Word from inside the five-sided building on the Potomac has it that there's a debate among the leadership. After nearly a year of deploying US military forces to the Middle East, those who directed the stationing of American troops, airmen, and sailors in harm's way are asking if those forces are helping to stop the escalating tensions. The question the Pentagon brain trust has taken on is a reasonable endeavor, but it misses the point. It's the wrong question.
Is the Pentagon Reconsidering Its Support for Israel?
It is fascinating that the US Defense Department should have second thoughts about how it has supported Israel after Hamas' murderous rampage through southern Israeli kibbutzim. However, according to The New York Times, what its mission is and how it's performing in the Middle East is precisely what Pentagon officials are worrying. According to TheTimes:
"As the Israeli offensive in Lebanon expands to include ground incursions and intensifying airstrikes, senior Pentagon officials are discussing whether the enhanced US military presence in the region is containing a widening war, as they had hoped, or inflaming it…General Brown, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III, and other officials have tried to balance containing the conflict and emboldening Israel, one senior US military official said. Another official said it was easier for Israel to go on offense when it knows that 'Big Brother' is nearby."
What the Pentagon leadership should be asking is how the US can most efficiently counteract the Iranian mullahs' malignancy of terror threatening the Middle East. However, the tentative nature of the US approach so far gives rise to the questioning of the effectiveness of the US military deployment to the region. The way the debate is framed belies any notion of defeating the most aggressive adversary facing both Israel and the US.
There is no fuzz on Israel's understanding of the challenges before it. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) intends to defeat enemies on all sides, whether US forces are present or not. Pentagon officials probably believe the US aircraft carrier task forces and fighter squadrons deployed to the region provide cover for Israel, but there may be a downside for the IDF as well. US Defense Department officials, in turn, expect Israel to bend to the direction of the US national security team's counsel.
Having US F-15Es, F-16s, F-22s, Air Force fighters, Navy missile destroyers, and air wings on two US aircraft carriers provides significant protection for Israel against ballistic missile, drone, and cruise missile attacks from Iran and its proxies. But so far, the White House’s tit-for-tat pinprick responses to Iran-backed Houthi terrorist rebels in Yemen and militias in Iraq and Syria have not stopped or slowed the belligerence. So the Pentagon might question the effectiveness of US forces to stop the expansion of hostilities in the Middle East when Israel is reluctant to engage in "mother-may-I" discussions with American defense leadership. The IDF understands the United States is not inclined to be proactive in engaging and defeating Iran's sponsorship of regional attacks by its proxies.
Consequently, Israel is not predisposed to inform the Pentagon of its plans to defeat Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists. During a Defense Department press conference, Deputy Press Secretary Sabrina Singh took this question: "[T]here have been many instances or a number of instances in the past where [Israel's Defense Minister Yoav] Gallant has not notified [Defense Secretary Austin] before a major operation, most recently, the killing of Nasrallah. Why do you believe the Israelis will share with you what they're going to do before they do it this time?"
Flatfooted Over the Killing of Nasrallah
Despite almost daily conversations between the two countries' defense chiefs, after the air attack that killed the Hezbollah leader of 30 years, Singh revealed, "To your point, we were caught off guard by the strike on Nasrallah, but that doesn't mean that we are on other operations." However, some reports say the creative use of exploding pagers and walkie-talkies was not run by the Pentagon. It could be Israel is trying to save itself the grief of incurring a negative, possibly hostile reaction when the IDF goes forward anyway. Any bold IDF military operation against Israel's enemies would likely meet with Pentagon hand-wringing and skepticism.
Since the initial attack, Israel has endured US caution not to be too aggressive going into Gaza City, attacking Rafah, and responding to Iran's air attack of more than 300 ballistic missiles, drones, and cruise missiles in April. Because there was only minor damage from that assault, President Joe Biden warned Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to do anything too rash – and take the failure of Iran to do any real damage as a "win."
Netanyahu sidestepped the advice and launched an air attack on an anti-aircraft site close to a nuclear research facility. After this latest barrage from Iran, the IDF will probably not take counsel from the White House. So the question about US forces in the Middle East not being able to quell an escalation is not the correct concern. What should be under consideration is how the United States can actively help Israel stop Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists and prevent Iran from fomenting further conflict.
The views expressed are those of the author and not of any other affiliate.
.jpg&w=1920&q=75)
