Iran is the most dangerous player in the middle east. Too bad that Bush and Cheney unleashed them by helping them turn Iraq from a rival into an ally. Now Trump is evacuating US troops from Syria, because, well we don't know why. Perhaps Putin told him to. Next time a Republican claims that they are more concerned about national security than everyone else, ask them why they seem intent helping Iran and Russia's interests in the middle east. Instead of America's.
3
This article says more about Stephens than it does about Eisenkot.
11
I don't understand why the NYT employs a columnist whose sole purpose and mission seems to be to advance Israeli interests and to make Israel look good and the rest of the middle east look bad and evil.
Israel receives by far the largest American foreign aid and military assistance; US is hard at work trying to carve out a Kurdish state in the region so Israel could use it as a buffer between itself and Iran and so that Israel could use the Kurds against Iran and its proxies in the region; US has nothing to say other than "unhelpful" for peace as Israel continues to grab Palestinian land and build settlements for Jews and yet if a Palestinian gets fed up with their inhumane treatment and theft of their land and throws a rock they become "terrorists"...
All of this thanks to the very strong pro-Israel lobby and the support of Evangelicals in the US. My question is, how is this not religious extremism? When the foreign policy of this country is based on religious beliefs and religious conviction that Israel has a right to certain lands and we will interfere and invade counties and support shady actors in the region to make Israel happy as they are the "chosen" ones.
I am not calling for anyone's destruction (Israel or Iran or any other country) and not calling anyone good or evil, either. Israel is a rich country and apparently "humbles" Iranian bad guys. Good. So we can leave the region and stop doing Israel's dirty work and spend those billions of dollars in the US.
24
But whoever thought the Iranians were invincible!?
1
So Israel goes around killing people, damaging infrastructure and creating havoc. And this is a good thing?
We should not be lionizing terrorists!
13
Nobody ever thought the Iranians were invincible but the Israelis frequently think they are, especially when they are bombing someone who can't strike back. Israel acts that way with the Palestinians also. They kill women and children and bomb hospitals because they can.
How many innocent people have died in Eisenkot's bombings? He doesn't say and he doesn't care.
14
Iran’s Islamist mullahs and military are not only threatening to “wipe Israel off the map”... they, along with their terrorist sidekick Hezbollah, are very busy advancing their agenda, step by sinister step. Considering their vocal intentions, Iran’s movements and transgressions in Syria should be considered an unequivocal act of war....and Israel should respond accordingly.
11
If Stephens had the courage of his convictions he’d emigrate to Israel. Like the Fox-nerds and Trump, he really just craves the attention he gets from stirring the pot.
9
Bret, thanks for the report from your home country. Always good to get the Israeli perspective only.
9
"....... and we have the justification to act.”
Exactly what is that justification? Please refer us to the clauses in the UN Charter and/or International Law that provide that justification.
Perhaps that justification comes from George Bush's pre-emptive strike on Iraq; his war of choice? Not good enough for me.
9
An excellent article on a great military strategist. The Arabs continue to be a problem and will be so until the Sunni powers that be TELL the Palestinians (and Jordanians) that the jig is up, peace deal must be made, and the Palestinians will not get their demands met. Jordan will have to make some deal to take some control of what parts of the West Bank Israel evacuates. The hapless Palestinians have proved time and again that they don't really want peace: what they want is Israel to disappear.
28
This is quite an unperceptive one dimensional article in that it fails to note that Iran became more deeply involved in Iraq and Syria due to ISIL; the psycopaths of Islamic State that had just acquired massive amounts of territory and defeated the Iraqi Army. Not really helpful and very Israeli centric... Iran has done the world a service by defeating Islamic State and it would seem that Israel was "batting"for continued chaos at this point ? There are real deeper questions here; was Israel helping IS..............poor analysis.
37
Why should anyone think Trump won’t compulsively withdraw all US forces from Iraq next?
3
What a wonderful god that allows the brilliance on all sides to be wasted in endeavors of destruction of his or her people.
Populations in the region exploding far past it's ability to feed, or even provide semi clean water for all.
The region has long been an ossuary. Soon the pile will be higher. Refugee camps+ over stressed citys ensure an engineered cholera-Ebola-nightmare strain victory. It will allow the roaches and jackals a gluttonous feast.
Or a thermo nuclear surprise.
9
Unreal how Iran with a very poor economy wastes billions trying to fight Israel via Syria.
22
Yes, sure Bret! If I am facing a man who threatens to kill me any moment I am going to keep provoking him so he leaves alone. Makes perfect sense.
13
War without end=war fatigue. Israel cannot win the larger war, and Iran doesn't have to. They just need to keep Israelis awake nights.
13
Iran hasn't been attacked or threatened by anyone since the 80s, yet is currently fighting in no less than 3 wars (Syria, Iraq, and Yemen). But of course when Israel is involved, NYT readers conclude "hey maybe Iran has a good point".
26
Israel has strength, brilliance and hubris--what could go wrong.
18
The United States ought to learn from the Israelis and treat Iran as a defacto enemy.
15
Most of this article is completely history and context-free nonsense. What it actually demonstrates is that Israel - with the unlimited support of the US, of course - has such vastly superior military power over its regional rivals that it can launch assaults using thousands of bombs against enemies who can, at best, muster 30 missiles and a few "factories" along the border. No mention, of course, of how Israel's brutal invasion and occupation of Lebanon in 1982 gave birth to Hezbollah; no mention of how Hezbollah is largely regarded in the region as a defender against Israeli colonialism and aggression. And, of course, no mention of how the Israeli intelligence community long ago concluded that Iran posed no existential threat to Israel because, as rational actors, Iran would not use nuclear weapons against Israel, even if it had them - a point that any idiot could have figured out. Israel helped scuttle Obama's deal with Iran because it knew that if tensions with Iran were alleviated through diplomacy, the next step would be more diplomatic pressure on Israel to stop building on occupied Palestinian land. Having a "crisis" and being able to pose as a "victim" - however risible - enables Israel to avoid having to make concessions in its endless occupation and theft of Palestine. In this situation, it's worth remembering that Israel is the powerful party and all of its enemies are almost pathetically weak by comparison - a point that this article illustrates nicely.
39
“the campaign between wars” How Orwellian. Why not just admit that both Israel and the U.S. are stuck in forever wars in the Middle East.
15
Glorifying illegal attacks on sovereign nations is very dangerous to world peace. When Israel and the US attack other sovereign nations at will, it sets a very bad example for other nations on this planet.
22
Bret remains enamored of all things Israel. Many of us are not. We disapprove of Israel's continued theft of Palestinian land and the second-class status it accords its own Arab citizens. Israel is a Jewish theocracy, just as Iran is a Shia theocracy, and I personlly think Iran -- with a young, well-educated, pro-West anti-mullah majority -- would be a better ally for the United States than a Zionist Israel increasingly dominated by right-wing religious zealots.
35
First conclusion. If one conflates and adds together (1) the details of the conflicts in the northern Middle East in this column, (2) the details of John Bolton's diplomacy in Carol Giacomo's column, and (3) the disconnected and basically false assertions of Mike Pompeo in combination with Donald Trump's pronouncements and policy decisions, the conclusion seems to be that Donald Trump is taking direction from Vladimir Putin on Middle East policy.
Second conclusion. The first prerequisite to establishing peace in the Middle East is not an Israeli-Palestinian peace but rather getting Iran and its paramilitaries out of the Arab countries. Iran's only security interest is protection from attack by a hostile Iraq, which could be diplomatically arranged.
1
Let us delve into the fantasy world where all nations would try to do what is best for the future of the planet.
1. The USA - Adopt non-interventionism. No money, selling arms or having its forces in the middle east.
2. Iran - Encourage Jewish migration back to its territory with full rights and citizenship.
3. Israel - Explain what is needed to be done to incorporate the West Bank and Gaza into Israel with fully citizenship rights in the resulting secular state.
5
@Eudoxus
Regarding #3 only: Jews aren’t just a religion: they are a culture, an ethnicity, and a first people —same as Tibetans. Should the Tibetan leadership in Daramsala ever have the opportunity to have Democratic rule over an “autonomous region” would you also require their rule to be “secular”—i.e. divorced from Tibetan culture (which is intimately infused with religious, spiritual, and meditative practices)?
12
"Thanks to Gadi Eisenkot, at least we know the Iranians aren’t invincible."
Bret, I must have missed have missed the memo but who ever said the Iranians were invincible? I googled and goggled and came up with nothing.
18
The Pentagon ought to hire a few Israeli commanders as advisers ... and adopt their recommendations.
It's been apparent for years that Iran needs to be treated as an enemy of the USA.
12
Superior and sophisticated military might simply does not win. We've witnessed this in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq. The history is there for Israel to see, but the current Israeli government chooses to be blind to the facts. It survives on conflict and is threatened by peace.
30
@Greg
Accurate observation but an ironic comment from a country that couldn't defend itself in two world wars and became collaborators in the second. The difference lies in survival of a nation versus the political adventurism of your examples.
2
The glorious military triumphs entertained by civilian pundits in their imaginations would be amusing if the war-mongering services they provide on demand -- seen in ample evidence here -- weren't so disastrous to other people, and the Americans who end up paying the price for them.
What a luxury, to opine without personal consequences. Did Bret take a salary cut, much less lose his job, for his disastrous promotion of the invasion of Iraq?
No, he just ended up on the most read op-ed page in the world.
