Anxiety over the existentially precarious position Israel occupies in the Middle East has persisted for thousands of years, though it has grown and intensified after World War II; genocide was no longer mere theory, it had been attempted. While existential anxiety can be alleviated, mitigated, and ultimately eliminated through dedication, discipline, and intentional action, Israel’s persists. Israeli and American politicians have personally found it politically useful... The fear of oblivion is so strong that support of Israel by citizens of allies (i.e., persons who don’t live in Israel and aren’t Jewish) represents a litmus test of the allies’ heads of government. For Israel, you are either with or against... Given the deep and pervasive concern of annihilation, Israeli spite to withstand and reject external pressure elicits asympathetic policy response from allies and reinforces the security protocols to reduce said anxiety....Operation Epic Fury has shown anabsolute character for Iran, but not for either Israel or the United States: Iran has absolutely no capacity formeaningful response..... Israel is capable of self-defense against Iran as a source of anxiety. In fact, they are capable of offense. More to the point, Iran is clearly not at the same level of military capacity, capability, or sophistication as Israel.... The “war” is not a war at all – Iran can’t fight back, they lost before they knew a fight was taking place....The clear and undeniable success of the joint US-Israeli strikes against Iran do not simply mitigate the existential anxiety of the Jewish people and state, it utterly destroys the public façade maintaining that anxiety and eliminates the ideology as an aegis for any aggressive action taken (Oprisko 2015). Operation Epic Fury has been so successful so quickly, and the rationale for the aggression so flimsy that the world isn’t responding jingoistically, it’s attending a funeral; the world hasn’t seen such a lopsided win in an “even fight” since Ali-Liston II (Albanesi 2021).By having one-shot the end boss, the US and Israel have lost a value greater than any they will gain through success: an excuse for any bad behavior (Kain 2024).Overwhelming military dominance should feel like success, but the end result is failure via strategic blunder: Israel has inadvertently killed the ‘golden goose’ of all defenses by exposing Iran as a hollow threat.
I think there's something to this. Israel has gone all-in* on the attempt to settle family business while it has a reliable presidential ally in the United States. It used its "grim beeper" ploy; it used its capacity to assassinate inside the most protected Iranian secure zone; it used its drone box to take out Iranian air defenses; it used up its whole targeting list on the first night or two of strikes; and now it is using its carefully-established networks inside Iran to identify and remove IRGC commanders leading the population suppression. Oprisko is probably right that they have also decided to use up the sense of vulnerability that they have long depended upon politically and diplomatically.
That will have consequences. The Israel that emerges from this war will be very different from the one we have known for so long, and seen as hemmed in on all sides and threatened with destruction. This will have psychological consequences for Israelis at home, and political ones worldwide.
I don't know that I agree that this will damage them in the long term, however. Someone used to say something about how good it is to be "the strong horse"; Osama somebody. It certainly works in the Arab world: just today the Wall Street Journal published a call from the UAE's current Ambassador to the United States -- and Minister of State -- to finish Iran once and for all, combined with his government's commitment to doing so.
* Oprisko and I are both using sports and gaming metaphors, I notice. I liked the Ali-Liston II fight video in case any of you hadn't seen that famous boxing match, or just wanted to see it again. "To one-shot a boss" is a metaphor from tabletop war gaming and/or role-playing games in which a single attack made on a target, in this case a 'boss' or final target, is able to kill it or destroy its ability to fight. In this case, the Ayatollah was 'one-shotted' in the sense of being killed; Iran itself might be said to have been as well; its continued but flagging resistance is trumpeted in the media, but the end-game is obvious to serious observers outside the news cycle. Finally, 'to go all-in' is a poker metaphor for pushing all of one's chips into the pot on the current hand.
7 comments:
We might - emphasis on 'might' - end up with the Axis of Resistance replaced by the Fragments of Annoyance. If so, how will Israel's internal politics respond? If they become less militant it's a win for them. A major marker will be how they deal with new settlements and displacement of existing Arab homes and farms in the West Bank.
For the anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic crowd, nothing will ever be enough.
Israel has gone all-in* on the attempt to settle family business while it has a reliable presidential ally in the United States
And yet, the US has vital national interests there?
Sure would be interesting to know what they are.
I guess it depends on what you consider to be a "vital national interest." It's overdetermined in terms of American strategic national interests, grand strategic national interests, and even that Grand Overarching National Interest that predates (I believe) both of us: containment of Communism, by cutting off China's oil supply and placing it under the thumb of the US and an allied set of nations.
In that respect, plus the lesser respect of striking a blow against Islamism in a particularly ugly form, it seems to me to satisfy even the basic purpose for which the American government was established according to the Declaration of Independence: it protects the natural rights of the citizenry. Both of those ideologies are wholly opposed to the natural rights of the citizenry, and as expansionist and growing regional/global powers, Iran and China were increasing dangers to all of our liberties.
But perhaps you have something more technical in mind by the adjective "vital"? The free flow of oil at market prices, something like that? Rush Limbaugh was fond of that one. I expect this will accomplish that too, though, once the war reaches its conclusion. Three weeks in and Iran is playing all of its cards too; but they haven't got many left.
Tucker interviewed a member of the Webb family yesterday. He was not enthused about this; he did a turn in Iraq with the USMC.
Trump's victory was (or seemed to be, by his rhetoric), a push-back against the "Grand Theory" (a British construct) and even the not-so-grand theories; that is, he campaigned against keeping US troops all over the world.
You claim that Red China is adventurous, but that is not demonstrated by its history. Same with Persia. In fact, the only adventurous bunch in the Middle east is the Zionists, who seem to think that they are entitled to a few more countries.
As to oil? Recall Trump's first term, wherein he made it clear that the US should supply all its own energy--and that is the case today. We do not need M.E. oil, period.
As to taking out Islamism---that's a job for Israel and, if they so desire, Europeans and Russkies. We know that Putin despises the Muzzies; he's being nice because it hurts us (thus, Zelenskiy.)
So. This is Israel's war, and perhaps Europe's. If Israel is so inclined, let them take all of Lebanon, most of Syria, and a chunk of Egypt all by themselves, slaughtering children and other innocents like the Amaleks they are.
But not in OUR name.
I will grant you that China's "belt/road" thing is 'adventurous', but what will it get them? Financial hegemony, as currently practiced. But territorial? Not yet--and the natives will have a vote, just as will the Persians when Trump--like a fool--takes the 82nd into Kharg.
You claim that Red China is adventurous, but that is not demonstrated by its history.
Tibet, Taiwan, Japan, half of Korea, and the nations around the South China Sea all beg to differ.
The natives will have a vote? Tell that to the Uighurs and Tibetans. And to the good citizens of the Republic of China, whose own natives have generally thrown their lot in with the rest of the RoC, once the PRC conquers them.
The PRC isn't acquisitively adventurous? Tell that to the nations surrounding the South China Sea to the west, south, and east. Japan might disagree with you the East China Sea.
Financial hegemony--i.e. economic hegemony--is territorial hegemony, just without the occupying troops. As Japan and the Republic of Korea know full well, Australia is learning, and we will learn when we lose the coming shooting war with the PRC over the RoC, or meekly surrender that nation without a shot, either way of which would give the PRC full control over the sea lanes of commerce that feed all of the above nations and that carry 40+% of our own imports coming to our west coast.
The price of being the global power: we back down in one place means we face an increased likelihood of fighting elsewhere or backing down everywhere.
Eric Hines
Post a Comment