Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush's Promise to Defend Israel Against Iran
iranvajahan ^ | July 07, 2006 | Michael Rubin

Posted on 07/08/2006 3:52:14 PM PDT by nuconvert

Bush's Promise to Defend Israel Against Iran

July 07, 2006

Bitter Lemons International

Michael Rubin

Asked on February 1, 2006 whether the United States would protect Israel militarily against Iran, President George W. Bush left no doubt: "You bet, we'll defend Israel."

To some realists, his statement was evidence that Israel had become a strategic liability to the United States. A few prominent Jewish leaders, worried that Jews might be blamed for any military conflict with Iran, urged Bush to tone down his statements pledging support for Israel. "We are basically telling the president: We appreciate it, we welcome it. But, hey, because there is this debate on Iraq, where people are trying to put the blame on us, maybe you shouldn't say it that often or that loud," Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, explained.

In reality, though, Bush's pledge of support to Israel is neither new nor special. While critics of US foreign policy and the Bush administration suggest that US wars are fought for either Israel or oil, history suggests otherwise. In the last 15 years, the US military has intervened not only in Iraq and Afghanistan--both part of the war on terrorism--but also in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo, in each case for humanitarian purposes.

That the US would act to defend its allies should not surprise. While US professors proffer informed comment that Iranian leaders do not mean what they say, policymakers have learned to take the opinion of academic experts with a grain of salt. One week before Iraq invaded Kuwait, The Times (London) reported, "The consensus among Middle East experts...was that Iraq would not invade Kuwait."

After Saddam Hussein demonstrated that sometimes dictators mean what they say, President George H.W. Bush did not go wobbly. Before a joint session of Congress on September 11, 1990, Bush declared, "Our objectives in the Persian Gulf are clear, our goals defined and familiar: Iraq must withdraw from Kuwait completely, immediately, and without condition. Kuwait's legitimate government must be restored." Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt may receive plaudits in certain crowds for arguing that Israel is a strategic liability to the United States, but the fact remains that the US went to war in 1991 not to protect Israel, but to protect Saudi Arabia and liberate Kuwait. That it did so was correct.

US defense of allies from aggression is not limited to the Middle East. In both Korea and Vietnam, invasions by communist states of US allies sparked full-scale war. President Harry S Truman recorded the lowest popularity ever among US presidents in part because of high casualties and domestic criticism of his engagement in an "open-ended" conflict. He understood--as have subsequent presidents--that US credibility among its allies is more important than any snapshot poll. Today, the US maintains 35,000 troops in South Korea, and Truman ranks among the top five presidents in polls by American historians.

As costly as a war with China would be, US administrations have made clear that Washington would consider military action to defend Taiwan from Chinese aggression. In 1979, Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act that declared it necessary to provide arms to Taiwan and "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan." Early in his first term, against the backdrop of a crisis with Beijing, George W. Bush declared that if the Peoples' Republic of China attacked Taiwan, the US would do "whatever it took to help Taiwan defend itself".

Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad may believe their anti-Israel rhetoric resonates with both their domestic audience and the Arab street. They may believe that Washington is too weak to respond. Addressing the United States on the seventeenth anniversary of the death of Islamic Republic founder Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Khamenei asked, "Why do you [the US] not admit that you are weak and your razor is blunt?"

But, despite Bush administration equivocation about its democratization policy, the strain of US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and the failure of the White House to stand by its previously declared red lines, Tehran would be mistaken to believe that the US government neither had the will nor the capacity to stand by Israel or any other ally. If forced to act, Washington would and could. The US Air Force and Navy remain unencumbered. While no serious policymaker discusses occupation of Iran, the Islamic Republic's leadership would not likely survive should it push the White House into conflict over Israel or, for that matter, over Washington's allies in the Persian Gulf.

On certain issues, US policy is remarkably consistent and bipartisan. No matter how poisonous political battles are in Washington, Congress unites in the face of aggression against the United States or its allies. Bush's pledge to protect Israel is neither unique nor counter to US interests. For Tehran or any other state to believe otherwise or engage in policies that would challenge the White House on its fundamental duties to its allies would represent a serious miscalculation.

Michael Rubin, editor of the Middle East Quarterly, is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, DC.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Israel; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: allies; allyisrael; bush; iran; israel; michaelrubin; proisrael; rubin; us

1 posted on 07/08/2006 3:52:16 PM PDT by nuconvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

Israel would vaporize all Iranian cities and military bases if attacked. All by itself.


2 posted on 07/08/2006 3:55:54 PM PDT by FormerACLUmember (No program, no ideas, no clue: The democrats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

All the Iranian rhetoric aside, has anyone (like Kofi Annan, for instance), taken into consideration that Iran may have a hand in Hamas taking the Isreali soldier hostage? If thats true, then Ahmadinijad is at least indirectly responsible for the entire crisis!! Oh I forgot - Kofi likes that nutcase. Sorry, but I dont think I am the only one who is sick and tired of Iran getting away with whatever they want, then sitting back and laughing at the international community! Makes me sick.


3 posted on 07/08/2006 4:02:48 PM PDT by wingsof liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

good thing we have a navy.


4 posted on 07/08/2006 4:09:01 PM PDT by ichabod1 (Let us not flinch from identifying liberalism as the opposition party to God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert
Congress unites in the face of aggression against the United States or its allies.

Yeah, the rats are on board for at least a day or two.

5 posted on 07/08/2006 5:04:22 PM PDT by Jacquerie (Democrats soil institutions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wingsof liberty

PC war: we lose...everything.


6 posted on 07/08/2006 6:26:05 PM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert; SJackson; yonif; Simcha7; American in Israel; Slings and Arrows; judicial meanz; ...









If you'd like to be on or off this
Christian Supporters of Israel ping list,
please FR mail me ~
  -  -
MikeFromFR ~
There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had
spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass. (Joshua 21:45)

Letter To The President In Support Of Israel ~
'Final Solution,' Phase 2 ~
Warnings ~


"The West has given more significance to the myth of the genocide of the Jews, even more significant than God, religion, and the prophets...."—Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
The Holocaust Chronicle ~

The future of Arab controlled Gaza.

"Palestine is the wrong name for their State. It should be called Anarchy."—FReeper sgtbono2002
"Then let's wait and see what the Arabs do after they take Gaza. There's nothing like Arab reality to break up a Jewish fantasy."—FReeper Noachian
A student told his professor he was going to "Palestine" to "fight for freedom, peace and justice,"—Orwellian leftist code words that mean "murder Jews."
The Nature Of Bruce ~

7 posted on 07/09/2006 1:49:53 PM PDT by Salem (FREE REPUBLIC - Fighting to win within the Arena of the War of Ideas! So get in the fight!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salem
This war is definitely coming.

Ezekiel 38:1-8
8 posted on 07/09/2006 2:07:35 PM PDT by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 1 John 4:15, John 11:25, John 14:6, 1 Tim 2:5, John 3:17-18, John 20:31, 1 John 5:13)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: nuconvert

Why are we promising to do that?


9 posted on 07/09/2006 2:11:16 PM PDT by Zeroisanumber (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zeroisanumber
"Why are we promising to do that?"

The article was self-explanatory, don't you think?

10 posted on 07/09/2006 3:29:37 PM PDT by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson