Follow us on social

google cta
2023-01-30t171455z_269846990_rc2do98pzutz_rtrmadp_3_israel-usa-blinken-netanyahu-scaled

Is Israel playing hardball, sucking the US into plot to attack Iran?

Not only would such a move be unconstitutional, but strategically stupid

Analysis | Middle East
google cta
google cta

The Israeli government has been keeping the Biden administration in the dark about the details of its planned reprisal against Iran.

According to sources tapped by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News, the Netanyahu government has not shared information with the U.S. about what it is going to do “even after American military officials have discussed possibly supporting Israeli retaliation with intelligence or airstrikes of their own, according to two U.S. officials.”

Israel’s lack of communication with the U.S. is remarkable on its own, but the fact that the U.S. military has been floating the possibility of launching airstrikes on Iranian targets to support Israel’s attack is alarming.

The U.S. cannot legally initiate hostilities against Iran in support of an Israeli reprisal, no matter how the administration might try to dress it up as a “defensive” action. It is also completely unacceptable under our constitutional system for U.S. forces to participate in an attack on another country without Congressional debate and authorization. Unless there is an attack on the United States or its forces, the president cannot order the military to engage in hostilities on his own. The U.S. military shouldn’t be participating or assisting in such an attack just because the president says so.

Any U.S. support for an Israeli attack on Iran would be a serious mistake. Direct Israeli attacks on Iran will not end the back-and-forth reprisals between the two states. They practically guarantee that the Iranian leadership will feel compelled to respond in kind again. If Washington is seen as assisting the Israeli attack in any way, that could also expose U.S. troops and ships in the region to Iranian retaliation.

Obviously direct U.S. strikes on Iranian forces or installations would invite more attacks on American personnel and interests.

While the Biden administration continues to provide unconditional backing to Israel no matter what its government does, U.S.-Israeli relations have still sunk to new lows. Israel has repeatedly carried out attacks in Syria, Lebanon and Iran without giving Washington much or any advance notice despite the extensive support and protection that the U.S. has been providing.

In the case of the intense air strikes that killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah along with possibly hundreds of civilians, the Israeli government reportedly gave the U.S. no notification before launching the attack. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu may have assumed that the strikes were so aggressive that the U.S. would oppose them if it knew about them earlier.

According to journalist Laura Rozen, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blocked Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, from traveling to the United States this week to meet with the Secretary of Defense and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Netanyahu reportedly insisted that he would not permit Gallant to go to Washington until Biden called him and the Israeli cabinet approved the attack plan. The president and the prime minister have not spoken since August. There was a report on Wednesday that Biden would speak to Netanyahu that day.

The Biden administration is responsible for encouraging what international relations scholar Barry Posen has called “reckless driving” by the Israeli government. Posen explained the “reckless driving” concept in his book Restraint this way: “Small states, or non-state actors, which for any number of reasons have become confident in the U.S. commitment, behave recklessly. They pursue their own narrow interests even when they are at variance with the interests of the United States.”

Because the U.S. has reflexively backed Israel every step of the way and helped to shield Israel from the consequences of its attacks on other countries, Netanyahu has taken advantage of that unwavering support to take far greater risks than he likely would have otherwise. This has been disastrous for the region and terrible for U.S. interests, and it has been made possible by Washington’s excessive commitment.

Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin reportedly described Israeli behavior as “playing with house money.” As a Washington Post report put it, Austin meant that Israel was “taking big shots at its adversaries, knowing that the United States, as Israel’s chief ally, would throw its military and diplomatic weight behind it.” Administration officials do recognize the perverse effect that their lockstep support has on Israeli decision-making, but they are unwilling to change course and rein Netanyahu in.

The U.S. should be urging Israel to refrain from further attacks on Iran and Iranian forces, and it should be using its considerable leverage to make sure that Israel doesn’t attack. Given the relatively limited damage and lack of casualties from Iran’s two missile barrages, another round of strikes would only stoke conflict and provoke more reprisals. Neither Israel nor the United States can afford a war with Iran, and our government should be doing everything it can to make that war less likely.

Unfortunately, there seems to be no will in the Biden administration to halt the slide to a larger conflict that involves U.S. forces.


L-R: U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu shake hands after their meeting at the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem, on Monday, January 30, 2023. DEBBIE HILL/Pool via REUTERS
google cta
Analysis | Middle East
Arlington cemetery
Top photo credit: Autumn time in Arlington National cemetery in Arlington County, Virginia, across the Potomac River from Washington DC. (Shutterstock/Orhan Cam)

America First? For DC swamp, it's always 'War First'

Military Industrial Complex

The Washington establishment’s long war against reality has led our country into one disastrous foreign intervention after another.

From Afghanistan to Iraq, Libya to Syria, and now potentially Venezuela, the formula is always the same. They tell us that a country is a threat to America, or more broadly, a threat to American democratic principles. Thus, they say the mission to topple a foreign government is a noble quest to protect security at home while spreading freedom and prosperity to foreign lands. The warmongers will even insist it’s not a choice, but that it’s imperative to wage war.

keep readingShow less
Trump Maduro Cheney
Top image credit: Brian Jason, StringerAL, Joseph Sohm via shutterstock.com

Dick Cheney's ghost has a playbook for war in Venezuela

Latin America

Former Vice President Richard Cheney, who died a few days ago at the age of 84, gave a speech to a convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in August 2002 in which the most noteworthy line was, “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

The speech was essentially the kickoff of the intense campaign by the George W. Bush administration to sell a war in Iraq, which it would launch the following March. The campaign had to be intense, because it was selling a war of aggression — the first major offensive war that the United States would initiate in over a century. That war will forever be a major part of Cheney’s legacy.

keep readingShow less
Panama invasion 1989
Top photo credit: One of approximately 100 Panamanian demonstrators in favor of the Vatican handing over General Noriega to the US, waves a Panamanian and US flag. December 28, 1989 REUTERS/Zoraida Diaz

Invading Panama and deposing Noriega in 1989 was easy, right?

Latin America

On Dec. 20, 1989, the U.S. military launched “Operation Just Cause” in Panama. The target: dictator, drug trafficker, and former CIA informant Manuel Noriega.

Citing the protection of U.S. citizens living in Panama, the lack of democracy, and illegal drug flows, the George H.W. Bush administration said Noriega must go. Within days of the invasion, he was captured, bound up and sent back to the United States to face racketeering and drug trafficking charges. U.S. forces fought on in Panama for several weeks before mopping up the operation and handing the keys back to a new president, Noriega opposition leader Guillermo Endar, who international observers said had won the 1989 election that Noriega later annulled. He was sworn in with the help of U.S. forces hours after the invasion.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.