US and allied interventionism in the Middle East has produced results in most cases the opposite from what was ostensibly promised. An Iraq government close to Iran, a Syria saved from a jihadist takeover by Russia and Iran, and so on. Israel was firmly aboard the "regime change" train but suddenly sees the shake-out not looking in its favor. What's next? More intervention?
US and allied interventionism in the Middle East has produced results in most cases the opposite from what was ostensibly promised. An Iraq government close to Iran, a Syria saved from a jihadist takeover by Russia and Iran, and so on. Israel was firmly aboard the "regime change" train but suddenly sees the shake-out not looking in its favor. What's next? More intervention?
Hello everybody, thank you for tuning in to the Liberty Report.
With me today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host.
Daniel, good to see you.
Good morning, Dr. Paul.
Very good.
Today I'd like to talk about the Middle East.
We've talked about it in the past a few times.
But there's some things in the news now that we should pay attention to.
There was a recent meeting between Putin and Netanyahu, and they've had several meetings, and it's an important association, especially for Israel and for the Middle East, because everybody has their interests.
But there's a lot of concern now with Netanyahu.
There was one article that I read that was trying to describe the position that Netanyahu is in.
And they say he's sweating a lot.
And I thought that was just figurative.
They say, no, literally, he sweats a lot.
And they also said it wasn't from the heat.
So it has to do with foreign policy.
It has to do with Iran.
It has to do with Syria.
It has to do with Russia.
It has to do with their national security, which they have really a right and a need to be concerned about.
But why do you think Netanyahu's sweating so much these days?
Well, he's also got some problems at home.
You know, there's been a lot of scandals around.
It looks like the noose may be closing in on him for political reasons.
But, you know, the region is probably one of the reasons he's sweating.
You know, in a way, he got out ahead of himself.
Israel got out ahead of itself.
They jumped on the regime change train that the U.S. was involved in.
They wanted to overthrow the secular government of Assad.
They've been actively involved these years.
Israel admitted that they bombed Syrian government troops 100 times in the last five years.
So they're in it.
They've been involved.
They've helped Al-Qaeda.
They've treated al-Qaeda wounded in Israeli hospitals.
They made a big bet on overthrowing Assad, and it looks like they bet the wrong way.
And now you have blowback from a bad foreign policy.
One of the positions I've taken over the years, even in the debates, was that the charges made against non-intervention was that it was anti-Israel.
And, you know, I took the position that, no, recognizing their national sovereignty, not dealing with them, let them deal with what they have to do for their national security, and they would be better off.
So that I made a sort of a prediction that in time, you know, the policy of intervention by us might end up hurting Israel.
And if you look at it right now, they have a legitimate complaint about what's happening, but some of it is of their own doing.
And it's sort of the backfiring of our policy.
We're over there intervening.
And right now, the Iraq war turned out, and we've mentioned this many times on the program, that the war benefited the Iranians because it's a Shiite country now.
And before there was a different type of stability, but the need to get rid of Saddam Hussein because he was going to bomb us with a nuclear weapon, all the lies they told, has backfired.
But we've been involved in Yemen and Yemen and Iran.
They have dealings together.
And evidently there are some volunteer tears from Yemen and Lebanon that goes up and helps in Syria.
But the big concern that I think I sense here and what Netanyahu is complaining about or concerned about, he probably has a right to complain, I guess, but it is the fact that Iran wants to have a military presence after the dust settles.
And most people are assuming the war is over.
And maybe it is, but there's still a long way to go.
Assad only has control of about half of his country.
And Putin recognized that Iran was helpful in achieving this.
But Iran wants to have a military presence there, which means that that would reasonably be a concern for Israel and Netanyahu.
And I think that's they're a big beef.
But I don't know how they're going to settle this because I don't think Israel is likely to go on its own militarily.
They have in the past, and they threaten that, but that would be some deal.
I don't think it would work very well.
But I think it's another example.
You mentioned getting rid of Assad was our position, Israel's position.
Now it's a mess, and we've suffered from it.
The Syrian people suffered from it.
