Monday, December 28, 2009

Armageddon alert? Israelis convene meeting of diplomatic corps

Readers of Middle East tea leaves will want to pay close attention to Kenny Solomon's post at Red State:
Nothing like this has ever happened before with Israel . . . Sure, they called home an ambassador or two for odd expense accounting, a chief of mission for offending some peace-lover via a newspaper quote and maybe even had real problems with a few of the folks they thought were on the side of their own homeland . . . They even had all European ambassadors back a few times for conferences on the Lisbon thing. Every nation holds "home field" events with their foreign staff members.
But nothing like this meeting that started today . . .
He's talking about a conference now in progress where "Israel's ambassadors and consuls general serving throughout the world will discuss broad diplomatic and strategic issues." Every top Israeli diplomat -- all of them.

That which is unprecedented is never routine and seldom insignificant. If the current unrest in Iran doesn't overthrow the Ahmadinejad regime . . . Well, put it this way: If you're the night watchman at an Iranian nuclear facility, make sure you don't miss a payment on your insurance premiums.

The possibility of an IDF strike in the near future? Perhaps more real than we imagine. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but when you see something like this, however, the line between paranoid and realistic becomes blurred.

Thanks to my good friend Nathan Cossey for the heads-up.

15 comments:

  1. "The possibility of an IDF strike in the near future? Perhaps more real than we imagine."

    I agree. The top priority of Washington and Tel Aviv is to keep the mullahs in power in Iran so that they have someone to warn us may be hiding under our beds.

    An Israeli strike on Iran would bring its domestic movement to overthrow the regime to a screeching halt. Which is precisely why it will probably happen.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kn@ppster you are most likely wrong about that i that I may hurt a little or may grow it. And a Conspiracy between Tel Aviv and Washington? That is ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nathan,

    I said nothing about "a conspiracy between Tel Aviv and Washington" (although it's naive to believe that Israel, the single biggest recipient of US foreign aid, doesn't have considerable influence in DC). I just said that they had the same priorities with respect to Iran.

    The regime in Iran has two virtues from the POV of the US War Party: It's an utterly ineffectual regime, and it makes a great boogieman. The last thing our neocon nannies want is for that regime to be overthrown from within. They want to either keep it in place to brandish as a "threat," or take it down militarily with the attendant bribes to campaign contri ... uh, "defense" expenditures.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I made a bad point with the conspiracy written in true. But Israel does not want the current regime in power. They would be more than happy if it fell and a democracy or republic took it's place. You have to remember that the government of Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon and Syria. With support from Iran gone both groups would lose effectiveness.

    Also just because it's somewhat ineffectual does not mean it isn't dangerous. Just look at its undying quest to get nuclear weapons. Iran falling would be one of the best things that happens in the region.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Nathan,

    I agree that the current regime falling would be a great thing. That doesn't mean that the US or Israeli governments want it to happen, though.

    Iran is already a "democracy," albeit not a liberal democracy (its religious executive wields too much power and its ballot access restrictions are almost as bad as Oklahoma's!).

    The last thing the Israeli government wants is for Hamas and/or Hezbollah to disappear. At the cost of only a few Israeli lives per year, those two groups guarantee the continuation of billions of dollars in US aid. The Israeli government has a vested interest in continued low-intensity conflict.

    If the US government wanted the regime gone, it could accomplish that in 6-12 months by lifting all sanctions, announcing that we look forward to trading with the Iranian people again, and letting them overthrow the mullahs so that they can buy our stuff. This could have worked any time in the last 25 years; QED, the policy of DC is to maintain the mullahs in power and then bitch incessantly about them.

    I'm not too worried about Iranian nukes. When -- not if -- they get them, they'll almost certainly use them as every other regime except that of Harry S. Truman has: As a general deterrent (which is why DC fears them so much), and as added weight to let them flex their regional muscle. It's nothing to panic about ... nor does the only country which has ever actually used atomic or nuclear weapons on an enemy have the moral stature to complain about it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Israel does not want the current regime in power. They would be more than happy if it fell and a democracy or republic took it's place. You have to remember that the government of Iran supports Hamas and Hezbollah in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon and Syria.



