in America will be pleased to hear they won’t be going to Gitmo to suffer the atrocities of the American military prison system, but will instead be comfortably housed in Saudi prisons, where undboubtedly they will be treated with good, old-fashioned Wahhabi hospitality.

In a written statement, the ministry said the cell’s leader was found with a letter from al Qaeda’s second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, “urging him to raise funds and that [al-Zawahiri] will provide him with the personnel, whom they called the mujahedeen.”

(more…)

Passing along the news to everyone…looks like McCain is going to answer some hard questions.  If I had television I’d watch it, but I guess I’ll have to surf YouTube and the blogs to get my dose of the Straight Talk Express… (more…)

There is an absurd notion floating (or perhaps burning wild-fire-like) throughout the anti-war camp that Iraq is some invention of the Bush Administration.  Now, while I have professed many times to having been a critic of our entrance into Iraq due to what I perceived as poor (and avoidable) timing, I take offense at the notion that somehow this is Bush’s war, pawned off on the American public and the US Congress alike in some epic hoodwinking–as though there was no lead-up whatsoever during the Clinton years.

This ignores history, of course, and parces quite selectively the situation in Iraq in ways that are utterly untrue. (more…)

“Trust but verify.” Those were the watchwords of President Ronald Reagan when he embarked upon the historic series of negotiations with the Soviet Union that would culminate with the START I Treaty designed to reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons deployed by the United States and Soviet Union. Today a tempest in a teapot has ensued over President Bush’s remarks before the Israeli Knesset comparing negotiations with hostile foreign dictators as tantamount to Neville Chamberlain’s alleged “appeasement” of Adolph Hitler at Munich in 1938. (more…)

The latest dust up between eventual general election opponents Barack Obama and John McCain came today in which John McCain characterized remarks made by Obama. I will recount them here to set the stage for my analysis:

Obama said on Sunday in Pendleton, Oregon:

“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, `We’re going to wipe you off the planet.’”

John McCain characterized what Obama said like this on Monday in Chicago:

“Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess,”

McCain further said of Iran regarding its threat to America vis-a-vis Obama’s comparison to the Soviet Union:

McCain listed the dangers he sees from Iran: It provides deadly explosive devices used to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq, sponsors terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East and is committed to Israel’s destruction.

John McCain’s attempt to show Barack Obama as a naife because Obama does not see Iran and the Soviet Union as equal threats falls on its face from the start. Iran is not a world superpower. Iran does not have a military that is within the same tier as the United States military. Iran does not have missile silos with nuclear ICBMs targeting American cities simply awaiting the word to level them. In short, Iran is not an opponent capable of making war with the United States symmetrically and this is the distinction that John McCain fails to make.

On balance, most of the conflicts of the 21st century will not resemble those of the 20th century. They will differ just as the set piece battles and Napoleonic tactics of the 19th century advanced into the apex of 20th century war theory: maneuver warfare as opposed to static battle lines. That apex is reflected by the United States military today in its armor that carries great firepower while being able to move fast enough to outflank an opponent and a paratrooper force that is the envy of all nations, able to deploy anywhere in the world in a few dozen hours. The great majority of conflicts in this century will be of the asymmetrical kind. Barack Obama understands this and John McCain, it seems, does not.

It is apropos that this message be delivered in a place like Newsvine because the Internet is the primary driving force behind the change in how wars are fought just as the internal combustion engine was the primary driving force in changing how wars were fought in the 20th century. Enemies like Iran learned late last century after observing the United States fight wars that decentralization was its best option when confronting America. It was not a large army that drove the American Marines out of Beirut, it was a single suicidal member of Hezbollah.

Iran is likely our most troublesome enemy in the short term, but it is not because they resemble the Soviet Union in the least. It is because they have cultivated amorphous armies and terrorist cells across the world that it can call on to act or that are preset to act if Iran is attacked. The Iraq War only extended Iran’s reach, putting a Shiite government into power in Iraq which has allowed several powerful Shiite militias to spring into existence, two of which are al-Sadr’s group and the Badr militia. Destroying Iran is not an exercise which would be difficult if America were so disposed, dealing with the aftermath of the terrorist minefield that Iran laid to protect itself would be. Therefore, more is to be gained through diplomacy than through a standoff because diplomacy is a much craftier answer to asymmetrical warfare than brute force and it appears that McCain favors brute force while Obama favors diplomacy and, failing that, brute force.

Also fundamentally misunderstood by McCain and better understood by Obama is the threat that China presents in the long term. I believe this is a result of the generational gap between the two candidates. China is, without a doubt, the greatest asymmetrical threat that the United States will face this century. It has proved this over and over again through its satellite destroyer test that demonstrated its capability to wipe out the system that the United States military relies on (the Global Positioning System) to guide its bombs, its soldiers and its warships.

