The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

Roots of Weakness Israel today

2021-08-26T12:40:15.114Z


The American defeat in Afghanistan is based on three erroneous assumptions • From surrender to nuclear Pakistan, through support for Iran, to the bending of Israel against Syria and the Palestinians


These days, a rare phenomenon is occurring in the American media.

From left to right there is a consensus that President Joe Biden was disastrous strategic US and its allies, and preventing the Taliban entered the pantheon of the negative myths of American history.


Biden is ready to abandon US citizens trapped behind Taliban lines with Afghans to help them. But in fact, reality Where after 20 years the Taliban still exists and has easily managed to retake Afghanistan, it is the result of strategic mistakes following September 11, 2001.


The then president, George W. Bush.

Bush, with his team, formulated the basic assumptions of the war on terror.

Over the years since, some of the assumptions have been updated in line with international changes.

But three of them that have been fixed - have not been abandoned, and with the exception of the last two years of the Trump administration have also not been updated.

These three assumptions also underlie the failure of the American fight against global terrorism.

The first assumption refers to Pakistan, the second to Iran and the third to Israel.


Pakistan has proven who is strong


As early as September 11, it was clear that the Pakistani intelligence service, ISI, was behind the Taliban as well as al-Qaeda. It was to be expected that the Americans would act first and foremost against Islamabad. But other than a few threats near the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, the Americans did not act against Pakistan for a simple reason. In 1998 Pakistan conducted several nuclear tests, and in 2001 it had a significant nuclear arsenal. If anyone had any doubt that the Pakistanis, supporters of terrorism, are willing to use nuclear weapons - the near-war between them and India in 2002-2001 is proof.


In December 2001, Pakistan-backed Kashmiris carried out a deadly attack on the Indian Parliament.

The Indians responded by deploying forces on the Pakistan border, and the Pakistanis in response moved their troops to the border.

In May 2002, the likelihood of war between the two Asian giants was extremely high.

Under American pressure, the Indians said they would not be the first to use nuclear weapons.

The then President of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, refused to do so.

Instead of giving full backing to India, the US pressured it to get off the tree first.


The US conduct has revealed to the world that through its nuclear arsenal, Pakistan has managed to deter and bend the superpower.

Within half a year, North Korea expelled UN inspectors from its nuclear facility in Yongbion and withdrew from the International Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran in those days stepped up its secret nuclear activities in Isfahan and Netanyahu. The Taliban even after the Americans overthrew it in late 2001.


As for Iran, Bush and his men have made a decision not to deal with it. This is not a new decision. Since the Reagan administration, Washington has had the belief that agreements can be reached with the regime that will restore the Shah's strategic alliance. The Bush administration was not impressed by the support Iran gave to the hijackers in the months leading up to 9/11. He was not impressed by the fact that al-Qaeda's Shura Council moved from Afghanistan to Iran after the fall of the Taliban, nor that al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Shiite militias - which together waged war against the Americans in the country - received their instructions from headquarters in Iran.


The belief that agreements can be reached and therefore no action should be taken against Iran has survived and strengthened in the Obama administration. Trump has partially abandoned her in his last two years in the White House. Biden, apparently, returned to it in full force with the start of his term in January.


The third premise referred to Israel.

Already in the first days after the attacks, led by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, the Bush administration determined that they would fight terrorist organizations but not against pro-terrorist countries (except Iraq).

This is because, according to Powell, terrorism threatens everyone, and therefore, every country has a potential ally.

As Dr. David Wormser, who at the time served as Vice President Dick Cheney's adviser to the Middle East, explains to me, Powell convinced Bush that the way to recruit allies in the Arab world was to pressure Israel to return to the 1949 ceasefire lines. The United States wanted to recruit The Assad regime through the sale of the Golan Heights, and the Saudis and other Sunnis, including the Palestinians, through the establishment of a Palestinian state.


"Czechoslovakia 'speech" dissipated


In the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon tried to rebel against the premise in relation to Iran; He explained to the Americans that Iraq had not posed a strategic threat since the 1991 Gulf War. The experience probably brought up pottery.


As for the Palestinians, when Sharon saw the fixation on the establishment of a Palestinian state, he tried to start a struggle. In October 2001 he delivered the "Czechoslovakia Speech" which shook the forearms for about five minutes. "I appeal to Western democracies and, first and foremost, to the leader of the American free world - do not repeat the terrible mistake of 1938. So enlightened democracies in Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient temporary solution. Do not try to appease the Arabs at our expense, we will not be able to accept this, Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. "Israel will fight terrorism," Sharon declared.


The administration reacted angrily to things. Sharon folded. A month later, Powell became the first American official to announce US support for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Sharon's failure lay in his weakness against the Americans. He did not have the tools to fight. He did not know the system. The Americans.


Netanyahu's struggle against the American rapprochement with Iran led to the dismantling of the Arab front against Israel. The Israeli-Arab axis vis-à-vis Iran and its metastases led to the Trump administration's decision to abandon the nuclear deal. According to senior figures in the Trump administration, his intention was to lead an Israeli-Arab campaign during his second term, the purpose of which was to dismantle Iran's nuclear program.


As for the Palestinians, Netanyahu acted to gnaw at the American premise, both through the alliance he formed with the Arab states and through activity in front of American public opinion and in front of Israeli supporters in Congress. His efforts blocked Obama's effort to bring Israel to far-reaching concessions. Under Trump they led the sovereignty program. These achievements are now being rolled out like a Persian rug following the double impeachment move against Trump and Netanyahu.


There is a hard feeling today, that the pit that has opened up in Afghanistan is taking us back twenty years. But the truth is more serious. In 2001, the United States was much stronger than its enemies. This situation will not improve. The weakening process will be accelerated as long as the United States does not abandon the wrong assumptions it adopted twenty years ago. 

Source: israelhayom

All news articles on 2021-08-26

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.