The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy

23-Jul-2007

The Collapse of Pax-Americana: What’s Next for Israel?

Filed under: US & Global PolicyUN — eidelberg @ 9:27 pm

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, July 23, 2007.

How the mighty have fallen!

1) The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 meant the end of a bipolar world. This was followed by a multipolar world, until 9/11.

2) 9/11 produced a unipolar world and the American doctrine of unilateralism. The U.S. issued a “with-us-or-against-us” foreign policy directed against any state harboring terrorists. The destruction of the Taliban in Afghanistan followed. Iraq came next, where the U.S. implemented a policy of pre-emptive attack on any enemy state developing weapons of mass destruction. But Iraq complicated matters. Destroying the regime of Saddam Hussein necessitated “regime change,” and this meant democratization—and not only of Iraq. Could the U.S establish a Pax-Americana in the Islamic Middle East?

3) The doctrine of unilateralism was proclaimed in 2002 when then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, in connection with the war on terrorism: “the mission determines the coalition.” The mission comes first, and the mission is decided by the United States—not the UN Security Council. In a unipolar world the UN is obsolete. Certainly the UN was bypassed in the war against Iraq. Henceforth the U.S., not the UN, would supervise regime change in that fragmented country of Shi’ite, Sunni, and Kurdish Muslims.

4) 9/11 produced, or so it seemed, the beginning of a New Rome. The ideology of this New Rome—of this American Empire—is commercial republicanism, i.e., democracy plus a market economy. But like Rome, the American Empire would be based on power. Not futile international agreements or paper treaties but the power of the United States will resolve conflicts within and between nations.

5) Not to worry. After all, does not America stand for the democratic principle of government by the consent of the governed? Has not America always aspired to promote freedom and equality and to make the world safe for democracy? Has it not saved Europe again and again from tyranny?

6) Let us now try to understand how American foreign policy is developed. Each new American administration lays out a National Security Strategy that outlines its approach to defending the U.S. against actual and potential adversaries. On September 20, 2002, the Bush administration released an NSS plan that marked a significant departure from those of its predecessors, a change defended in connection with the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

7) To address the terrorist threat, the report set forth a newly aggressive military and foreign policy involving pre-emptive attacks against perceived enemies. It speaks of “American internationalism,” of ignoring world opinion—meaning the United Nations—if that suits American interests.

8) The NSS report lays out a plan for permanent U.S. military and economic domination of every region of the globe, unfettered by international treaties or concerns. Bearing in mind that U.S. troops are already deployed in some 130 countries, the report calls for permanent military bases in the Middle East, Southeast Europe, Southeast Asia, and Latin America. Accordingly, it called for an increase in defense spending from $281 billion—which is more than the next eleven nations combined—to $378 billion.

9) Actually, NSS 2002 was very much based on a 1992 document drafted by Paul Wolfowitz, who was undersecretary for policy under then Secretary of Defense Richard Cheney. This means that 9/11 was not the real basis of NSS 2002. It was the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1991 that opened the door for Paul Wolfowitz’s program for an American Empire in 1992.

10) The architects of this projected empire—a group of brilliant and powerful people—held key positions in the Bush administration. To the names of Wolfowitz and Cheney add Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, and Douglas Feith. This group of conservative interventionists envisioned a Pax Americana.

11) The U.S. had to prevent Saddam from developing nuclear weapons, because that would give him control of the Persian Gulf and its enormous oil reserves.

12) The U.S. now relies on imported oil for 55% of its requirements, and this percentage is expected to rise to 65% in 2020 and to keep rising thereafter. Moreover, the U.S. relies on oil to supply 40% of its energy requirements, more than any other source.

13) U.S. dependence on Persian Gulf oil means American dependence on Saudi Arabia, which has more oil than anyone else—about 250 billion barrels, or one-fourth of the world reserves. This gives Saudi Arabia a great deal of influence on the American economy and the American way of life.

14) Now it happens that Iraq is the only country in the world with sufficient reserves to balance Saudi Arabia. Iraq has at least 112 billion barrels in proven reserves, and as much as 200-300 billion barrels of potential reserves. Thus, by occupying Iraq and controlling its government, the U.S. could solve its long-term oil-dependency dilemma for a decade or more.

15) So it bears repeating that Saddam had to be eliminated, lest he obtain a stranglehold over Persian Gulf oil. That would give him control over the U.S. economy as well the economies of other nations.

16) At the same time, the U.S. had to combat international terrorism and promote democracy. Underlying and linking these motives was the need to have unrestricted access to Persian Gulf oil. Purists may sneer, But the prosperity and blessings of American democracy depend on the ability of the United States to protect its global interests against Global Jihad, and all this requires energy—oil.

17) U.S. control over Persian Gulf oil conforms to NSS 2002, to the Bush administration’s declared goal of attaining permanent military superiority over all other nations. NSS 2002 avows that American forces must be “strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.” Control of Persian Gulf oil is a precondition of the American Empire and the American way of life.

18) But with the Democrats now in control of Congress, unilateralism or the notion of a Pax-Americana is dead. To prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge U.S. supremacy is beyond the purview of internationalists like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

19) Yes, but instead of a Pax-Americana in the Middle East, a nuclear Iran has emerged, spearheading worldwide jihad. Can civilization survive the collapse of Pax-Americana? Can the U.S. under a Democratic administration prevent the ascendancy of Totalitarian Islam?

20) And what of Israel? Has Israel’s existence become more problematic? Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has vowed to wipe Israel off the map. Iran, armed with nuclear weapons, would control the Middle East and thus constitute an existential threat not only to Israel, but also to Europe on which the American economy so very much depends.

21) Ahmadinejad hates Israel even more than the United States. He nourishes the Islamic belief that Israel is occupying Arab land—enough to merit Israel’s utter annihilation. He also despises the secular nature of Israel’s government. Some writers suggest that Ahmadinejad might be more tolerant of Israel if it were governed by Scripture and religions people. The Iranian president denounces and despises Israel for distancing itself from God, and he mocks Israeli democracy as false and sacrilegious.

22) In any event, given the collapse of Pax-Americana and the hegemonic ambitions of a nuclear Iran, Israel has no choice but to maximize its own power in every possible way—especially territorial. This will require a future Israeli government to abrogate Oslo, destroy the terrorist gangs that constitute the Palestinian Authority, and declare Jewish sovereignty over Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

Caveat: You may think this is tilting at windmills, but it’s the only way Israel can survive. The obvious question is: How do we get the kind of government needed for this revolutionary program, which I have only abbreviated? The kind of government Israel needs will not spring into existence simply by means of another election. The extremity of Israel’s situation demands unconventional if not extreme measures.