Weiss Report Blog

By Doug Krieger

A STRATEGIC AND ESCHATOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE

This week (ending December 3, 2005) in Washington, D.C., the
United States and Israel, after a three-year hiatus, resumed
their “Strategic Dialogue.” This is different–very different.
Something far more significant has commenced between the two
allies facing the likes of a burgeoning insurgency fed by an
Iranian President who insists that “ISRAEL MUST BE WIPED OF THE
MAP” and a resurgent Syrian-Hezbollah-Hamas (Baathist
Socialist-Shiite-Sunni) alliance whose intentions mirror those
of Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a “World Without Zionism”
(Haaretz).

Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev claimed the
Strategic Dialogue had broken off for “logistical reasons”–not
because tensions over upgrading Israel’s Harpy anti-radar aerial
drones, originally purchased by China in the mid-’90s under Ehud
Barak’s regime, were the actual cause of the estrangement
(Israel sent the degraded drones back to China; ipso facto, it’s
time to strategize (PINR)). Frankly, the US and Israel are
harping about something else . . .

IRAN’S NUCLEAR PROGRAM MUST BE WIPED OFF THE MAP

Targeting March of 2006, IDF Military Intelligence Chief, Major
General Aharon Ze’evi, and Ariel Sharon have given official
notification: Israel is not apt to abide the diplomatic
ineptitude of the French, Germans, and British with the Iranians
in stemming the inevitable WMD and the delivery systems now in
place to fulfill the visions of Ahmadinejad, Osama ben Laden,
and Zarqawi on behalf of Israel–let alone the aspirations of
“democratic reforms” fashioned by Egypt’s Islamic Brotherhood
(BBC)!

“‘If by the end of March 2006, the international community
(i.e., the inane efforts of the British, French, and
Germans) does not manage to use diplomatic means to block
Iran’s effort to produce a nuclear bomb, there will no longer be
any reason to continue diplomatic activity in this field, and it
will be possible to say that the international attempts to
thwart [Iran’s efforts] have failed,’ Ze’evi said.” (December 2,
2005, Haaretz) Indeed, the pivotal Brits (perennial toadies of
the US-Israeli Axis) have no need to fear a politically defunct
EU aghast at what an attack on Iran might engender throughout
the Moslem World–at least not according to John Laughland in
ICH:

“Will an attack on Iran put unacceptable strain on Euro-Atlantic
relations? Will Britain be forced further onto the horns of the
dilemma it has striven to avoid, namely to be forced to chose
between the US and the EU? No. US and British policy has ensured
that the EU will itself be in such turmoil over the next year
that it will not be able to respond in any meaningful sense to a
new act of Anglo-American aggression.”

As the “watch and see” Israelis reach “maximum
vulnerability”–the US-Israel “special relationship” may, like
the Syrian-Iranian Defense Pact of early 2005 (Fox News),
evolve–by necessity–into a far more sinister tool of Western
colonial imperialism. The Moslem World–and think not that I
stereotype all Moslems into that “world”–is fixated,
notwithstanding the ineffective fringe of moderate-secular
Islam, upon the awful and inevitable prospect:

THE US-ISRAEL DEFENSE PACT

This is a huge enchilada to swallow; thence, we shall dismember
this wildebeest in four stages: (1) The nature of such a Defense
Pact; (2) The circuitous route through Israel’s history it’s
taken; (3) Allies behind the pact; and (4) The eschatological
imperative embedded within an ultimate security agreement
between the US and Israel (let alone the scores of nations who
will sign on to such an arrangement). No, I don’t wish to sound
presumptuously prophetic; however, if you still can’t see the
elephant in the picture (having been mesmerized by the white
crane taking a free ride atop the pacaderm) then let me disabuse
you of your preposterous pigeon-vision perspective and get a bit
stereoscopic: BEHOLD, THE ELEPHANT COMETH!

First, let’s be clear, the aforementioned “strategic dialogue”
between the USA and Israel is designed to put Iran on notice:
The Elephant Cometh. Secondly, there’s no need to hide the
obvious–nothing like putting the whole world on notice, for
we’re about to see the wave peak: The Sea Change Cometh!

