Facebook Feed

5 days ago

Yoram Ettinger
2023 Jewish demographic momentum in Israel: bit.ly/40qV0aV ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

4 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
Purim Guide for the Perplexed 2023: bit.ly/3ZdlxHY ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

4 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
אתגר מרכזי לביטחון לאומי: bit.ly/3xkSwh1 ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

Reagan, the Pioneer of Global War on Terrorism

President Reagan led the US battle on state-sponsored terrorism, vanquished the USSR and significantly enhanced US strategic ties with the Jewish State.

IN APRIL 1986, REAGAN ORDERED THE US AIR FORCE TO BOMB QADAFFI’S PALACE, Qadaffi’s capital and a few other targets in Libya. The staggering commitment to combat state-sponsored terrorism was undertaken in response to escalated Libyan terrorism, which was responsible for the murder of four US GIs in West Berlin and in Frankfurt. The bombing transformed the US from a “Paper Tiger” (as misperceived by the world) to the leader of the war on global terrorism. Gone were the days of national humiliation (1979/80) – when Iranian terrorists took over the US embassy in Teheran – and gone were the days of the US running away from Syrian and PLO backed Islamic terrorists in Beirut (1983), following the murder of 300 American GIs in 1983. President Reagan realized that retreat and disengagement from terrorists bring terrorism closer home. The bombing of Tripoli has become Reagan’s “Business Card”, reflecting his world-view, which has also led to the demise of the USSR.

ACCORDING TO REAGAN, A DURABLE PEACE WITH ROGUE REGIMES COULD ONLY BE OBTAINED THROUGH THE EMPLOYMENT OF STRENGTH AND DETERRENCE, rather than (the short-lived false sense of peace) through concession and appeasement. Therefore, he bolstered the defense budget by 35%, initiated SDI to neutralize the threat of ballistic missiles, toughened the negotiation posture vs the USSR, toppled a pro-USSR hostile regime in Grenada, supported anti-communist undergrounds in Central America and Africa, bombed oil installations in Iran and expanded the US naval presence in the Persian Gulf. Reagan did not apologize for the deployment of disproportional force against Libyan terrorism. He aimed at forcing Qadaffi to seek peace with the US, as a means to avoid further US punishment. He did not stick to agreements and covenants, which were systematically violated by the other party, and did not consider the attainment of agreements as “the goal”, but rather as “a means” to advance a strategic goal. Reagan did not consider the courts, the UN or the negotiation process as the proper arena to deal with the plague of state-sponsored terrorism. That was the background for his famous June 1987 proclamation: “MR. GORBACHEV, TEAR DOWN THAT WALL!” And, both The Wall and the USSR collapsed.

REAGAN’S LEGACY HAS SHED LIGHT ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STATESMANSHIP AND PETTY-POLITICKING. He espoused a cohesive world-view, driven by long-term principles and goals, rather than by cynical political considerations driven by short-term convenience. He realized that the inherent conflict between Western democracies and terror regimes was not territorial, but rather existential-ideological. A victory in the conflict requires – per Reagan’s legacy – faith (optimism) in one’s cause and capabilities, steadfastness in face of domestic and international pressure and temptation, moral clarity and determination based on tradition, values and patriotism.

REAGAN’S WORLD VIEW DETERMINED HIS SPECIAL AFFINITY TOWARD THE JEWISH STATE. The 40th President valued Israel as a special ally, which embodied the core of his own values and global strategic considerations. For Reagan, and for many of his followers, THE DEFIANT, CAN-DO ISRAEL WAS “THE REAGAN OF THE GLOBAL COMMUNITY.” Thus, he was the only US president to sign (any, let alone) three strategic memoranda of understanding with Israel. The 1981 MOU was signed – and a military embargo on Israel was terminated – once Reagan realized the unique benefits derived from Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor. The 1983 MOU was concluded – and a bitter strain was eased – when Reagan concluded that the mutuality of the Islamic terrorism threat was more critical than the disagreement over Israel’s war on the Lebanon-based PLO terrorism. The 1988 MOU has been the most comprehensive ever signed between the US and Israel. It determined that the regional and the global context of mutual challenges were more pertinent than the narrow context of the Intifada-caused bickering.