Now Israel is saying, hey, we don't like the way this turned out.
So it's still, it's, once again, another point that if they pay attention to, they would say, hey, you know, maybe there's something to this non-interventionist foreign policy, not only for the United States, but maybe for other countries as well.
Maybe that is not the best way to provide national security for themselves.
Yeah, and it's understandable that in a way that Iran would want something when the dust settled, they've expended a lot of treasure.
They've expended a lot of blood in keeping the radical Sunni jihadists from taking over Syria.
It's a little bit ironic because after the 67 war, when the dust settled, Israel grabbed a big hunk of Syria and wants to call it its own.
So, of course, it's okay if they do it, but Iran shouldn't have the right to do it.
But, you know, it also shows, I think, the folly of an interventionist foreign policy, as you said, because I don't think anyone disputes that Israel has a very strong influence in the U.S. Congress.
You see resolutions passed all the time in favor of Israel.
So Congress, I think, is very clearly pro-Israel when it comes to this.
But U.S. interventionism, when it acts, it always ends up, as you point out, being bad for Israel, in Iraq, in Syria, and elsewhere.
So they talk the talk, but when they start to walk the walk, they end up messing the whole thing up and muddling the whole thing up.
Yeah, and there's no signs that this is going to change.
They're sort of stymied over the whole thing because there's no easy solution for this.
And yet it was of their own making.
But it would be a tough decision for some to decide what to do, you know, if there's a lot more fighting.
And there's already been.
Israel's already been doing some shooting over there in Syria.
They've been very much involved.
So the argument that, well, Iran shouldn't have participated in any way and helped in any way, well, maybe Israel shouldn't have, and maybe we shouldn't have.
Maybe Syrians should have picked and choose who should come in and preserve the integrity of their country.
Yeah, and it's, you know, it is a mess now.
And the main thing that we're hearing now in the media is, and this is what Netanyahu, I think, talked to Putin about, is a land corridor that would extend from Israel all the way up through Lebanon.
And it's, of course, the media is playing that up as well.
The biggest prize for Iran.
But really, there is already a de facto land corridor.
That's the whole reason that Iran is able to operate in Syria.
It's able to move troops back.
So I think in a way, he's playing this up a little bit.
He's trying to get sympathy.
But I can't imagine, I can imagine Putin being in a very difficult position because obviously they've had traditionally very good relations with Israel.
I know that Putin wants to continue those good relations, but at the same time, he's going to have to push back a little bit against the Israeli threats on Syria because they've also expended a lot of money, a lot of political capital, and a lot of blood even in it.
But was there justification for the concern that Israel had before 2011 when they joined us in getting rid of Assad?
Assad wasn't their best friends, but Assad wasn't about to invade Israel.
But it was still, they thought in their best interest to participate in getting rid of Assad.
Well, that's the problem with regime change.
It doesn't work out always the way you want.
And oftentimes it works out a lot worse.
Look at Libya and et cetera.
But they thought they wanted to get rid of Assad, even though he was a secular leader, but they did support the Palestinian rights, and Israel didn't like that.
They did want their land back in the Golan Heights, and Israel wasn't too keen about that.
So they took a gamble, I think.
They took a gamble on overthrowing him, hoping something better would come along.
You know, it really hasn't turned out that much better for them.
You know, the one principle that they seem to avoid and they don't want to talk about or they don't want to use it, and that is self-determination.
You know, peoples are different, and they have different countries, and if they were just allowed to live, you know, as their own, as a single country, I think it would be so much better.
But there's always something else involved.
There's always what's going to happen tomorrow, who's going to own the oil, who's going to do this, and who's going to invade this country.
So it's very hard for them to develop this principle.
It's a good principle, but right now I don't think that the world is going to be all of a sudden, you know, endorsing this whole idea that people ought to be left alone.
Just like on an individual basis, when I think of our problems here at home, I think the solution is, is everybody's an individual.
Leave them alone and quit having this contest between groups and religions and all these factions.
It could work, but of course, the world has been made up of people who want to use power and they want to use wealth to enhance their own self and take care of themselves.
