The Future of Settlement in the Shadow of the American Withdrawal from Iraq

All of the signs indicate that one of the most important underlying reasons behind the transformation of the United States’ current position toward Israel — the about-face which represents President Obama’s aspiration to satisfy Netanyahu while simultaneously avoiding the application of pressure on him at a time when Obama shies away from applying pressure on the Arab-Palestinian groups — is fundamentally linked to the U.S. decision to withdraw its forces from Iraq and the announcement about its intention to withdraw from Afghanistan. The decision-makers in Tel Aviv have clearly succeeded in convincing the Obama administration that after the withdrawal from Iraq and the anticipated withdrawal from Afghanistan, America’s highest strategic interests require renewed American appreciation of Israel’s importance as a trustworthy and stable ally.

The governing elites and many of those who mold public opinion in Israel endeavored to present the American withdrawal from Iraq as a clear illustration of the dangerous lack of stability in the region which now threatens U.S. interests in Iraq — an especially important interest being a guarantee to supply additional oil without any complications. Tel Aviv devised an overpowering campaign to convince the United States that withdrawal from Iraq would cause the Arab countries to fall under Iranian control, thereby strengthening the “evil-doers” and weakening America’s Arab allies in the region; the Israelis allege that the Iranian-Syrian coalition would then be able to seize additional power thanks to the fall of Baghdad into Iranian clutches. The Israelis did not abandon the claim that the withdrawal from Iraq would indicate a loss of American authority in the region, thereby contributing to America’s dwindling power and ability to hold off Iran and even encouraging competing Arab factions to attack U.S. interests using Iraq as a launching pad aimed particularly at the Arab Gulf.

The Israelis confirm that the dangerous consequences of the American withdrawal from Iraq are increased by the formidable problems that face those powers allied with the United States, especially the problems surrounding the Egyptian system. There is particular concern about the shift of authority after Hosni Mubarak’s approaching exit from the acting political sphere, with the knowledge that the Americans depend on the role Mubarak plays in counterbalancing the Iranian threat. As the Israeli author Alouf bin Fan says, the prevailing state of uncertainty in everything associated with the future of the system in Cairo requires a reduction in American risk-taking for the sake of the allied, dictatorial governing orders in the region. The Israelis warn the administration of the results of terminating the Eisenhower Doctrine, which has presided over American strategy in the region since 1957 and is based on combatting the factions that threaten American interests. The Eisenhower Doctrine made the United States unhesitant in confronting the leaders of regimes that challenged the American administration, beginning with Gamal Abdul Nasser and ending with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

This Doctrine was contradictory, and the U.S. upheld the tyrannical Arab regimes allied with her. These regimes owed their survival ability to American support, which was given in exchange for their deference to the tools of American interests and their support of the American military-industrial complex — the regimes increased the purchase of large quantities of weapons which, more often than not, simply remained untouched in their storehouses.

Likewise, the Israelis allege that the American withdrawal from Iraq in the shadow of the instability of its regional allies will lead to a greater appetite among powers in the region for provoking Washington. This all indicates Washington’s need to reaffirm Israel’s special status as a trustworthy, stable, and strong ally in the region, and to resist the line expressed by many U.S. elites who regard Israel as representing, in reality, a burden on the United States and not a strategic asset.

The Israelis allege that the withdrawal from Iraq will lead to the breakdown of the spoken assumption which claims that the possibility of sudden inspiration for Arab attacks on Israel is very weak. They see the withdrawal as increasing the chances of this war being launched, and so the withdrawal only increases the danger on the Eastern front. Those in Tel Aviv see, in the shadow of this dangerous reality, that the Zionist entity needs continued control over the West Bank. This occupation is supposed to lick any Arab attacks from the eastern front, and when the Israeli army assimilates the locations of the advanced Jewish settlements and carries out a large security role then the “pure Israeli interest” will require patronage of them, rather than their fragmentation in any settlement with the Palestinians.

It is clear from the attempt to exaggerate the rising dangers of the withdrawal from Iraq that the Israelis are attempting to bring the Americans to the conclusion that the Palestinian issue plays just a marginal role in affecting stable circumstances in the region and in the world. Israeli Minister for Regional Cooperation Silvan Shalom claims that President Obama’s administration’s preoccupation with solving the Palestinian issue did not help to reduce the dangers that threatened American interests, and that putting an end to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict will not lead to a return of regional stability. Rather, a solution would inevitably lead to more disruption. This does not bode well for the realization of a solution, and it strengthens the Israeli inclination to invest great effort in convincing the Americans of the peripheral nature of the Palestinian issue. In fact, the Arab regimes allied with Washington have informed representatives of the Obama Administration that they do no accept the explanation that dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat takes priority and are requiring that the administration put forth attempts at solving the Palestinian issue.

The stated assumption of many Israeli elites that the American withdrawal from Iraq will strengthen the status of Israel as an ally represents dubious logic that cannot pass a truth test. This is due to the fact that American weakness and the retreat of its forces and influence will inevitably lead to a weaker Israel, since it is obvious that the enormous profits Israel gained throughout the recent decades were the result of alliance with the United States — a strong, unrivaled superpower. The regional and international status of Israel was strengthened as a result of this relationship, and the parties that desired to declare affection for Washington were often paying the price of this desire by having to submit to Israeli procedures, since it was soon apparent that the path to Washington passed through Tel Aviv. There is no space to enumerate the many examples of this.

The weakness of the United States, exemplified by the withdrawal from Iraq and the expected withdrawal from Afghanistan, will lead to the crystallization of a new, multi-polar world order, and this cannot possibly serve Israeli interests. Russia, China and India, expected to play important roles in the new system, will show a much lower level of sensitivity to Israeli interests, contrary to American sensitivities. This change will be evident when these countries rush into the region looking for sources of energy. At the same time, the decline of American influence will lead inevitably toward Washington’s inclination to compromise with another world power. Greater preparations for bargaining will become obvious, and so it is not unlikely that bargaining in some cases will be at the expense of Israeli interests.

The clear manifestations of American weakness did not begin with the withdrawal from Iraq, but were becoming visible beforehand, especially with the explosion of the Georgian-Russian war. The coalition comprised of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and the U.S.; Europe did not join Washington in intervening to protect the Georgian regime when the Russian Army blasted the capital of Tbilisi and tried to purge Saakashvili personally.

The continued severity of the economic crisis which rattles the United States increases the negative impact of the American withdrawal from Iraq. There are some who observe that the crisis will also affect America’s ability to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat.

On the other hand, this economic crisis will weaken the powerful Jewish lobby in the United States, since it is clear that a large number of rich Jewish Americans have been hit with losses. This means calamity for their ability to donate to the Democratic and Republican parties, which may echo afterward in this lobby’s inability to force its propositions on American leaders.

It is clear from the preceding that, regardless of the fact that Washington (partially) agrees with the Israelis’ view of how the world will be after the withdrawal from Iraq, it will quickly come to light that Israel is the most damaged by the many manifestations of America’s declining authority.