PRESIDENT REAGAN WENT FARTHER THAN ANY PRESIDENT SO FAR, EXPRESSING HIS OPPOSITION TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PALESTINIAN STATE, in a televised address to the nation on US Policy For Peace In The Middle East (September 1, 1982): “In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again… Peace cannot be achieved by the formation of an independent Palestinian state in those territories…” Moreover, one of the ripple-effects of the Reagan-motivated November 1980 conservative revolution in Congress has been a substantial enhancement of Republican support of the Jewish State, which was until then overwhelmingly dominated by Democrats. The enhanced support has been reflected via a litany of legislation and resolutions, supported by legislators, who have been made aware – by President Reagan and his legacy – of the shared Judeo-Christian values, joint-interests and mutual-threats, binding together the US and its sole soul ally in the Mideast.

The closer is the Israeli national security policy to the Reagan legacy – of peace through the employment of strength and deterrence – the deeper is the respect toward Israel by Reagan’s followers. However, the more Israel embraces the “Counter-Reagan” elements of Oslo, Wye, RoadMap and Retreat/Disengagement, the more difficult it is to sustain the respect toward Israel, instilled by Reagan in the heart of millions of his followers in the US and beyond.




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb

The Abraham Accords – the US, Arab interests and Israel

Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan believe that the expansion of the Abraham Accords, the enhancement of Israel-Saudi defense and commercial cooperation and the conclusion of an Israel-Saudi Arabia peace accord are preconditioned upon major Israeli concessions to the Palestinian Authority.

Is such a belief consistent with Middle East reality?

Arab interests

*The signing of the Abraham Accords, and the role played by Saudi Arabia as a critical engine of the accords, were driven by the national security, economic and diplomatic interests of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and the Sudan.

*The Arab interest in peace accords with Israel was not triggered by the realization that the Jewish State was genuinely seeking peaceful-coexistence, nor by a departure from the fundamental tenets of Islam. It was motivated by the assessment that critical concerns of the respective Arab countries would be effectively-served by Israel’s advanced military (Qualitative Military Edge), technological and diplomatic capabilities in the face of mutual and lethal enemies, such as Iran’s Ayatollahs and Muslim Brotherhood terrorism.

*Saudi Arabia and the six Arab peace partners of Israel (including Egypt and Jordan) are aware that the Middle East resembles a volcano, which occasionally releases explosive lava – domestically and/or regionally – in an unpredictable manner, as evidenced by the 1,400-year-old stormy intra-Arab/Muslim relations, and recently demonstrated by the Arab Tsunami, which erupted in 2011 and still rages.

They wish to minimize the impact of rogue regimes, and therefore are apprehensive about the nature of the proposed Palestinian state, in view of the rogue Palestinian inter-Arab track record, which has transformed Palestinians into an intra-Arab role model of subversion, terrorism, treachery and ingratitude.

*They are anxious about the erosion of the US posture of deterrence, which is their most critical component of national security, and alarmed about the 43-year-old US diplomatic option toward Iran’s Ayatollahs, which has bolstered the Ayatollahs’ terroristic, drug trafficking and ballistic capabilities. They are also concerned about the US’ embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the largest Sunni terrorist entity with religious, educational, welfare and political branches. And, they are aware of the ineffectiveness of NATO (No Action Talk Only?), the European vacillation, and the vulnerability of all other Arab countries.

Israel’s role

*Saudi Arabia and the Arab partners to peace accords with Israel feel the machetes of the Ayatollahs and the Moslem Brotherhood at their throats. They consider Israel as the most reliable “life insurance agent” in the region.  They view Israel as the most effective US force-multiplier in the Middle East, and appreciate Israel’s proven posture of deterrence; flexing its military muscles against Iran’s Ayatollahs in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran itself and against Palestinian and Hezbollah terrorism. They respect Israel’s unique counter-terrorism intelligence and training capabilities, and its game-changing military and counter-terrorism battle tactics and technologies.

*The Arab view of Israel as a reliable partner on “a rainy day” has been bolstered by Israel’s willingness to defy US pressure, when it comes to Israel’s most critical national security and historic credos (e.g., Iran, Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria).  In addition, Saudi Arabia and Israel’s peace-partners aim to leverage Israel’s good-standing among most Americans – and therefore among most Senators and House Representatives – as a venue to enhance their military, commercial and diplomatic ties with the US.

*Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain are preoccupied with the challenge of economic diversification, realizing that they are overly-reliant on oil and natural gas, which are exposed to price-volatility, depletion and could be replaced by emerging cleaner and more cost-effective energy.

Thus, they consider Israel’s ground-breaking technologies as a most effective vehicle to diversify their economy, create more jobs in non-energy sectors, and establish a base for alternative sources of national income, while bolstering homeland and national security.

*The Abraham Accords – as well as Israel’s peace accords with Egypt and Jordan – and the unprecedented expansion of defense and commercial cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel, demonstrate that critical Arab national security interests may supersede fundamental tenets of Islam, such as the 1,400-year-old rejection of any “infidel” sovereignty in “the abode of Islam.”  Moreover, critical national security interests may lead to a dramatic moderation of the (Arab) education system, which is the most authentic reflection of one’s vision and policies.

Thus, contrary to the Palestinian Authority, the United Arab Emirates has uprooted hate-education curriculum, replacing it with pro-Israel/Jewish curriculum.

Abraham Accords’ durability

*The success of the Abraham Accords was a result of avoiding the systematic mistakes committed by the US State Department. The latter has produced a litany of failed peace proposals, centered on the Palestinian issue, while the Abraham accords bypassed the Palestinian issue, avoiding a Palestinian veto, and focusing on Arab interests. Therefore, the durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the interests of the respective Arab countries, and not on the Palestinian issue, which is not a top priority for any Arab country.

*The durability of the Abraham Accords depends on the stability of the individual Arab countries and the Middle East at-large.

*The Abraham Accord have yielded initial and unprecedented signs of moderation, modernity and peaceful coexistence, which requires the US to support the respective pro-US Arab regimes, rather than pressuring them (e.g., Saudi Arabia and the UAE).

*However, one should not ignore the grave threats to the durability of the accords, posed by the volcanic nature of the unstable, highly-fragmented, unpredictable, violently intolerant, non-democratic and tenuous Middle East (as related to intra-Arab relations!).  These inherent threats would be dramatically alleviated by a resolute US support.

*A major threat to the Abraham Accord is the tenuous nature of most Arab regimes in the Middle East, which yields tenuous policies and tenuous accords. For example, in addition to the Arab Tsunami of 2010 (which is still raging on the Arab Street), non-ballot regime-change occurred (with a dramatic change of policy) in Egypt (2013, 2012, 1952), Iran (1979, 1953), Iraq (2003, 1968, 1963-twice, 1958), Libya (2011, 1969), Yemen (a civil war since the ’90s, 1990, 1962), etc.

*Regional stability, the Abraham Accords and US interests would be undermined by the proposed Palestinian state west of the Jordan River (bearing in mind the intra-Arab Palestinian track record). It would topple the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River; transforming Jordan into another platform of regional and global Islamic terrorism, similar to Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen; triggering a domino scenario, which would threaten every pro-US Arab oil-producing country in the Arabian Peninsula; yielding a robust tailwind to Iran’s Ayatollahs, Russia and China and a major headwind to the US.

*While Middle East reality defines policies and accords as variable components of national security, the topography and geography of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and the Golan Heights are fixed components of Israel’s minimal security requirements in the reality of the non-Western Middle East. Israel’s fixed components of national security have secured its survival, and have dramatically enhanced its posture of deterrence. They transformed the Jewish State into a unique force and dollar multiplier for the US.

*The more durable the Abraham Accords and the more robust Israel’s posture of deterrence, the more stable the pro-US Arab regimes and the Middle East at-large; the more deterred are anti-US rogue regimes; the less potent are Middle Eastern epicenters of anti-US terrorism and drug trafficking; the more bolstered is the US global posture and the weaker is the posture of the US’ enemies and adversaries.

*Would the Arab regimes of the Abraham Accords precondition their critical ties with Israel upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, which they view as a rogue element? Would they sacrifice their national security and economic interests on the altar of the Palestinian issue? Would they cut off their nose to spite their face?

The fact that these Arab regimes concluded the Abraham Accords without preconditioning it upon Israeli concessions to the Palestinians, and that they limit their support of the Palestinians to talk, rather than walk, provides an answer to these three questions.

Support Appreciated

 

 

 

 




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb