Israel's nuclear deterrent

In his latest talk, Professor John Mearsheimer analyses the costs and benefits of the Israeli nuclear deterrent.

He argues that since Israel's conventional military forces are superior, no neighbour would dare attacking it. Hence, the nuclear deterrent has no added value.

I tend to disagree. The 2006 war with Hizbollah in Lebanon did indicate, that asymmetric militias can pose a serious challenge to conventional forces. Israel will probably make sure that the next round in Lebanon will not end in a similar defeat by changing training, tactics and equipment. However, proliferation of advanced weapons systems can turn a strategic inferiority of irregular forces into a tactical superiority. In 2006 Hizbollah managed to do so when it lured Israeli tanks in an ambush and destroyed several of them.

I would argue that the current military dominance of Israel is not guaranteed forever. Therefore, it is simply good statesmanship to maintain a nuclear deterrent.

Mearsheimer also points out that the posture of Egypt has changed profoundly since the 1950's and 1960's and today is no more a hostile state. Israelis tend to agree but argue that nobody knows what will happen next in Egypt. I concur with this assessment. To speculate that Egypt will remain friendly and, therefore, one main reason for the need of a nuclear deterrent became redundant, would not convince me, if I were Israeli.

I would argue that the situation in the Middle East is much too volatile for Israel to get rid of its nuclear weapons. There are the ultimate defensive weapon and hence necessary in the armoury of every country that feels threatened.

In his latest <a href="http://original.antiwar.com/john-mearsheimer/2010/07/08/israels-nukes-harm-us-national-interests/">talk</a>, Professor John Mearsheimer analyses the costs and benefits of the Israeli nuclear deterrent.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />He argues that since Israel's conventional military forces are superior, no neighbour would dare attacking it. Hence, the nuclear deterrent has no added value.<br /><br />I tend to disagree. The 2006 war with Hizbollah in Lebanon did indicate, that asymmetric militias can pose a serious challenge to conventional forces. Israel will probably make sure that the next round in Lebanon will not end in a similar defeat by changing training, tactics and equipment. However, proliferation of advanced weapons systems can turn a strategic inferiority of irregular forces into a tactical superiority. In 2006 Hizbollah managed to do so when it lured Israeli tanks in an ambush and destroyed several of them.<br /><br />I would argue that the current military dominance of Israel is not guaranteed forever. Therefore, it is simply good statesmanship to maintain a nuclear deterrent.<br /><br />Mearsheimer also points out that the posture of Egypt has changed profoundly since the 1950's and 1960's and today is no more a hostile state. Israelis tend to agree but argue that nobody knows what will happen next in Egypt. I concur with this assessment. To speculate that Egypt will remain friendly and, therefore, one main reason for the need of a nuclear deterrent became redundant, would not convince me, if I were Israeli.<br /><br />I would argue that the situation in the Middle East is much too volatile for Israel to get rid of its nuclear weapons. There are the ultimate defensive weapon and hence necessary in the armoury of every country that feels threatened.<br /></span>

CENTCOM report: talking to Hamas and Hezbollah

Seems like the US military is leading innovative thinking: in a report by the Central Command (CENTCOM), Gen. Petraeus old working place, a study group called Red Team evaluated the pains and gains of talking to Hamas and Hezbollah.

The reason why Israel is furiously blocking this move is also mentioned in the report:

The Red Team also claims that reconciliation with Fatah, when coupled with Hamas's explicit renunciation of violence, would gain "widespread international support and deprive the Israelis of any legitimate justification to continue settlement building and delay statehood negotiations."

Seems like the US military is leading innovative thinking: in a <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/29/red_team?page=0,0">report</a> by the Central Command (CENTCOM), Gen. Petraeus old working place, a study group called Red Team evaluated the pains and gains of talking to Hamas and Hezbollah.<br /><br />The reason why Israel is furiously blocking this move is also mentioned in the report:<br /><blockquote>The Red Team also claims that reconciliation with Fatah, when coupled with Hamas's explicit renunciation of violence, would gain "widespread international support and deprive the Israelis of any legitimate justification to continue settlement building and delay statehood negotiations."</blockquote>

Who is misreading Iran now? On facts and opinions

A very interesting piece on Iran appeared in Foreign Policy today. Claiming that much of the reporting on Iran is based on political preferences and ideologies, the authors argue that the West has a distorted image of the realities on the ground. Those distorted perceptions lead to bad policy decisions.

Fact-based reporting and writing has been replaced by ideology-driven reporting, where facts are disregarded or not properly investigated. The authors focus on the reporting of the Green Movement in Iran, which has been portrayed as a democratic uprising against an evil dictator.

As a little known fact I would like to add that Mousavi accused Ahmadinejad in the pre-election presidential debates that he was too soft on the British when he returned the sailors that were captured in Iranian waters.