34
Again congratulations to Bret Stephens for honest and unbiased
reportage of the ongoing Iranian attempts through any means
to undermine Israel. This is something many Americans fail
to understand, and Stephens's commentary underscores why
so many Israelis strongly opposed the Iran Treaty as it has only
enabled Teheran to increase, whether thru proxies or directly,
its unfounded and vicious attempts not only to harm Israel but also to increase Syrian and mainly Russian influence in the region. Needless to say this has never been in our interest
either, which was a cardinal mistake of the Obama Administration,
just as our needless second incursion into Iraq after Saddam had been effectively defanged only enhanced the power of those who
oppose us. Whether Trump will continue to waffle here and let himself be shifted about both by Putin and Erdogan remains
what appears to becoming another major concern.
15
@Jack Eisenberg
The intent of the Obama agreement was to forestall Iranian development of nuclear capability. To that extent, it was successful. Now Trump has pulled that plug. Back to square one?
Al the issues you surface can/could have been addressed separately. There is no relationship between Iranian meddling in the Arab world and their attempts to develop nuclear capability. Neither affects the other.
17
@Jack: Unbiased? When I read this in a commentary then I know the author succumbs to wishful thinking. It’s an op-ed piece, and by definition opinionated, and yes, biased. It’s fine you agree with Bret Stephens but don’t elevate yourself and him to unbiased honesty.
20
@Jack Eisenberg Mostly all I have seen is ISRAEL doing the attacking and Iran, legally and logically, building their defenses against a known and aggressive, implacable enemy that is intent on destroying them.
Israel has nukes and the missiles to deliver them and has, as this article shows, been very willing to strike pre-emptively and ILLEGALLY, in other nations.
Israel would not be in anywhere so much perceived 'danger' if it's military and intelligence services would quit instigating the attacks on various Arab/Islamic neighbors.
The Arabs, have the RIGHT to Defend Them Selves, just as much, if not more, than Israel does as Israel is the one doing the great majority of the attacks, and as the article states, usually without fanfare, admitting to the strikes or asking for press coverage.
They know their actions are those of law-breaking cowards who so staunchly defend their own right to defense to the degree they perpetrate the horrors their own populations went through in WWII: They have forced a whole Nations of peoples into segregated, walled ghettoes where they are routinely shot at and killed, are not allowed to build and when they DO, the buildings are bulldozed, and the land taken over and 'Colonized' by 'Settlers', who are the very worst of the extremist terrorists in the area, trying to force the Palestinians off their own land by terrorizing their farms.
Is it any wonder Palestinians return these efforts against their jailers however ineffective they are?
17
The heroic general should have been an example for keeping the senseless proxy war against Syria going. Damn international law. The Israelis have already showed how easy it is to ignore international law and create a human rights mess in Gaza.
24
@c harris
Gazans, alone, are the sole authors of their “human rights mess”. You can’t launch over 20,000 rockets into a sovereign country, dig tunnels under that country’s borders, kidnap and murder their citizens, breach security fences and destroy thousands of acres of farmland and wildlife habitat ....without getting your ‘rights’ revoked.
Any other country would have leveled Gaza to the ground years ago.
7
Iranian Mullah's tactics was, slowly bleed IDF and Israel with frequent low-intensity attacks until the will to resist them (Iranians) will collapse.
Next step - together with Hizbollah, Hamas in Gaza & Shi'ites in Syria surrounding Israel - amass 3 to 4m Muslimcivilians and all-at-once cross the borders flooding Israel - conquer the country w/o a single shot fired.
As Mr. Stephens had articulated, The Mullahs plan & that of Suleiman had backfired on them. It is Israel's IDF which is bleeding the Iranian regimes and put them on the ropes
As for Israel's intelligence in the region - No one should be surprised if one day we will find out that Gen. Suleimani himself was an agent for either the CIA or the Mossad.
5
It is repeatedly disheartening and disappointing to read repeatedly in the NYT articles devoted primarily to the praise of Israel and its repugnant policies and actions in the Middle East. The United States should have its own interests and strategies in the region designed mainly to serve the interests of the American people, not just Israel. This strategy only harms the reputation and interests of the United States among the Arabs and Moslems.
28
@American
It is a sad day when the United States is allied with the main perpetrators of war crimes; Israel and Saudi Arabia. It seems we have a new, and unexpected, "axis of evil".
21
Humbled? Oh, please! Israel are simply bragging that they can breach another nation's sovereign airspace and do what they please knowing full well that neither Syria nor Iran supporting Syria can retaliate without an almost guaranteed full scale invasion by the US in retaliation. That's not even getting into the simple fact that Israel is the only nation in the region to posses a nuclear arsenal.
This is nothing more than the military equivalent of some grade school snot rag walking up to another kid on the playground and punching him in the face and taking his lunch, knowing full well that his brute high school brother is watching a few yards away. Then claiming he humbled his opponent. And if his brother can save him in time? Well, he's always got his trusty semi-automatic under his shirt. Give me friggin' break.
30
A total column based on nothing. Iran is not going to attack Israel. In fact they have shown great patience because Israel has attacked & killed many of their soldiers in Syria. Yes Iran & Russia were invited in and saved the Assad regime from collapse. Had it gone down, what would have taken over.. no one. It would be a total failed state on Israel's border. A bunch of extremist groups like ISIS causing havoc. Israel's totally paranoid policy in the region has always caused more problems than solutions. If Iran were ever to really attack Israel, Iran knows the USA would come to their aid and wipe the Persian State off the map. It's like some stupid game, how can we provoke the Iranians that Bolton & Pompeo also keep playing. Israel should always remember that if Iran were really pushed to the limit, and had nothing to lose, they have enough firepower to destroy the Jewish state in an initial attack. Pres Obama had the absolute right approach. Bring Iran into the mainstream mix and end this madness, this road to nowhere. If Iran ever collapses, now so would Iraq, Syria, Yemen and total chaos would ensue. If we, the USA ever attack Iran, it would be the whole world against us, Israel & Saudi Arabia. This column celebrates utter foolishness.
25
@Doctor Woo
I often find myself in agreement with Doctor Woo’s comments (though could I be confusing them with a NY Times commenter “Dr. Who?”—not sure), but this “analysis” I utter foolishness, and more importantly, propagandistic spin. I’m certain that if the writer were a national security advisor in a small nation in which increasingly your neighbors are unstable, funded by anti-you fanatics, and meanwhile you were additionally caught in a vice between two religious factions (Shi’a and Sunni), he or she would not consider his country’s concerns “paranoid.” (This is not a comment on Israel’s criminal, misguided, and strategically stupid treatment of Palestinians.) His “us, Israel, and Saudi Arabia” comment dispenses with the global reality of the sheer numbers of Sunni’s in Southeast Asia, Africa, Egypt, Turkey, etc. I honestly admit that I don’t know if Obama’s policies were better for the long term world’s relationship with Iran, but I am crystal clear that if one sits in Israel’s seat they were unacceptable.
1
@Doctor Woo. The one lesson the Jews have learned from history is that their safety cannot depend on others. Even you admit that if Iran is attacked “it would be the whole world against” Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia. Why must Israel, or any country, sit idly by when a country that repeatedly calls for its annihilation and repeatedly threatens its civilian centers, concentrates its forces for no their reason than to implement its policy? Israel learns from the past, do you?
3
Earth to Bret, Iran just won in Syria.
19
2,000 bombs.... guess who gave them to Israel?...
19
I'm really getting sick of the NYT Opinion page propping up Zionist propaganda like this "interview" - Could we please have more diversity beyond Liberal Zionists and Conservative Zionists? Here's a crazy idea: A column written by a Palestinian living under military occupation. Here's another: A column by a working American that makes < $35,000 annually. How about it?
45
Bret I'm 75 and have observed these Mideast shenanigans between Iran, Egypt, Israel, Iraq, Syria, etc. and with the U.S. somewhere inbetween all of it. That's 55 years. Now if I make it to 95 and you happen to be writing for the Times, you likely could write a similar story about Israel and some other Mideast country. That would be 75 years for me.
Point is, nothing changes except the characters.
5
Israel reminds me of how Sparta treated the Helots. It's neighbors have the Palestinians to show what's in store for them when more Lebensraum is required.
10
All paid for by the United States.
16
@James Ribe
Just curious: would you have a problem with that if Egypt were fighting a Shi’ite backed incursion? (Currently preposterous, I understand.... but the question stands, especially because there have been years in which military “aid” to Egypt has exceeded that to Israel.)
2
Aerial attacks don't work. Obviously, they haven't here, as the US is withdrawing defeated again and Iran's influence in Syria-Lebanon continues.
6
Eisenkot is a hero, an inspiration, for people who value freedom and want to live and breathe free - everywhere. God bless him.
16
"Eisenkot’s central intellectual contribution in fighting that campaign is the concept of “the campaign between wars” — the idea that continuous, kinetic efforts to degrade the enemy’s capabilities both lengthens the time between wars and improves the chances of winning them when they come."
So -- bombing them when you're not at war with them means you don't have to go to war with them as often?
But what's the bombing, if not an act of war?
Wait, what?
31
@Sam If you bomb them, that's "between wars." If they bomb you, that's war.
1
@Sam
I'm presuming you do understand the difference between these bombing missions and all-out war, but couldn't resist playing a semantic game to criticize Israel. Well done.
1
In the world of our endless geopolitical illusions, a sober voice is quite stunning. This clandestine war between wars is a direct consequence of our naive view of Iran and its goal of regional hegemony. The Obama policies returned billions to Iran and , clearly, they fueled this Syrian strategy. Fortunately, Israel is not the romantic fool.
This piece should tell us that there is much in the world we do not know but need to know. It is a dangerous place and not the simplistic cartoon we make it out to be. We have much to learn from the clear eyes of the Israeli's.
17
@Joel Levine
The "billions" returned was Iranian money, frozen for decades.
14
All fine and good, but what I'm worried about is the possibility of the U.S. taking on Iran.
Stephens knows better than most, but isn't mentioning it here, that Israelis have talked for some time about "mowing" Iranian nuclear facilities with air strikes. This wonderful idea involves bombing them; then, when they start to rebuild, bombing them again. You know, like repeatedly mowing the grass.
