Israel May Be Seeking A New Best Friend

Monday, March 23, 2009

Israel May Be Seeking A New Best Friend

The Obama Administration has made it crystal clear that they regard Israel as a problem rather than the loyal ally it's been since the Nixon Administration.

Some very influential Israelis are thinking ahead and saying that it's time Israel had a new best friend. No less than Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's presumptive foreign minister has said that Israel's ties with Russia "must rise to the level of a strategic partnership" :

Relations between Russia and Israel must and can rise to a level of strategic partnership, said Avigdor Lieberman, the leader of the Israel is Our Home party and a future member of Israel's new coalition government in an interview with Interfax.

"I've been saying all along that relations between Israel and Russia must rise to a level of strategic partnership. This is even more relevant today, then previously," Lieberman said.

The Israel is Our Home party won the third largest number of votes in the parliamentary elections and it is involved in the talks on the formation of Israel's new government.

"However paradoxical it may seem, the global economic crisis gives Israel new opportunities to reach the Russian market, after many of the Western companies abandoned it," the Israeli politician said.

Lieberman, who co-chaired the Russian-Israeli intergovernmental commission for trade and economic cooperation in 2003-04, said that, the two countries have accomplished "a real breakthrough" in this area, but the potential is far from being exhausted.

The same refers to military-technical cooperation between Israel and Russia, he said.

"Israel has quite a few things to offer Russia in this sector - from the electronic stuffing for fighter jets to drones," Lieberman said.

Could it happen? Possibly. Russia, after all does not really need oil and gas, which is what Iran and the Arabs have to sell. And as the price of oil goes down, countries like Iran have less money to buy what Russia has on offer. And while it's not evident yet, there could be significant conflicts in the future between Russia and Turkey, who are traditional antagonists and Russia and Iran, as the three countries attempt to expand their influence into the gas and oil regions in the old Soviet empire in central Asia.

On the other hand Russia does have a definite need for Israeli high tech, especially when it comes to industrial and defense applications.And the Israelis look like they're definitely thinking along those lines, especially if the Obama Administration continues to alienate them, as seems likely. In that case, the US would need to station significant naval and air forces somewhere in the region ( probably in the Emirates) to protect our interests there, as well as somewhere in the Eastern Mediterranean to guard NATO's southern flank, along with a significant number of troops...the cost of which would make the aid we currently give Israel look like a pittance in comparison.

Another Israeli friend in the making appears to be India, the world's largest democracy, and another US ally the Obama Administration has already offended by attempting to stick its nose into Kashmir and by its outreach to Pakistan and the Muslim world. Like Israel, India is a non-Muslim democracy threatened by a neighboring Islamic presence. India has a long history of welcoming Israeli tourists (which is why there was a Chabad center in Mumbai). The two countries have significant trade and the Israeli and Indian militaries have exchanges attaches and even done a few military exercises together at various times. India's latest spy satellite was purchased from Israel, a transaction that should definite boost the security ties between the two countries.

Another country Israel may develop closer ties with is China. While China currently backs countries like Iran and the Sudan in the UN, this is basically a matter of protecting oil and gas sources for its expanding economy rather than any real affinity. In fact China's press coverage of Israel is fairly balanced and the overall image of Israel in China is relatively good.

And China has its own problem with restive Muslims, the Uighers in the west of the country.

While China needs what Iran and the Arabs have to sell, it also has a need for Israeli electronic, agricultural and industrial technology and expertise. The chief friction between China and Israel came some time ago, when the US forced Israel to renege on a contract they had to supply China with delivery of Falcon intelligence planes back in 2000 the US felt had been developed as part of a joint venture. While the Israelis complained (correctly, as it turned out) that this was pressure from Washington designed simply to allow an American company to obtain the contract, they pulled out of the deal, something the Chinese were quite upset about at the time. In an environment where the US-Israeli relationship is not as close as it was, this would no longer present a problem.

It may sound odd, but the loss of the American alliance with Israel might end up affecting the US more than Israel. Hopefully it won't come to that, although the present climate in Washington towards Israel is far from friendly.

Obama's Mistaken Persian Gambit

As you all know by now, President Obama broadcast an extraordinarily video to the government and the people of Iran, ostensibly in honor ofNahruz, the Persian New year, which is celebrated annually at the spring equinox:



I avoided writing about this thus far because I wanted to see the reaction...both from the Mullahs and from several other players in the region

The extraordinary spectacle of the president of the United States, a nation Iran has considered itself in a state of war with for thirty years grovelling in this fashion shows that President Obama has absolutely no clue as to how to deal with these people.

