The Neocons and Israel


The Neocons have strong Likud ties. Extremely strong.

The Neocons want a war with Iran. They always have and they know time is running out for them. They have to create facts on the ground.

The Neocons believe that the problem is that the US hasn't really taken the gloves off (ie. they haven't used their full power - like calling in carpet bombing by B52's and other such fun stuff). If Iran reacts to this, the US will be in full overreach - they will have no choice but to go to full air war to protect their troops in Iraq - it is the only way the US will be able to have a chance of winning the ensuing conflict.

At that point a lot of people get killed, a hell of a lot, very very fast. That will harden positions on both sides and the Neocons likely hope that it will ensnare the US in a war no matter what anyone in the US wants. And realistically, once US troops come under significant attack, it's a pretty safe bet that everyone will rally around, and Senate backbones will turn back to jelly.

I'm not saying this is going to happen, but Israel is juggling nitroglycerine in a TNT factory right now.

Now, I'm not saying this is what's going on. I don't know, I'm not in a position to. But the other option is that Israel is just out of control, with Olmert reacting emotionally. That might even be worse.

Finally, as Stratfor notes, Israel doesn't expect any real consequences from the international community. They'll scream, but there will be no trade or arms embargoes or aid cut offs. And odds are they're right about that. They think Rice doesn't have the power to punish them for crossing her and that the US Senate is too scared to cross Israel and that Bolton will protect them in the UN from the Security Council (he will.)

When you write a blank check, at some point the person you write it to will cash it.

We'll see how much Olmert cashes the US's check for.


Ian Welsh July 13, 2006 - 9:42pm
( categories: Analysis )

But yet you feel compelled to speculate widely.

Perhaps that is the difference between journalists and bloggers?

Sully July 13, 2006 - 10:50pm

No, the difference is that when I speculate I label it speculation. When Judith Miller speculates, she doesn't.

Don't like it, don't read it. It's free, but perhaps you're not getting your money's worth. ;)

Ian Welsh July 13, 2006 - 11:39pm

information, experience, wide and long term study and interest in a subject, and the same knowledge of the players in that subject. Ian, from what I can tell, is obviously in this catagory and therefore,for those with intellectual integrity, is a credible source for speculation. As is true of many bloggers, and not so true of a huge group of so-called journalists.

And unlike so many, the majority in fact, being the Israel-forever-war-crimes-be-damned-them-damn-beheaders-and-virgin-
loving-child-killing-Mooslims" crowd.

Not sure, but i don't think Ian has blood in this situation, "only" a moral core and intellectual integrity.

I have family and friend blood in this situation. So Ian, to me, is as credible as anyone at the Agonist that I have yet seen.

"who would Jesus bomb?"

bernadene July 14, 2006 - 11:36am

After over 40 tears of occupation, don't you think that the Palestinians have nowhere to go?
Hamas was legally elected.
If Bush or Israel doesn't like it they have to learn to live with it!
How many rules of the Geneva Convention have they broken?
Israel has attacked civilians in the name of self-defence. Wrong!
I am tired of politics using self-defence to kill civilians.
If you support Israel, check the statistics. More Palestinians civilians have been killed than Israelis.

repressive governments mix administrative clumsiness & inefficiency with authoritarian tendencies.

kimmy July 13, 2006 - 11:06pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.