If only there was a more powerful friend who could do it for us. Oh, wait! Hello, Uncle Sam!
This is an idea that Bolton loves. Israel would certainly like to see it. Saudi Arabia would be happy to hold our coat while we bomb Iran.
Risk of escalation, of Iranian asymmetric retaliation on a number of fronts? Nah.
Iran is a bad actor in the Middle East. So are a number of others. Israel so far is taking care of itself. We have no business poking the hornet's nest. Bombing Iran could easily become disastrous, for us.
But I forgot. We don't have a president who needs to wag the dog.
Oh, wait ...
4
@Phillip Wynn. Of course, if Iran were simply to accept the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in part of their historical homeland, there would be no need for Israel to even think of taking on Iran.
How is it that Jewish self-defense is a greater concern than Iranian attempts at hegemony in the region?
18
@Charlie in NY
There is a big difference between "hegemony" and standing up for human rights and international law.
4
@Greg. Tell it to the half million dead Syrians and Yemenis. Iran stands for neither human rights or international law. As with every country, it is acting in its perceived national interest and, for the time being, the religious fanatics who have a stranglehold on the Iranian government have decided that hegemonic control of the region (and its oil supplies) is their goal. Israel is an impediment to that goal - but Iran was counting on the fact that it’s the lone Jewish state to lure the Arabs into its embrace. Most have seen through this tactic and prefer Israel as a neighbor than risk being ruled again by the hated Persians. That’s the reality, and it’s quite indifferent to anyone’s ideological posturing.
5
How can it be that so many who have responded to this column by denouncing both Stephens and Israeli policy fail to consider that Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, along with Assad and Russia, have committed mass murder in Syria?
That this is the greatest slaughter of human beings since the genocide in Rwanda seems to register not at all with those NYT readers whose first reaction, always, is to condemn Israel for protecting itself. Let me remind you that in addition to the half million Syrians killed, well over two million were forced to flee their homes, creating a major refugee crisis in Europe, and leaving many shivering and dying in refugee camps throughout the Middle East.
If Iran has no compunction about slaughtering people who are nominally its coreligionists, what would it do if it had the opportunity to kill Jews?
28
@David
Unfortunately it is a civil war and sadly mostly syrians killing other syrians. As to who armed which side and to what extent is still being found out. In any case, the russians and iranis did not bail on the side they chose in this civil war. As for israel, maybe they were happy about the civil war in the beginning but now see instability, even in an enemy, can have unintended consequences.
8
@David
BAM! You nailed it. This is the question I ask over and over, and my anti-Israel friends eyes literally glaze over and the topic is changed.
10
@David
The US committed mass murder in Syria. Obama should be tried for the war crimes committed.
2
It's quite clear, as Stephens writes, that the Israelis can take care of themselves. It's also clear that it's time for the US to clear out of that cauldron of crises. We have learned, if nothing else, that religio-ethnic conflicts that have gone on for millenia are not going to be stopped by our involvement. We've been the imperial overlord in that region since succeeding the British in the 1950s and have failed miserably; time for us to let the Israelis establish an empire from the Mediterranean to the Khyber Pass...or to let happen what will.
35
@JPE
The problem is that usa involvement has escalated the problems with massive infusions of weapons. And of course other nations too. What needs to be done is to stop supplying armaments to an already unstable region.
5
Netanyahu promotes settlements in disputed territory, moves Israel toward an illiberal democracy, and openly takes sides in American politics. I am beginning to question whether we should reexamine our attitude toward Israel. Perhaps Iran is right to stand up for Palestinians.
Bret stephens talks about how good it is that Eisenkot’s strategies seem to work in constraining Iran. Perhaps we should take a step back and question whether we care.
39
@Don. Obama didn't only take sides in Israeli politics, he got back involved by funding opposition groups, not to mention the billions of dollars in cash he delivered to Iran used to fund their proxy war. And in case you really believe that Iran is “standing up for Palestinians, look at their civilian casualty figures in Syria under the Assad government backed by Iran. In a democracy, an elected leader has the right to embrace any policies. If the electorate disagrees, they will vote him out come April. And seeing there are only fragments of the leftist opposition, it seems likely he'll be the centrist among the parties.
11
@David
I don’t buy your argument that Obama gave billions to Iran to fund their proxy war. That’s like Trump saying Mexico is paying for the wall because of he supposedly restructured Nafta. Also, the money went back to Iran when sanctions were lifted.
If Netanyahu is middle-of-the-road then we should definitely reconsider our relationship with Israel.
11
@David
“In a democracy, an elected leader has the right to embrace any policies” unless he is violating international law! Then it is no longer domestic politics...
2
This is a troubling expression of triumphal pride in what amounts to pretty trivial military successes. Yes, one of the world's most powerful military forces is able to disrupt some hostile activities amid the chaos of the ongoing Syrian disaster. It would be pretty shocking if they weren't. But does any of this represent a move towards stabilizing Syria? That doesn't seem to be the object of the game. Does it represent a move toward some tolerable long term co-existence with Iran? Not really. It represents an prideful affirmation of reliance on high tech military solutions, and the fortress mentality. I'm afraid there are people who don't see any problem with that.
34
@John Bergstrom
Reconciliation is a two way street. Before Trump started attacking the Iran nuke deal, we were set to usher in a new era with them--or so we thought. Meanwhile, Iran all along has been waging a proxy campaign and is entangled in a geopolitical conflict with the Sunni Arabs that has a veneer of Sunni-Shia sectarianism enshrouded over it. As per the nuke deal, it was agreed that Iran would not pursue nuclear weapons, but they never made any indication that they would abate fueling that proxy conflict and now have their tentacles across the Middle East. In Syria they have paramilitaries and Hezbollah, in Yemen the Houthis are waging an internecine war, in Iraq the Shia paramilitaries are making the same mistakes they made after the U.S. handed control over to the Iraqi's after AQI had been degraded.
Basically, Iran's adopted an aggressive policy of expansionism which they achieve through proxy means. This is also something many other Muslim countries are doing. Iran with the Shia paramilitaries, Arab financiers with the Sunni groups, and the Pakistanis with the Taliban. Can't blame a country like Israel for proactively defending its sovereignty in such a hostile environment, nor can we expect them to take a lead in reconciliation with Muslim states that have an existential hate for them. The Muslim states need to cease their proxy campaigns or else we'll end up with another Syria soon enough. That's not on us.
17
@asfghzs
A voice of fairness, reason, and proper situational analysis. Thank you.
2
Iran is not invincible, but is not defeated. Israel is not defeated but is not invincible. Nothing good is happening in the Middle East.
17
Bret Stephens has reached a point in his writings in which he just naturally assumes that Israel's positions, actions, thinking, responding, liking and disliking are all shared by the citizens of the United States. I just received a response from Senator Cardin about my objection to his Israel Anti-Boycott Act and his thinking seems similar to Bret's. Both men are Jewish. I read many of Bret Stephens' op-eds; he gets plenty of air time on MSNBC. I voted twice for Ben Cardin. However, we are first and foremost citizens of the United States and I have read enough history about the Middle East to know that it is not all black and white and Israel is always right. I shouldn't expect a rah-rah piece from an American columnist.
55
One must be incredibly naive or disingenuous (take your pick) to believe that Iran's support of its neighbours is 'aggressive' while the U.S. establishment of 12 military bases, and its invasion and bombing of 5 nations 7000 miles from its own borders, is somehow benevolent and defensive.
Israel was both 'humbled' and surprised by Iran's unqualified success in defending Syria's secular government against the incursions of Israel and Saudi Arabia through their barbaric ISIS proxy. Someone should tell them (and the U.S.) that 'Divide and Rule' isn't working. All this strategy has done is to radicalise a nation that should by definition be the U.S.'s natural ally against Radical Islam.
So I don't understand the aim of this Op-Ed, other than to try and artificially create an 'Israeli hero' whose sole aim is to establish a Greater Israel at the expense of the indigenous Palestinians.
I personally, by education and background, should by nature be pro-American, but your politicians keep forcing me and other like-minded Iranians to support the mullahs defence of our homeland in the face of U.S., Israeli and Saudi aggression. Don't Americans feel even a slight twinge of conscience in supporting the Taleban, Al Qaeda and ISIS? Didn't the temporary success of ISIS cause the mass rape of Yazidi women and other minorities who enjoyed complete protection in Syria before the U.S. attempted regime change?
The U.S. needs to readdress its priorities.
47
@Hamid Varzi
Unfortunately the U.S. cannot even address our own problems within, let alone Globally.
We now have the same "Divide and Rule" right here that we seem to support in the rest of the world.
20
@Hamid Varzi "Israel was both 'humbled' and surprised by Iran's unqualified success in defending Syria's secular government"
Secular government really in Syria ??
I am 100% certain Syria has been ruled by the murderous Assad family for the past 50 years. They have not had a secular government for a long time.
14
@GladF7
Secular: of or relating to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal:
They were dictators but secular. Yazidis Were tolerated in syria until isis arrived
11
Since 1985 Israel has been involved primarily in conflicts involving Hamas, which is a proxy for a range of Sunni states, and Hezbollah, which is Iran's proxy. Counter to what many believe, Israel is not America's proxy. Major US military support only came after the 1967 Six-day war when the Soviets became the military supplier for Arab states.
On balance, America has been largely unsuccessful in maintaining a large physical presence in the region. For instance, following the first Gulf War most of the 60,000 US military personnel were withdrawn after the 9/11 attacks and the Khobar Tower bombings. Earlier, Reagan withdrew Marines from Lebanon after 241 had been killed in a single terrorist attack (the largest USMC one-day death toll since Iwo Jima). Of what what remains in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, they too are being removed.
