--the ideal posture is that Israel does the fighting, while the US more or less sits back as the scary big brother, that ideally does not get more involved;
--it is "not our fight" in the sense that israel's existential threat is not ours, and that we cannot/shouldnot fight all the wars. That said, Iran is still very much our enemy (and a strategic ally of our biggest rival) and very much a bad actor. There is no "peace" with Iran. There is perhaps convenient detente.
On the flipside,
--Israel is (relatively) "our people" in the sense of being of the west, and similarly inclined on all the major dimensions that we are about. You would be at-home, comfortable, and generally values-aligned in Tel Aviv. That is not true anywhere else from Morocco to Caucuses. Israel are the good guys, and there is nothing complex about it (except for the fact that they are surrounded by bad guys). Iran's death to israel is not a euphemism. It's a strategic priority. Islamic ethno-supremacy is the dominant theory of politics--all the "Palestinian" 'nationalism' stuff is bullshit made for western audiences (but has no meaning in a part of the world where there are no westphaelian nations). What they care about is that the uppity jews need to go, and everything else is just details.
--helping the good guys is good. If pakistan was threatening to blow the UK off the map (or what's left of it), I think we ought to help if we could, and not because of Pax Americana, but bc "good guys helping other good guys against bad guys is the right thing to do."
--Israel is doing chuck norris+tom cruise level voodoo on the bad guys, and those are the guys I want on *my* team. I'd say we've got some pretty cool friends. Say US hostages are spirited away to Tehran--who do you want to be there to get them out? Mossad et al or the CIA? It's a pretty close call, right?
I respect your opinion about the U.S. staying out of it. However, I think you may lack an understanding of 1) the history of Israel and its neighbors and 2) an understanding of Islam. For #2, if you are interested, I suggest you read the writing of Dan Burmawi on Substack and X. He was raised a Muslim in the Middle East so has first hand understanding, and is extremely intelligent, articulate, and knowledgeable about both Islam and Middle East history.
My own comment would be that a number of the Arab countries (those that are interested in progress for their people, such as UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan… are rooting for Israel (although they may not state it publicly) because Iran presents nothing but problems for them as well. The countries that are moderate or at least going in that direction want to live in the 21st century, not the 12th.
Ok, in your essay, you refer to the need for both sides to come to ‘a just agreement that both sides can tolerate’. There’s a history here, starting in 1948 (actually before). Israel wanted peace, over and over and over again. The ‘Palestinians’ (No state called Palestine ever existed. It was invented by Yasser Arafat in the early 60s. He famously came to the U.N. with his olive branch in one hand and a gun in the other. This was shocking in the early 60s. The region known as ‘Palestine’ in the 40s was a British Mandate and there were Arabs, Jews, even Christians there.) This would be a book if I listed every attempt at negotiating ‘a just agreement’. The only just agreement the so called Palestinians wanted and still want is Israel GONE (From the River to the Sea…). Israel was attacked by its Arab neighbors many many times. Big wars in 1948 (as soon as Israel became a state. A partition plan was offered then. They didn’t want it), 1967, 1973. These wars were not against a small group. All the Arab countries banded together to ‘push Israel into the sea’. But Israel won. The Intifadas (You know how they chant ‘Globalize the Intifada’. The Intifadas involved suicide bombers etc trying to kill as many civilians as possible, and went on continually from the late 80s into the early 90s (First Intifada) and the early 2000s (Second Intifada). Want to learn more from a first hand source? Look up Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of one of the founders of Hamas. He doesn’t mince words and he lived the history. Israel is a tiny country and has been getting rocket fire from its neighbors from the beginning. They are accustomed to running to the bomb shelters night and day. So, the point is there can be no agreement with people who hold the position of ‘We want you dead”.