Although I'm sure that all writers of the spectrum, from Noam Chomskey to Bill Kristol (and Dustin Dehez, I might add) have good intentions, I wonder why some disregard facts. What is the benefit? Could anything good come out of a policy recommendation that only considers facts selectively?

In my friend's Dustin case, he wrote a piece on Iran (in German) without even mentioning the three negotiation offers by Iran. Obviously, he did not mention them because they do not fit in the picture. But shouldn't the picture change when facts undermine them?

Another example is the Israeli Ambassador here in Brussels: I saw him at a lecture the other night, where he outlined the Israeli policy that led to the Freedom Flotilla incident. In order to prove his point, he wilfully misrepresented historical facts (Hamas came to power by a coup d'etat), inaccuracies (there is no shortage of anything in Gaza, they even have shoes. Well, that is correct, but Israel let shoes into Gaza only in April 2010) and terminology (the siege is no blockade, the blockade is legitimate, there is no blockade etc.).

Instead of winning support, he clearly lost support in the audience. He did not help Israel that night. Instead of explaining the reasons for Israel's behaviour, he twisted facts to prove his point and lost sympathies of people who felt fooled by his statements.

Seems to be an evident thing to say but we all would be better off if we would base our opinion on facts and not vice versa.

A very interesting piece on Iran appeared in <a href="http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/14/whos_really_misreading_tehran?page=0,0">Foreign Policy</a> today. Claiming that much of the reporting on Iran is based on political preferences and ideologies, the authors argue that the West has a distorted image of the realities on the ground. Those distorted perceptions lead to bad policy decisions.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />Fact-based reporting and writing has been replaced by ideology-driven reporting, where facts are disregarded or not properly investigated. The authors focus on the reporting of the Green Movement in Iran, which has been portrayed as a democratic uprising against an evil dictator.<br /><br />As a little known fact I would like to add that Mousavi accused Ahmadinejad in the <a href="http://www.shiatv.net/view_video.php?viewkey=da9ab6556a3163919062">pre-election presidential debates</a> that he was too soft on the British when he returned the sailors that were captured in Iranian waters.<br /><br />Although I'm sure that all writers of the spectrum, from Noam Chomskey to Bill Kristol (and Dustin Dehez, I might add) have good intentions, I wonder why some disregard facts. What is the benefit? Could anything good come out of a policy recommendation that only considers facts selectively?<br /><br />In my friend's Dustin case, he wrote a <a href="http://www.kas.de/wf/de/33.19272/">piece on Iran</a> (in German) without even mentioning the three negotiation offers by Iran. Obviously, he did not mention them because they do not fit in the picture. But shouldn't the picture change when facts undermine them?<br /><br />Another example is the Israeli Ambassador here in Brussels: I saw him at a lecture the other night, where he outlined the Israeli policy that led to the Freedom Flotilla incident. In order to prove his point, he wilfully misrepresented historical facts (Hamas came to power by a coup d'etat), inaccuracies (there is no shortage of anything in Gaza, they even have shoes. Well, that is correct, but Israel <a href="http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTI4MjkyMDc5Ng=="> let shoes into Gaza only in April 2010</a>) and terminology (the siege is no blockade, the blockade is legitimate, there is no blockade etc.).<br /><br />Instead of winning support, he clearly lost support in the audience. He did not help Israel that night. Instead of explaining the reasons for Israel's behaviour, he twisted facts to prove his point and lost sympathies of people who felt fooled by his statements.<br /><br />Seems to be an evident thing to say but we all would be better off if we would base our opinion on facts and not vice versa.<br /></span>

Open Saudi skies for Israel (?)

The enemy of my enemy is my friend... and his bombers shall have open skies to attack my enemy's nuclear facilities.

The Times reports that Saudi Arabia has been conducting tests to stand down its air defences and allow Israeli bombers through unharmed. Granting Israeli jets free passage through a narrow corridor of northern Saudi airspace would considerably reduce the distance of the bombing run.

The Kingdom has officially denied this claim, calling it "slanderous and false" and reiterating its "position of opposition and rejection of the violation of its sovereignty and the use of its airspace or territory by anyone to attack any country".

According to The Times, the four main targets are said to be the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the gas storage development at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. These targets lie up to 2,250km from Israel, which is the outer limit of their bombers’ range, even with aerial refuelling. An air strike would involve multiple waves of bombers, presumably crossing Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia and Iraq - which would require at least tacit approval from Washington for the strike.

The article quotes a US defence source who claims that the understanding between Israel and Saudi Arabia has been done with the agreement of the US State Department.

An interesting aspect of this issue is the regional dimension - the article refers to a claim by 'Israeli intelligence sources' that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are just as concerned (to put it mildly) as Israel and the west over the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran.

