Iran, Israel and America's critical strategic national interests

America defends its strategic interests by means that include war. Its generally hard to assess the cost-benefit of America's wars since the end of the second world war. Its not clear what benefit we got from the Vietnam war. Its too early to assess what benefit will come from the approximately $2 trillion we will have spent in Iraq to date and over the next 40 years or so as health care costs for U.S. veterans are finally paid out. About the same will likely be true for the Afghanistan war once it ends. Another $1-2 trillion will be spent when costs are finally no longer coming in. None of that includes accounting for the loss of human life on all sides, including innocent lives. Indeed, our strategic interests can be difficult to define and very expensive to defend.

Two new wars?

Its worth considering the issue of strategic American national interests because of recent talk of two new wars that some urge are or should be in America's near future. John McCain wants America to bomb Assad's forces in Syria to reduce the slaughter of innocents. That's an admirable goal, but does it constitute a critical strategic national interest? What would the cost-benefit be? A Syria that realigns away from Iran, Russia and China and toward the West? Maybe, but maybe not. Russia would not like an American attack in Syria, that's for sure.

Looking at how little we appear to have accomplished in Afghanistan to date suggests that it isn't easy to make friends in the Middle East or the Arab world in general regardless of how hard we try. Even now after ten years of war and trying to be helpful, Afghanis become enraged, kill our troops and demand we leave the country after we accidentally destroy some Qurans. That can't be called meaningful progress. A point argued here repeatedly is that we are blind when it comes to understanding Afghanistan, much less making progress, whatever that might look like.

Iran and the bomb

The other war some say we need to engage in is one with Iran to prevent their nuclear bomb from becoming a reality. America gets about 18% of its imported oil through the Persian Gulf and some other countries get a higher proportion of their oil from that source. That arguably amounts to a strategic national interest. But is it threatened by a nuclear armed Iran? Would Iran nuke the Persian Gulf to disrupt global oil exports? Would doing that even work for Iran?

Does defense of Israel constitute a strategic national interest?

Another argument for war with Iran comes from some who argue that defending Israel is a strategic national interest. But is that true? Israel exports no oil to the U.S. or elsewhere. Its a small country (bigger than New Jersey and smaller than Maine) about a third of which is uninhabitable desert, with a population of about 7.8 million and a GDP of about $217 billion. Israel is not one of America's biggest trade partners. It ranked 27th in 2011 in total import and export trade with the U.S. Millions of Arabs (and others apparently) dislike or hate the U.S. at least in part for its support of Israel, a point that has been recognized for a long time. Things don't seem to be improving. There is no critical strategic national interest in any of that.

Israel could simply cut all ties and interactions with the U.S. overnight and there would be little or no major effect on America or its economy. If that is true, and it is, then where is America's strategic national interest in Israel? Nonetheless, American politics in fact treats defense of Israel as a critical strategic national interest.

America has paid a high price for its association with and/or defense of Israel. It isn't just massive amounts of foreign aid (about $3 billion/year). Osama bin Ladn cited the U.S. presence in the Middle East and its support of Israel as key reasons for the 9/11 attacks. Maybe defending Israel is a reason to go to war with Iran, although the logic behind that is unclear. Maybe its historical U.S.-Israel ties and/or something to do with the politics here, e.g., money in politics or the American Jewish vote (about 2% of the American public, but 12% of the U.S. senate and 8.4% of all of congress), that elevates Israel to a strategic national interest. As argued here before, emotion, not logic, largely drives politics. Israel seems to be a case in point.

Think hard before releasing the dogs of war

If we do go to war with Iran, the cost-benefit question must be considered before the bombs and bullets start to fly. Politicians who advocate a muscular, military America really should stop and think real hard about exactly what it is they want to accomplish and what the cost will be. The hawks must not make the same colossal mistake that was made in "justifying" the Iraq war. War with Iran could easily turn out to be about as costly as Iraq or Afghanistan will ultimately turn out to be.


How will it be paid for and exactly what spending will be cut if taxes are not raised? Or, will the war be mostly financed by debt? If defending Israel is part of the rationale for war, that, and and the expected costs (spent tax dollars and negative Arab street opinion with creation of untold numbers of mortal enemies) and benefits (uninterrupted oil flow from the Persian Gulf) from that defense should be made very clear to the American people. The case that Iran is going to cut off oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz needs to be made clear without spin or subterfuge.

A demand for truth, not smoke & mirrors

To justify war, there must credible, tangible benefits that could be logically and reasonably counted on. If what we have accomplished in Afghanistan to date is any indication, nation building isn't going to be one of them. Going to war will create thousands or millions of new enemies for America. That will be part of the cost and that point should be clearly made to the American people. That's only reasonable because  the American people will bear all the cost burden. They deserve to be informed of what they will be getting into before they get into it. Politicians don't mention the costs of war with Iran, which shows profound disrespect for the American public, but some analysts think it could be massive. That kind of opinion stands unrebutted so far. Worse yet, the nonsense that the politicians advocating war have provided to date falls far short of a logical rational.