by Cheryl Rofer
So says the Guardian today.
Israel gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites but was told by President George W Bush that he would not support it and did not expect to revise that view for the rest of his presidency, senior European diplomatic sources have told the Guardian.That would account for the flurry of reports this spring and summer about a possible attack on Israel, including Benny Morris's hysterical screed demanding that the United States preventively attack Iran to pre-empt Israel's preventive attack. Stories leak out, sometimes distorted.
Of course, Bush was second-guessing Israel at about the same time McCain was singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!"
And Sarah Palin has told us at least twice now that we mustn't second-guess Israel. Of course, it's possible to parse her confusing words in many ways. But she seems to have the bad guys straight from the good guys. It must be those black turbans that are the giveaway.
Couric: You recently said three times that you would never, quote, "second guess" Israel if that country decided to attack Iran. Why not?This sounds like she would disagree with President Bush's apparently unambiguous rejection of Israeli strikes against Iran.Palin: We shouldn't second guess Israel's security efforts because we cannot ever afford to send a message that we would allow a second Holocaust, for one. Israel has got to have the opportunity and the ability to protect itself. They are our closest ally in the Mideast. We need them. They need us. And we shouldn't second guess their efforts.
Couric: You don't think the United States is within its rights to express its position to Israel? And if that means second-guessing or discussing an option?
Palin: No, abso … we need to express our rights and our concerns and …
Couric: But you said never second guess them.
Palin: We don't have to second-guess what their efforts would be if they believe … that it is in their country and their allies, including us, all of our best interests to fight against a regime, especially Iran, who would seek to wipe them off the face of the earth. It is obvious to me who the good guys are in this one and who the bad guys are. The bad guys are the ones who say Israel is a stinking corpse and should be wiped off the face of the earth. That's not a good guy who is saying that. Now, one who would seek to protect the good guys in this, the leaders of Israel and her friends, her allies, including the United States, in my world, those are the good guys.
We may speculate on Bush's reasons for rejecting the Israeli proposal. Perhaps the generals, whom we were hearing from at that time via leaks, strongly made the case that the United States cannot support three wars; Secretaries Gates and Rice may have prevailed over the Cheney war faction. Perhaps he weighed the possibility that Iran might strike back at Israel, the United States and beyond in ways that would be unacceptable. Perhaps he was skeptical of the claims of Israeli intelligence after the strike against the alleged reactor in Syria which the Guardian sounds agnostic about, despite recent assurances from Michael Hayden.
Last September they knocked out a buildings complex in northern Syria, which US officials later said had been a partly constructed nuclear reactor based on a North Korean design. Syria said the building was a military complex but had no links to a nuclear programme.
Whatever his reasons, we may hope that John McCain and Sarah Palin haven't been fully read into them and are following an earlier line on not second-guessing Israel out of lack of information rather than hawkish temperament. Palin's recent incoherence is a further complicating factor. It's clear she hasn't thought much about foreign affairs throughout her career and has stuck to rightwing talking points instead. And McCain hasn't exercised his singing talents lately.
But perhaps they should have a heart-to-heart with their president on his second-guessing.