The only significant number of boots-on-the-ground that will shortly remain are Iranian, Syrian, Russian, Kurdish,Turkish and Israeli with US support when it suits its policy of the moment.
This is the reality that all Israeli commanders have faced since 1948 in the roughly 14 military conflicts it has faced and will continue to face in ongoing wars of survival in a region of the world where military conflict dates from biblical times.
Meanwhile, US military personnel in Japan (54,000) and S.Korea (26,000) will soon be in play as part of negotiations with China and N.Korea as the US withdraws into traditional isolationism.
7
@GerardM
"...Reagan withdrew Marines from Lebanon after 241 had been killed in a single terrorist attack"
Death of 241 American Marines was a tragedy and may they rest in peace.
However, what were they doing in Lebanon thousands of miles away from the US? If America goes half way around the world and invades countries then it must be good and benevolent, and if those American soldiers in the country they are invading and occupying get attacked, then the perpetrators are "terrorists". I see, makes perfect sense.
10
@K.S.
The 241 Marines and 58 French paratroopers were part of a Multinational peacekeeping force consisting of 400 French, 800 Italian soldiers and 800 Marines of the 32d Marine Amphibious Unit following a war that forced the Arafat's PLO out of Lebanon by Israel.
They were not involved in any fighting.
1
"Thanks to Gadi Eisenkot , at least we know the Iranians aren't invincible."
No country and no person is "invincible." And that includes the United States. Everybody knows that the United States is by far the strongest country in the world economically and militarily. But incompetent leadership and incompetent management of foreign policy and defense policy can nullify much of that strength. Management of foreign policy and defense policy starts in the White House.
As I see it, a major problem with the foreign policy of this country is that much of it is conducted to suit evangelical Christians and FOX news -- not in the best interest of the United States and all of its people.
More than anything the middle east, Israel, and the Palestinians need peace. I don't know how to achieve it but there must be people who do. Israel is a great nation but when a nation is on a war footing year in and year out for decades that has to have a profound effect.
Just from looking at the Middle East over the last 10 to 15 years, I assume that our basic policy is to make the region dysfunctional and ungovernable. We are succeeding.
27
The idea that Iran has ever been "invincible" is a straw man that Stephens invents ... why? That idea never crossed Eisenkot's mind, and should cause anyone with knowledge of recent history to double up laughing.
The plain fact of the matter is that the Iranian military after the fall of the Shah has been atrociously incompetent. The religious regime destroyed the Shah's army (considered the 5th most powerful in the world in '78) and replaced it with the Revolutionary Guard and even the Basji. Casualties in the Iraq-Iran war were horrific; the Iranians resorted to human-wave attacks that amounted to mass suicide.
It's no surprise that they've turned to proxy war; their proxies are not really so much better, but they are entirely expendable in the eyes of the mullahs in Tehran.
I understand Eisenkot's position; it parallels America's determination against terrorists intending us harm.
But they have the same problem we do, amplified -- it's whack-a-mole. The supply of angry reckless jihadis appears bottomless. The truth is that Iran and the communities they come from both benefit from their deaths. It's overcrowded; getting rid of the angriest least-useful young males is a plus. Whipping up religious fervor and demand for revenge is a double-plus. Martyrs are actually better for Iran than victories ... by these proxy armies. They'd get dangerous to the mullahs if they actually started winning.
When does the religious regime fall? They always do.
13
The effort by Israel to dislodge the Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon and parts of Syria for al-Assad makes sense as a self-defense measure and to discourage Iran in those specific areas. The fight does not have the moral depravity of the excessive Israeli bombing of Hamas in Gaza.
What troubles the world are the efforts in the region by other countries and, in some cases, by Israel.
The war conducted by Saudi Arabia, with heavy American involvement, against civilians in Yemen is barbaric. It is waged because parts of Yemen are inhabited by people who subscribe to an Islamic religion with a loose connection to Shiism, the predominant Iranian religion.
The war waged by Israel against the Palestinians is cruel and unnecessary.
The genocidal war by Turkey against the Kurds, whose bravery and skill were necessary to defeat the Islamic State, is treacherous.
All of the nations which border Israel are overwhelmingly Arab and populated by Sunni Muslims.
Turkey, which does not border Israel, is a Turkic mix, but mostly Sunni.
Iraq, which does not border Israel, is Arab and a mix between Sunni and Shiite.
Iran, which is separated from Israel by three countries, is not Arab and is Shiite. Like Israel, Iran stands alone in both ethnicity and religion.
Why the preoccupation by General Eisenkot, Benjamin Netanyahu and Bret Stephens with Iran, which has never started a war with anyone?
30
@sdw, why the preoccupation with Iran? First of all, they strive to reach nuclear weapon capabilities. Second, they have repeatedly lied and obfuscated about these efforts.
Third, they are run by religious fanatics which suppress human rights for women, lgbt, and those of other religious views including sunni muslims.
Fourth, they have "never started a war" but have had proxy wars in which they train and arm terrorists and militia. Google 12th imam to get a sense of their vision. This is the primary version of shia that they follow. Very radical with a vision to have shia Islam everywhere, after violent conflict.
Fifth, they call us "satan" and openly threaten us.
Sixth, they have massive missile capabilities both in scope of numbers and in technical capability. Is Iran a threat to us and the region? Absolutely. Note that other middle eastern countries also fear Iran and back US efforts to isolate them.
6
@Joe Yoh
Agree with all (except I don’t care about #5, especially when you remember that the US overthrew Iraniandemocracy in 1953 and gave them the Shah for the next 26 years). That said, I’ll be if you and SDW sat down together and talked this precarious situation through, my bet is that you would both arrive at a similar recommendation for a strategic role for the United States, and a shared hope for the conduct of Israel. Meanwhile, Shi’a and Sunni will never achieve such accord, Israel will remain caught in that vice no matter how they treat Palestinians, and Putin will exploit all fissures and conflicts to his own advantage, without any interest in resolution of human rights.
2
A presumption in Bret Stephens' article is that Israel is in the right and Iran is in the wrong. Global politics are never so black and white. Israel has been a heavy contributor to instability in the Middle East, not least by its illegal occupation of Palestinian land, its brutal, one-sided wars in Gaza, its denial of basic human rights to Palestinians, and its sidling up to Arab dictators in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Biased opinions such as Mr. Stephens' perpetuate the myth of Israel as a righteous warrior while Iran and Hezbollah are relegated to the cliche of movie villains.
47
@Ajax
Yes, Israel accepting (from the UN) a tiny sliver of desert land with no oil, and having to defend itself on a continual basis from certain annihilation has been grossly destabilizing.
10
I'd give some credit to Bibi. He must have been the one signing off on the more aggressive successful policy. I know that Bibi is not popular in these circles because of his closeness to Trump, but when it comes to the security and safety of Israel, Bibi is no fool.
7
@Henry K. - History evidences that the long term prospects of security and peace for any country rely on being able to live peaceably with its neighbors. If Netanyahu actually thinks that perpetual war with its neighbors is an exception to that rule, he's the biggest fool of them all.
23
@Henry K. @Henry K. Sorry Henry K. For two reasons, , Bibi is the biggest fool on the international stage: (1) he perpetuates settlements in the occupied territories which requires the IDF to do guard duty there instead of preparing for the next war with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran (ask any professional military officer -- including Eisenkot and his predecessors -- whether he'd rather guard civilians or prepare for the expected next war) and (2) he has tied himself to the unpredictable and mercurial Trump whom NO ONE can depend on.
I wonder why the Israeli military censor permitted this interview in light of Israel's long-time official position to refuse to comment on attacks in Syria.
5
@Henry K.
You seem to hold ‘Bibi’ in very high regard. But why exactly do you want to credit him? For his aggression? Most people would sooner credit someone for their genuine desire for peace and their willingness to negotiate at the table.
3
Mr Stephens has supported the invasion of Iraq that removed from power Iran mortal enemy and made Iran more power
Mr. Stephens supported the US invasion of Afghanistan that removed from power the Taliban a group that hates Shiite Iran. When the US leaves, ( It will leave at some point, Iran will gain more influence in Afghanistan)
Mr Stephens supported the war against Assad that brought Iran into Syria close to Israel Israel border.
I'm certain that Mr Stephens supported and defended the invasion of South Lebanon by Israel. Invasion out of which the Hezbollah was born.
If the US and Israel goal were to limit Iran influence in the Middle East, why should they listen to what Mr Stephens has to say?
Iran has gotten stronger and more powerful each time the US has followed the path supported by people like Mr Stephens. Path that has cost the US $ trillions of dollars and thousands of deaths with nothing to show for.
There is famous quote attributed to a very famous Jewish man. :' Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity".
31
This is all assuming that everything this soon to be fat cat in an Israeli Defence industry is saying is true. Maybe it is. But then it could also be somewhat, or less that somewhat.
That Stephens reports it as fact is interesting and highly ideological. He should be reporting as, "according to...."
13
Did we ever think Iran was invincible? I must have missed it.
13
How many articles is Bret Stephens going to write on Israel? Is there no other country in the world that the US should be focused on? Aren't we giving them billions of dollars in aid and fighting wars in the Middle East to protect Israel's interests already?
26
@andy. The answer to your last two questions is “no”. The aid as you call it is closer to welfare for US corporations in return for which the US derives the benefits of Israeli technology - see for instance the recent deal between Israel and Croatia that collapsed because the US refused to allow Israel to include Israeli enhancements to the jets. As far as the US fighting wars in the Midfle East, they have all been on behalf of Arab countries, not Israel.
4
So someone that beat the war drums for the unnecessary war against Iraq that was supposed to make Israel more secure but removed a dictator in Iraq that had held Iran in check now tells how great some Israeli general is doing in keeping Iran from the door steps of Israel.
