There is a new opinion piece in the Atlantic titled The Coming Middle East Conflagration. Its author is Michael Oren and his credentials are more than impressive.
The picture Oren paints is more than a little disturbing, but I'm even more disturbed by what I sense as the articles subtext, i.e., by the underlying intend of the article, which does not surface until the article's last paragraph:
The message seems pretty clear: IMPEACHMENT IS BAD FOR ISRAEL.
If this is, indeed, the intended message (and I could be way off base here), I doubt that the decision to disseminate such a caution originated with Oren, and I would not be surprised to find Netanyahu among those pulling the strings.
The picture Oren paints is more than a little disturbing, but I'm even more disturbed by what I sense as the articles subtext, i.e., by the underlying intend of the article, which does not surface until the article's last paragraph:
... the United States is clearly committed to helping protect Israel’s skies. Whether American troops would go on the offensive on Israel’s behalf, striking Iranian bases, remains uncertain.
That ambiguity is only deepening in an election year in which the incumbent and his opponents are campaigning to end old Middle Eastern wars, not get bogged down in new ones. Polls taken after the president’s decision to withdraw from Syria showed a lack of bipartisan support for even a small-scale American military involvement in the region. Yet administration officials have repeatedly assured me that Israel is not Syria or Saudi Arabia, and that Israel can count on massive U.S. support if needed.
I continue to believe that is true. I recall President Obama’s comment to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Oval Office six years ago this week, on the last day of my service as Israeli ambassador. “The United States will always come to Israel’s aid in the event of a war,” he said, “because that is what the American people expect.” But I also remember that, back in 1973, Egypt and Syria saw a president preoccupied with an impeachment procedure, and concluded that Israel was vulnerable. In the subsequent war, Israel prevailed—but at an excruciating price. The next war could prove even costlier.
The message seems pretty clear: IMPEACHMENT IS BAD FOR ISRAEL.
If this is, indeed, the intended message (and I could be way off base here), I doubt that the decision to disseminate such a caution originated with Oren, and I would not be surprised to find Netanyahu among those pulling the strings.