In reaction to Tom Friedman’s most recent column, arguing that DAESH could serve the useful function of opposing Iranian power, Pat Lang retorts:
While we are speaking of hard truths – Iran under its current form of government, Syria as ruled by Assad, Lebanon with Hezbollah and even Iraq being controlled by the Shia is at worst an inconvenience for the West and the US, but a thorn in the eyes of the Gulfies (for paranoia and religious reasons) and Israelis (for paranoia and in pursuit of local hegemony).
The idea the Gulfies and Izzies sell in DC is that the US must adopt their favourite enemies as their own, and that the US must help destroy them. Friedmann find no flaw in that. While he professes to despise ISIS as much as the next guy, he despises Iran more.
Where, if I may ask, is the US interest in aiding Israeli maximalist ambitions or in helping spread the Gulfie’s profoundly anti-Western religious chauvinism in Iraq and Syria?
Pat is much more anti-Israel than I but on this subject we’re in agreement. I think we’ve confused our interests with those of our allies and, worse, with those of our clients. Pat seems to think that’s a consequence of canny public relations. I think there must be more to it.
The notion that my enemy’s enemy is my friend goes back several millennia at least. I think the notion that my friend’s enemy is inherently my enemy, too, is problematic. The enemy of my frenemy is what? How would you even evaluate it?
“Where, if I may ask, is the US interest in aiding Israeli maximalist ambitions or in helping spread the Gulfie’s profoundly anti-Western religious chauvinism in Iraq and Syria? ”
Erewhon