Absolutely.
And the war in Syria has created, has resulted in some strange geopolitical reorientations.
I think we've seen the Russia-Iran-Turkey cooperation since the announcement of these safe zones or no-fire zones.
It has been exceptionally successful.
Really, essentially, the center part of Syria is now cleaned out from al-Qaeda and ISIS elements.
They continue to move toward Deir Azur on the way to Iraq, to the heart of ISIS.
So this cooperation has, I think, made it a lot closer cooperation, Russia, Iran, and Turkey.
What will happen next?
What will happen now?
Is Russia about to abandon Iran?
What will Turkey do?
Turkey is clearly very frustrated with the Europeans, not super happy with the U.S.
So there are so many things that are up in the air right now.
Yeah, see, I believe they also refer that to the de-escalation zone in Iran and Turkey and Russia involved.
And it probably was very helpful in getting to where we are today, which means Syria is a lot better off than it was six months or a year ago.
But when Israel looks at this, they see it differently.
Well, yes, fine and dandy.
That might be better for Syria, but we don't like those Iranians being nearby here.
So we don't want to endorse this.
And this is their big concern.
Once again, they're looking to anticipating what might happen in the future, exactly what they did in 2011.
So they thought good things would come of it.
And they obviously supported our invasion of Iraq.
And we were sort of fighting their wars.
And also our position against Iran over the years has been a position that has been tough on Iran.
And matter of fact, they're probably happy with Trump.
Trump speaks tough on Iran.
It doesn't seem like Trump is in a very good position to take Israel's position in Syria, maybe elsewhere, and he will.
He's not ever going to be anti-Israel.
But he'd have a tough time, you know, taking Israel's position and say, yes, we're there, and we do work with the Russians, and we talk to them, but we'll have this peace, but we're going to send all Iranians back home and they're not allowed to participate.
And if they do, we'll put on sanctions.
Well, that's what happens when you take a foreign policy gamble and you lose.
You know, we thought we could change the regime.
We didn't, so there's a lot less influence there than we could have had.
I did find it also a little bit ironic, but that here's Netanyahu talking to Putin, and in the talk, he's threatening Syria.
And here's what he says while he's threatening Syria.
We do not forget for one minute that Iran continues to threaten Israel's destruction every day as he's threatening there.
But the thing, and we've noted this several times, that Iran is certainly not the perfect government.
It's probably not a place we would like to live.
However, after Israel, it's the home to the largest amount of Jews in the Middle East.
So clearly, Iran is not simply out there to eradicate Jewish people.
They're represented in parliament in all walks of life in Iran.
They're not rushing to flee to Israel.
So I think it really Netanyahu does tend to be a little bit bombastic.
Remember when he was holding up that bomb in the UN saying they're about ready to have a nuclear bomb?
He tends to be a little bit dramatic and bombastic.
And I think that's a little bit of what we're seeing here.
Well, okay, right now this has not been a top issue in the news, even though we consider it very important.
And maybe tomorrow it'll be in the major news, but we have other things to deal with to make sure Robert Lee's name be erased from even sports broadcasters.
I mean, that's much more important.
But if you have a summary statement, then I think we'll close this program.
Well, the unintended consequences of interventionism continue to blow back, to use as many clichés as possible.
There you go, blowback.
I think I've talked about that over the years, blowback.
But I think more people now know and understand what blowback is all about than they did maybe eight or ten years ago.
But it's interesting that the term blowback was not something that I created out of thin air.
Term Non-Intervention00:00:52
It was a CIA term that they developed because they knew it and understood that.
And even after 9-11, it was recognized at our position by one of our officials said, you know what?
We better take those weapons out of Saudi Arabia because they said that was one of the reasons they committed 9-11.
They recognized the blowback.
And right now, though, the hawks, the people who want perpetual war and they want to have the neocons in charge, yes, they don't want to look at it in a negative way, so they resent that.
But the more positive term is non-intervention and letting people have their own national sovereignty.
That would go a long way for improving the conditions for peace and prosperity throughout the world.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.