Whom Shall We Bomb?

Right after the recent Iranian presidential election, Israeli authorities, in particular Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, dismissed the results, saying, “The election in Iran hasn’t changed anything — we must bomb it.” Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon urgently made his way to Washington, where he announced, “Nothing has changed following the election in Iran; the only person doing the deciding is Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The Iranians need to understand that the military option is still on the table.” The U.S. Congress had a gift in store for its dear Israeli guest: It passed a law that orders the Obama administration to boost Israel’s military capabilities so that the country can face down any threat, including the threat of the Iranian nuclear program. Namely, Israel will become the first country to receive a fleet of MV-22 Osprey convertiplanes, a new class of airplane-helicopter hybrids that America has not provided to anyone before now.

But the surprise victory of Hassan Rohani in the Iranian presidential election certainly caused a shift in tone in the West, which has deeply disappointed the Israeli leadership. Those near Prime Minister Netanyahu are lamenting that any plans to attack Iran will now have to be postponed for at least a year. Until the new president assumes his post and until the West gets a feel for his disposition, the Americans will hold off on bombing Iran — because they’re busy exacerbating the war in Syria.

The war in Syria rages on, despite the G-8’s calls for a peaceful end to the conflict. Saudi Arabia was the first to supply the rebels with new Stinger missiles and air-to-surface missiles, whose precursors caused endless trouble for Soviet aircraft during the Afghan War. Iran has planned to send 4,000 troops and officers to the aid of the Syrian government. The Syrian news agency Dampress reports that Russia has pledged to supply Syria with a new and highly effective TOS-1A heavy flamethrower system, which was also tried out in Afghanistan, but this unconfirmed declaration seems unlikely.

Dissension on the matter of the Syrian war runs rampant. British Prime Minister David Cameron is an ardent supporter of armed intervention and has tried to muscle President Putin on the matter. But his own Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, is against British intervention in Syria’s infighting and the provision of arms to the rebels.

There is dissension in the United States, too, but a different sort of dissension. In the U.S., both parties are for war and intervention. For the Republicans, it doesn’t matter who gets bombed, as long as somebody gets bombed. The Democrats, who are particularly intimate with the Israel lobby, are led by Hillary Clinton, who intends to run for president in 2016. The Israel lobby began to actively insist on assistance to the Syrian insurgency after Hezbollah fighters helped Bashar al-Assad’s army take al-Qusayr, a strategically-located city on the Syria-Lebanon border. Winning the 2016 election will require a lot of money, which is donated primarily by pro-Israel American Jews.

For that reason, Clinton sent her husband, former President Bill Clinton, to speak with Obama. Bill Clinton had a man-to-man talk with Obama, taunting him that he’ll look like a “total wuss” if he declines to get involved in the war. Clinton shared this “Obama is a wuss” narrative with Republican Senator John McCain as well as with journalists. Obama eventually gave in, according to James Wall, a leading American political scientist. Wall believes that Obama should repudiate the Israel lobby and stop kowtowing to Netanyahu and Clinton.

Roland Dumas, a former French minister who served under President François Mitterand, told the French TV station LCP that the civil war in Syria serves Israel’s interests. He alleged that he was invited to England two years before the Arab Spring to take part in preparations for war and the secret placement of rebels in Syria. Dumas explained the Israeli proposal: “The Syrian regime had a very anti-Israel stance. The former Israeli prime minister told me, ‘We’ll try to get on with our neighboring states, but those who don’t get along, we will destroy them.’”

There’s an answer for pro-Israel advocates like Evgeny Satanovsky, who maintain that they prefer Bashar al-Assad. No, Israel prefers to sow the seeds of war and infighting among its enemies.