In particular, it's noteworthy that this was addressed not only to the Iranian people, but to the regime.He specifically referred to Iran as an Islamic Republic and called for it to 'take it's rightful place among th4e nations of the world.'

The mullahcracy of Iran is a brutal, totalitarian regime that cheerfully hangs homosexuals, beats women on the streets who the basij , the regime's brown shirts, feel are immodestly dressed and `uppity', and leads the world in juvenile executions. Torture and beatings in secret prisons are the norm.

They train, support and finance terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, who like Iran are officially committed to annihilating Israel, teaching children the glories of 'martyrdom' and in the case ofHamas and Hezbollah, committing genocide against Jews world wide.

And they've been in a declared war for thirty years against the 'Great Satan' - that would be America - that has included targeting America servicemen and civilians over the years, including the bombing of a marine barracks in Beirut that cost 240 lives, the torture murder of ColonelWilliam Buckley, the abduction and execution style killings of four American officers and arming and training our enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Not only is Obama prepared to ignore all that, but he's also apparently prepared to allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, and expressly took any forceful response off the table stating that the US was 'fully committed to a diplomatic solution'.


Obama in his video talked a great deal about our “common humanity,” and made a point of discounting dismissed “those who insist we be defined by our differences..”

There are striking resemblances to a speech made a long time ago by another world leader attempting to placate a militant dictatorship : “We are determined to continue our efforts to remove possible sources of difference, and thus to contribute to assure the peace… “ That was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, when he returned from Munich in 1938 — in the statement Chamberlain made that promised “peace for our time.”

The Iranian response was swift and fairly predictable, as AyatollahKhamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran responded:

Khamenei set the bar impossibly high, demanding an overhaul of U.S. foreign policy, including giving up "unconditional support" for Israel and halting claims that Iran is seeking nuclear arms. Iran insists its nuclear program is only for peaceful energy purposes.

"Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials?" Khamenei said in a speech in the northeastern city of Mashhad. The crowd chanted "Death to America."

"He (Obama) insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day. If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change? Make it clear for us what has changed."

Still, Khamenei left the door open to better ties with America, saying "should you change, our behavior will change, too."

This is far from a kiss off, by the way. There would be absolutely no value in that for Iran. Khamenei is using a classic Persian bazaari gambit of tossing the first offer to do business back at Obama and in essence asking him how far Obama is prepared to go to make a deal.

What the Mullahs want at the very least is to eat up additional time in 'negotiations' to allow them to finish nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Once that's done, the regime is going to be solidly in place, with the ability to black mail the west by threatening to shut off Persian Gulf oil at any time.

The rest of what Iran wants is probably not a problem for Obama.The Iranians want the sanctions lifted, assets that have been frozen since the days of the hostage crisis released to Iran and a free hand in developing its nuclear weapons. They want the US to end or at least severely curtail US support for Israel and apply massive pressure on the Jewish state,especially for concessions to Hamas and Syria. That's something Obama has already shown he has no problem with. They want the US out of Iraq, Iran's historical rival so that Iran can dominate it and the rest of the Persian Gulf region, can have a free hand there, and use Persian Gulf oil and gas to finance its tottering regime so that it can expand without fear of repercussions. And they will want a free hand in Lebanon, with no US interference. In exchange, what Obama will likely get is some meaningless nonsense from the Mullahs about their nuclear weapons program and help from the Mullahs in stabilizing Afghanistan so we can leave. That 'help' will largely consist of ending the arming, training and financial support of our enemies, just as it did in Iraq.

The ready appeasement of Obama's new direction of detente withoutdeterrence towards Iran has been noticed by others and is more likely to lead towards war than any forceful confrontation would.As AmirTaheri notes, the failure of the Bush Administration and the Obama administration to stop Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons has led to a brand new arms race in the region, with Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, theUAE and even Iraq among others looking to hop aboard the nuclear band wagon.

And as for the Israelis, they've apparently realized that the Obama administration is going to end up being the most anti-Israel in US history. The President is an adherent of the Leftist rhetoric he grew up with that sees Israel as a ' white colonial state' and the Palestinians as deserving 'people of color'..and so do many if not most of his closest advisers and associates. Unless Israel is prepared to knuckle under and make suicidal strategic concessions in exchange for what amounts to paper guarantees that probably won't be honored anyway, they're going to face increasing deterioration of the US/Israeli alliance and an arms embargo is not at all unlikely. So Israel has very little to lose in making a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Given President Obama's craven appeasement and the fact that Israel faces an existential threat, I'd be very surprised if they didn't.