One very important word was missing from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress yesterday. Not that I blame him; inserting “Ukraine” into that particular speech would have been counterproductive. Yet without considering America’s Ukraine policy, it’s impossible to grasp quite how disastrous the emerging Iran deal really is.
To understand why, consider the curious threat issued by an unnamed White House official last week, in the run-up to Netanyahu’s speech: “The dispute with Netanyahu prevents all possibility for discussing security guarantees for Israel as part of the emerging Iran deal.” That particular threat was empty, because Israel has never wanted security guarantees from this or any other administration; its policy has always been that it must be able to defend itself by itself. But if Washington was considering security guarantees for Israel, it’s surely considering them for its Arab allies, since they, unlike Israel, always haverelied on America’s protection. In fact, there have been recurrent rumors that it might offer Arab states a nuclear umbrella as part of the deal, so they wouldn’t feel the need to develop nuclear capabilities themselves–something they have long threatened to do if Iran’s nuclear program isn’t stopped.
And a year ago, such a promise might have worked. After all, America’s guarantees had proven trustworthy in the past; see, for instance, 1991, when U.S. troops liberated Kuwait from Iraq’s invasion.
But last year, Russia invaded Ukraine, exactly 20 years after the latter gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for a signed commitment by Washington, Moscow, and London to respect its “independence,” “sovereignty,” and “existing borders” and “refrain from the threat or use of force” against its “territorial integrity or political independence.” After swiftly annexing Crimea, Russia proceeded to foment rebellion in eastern Ukraine; the rebels now control sizable chunks of territory, thanks mainly to arms, money, and even “off-duty” troops from Russia.
And what have Ukraine’s other guarantors, America and Britain, done to uphold the commitment they signed in 1994? Absolute zilch. They refuse to even give Ukraine the arms it’s been begging for so it can try to fight back on its own.
Given the Ukrainian example, any Arab leader would be a fool to stake his country’s security on U.S. guarantees against Iran, which, like Russia, is a highly aggressive power. Iran already boasts of controlling four Arab capitals–Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad, and, most recently, Sana’a–and shows no signs of wanting to stop. So if Arab leaders think the emerging Iranian deal is a bad one, no U.S. guarantee will suffice to dissuade them from acquiring their own nukes.
And unfortunately, that’s what they do think. As evidence, just consider the cascade of Saudi commentators publicly begging Obama to heed, of all people, the head of a country they don’t even recognize. Like Al Arabiya editor-in-chief Faisal Abbas, who published a column yesterday titled, “President Obama, listen to Netanyahu on Iran,” which began as follows: “It is extremely rare for any reasonable person to ever agree with anything Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says or does. However, one must admit, Bibi did get it right, at least when it came to dealing with Iran.” Or columnist Ahmad al-Faraj, who wrote in the Saudi daily Al-Jazirah on Monday: “I am very glad of Netanyahu’s firm stance and to speak against the nuclear agreement at the American Congress despite the Obama administration’s anger and fury. I believe that Netanyahu’s conduct will serve our interests, the people of the Gulf, much more than the foolish behavior of one of the worst American presidents.”
Clearly, letting Iran go nuclear would be terrible. But letting the entire Mideast–one of the world’s most unstable regions–go nuclear would be infinitely worse. And the only way any deal with Tehran can prevent that is if it’s acceptable to Iran’s Arab neighbors. Thanks to Ukraine, no U.S. security guarantee can compensate them for a deal they deem inadequate.
It is not true that Russian “annexed” Crimea. Crimea has always belonged to Russians and was granted illegally (within the USSR) to Ukraine by the Ukrainian Kruschev. Crimea, even under the Soviet Ukraine always retained a large measure of independence. After the collapse of the USSR, Crimea continued to serve as a naval base for the Russian Federation. The Russian military was already well settled in Crimea when the RF took it back.
The civil war in East Ukraine was brought on by the neo-Nazi coup that brought in the current administration in Kiev. East Ukraine has always had a predominantly ethnic Russian population. They are constantly struggling for representation in government and for maintaining friendly relations with the RF. But it was attempts by the administration in Kiev to create ties to the RF that brought on the violent coup. After the coup, legislation hostile to the ethnic Russians such as removing Russian as an official language forced ethnic Russians to seek autonomy and the violent reaction from Kiev is what has precipitated the current civil war.
I wish that someone influential would publish a list of U.S. promises which failed when they were needed including those of Obama. It is still too easy for Obama to issue promises like printing counterfeit currency. Obama’s influence would be seriously damaged by exposing him in this manner.
Actually the whole Ukraine war, as it touches upon Israel, is an interesting phenomenon.
The generally simple answers as to why Israel has been quiet on the war are (a) there is no love lost for the Ukrainians because of their history of fanatic Jew-hatred, and (b) with the USA turning leftward due to demographics and the left’s control of education and the media, Israel has to look for other big states as allies.
(a) may be true as far as it goes, but it’s not like Russia has a history of philo-semitism, so I think this is not a major factor.
(b) is somewhat more true – As America turns into Mexico del Norte, it will become basically a one-party Socialist state (like California) or will devolve into a growing right vs. left divide that ultimately leads to civil war. So Israel is right to look elsewhere.
But beyond this, Israel really is converting its foreign policy from one of moralpolitik to one of realpolitik. Moralpolitik no longer works in a world dominated by frothing, Jew-hating Marxo-Nazi savages. So Israel has to appeal to nations by proving she is useful. That can be done by three ways – natural gas, technical innovation, and (let’s be honest) the threat of obliterating the Middle Eastern oil supply if she is destroyed.
Putin is not an anti-Semite, but he is rather cold-blooded in advancing Russia’s (and his own personal) interests. He won’t hesitate to back rightists like Marine LePen and leftists like Syriza in Greece – at the same time – if it advances Russia. Likewise, he will not hesitate to support both Assad to the hilt and if he can, provide assistance for Israel if it makes HIM the big player in the Middle East.
Growing relations with China is hardly the result of Chinese government sympathy for a beleaguered people (although the Chinese people might be more admiring). It is the result of Israel providing high technology for advanced weaponry and the possibility of a Red-Med rail to circumvent the Suez Canal.
So Israel’s lack of protest over the Ukraine is really the result of an Israel now big enough and innovative enough to be able to sell itself on its own economic and strategic merits, rather than strictly on moral concerns.