The Parable of Uncle Sam and Aunt Jane - Opinion

This month, representatives of the United States and Israel announced the completion of negotiations resulting in a large-scale arms deal. Reporters went to considerable length to emphasize that the arrangement was especially attractive to Israel because it did not contain restrictive conditions on the use of these weapons, and that a quarter of the grant could be used for the purchase of local products.

Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns explained that there were no strings attached - no special annexes - and that this aid was not dependent on Israeli

The arrangement was especially attractive to Israel.

policy. According to Herb Keinon, Diplomatic Affairs reporter for the Jerusalem Post, Burns underlined (August 11, 2007) that the aid was coming at a time when Iran "'is resurgent,' and was both seeking nuclear weapons and expanding its conventional power in the region." Burns added that "we look at this region and understand that a secure and strong Israel is in the interest of the US."

While this statement reflects a generous American policy, one may surmise that behind the grant and its timing there could be a new development in the American-Israel bilateral dialogue.

A brief but true story may be illuminating. An old friend from my college days who came from a good Boston family once told this author about his late great-aunt Jane. When she passed on, her heirs discovered that she possessed an extraordinary collection of exquisite couture jewelry. Aunt Jane was a beautiful woman who had married four very wealthy gentlemen in succession, all of whom were much older than she. Since her various husbands could not perform, they presented her costly jewelry as type of compensation.

Now, there is nothing wrong with accepting expensive gifts, particularly when the donor is a friend and does not set conditions for such generosity. The question is whether this new American aid may have something to do with Aunt Jane's story. Could it be that, despite President George Bush's personal affection for Israel, the United States cannot intervene militarily in order to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power?

Two observations support this interpretation. Firstly, President Bush is struggling against fierce domestic opposition to defend the continuation of the war in Iraq and he simply cannot initiate another military campaign in the Middle East. In addition, his presidential term is ending.

Secondly, America is unable persuade its European partners to support a military

It is possible that the European Union would prefer a weaker America.

intervention against Iran. The European states, organized in the European Union, have adopted a shared foreign policy and are not interested in helping America maintain its presence in the region. In fact, they would prefer to take America's place and gain control of the natural resources of the whole hemisphere. It is possible that the European Union would prefer a weaker America, even if the consequence were a nuclear Iran.

Even if only partially correct, this analysis may explain why Uncle Sam is giving the State of Israel such costly and valuable gifts at this time.

This article originally appeared in Hebrew in Makor Rishon on August 24, 2007.

Opinion	Kislev 6, 5770 / November 23, '09