Stephens, they would not be there if it were not for the war that allowed the Shia to control Iraq.
Does not the NY Times have a fact checker to at least look at what Stephens writes and compare it to what he wrote before the disaster the war in Iraq was?
25
Perpetual war is perpetual decay. No country thrives under the endless practice of war.
19
Iran is a mortal threat to Israel, and the continued healthy existence of Israel is a guarantee of Middle East stability, skirmishes and little wars notwithstanding. It is also a guarantee that the US can, but does not have to be, involved every day.
Then comes Obama and for some odd reason, understood mainly by him and money-grubbing cynical Europeans, gives Iran $1.5 billion that he didn't have to give, and removes sanctions that he didn't have to remove, all in the delusional pursuit of the false objective of controlling Iran's nuclear ambitions.
All Iran wanted was the money and no sanctions, and they would have said anything and in the short term have done anything to achieve those goals. At one point they said they would eat grass before they would stop their nuclear development, but it seems Obama didn't get that memo.
Obama got played, as often happened: Iran will give up its nuclear dreams when pigs fly.
Thank God for a guy like Eisenkot, and thank God for Israel.
17
@John Xavier III
Geeezus with the "thank Gods," really. Obama didn't give Iran 1.5 billion. It was Iranian money frozen for decades! Opinions like yours are why this world over there is as it is.
2
If Iran is not invincible, why this single minded focus on Iran? Why did the writes of this column support American withdrawal from the international deal with Iran that was in force?
It is the same double speak that led to the war in Iraq that was cheered on by among others, the writer of this column.
Stephens does not know what he writes one day from another, or more likely he is very disingenuous.
17
Tip of the hat to Bret Stephens for reporting some news. The media should be way more about news and way less about talking points. Maybe journalism would regain some respect.
8
@Roy Rogers: Seems to me that Stephens is not reporting news, but rather reporting Eisenkot's talking points.
1
Mr. Stephens, please gives some credit to American taxpayers who supply Israel with the best weaponry their money can buy. America has armed Israel to the teeth with the most modern, sophisticated munitions conceived by mankind. Where would Israel be without the tens of billions of dollars of American wealth transferred to Israel? Since Israel's inception, we have made each Israeli a millionaire with our largess.
With all our needs, including a crumbling infrastructure, when will enough be enough?
26
@FJG Ignorance about foreign aid is sad, first of all , it is a form of credit to buy American Weapons and a subsidy to our Military Industrial Complex that keeps our industry going, Second the US does not EVER give anything for nothing, The US will drop you and stab you in the back faster than one thinks, look around the World for DOZENS of examples.
9
@Boris F
In other words, Sir, free expensive military equipment doesn't count? And the billions in economic aid--and the billions to Egypt to give Israel peace from that source.
To paraphrase Churchill: never has so much been given to so few.
Give me a break!
2
“When you fight for many years against a weak enemy,” he says, “it also weakens you.”
What does that say about us as confrontation with China and Russia grows more likely? And we couldn't even win our wars against lightly armed insurgents.
10
The endless and intractable war in the Middle East could be partially resolved by Israel treating Palestinians like human beings, and by working sincerely to bring about the two state solution. But Israeli hawks would rather war-war than jaw-jaw.
31
@Larry Bennett. The same could be said about the Republican Congress. Antipathy to a functioning government rather than oppose the President.
6
@Larry Bennett
The road to peace still runs thru Jerusalem.
Thank you Mr. Stephens.
9
For what? Defending the suppressive Israeli regime that is in a perpetual war with Palestinians and its neighbors?
2
Israel is the America's largest military base (read ally) in the Middle East, (which is why it was formed). I do not understand the current dynamic against Iran, given that the unstable House of Saud is having trouble maintaining its head above water. As such, look for upheaval in the region, to which China will certainly take advantage, as Putin mucks it up in Syria - as his soon to be indicted lap dog Trump gives away the American Empire.
10
“The force we faced over the last two years was a determined force,” he adds a little scornfully, “but not very impressive in its capabilities.”
Of course should Iran succeed in developing nuclear capabilities, this analysis may have to be reevaluated. Was the Iran deal a bad deal because by ending sanctions and releasing blocked funds it freed up money for Iranian adventures? Sure. Is blowing up the Iran deal, as the President has done, a good thing because by reinstating the sanctions it has trimmed Iran's sails? Sure. Even if that means Iran develops a Persian Bomb? Uh, perhaps not. When the choice is between horrible and worse, I think I would avoid spiking the ball until the game is over.
4
@G James
Israel's military and intelligence establishments supported the Iran deal.
What do you know that they do not?
2
Thank you Mr. Stephens. This op-ed is a welcome change from the long and tiresome history of antagonism toward Mr. Netanyahu and Israel's military efforts to contain its enemies that is on display in the Times nearly every day. Long may it continue!
I can understand its reluctance to now begin a new feature of the paper henceforth to be known as “Apologies, Regrets and Mea Culpas Concerning Mr. Netanyahu” lest it become top-heavy with acknowledgments of the paper’s sorry treatment of him.
That said, now would be a fitting time to do so because it would come at a time when there is what amounts to across the board agreement between Congressional Democrats and Republicans that the U.S. was bady suckered on the Iran deal and that U.S. allies in the Middle East and the people of Iran are paying a very significant price for it.
18
@A. Stanton: I do not see "across the board agreement" that the US was suckered on the nuclear deal with Iran--the agreement was never intended to stop all Iranian hostile action but rather to deter the development of Iranian nuclear weapons, a goal which Netanyahu supported at the time. Subsequently, Netanyahu moved the goal posts and criticized the agreement for not stopping Iranian missile development or support for Hezbollah and Assad.
11
@Michael: Right. "Across the board agreement?" Where did that come from? No, Trump may withdraw from the deal, but not with any "across the board" support. He hasn't persuaded anyone he is right, he is just wielding his power.
7
@A. Stanton"\
"antagonism toward Mr. Netanyahu and Israel's military efforts to contain its enemies"
Mr. Netanyahu's agenda is to create and provoke enemies of Israel. While this may help him retain his personal power in the short term and enhance his personal "protector" image, it leads the State of Israel toward destruction in the long term.
4
A hypothetical: Israel has never existed - what would the middle east look like (Pace, my Israeli friends, this is just a hypothetical to discuss the history and importance of oil in the past ~100 years of middle east history). Would it look any different?
3
@Marc. No, it would not. The Arab nations have been jockeying for “First Place” amongst themselves forever. Certainly the Shi’a nations would still be fighting the Sunnis. They just wouldn’t have Israel to kick around anymore and neither would the West.
4
@Marc. Based on what occurred in 1948, the answer is clear: a victorious Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon would have divided up the territories of the Mandate for Palestine among themselves. All Jews would have been killed or deported (as we know did happen where Egypt and Jordan seized land and ethnically cleansed 100% of Jews in Gaza, the Old City of Jerisualem, Judea and Samaria - the latter two renamed, as we know, West Bank to obscure their Jewish history), and all evidence of Jewish historical presence would have been destroyed (as we know happened in the Old City with, among other things, the destruction of synagogues, the uprooting of gravestones from the Mount of Olives cemetery and the turning of the Western Wall into a public latrines). In all likelihood, it would be only a matter of time before these “victors” would start intriguing against each other and engage in wars to increase their holdings or destabilize their adversaries.
Whatever else might of happened, we can be certain of one thing: there would never have been a State of Palestine or the Arab people that is today recognized as Palestinians - that word would have continued to identify the same people it did before 1948: the (under this hypothetical) destroyed Jewish community that had been resident there for millenia.
3
No leader will to strive for peace when people are so easily expendable for a war effort. Until human lives matter more than "winning", we will have perpetual wars, in well...perpetuity.
16
"... continuous, kinetic efforts to degrade the enemy’s capabilities both lengthens the time between wars and improves the chances of winning them when they come. "
In other words, blowing up you enemy. No doubt effective, but that pretty much seems the definition of war not "the time between wars".
This concept of "perpetual war" is not new.
Sun Tzu was against it in the 6th century BC
preferring quick victories:
"There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare ... In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns"
Alexis de Tocqueville worried about it in 1840:
"No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country. "
I don't have an issue with Eisenkot’s approach, he had a job to do and he did it effectively. Passivity in the face of danger never works and Israel is in a very dangerous part of the world.
But perpetual war, even on the "winning" side carries it's own dangers. At some point, the politicians are going to have to figure out a way to end the endless fighting.
The generals can keep winning and you can still lose a democracy worth keeping.
52
@LT
Very perceptive and thoughtful response.
5
@LT I agree.
After wars start they have a way of taking on a life of their own. In former times when there were large armies on the battle fields, eventually one side would win and the other side would surrender and everyone would go home.
Now there are often no clearly defined armies and battle fields. The side that loses just melts away and hides in the hills or civilian population. Later they reappear and start fighting again. Witness the Taliban in Afghanistan and others. Generals always think that victory is just around the corner or that there is "light at the end of the tunnel."
2
@Aubrey Actually it depends on how long ago you mean by "former times" in the 100-years war (1337 - 1453) and 30-years war (1618-1648), the attitude of the armies became "The war will feed itself" and the war became self-perpetuating to some extent.
5
Why is there no mention of Netanyahu in this column? His continued leadership in Israel is as damaging to that country as Trump is to our own. They are so alike that they seem to gain strength from one another.
These are deeply-flawed men, who appeal to the worst of their societies. The best news for each country, and the entire world, would be for both of them to lose their upcoming elections.
77
@bnyc
Netanyahu must be such an inspiration to Trump. He shows how to stay in power as regular and repeated investigations of his criminal corruption come and go.