You say ‘Both are eager to turn to the sword at the first opportunity’. Israel has bent over backward to make peace with its neighbors, to their own detriment. Again, this would not just be a book but a lengthy book. I offer you, in addition to Mosab, Dan Burmawi (Substack and X) to understand what Islam is. And it’s not just about Israel and Jews. It’s about the demise of Western civilization. These are a patient people with long term plans. It’s happening already with the West, in their stance of suicidal empathy, open their borders and welcome it right in. I’m old but you’re not. Take a look now, in 10 years, in 20 for sure, and you will get the point. Another good source is Aayan Hirsi Ali. Again, someone raised as a Muslim (in her case Somalia and then the MIddle East. These are not Israelis or Jews. These are people raised in Islam. I’ll throw in WeissWord (Substack) just for fun. Recently found him so not sure but he seems knowledgeable and interesting. The useful idiots here in the U.S. screeching ‘Globalize the Intifada’ don’t have a clue. They’re just al excited having fun being social justice warriors and revolutionaries. But the reality is that the soldiers of Islam are doing just that, step by step, Globalizing the Intifada.
I used to be of the opinion that the U.S. should stick to the principled isolationist position. In an ideal world this is the most wholesome thing, but the U.S. decided to be an imperial power all the way back at the Spanish-American war. The question at this point is only whether to be a successful empire or a dying one. In this lens as a matter of pragmatism I treat foreign affairs a bit differently.
I’m hopelessly ZOGged as the Book of Mormon is quite emphatic about God supporting the Jews in their return to Jerusalem and battles against their enemies.
But even from the secular imperialist standpoint, I think you want to back Israel to act as a lightningrod for Iranian/radical Islamic aggression, to destabilize their regimes so that we might get “old Iran” back and remove a major “rogue state,” and maintain U.S. influence in the Middle East (since China and Russia are certainly interested in the region as well, and stepping back anywhere in the globe is inviting China in).
This! I know elements of the online right like to disparage the US as an empire, and there is lots of truth to that. At the same time, they never consider what kind of empire we are (We’re 21st Century Athens, naval power with NATO and our alliance structure being our Delian League) and how it is maintained. That means our hegemony can be consolidated by fostering partners on the relative cheap to take a more active hand in defense of their regions. But that doesn’t mean isolationism.
Well, as our hegemony is based on alliances and mutual cooperation, it’s better to have “friends” then not to have “friends.”
I think you and I, I’m assuming, both agree that we’re too intertwined in the Middle East and Islamic world. But how do we scale back without letting everything go to hell and getting dragged back in? We foster alliances that can hold the fort down. In this case, facilitating the Abraham Accords and the rapprochement between Israel and the Sunni Arab Gulf states. That means we do have an interest in Israel winning in Gaza not counting the fact Hamas killed dozens of Americans and took others of our own hostage well on Oct. 7 — an operation Iran most certainly sponsored and bankrolled — so Israel and Saudi Arabia and company can get back to developing closer ties, including cooperating in checking Iran, who is an enemy of both. That way we can focus our attention elsewhere.
I take it you disagree, though, right? In that case, what would you propose instead?
There’s no interest in Isreal “winning in Gaza” to America or the broader west. All it can do is highlight the hypocrisy of the claim to moral leadership in any future wars. Most of the world is hostile to Israel and its present actions.
Really? We don’t have an interest in avenging the deaths of Americans and deterring the future slaughtering and kidnapping and holding hostage of abroad Americans with impunity? That doesn’t necessarily mean we should have boots on the ground, but that doesn’t rule out enabling the Israelis to eradicate Hamas where it is feasible for us to do so. You really think we don’t have an interest in brokering a partnership between Israel and the Sunni Guff Arabs that permits us to focus elsewhere like in our hemisphere or Taiwan? If the idea is we are overextended and entangled in conflicts that don’t concern us, I agree, but the question remains: How then do we disentangle ourselves and consolidate things abroad?
What good is knowing a moral principle, like murder is wrong, or in this case, our foreign policy should suit our interests, and not have any practical understanding on how to apply it? It’s not enough to argue, “We ought not do x” and refrain from having a positive plan or clue on how to accomplish it. The anti-Israel/dovish right doesn’t seem to grasp this and think strategically.
What hypocrisy? The Gaza War is justified, including the military operations taken to eliminate Hamas and free the hostages. What endangers our moral standing and ability to lead a coalition in a future major war is spurning long-time partnerships and appearing as a fickle, non-credible ally.