If this story is true - and we should not consider it a foregone conclusion - then it raises many questions. Is a strike on Iran a question of when not if? Is the ongoing diplomatic effort genuinely intended to bring about a peaceful resolution to the issue or is it merely a smokescreen intended to convince the world that a military solution is the only solution? If the diplomatic effort is genuine then at what point do we decide that it is not working and an air strike is the only solution?

Also, to what extent is Israel doing this at its own behest or as a US (and Saudi) proxy? What would be the repercussions of using Israel as a blunt instrument, diplomatically or otherwise?

<div align="justify">The enemy of my enemy is my friend... and his bombers shall have open skies to attack my enemy's nuclear facilities.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article7148555.ece">The Times</a> reports that Saudi Arabia has been conducting tests to stand down its air defences and allow Israeli bombers through unharmed. Granting Israeli jets free passage through a narrow corridor of northern Saudi airspace would considerably reduce the distance of the bombing run.<br /><br />The Kingdom has officially <a href="http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentID=2010061375182">denied</a> this claim, calling it "slanderous and false" and reiterating its "position of opposition and rejection of the violation of its sovereignty and the use of its airspace or territory by anyone to attack any country".<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />According to The Times, the four main targets are said to be the uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qom, the gas storage development at Isfahan and the heavy-water reactor at Arak. These targets lie up to 2,250km from Israel, which is the outer limit of their bombers’ range, even with aerial refuelling. An air strike would involve multiple waves of bombers, presumably crossing Jordan, northern Saudi Arabia and Iraq - which would require at least tacit approval from Washington for the strike.<br /><br />The article quotes a US defence source who claims that the understanding between Israel and Saudi Arabia has been done with the agreement of the US State Department.<br /><br />An interesting aspect of this issue is the regional dimension - the article refers to a claim by 'Israeli intelligence sources' that Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are just as concerned (to put it mildly) as Israel and the west over the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran.<br /><br />If this story is true - and we should not consider it a foregone conclusion - then it raises many questions. Is a strike on Iran a question of when not if? Is the ongoing diplomatic effort genuinely intended to bring about a peaceful resolution to the issue or is it merely a smokescreen intended to convince the world that a military solution is the only solution? If the diplomatic effort is genuine then at what point do we decide that it is not working and an air strike is the only solution?<br /><br />Also, to what extent is Israel doing this at its own behest or as a US (and Saudi) proxy? What would be the repercussions of using Israel as a blunt instrument, diplomatically or otherwise?<br /></div></span>

Is trust a necessary prerequisite in international relations?

The PBS journalist Charlie Rose went to Damascus to interview Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal. In this interview, Meshaal said that if 1) Israel withdraws to the 1967 border, 2) Jerusalem becomes the Palestinian capital and 3) the refugees are granted the right to return, the Palestinian resistance will end.

Except the right of return perhaps, this package of a peace agreement is accepted virtually by the whole world, except the USA and Israel. It basically reflects the outcome of the Geneva initiative, an Israeli-Palestinian peace coalition with prominent supporters on both sides.

Proponents of the position of the Israeli government are very likely to dismiss Meshaal's proposal, as they did reject the Geneva initiative. From their point of view, Hamas is not to be trusted. Hamas would use the gained sovereignty to re-arm and prepare the attack on Israel proper. Therefore, the survival of Israel demands a tight grip on the West Bank and Gaza.

Let's disregard for a moment other possible explanations of the Israeli policy, namely the ideology of a greater Israel (Eretz Israel) stretching from the Jordan to the Mediterranean or messianic Judeo-Christian ideologies. If we disregard those possible explanations, the Meshaal offer could be considered by the Israeli government as a good basis for a future peace agreement. If it wouldn't be for the fear and distrust, we could welcome Meshaal's statement as a first step to real peace negotiations.

It is understandable that Israel feels threatened, being surrounded by Arab states. But is this feeling of fear a good adviser in matters of national security? Master Yoda says that fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to suffering - and those are the dark side of the force. On that he is in line with Noam Chomsky in its latest interview, who stated that Israeli policy was dominated by paranoia and irrationality (This interview is very worth watching because the interviewer confronts Chomsky with the arguments of the Israeli government).

Although I have sympathy with the Israeli concerns and woes, it is difficult to envisage a positive development for all parties involved when feelings dictate their behaviour. Let's put it differently: is trust a necessary ingredient in international relations? And if yes, what could the EU do to build trust between the various antagonists?