5
A curious article in the America of today! It seemed to me that Stephens had found that his conservative shell no longer withstood the tests of logic and humanity: in other words, he abandoned his defense of the GOP and his hope for Trump. So now, he lionizes a true warrior who was undeterred by bone spurs? A pure heart in the fight against evil? Why did anyone think that any country was invincible? "...Iranians aren't invincible???" Hero worship is a poor companion for rational analysis.
30
"When you fight for many years against a weak enemy it also weakens you". I have believed that for decades. Some historians believe that the first world war was so bloody because most major powers used the tactics they had long used against half naked tribesmen.
And who have we fought since Vietnam, which beat us in the early 1970's (long before Saigon fell, we skedaddled). Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and some other C and D list powers. It's as if Alabama's football team only played Division III teams for almost half a century, and before that they had been beaten by a Division II team after an almost decade long struggle.
5
@Marvant Duhon
I should have mentioned Lebanon and Somalia, both of which we lost. We did beat Grenada, but that's like Alabama playing a Division C High School team.
1
It is remarkable how much projection there is in the extremist, expansionist part of the Muslim world, blaming Israel for all ills. Israel gave back the Sinai,pulled out of Gaza, and signed a peace treaty with Jordan. It pulled out of Lebanon. Meanwhile, Iran seeks hegemony. And people want to BDS Israel. Once again, feelings prevail over facts.
53
Strategically, isn't it better if he keeps his mouth shut and not be so anxious to take credit?
10
I wondered about that, too. Perhaps this is meant to provide cover for Trump's withdrawal? Or bolster Netanyahu's election chances? Why else to start revealing strategy and tactics?
7
@Portola
No one with eyes in his/her head would believe that Eisenkort is trying to bolster Netanyahu in any way. My take on this, as an Israeli, is that Netanyahu and his pals have down on Eisenkort for some time. Eisenkort is leaving the forces after decades spent in service to the nation. He probably doesn't want a claque of self-serving second-rate politicians to be the only ones summarizing his contribution
A reminder: Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim, 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists were Sunni Muslims from Saudi Arabia, Sunni Muslim insurgents killed and maimed thousands of American soldiers in Iraq, Sunni Muslim terrorists in Syria (including the Sunni organizations al Qaeda and ISIS) have committed unspeakable acts of violence in Syria and Iraq. Iran is a Shiite Muslim majority country surrounded by Sunni majority countries, the latter believing the Iranian Shiites are heretics who must either reject the Shia religion or die. Sunni Muslims constitute over 85% of Muslims worldwide, Shia less than 15%. Who feels under siege, Sunnis or Shiites? Israel has chosen Shiites over Sunnis as Israel's enemy, aligning Israel with the Saudis in the sectarian conflict in the region. Now, both Bolton and Pompeo have gone to the region and publicly announced America's alignment with the Saudis, while openly criticizing Obama for having taken a more neutral position between the Sunnis and the Shiites. What Israel and the Trump administration are doing is threatening Iran and the Shiites in the region, an Iran and Shiites who already feel under siege. By choosing sides and aligning
with the Saudis, they are greatly increasing the risk of sectarian war, which I suspect is their goal.
65
@reaylward. The fundamental flaw in your argument is that Iran became an existential enemy of Israel’s only after the Shah was toppled by a fanatic religious group that believed It could overcome the Sunni-Shi’a schism and restore its ancient Persian hegemony over Arabs by making Israel the enemy. Recall that Iran under the Shah had maintained a fairly benign relationship with the Jewish state. In other words, it was Iran, not Israel, that made the decision Io become a belligerent. The two countries share no border and the vast majority of Palestinian Arabs are Sunni Muslim.
It follows in a rational universe that there can be no moral equivalency between the Iranian aggressor and its Israeli target. Nor will that phony framework improve chances for peace in the region. As an historical matter, the Arabs distrust (not to say hate) both the Turks and the Iranians, each of whom had ruled over them within a couple of centuries after the 7th century imperial Arab conquest of the region. Today, Iran is using Israel as an excuse to extend its influence and authority over the region. If Israel did not exist, Iran would find a different enemy
Given the centuries of socially accepted antisemitism (Jews as weak and cowardly who are getting their just desserts for killing Jesus, not converting to the “superior” religion, whether it be Christianity or Islam or subverting society with legal claims to equality for all) the idea of Jews defending themselves is still an unacceptable novelty.
12
@reaylward. I don’t believe that Israel “chose” its enemies. They were chosen for it simultaneous with its declaration of statehood in 1948. It included all the Arab nations surrounding it irrespective of Islamic orientation. The Shi’a and Sunni have been at each other for several hundred years before Israel existed. Check it out.
5
Israel did not choose Iran as an enemy. It is an enemy by its own acts and words.
3
"Iranian funds flowing toward the effort amounted to $16 billion over seven years."
That is less than one month of what the US spent on these wars over those seven years, and the US did that for ten years before too.
That is less than half of what the US gave to Israel as defense subsidy every one of those years.
Iran is an oil rich state of 100 million people. It is one of the original oil rich states, home of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company before WW1. The Shah was doing what the Saudis do now, which is why Iran still have a fleet of our F-14's, F-4 Phantoms, and F-5's produced there on tooling we arranged.
On that scale, this spending is Syria was small change in the Game of Nations.
It is only a fraction of Iran's routine transactions in progress that were frozen at the moment of the hostage crisis, which is why the agreement to unfreeze that is said to have "given" Iran so much cash they could easily afford their Syrian war.
32
@Mark Thomason
Iran has 82 million people. You are off by 22%. That's not rounding.
1
A little bit of context, and whole lot more honesty please. You can't lionize Eisenkot and fail to address that the escalation of force on the Israeli side, which increasingly precludes anything but a full-blown war with Iran, was driven by Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman, the pugnacious ultranationalist politician.
Netanyahu appointing Lieberman Defense Minister was described in the Times in 2016 as "the latest act in the war between Mr. Netanyahu and the military and intelligence leaders, a conflict that has no end in sight but could further erode the rule of law and human rights, or lead to a dangerous, superfluous military campaign. The prime minister sees the defense establishment as a competitor to his authority and an opponent of his goals. Putting Mr. Lieberman, an impulsive and reckless extremist, in charge of the military is a clear signal that the generals' and the intelligence chiefs' opposition will no longer be tolerated."
If this already sounds just like Trump, consider that after the 2011 Russian elections, in which Putin's party United Russia won, Lieberman was the first international politician to inanely describe them as "absolutely fair, free and democratic." Putin called Lieberman "brilliant" but it was then revealed that Lieberman's party chairman, Leon Litinetski, was also employed by the Russian government, and appointed by the Kremlin.
(Laughably, Lieberman resigned this past November because Netnayahu was, to his mind, "surrendering to terror").
35
@Robert B
Lieberman's appointment, his resignation, and exchange of flatteries with Russia is mere politics. Nothing more, nothing less. Background noise at best.
You claim that Israel is "escalating force" against Iran and want nothing more than a full-blown conflict with it. And I ask, Why?
What does Israel has to gain by fighting an enemy thousands of kilometers away with high capabillities and a huge potential to inflict massive unseen damage to its population. Nothing, obviously.
And that begs the questions as to why would Israel, never the less, risk going to war in its operation to prevent Iranian entrenchment in Syria?
Now I think you can answer that yourself quite easily.
The underline truth remains that the Iranian regime wishes (openly) to annihilate Israel while Israel has no claim from Iran. Everyone likes to depict this conflict as if Iran is Israel's greatest foe. That is simply not true. Should Iran decide tomorrow to cease its ambition to destroy the Jewish State, there will be peace instantly between the two
10
@NY You evade what is written. Iran's persistent and vicious aggression towards Israel was deliberately not dealt with. It's real, but this was about Lieberman being ignored. Israel had excellent reasons for preparing for a war with Iran. However, it's untrue to say "Lieberman's appointment, his resignation, and exchange of flatteries with Russia is mere politics."
There was great opposition within the military to Lieberman being appointed as he's an extremist, a bigot, and a rabid nationalist. It meant Netanyahu, a corrupt autocrat who cannot abide dissent, refused to allow saner minds, Israeli generals and Israeli intelligence committed to defending Israel, to have any part in any decisions on how to deal with the Iranian threat.
It is inane to argue that Lieberman merely exchanged flatteries with Russia when he deliberately mischaracterized Russia’s undemocratic elections, laughably was praised by Putin as a "genius" for doing it, and it turned out that the head of his party was a Russian agent appointed by the Kremlin and representing Putin, not Israel.
Russia has a puppet in America too, our current president "Donald." Putin ordered Donald to immediately withdraw all American forces from Syria. Of course, Donald did it. For those of us who agree that the goal was to "prevent Iranian entrenchment in Syria", Netanyahu and Lieberman assured it will happened. It means there will now be a war in which only Putin and Erdogan will be the true winners. Congratulations.
3
With Assad back in control, Russian, American and Iranian interests are no longer are aligned as allies of convenience in defeating ISIS. Now America wants out and Russia has regained influence in the region through Syria. Iran's ambition of regional hegemony (via Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen and now Syria) runs counter to the interests of Russia and America. Between continued economic pressure from international sanctions, and destruction of Iranian assets in Syria (by Israel, but approved by Russia), expect Iran to fully retreat. Next up, hopefully: forcing Iran, via Hezbollah, out of Lebanon.
8
Ah - yes - Force! - the clearcut solutions that superior military strategy and strength bring to the table. These are the measures of success in Bret's Hobbesian dog-eat-dog world which he celebrates and monopolize his world view. All fine and good - they have their place. But treaties? accords? patient nuanced negotiations? I always get the sense that if they result in anything other than utter capitulation from the other side, they are viewed with contempt and as signs of weakness by this writer. I would be astonished to ever read a column from him advocating compromise that could lead to lessening of tensions and the possibility of an eventual resolution of long standing differences - like the Iran nuclear deal - that invests in the common denominator of our humanity. This is the mindset of a cynic. Of someone who has given up on an essential ingredient of his own humanity and now projects this deficiency onto the world. It limits the prospects of the human condition to a zero sum game of conquer or be conquered. It is about fear and safety and little else.