Monroe doctrine and controlling our hemisphere made sense, and so does boosting our naval capacity. But our global reach is not manageable and if it were so obviously beneficial, the neocons would not have the messaging problem they do. Every European empire gave up because the costs outweighed the benefits.
Imagine if we spent resources building up the Americas as trade and military allies and taught Europe to be a strong consistent ally and let China be their own regional hegemon. The Middle East and little Asian islands are a conflict generating curse to who tries to control them. Make North America strong again!
Well, as our hegemony is based on alliances and mutual cooperation, it’s better to have “friends” then not to have “friends.”
I think you and I, I’m assuming, both agree that we’re too intertwined in the Middle East and Islamic world. But how do we scale back without letting everything go to hell and getting dragged back in? We foster alliances that can hold the fort down. In this case, facilitating the Abraham Accords and the rapprochement between Israel and the Sunni Arab Gulf states. That means we do have an interest in Israel winning in Gaza not counting the fact Hamas killed dozens of Americans and took others of our own hostage well on Oct. 7 — an operation Iran most certainly sponsored and bankrolled — so Israel and Saudi Arabia and company can get back to developing closer ties, including cooperating in checking Iran, who is an enemy of both. That way we can focus our attention elsewhere.
I take it you disagree, though, right? In that case, what would you propose instead?
European nations didn’t abandon African colonization because of costs—they did it only after WWII when they themselves became clients of the American empire. But I like the strengthening of the Americas angle!
That doesn’t correspond to my understanding of it, since it is known that administrative costs and infrastructure building projects, transportation, etc, got more expensive even as the benefits of natural resources diminished. Tropical goods went from expensive and rare to affordable and plentiful (except for hard to grow vanilla, mahogany, etc).
This is pretty detached from reality. Iran has been at war with the US for 46 years, even if you imagine otherwise. The idea that allowing Iran to achieve nuclear weapons would have no further consequences on Americans beyond Iran’s already intense destabilization of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Palestinian Authority territory, attempts at taking down Jordan, attacks on US allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel. Nothing says ‘progressive’ like “hands off the Islamic Republic of Iran”.
I think your headline point about "this isn't our war" isn't fully true. Iran is primarily opposed to Israel in the first place *because* it sees Israel as an American proxy (they call Israel the little Satan and the US the great Satan).
One of the main projects that Israel struck was an Iranian ICBM facility. Iran doesn't need ICBMs to target Israel (it already has CBMs for that); those were to enable it to target America with nuclear weapons.
I also think Trump's quotes from the last few days were more about bluffing Iran to catch them by surprise than genuine desire to deter Israel from this; he doesn't seem especially peeved today, and Israel wouldn't do something on this scale without an American go ahead.
That said, cynical or not, to the degree that America can get Israel to do its dirty work for it, it's clearly in its interests not to get involved directly more than it has to. And even if this is a conflict that originally the US dragged Israel into rather than the other way around, Israel is now mostly bearing the burnt of it rather than the US, which is good for the US (which already has an overburdened military and has to worry about an upcoming Pacific war).
So major US action isn't a good idea for America, isn't expected, and is politically impossible anyway. That said minor US action (possibly picking off targets of opportunity, but mostly things the US does for itself like giving THAAD a field testing or subsidizing US arms manufacturing in peacetime by selling weapons to Israel) is probably a win-win.
And finally, this does have a chance to escalate into nuclear war, which is in everyone's interest to avoid, so steps (diplomatic or military) that help deter that are worth doing.
The US doesn't need anything from the mid east, there is so much oil in other places around the Atlantic Ocean now to fully replace it.
Just walk away from Israel entirely, both the US and the wider West in general. Israel will either quickly learn to moderate itself or it will perish and nothing of value will be lost.
So, I generally agree that
--the ideal posture is that Israel does the fighting, while the US more or less sits back as the scary big brother, that ideally does not get more involved;
--it is "not our fight" in the sense that israel's existential threat is not ours, and that we cannot/shouldnot fight all the wars. That said, Iran is still very much our enemy (and a strategic ally of our biggest rival) and very much a bad actor. There is no "peace" with Iran. There is perhaps convenient detente.
