Israel, Iran, President Bush and the Nazis

For those of you who might have missed it Israel held celebrations throughout last week to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the creation of the Jewish State on May 14th, 1948. However, though there were much rejoicing and celebration, with even President George W. Bush saying a few words (more regarding that below), it was also a day of sorrow and tragedy for the Palestinians, as a true Palestinian State still hasn’t been guaranteed and the peace process towards one seems to be faltering, yet again. Furthermore, the anniversary also proved to be a stark reminder of a possible escalation of conflict, that could change the Middle East forever.

Joschka Fischer, who has a Monday blog with the German newspaper “die Zeit,” has made some interesting observations based on not only the comments of George W. Bush last Thursday, but also regarding a more aggressive stance Israel seems to be taking in the face of Iran. If I could summarize his bullet points, or rather ingredients that are being thrown into this pot of turmoil that is about to brew over, I would state the following:

-The assertion of any efforts outside of “hard power” being a return to appeasement.

-The breakdown of diplomacy by the international community regarding Iran.

-The end of the Bush presidency.

These three magical ingredients are the recipe for, according to Fischer, a possible explosion that could produce an all out war with dire consequences. The main fuel to this fire is Iran’s relentless effort to continue with its nuclear program, which many suspect will be used to produce nuclear weapons. However, in order for us to continue with our recipe for disaster as outlined by Mr. Fischer, we must first take a look at Iran.

Iran is no stranger in showing its outright aggression toward Israel. It has not only funded the Islamic insurgency groups Hamas and Hizbullah, but has also provided them with training in weaponry and tactics to be used against Israel, not to mention that there has been evidence that they are employing the exact same tactics in Iraq. By not only defying first hand the U.S.-American military, but also by demonstrating that in order to have a real peace in Iraq Iran must be included in the negotiations, its political influence is growing whereby making it the real winner of the war. (See The Economist) President George W. Bush additionally stated in a speech to the Israeli parliament that any talks with Iran or with Islamic extremist groups for that matter can be compared to the efforts of Neville Chamberlain appeasing Hitler, which admittedly there is a little bit of truth in that statement. Iran has held “conferences” on the questioning and doubt that the Holocaust ever occurred, as well as its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stating that the Jewish state should not continue to exist. (Although he has stated that his remark was taken out of context.) However, what President Bush and others who assert this view have gravely misunderstood, especially in comparison to Adolf Hilter, is that unlike Hitler Mr. Ahmadinejad is not the supreme dictator of Iran, and is only a political figure much in the same sense as the Queen of England.

Furthermore as President Bush warns against “appeasing” Iran, in all fairness and honesty, the appeasement hasn’t been working. The international community has been struggling in reigning in and trying to gain an insight into the real intentions of Iran’s ongoing nuclear program, and after many reports going back and forth stating that they are or are not intending to produce nuclear weapons, it is without a doubt that despite all sanctions and diplomatic efforts, Iran has not been deterred. However (yet another one) Iran has stated that its nuclear program is completely peaceful and therefore is in accordance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Whether or not Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons is not really the issue here. But rather the issue is that the United States and Israel both believe that they are doing so, and any acquiring of nuclear weapons by Iran, according to Fischer, will tip the balance of power in the Middle East to Iran’s favor, which could produce an escalation of conflict.

Take what was said above and add another teaspoon of having a transfer of power in the White House. What do you get? A quick mad rush to do whatever it takes to make sure Iran does not get a nuclear weapon before the new President gets through the White House door. President Bush has lost whatever political clout he has had, as he has already went to war against a country who he has accused of having nuclear ambitions, with no proof of this assertion coming into being, is continuing to support a war that is unpopular at home and abroad, and is now making remarks on the dangers of appeasement in Israel’s parliament. At the same time, Israel’s stance has seemingly become more aggressive with it displays of military power during the 60th year anniversary. Not only has the Israeli Minister of Defense, Ehud Barak, stated that a decision to use military force could be a result of life and death but also the Supreme Commander of the Israeli Air Force has remarked that they are more than capable to guarantee the security of Israel. According to Fischer, the strategical bombing of the nuclear reactor in Syria as well as the neglect of the international community to question this unilateral action is a good argument for that. In short, to sum up this paragraph, it does not seem that Israel has used the 60th anniversary, or President Bush for that matter, to really instigate a line of thought and consideration, what the 60th anniversary actually means for the Palestinians and why one should strive towards establishing a long lasting peace.

Therefore the ultimate question is, will there be a war in the Middle East, and will it come soon? Unfortunately it is hard to tell. One thing is for sure, any military aggression against Iran will not come from the U.S. but rather from Israel. The U.S. has its hands tied in Iraq, and any excuse to invade the borders of another country has become discredited with its failure to find nuclear weapons after invading Iraq. What will happen, or rather continue to happen, is the U.S. government funding the Israeli Military in the form of weaponry, and the Israeli government using its military to further keep any progression of nuclear attainment out of Iran’s hands. And this military intervention will have to come quickly, as Israel does not know who the new President of the United States will be, and how they will perceive or rather handle the situation regarding Iran, and will make any sort of action happening before December or January of next year that much more likely.

Is Iran continuing to pursuing a nuclear program and will it defy any international pressure to do so? Yes. Will it use this program to develop a nuclear missile? Probably. But why shouldn’t it? Having a nuclear weapon will more than likely give it a trump card in any political situation, and will find itself to have more room in order to pursue any policies that it may have regarding the United States or Israel. It worked for North Korea why shouldn’t it work with Iran too? So what can one do if there is a coming war? Well there are a few options. The first one is simply to attempt to pursue diplomatic talks with Iran, and hope that they will allow a third party unrestricted access to inspect their facilities. This so far has not happened. The second option would be simply to take a preemptive strike, and attempt to disrupt the work of the nuclear project and the infrastructure of its nuclear facility, whereby destabilizing the middle east even further, as well as the price of fuel, which could lead to more distress in the world economy. This will prove itself to be even more difficult, as such facilities are underground, which makes it a very hard target.

So what’s the solution? The solution is simply to go back to the beginning of the problem. The creation of the Israeli state. If Israel wants to successfully deter Iran in pursuing a nuclear program, it must first sweep the legs out from under the Islamic extremist movements. By making real concessions and holding to the agreements it has already made in part by the UN Resolution 194 and in Oslo, it can at least give real prospects to the Palistenanians of a genuine Palistenian state and build adequate political pressure against Iran. It is not a matter of appeasing a member of the axis of evil, but by admitting a wrong that was committed in 1948 and attempting to correct that wrong by including the Palestinians in the political process. Celebrating the glorious Jewish state after 60 years and warning against the evils of appeasement as well as putting the peace making process with the Palestinians on the back burner is not a step in the right direction.