102
@victor
Eisenkrot was in charge of Israel's military, not the entire Israeli government. In the dreadful absence of any diplomatic solutions, he appears to have followed the most prudent policy with issues that could be addressed by military force.
Eisenkrot did what he could with the authority and resources that he had.
8
@victor
Sir, without some use of "force" from a capable nation, why will anyone negotiate away their position without retaliation in some fashion?
3
@victorSometimes force is necessary. Obama's Iran deal removed sanctions and freed up millions of dollars for the Kuds Force to threaten Israel and slaughter Yemenis and Iraqis and support the government of the dictator Assad. Obama drew a red line and then backed off. These decisions may have ultimately led to more violence in the Middle East. The actions of the IDF under Eisenkots command could arguably have prevented or at least postponed a war. I am all for negotiation,diplomacy etc when possible but it isn't always possible
4
So Israel is fighting Iranian influence in Syria and Lebanon. Good. And what is the significance? Is the United States supposed to help Israel attack Iran, as Netanyahu wishes? Israel has fallen in with Saudi Arabia and the Sunni side in the Sunni-Shia conflict over the Gulf. Now it has to face the consequences of that choice.
35
@RS
Israel has been fighting an existential existence since the UN created Israel in 1948. The consequences of "that choice" remain no more of an obstacle than its longterm survival.
Iran has geopolitical interests to destabilize the Middle East and compel it to be part of its sphere of influence. Iran is dedicated to the overthrow of America's presence. The U.S. certainly has geopolitical interests in the Middle East, counter to the Russian and Iranian interests. Those interests are in alignment with creating a stable environment, with Israel as its most reliable partner, and Egypt and Saudi Arabia coming aboard as moderate supporters.
The real middle-east issues have never been about the Palestinians, who are nothing more than thorns in the sides of the Arab states.
12
@Rob, did the US interventions of regime change in Iraq and Syria not create the instability that you now claim to be in Iran's geopolitical interest?
12
@Rob - Please share the actions that we have taken in the ME that have helped create "a stable environment".
It appears that one of our prime "geopolitical interests in the Middle East" has been to feed the pocketbooks of our voracious MIC via endless war.
3
I'd like to know more about the "factories that were publicly exposed".
10
@phi. I would too since I believe that Iran and it's proxy Hezbollah are trying to develop precision guided misses aimed at my country, including civilian targets and I know that they operate in civilian villages near the Israeli border. How can the Lebanese get rid of the influence of Hezbollah which is so destructive of Lebanon.
16
@phil -- The technology was developed and spread by the US and Israel, before the Persian Gulf War, before Clinton's Admin.
It is simply a guidance kit put on the nose of an ordinary unguided weapon. The US is now doing it for rockets as small as the 2.75" rockets fired from pods by helicopters.
It is the technological equivalent of the commercial drones used in the assassination attempt against Maduro and to close Heathrow Airport in the recent scare. Anyone can do it. It does not require some fancy "factory."
However, it does generate hype used by warmongers to justify constant killing.
21
@Mark Thomason
Exactly how does putting a "guidance kit put on the nose of an ordinary unguided weapon" make it maneuverable?
Does that mean that if it were put on a thrown rock it would make it maneuverable?
3
Most people already concluded that Iranians aren't invincible,
Most people also knew what Trump, Netanyahu and other right wingers don't - that Iran was also a lot less of a threat under the accords signed by President Obama.
147
@NM. I am not a right winger but I am a realist and I do live in the Middle East. One of the problems with the accords is that they did not prevent Iran from using the murderous Kuds Force to use violence in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. By removing sanctions,the accords also freed up millions of dollars for Iran to fund violence and terror against their Sunni enemies and Israel,resulting in civilian as well as military casualties
29
@Golda
I completely understand what you're saying, but proponents of the JCPOA would argue that the deal was never designed to do any of those things. Rather, it intended to limit the development of Iranian nuclear weapons. Because it was a diplomatic effort, it necessarily included aspects which incentivised Iranian cooperation; namely, the freeing of Iranian funds frozen after the revolution and a relief of sanctions.
What it was not intended to do is address all of Iran's definitely nefarious actions in the ME. But it is easier to deal with Iranian influence in Syria when they are not nuclear-armed, compared to when they are. Insistence that the JCPOA should have covered every action of Iran's which is distasteful to the US and Israel is not realistic, unless the other members were prepared to make significantly more concessions.
Sanctions worked and brought us the JCPOA, but their efficacy is limited, especially now that Europe, China, and Russia may be more inclined to see the US as an unreliable diplomatic partner in this area, and Iran as a stabler one. US partners' actions in the ME - Israel in Palestine and KSA in Yemen - also undermine the assertion that the impulse to reign in Iran is humanitarian: the IRGC's actions are not much worse than MBS's, so why sanction one by laud the other?
Diplomacy and human rights are vital to the region, but hypocrisy and absolutist positions will go nowhere.
37
@NM -- Iran is a rich nation of 100 million people. Such nations over time tend to follow their interests, not some wild theory of one guy. Short term, maybe the wild man can influence things, as Trump does here, but that is short term.
Long term, Iran was an ally against Russia. That is because Russia was an active threat, which actually did occupy part of Iran during WW2 and threatened the Anglo-Persian Oil Company since colonial times (they called it the Great Game).
If we stop the constant threatening hostility we send at them, they are very likely to find their interest is in better relations. We are making our own fears come true.
26
"Western" interference in the affairs of the powderkeg of the Middle East has only made things worse, by and large.
I do wish the NYTimes would do a story on the history. I get pieces of it from people with more historical knowledge than I have, going back to the early 20th century. But the piece that really bothers me is the installation on the Shah of Iran back in the day.
Mossadegh was a democratically elected ruler, and the US helped the Brits unseat him to help BP (remember the Gulf oil spill?). Our corporate footprints lit a fuse that has discredited us with people who have longer memories than ours. The Shah may have been slightly less nasty and self-indulgent than Assad, but our "allies" in the region (MBS, really?) are not credible humanitarians but autocrats and dictators willing to kill their own people (and jail and torture opponents). How is this promoting democracy?
You buy it, you own it. Reducing cities to rubble, destroying infrastructure (sewers, electricity, etc.), is going to make enemies.
Our leaders seem to lack imagination about the ordinary lives of people and the bare necessities for survival. Trump has no idea of the suffering of the hostages he has taken to get his way: he said so. As border patrol, coast guard, TSA, as well as the manifold support systems for food safety and protections from toxic events are removed, the potential for real terrorism has never been worse.
War, what is it good for? Absolutely nothing!
131
@Susan Anderson
Thank you, Susan. Ordinary Iranians are suffering from sanctions that should have been imposed on Saudi Arabia for bombing the Pentagon and the Twin Towers, for supporting the Taleban and for creating Al Qaeda and ISIS. Isael should have been sanctioned for defying over 40 U.N. Resolutions.
Iran has done nothing less than to shore up its 'forward defences' as a deterrent against a U.S.-Israeli-Saudi attack.
Iran has been the target of Western Machiavellian intrigue ever since oil was discovered. I am delighted to note the number of NYT commenters who see Iran as the victim, and not the aggressor. Iran has not attacked or invaded any country for over 200 years. Its actions are strictly defensive. The Arabs and Israelis have aggression in their DNA.
There is no love lost between me and the mullahs, but U.S. aggression and sanctions are hurting only those ordinary Iranians suffering increased hunger and oppression. It will not bring about regime change.
92
@Susan Anderson -- I recommend some background reading about the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, founded in 1908 to keep Britain independent of Rockefeller's Standard Oil and the Czar's Black Sea oil fields.
At the time, nobody knew about most of the rest of the world's oil. Burma and Java/Borneo were discovered over the next ten or twenty years, and were small in comparison. Nobody knew there was oil in Saudi Arabia, nor Libya, nor much of anywhere else. The next big new wave of oil for Britain came from Venezuela.
Britain was converting its Navy to oil. It was very concerned about a secure supply. Iran was it, on the scale needed.
To secure it, Britain made deals with Iranian domestic powers. It was not a classic colony, not the standard for the time. Persia was too old and independent for that. Persia had a real army, and Germany was equipping it with Mauser rifles and Krupp guns.
The politics of dealing with Iran, and with Russia about Iran, go back a very long way and were very much about national security.
None of the patterns are new. However, the choices being made are not the ones made by Winston Churchill as First Sea Lord before WW2. We've seen it done right by better men than we see now.
16
@Hamid Varzi
Iran is solely interested in "shoring up its forward defenses"? That seems like a fairly incredible statement!
Let it shore up its defenses within the confines of its own borders, instead of in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Israel is no threat to an Iranian regime that is interested in its own internal stability, as opposed to regional hegemony.
Throw out the mullahs. That's when the "ordinary Iranians" will no long suffer hunger and oppression.
21
Like it or not, modern Israel was born out of military conquest. It's certainly one reason for the continued instability in the region (given many countries refuse to recognize the so-called "facts on the ground"--Israeli sovereignty over conquered lands).
But like they say, Israel can't afford to lose a single war. And until it does or decides to retreat to some newly designated border, Israel will have to survive as a modern day Sparta.
So you need clear-eyed pragmatic generals making good strategic decisions.
The U.S. faces many analogous threats--threats that fester and grow but are difficult to decidedly face down. I wonder how the Israelis would look to box in an increasingly assertive China?
25
Well, Israel retreated without precondition from Gaza to a designated border. What did it get for that? Why should it expect to get any different if it unilaterally turns over Judea/Samaria to another bunch of terror kleptocrats, who if they still weren't dreaming of pushing the Jews into the sea first chance they get, would be going at each other's throats instead?
3
@Mmm clearly Israel may have been acting directly or indirectly to the benefit of ISIL ?
It is quite humorous that Stephens brings up Iran's successful effort to entrench itself in Iraq among other countries.
Stephens and his other friends at Hudson Institute, AEI act, explicitly argued for and cheered on the invasion of Iraq leading to the removal of Iran's hated and most implacable foe Saddam Hussein.
Suleimani could scarcely contain his happiness as in one stroke the Americans had presented him with a land bridge to Syria. All without firing a shot.
What Stephens doesn't mention is the historical oppression of the Shia in Lebanon and Iraq provided Iran with the initial openings. I have not seen a Stephens column on the oppression of the Shia majority in Bahrain by the royal family that are allies of Saudi Arabia.
By the way, who said that Iran was invincible unless one compares them to our friend MBS and the Saudis. At least Iran has the acumen to pick the most prolific fighters, the Houthis, in that engagement. Sadly, the Saudis have made Suleimani look like General Giap.
165
@George Cooper -- He also does not notice that those Shia are more than half the population of Lebanon. It should be no surprise that in the democracy we claim Lebanon to be, a majority of people do have some voice.
He also does not notice that Hezbollah developed as a reaction to the proxy militia Israel set up in Southern Lebanon to occupy and suppress the Shia who mostly live there.
The "problem" is in his own hypocrisy.
23
So who was it who determined that Iran was invincible? Netanyahu- and his poodle in the White House- are convinced that the mullahs and their running dogs in Lebanon constitute a mortal threat to Israel. On the contrary, the Israelis have long had the intelligence and the military know-how to make short work of Tehran, and that's without even taking its nuclear arsenal (shhhh!!!!) into consideration. It's time that they (and we) stopped worrying about the little bullies in the region and started addressing the real problem, which was and continues to be their repressive treatment of the Palestinian Arabs. Israel's security will never be guaranteed unless and until they address that issue.
249
@stu freeman-Agreed as Amos Oz so poignantly advocated. After 70 years of bipartisan support to Palestinian refugees displaced by conflict with Israel, the Trump administration decided to cease all funding to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees that provides services to more than 5 million Palestinian refugees. The funds help run schools, clinics, and food for Palestinian refugees in occupied territories — the West Bank and Gaza — as well as those in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. The Trump Admin also cut overall aid to the Palestinian Authority and ordered it to close its Washington office.
Source: https://www.npr.org/2018/08/31/643812637/u-s-ends-funding-of-un-agency-that-supports-palestinian-refugees
https://www.npr.org/2018/12/26/678348210/opinion-5-ways-the-u-s-retreated-from-the-world-stage-under-trump-this-year
https://www.npr.org/2018/10/31/660576415/inside-gaza-s-prosthetics-clinic-treating-wounded-palestinian-protesters
35
@stu freeman Saying that Iran a nation of 80 million people whose regime openly calls for the the destruction of Israel and has entrenched itself militarily 1000 miles away from their own country right on Israel's northern border is not a serious threat to Israeli security is an absurd notion. This is true without even taking into account their proxy Hezbollah with tens of thousands of missiles pointed at Israel and a formidable fighting force. Imagine the international outcry if the Israeli army was on the Iranian border and controlled a proxy terrorist army with tens of thousands of missiles targeting Tehran. One could go on and on in great detail about the Palestinians who have simply made no effort to coexist in peace with Israel. Reasonable offers granting them an independent state have been rejected or simply ignored. The sad truth is that most Israelis no longer support the so called two state solution and view conflict management as their only alternative.
51
@stu freeman -- "are convinced that the mullahs and their running dogs in Lebanon constitute a mortal threat to Israel"
Nah. They say it, as warmongers always hype a threat. They don't act it.
What do nations do when dealing long term with a serious threat? They don't keep poking it to see if they can start a war. They are cautious, and they work on deals to limit risk.
23
“We have complete intelligence superiority in this area. We enjoy complete aerial superiority. We have strong deterrence and we have the justification to act.”
Baruch Hashem for America's military-industrial complex? Iran has a population of nearly 100 million people, a decent portion of whom harbor remarkably little ill will towards the West.
Hegemony does seem to be the pervading theme in this conflict.
71
@ubique
"Iran has a population of nearly 100 million people, a decent portion of whom harbor remarkably little ill will towards the West."
It doesn't matter how 'decent' a portion tolerate us, so long as the Mullahs repudiate all things West.
7
@ubique "...a decent portion of whom harbor remarkably little ill will towards the West."
Yes, but few or none of those people have any voice in the Iranian government or it's policies toward Israel and the United States.
7
@ubique hegemony that served ISIL also ?
A few weeks ago, Guy Verhofstadt, the Belgian leader of the European Parliament, was reported as saying that he had given up trying to understand British attitudes to Brexit.
II know how he feels. I feel the same way about the Middle East as a whole. A hundred and fifty or so years of outside interference in conflicts that date back to antiquity have created chaos - or maybe just aggravated the chaos there would have happened anyway.
I don't see this changing in my lifetime.
34
@Frank Bannister. Tragically you are right and I am happy to hear that you recognize that you do not understand this complex region. I hope all Irish people will come to the same conclusion and not participate in boycotts against Israel which won't help the Palestinians and hurt Israeli artists and academics who mostly want peace and are sympathetic to Palestinian suffering
5
@Frank Bannister
The Arab-Israeli conflict is not about land - it is about state of mind.
When Muslims in the region cease their delusion that every inch of the land in region is "Arab & Islamic" (Waqf) - to the exclusion of others who were there way before Islam was born (632 ACE), then we will have peace.
4
An independent Palestinian state is one that many Jewish Israelis recognize would pose a threat by virtue of it becoming a staging ground for Iranian attacks against Israel, from just over the border. This is precisely what the Israelis see Iran doing in southern Lebanon and in Syria. By contrast, they do not see Iran doing this in either Jordan or in Egypt, because Jordanian and Egyptian leaders recognize that they have too much to lose by sacrificing the admittedly tense peace they have with Israel.
While this paper continues to focus on "protests" along the Israeli border with Gaza, what this article demonstrates clearly is why so many Israelis have given up on a two state solution, or the idea of Gaza being a place that can have its own foreign policy that would not endanger the lives of Israelis. The fact that Gaza, for example is overwhelmingly Sunni and ruled by Hamas (a Sunni Muslim Brotherhood offshoot) has not prevented Shiite Iran from providing funds to Hamas. Sadly, with Egypt no longer willing to functionally annex Gaza (as Egypt once aimed to do) and Jordan unwilling to absorb the West Bank, the status quo in the Holy Land is likely to persist for the foreseeable future.
45
@Middleman MD -- Israel is doing its best to drive the Palestinians toward Iran.
Iran is not a natural fit for Palestinians. The Palestinians are both Sunni and largely secular, business and trade oriented like the Sunnis of Damascus.
10
@Mark Thomason. Arab countries have been consistent on one point. They have zero interest in the Palestinian Arabs as individuals - were that not the case, the refugees from the Arab invasion of the terminated League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and their second bite at the apple in 1967 would have been granted citizenship and all the rights arising from that status, something like happened to the 60 million refugees created in and since WWII worldwide. Instead that Arab countries have used the Palestinian Arabs as a cat’s paw to destroy Israel.
Israel is just an excuse for the Arabs to redirect their people’s anger against their countries’ lack of freedom and general backwardness when compared to the West and their historical memory of their past civilizational accomplishments. Now, however, these same Arab countries find it difficult even to pay lip service to the Palestinian cause because they find that they need Israel on their side against their historical but no less real current antagonists, Iran and Turkey. Unlike Israel, the Arab countries acknowledge that both do have hegemonic ambitions in the region. So, the Palestinian issue is no longer of value and is in the process of slowly being discarded.
4
Your quotes are all wrong. Instead of "protests", you need protests. Instead of endanger, you need "endanger".
After all, who's doing the dying?
2
I read the column and nary a mention of Russia. Sad.
It is Russia (Putin) that has propped up the Syrian regime, and if republicans (who had the sole authorization to declare war from the U.S.) in the their controlled Congress allowed forces to confront Syrian/Russian ones in Syria (when President Obama asked Congress for permission), then we would be having a completely different conversation.
Also, Iran has far more money than any sanctions were hurting, and to say the deal that President Obama struck with them allowed such money to flow freely into Syria is another fallacy.
The United States plays both ends in the Middle East as does Russia, and as does almost everyone else. They all declare there cannot be peace because of one thing, and then supply, support or actively participate in skirmishes/wars that are the direct opposite of their lip service.
Peace ( a two state solution) is not going to be achieved until there is super majority Liberal governments in the participants all the way around. That may happen sooner rather than later in the next few years as the stars all become aligned, and there is backlash to the policies going on now.
We shall see.
62
@FunkyIrishman. Don't hold your breath for "Super majority liberal governments" anywhere in the Middle East anytime soon. And even if there were two states that would not be a guarantee of peace
8
@FunkyIrishman - Sláinte!
I recommend to you some of the comments from our fellow commenter Hamid Varzi, though I don't 100% agree with him (and also mine, vanity of vanities). Life is complicated.
Idealism and reality have a complex interaction, but it doesn't help to demand perfection at the expense of working together to solve problems with the vast mass of us imperfect humans. There is room for both in this world: I watch AOC with fascination: as a former bartender, she seems to have found both!
4
@FunkyIrishman the lack of mention of ISIL is more important ; it seems to be forgotten by all the contributors, this area is multi polar. .......... Isreal benefits from chaos ?
1