Appetite for Destruction

There’s a huge amount of Sturm und Drang on the American right where, at the peripheries, arguments and some conspiracies are being launched to prove that Israel has dragged the United States into war with Iran, entirely against our interests. At the other polar end is a huge effort to say “No” and to present the operation as if there is no daylight at all between Israel and the United States. I’m not sure that’s plausible anymore.

The war has much, much deeper popular support in Israel than in the United States. Christopher Caldwell recently observed, as an aside in a piece, that as far as war aims, Israel has some, and the United States seems to lack them.

That’s overstating it. But there’s been a much clearer emphasis on regime change in Israeli statements, and that is more consistent with their actions and targets in Iran. United States officials have sometimes broached that subject but have been anxious to preach stability. The U.S. president essentially blamed Israel for an attack on Iranian civic and energy infrastructure that Iran responded to with similar attacks on a Gulf ally.

The United States, keeping an eye on global energy prices, has not only lifted sanctions on Russian oil but is allowing Iran to continue to sell oil on the world market, even as Iran has blocked the Strait of Hormuz to others.

The major fault line between Israel and the United States in this context is their relative appetite for chaos and upheaval. Israel has a very high tolerance for upheaval. The depth of public support, and the solidarity that is renewed with nearly every air raid siren, means they are willing to pay an economic price to see the destruction of what they see as their implacable foe. Israel is not troubled by the idea of a refugee crisis; it’s not going to accept them, of course. It does not care deeply about European energy contracts being ripped up.

America, however, has a whole global world order to worry about. It has taken some responsibility in Ukraine, and so its new policy on Russian gas is at odds with that. It has strained relations with Europe through demanding more for NATO, and for better terms in trade. The new surge of energy prices creates even more strain. It has pulled weapons out of East Asia to backstop its depletion of its resources in the Middle East. Trump’s own attempted reassurance of the markets this morning indicates that he is cost-conscious and understands the American people to be cost-conscious as well. As I wrote at the start of this round of conflict, the president had done little to prepare the United States for any serious costs or risks in a fight with Iran.

The biggest risk of all, however, is that it might dawn on those who have been preaching American primacy in every region that such a project is bound to run not just into political, financial, material limits, but into a sea of contradictions.