Now, Herr Hitler in Mein Kampf said he intended to
kill the Jews–grief, he meant what he said. Well, today you
have Radical Islamicists (who need little “doctrinal platform”
from the Koran to launch their aspirations)–double grief, they
intend to “Wipe Israel off the map.” Next, you have the
Commercial West, led by the political chutzpah of the USA and
the shock and awe of history’s most awesome military machine
ever to countenance the planet–under girded by the recalcitrant
“Bush Doctrine”–an amalgam of victorious democratic
enforcement, buttressed by the
Judeo-Christian-Evangelical-Zionist-Neocons, with the corporate
elite picking up the rear, hoping they’ll get the contracts from
this hyphenated juggernaut and the oil from not only Iraq, but
also Iran et al.

Forgive, but at this juncture, the altruistic peaceniks–you
know, the Air-head America Radio types–who have the
supercilious notion that a unilateral and immediate pullout of
American troops from Iraq and the entire Middle East, along with
keeping “international accords” and the like, will somehow
regain American stature and alleged credibility in the world.
Look, let’s just cut to the chase: The US Congress has
spoken–401 to 3. We’re staying put!

The Israelis and the US know that their “strategic-special
relationship” is not built on thin air–but upon a host of
platitudes: Shared values; Judeo-Christian beliefs; Cold War
allies; pioneer spirit (settlers); only democracy in the Middle
East; over a million Israelis holding dual US citizenship
(approximately of the nation); both are terrorized by
terrorists–the same ones; Israel’s identification with the
West, ad nausea, ad infinitum. Whoops, and as the Moslem
World sees it: Shared Western decadence and heretical religious
affirmations–right smack in the midst of the 10/40 Corridor,
the Holy Land which Saladin et all took fair and square from the
Crusaders way back when!

“Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the deepening
and strengthening of ties with the United States has always been
a central, essential issue in Israeli foreign and defense
policy. In this context, the possibility of establishing a
formal defense pact, with the United States has
arisen from time to time . . . since the end of the Cold War and
with the progress made in the peace process, some complex
elements have been added . . . it is clear that the nature of
such a pact in the current period would be significantly
different from one during the Cold-War era” (Yair Evron, Jaffe
Center for Strategic Studies-Strategic Assessment).

This only gets more specific . . . as Mr. Evron–way back in
October 1998–outlines the reasons for such a “Defense Treaty
between Israel and the U.S.” (minor editing):

1. When Israel-Syria negotiations are resumed, a defense
pact is likely to serve as part of American
‘compensation,’ offered in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from
the Golan Heights, or within the framework of American
guarantees for developing a ‘package’ of security measures,
which would undoubtedly constitute a central component of such
an agreement.

2. The subject of a defense pact, might also arise
within the context of the possible ‘leakage’ into the region
(Note: Veiled allusion here to, at the time, Iraq, and assuredly
Iran and even Syria–my edit) of nuclear materials or weapons
from Russia . . . a defense pact would be likely
to moderate or preclude the development of dangerous conditions.

3. Assuming the peace process continues, it is likely that a
regional security system will be established; an
important component of this regime would be (predicated) on (an)
Israeli-U.S. defense pact.

Again, Mr. Evron’s perceptions regarding such a defense pact
clearly grasps the overall strategic understanding between the
USA and Israel; however, if you would–strategic peculiarity–of
a defense pact occupies an “above and beyond” all Memoranda of
Understanding, all elements of the existing strategic alliance
between the two, and, most definitely, all existing
military-cultural-religio affinities to wit:

“The idea of a defense treaty arose again in the 1970s and in
the 1980s. During the Cold War period, the U.S. viewed Israel as
a ’strategic asset’ and a stabilizing influence in the region .
. . Israel clung to this perception in the hope that mutual
strategic interests would serve as a foundation strong enough to
formalize defense relations between the two countries, despite
the absence of a solution to the problem of the territories
occupied in 1967. The 1982 Lebanon War and the continuation of
the regional conflict, however, prevented such formalization,
and it appeared that the U.S. would not be prepared to protect
Israel’s borders if those borders included the occupied
territories. In the absence of a formal defense
treaty, Israel’s status was defined, for the first time,
as a Non-NATO Ally in early 1987.” (ibid. Yair Evron)

Be very clear–the U.S. and Israel know perfectly well what such
a DEFENSE TREATY entails. During the Peres government (and, who
knows, sounds like Sharon-Peres will have a government again if
their Kadima party wins in March, 2006–same time that Iran gets
the bomb) in 1996 Israel pressed for just such an accord. But,
that expectation was placed on the back burner when Netanyahu
took over as Prime Minister.

