The other day she infuriated the Pakistani government by mentioning that Osama bin Ladin and others have been hiding in Pakistan. She allowed any who wanted to draw the inference that this state of affairs developed and continues with the knowledge and tacit approval of the Pakistani government or its Inter-Services Intelligence agency. True or not (and it probably is) the accusation coming as it did hot on the heels of the shaky early stages of a semi-detente between Pakistan and India was as helpful as trying to eat soup with a knife.
Now Ms Clinton has done it again. This time the infuriated party is Israel.
On Wednesday Secretary Clinton offered a "defense umbrella" to countries in the Mideast and Persian Gulf regions threatened by the Iranian nuclear weapons development program. While much of the wording was unexceptional in that it focused on such mundane matters as arms sales and more forward deployment of US forces, part of the Secretary's position was a restatement of a previous American demarche.
The US would consider a nuclear attack on an American ally to be the equivalent of an attack upon itself. This is the same posture that the US held with respect to Western Europe during the Cold War.
The earlier commitment of the US to retaliate with nuclear weapons to any Soviet first use in Europe was not inherently credible to some, if not all, European political leaders. Secretary Clinton's reissuance is not credible to the government of Israel.
Israel was quick to respond. Dan Meridor, the minister in charge of Israeli intelligence, denounced the Clinton statement as accepting Iran's status as a nuclear power as an accomplished feat.
When taken in conjunction with the recent "warning" issued by an unnamed senior defense official to the effect that Israel must not seek to abate the Iranian threat with unilateral military operations, the Clinton pronouncement can be taken to mean the US is willing to accommodate itself to the new reality of Iran having the bomb. Mr Meridor and others who see the matter as he does are not being paranoid.
The timing of Ms Clinton's "umbrella" offer gives additional plausibility to the interpretation that the US is willing to accept the new reality. The Iranian vice-president Parviz Davoudi opined at a conference sponsored by the Martyrs' Foundation that any attempt to attack Iran's 12,000 spinning centrifuges would result in widespread destabilization. He is right.
Israel and the US both know that. It is one of the risks that must be assessed before making the "go" decision on the air strike option. But, the lack of time lapse between the widely disseminated Iranian speech and Ms Clinton's opening of the "umbrella" make it appear the US was responding to the Iranian threat.
Undoubtedly the implications of the Clinton statement will be among the subjects discussed in the forthcoming high level talks between US and Israeli intelligence and national security personnel. They will present the latest documentation supporting their view of the threat and its nearness in time. We will play as much soothing mood music as possible--including singing the praises of the deterrent effect of the American nuclear "umbrella."
The invisible figure at the US-Israeli talks will be Charles de Gaulle. De Gaulle may be long dead but his trenchant and accurate reading of the weakness of the American deterrent and his country's subsequent policy will be very much alive, well, and relevant not only at this conflab but in the days, weeks, and months to come.
Quite simply, de Gaulle did not believe that should push come to shove the Americans would place New York at risk for Paris or Los Angeles for Dijon. France would need its own independent, sovereign nuclear retaliatory capacity. And, so, at great expense and energy France did and does. It is an independent, fully sovereign actor in pursuit of its own national and strategic interests.
While Iran does not present the level of prompt threat to the continental US that the Soviet Union did since the mullahs will have to depend upon the Postal Service or FedEx to deliver their "Mahdi bomb" to our shores for some years to come, the de Gaulle analysis still has much to recommend it to the decision makers of Israel. Given the current economic realities (including the not very subtle Chinese threat that the US must pursue stable policies to protect the value of the 800 billion dollars in American paper held by Beijing) it is legitimate for the government of Israel to doubt the US political will to use the military option, particularly nuclear retaliation.
It is pushing the envelope of credibility to expect the current administration to place both the economic well-being of the US and its own agenda at risk to protect the interests or even existence of Israel. It is far more prudent for the government of Israel to look to itself and its own mechanisms for protection of its own core interests.
The unwillingness of any Israeli government to lean on the US for existential protection has been and is being enhanced by the obdurate stance of the current administration on such matters as building twenty apartments on the site of an old hotel in East Jerusalem. This policy position when considered in the context of the quite apparent pro-Arab tilt taken by the Obama administration makes any US guarantee against Iranian ambitions a weak reed on which to lean.
It doesn't matter if the Iranian ambitions are pursued by waving a nuclear scimitar or by the more traditional means of sponsoring subversion or terrorism, the end result is the same. Israel and other countries in the region perceive themselves quite correctly to be at great and growing risk. At the same time the statements and policies (such as they are) of the Obama administration when put together with current economic conditions and the strong agenda orientation of the "Progressive Caucus" make any and all US verbal guarantees automatically suspect.
In short, Secretary Clinton in succumbing to her latest round of the Joe Biden Syndrome has not reassured Israel. Neither, in all probability, has she calmed the fears in the Gulf Sheikdoms. She and they as well as the rest of us would be far better off if she used her mouth for eating and not talking.
No comments:
Post a Comment