Neocons vs Israel?

Aug.12, 2006


Neocons vs Israel?

NO DOUBT, the Israelis are smarter than the Americans. They know the perils involved in bringing Syria into a military conflict at this point in time ie. without having a sizeable US force with enough firepower to take on not only Syria but also Iran (if Syria become a target for an Israeli military offensive). It is not a short-term possibility. That is why the Israeli leadership balked at extortions by the neoconservative camp in Washington to widen the Lebanon offensive and include Syria.
The Israelis have cunningly turned — in the bilateral context with the US — its assault against Lebanon as a war that its armed forces are waging on behalf of the US since containing Lebanon's Hizbollah is an American priority. However, Israel is not yet ready to take it further than that despite the neocon suggestions relayed through the White House, according to reports in the US media.
One Israeli source has been quoted as saying that US President George Bush's "interest in spreading the war to Syria" was considered "nuts" by some senior Israeli officials, although Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has generally shared Bush's hard-line strategy.
The Israeli daily Jerusalem Post quoted Israeli military officials as telling the paper that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria.
Having laid low for some time following the unexpected turn of events in Iraq after having engineered the US invasion and occupation of that country in March 2003, neoconservatives are showing their colours again.
Michael Ledeen, a neocon said to have orchestrated the deceptive intelligence finding that Iraq had bought nuclear material from Niger, writes that the US should go after Syria and Iran. He laments that the US has not done so and — in typical neocon pattern — sympathises with the Israelis, who, he says, are doing the "hard work on the ground."
He calls for "the total destruction of Hizbullah and the downfall of the regime in Damascus" as the next step towards setting US gunsights further into the region.
William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, one of the pillars of the neocon movement, makes a stronger argument.
"For while Syria and Iran are enemies of Israel, they are also enemies of the United States," he writes. "We have done a poor job of standing up to them and weakening them. They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago. Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak.
"The right response is renewed strength – in supporting the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, in standing with Israel, and in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran. For that matter, we might consider countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait? Does anyone think a nuclear Iran can be contained? That the current regime will negotiate in good faith? It would be easier to act sooner rather than later. Yes, there would be repercussions — and they would be healthy ones, showing a strong America that has rejected further appeasement."
We know that the neocons are determined and heavily influential and would resort to any means to achieve their ends, and their moves end up benefiting Israel more than the US — although the widely held argument is that they are seeking to serve US interests since they believe in American supremacy of the globe.
Now, it would seem that Israel has found the neocons more of a liability than an asset because it would have to put its soldiers on the frontline if it were to engage the Syrians in a military conflict. Israel would rather have the US military on the frontline and fight Israel's war as the case was and is in Iraq.
In Lebanon's case, Israel has to fight its own war because the US could not be brought in as a direct player since it would not pass muster if Hizbollah were to be accused of posing a direct threat to the security of the US, and it is also an Israeli need to put an end to Hizbollah rocket attacks across the border.
However, that does not alter the common objectives of the US and Israel to reshape the Middle East to suit their interests. Many eggs are being cooked in the back kitchen, and what we come across here and there are advance smells of the ultimate Israeli-American dish.