Israeli influence on US Middle Eastern policy
by CHRISTOPHER VASILLOPULOS
Christopher Vasillopulos, Ph.D., is a professor of international relations at Eastern Connecticut State University.A few years ago a former Jordanian foreign minister asked me, "Why doesn't the US make Israel the 51st state and be done with it?"
"Because," I replied humorlessly, "as an official part of the US, Israel would have much less influence on US foreign policy in the Middle East. What state, even including California, which by itself has one of the world's largest economies and over 36 million citizens, comes close to Israel's influence on any foreign policy matter? As a state, Israel would have to compete with other states for Washington's attention; its 5 million people would be an insignificant part of 300 million Americans, less than 2 percent. More than this, its lobbying activities would be much more visible and seem to be just another set of interests seeking favorable treatment."
Contrast that with its current position as an ally whose interests are assumed to be identical with the foreign policy goals of any conceivable American administration. Contrast that with Israel's immunity to criticism. Every other interest group in the US is subject to scathing attack, while Israel operates under the cover of perpetual victim, ever ready to label any critic an anti-Semite. To take the recent Iranian missile tests as an example, consider the hard-line responses by virtually all American commentators, to say nothing of the two presidential candidates. To them it is unthinkable that Iran has missiles that can reach Israel. It is, of course, normal and acceptable for Israel to conduct military operations that demonstrate its capacity to strike Iran, as it did recently. It is unthinkable for Iran to have a nuclear deterrent, even in five to 10 years, while it is normal and acceptable for Israel to have had hundreds of nuclear bombs for over 20 years. In pursuing its objectives, Israel is not at fault for playing Americans like an out-of-tune violin. Americans are responsible for their willingness to subordinate their interests to Israel, whether they have been misled by the media or politicians or the Jewish/Israeli lobbies.
For making this obvious point, American scholars Walt and Mearsheimer have been subjected to a barrage of criticism. They represent a hard-line "realist" approach to foreign policy, which believes in pre-emptive war and does not countenance any interference in the pursuit of national interests by morality or sentiment. On this basis they supported, as did I, the First Gulf War and did not support the current Iraq War. The only difference was that Israel and its surrogates, the neoconservatives in the Bush administration, wanted to weaken Iraq as part of their policy of remaking the Middle East in Israel's favor. It should be remembered that before the attack on Iraq, many neoconservatives preferred to attack Iran, which was perceived as a greater threat to Israel. But the case, full of lies, exaggerations and miscalculations as it was, was easier to make against a weakened Iraq. They settled for Iraq with the understanding that "the road to Tehran leads through Baghdad." They assuaged their disappointment with a widely heard joke: "Everyone wants to go to Baghdad; real men want to go to Tehran." Chicken hawks have a tendency to use macho references.
--MORE--![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
However, the war is an ideological war and is being waged by propagating misinformation, derived from misleading references and conditions. Make no mistake, evil people do exist and they are ruthless in their actions. The attacks of 9/11 will forever be a reminder that villains and criminals are capable of horrific acts that can cripple our nation. This is not Islam!
