The Balance of Power - Part One

The United States under Obama no longer regards Israel as the super strategic ally that it did once upon a time. This is part of a long term US strategy that has been playing out over many years, even decades. On the face of it the strategy looks logical from an American point of view. However, like most geopolitical strategies they are usually flawed by the law of unintended consequences. This one especially. To understand that speeches by Netanyahu or Obama have zero effect on strategy we have to start long before either of them sermonized a word. Quite frankly, if a speech is all that it takes to shred a relationship, then that relationship has long ago been shredded.

It might come as a surprise to some, but this so-called "We have always stood behind you" relationship only began quite recently. In the fifties, Israel's weapons were supplied by Russia via Czechoslovakia. Up until 1967 weaponry was provided by France. The survival of Israel was irrelevant to the US, neither here nor there. After 1967, the French stepped away and the Russians resupplied Syria and Egypt with arms. A Russian port in Egypt threatened the US Sixth Fleet. The cold war was at its peak and the US needed to balance Soviet intentions. Of course, who better than little Israel, desperate to survive and who could be easily controlled. So began the age of American aid to Israel and the "relationship" was upgraded.

By 1974 US aid was 20% of Israel's GDP. (By comparison today it is 1%). The end of this romance arrived quietly with the collapse of Communism and has been replaced by a marriage of convenience. The Americans no longer feared Russia and despite a resurgence of US support after 9/11, the Americans slowly began to shift in another direction. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan proved beyond a shadow of doubt that The US did not have the military strength to impose their will on anyone in this region. Tough to read, but never the less true. At the same time China began to flourish economically and threatened shipping lanes through the South China Sea. US resources were needed to check Chinese designs. So how does one do this... withdraw from the Middle East without losing influence and move to check the Chinese? The only logical way is to create a balance of power between four countries in the Middle East. Those countries are Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey and Israel. Israel might still be ahead in the pecking order, but not by much. A difficult but flawed strategy.

George Friedman: "Israel wanted the United States focused on Israel as its main partner, but the United States has much wider and more complex relations to deal with in the region that required a more nuanced approach." Netanyahu asked for more stringent sanctions on Iran. This will not happen. The US regards ISIS as a strategic threat to its interests in the region and the struggle against ISIS in Iraq and Syria requires some form of US and Iranian co-operation.

This is the root of the divergence on Iran.

This strategy is based on the Muslim countries taking responsibility, boots on the ground responsibility, against groups like ISIS, using US air support. The trick is to keep the rival players weak enough so they have to cooperate. On the face of it this seems to be working. CNN provides free advertising. An enemy is concocted. At one time this enemy had 15000 men riding around on Toyota trucks. One weeks work for the IAF. Not so today. ISIS has now gifted the surprised Americans a great opportunity to implement this hands-off policy. Turkey is slowly stepping up. Egypt has suggested an Inter-Arab force. Saudi Arabia suspiciously watches Iran. Turkey and the Saudis have meetings (just last week) and today Turkish Defense Minister Ismet Yilmaz said his country would support Iraq in an operation to retake Mosul from the Islamic State. So whats wrong with the strategy? Well for one, the US cannot afford a loss to ISIS and they cannot afford Iran taking control of Iraq. Obama and co are better known for mismanagement than balancing acts.

Islam is imploding economically and militarily. Countries like Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria and Libya are embroiled in civil wars. There are water and food shortages in in all these countries. Life is worthless unless you are one of 140 million potential Jihadists. Then one dies for virgins or whatever. The flawed assumption is that with a mix of appeasement and distance from the conflict, Americans are generally safe. Quite the mistake! A tidal wave of fleeing Muslim immigration is sweeping Europe. Islam as a religion is taking hold in North America. 

The blunder is in believing that Islam should be grateful to be a part of western civilization. Nothing could be further from the truth. They abhor all other religions as demonstrated by the no go zones in Europe. Every State in the US has ongoing FBI investigations into potential jihadist activity.

It goes without saying that there will be a bad deal with Iran simply because Iran has no intention of abiding by the dictates of the infidel known as the Great Satan. They are just a slightly more sophisticated version of ISIS with a stock of ICBM's in the pantry....and the US needs them in the war against ISIS. Its either that or US boots on the ground. The first or possibly the second foreign sponsored bomb to explode in any US City will shatter all these naive attempts at balance. The barbarians are no longer at the gate...they are amongst us.

Talk is cheap because supply exceeds demands - Unknown

There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em - Louis Armstrong