This, if true, confirms what I thought was going on in the Hizbollah/Israel War. It seemed to me obvious that Bush was doing everything he could to publicly signal to Israel that they had our absolute support in attacking Syria, and possibly even Iran. I believe Bush was itching for Israel to broaden the war, with the hope that if it did so, something would happen which would have given the United States license to go at these two enemies directly.
Alas, Olmert is tone-deaf to hints, even the most obvious ones, and now, apparently, there are people within the administration who are, shall we say, less than pleased with the Israeli Administration:
(here is an interview with) Meyrav Wurmser, co-founder of MEMRI and wife of David Wurmser, one of Dick Cheney’s top Middle East advisors. Nothing much surprising here except for her belief that defeating Assad would have destroyed the insurgency in Iraq.
Q: Is this a popular stance in the administration, that Israel lost the war [with Hezbollah]?
A: “Yes, there is no doubt. It’s not something one can argue about it. There is a lot of anger at Israel.”
Q: What caused the anger?
A: “I know this will annoy many of your readers… But the anger is over the fact that Israel did not fight against the Syrians. Instead of Israel fighting against Hizbullah, many parts of the American administration believe that Israel should have fought against the real enemy, which is Syria and not Hizbullah.”
Q: Did the administration expect Israel to attack Syria?
A: “They hoped Israel would do it. You cannot come to another country and order it to launch a war, but there was hope, and more than hope, that Israel would do the right thing. It would have served both the American and Israeli interests.
Q: The neocons are responsible for the fact that Israel got a lot of time and space… They believed that Israel should be allowed to win. A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hizbullah…
A: If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran, that it would have weakened it and changes the strategic map in the Middle East.
“The final outcome is that Israel did not do it. It fought the wrong war and lost. Instead of a strategic war that would serve Israel’s objectives, as well as the US objectives in Iraq. If Syria had been defeated, the rebellion in Iraq would have ended.”
I believe this is a simplification of Bush's real strategy. Remember, at the outset of the war, Bush made it clear, publicly and in very loud fashion, that Syria and Iran were funding Hizbollah, and using Hizbollah as a proxy to atack Israel.
In my opinion, Bush expected Israel to go after Syria. I believe he thought this would bring Iran into the war in a big way; in a way which would have given America the moral imperative to intervene.
Bush, in my opinion, is looking for a reason to go after Iran, because he wants to have reason to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Unfortunately, Olmert squandered this opportunity, and now, either Bush's is going to have to shoot the last of his credibility wad on attacking Iran, with absolutely no support from anyone, or Israel will have to go it alone.
So, what will happen?
2 comments:
Would Bush be able to go to war with Iran with the Dems in Congress? I am not an American but from what I understand the congress has the purse strings and at least one of them raised the prospect of financially starving America into defeat in Iraq. While that idea did not seem to take off I could see them doing it to prevent Iran from being knocked off their buddy list.
You got that right, Anonymous. However, Bush, as Commander in Chief, can order an attack on Iran without Congressional approval.
In other words, the Dems could make sure a sustained effort was not mounted, but they could not stop a quick and sudden destruction of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure.
Post a Comment