On the flipside,
--Israel is (relatively) "our people" in the sense of being of the west, and similarly inclined on all the major dimensions that we are about. You would be at-home, comfortable, and generally values-aligned in Tel Aviv. That is not true anywhere else from Morocco to Caucuses. Israel are the good guys, and there is nothing complex about it (except for the fact that they are surrounded by bad guys). Iran's death to israel is not a euphemism. It's a strategic priority. Islamic ethno-supremacy is the dominant theory of politics--all the "Palestinian" 'nationalism' stuff is bullshit made for western audiences (but has no meaning in a part of the world where there are no westphaelian nations). What they care about is that the uppity jews need to go, and everything else is just details.
--helping the good guys is good. If pakistan was threatening to blow the UK off the map (or what's left of it), I think we ought to help if we could, and not because of Pax Americana, but bc "good guys helping other good guys against bad guys is the right thing to do."
--Israel is doing chuck norris+tom cruise level voodoo on the bad guys, and those are the guys I want on *my* team. I'd say we've got some pretty cool friends. Say US hostages are spirited away to Tehran--who do you want to be there to get them out? Mossad et al or the CIA? It's a pretty close call, right?
I respect your opinion about the U.S. staying out of it. However, I think you may lack an understanding of 1) the history of Israel and its neighbors and 2) an understanding of Islam. For #2, if you are interested, I suggest you read the writing of Dan Burmawi on Substack and X. He was raised a Muslim in the Middle East so has first hand understanding, and is extremely intelligent, articulate, and knowledgeable about both Islam and Middle East history.
My own comment would be that a number of the Arab countries (those that are interested in progress for their people, such as UAE, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan… are rooting for Israel (although they may not state it publicly) because Iran presents nothing but problems for them as well. The countries that are moderate or at least going in that direction want to live in the 21st century, not the 12th.
Do you mind sharing what you think I have missed?
Ok, in your essay, you refer to the need for both sides to come to ‘a just agreement that both sides can tolerate’. There’s a history here, starting in 1948 (actually before). Israel wanted peace, over and over and over again. The ‘Palestinians’ (No state called Palestine ever existed. It was invented by Yasser Arafat in the early 60s. He famously came to the U.N. with his olive branch in one hand and a gun in the other. This was shocking in the early 60s. The region known as ‘Palestine’ in the 40s was a British Mandate and there were Arabs, Jews, even Christians there.) This would be a book if I listed every attempt at negotiating ‘a just agreement’. The only just agreement the so called Palestinians wanted and still want is Israel GONE (From the River to the Sea…). Israel was attacked by its Arab neighbors many many times. Big wars in 1948 (as soon as Israel became a state. A partition plan was offered then. They didn’t want it), 1967, 1973. These wars were not against a small group. All the Arab countries banded together to ‘push Israel into the sea’. But Israel won. The Intifadas (You know how they chant ‘Globalize the Intifada’. The Intifadas involved suicide bombers etc trying to kill as many civilians as possible, and went on continually from the late 80s into the early 90s (First Intifada) and the early 2000s (Second Intifada). Want to learn more from a first hand source? Look up Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of one of the founders of Hamas. He doesn’t mince words and he lived the history. Israel is a tiny country and has been getting rocket fire from its neighbors from the beginning. They are accustomed to running to the bomb shelters night and day. So, the point is there can be no agreement with people who hold the position of ‘We want you dead”.
You say ‘Both are eager to turn to the sword at the first opportunity’. Israel has bent over backward to make peace with its neighbors, to their own detriment. Again, this would not just be a book but a lengthy book. I offer you, in addition to Mosab, Dan Burmawi (Substack and X) to understand what Islam is. And it’s not just about Israel and Jews. It’s about the demise of Western civilization. These are a patient people with long term plans. It’s happening already with the West, in their stance of suicidal empathy, open their borders and welcome it right in. I’m old but you’re not. Take a look now, in 10 years, in 20 for sure, and you will get the point. Another good source is Aayan Hirsi Ali. Again, someone raised as a Muslim (in her case Somalia and then the MIddle East. These are not Israelis or Jews. These are people raised in Islam. I’ll throw in WeissWord (Substack) just for fun. Recently found him so not sure but he seems knowledgeable and interesting. The useful idiots here in the U.S. screeching ‘Globalize the Intifada’ don’t have a clue. They’re just al excited having fun being social justice warriors and revolutionaries. But the reality is that the soldiers of Islam are doing just that, step by step, Globalizing the Intifada.
