Alliances are hard all the time. But if the allies share common values and have shared interests, they can find ways to work together. Watching the US-Israel war with Iran proceed, I can't help but think that those of us who have criticized NATO might have been a bit unfair. Getting consensus among 30+ like-minded countries is hard, very hard, and the alliance has to have an opt-out for any mission (in Article V, the language is "each contributes as each deems necessary). But when you have two increasingly autocratic countries both led by criminals (ok, to be fair, Netanyahu hasn't been convicted yet, right?) who are bad faith actors who don't believe in anything but staying in power, things get a bit trickier.
While we are not privvy to the actual conversations between Trump's team and Netanyahu, we have had clues in the media---that Netanyahu pushed for this war now, and Trump went along with it. This would not be the first time a country dragged another ally into a war, as that is one of two horns of the alliance dilemma with the other possibility being a country abandons its ally. And drag may be a strong word since Trump probably did not have to be pushed hard given his previous attacks against Iran and Iranian interests (killing Solimani, last summer's bombing) and, of course, Trump hasn't thought through the consequences such as oil price spikes and much inflation back home.
This gets to the larger question: if allies don't agree on the goal, how does an alliance work? What does Israel want in this war? It seems to be the destruction of Iran as a state, which means hitting any and all targets that might help fracture the state and destroy its capacity. For the US? Damned if I know since the various officials--Trump, Rubio, Hegseth--have all said multiple things. If it was regime change, the US would want Iran to have infrastructure intact (water desalination, oil refineries) so that the new regime can manage. If it is ending the missile threat, that too would suggest more limited attacks. If it is to complete the Christian nationalist dream of ushering in the end of times, well, oh my, I guess that killing anyone and everyone.
There were some reports that the US was displeased with Israel hitting oil refineries, which raises a big question: how much cooperation is there over targeting? During the Kosovo campaign, NATO allies coordinated quite a bit over what to hit when? Libya? Same thing. ISIS? I think so. Now, hard to tell. That the Trump regime didn't prepare for or plan for Iran threatening the Strait of Hormuz tells us a lot about American preparation or lack thereof.
Israel? Perhaps the epitome of tactically sound, strategically incompetent. The Israeli military is really good at hitting its targets, but how that relates to security I have no idea. From my trip back in 2019, I go the impression that hitting hard is not just the key tactic but pretty much the only goal. Restraint does not make sense for them since they have already priced in world opposition: everyone hates them, everyone is anti-semitic, so theymight as well do what they want. And that has worked really well for them--they have had long periods of peace and stability.* Oh wait, it hasn't, but the learning curve seems to tilt towards simply escalating whenever they are hit. It creates deterrence that lasts ... hours or days.
So, the US has been a lousy but useful ally for Israel as Trump is unreliable and fickle. Israel is a lousy ally for the US, helping get an all-too-willing US into a war that provides no real benefits to the American people (Americans hate Iran thanks to the hostage crisis, when folks used to sing bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran, yet they still hate this war--great achievement by Team Trump). The US is an even worse ally for, well, all of its allies. It made all of the Mideast targets for Iranian attacks--why should Iran restrain itself when its very existence is at stake? The US radically increased oil prices for its friends, which only helps Russia and other oil exporting places (Alberta?), and it has made the coalition/domestic political games of its European allies far more difficult.
All of this was foreseeable, which is why American presidents have refrained from attacking Iran, even, yes, the ideological and dim Bushies. But the Trump regime hates being told it can't do something, like a toddler, and is deliberately ignorant. Which led to being very poorly prepared for the likely Iranian responses that came to fruition.
* I keep putting off writing a post that puts a significant hunk of blame on the increase in anti-semitism around the world on Israel because, yes, yowza. The Israeli stance of pricing in hate is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Yes, there is anti-semitism in the world, just like there is Islamophobia, and the actions of states that are seen as the homelands of such religions matter in exacerbating or ameliorating those pre-existing tendencies. Israel will tell Jews to come home to Israel if they want to be safe, which is, alas, mighty rich given that Israel's actions have increased the danger to Jews outside of Israel and.... yes, to Jews inside of Israel. We can identify anti-semites and hold them responsible for their own actions (say, most of the Trump regime) and still hold Israel responsible for pouring gasoline on these pre-existing fires.
No comments:
Post a Comment