Netanyahu’s failure to understand US foreign policy under Obama has made him to give the US Congress the impression that the Obama administration is going soft on Iran. His whole speech before the US Congress was focused on the danger Iran poses to its neighbours. He did not say a word on how he intends to solve the immediate problem which has plunged Israel into a state of permanent war with the Palestinians. It is not nuclear weapon from Iran which made Israeli citizens and Palestinian citizens unable to go about their normal lives but rockets from Gaza and jets from Israel. India and Pakistan and may be North Korea have nuclear bombs. Who could they threaten with such weapons and not be equally wiped out from the face of the earth. Nuclear weapon only serves as a deterrent against external aggression but is not an offensive weapon unless one is the only possessor of the weapon in which case one could utilise it selectively to neutralise adversaries as was the case in the Hiroshima nuclear attack. What Netanyahu could not tell the US Congress is that the epicentre of world conflict has shifted and all world leaders should go back to the drawing board. Obama was compelled to go back to the drawing board when Putin made him appear like a warmonger while building up closer ties with Syria and Iran. On the other hand, Obama would have strengthened the movement, which calls itself Islamic State of Syria and Iraq (ISIL), by bombing Assad and create a Libyan like outcome for both Syria and Iraq since the movement could never create an inclusive government in both countries. The decision not to bomb Syria changed the attitude of the IS and compelled it to move to grab power in Iraq where those who were oppressed and excluded under the Maliki government were up in arms. The beheadings and plans to establish a Caliphate threw the Maliki government in the hands of the US. The US thus had the casting vote. It could bomb Assad and IS would take over Syria. It could have folded its hand and allow IS to take over Iraq. Instead the Obama administration decided to put itself at the head of a global coalition to combat IS and thus negated the relevance of the Sunni –Shiite camps which fuelled the military machine established by IS. Obama’s position became further strengthened as Russia became bogged down with its annexation of Crimea and its handling of the Ukrainian conflict and as he opens up talks with Iran on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and renew ties with Cuba which reduces anti US sentiments in South America. The US has developed a withdrawal strategy in Afghanistan which should be nurtured by constantly reminding its people that their only road to peace and non-interference in their internal affairs is for all to agree for leadership to be determined periodically, through free and fair elections, by the will of the people and for that leadership to be exercised to promote the general welfare of all Afghans. In Iraq, the US should now begin to motivate the new leadership to start National dialogue on Constitutional and electoral reform to ensure that no one is marginalised because of one’s sect, blood ties , tribe or place of origin. The same process should take place in Syria, Yemen and Palestine. It is therefore very clear that Netanyahu simply aims to parochialise US foreign policy as he has done with Israeli foreign policy by giving the impression that Jews are secure nowhere but in Israel. Modern states are secular and non-racial. What Netanyahu should have told the US Congress is how he is building a secular, democratic , non-racial state of Israeli which is ready to exist side by side, in peace, with a secular, democratic and non-racial state of Palestine. It is only then that he should receive a standing ovation. Anything less is just Propaganda to win the votes of racial chauvinists in Israel, in particular, and around the globe, in general. There is no chance for Iran to export its revolution without bringing chaos. It will never be replicated anywhere else otherwise Iraq would have taken that path.]]>