The PBS journalist Charlie Rose went to Damascus to <a href="http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11032">interview</a> Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal. In this interview, Meshaal said that if 1) Israel withdraws to the 1967 border, 2) Jerusalem becomes the Palestinian capital and 3) the refugees are granted the right to return, the Palestinian resistance will end.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />Except the right of return perhaps, this package of a peace agreement is accepted virtually by the whole world, except the USA and Israel. It basically reflects the outcome of the <a href="http://www.geneva-accord.org/mainmenu/summary">Geneva initiative</a>, an Israeli-Palestinian peace coalition with prominent supporters on both sides.<br /><br />Proponents of the position of the Israeli government are very likely to dismiss Meshaal's proposal, as they did reject the Geneva initiative. From their point of view, Hamas is not to be trusted. Hamas would use the gained sovereignty to re-arm and prepare the attack on Israel proper. Therefore, the survival of Israel demands a tight grip on the West Bank and Gaza.<br /><br />Let's disregard for a moment other possible explanations of the Israeli policy, namely the ideology of a greater Israel (Eretz Israel) stretching from the Jordan to the Mediterranean or messianic Judeo-Christian ideologies. If we disregard those possible explanations, the Meshaal offer could be considered by the Israeli government as a good basis for a future peace agreement. If it wouldn't be for the fear and distrust, we could welcome Meshaal's statement as a first step to real peace negotiations.<br /><br />It is understandable that Israel feels threatened, being surrounded by Arab states. But is this feeling of fear a good adviser in matters of national security? Master Yoda says that fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate and hate leads to suffering - and those are the dark side of the force. On that he is in line with Noam Chomsky in its latest <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCtYecGbQz8&feature=player_embedded">interview</a>, who stated that Israeli policy was dominated by paranoia and irrationality (This interview is very worth watching because the interviewer confronts Chomsky with the arguments of the Israeli government).<br /><br />Although I have sympathy with the Israeli concerns and woes, it is difficult to envisage a positive development for all parties involved when feelings dictate their behaviour. Let's put it differently: is trust a necessary ingredient in international relations? And if yes, what could the EU do to build trust between the various antagonists?<br /></span>

Chomsky, Israel, Palestine and me

The reports that US Professor Noam Chomsky was denied entry into Israel are somewhat inaccurate. In fact, Prof. Chomsky wanted to enter the occupied Palestinian Territories and give a speech at the Bir Zeit University in Ramallah, the provisional capital of the Palestinian Territories. The difference between Israel and the Palestinian Territories seem to be unclear to quite a few Israeli border guards, as I can report from personal experience.

When I was travelling from Amman to Jerusalem a couple of years ago, I was asked by the border guard why I wanted to travel to Israel. I felt the need to explain that it wasn't my intention to travel to Israel, but to Palestine. As a consequence, I spend the next five hours or so enjoying a nice conversation with a very attractive female Israeli officer who was very interested in all aspects of my professional as well as personal life.

She asked me to strip down to my underwear, and she was only lucky that I'm so progressive and did not insist on a male guard to supervise my undressing. In the meantime, her colleagues search my bags. They performed their job very thoroughly, which confronted my with the unusual challenge of how to get my tooth past back in the tube.

Apparently, I made a good impression upon the border guards, because they let me, as opposed to Prof. Chomsky, continue my journey. The inconvenience to find a taxi and pay for the ride to Jerusalem, the last bus was long gone, was dwarfed by my gratitude towards the Israeli border guards to let me enter Palestine.

The reports that US Professor Noam Chomsky was denied entry into Israel are somewhat inaccurate. In fact, Prof. Chomsky wanted to enter the occupied Palestinian Territories and give a speech at the Bir Zeit University in Ramallah, the provisional capital of the Palestinian Territories. The difference between Israel and the Palestinian Territories seem to be unclear to quite a few Israeli border guards, as I can report from personal experience.<br /><br />When I was travelling from Amman to Jerusalem a couple of years ago, I was asked by the border guard why I wanted to travel to Israel. I felt the need to explain that it wasn't my intention to travel to Israel, but to Palestine. As a consequence, I spend the next five hours or so enjoying a nice conversation with a very attractive female Israeli officer who was very interested in all aspects of my professional as well as personal life.<br /><br />She asked me to strip down to my underwear, and she was only lucky that I'm so progressive and did not insist on a male guard to supervise my undressing. In the meantime, her colleagues search my bags. They performed their job very thoroughly, which confronted my with the unusual challenge of how to get my tooth past back in the tube.<br /><br />Apparently, I made a good impression upon the border guards, because they let me, as opposed to Prof. Chomsky, continue my journey. The inconvenience to find a taxi and pay for the ride to Jerusalem, the last bus was long gone, was dwarfed by my gratitude towards the Israeli border guards to let me enter Palestine.

