The announcement last week by the United
States of the largest military aid
package in its history – to Israel – was
a win for both sides.
Israeli prime
minister Benjamin Netanyahu could boast
that his lobbying had boosted aid from
$3.1 billion a year to $3.8bn – a 22 per
cent increase – for a decade starting in
2019.
Mr Netanyahu has presented this as a
rebuff to those who accuse him of
jeopardising Israeli security interests
with his government’s repeated affronts
to the White House.
In the past weeks alone, defence
minister Avigdor Lieberman has compared
last year’s nuclear deal between
Washington and Iran with the 1938 Munich
pact, which bolstered Hitler; and Mr
Netanyahu has implied that US opposition
to settlement expansion is the same as
support for the “ethnic cleansing” of
Jews.
American president Barack Obama,
meanwhile, hopes to stifle his own
critics who insinuate that he is
anti-Israel. The deal should serve as a
fillip too for Hillary Clinton, the
Democratic party’s candidate to succeed
Mr Obama in November’s election.
In reality, however, the Obama
administration has quietly punished Mr
Netanyahu for his misbehaviour. Israeli
expectations of a $4.5bn-a-year deal
were whittled down after Mr Netanyahu
stalled negotiations last year as he
sought to recruit Congress to his battle
against the Iran deal.
In fact, Israel already receives
roughly $3.8bn – if Congress’s
assistance on developing missile defence
programmes is factored in. Notably,
Israel has been forced to promise not to
approach Congress for extra funds.
The deal takes into account neither
inflation nor the dollar’s depreciation
against the shekel.
A bigger blow still is the White
House’s demand to phase out a special
exemption that allowed Israel to spend
nearly 40 per cent of aid locally on
weapon and fuel purchases. Israel will
soon have to buy all its armaments from
the US, ending what amounted to a
subsidy to its own arms industry.
Nonetheless, Washington’s renewed
military largesse – in the face of
almost continual insults – inevitably
fuels claims that the Israeli tail is
wagging the US dog. Even The New York
Times has described the aid package as
“too big”.
Since the 1973 war, Israel has
received at least $100bn in military
aid, with more assistance hidden from
view. Back in the 1970s, Washington paid
half of Israel’s military budget. Today
it still foots a fifth of the bill,
despite Israel’s economic success.
But the US expects a return on its
massive investment. As the late Israeli
politician-general Ariel Sharon once
observed, Israel has been a US
“aircraft carrier” in the Middle East,
acting as the regional bully and
carrying out operations that benefit
Washington.
Almost no one blames the US for
Israeli attacks that wiped out Iraq’s
and Syria’s nuclear programmes. A
nuclear-armed Iraq or Syria would have
deterred later US-backed moves at regime
overthrow, as well as countering the
strategic advantage Israel derives from
its own nuclear arsenal.
In addition, Israel’s US-sponsored
military prowess is a triple boon to the
US weapons industry, the country’s most
powerful lobby. Public funds are
siphoned off to let Israel buy goodies
from American arms makers. That, in
turn, serves as a shop window for other
customers and spurs an endless and
lucrative game of catch-up in the rest
of the Middle East.
The first F-35 fighter jets to arrive
in Israel in December – their various
components produced in 46 US states –
will increase the clamour for the
cutting-edge warplane.
Israel is also a “front-line
laboratory”, as former Israeli army
negotiator Eival Gilady admitted at the
weekend, that develops and field-tests
new technology Washington can later use
itself.
The US is planning to buy back the
missile interception system Iron Dome –
which neutralises battlefield threats of
retaliation – it largely paid for.
Israel works closely too with the US in
developing cyberwarfare, such as the
Stuxnet worm that damaged Iran’s
civilian nuclear programme.
But the clearest message from
Israel’s new aid package is one
delivered to the Palestinians:
Washington sees no pressing strategic
interest in ending the occupation. It
stood up to Mr Netanyahu over the Iran
deal but will not risk a damaging clash
over Palestinian statehood.
Some believe that Mr Obama signed the
aid package to win the credibility
necessary to overcome his domestic
Israel lobby and pull a rabbit from the
hat: an initiative, unveiled shortly
before he leaves office, that corners Mr
Netanyahu into making peace.
Hopes have been raised by an expected
meeting at the United Nations in New
York on Wednesday. But their first talks
in 10 months are planned only to
demonstrate unity to confound critics of
the aid deal.
If Mr Obama really wanted to pressure
Mr Netanyahu, he would have used the aid
agreement as leverage. Now Mr Netanyahu
need not fear US financial retaliation,
even as he intensifies effective
annexation of the West Bank.
Mr Netanyahu has drawn the right
lesson from the aid deal – he can act
against the Palestinians with continuing
US impunity.
- See more at: http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2016-09-19/palestinians-lose-in-us-military-aid-deal-with-israel/#sthash.fL4Eq28N.dpuf
As
Carter spun
it four months before the signing,
LEMOA rules that US forces “may”
be deployed to India under special
circumstances. Essentially, Delhi will
allow Washington to refuel and keep
contingents and equipment in Indian
bases – but only in case of war.
In
theory, India is not offering the US any
permanent military base. Yet considering
the Pentagon’s track record that may of
course change in a flash.
No
wonder Indian nationalists were outraged
– insisting there is no strategic gain
out of this gambit, especially for a
nation that is very proud of being one
of the founders of the Non-Aligned
Movement (NAM).
The cozying up to the Pentagon happens
just a few months after Prime Minister
Narendra Modi – who had been denied a US
visa for nearly a decade – addressed a
joint meeting of Congress in a blaze of
glory, declaring
that India and the US are natural
allies” and calling for a closer
partnership.
