We have retaliated, bombed the desert, talked tough. The photos released to the press show a stern-faced president sitting at a table ostensibly discussing what targets to hit with his advisers. Then, we have the ritual at Dover AFB. I don’t know what the other members of the delegation did after the ceremony, but Joe probably stopped by the house for a warm glass of milk and a short nap. All the while, another few thousand people waded ashore in towns along the border from Brownsville to Imperial Beach; and the Ukrainians continue to expend ammo attempting to fend off human wave attacks in the dead of winter.
I understand the frustration. Iran delights in flipping us off, just like migrants released from jail in NYC. A rag-tag bunch in Yemen called Houthi’s won’t behave, won’t do what we tell them to do, won’t bend to our will. And neither will Bibi for that matter. That’s really frustrating because we know—everyone knows—that a ceasefire in Gaza would stop the attacks. If we’re going to meddle, why don’t we suggest that? It’s cheaper, quicker.
But Joe thinks, just like his predecessors, hey, I’ve got this…this “instrument”, this thing called a carrier battle group cruising around the eastern Med. Why don’t I use it? It seems we just can’t wean ourselves from choosing the first option on the list: Bomb ‘em. Doesn’t accomplish a goddamn thing, but it makes us feel good. I’d like to ask, “What happens if they shoot down one of our planes a/o capture a pilot?” Or, “What do we do if one of the Houthi drones sneaks through, a destroyer is hit, and 25 sailors are killed?”
But these questions relate to tactics, and I think we must elevate the discussion from the tactical to the strategic. This is the discussion that the candidates should have between now and November. The questions relate to geostrategy and vital national security interests. They are tough questions: “Which country, among the three countries vying for the regional hegemon title—Iran, Saudi, or Turkey—do we favor?” “Do we belong in the middle of a sectarian civil war within Islam?” “Is Iran with a nuclear weapon ‘unthinkable’”? “If we say yes, what are we going to do to stop them from having one?” “If they get one, what is our response—war, containment, etc.?” “How do the linkages between domestic energy policy and domestic politics (Israel) inform ME foreign policy?”
Underlying these questions is the larger question: In light of what is going on in eastern Europe and in the Indo-Pacific theatre, can we afford to be distracted by events in the Middle East? How do we extract ourselves in a graceful way, at least to the point where we are able to recast policy and budgets in response to our relationships with Europe/NATO and Japan/ANZ that now and in the future have far greater strategic relevance.