Four options for Israel and Palestine

John J. Mearsheimer came forward (in an article and in a speech) with a compelling outline of four scenarios the Israel-Palestine conflict could result in:

1. the two-state solution: Israel withdraws from the occupied territories, abandons the settlements, and Jerusalem is shared capital of both Israel and Palestine.
2. the one-state solution, option 1: Israel stays in the occupied territories, grants equal civil rights to the Palestinians and becomes the democratic state of both Israelis and Palestinians.
3. the one-state solution, option 2: Israel expels all remaining Palestinians from the occupied territories and claims the entire area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan river.
4. the status quo: Israel controls the West Bank and proceeds down the road towards an apartheid state.

Mearsheimer points out that the Israel lobby pushes the Israeli and US governments towards option 4, which would likely end the Western support for Israel and ultimately lead to the end of Israel as such.

I would favour option 2, mainly because I like the idea of states being not exclusively for one particular denomination, but for all their inhabitants.

John J. Mearsheimer came forward (in an <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-perspec-0509-israel-20100509,0,5290017.story">article</a> and in a <a href="http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/mearsheimer300410.html">speech</a>) with a compelling outline of four scenarios the Israel-Palestine conflict could result in:<br /><ol><li>the two-state solution: Israel withdraws from the occupied territories, abandons the settlements, and Jerusalem is shared capital of both Israel and Palestine.</li><li>the one-state solution, option 1: Israel stays in the occupied territories, grants equal civil rights to the Palestinians and becomes the democratic state of both Israelis and Palestinians.</li><li>the one-state solution, option 2: Israel expels all remaining Palestinians from the occupied territories and claims the entire area between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan river.</li><li>the status quo: Israel controls the West Bank and proceeds down the road towards an apartheid state.</li></ol>Mearsheimer points out that the Israel lobby pushes the Israeli and US governments towards option 4, which would likely end the Western support for Israel and ultimately lead to the end of Israel as such.<br /><br />I would favour option 2, mainly because I like the idea of states being not exclusively for one particular denomination, but for all their inhabitants.<br /><span class="fullpost"><br /></span>

Some worrying developments in the Middle East

It is difficult to assess whether the situation in the Middle East is getting worse or whether it is stable and all current developments are just a smoke screen. Here are some news that combined could lead to a new situation in the region:

EGYPT:
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak went to Germany to get a surgery. He is 81 years, so the question of succession becomes interesting. So far, no successor has been designated. A future president has to meet certain criteria, such as loyalty towards the US, collaboration with Israel, willingness to suppress brutally the population. The most prominent contender for the post is Muhammad Al Baradei, the former head of the IAEA.

Judging upon his performance in his previous job, Al Baradei is unlikely to continue the Mubarak's policy of suppression and compliance. And this would render him an opponent of the US and Israel, who were already not happy with him at the IAEA. It is likely that they will do everything to take him out of the campaign.

However, it seems that the West will loose with Mubarak also its grip on Egypt. The Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmend Aboul Gheit was quoted of calling Israel an 'enemy state'. Although he said that he was misunderstood, this small incident could be a first sign of Egypt moving away from Western domination.

Another problem of Egypt is the Western value of democracy or rather the necessity of dictatorship. So far, the problem doesn't exist because there is no democracy whatsoever. If the West would ask for democratic elections the outcome would very probably be a landslide victory of the Muslim Brotherhood. That would be a problem for Israel, because they could not count on the complicity of Egypt in their fight against the Palestinians. But it would surely also pose problems to the West as a whole, bearing in mind the crucial position that Egypt holds as the most important country of the Muslim world, the Suez Canal, adjacency to the Gaza strip etc.

One positive effect of sticking to Western values and demanding free elections would be that an Egyptian government lead by the Muslim Brotherhood would ease tensions with Al Qaeda and affiliates. Ayman Al Zawahiri, the second in command and chief ideologue, is Egyptian himself. He was very active in the resistance against the Egyptian dictatorship before endorsing the violent international struggle against the "far enemy" that was soon to become the ideology of Al Qaeda.

HEZBOLLAH:
Israel alleged that Syria supplied Hezbollah with Scud missiles. No other government support Israel in this claim, but it was stated by US and other officials that Hezbollah has an improved arsenal of missiles. Israel and the US said that Scuds for Hezbollah could "turn or disrupt the very delicate balance in Lebanon", as Ehud Barack expressed it. Of course, with "delicate balance" Barack means the overwhelming military superiority of Israel. The US even threatened Syria with its "full range of tools" available to halt any smuggling of Scuds.

May there be Scuds or not, fact is that Hezbollah acquired an organisational structure and military capabilities that bother Israel. So far, Israel regularly violates Lebanese airspace in defiance of UN resolution 1701, but also Hezbollah violates this resolution by acquiring sophisticated weapons. Both sides seem to prepare for the inevitable showdown.