Modi went no holds barred, even
referring to Gandhi’s influence on Rev.
Martin Luther King’s nonviolent civil
disobedience strategy – something that
could not but earn him a standing
ovation in Capitol Hill.
The “closer”
partnership does involve military and
nuclear issues. As Modi reminded
Congress – which needed no reminding –
the industrial-military complex sold
weapons to India
“from almost zero to $10
billion in less than a decade.”
Then there’s the US-India nuclear
cooperation deal, which opens a window
for US corporations to build and supply
Indian nuclear power reactors. And
eventually Washington is bent to share
“some” – and the operative
concept is “some” – military
technology with Delhi.
Geopolitically, this all boils down to
what happened recently in the Philippine
Sea, as the US, Japan and India
practiced anti-submarine warfare and air
defense maneuvers; practical evidence of
the “pivot to Asia”, as in
re-tweaking Asia’s naval-security
“order” to counteract – who else –
China.
Modi performs geopolitical yoga
Yet things are not as black and white –
from the Indian point of view. It’s no
secret that key sectors of the Indian
diaspora in the US are quite integrated
with the Washington consensus and usual
suspect hegemony mechanisms such as the
Council on Foreign Relations and the
Rand Corporation. But Modi’s game is way
more sophisticated.
Modi’s priority is to
solidify India as the top South Asian
power. So he cannot afford to antagonize
Washington. On the contrary; he’s
getting the US on board his vastly
ambitious Make
in India strategy (“a
major national initiative designed to
facilitate investment; foster
innovation; enhance skill development;
protect intellectual property; and build
best-in-class manufacturing
infrastructure.”)
Naturally, US corporations – heavy
supporters of TPP – are salivating at
the lucrative prospects. The drive is
similar to what China did decades ago,
but now with emphasis on “protection
of intellectual property” to
attract the TPP-obsessed crowd.
Another geopolitical Modi goal is to
forcefully present India – not Pakistan
– to Washington as the ideal
reliable/rational partner in South Asia.
That’s dicey, because for the Pentagon
the multiple declinations of the war on
terra in AfPak are de facto being
configured as something like Operation
Enduring Freedom Forever.
And then there’s once again the military
angle: India diversifying its weapons
suppliers – mostly it buys from Russia –
towards the US, but not that much,
establishing a careful balance.
This is a balance between
the US and BRICS, in itself is the
hardest nut to crack. As Beijing
admits in no uncertain terms,
“BRICS faces the risk
of retrogressive, rather than
progressive, cooperation because of new,
intricate circumstances.”
Talk about a diplomatic euphemism for
the ages. And this as Washington will go
no holds barred to
contain China behind the First
Island Chain in the South China Sea
while there’s not much Delhi can do to
contain Myanmar providing Beijing with
total access to the Indian Ocean via
Pipelineistan, ports and high-speed
rail.
Meet INSTC
At
the next BRICS summit in Goa next month,
some of these geopolitical intricacies
will be quietly discussed behind closed
doors. BRICS may be in disarray, with
Brazil under regime change, Russia under
sanctions and India flirting with the
US. But BRICS remains committed to
serious institutional moves, such as the
New Development Bank (NDB), the push
towards trading in their own currencies
and a multi-pronged politico/economic
drive towards a multipolar world.
This drive is graphically in effect when
we examine one of the key – unreported –
Eurasian integration stories; the
symbiosis between India and Iran. Delhi
counts on Tehran to up its game as an
economy propelled by natural gas as well
as profiting in the long run from the
perfect – Persian – gateway to Central
Asian markets.
The key hub of course is
the port of Chabahan. The highlight of a
Modi visit to Tehran four months ago was
a Chabahar
contract between India Ports Global
Private Limited and Arya Banader of
Iran. That’s about
“development and
operation for 10 years of two terminals
and 5 berths with cargo handling”.
There’s way more; development of Special
Economic Zones (SEZs) and essential
road/rail links from Iran to Afghanistan
and further into Central Asia. India
will then have direct access to
Afghanistan, bypassing Pakistan. It does
not hurt that Delhi and Kabul are
already strategic partners.
Chabahar is only 500 km east of the
ultra-strategic Strait of Hormuz.
In
the near future, we might as well see a
configuration where the Indian Navy has
the right to use Chabahar while the
Chinese Navy has the right to use Gwadar,
in Pakistan, only 150 km by sea east of
Chabahar. Nothing that BRICS dialogue –
or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO) – could not keep on smooth sailing
mode.
For Iran, this is a certified
“win-win” game. Iran not only will
be connected to the Chinese One Belt,
One Road (OBOR); but it will also
solidify yet another
trade/transportation corridor in
Eurasia; the International North-South
Transportation Corridor (INSTC) between
the Indian Ocean and Central Asia. Key
INSTC members happen to be Iran, India
and… Russia. Talk about, once again, the
interpenetration of BRICS and the SCO.
The Big Picture ahead under Modi’s long
term planning does not look like Delhi
subjected to the role of flagrant vassal
of Washington. India needs certified
stability with all key players – from
the US to China, considering the master
plan is to lift 1.3 billion Indians
close to the living standards of
middle-class Chinese.
China had a head start. India may take
up to 2050 to do it. Meanwhile, it’s not
to India’s interests to actively join
any US policy of China containment or
encirclement, be it “pivot” or
“rebalance”. It’s more like
India, in a Gandhian way, will be
practicing the fine art of nonviolent,
forceful neutrality.
