JD Vance asks Israel, "What is your exact proposal? You're a country of 9 million people. You can't just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have."
This right here is the problem.
You see, if we take him at his word, JD assumes that every problem has a negotiated solution if only reasonable people work hard enough to find one.
Americans, but specifically Trump and his inner circle, tend to approach the world like businessmen. Everyone has interests, everyone wants prosperity, and if you're clever enough you can eventually structure a deal that gives everybody something they want.
But that simply isn't true.
What are the goals of the relevant countries?
Well, Israel does not want its citizens incinerated in a nuclear attack. That's pretty much it.
Iran's rulers on the other hand, view themselves as participants in a religious and ideological struggle that long predates the current conflict and extends far beyond Israel itself.
The Islamic Republic was founded as a revolutionary state. They speak openly about exporting the revolution, expelling Western influence from the Middle East, destroying the "Zionist entity," and leading what they see as a historic struggle against the American led world order.
Their answer to every obstacle over the last forty seven years has been Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, Shiite militias, ballistic missiles, and nuclear enrichment. In other words, terror.
Which part of that is supposed to be negotiated away?
Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, normalized relations with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan, withdrew from Sinai, withdrew from Gaza, accepted partition, pursued Oslo, and is still searching for ways to coexist with its neighbors.
At the end of the day, Americans enjoy the luxury of fighting wars far from home. Families in northern Israel are running to bomb shelters because drones are being launched from Lebanon as we speak. Should Israel just accept that?
Imagine Ariel Sharon telling George Bush in 2004, three years after 9/11, "You're a country of 300 million people. You can't just kill your way out of every terrorism problem you have."
Americans would have considered that outrageous. Rightfully so.
America was simply trying to destroy the people who murdered thousands of Americans and promised to do it again.
Washington keeps assuming Iran's rulers ultimately want the same things Americans want. Things like prosperity, stability, and economic growth. The chance to rejoin the international system.
Their behavior over nearly half a century suggests otherwise.
Any agreement they accept is accepted because they believe it serves their long term objectives. If they agree to pause, it is because they think pausing benefits them. If they compromise, it is because they believe compromise advances their ultimate goals. They think in decades, not election cycles.
The most one can hope for is not conversion. It is deterrence. It is convincing them that losing this round is preferable to continuing the fight, while understanding that they fully intend to continue pursuing the same objectives when circumstances become more favorable.
I think JD knows. Which makes his comments all the more disturbing.
There is a Regime Change in Isaac Every Four Years. Next One is Due by October.
ReplyDeleteI want Bibi Out.
It’s Called Democracy.
How About Falastin or Iran? Or Any Other ME country for that matter?
Any Leader Elected by Isaacs will Defend their Country. Bibi or Otherwise.
ReplyDeleteJD Vance asks Israel, "What is your exact proposal? You're a country of 9 million people. You can't just kill your way out of solving every single national security problem that you have."
ReplyDeleteThis right here is the problem.
You see, if we take him at his word, JD assumes that every problem has a negotiated solution if only reasonable people work hard enough to find one.
Americans, but specifically Trump and his inner circle, tend to approach the world like businessmen. Everyone has interests, everyone wants prosperity, and if you're clever enough you can eventually structure a deal that gives everybody something they want.
But that simply isn't true.
What are the goals of the relevant countries?
Well, Israel does not want its citizens incinerated in a nuclear attack. That's pretty much it.
Iran's rulers on the other hand, view themselves as participants in a religious and ideological struggle that long predates the current conflict and extends far beyond Israel itself.
The Islamic Republic was founded as a revolutionary state. They speak openly about exporting the revolution, expelling Western influence from the Middle East, destroying the "Zionist entity," and leading what they see as a historic struggle against the American led world order.
Their answer to every obstacle over the last forty seven years has been Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, Shiite militias, ballistic missiles, and nuclear enrichment. In other words, terror.
Which part of that is supposed to be negotiated away?
Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, normalized relations with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan, withdrew from Sinai, withdrew from Gaza, accepted partition, pursued Oslo, and is still searching for ways to coexist with its neighbors.
At the end of the day, Americans enjoy the luxury of fighting wars far from home. Families in northern Israel are running to bomb shelters because drones are being launched from Lebanon as we speak. Should Israel just accept that?
Imagine Ariel Sharon telling George Bush in 2004, three years after 9/11, "You're a country of 300 million people. You can't just kill your way out of every terrorism problem you have."
Americans would have considered that outrageous. Rightfully so.
America was simply trying to destroy the people who murdered thousands of Americans and promised to do it again.
Washington keeps assuming Iran's rulers ultimately want the same things Americans want. Things like prosperity, stability, and economic growth. The chance to rejoin the international system.
Their behavior over nearly half a century suggests otherwise.
Any agreement they accept is accepted because they believe it serves their long term objectives. If they agree to pause, it is because they think pausing benefits them. If they compromise, it is because they believe compromise advances their ultimate goals. They think in decades, not election cycles.
The most one can hope for is not conversion. It is deterrence. It is convincing them that losing this round is preferable to continuing the fight, while understanding that they fully intend to continue pursuing the same objectives when circumstances become more favorable.
I think JD knows. Which makes his comments all the more disturbing.
OK let’s hear a Negotiated Solution acceptable to Ishmaels, where the Killing Stops. What does that Look Like? Explain Here.
ReplyDelete