Catch-43

Playing the Game

After being told for years that occupation of Arab lands is the source of the conflict in the Middle East, Israel unilaterally pulls out of Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005. As soon as they left, the areas they formerly occupied became armed camps dedicated solely to the destruction of Israel. The attacks on Jewish towns continued, and thus Israeli (at a heavy price) was able to say to the world - "hey, we tried it your way and it didn't work". The Israelis gave peace a chance, and it failed - because their enemies are not interested in peace. Thus the current war is legitimate. Contrary to the headlines, Israel has received far more credit than they usually get when they defend themselves. Charles Krauthammer observes:

Every important party in the region and in the world, except the radical
Islamists in Tehran and their clients in Damascus, wants Hezbollah disarmed and
removed from south Lebanon so that it is no longer able to destabilize the peace
of both Lebanon and the broader Middle East.

Which parties? Start with the great powers. In September 2004 they passed U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559, demanding that Hezbollah disarm and allow the Lebanese army to take back control of south Lebanon.

The other Arabs have spoken, too. In a stunning development, the 22-member Arab League criticized Hezbollah for provoking the current crisis. It is unprecedented for the Arab League to criticize any Arab party while it is actively engaged in hostilities with Israel.

But the Arab states know that Hezbollah, a Shiite militia in the service
of Persian Iran, is a threat not just to Lebanon but to them as well. Egypt,
Saudi Arabia and Jordan have openly criticized Hezbollah for starting a war on
what is essentially Iran's timetable (to distract attention from Iran's pending
referral to the Security Council for sanctions over its nuclear program). They
are far more worried about Iran and its proxies than about Israel. They are
therefore eager to see Hezbollah disarmed and defanged.

Despite all the hype, I believe that this strategy worked well for the Israelis because both potential post-withdrawal scenarios worked well for them. If the Arabs were being truthful about "land for peace", then the attacks would stop once they were given land. If they were not being truthful, then warring against them (especially when they begin the war with such naked aggression that even Kofi Annan cannot ignore it) looks a lot more legitimate, which is crucial politically.

Here's the main point - I think that George W. Bush's strategy all along with Iran has been to "play the game" like Israel did with the Arabs. Bush has let the EU-3 try to negotiate with Iran, knowing that they would fail miserably - which they have. Bush is determined not to be brutalized over a war again like he was with Iraq - so he is going to wait until all options have fully exhausted themselves. When war comes - and it will - Bush can say that the US "played the game". As with Israel, you will hear a lot of condemnation - but it will be significantly less than what was heard vis a vis Iraq. Bloggers like myself will be the ones pointing that out, of course. Bush's strategy is wise, but not without risks - who knows what Iran is capable of before that tipping point is reached in which war becomes legitimate?

posted by JM @ 3:11 PM