BARAK - CLINTON - AND THE DEFENSE PACT

Never mind, Ehud Barak, strolling around Camp David with
President Clinton back in 2000 knew precisely the cost of such a
DEFENSE PACT. Bruce Riedel, Clinton’s Special Assistant for Near
East and South Asian Affairs on the National Security Council
spelled out the financial ramifications and parameters of the
elusive pact in an article found on bitterlemons.org.

Riedel spent time with Barak’s aides, Danny Yatom and Zvi
Shtauber, in formulating the “defense agreement and the
compensation package” that Israel would receive if they
structured a peace deal with the U.S. Riedel related how the
Israelis came to Camp David prepared–they “placed a draft of
the DEFENSE AGREEMENT on the table along with a detailed list of
financial and security requests” (Aluf Benn, Haaretz). Now,
listen how Aluf Benn puts it:

“According to Riedel, Barak wanted a contractual format for the
strategic relations between the U.S. and Israel, which had
developed substantially over the years but lacked a formal
dimension. His proposal was to sign an agreement in
which the U.S. would agree to come to Israel’s aid in the event
of future attacks and then get the pact ratified by the American
Congress and the Knesset.”

Is that clear enough? O.K. let’s spell it out:

(1) $15 Billion in American aid–primarily upgrading the IDF (2)
$10 Billion to compensate the Palestinians (3) $10 Billion for
building desalination plants in Israel, the Palestinian state
and Jordan TOTAL: $35 Billion

Ultimately, the befuddled Riedel pondered . . .

“Two years after Camp David (2002) the tragedy of the missed
opportunity that the summit presented is clearer than ever.
Imagine a Middle East without the Intafada and with a peace
agreement buttressed by an enormous reconstruction fund, akin to
the Marshall Plan that President Truman used to rebuild Europe
after World War Two” (ibid. Aluf Benn).

PERES AND THE ELUSIVE US-ISRAEL PEACE PACT

Remember, the 82-year old Peres has wanted a US-Israeli Defense
Pact for a long time–positioning himself in the new
Sharon-Peres Alliance provides ample space to conclude such a
pact.

Back in 1995 Dore Gold contemplated Peres’ US-Israel Defense
Pact in “Is a Mutual Defense Treaty Between Israel (and) the
U.S. Needed?” He cautioned:

“Israel and the United States have already been allies without
an alliance. But taking the relationship one step further to a
formal treaty? In the past, Israel had no pretensions of being
able to defend itself against the Soviet Union; thus
U.S.-Israeli ties complemented the IDF’s independent military
power. But in the context of an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty, a
new strategic relationship could evolve into a substitute for
Israel’s self-defense capability; with enormous implications
beyond the peace process itself . . . the essence of a formal
Israeli-U.S. alliance is the recognition that an attack on
Israel is an attack on the United States itself. And if that is
the case, it can be argued that a treaty reduces the need for an
independent Israeli deterrent capability. Why not depend on the
retaliatory power of American submarines in the Mediterranean?
The alliance could thus become a useful instrument to get Israel
to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

WHY IS ISRAEL HESITANT IN SIGNING THE DEFENSE PACT WITH THE
USA?

Interesting, isn’t it . . . for decades Israel has “gone it
alone” - while increasingly relying upon the USA’s benevolence
and “strategic cooperation” on many fronts . . . but there’s
always been that slight, yet profound hesitancy to take the
final leap into the DEFENSE PACT? A sample of conflicted Israeli
leaders has repeatedly warned:

“I don’t recommend that any one of us accept as a substitute
(for Israel’s positions in the territories) even entering NATO,
international guarantees or American soldiers” (Moshe Dayan,
1981)

“No army is a substitute for the IDF in protecting Israel’s
security” (Yitzhak Rabin, memoirs) (Dore Gold, Jewish News
Weekly, 1995)