THE AXIS BEIRUT-DAMASCUS-TEHRAN:
In case of a showdown between Hebollah and Israel, the Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri stated that an attack on Hezbollah would be regarded as an attack on Lebanon. End of February 2010, Hezbollah General Secretary Nasrallah met Syrian President Assad and Iranian President Ahmadinejad in Damascus.

It looks like the coordinated resistance against Israel and its Western supporters is forming. Statements, such as "the next military conflict should solve the Israel question once and for all" or "the next war will be a regional war", indicate that Israel's enemies are confident that they can prevail in a war. The predominant feeling towards Israel used to be the feeling of inferiority - if that changed to a feeling of equality, it could change the tides in the Middle East.

ISRAEL AND THE WEST:
A lot has been written on the rift between Israel and the US. Recently, also France made headlines when President Sarkozy criticised Netanyahu for foot-dragging on the peace process. Although it is unlikely that the Western criticism of Israel will change its attitude towards Israel, it could empower the militant forces in the Middle East.

OUTLOOK:
I think that the situation for many participants is good as long as the conflict is boiling on a small flame. But the accumulation of developments could set fire to the fuse. The EU should start talking about what to do when the situation is going belly up.

It is difficult to assess whether the situation in the Middle East is getting worse or whether it is stable and all current developments are just a smoke screen. Here are some news that combined could lead to a new situation in the region:<br /><span class="fullpost"><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">EGYPT:</span><br />Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak went to Germany to get a surgery. He is 81 years, so the question of succession becomes interesting. So far, no successor has been designated. A future president has to meet certain criteria, such as loyalty towards the US, collaboration with Israel, willingness to suppress brutally the population. The most prominent contender for the post is Muhammad Al Baradei, the former head of the IAEA.<br /><br />Judging upon his performance in his previous job, Al Baradei is unlikely to continue the Mubarak's policy of suppression and compliance. And this would render him an opponent of the US and Israel, who were already not happy with him at the IAEA. It is likely that they will do everything to take him out of the campaign.<br /><br />However, it seems that the West will loose with Mubarak also its grip on Egypt. The Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmend Aboul Gheit was quoted of calling Israel an <a href="http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1165702.html">'enemy state'</a>. Although he said that he was misunderstood, this small incident could be a first sign of Egypt moving away from Western domination.<br /><br />Another problem of Egypt is the Western value of democracy or rather the necessity of dictatorship. So far, the problem doesn't exist because there is no democracy whatsoever. If the West would ask for democratic elections the outcome would very probably be a <a href="http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/eric_margolis/2010/04/23/13697251.html">landslide victory of the Muslim Brotherhood</a>. That would be a problem for Israel, because they could not count on the complicity of Egypt in their fight against the Palestinians. But it would surely also pose problems to the West as a whole, bearing in mind the crucial position that Egypt holds as the most important country of the Muslim world, the Suez Canal, adjacency to the Gaza strip etc.<br /><br />One positive effect of sticking to Western values and demanding free elections would be that an Egyptian government lead by the Muslim Brotherhood would ease tensions with Al Qaeda and affiliates. Ayman Al Zawahiri, the second in command and chief ideologue, is Egyptian himself. He was very active in the resistance against the Egyptian dictatorship before endorsing the violent international struggle against the "far enemy" that was soon to become the ideology of Al Qaeda.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">HEZBOLLAH:</span><br />Israel alleged that Syria supplied Hezbollah with Scud missiles. No other government support Israel in this claim, but it was stated by US and other officials that Hezbollah has an <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8647909.stm">improved arsenal of missiles</a>. Israel and the US said that Scuds for Hezbollah could "turn or disrupt the very delicate balance in Lebanon", as Ehud Barack expressed it. Of course, with "delicate balance" Barack means the overwhelming military superiority of Israel. The US even threatened Syria with its "full range of tools" available to halt any smuggling of Scuds.<br /><br />May there be Scuds or not, fact is that Hezbollah acquired an organisational structure and military capabilities that bother Israel. So far, Israel regularly violates Lebanese airspace in defiance of UN resolution 1701, but also Hezbollah violates this resolution by acquiring sophisticated weapons. Both sides seem to prepare for the inevitable showdown.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">THE AXIS BEIRUT-DAMASCUS-TEHRAN:</span><br />In case of a showdown between Hebollah and Israel, the Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri stated that <a href="http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=116746&sectionid=351020203">an attack on Hezbollah would be regarded as an attack on Lebanon</a>. End of February 2010, Hezbollah General Secretary Nasrallah met Syrian President Assad and Iranian President Ahmadinejad in Damascus.<br /><br />It looks like the coordinated resistance against Israel and its Western supporters is forming. Statements, such as "the next military conflict should solve the Israel question once and for all" or "the next war will be a regional war", indicate that Israel's enemies are confident that they can prevail in a war. The predominant feeling towards Israel used to be the feeling of inferiority - if that changed to a feeling of equality, it could change the tides in the Middle East.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">ISRAEL AND THE WEST:</span><br />A lot has been written on the rift between Israel and the US. Recently, also France made headlines when <a href="http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1165923.html">President Sarkozy criticised Netanyahu for foot-dragging on the peace process</a>. Although it is unlikely that the Western criticism of Israel will change its attitude towards Israel, it could empower the militant forces in the Middle East.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">OUTLOOK:</span><br />I think that the situation for many participants is good as long as the conflict is boiling on a small flame. But the accumulation of developments could set fire to the fuse. The EU should start talking about what to do when the situation is going belly up.<br /></span>

