ALLIANCES CHANGE THE RISK CALCULATION
Now forget all other historical details and focus just on the role of alliances and commitments, and the way those flipped, in a matter of days, from deterring aggression to automating escalation.
It’s not farfetched to see Hezbollah as Serbia, with Iran in the role of Russia. On the other side, Israel is Austria-Hungary, and America the big ally that was Germany then. In the wings are Russia and China today, as France and Britain were in 1914.
This is a perennial problem with alliances. Their purpose is to deter aggression against the ally, and for that they have to be credible as unconditional defensive pacts. (This is what former and possibly future president Donald Trump doesn’t understand about NATO.)
But alliances also change the calculation of risks, especially by the smaller partner. At worst, they encourage that ally to escalate or go on offence, in the expectation that the big guy has its back.
In the current American election season, there is no chance of either Biden or his potential successors, Trump or Kamala Harris, publicly withdrawing support from Israel. But all three must be clear (to Bibi, above all) that American support is indeed ironclad only for defensive purposes.
Say, however, that Netanyahu does extend the “long arm of Israel” across the region – that he bombs Iran’s nuclear centrifuges, for example – without coordinating that strategic shift with the United States. Israel is now clearly on offence, as it seems to plan in Lebanon. US support must now become conditional, rather than ironclad.
For America’s national interests as for the world’s collective sake, the White House must never issue blank cheques. Not even to its best friends.
Source: CNA
