Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
Most of us were not surprised when Joe Biden began to back away from his support of Israel in the Gaza War. We assumed he was responding to the demands of his far left, to the Muslims in Michigan, and to the pro-Palestinian protestors. His focus is on the elections in November, and he believes that betraying Israel is his path to his success. And he’s acting accordingly.
The latest blow to the U.S.-Israel alliance has arrived in two parts. First, Biden has refused to send specific weapons to Israel if they invade Rafah (which they are certain to do). He has said that Israel must have a plan to reduce civilian casualties. Ironically, the weapons he is withholding are targeted weapons which reduce the damage and losses. The fact that Israel is publicizing locations for the Palestinians to avoid the fighting, through text messages, fliers and other promotions are apparently not satisfactory efforts to reduce casualties. The fact that Biden has not explained how Israel must respond to reduce victims is telling.
But he has also essentially said that he will withhold intelligence from Israel about the locations of tunnels and Hamas leaders in Gaza if they proceed into Rafah. He apparently doesn’t realize (or doesn’t care) that his statement is actually confirming that they have already been withholding information. Israel is supposed to assume that they will receive the information if it doesn’t conduct a full-scale invasion of Rafah.
Some people are realizing that Joe Biden has already switched sides. When Iran proxies were conducting attacks against our military bases in Iraq and Syria, his response was pathetic; he even warned some of the IRGC leaders that he was coming for one of the U.S. responses. His response to Iran’s attack on Israel was lukewarm; after all, they weren’t really successful. Although sanctions have been levied on Iran, Republicans are saying that Biden is not enforcing the existing measures.
What would Iran and the U.S. have to gain by becoming allies? For one, it’s no secret that the U.S. has tried to find a way out of involvement in the Middle East for years. Why not let Iran take over? They already are close to having a nuclear bomb, so any efforts to stop them from using it are futile (as they were from the start). Although Arab leadership was beginning to show some promise in the area with the Abraham Accords, Biden tried to ignore the agreement; he has avoided referring to it by name, since it was an achievement of Donald Trump. Also, I suggest that they might have secretly been hoping that rather than a collection of Arab countries sharing a leadership role, they were rooting for Iran to step in.
Remember the JCPOA and Robert Malley? Negotiations with Iran were abandoned even before the Gaza war. I suspect that they realized they could align with Iran without a formal agreement in place, especially since they’ve given up on stopping Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon.
The message is clear and becoming clearer every day:
The U.S. and Iran have become allies; Israel, you’re on your own.
Discussion (42)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The Iranians are too crazy to be peace partners even if the US gives in on all fronts.
The Iranian option was first concocted by James Baker when Bush was looking for a way out of the quagmire in Iraq. The panel of alleged experts led by Baker said we should bugger out of the Middle East, hand the keys to Iran and to mollify the Arabs horrified at Iranian hegemony, cut ties with Israel. After that, the US would have no reason ever to back and the region (except Israel) would love us.
Bush wisely rejected that advice and went with "the surge" idea of Kagan and Keane to try to create a stable situation from which to depart.
Obama revived the Baker plan less for geopolitical strategic reasons than to fulfill his image as the vaguely anti-American transformative world leader with a soft spot for anti-American regimes in general and Muslim anti-Americans in particular. The bizarre fetish of crafting a deal, any deal with Iran even at the expense of American and global interests with idiot-boy Kerry as the 'architect' was an embarrassment.
That Biden sought to revive that nonsense is a testament both to his absence of judgment, character, and lack of control over his own foreign policy authority.
The mullahs are too far into the tank for their nutball theocratic fantasies to even pretend to be peaceful partners. If the USA were to advance actual Western interests we are the Great Satan. if we capitulate to whatever Iran wants, we are still the Great Satan but a weakened one that merits further attack.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Great response, OB! Since they are all nutballs (on our side and theirs), the possibilities are endless for what they might try.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
It is bad enough to be a nutball who claims the right to kill everyone with different beliefs but to be another kind of nutball who says that is OK even if a likely target of the first kind of nutball... I have more respect for the Iranian version of nutballism than that of their lunatic cheer squad in the West on the basis of internal consistency alone.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
It all makes sense, if you consider Obama to be the puppet master. Obama did all he could to strengthen Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood when officially president. President Biden (wink wink) started his term by lifting sanctions on Iran and now his support for Hamas over Israel is just a continuation.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
But even so, I didn't see his abandoning Israel. And I don't think he'll get away with it, based on surveys of our own citizens and those supporting Israel in Congress.
You're seeing five of 42 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.