America's honey
trap
Israel
has never signed a strategic agreement with the US, but America acts like
Israel is its proxy
Yossi
Ben-Ari
Israel has never enjoyed such broad American support
for both its policies and military actions as it does today. It began with
an explicit presidential objection to international calls for an immediate
cease fire that could disrupt the attaining of certain goals (with Bush's
call in the background 'to do battle with an organization that initiated
terror attacks and with the countries that support it'); all the way to
the emergency shipment of "smart bombs" meant to help the effort that
refuses to end.
It may be a comfortable feeling to have US backing, but
we must be careful of this "honey trap." It's a strange paradox.
No treaty
Israel has always refused to sign a strategic agreement
with the United States, for fear that such a treaty could inhibit Israel's
freedom of action. But even though no such agreement exists, America has
hinted at expectations that Israel act as an active partner in America's
campaign against world-wide terror.
This could even stand in contrast to Israel's interests
and bog Israel even further down than it is bogged down today: Lebanon
continues to exact a heavy price every day, mainly amongst Israeli
civilians but also from the IDF.
And – voila! – even senior IDF officials are signaling
that they won't be able to finish the military conflict without a
diplomatic arrangement. In other words, it would appear that a quick
ceasefire and significant entry of an international force on the ground,
could very well be in Israel's interest.
Danger ahead
But that's not all, and there is potentially great
danger ahead: Scud and Shihab missiles, with their conventional and
non-conventional warheads, cannot reach America's east coast. But they can
reach every part of Israel. Do we really need to stand at the head of the
sane world in the fight against the axis of evil?
True, this writer has recommended hitting Palestinian –
Islamic headquarters in Damascus as this round of fighting began (and I
continue to support that position), even if such a move would increase
friction with the Syrians. But there is a great distance between that
recommendation and clashing head-to-head with Damascus – and all the more
so vis-à-vis Iran.
Suckers
Still, there has already been one positive result from
the fighting in the north: The mask has been removed from Iran, and the
"kid gloves" with regard to dealing with that country must change. Now is
the time for action on the ground.
But
it is critical to stress that this is not Israel's goal, and the United
States must not turn its trusty ally in the Middle East into its proxy
vis-à-vis Iran. When Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice arrives later this
week, she must be told in no uncertain terms that Israel has got enough on
its plate being the world's "suckers" in fighting Hizbullah. Israel
fulfilled its responsibilities by pulling out of Lebanon to the
international border, and the "payment" for the current fighting should
not have come out of our pockets.
Now,
that responsibility is on Lebanon's shoulders – and certainly on those of
Syria and Iran, and on the entire world.
Practically,
recent decisions of the G-8 are very important, but this framework could
lead to a political obstacle course that will prevent any chance of
reaching joint operative decisions. The sane nations, led by the United
Nations, must authorize the United States to lead the way to an effective
international diplomatic-economic-military campaign against Iran. The US
must be allowed to choose its partners for this project (not including
Israel).
Move slowly
In the military aspect,
there is no need to hastily rush towards the target. We must have patience
and must once again use the same strategy Washington has chosen in Iraq –
to cut off the head of the dragon.
The Americans may have
failed in their attempt to assassinate Saddam Hussein in the opening stage
of the war, but at least they tried. Washington would be well advised to
once again search calmly for the right moment, in light of Ahmadinejad's
expected move to the defensive.
Hitting the Iranian
leadership – the most dangerous in Tehran since Khomeini – would certainly
influence that country's overall modus operandi. Leaders of the free world
must initiate, take responsibility and solve the Iranian problem at the
root for the sake of humanity. Otherwise we will once again, and very
quickly, find that right around the corner – and we will be the first to
pay the price.
Brig. Gen. (res.)
Yossi Ben-Ari was a senior intelligence officer