It proved that it could jam a powerful commercial computer network when Chinese hackers attacked CNN’s network because it did not like the coverage CNN gave regarding the Free Tibet protesters and the Olympic flame. China has official (black hat) hackers and unofficial (gray hat) hackers that both take direction from the Chinese government that could mobilize China’s computing power and sheer population volume to bombard and possibly take down essential defense networks that are used to relay orders to American military units. China is also the leader when it comes to espionage (corporate and military) against the United States government and American companies. This network was put on display recently when China chose to (unwisely in my opinion) use their embassies and registered college student organizations for Chinese students to organize pro-China rallies to counter the Free Tibet protesters in San Francisco.

These student organizations have been an engine for both corporate and military espionage as the students make contact with the Chinese government through the organizations and then, after graduation, go on to be employed by American defense contractors or other companies that have valuable technological developments that the Chinese government wants to obtain and disseminate to the People’s Liberation Army (which is then incorporated into Chinese arms manufacturing) or to one of China’s many industries who seek to compete on the global market with American companies in terms of quality. This is, admittedly, a cloud that is on the horizon but it is a cloud that is gathering and, in approximately 20 years, will settle over our country and will need to be weathered.

Whether it be on Iran’s asymmetrical terrorist warfare or China’s asymmetrical computer warfare and corporate & military espionage, I firmly believe that Barack Obama’s mindset and advisers far outclass John McCain’s mindset and advisers. To maintain our advantage over our direct enemies and current competitors that could turn into direct enemies in the future, we have to have a forward-looking view. McCain, to use a term from military history, wants to fight the last war. Obama’s newness is to our advantage because it gives him a view that is conducive to innovation and spurs him to envision the next war and be prepared to fight it.

Which comes first, democracy or security?

It’s a trick question, like the one about the chicken and egg. The truth is they must come simultaneously.

And ay, there’s (as Hamlet would say) the rub, because in chaotic third-world nations—Pakistan comes immediately to mind, of course—the two exist in very uneasy and difficult-to-implement equilibrium.

Democracy requires a certain amount of openness and civility. Despite accusations of dirty campaigning in this country, and the recent increase of post-election sour grapes, elections are a tea party here compared to most of the world.

As Amir Taheri writes in today’s Times Online:

Whoever killed Benazir belonged to one of the nebulae of organisations that have vowed to kill not only those who stand for election but also those who vote. Their slogan is: “From box to box!” This means that, by slipping one’s vote into a ballot box, one risks ending up in a coffin.

This transcends one candidate vs. another, although the terrorists had special reason to hate Benazir Bhutto. This is about the process of democracy itself.

We often hear the slogan “There is no military solution in Iraq.” There is no democratic solution, either. The only solution must contain both elements. We in the West tend to forget that because the element of security is so firmly in place for us.

One of the effects of 9/11 was to undermine that feeling of security for us. The threat, however, was not internal, but external; the perpetrators were visitors from another culture and another world. Of necessity, in that culture and that world, security is usually provided in a heavy-handed manner.

Whatever one thinks of Musharraf and his recent racheting up of repressive measures in Pakistan, and the question of whether he purposely left Bhutto with inadequate security, or even of Bhutto’s checkered career when she was in power in Pakistan, it’s plain that the violence of those who would subvert the democratic process in Pakistan requires a leader who must be willing to apply a level of security that can be read as tyranny to outside observers. It’s not always easy to tell the difference between true tyranny and the toughness that is necessary to secure a government and a democratic process in a country rife with powerful and ruthless forces that are dedicated to tearing it down.

The assassination of JFK in this country represented a moment when we imagined we could feel the hot breath of that chaos on our necks. But in truth we were nowhere near that point. A few relatively simple precautions for presidents—including the prohibition of motorcades with open cars—seem to have taken care of the problem so far. We did, however, lose a certain innocence—a naivete we probably should have lost long ago, when Lincoln was assassinated—and have retained an extra feeling of vulnerability ever since.

Imagine, however, what it must be like to live in a country with a history of assassination and execution as a commonplace way to take care of political rivals. Unfortunately, the world contains all too many such countries. That’s one of the reasons our experiment in Iraq is so fraught with peril, and why recent encouraging signs there are so important.

There are those who say, along with commenter Tim P, that:

Once the population refuses to be cowed and begins to actively oppose the terrorists, they can no longer operate nearly as effectively. We have seen that in Iraq.

They have forgotten the all-important element provided by American security. Whether it be the postwar influx of terrorists in Iraq, or the prewar tyranny of Saddam, the people of Iraq were powerless to resist without the guarantee of at least a modicum of security.

In Iraq, the hope now is that, ultimately, the people of Iraq themselves will be able to provide that security. But it would not have possible without our initial help. Saddam’s net was way too tight, and his own “security” way too effective. Then later, the terrorists took advantage of the postwar chaos to get their own tight grip on many areas of the country.

That grip has been loosened now in Iraq, and there’s a promise of better things to come. But it remains fragile there. Pakistan has not had a recent war, but it seems at least as fragile right now.

No, I’m not suggesting a US invasion for Pakistan; even a neocon has no interest in invading all the failed and chaotic countries of the world. But the problem there is very real, and is not g