There was no Palestine but there was a Palestine mandate.
Yes. There was a two state solution that the Arab ‘Palestinians’ declined. And they declined many times after. They want a one state solution.
With the Iranian public liberalizing with technology, won’t this just make conservative Islam more popular?
It seems a smart thing to do with an imminently deligitamized regime is to wait it out.
More popular with whom?
I used to be of the opinion that the U.S. should stick to the principled isolationist position. In an ideal world this is the most wholesome thing, but the U.S. decided to be an imperial power all the way back at the Spanish-American war. The question at this point is only whether to be a successful empire or a dying one. In this lens as a matter of pragmatism I treat foreign affairs a bit differently.
I tend to really like your takes so I’m genuinely interested. What do you think we should do?
I’m hopelessly ZOGged as the Book of Mormon is quite emphatic about God supporting the Jews in their return to Jerusalem and battles against their enemies.
But even from the secular imperialist standpoint, I think you want to back Israel to act as a lightningrod for Iranian/radical Islamic aggression, to destabilize their regimes so that we might get “old Iran” back and remove a major “rogue state,” and maintain U.S. influence in the Middle East (since China and Russia are certainly interested in the region as well, and stepping back anywhere in the globe is inviting China in).
wait I had no idea you were Mormon!
It is so. My WIP commentary on the BoM is currently 420,000 words and maybe 75% done.
This! I know elements of the online right like to disparage the US as an empire, and there is lots of truth to that. At the same time, they never consider what kind of empire we are (We’re 21st Century Athens, naval power with NATO and our alliance structure being our Delian League) and how it is maintained. That means our hegemony can be consolidated by fostering partners on the relative cheap to take a more active hand in defense of their regions. But that doesn’t mean isolationism.
None of this explains any alliance with Israel.
Well, as our hegemony is based on alliances and mutual cooperation, it’s better to have “friends” then not to have “friends.”
I think you and I, I’m assuming, both agree that we’re too intertwined in the Middle East and Islamic world. But how do we scale back without letting everything go to hell and getting dragged back in? We foster alliances that can hold the fort down. In this case, facilitating the Abraham Accords and the rapprochement between Israel and the Sunni Arab Gulf states. That means we do have an interest in Israel winning in Gaza not counting the fact Hamas killed dozens of Americans and took others of our own hostage well on Oct. 7 — an operation Iran most certainly sponsored and bankrolled — so Israel and Saudi Arabia and company can get back to developing closer ties, including cooperating in checking Iran, who is an enemy of both. That way we can focus our attention elsewhere.
I take it you disagree, though, right? In that case, what would you propose instead?
There’s no interest in Isreal “winning in Gaza” to America or the broader west. All it can do is highlight the hypocrisy of the claim to moral leadership in any future wars. Most of the world is hostile to Israel and its present actions.
Really? We don’t have an interest in avenging the deaths of Americans and deterring the future slaughtering and kidnapping and holding hostage of abroad Americans with impunity? That doesn’t necessarily mean we should have boots on the ground, but that doesn’t rule out enabling the Israelis to eradicate Hamas where it is feasible for us to do so. You really think we don’t have an interest in brokering a partnership between Israel and the Sunni Guff Arabs that permits us to focus elsewhere like in our hemisphere or Taiwan? If the idea is we are overextended and entangled in conflicts that don’t concern us, I agree, but the question remains: How then do we disentangle ourselves and consolidate things abroad?
What good is knowing a moral principle, like murder is wrong, or in this case, our foreign policy should suit our interests, and not have any practical understanding on how to apply it? It’s not enough to argue, “We ought not do x” and refrain from having a positive plan or clue on how to accomplish it. The anti-Israel/dovish right doesn’t seem to grasp this and think strategically.