    The Muslim "street" is just as radical as the current Iranian government. In fact all the factions vying for power in Iran are equally radical and all suport Hamas etc. So it is madness to imagine that an Iranian democratic republic would be superior to the current regime.


    Iran falling would be one of the best things that happens in the region.


    Nations do not fall.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Although I don't know the ballot restrictions of Oklahoma. Though I live one state to the north east of you.) And I'll concede the current administration would probably not mind seeing the mullahs staying in power. Since it it more of a militaristic theocracy instead of a Democracy or Representative democracy.

    But you are wrong that Israeli government wouldn't like to see Hezbollah and Hamas gone. Dead Wrong. Without both of those two groups it would likely be batter able to get to a better solution to the Gaza, West Bank and Golan heights problem. (Though that's a discussion for another time.)

    And buy lifting sanctions will allow the religious thugocrocy of the mullahs to legal buy weapons that we wouldn't be able to intercept. And give power and the appearance of weakness to them.

    And Dinnerjacket over there is part of a even worse apocalyptic cult that would throw nukes around and is probably a bit insane. The cult he belongs to believes that the Apocalypse will bring forth the 12th imam of his Islamic religion. They are not do not care if they get retaliated on with other nukes.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Anonymous I am talking about the protesters in Iran. There has been a slow changing of the tide of opinion in Iran at least partially.

    There is a historical disdain for Palestinian Arabs dating back to the Ottoman Empire when they served as hatchet men for the Ottoman's. This is relevant due to the bringing Hamas and Hezbollah goons during the protests earlier this year and has changed opinions somewhat or at least made some wonder if there wasn't something to what the Israelis were saying.

    ReplyDelete
  9. you are wrong that Israeli government wouldn't like to see Hezbollah and Hamas gone. Dead Wrong. Without both of those two groups it would likely be batter able to get to a better solution to the Gaza, West Bank and Golan heights problem.




    The status quo in Gaza, the Golan Heights, and the West Bank is very much to Israel's advantage. What better solution is possible, in the real world? (In the unreal world they'd simply expel all the Arabs and formally annex these places.)

    ReplyDelete
  10. It isn't to it's advantage in Gaza and West Bank. It keeps the left-stream media in there with it's pro-Palestinian bias and harms Israel via news to people who don't have time to check on the facts of the issues.

    I do agree with the annexation though not the expulsion. Yes it would make a rather bumpy ride but in the long run it would be better. I wish they would have done it after the '67 war when it would've been easier.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It isn't to it's advantage in Gaza and West Bank.


    I do agree with the annexation though not the expulsion


    Then I don't understand your argument, because Israel has already annexed these places in all but name.

    They don't WANT a formal annexation, because then they'd either have to give the West Bank Arab's the vote, or become South Africa before the end of apartheid. The status quo is exactly what Israel prefers - possession of these territories without having to give the Arabs there full citizenship rights.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What I am saying is to fully annex it. and give the Arabs there the vote and protect them from Hamas and Hezbollah.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There are 7.3 million people in Israel proper, and 2.3 million Arabs in the West bank. Israel has a less than zero desire to become a multi-ethnic state. In fact it defines itself as an ethnic Jewish state. Nothing wrong with that, IMO, but it cannot be reconciled with absorbing millions of non-Jews. That leaves it with only a few bad options. 1) give up the West Bank. 2) keep the West Bank and kick out the Arabs. 3) keep the WB and the Arabs but give them few citizenship rights.

    At present they are going with option 3.

    ReplyDelete
  14. They already have Arabs voting in Israel. Yes it would be a bumpy time for proablably a generation. I'll grant that but in the end in the dark of the night it is the only real optiomn is to intergrate them into Israeli society.

    ReplyDelete