Edited by Bora Mici
Is This America?
With regard to the "what," only one plan of action stood in the fore for the United States when it intercepted — if this was indeed the immediate reason for the hasty reaction — al-Qaida’s operation instructions: organizing the prevention of a possible attack — and that it did. However, concerning the "how," the possibilities were varied. However, in a senseless act, the administration chose the worst of them all: alongside organizing the prevention, a wholesale shutting down of consulates, among other hastened actions.
These spread panic and increased the renown, and particularly the motivation, of the separate groups under the name al-Qaida. In the American homeland, in addition to the strategic fiasco, the national pride was hurt — in naïve, idealistic America many draw strength and power from this archaic notion — and serious doubts were raised, even in liberal circles, about the administration's discretion.
Almost simultaneously, with the closure of the 22 representative offices, the administration reached out to the elected president of Iran, Hasan Rouhani. “This is an opportunity for Iran,” stated the official message, “to act quickly to resolve the international community’s deep concerns over Iran’s nuclear program.” There were no demands to stop the enriching of uranium, no warning against the development of a plutonium manufacturing facility. These manifestations of weakness, then, are the norm. The working premise in Israel should be that the U.S. will show weakness, even against Iran, and will not fulfill the public presidential promise — that the U.S. will not allow Iran to complete its production of a nuclear bomb.
Experts have been finding strategic, political and financial reasons for America’s severing of connections with terrorist war zones in Asia and the Middle East. They do not mention an additional, deeper reason: the changes America’s ethos is currently undergoing. Their understanding possibly holds the key to the mystery that so many are trying to solve: What happened to the unique soul of America? Where is the spirit of America that made it what it was and will apparently no longer be? What kind of substantial threat do these decentralized terrorist groups pose — even if determined and cruel — to the national security of the superpower?
In the past, for example during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. has reacted firmly and resolutely — even when on the brink of nuclear war against a superpower, the former Soviet Union. Both of these attributes, firmness and resoluteness, instilled its status as a protector of the democratic values of the free world — in the not-so-distant past against communism and, in recent decades, against Islamic terrorism.
Israel has many, possibly too many, experts on U.S. affairs. In the initial public announcements made by the more prominent among them — as opposed to what was said even in liberal groups in the U.S. and Europe — a tone of defense could be heard on the topic of the embassy panic. This indicates, among other things, an ideological alignment with the American exhibition of weakness: If this is how the great United States is behaving, how could Israel behave differently, in the case of Iran for example? However, there are also public opinion leaders who have a good understanding of the kind of price Israel too will pay in light of this American feebleness, but they publicly justify the frenzied reaction. As such, they return their “debt” to their American sponsors, for they know how to render benefits to those who stand by their side in moments of embarrassment, in numerous and profitable ways — both in advance and retroactively.
Hopefully, at least the Israeli official assessors and decision-makers will carry out a realistic and impartial assessment of the situation. Senior ministers explain that in return for the direct talks with the Palestinians, the U.S. will attack Iran. This is a delusion. They must adopt a realistic strategy — and not simply because of the lessons learned from the weakness shown against al-Qaida — one that says, “And I looked, and there were none to help, and I wondered that there were none to uphold, therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me, and my fury, it upheld me.”
These spread panic and increased the renown, and particularly the motivation, of the separate groups under the name al-Qaida. In the American homeland, in addition to the strategic fiasco, the national pride was hurt — in naïve, idealistic America many draw strength and power from this archaic notion — and serious doubts were raised, even in liberal circles, about the administration's discretion.
Almost simultaneously, with the closure of the 22 representative offices, the administration reached out to the elected president of Iran, Hasan Rouhani. “This is an opportunity for Iran,” stated the official message, “to act quickly to resolve the international community’s deep concerns over Iran’s nuclear program.” There were no demands to stop the enriching of uranium, no warning against the development of a plutonium manufacturing facility. These manifestations of weakness, then, are the norm. The working premise in Israel should be that the U.S. will show weakness, even against Iran, and will not fulfill the public presidential promise — that the U.S. will not allow Iran to complete its production of a nuclear bomb.
Experts have been finding strategic, political and financial reasons for America’s severing of connections with terrorist war zones in Asia and the Middle East. They do not mention an additional, deeper reason: the changes America’s ethos is currently undergoing. Their understanding possibly holds the key to the mystery that so many are trying to solve: What happened to the unique soul of America? Where is the spirit of America that made it what it was and will apparently no longer be? What kind of substantial threat do these decentralized terrorist groups pose — even if determined and cruel — to the national security of the superpower?
In the past, for example during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. has reacted firmly and resolutely — even when on the brink of nuclear war against a superpower, the former Soviet Union. Both of these attributes, firmness and resoluteness, instilled its status as a protector of the democratic values of the free world — in the not-so-distant past against communism and, in recent decades, against Islamic terrorism.
Israel has many, possibly too many, experts on U.S. affairs. In the initial public announcements made by the more prominent among them — as opposed to what was said even in liberal groups in the U.S. and Europe — a tone of defense could be heard on the topic of the embassy panic. This indicates, among other things, an ideological alignment with the American exhibition of weakness: If this is how the great United States is behaving, how could Israel behave differently, in the case of Iran for example? However, there are also public opinion leaders who have a good understanding of the kind of price Israel too will pay in light of this American feebleness, but they publicly justify the frenzied reaction. As such, they return their “debt” to their American sponsors, for they know how to render benefits to those who stand by their side in moments of embarrassment, in numerous and profitable ways — both in advance and retroactively.
Hopefully, at least the Israeli official assessors and decision-makers will carry out a realistic and impartial assessment of the situation. Senior ministers explain that in return for the direct talks with the Palestinians, the U.S. will attack Iran. This is a delusion. They must adopt a realistic strategy — and not simply because of the lessons learned from the weakness shown against al-Qaida — one that says, “And I looked, and there were none to help, and I wondered that there were none to uphold, therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me, and my fury, it upheld me.”