What hypocrisy? The Gaza War is justified, including the military operations taken to eliminate Hamas and free the hostages. What endangers our moral standing and ability to lead a coalition in a future major war is spurning long-time partnerships and appearing as a fickle, non-credible ally.
Monroe doctrine and controlling our hemisphere made sense, and so does boosting our naval capacity. But our global reach is not manageable and if it were so obviously beneficial, the neocons would not have the messaging problem they do. Every European empire gave up because the costs outweighed the benefits.
Imagine if we spent resources building up the Americas as trade and military allies and taught Europe to be a strong consistent ally and let China be their own regional hegemon. The Middle East and little Asian islands are a conflict generating curse to who tries to control them. Make North America strong again!
Well, as our hegemony is based on alliances and mutual cooperation, it’s better to have “friends” then not to have “friends.”
I think you and I, I’m assuming, both agree that we’re too intertwined in the Middle East and Islamic world. But how do we scale back without letting everything go to hell and getting dragged back in? We foster alliances that can hold the fort down. In this case, facilitating the Abraham Accords and the rapprochement between Israel and the Sunni Arab Gulf states. That means we do have an interest in Israel winning in Gaza not counting the fact Hamas killed dozens of Americans and took others of our own hostage well on Oct. 7 — an operation Iran most certainly sponsored and bankrolled — so Israel and Saudi Arabia and company can get back to developing closer ties, including cooperating in checking Iran, who is an enemy of both. That way we can focus our attention elsewhere.
I take it you disagree, though, right? In that case, what would you propose instead?
Think you accidentally responded to me again instead of Peter Defeel.
My bad. I’m trying to do this at work and multi-tasking.
European nations didn’t abandon African colonization because of costs—they did it only after WWII when they themselves became clients of the American empire. But I like the strengthening of the Americas angle!
That doesn’t correspond to my understanding of it, since it is known that administrative costs and infrastructure building projects, transportation, etc, got more expensive even as the benefits of natural resources diminished. Tropical goods went from expensive and rare to affordable and plentiful (except for hard to grow vanilla, mahogany, etc).
This is pretty detached from reality. Iran has been at war with the US for 46 years, even if you imagine otherwise. The idea that allowing Iran to achieve nuclear weapons would have no further consequences on Americans beyond Iran’s already intense destabilization of Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Palestinian Authority territory, attempts at taking down Jordan, attacks on US allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel. Nothing says ‘progressive’ like “hands off the Islamic Republic of Iran”.
https://open.substack.com/pub/danielgreenfield/p/iran-has-been-at-war-with-us-for?
I think your headline point about "this isn't our war" isn't fully true. Iran is primarily opposed to Israel in the first place *because* it sees Israel as an American proxy (they call Israel the little Satan and the US the great Satan).
One of the main projects that Israel struck was an Iranian ICBM facility. Iran doesn't need ICBMs to target Israel (it already has CBMs for that); those were to enable it to target America with nuclear weapons.
I also think Trump's quotes from the last few days were more about bluffing Iran to catch them by surprise than genuine desire to deter Israel from this; he doesn't seem especially peeved today, and Israel wouldn't do something on this scale without an American go ahead.
That said, cynical or not, to the degree that America can get Israel to do its dirty work for it, it's clearly in its interests not to get involved directly more than it has to. And even if this is a conflict that originally the US dragged Israel into rather than the other way around, Israel is now mostly bearing the burnt of it rather than the US, which is good for the US (which already has an overburdened military and has to worry about an upcoming Pacific war).
So major US action isn't a good idea for America, isn't expected, and is politically impossible anyway. That said minor US action (possibly picking off targets of opportunity, but mostly things the US does for itself like giving THAAD a field testing or subsidizing US arms manufacturing in peacetime by selling weapons to Israel) is probably a win-win.
And finally, this does have a chance to escalate into nuclear war, which is in everyone's interest to avoid, so steps (diplomatic or military) that help deter that are worth doing.
The US doesn't need anything from the mid east, there is so much oil in other places around the Atlantic Ocean now to fully replace it.
Just walk away from Israel entirely, both the US and the wider West in general. Israel will either quickly learn to moderate itself or it will perish and nothing of value will be lost.