Israel, Bin Laden and Alaskan rabbits

Michael Scheuer, a retired CIA agent, didn't pull any punches during his speech to a town-hall meeting this week, raising a considerable number of questions.

The main thrust of Scheuer's speech was that the United States should return to the Founding Fathers' foreign policy (ie. self-defence) which, in practice, entails withdrawing from the Middle East "to the greatest extent compatible with our national interest."

The two questions here are i/ what is the greatest extent possible and ii/ how can this withdrawal be achieved in practical terms?

On Israel, Scheuer doesn't miss the mark either. "The idea that 300 million Americans are bound to bleed because God gave a group of people a deed to a plot of land 3,000 years ago is quite mad."

Given recent and ongoing debates, one wonders if either a growing number of people share his view or, alternatively, people always thought this way but now feel able to speak out. The question in both cases is why is this and what will it mean?

On Bin Laden, Scheuer says there is next to no chance of ever catching him - a particularly striking comment given that Scheuer was previously head of the CIA unit charged with hunting him down. The question here is would it really make much difference if Bin Laden was ever caught?

On Afghanistan, defeat is not an option but the means (ie. troop numbers) to win are not there. On Iran, a first-strike would only provoke terrorist attacks on US soil.

Finally, the US must achieve energy independence or face going to war for oil (I thought they already did) and must prioritise this over other considerations. In simple terms - "Demands for protection for Arctic rabbits, Gulf shrimp or the sunny beaches of California at the cost of dead Marines or soldiers should be ignored."

Michael Scheuer, a retired CIA agent, didn't pull any punches during his speech to a <a href="http://www.buffalonews.com/2010/04/19/1024450/former-bin-laden-tracker-calls.html">town-hall meeting</a> this week, raising a considerable number of questions.<br /><br />The main thrust of Scheuer's speech was that the United States should return to the Founding Fathers' foreign policy (ie. self-defence) which, in practice, entails withdrawing from the Middle East "to the greatest extent compatible with our national interest."<br /><span class="fullpost"><br />The two questions here are i/ what is the greatest extent possible and ii/ how can this withdrawal be achieved in practical terms?<br /><br />On Israel, Scheuer doesn't miss the mark either. "The idea that 300 million Americans are bound to bleed because God gave a group of people a deed to a plot of land 3,000 years ago is quite mad."<br /><br />Given recent and ongoing debates, one wonders if either a growing number of people share his view or, alternatively, people always thought this way but now feel able to speak out. The question in both cases is why is this and what will it mean?<br /><br />On Bin Laden, Scheuer says there is next to no chance of ever catching him - a particularly striking comment given that Scheuer was previously head of the CIA unit charged with hunting him down. The question here is would it really make much difference if Bin Laden was ever caught?<br /><br />On Afghanistan, defeat is not an option but the means (ie. troop numbers) to win are not there. On Iran, a first-strike would only provoke terrorist attacks on US soil.<br /><br />Finally, the US must achieve energy independence or face going to war for oil (I thought they already did) and must prioritise this over other considerations. In simple terms - "Demands for protection for Arctic rabbits, Gulf shrimp or the sunny beaches of California at the cost of dead Marines or soldiers should be ignored."<br /><br /></span><span class="fullpost"></span>

Brzezinski on Israel/Iran

In this interview with the Real News Network, Zbigniew Brzezinski underlines that an Israeli attack on Iran would be neither in the interest of Israel nor of the US. An attack would drive out the US of the Middle East and leave Israel without its most powerful ally.

Far from being a "peacenik", Brezezinski admited in this interview with the French Le Nouvel Observateur that the US engaged the communist government in Afghanistan even before the Russians invaded in 1979. Although he denied this revelation in later interviews, he wholeheartedly supported the support of the Taliban against the Russians ("Qu'est-ce qui est le plus important au regard de l'histoire du monde ? Les talibans ou la chute de l'empire soviétique? Quelques excités islamistes ou la libération de l'Europe centrale et la fin de
la guerre froide?"). See a transcript of the interview in English here.

