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 for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.