Iran’s attack and the two-state obsession
It’s not about empowering the Palestinians, but constraining Israel
Many of us have been at a loss to understand the obsessive focus that the Biden administration, along with the leaders of many Western European countries, have with the “twostate solution.”
After all, Oslo, the process that was intended to result in such an outcome was a spectacular and destructive disaster.
Over the years, subsequent attempts were made to forge an agreement, and none of those even got to first base.
Especially in the wake of the monstrous October 7 attacks, one would have logically concluded that, with an ideological/religious permanent animus that certainly has genocidal trappings, a two state construct would be far from anyone’s thinking.
Of course, this is completely wrong. The two-state solution has returned as a mantra that has been embraced and advanced.
Something has happened, which, counter-intuitively, shines some light on the two state rationale. And that something was the April 14 attack by Iran. The attack was historic both for its ending the charade that Iran was not involved in attacking Israel and also for the magnitude of that attack.
What might be of the most enduring interest, however, is the involvement and reactions of the US government. There seems to have been broad based awareness of the imminence of the attack. Some of that can of course be attributed to good old-fashioned intelligence.
But recent reports have circulated that Iran shared their plans with the Turks and possibly the Saudis and that these were then communicated, indeed, were intended to be communicated to the Americans.
What is also alleged – by Reuters on April 14 – is that America green-lit the attack, so long as it was “within limits.” What the definition of “within limits” was is unknown. But there seems to be more than just a sense that choreography was at work here: “Iran informed Turkey in advance of its planned operation against Israel, a Turkish diplomatic source told Reuters on Sunday, adding that Washington had conveyed to Tehran via Ankara that any action it took had to be ‘within certain limits.’”
Now that is not meant to diminish the magnitude and scope of the Israeli achievement in blocking and intercepting the Iranian attack. But if the timing and possibly the scope of the attack was known, then there was the opportunity to plan for it.
The question is why would America tacitly or overtly agree to an Iranian attack, and then play a significant role in countering it? The distressing answer seems to be that this action is part of an increasingly clear picture of how the US envisions the region, including the role of Israel in the region.
The kneejerk reaction by America for Israel to “take the win” and not to respond to Iran is consistent with the American insistence on Israel’s not entering Rafah in Gaza, and the willingness to constantly criticize aggressive Israeli incursions. And of course, the insistence on massive “humanitarian” aid to Gaza, even with the realization that Hamas will control the destiny of that aid.
In sum, it is hard to conclude that America does not want Israel to win. For us to prevail here is disruptive to the Obama/ Biden regional perspective that the best way to enable the US to decouple from the region is to empower Iran, but also to have the Sunni states as a counterweight that prevents Iran from becoming a hegemon.
However, in this view, Iran must be allowed to project power, and much of that power is reflected in their proxies’ attacks on Israel. The Biden administration does not seek the destruction of Israel, but rather its constraint. Israel should be in a perennial defensive posture, and its defensive efforts should be supported. So there is aid for air defense systems and an air force that can play a protective and defensive role.
Of course, wars are never won by playing defense. Wars are won by overwhelming the enemy. But for Israel to overwhelm a Hamas or a Hezbollah threatens to raise the stakes in the region, forcing Iran’s active involvement, and possibly triggering Sunni counter efforts.
Thus it is that Israel, despite the existential ramifications of its fighting, must be constrained in order to maintain an uneasy status quo standoff. A micro version of the Cold War, so to speak. Understanding this perspective allows for a clearer realization of the importance of the two-state solution. Do the Americans really believe that the Palestinians will bury the hatchet, accept Israel as a sovereign neighbor, and live in peace, however cold?
I doubt it. But a sovereign Palestine serves to further constrain Israel, creating yet another front that can force Israel into a perennial defensive posture. Of course, if Palestine is sovereign, Israeli incursions become invasions, subject to the inevitable condemnation, sanction, and isolation that would ensue.
Of course, America would help provide more Iron Dome batteries, but all of this is akin to wrapping one’s chains in soft fabric.
Israel has allowed itself to be neutered. Unless we are willing to incur the inevitable wrath of the US and Europe by asserting our national requisites and needs, we will be increasingly constrained in our ability to project our sovereignty.
The replacement of a south Lebanon security belt with a northern Israel no man’s land is an example of this constraint. The inability to totally degrade Hamas is another.
But these will pale in significance to the existential nightmare that a Palestinian state would represent. It is therefore critically important that we see this insistence as a piece of the American worldview, which is to render us dependent – and disabled and disempowered to be an effective offensive force.
It is a nightmarish scenario, one that demands cleareyed and determined leadership, political and military, to reverse. It will require us to wean ourselves from the ties that bind and choke.
Israel has shown itself to be a heroic, amazing military power. That power must be allowed to assert itself in ways that will free us of constant looming threats. We must allow ourselves to win.