I am struck by the gutsy, brilliance of Israel's brinkmanship policy.Using a decisive and ruthless military strike, as did Deng Hsiaoping in February 1979, the Israelis have engaged their American patron's protective umbrella to teach a punishing lesson that Israel is no "paper tiger," that it will not be triffled with. If you rouse the dragon, do not expect a "proportional" response.
This proxy war between Iran and the US via Hezbollah and Israel is reminiscent of another proxy war a quarter of a century ago: between America (China's patron) and the Soviets (Vietnam's patron.).
The Chinese invasion of Vietnam opened a new chapter of the entrenched American Soviet Cold War going back to 1948. Israel's assault on Hezbollah in Lebanon opened a new chapter in the bitter American Iranian feud going back to 1979.
In multiple levels of conflict the name of the proxy game is to teach a lesson, to shift and cap a new balance of power. It can be a ruthless, brutal game played with the lives of others.
Yes, we all see the present through the lens of our past. Afterall I covered the brilliantly conceived Chinese invasion to teach Vietnam and the Soviets a lesson.
As back then, the US conditionally backs its proxy, provides a protective umbrella, vows to prevent Israel's other enemies from joining in, grants Israel, as earlier China, a finite period to wreak its damage, to tear down Washington's opponents.
Washington arms and supports its Israeli proxy to tear down, limit, teach a lesson to an "out of control," emboldened Hezbollah and to the Iran which encourages, finances, arms it.
This is a more transparent, but so far much smaller war than China's invasion of Vietnam where more than 20,000 died in 29 days of fighting.
We had President Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski then and President Bush's Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice now playing similar roles as power politics brinkmanship activists rather than peace seeking mediators. Each backed by a boss to be "shaped" a bit. Bush now, Carter then.
Ultimately Washington both protects its proxies and pressures them (once China, now Israel) to limit actions, to avoid getting in over their heads, to avoid provoking a wider war which would require even more direct American military involvement.
Just as Deng manipulated distant Washington to counter both the Soviet Union and Vietnam in his own neighborhood, Israel manipulates an eager Washington to be its "force magnifier" in the Middle East. Israel moves NOW while a sympathetic Bush is President.
Brezezinski (and Carter) hoped the Chinese invasion would make more costly the structure of Soviet expansion which armed and supplied a Vietnam proxy. Indeed President Reagan later took the cue to use proxies to counter Soviet influence in Indochina, Afghanistan, and Central America.
Brinkmanship, power politics.
1 comment:
From a political perspective, I’d see your point addressed in your blog, however, I would like to carry the analogy one step further, the PLA’s 1984 limited incursion into northern Vietnam also displayed some similarity with Israel’s 18 years occupation of southern Lebanon. Like that of Israel’s attempt in the 80s and 90s, PLA’s goal was to prevent small scale raids inside her boarder and suffered casualties in a small but steady scale. But unlike the IDF, PLA, being a communist army was able to absorb those casualties. Also, PRC was dealing with a nation-state, not a hatefilled militia, thus when relationship improved after the cool war, the level of violate also subsided accordingly.
Regards
Xinhui
Post a Comment