NB: Regarding missile defence, Brzezinski said in another interview that the "missile shield proposal was based on a nonexistent defense technology, designed against a nonexistent threat, and designed to protect West Europeans, who weren’t asking for the protection." Nothing to add.

In this <a href="http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=4715">interview</a> with the <span style="font-style: italic;">Real News Network</span>, Zbigniew Brzezinski underlines that an Israeli attack on Iran would be neither in the interest of Israel nor of the US. An attack would drive out the US of the Middle East and leave Israel without its most powerful ally.<br /><br />Far from being a "peacenik", Brezezinski admited in this <a href="http://hebdo.nouvelobs.com/hebdo/parution/p1732/articles/a19460-oui_la_cia_est_entree_en_afghanistan_avant_les_russes.html">interview</a> with the French <span style="font-style: italic;">Le Nouvel Observateur</span> that the US engaged the communist government in Afghanistan even before the Russians invaded in 1979. Although he denied this revelation in later interviews, he wholeheartedly supported the support of the Taliban against the Russians ("Qu'est-ce qui est le plus important au regard de l'histoire du monde ? Les talibans ou la chute de l'empire soviétique? Quelques excités islamistes ou la libération de l'Europe centrale et la fin de<br />la guerre froide?"). See a transcript of the interview in English <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html">here</a>.<br /><br />NB: Regarding missile defence, Brzezinski said in another <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-18/how-obama-flubbed-his-missile-message/">interview</a> that the "missile shield proposal was based on a nonexistent defense technology, designed against a nonexistent threat, and designed to protect West Europeans, who weren’t asking for the protection." Nothing to add.

"This is starting to get dangerous for us"

In case you missed Marc Perry's report on Gen. David Petraeus briefing of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in December, here is the link.

Petraeus outlined that "America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding" and that "Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region". Mullen's and Biden's trip to Israel have to be seen as efforts to urge Israel to put their issues in the wider perspective of the region, argues Perry. After the announcement of the construction of more houses in the Occupied Territories, Biden then came to tell Netanjahu that "this is starting to get dangerous for us. What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan." Perry quotes here an article in the Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronot.

Perry sums up: "America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers. Maybe Israel gets the message now."

UPDATE: John Mearsheimer published an article on the issue.

NB:
Pertaeus further requested that the the Occupied Territories would be made part of his area of responsibility (CENTCOM), which was denied by the White House and subsequently also by Petraeus himself. Currently, Israel and the Occupied Territories are part of European Command (EUCOM). This change would have big implications, because the US training mission of the Palestinian Authority (PA) under Gen. Keith D. Dayton would then fall under Pertaeus command. Noam Chomsky compared this training mission with the population control efforts that the US so successfully implemented during the US occupation of the Philippines. A proof of the success of the mission could be the lack of any kind of demonstration in the West Bank during the Israeli operation "Cast Lead".

In case you missed Marc Perry's report on Gen. David Petraeus briefing of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in December, here is the <a href="http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/14/the_petraeus_briefing_biden_s_embarrassment_is_not_the_whole_story">link</a>.<br /><br />Petraeus outlined that "America was not only viewed as weak, but its military posture in the region was eroding" and that "Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region". Mullen's and Biden's trip to Israel have to be seen as efforts to urge Israel to put their issues in the wider perspective of the region, argues Perry. After the announcement of the construction of more houses in the Occupied Territories, Biden then came to tell Netanjahu that "this is starting to get dangerous for us. What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan." Perry quotes here an article in the Israeli newspaper <span style="font-style: italic;">Yedioth Ahronot</span>.<br /><br />Perry sums up: "America's relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America's soldiers. Maybe Israel gets the message now."<br /><br />UPDATE: John Mearsheimer published an <a href="http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2010/03/17/john-mearsheimer/taking-sides/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=3206">article</a> on the issue.<br /><br />NB:<br />Pertaeus further requested that the the Occupied Territories would be made part of his area of responsibility (CENTCOM), which was denied by the White House and subsequently also by Petraeus <a href="http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/03/16/petraeus-denies-centcom-levant-grab/">himself</a>. Currently, Israel and the Occupied Territories are part of European Command (EUCOM). This change would have big implications, because the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/world/middleeast/27palestinians.html">US training mission</a> of the Palestinian Authority (PA) under Gen. Keith D. Dayton would then fall under Pertaeus command. Noam Chomsky <a href="http://www.chomsky.info/articles/20090607.htm">compared</a> this training mission with the population control efforts that the US so successfully implemented during the US occupation of the Philippines. A proof of the success of the mission could be the lack of any kind of demonstration in the West Bank during the Israeli operation "Cast Lead".