The Politics of Foreign Policy: The Israeli Anchor-Part 5/6

Israel, as a State, is an absolute and it must remain so and, here again, for two primary reasons:

  1.  The historical relevance (as a foundation for) is a fact.
  2.  If there is ever to be a compelling opposition in favor of a balanced outcome, this State, where the Middle-East is concerned, offers the best of any possible options.

So long as the sectarian conflict remains the most viable option, as a fulcrum thru which normalization in the area is achieved, is not a Two State Solution. Instead, a Confederation of Mutual Governance, one that is completely dedicated to the preservation of the region, is the only hope for long-term stability. Presently the composition of disparate interest is the equivalent of a sectarian tail wagging the dog.

If the U.S. continues to be seen as weak or non-responsive then Iran (aggravated by various members of the Arab League) will continue pressing their interests; if Israel is pushed to the wall we can be certain that this State will not hesitate to incinerate Tehran.

The following are a select group of responses to questions/comments received after the original article was published. We believe you will find them of interest.

#1: A key, yet most inconspicuous, component of the vacuum created by U.S. policy foibles is the effect this act of omissions have opened the door for previously contained Arab Interests to try their hand at regional policy chess-boarding. 

Qatar and Saudi Arabia have used their oil-wealth to fund counter-insurgencies (chiefly in Syria) the effect of which has been to make an already unstable area a seething incubator for a whole new crop of lunatics. The emergence of ISIS is, in large part, directly related the meddling of these two and increasingly controversial oil states. 

Curtis C. Greco, Founder

This entry was posted in Geo-Poli and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.