Powered by WebAds

Friday, December 25, 2009

It's not the Cuban missile crisis, it's the Suez campaign

In the winter, when it's not posted online until after the Sabbath starts, I sometimes miss Caroline Glick's JPost column if I am too tired to read it in the hard copy on the Sabbath. That's what happened last week. Fortunately, Scott Johnson decided to call attention to it on Wednesday, and it's been open on my computer ever since.

Caroline argues that while many see the Cuban missile crisis as the paradigm for Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons, the real paradigm is the Sinai campaign of 1956, when Israel, Britain and France went to war against Egypt over US objections. While all were eventually forced to disgorge their military gains, for Israel, that war meant that the Suez Canal stayed open to Israeli shipping for the next ten and a half years.
Today, the Obama administration's treatment of US allies and enemies alike bears far more resemblance to the Eisenhower administration's policies than to those of the Kennedy administration. And in turn, the administration's behavior presents allied governments with options reminiscent to those they faced in 1956.

To the extent that Debouzy's article represents a significant thought stream in France and perhaps in Britain, it tells us three important things. First, it tells us that a significant constituency in Europe believes the time has come to act militarily against Iran's nuclear installations. Second it tells us that influential voices in France have lost patience with Obama. Sarkozy himself all but accused Obama of living in Fantasy Land at the UN Security Council meeting four months ago, in light of Obama's support for global nuclear disarmament and his cavalier attitude towards Iran's nuclear program.

Finally, by including Israel in a theoretical military alliance against Iran, Debouzy's article suggests that in spite of its anti-Israel positions on issues related to the Palestinians, France may be willing to assist Israel if Netanyahu decides to attack Iran's nuclear installations. That is, his article lends the impression that if Israel is willing to act boldly, it may not have to act alone.

THE LAST time that Israel acted militarily with others without US support was during the Suez Crisis. Debouzy's suggestion of French support for an Israeli strike against Iran should provoke our leaders to reconsider the lessons of that campaign.

...

Despite Nasser's escalating ties with the Soviet Union, the Eisenhower administration opposed ejecting him from the Suez Canal for a host of reasons. The US wished to please its Saudi ally which, like Egypt, sought to weaken the British-allied Hashemite regimes in Iraq and Jordan. The US wished to quash Britain and France's residual post-war capacities to act without US support as Washington solidified its position as the unquestioned leader of the Western alliance against the Soviet Union. Washington was politically inconvenienced by the need to support the British-French-Israeli invasion of Egypt as it condemned the Soviet invasion of Hungary. Finally, the Eisenhower administration opposed a strong Israel.

...

America's brutal reaction caused many Israeli analysts to conclude that Israel must never again go to war without US permission. And from David Ben-Gurion on, all Israeli leaders have given the US a de facto veto over nearly all of Israel's military moves.

While Israel's fear of angering America is understandable, it is far from clear that its interests were ever served by this policy. The fact is, while Israel was forced to withdraw from Sinai, the benefit it gained from the Suez Campaign still far outweighed the cost. Through the war, Israel secured its maritime rights in the Suez Canal and weakened significantly Egypt's regular and irregular forces in Sinai and Gaza.

What is clear is that 53 years ago it made no sense to get into an open conflict with Dwight Eisenhower. As the former Allied commander in Europe, Eisenhower's strategic credentials were unassailable both at home and abroad. Then, too, in 1956 the US was enjoying unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. Politically - at home and abroad - Eisenhower was immune to criticism.

Obama is no Eisenhower. The US is suffering its worst economic decline since the Great Depression. After just 11 months in office, Obama's approval ratings have sunk to 50 percent. His lack of credibility in foreign affairs came though clearly this month when a mere 26% of Americans said they believe he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize.

At the same time, Israel has never faced a threat as grave as that of a nuclear-armed Iran. There can be little doubt that if Ben-Gurion and Eisenhower were in charge today, Ben-Gurion wouldn't hesitate to again defy Eisenhower and attack Iran - with or without France and Britain. Certainly, Netanyahu cannot justify placing Israel's fate in Obama's hands.
Hmmm.

Read the whole thing.

1 Comments:

At 7:53 PM, Blogger NormanF said...

There is little doubt that if Israel finds the courage to act against Iran, it will be far more secure than it today. And it may gain the quiet support of many countries threatened by Iran. Of course, Israel may end up being condemned at the UN. But the benefits of destroying Iran's capacity to wipe out the Jewish State far outweigh any international isolation or reprisals Israel might face for such action. The Iranians regard Israel as a weak and divided country incapable of even defending itself. Changing that perception is important for Israel's survival and for world peace.

The lessons of the Sinai Campaign are important and angering America is not among them. Defending Israel's existence outweighs the need to please America.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google