2 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Theolgical/political logistics

Reader comment on item: U.S. to Israel: You Decide Nukes in Iran, We Decide Bedrooms in Jerusalem
in response to reader comment: Ms Voshell is right, but the question is consistent with what ?

Submitted by Fay Voshell (United States), Jul 17, 2009 at 09:47

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

I agree it does seem increasingly clear the Obama administration would prefer the wrath of the Arab world to be focused on Israel, if/when she attacks Iranian nuclear facilities.

However, I don't think regime change in Iran would involve an alliance with Israel or India. That is because of the intertwining of theology and politics in the Middle East. No matter what the new regime in Iran involves, it will certainly be comprised of Muslims most of whom, to put the matter mildly, see Israel as THE Jewish enemy (Jewish in the entirely perjorative sense).

As for India, something similar is the case in that Hindu and Muslim populations live together very uneasily and outbursts of religious violence still haunt the nation despite campaigns for tolerance. The carnage of 1945 is an example of still remembered violence; and the tense relationship between Pakistan and India continues. So I don't think an Iranian/Indian alliance is likely, though it is certainly an intriguing idea. In sum, think first of theology/religion as a basis for Middle East politics; secular politics second.

But I certainly do agree the current US administration is perfectly willing to make Israel the villain and thus the target of yet more Arab rage. Once Israel strikes, and the wrath of the Arab world falls on Israel once again, Obama will look at the situation empathetically tut-tutting over "loss of life, regrettable and avoidable violence, surprising Israeli aggression, lamentable collateral damage" and so forth (I think I could write the speech)--all the while manuvering behind the scenes to capitalize on Israeli actions without having to pay the price of actual front line involvement.

The price the US has to pay? Very little in the eyes of the Obama administration, which prides itself on "pragmatic" international policy.

But in actuality, the stance of Obama toward Israel is cynicism bordering on treachery toward the only reliable ally the US has had in the Middle East. And from what I understand about the Koran, treachery toward friends comes very close to being an unforgiveable sin in the eyes of Allah. So Obama may "win" pragmatically speaking, but he risks garnering the contempt of Middle East countries.


Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submitting....

Submit a comment on this item

<< Previous Comment      Next Comment >>

Reader comments (33) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
The Israelis are taking only a minute portion of what is theirs! [118 words]Jay DuncanMar 30, 2010 01:11170762
Hussein Obama struggles not to deal with Iran untill his mandate is over- so the culpabitility will fall upon others. [78 words]YnnatchkahJul 27, 2009 15:00159350
The New Nuclear Cold War [170 words]Stepehn HughesJul 23, 2009 00:36159183
Israel , and Israel alone should decide how she will survive ! [84 words]Phil GreendJul 19, 2009 03:13159004
Best interest of whom? [18 words]JohnJul 16, 2009 19:24158926
I believe that in the interest of consistency we should order Israel to surrender it's nuclear arsenal. [27 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
GreywulfJul 16, 2009 09:43158913
Weakening Israel [342 words]Fay VoshellJul 14, 2009 11:07158837
Whiny Petulance [108 words]danJul 14, 2009 05:18158826
No difference at all [119 words]Lars NielsenJul 13, 2009 17:22158810
US policy toward Israel is perfectly consistent [332 words]Fay VoshellJul 12, 2009 12:50158780
Ms Voshell is right, but the question is consistent with what ? [245 words]JonJul 15, 2009 06:47158780
Theolgical/political logistics [369 words]Fay VoshellJul 17, 2009 09:47158780
Politics and theology in Iran [313 words]JonJul 21, 2009 17:14158780
Wny an Iranian/Israeli alliance won't happen [394 words]Fay VoshellJul 28, 2009 11:46158780
Fayad, Palestine and the jews. [26 words]stevenLJul 9, 2009 22:27158704
inconsistency [70 words]miriamJul 9, 2009 19:16158699
Mixed messages from Obama adm. officials causing a lot of hot-air. [16 words]M.D.Jul 9, 2009 17:47158692
Foolish preference [79 words]R.S. DavisJul 9, 2009 10:30158662
Green Light means go [120 words]AntiochosJul 9, 2009 09:55158660
no inconsistency [150 words]Pete murrayJul 9, 2009 06:34158652
Yea old double standard ! [123 words]Lou from Queens, NYC, USAJul 9, 2009 00:21158642
Sovereign or Not [128 words]Gilles and Elinore MailhiotJul 8, 2009 19:42158634
US To Israel: You decide Nukes in Iran. We decide bedrooms in Jerusalem. [127 words]DebbieJul 8, 2009 18:20158625
Israel as a vassal state of the US [114 words]Regina DalyJul 8, 2009 15:16158624
Agreed [66 words]Abu NudnikJul 8, 2009 13:21158621
So Israel is being asked/tasked to do the US's dirty work in Iran [664 words]JonJul 8, 2009 12:43158617
Israel's independence [73 words]J. SheffJul 8, 2009 12:37158616
Further elaboration, please [86 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Sheryl RosenbergJul 8, 2009 11:28158613
Iran and her nukes program and no new Israeli settlements [163 words]IsaacJul 8, 2009 11:27158612
Obama's Hectoring & What It Portends For Israel [202 words]Adina KutnickiJul 8, 2009 09:46158608
What's good for the goose, etc. [141 words]Rebecca MouldsJul 8, 2009 09:32158607
Bingo [93 words]Yuval Brandstetter MDJul 8, 2009 01:36158591
Mr. Obama's attitude along with Hillary's one. [140 words]SvetlanaJul 7, 2009 23:14158589

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Theolgical/political logistics by Fay Voshell

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

ADVERTISEMENTS

eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2019 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)