[nathanbedford]

One can hardly imagine a riskier, more foolhardy foreign policy blunder then committing the United States to war on behalf of a country which has been at war about four or five times since its birth in 1948.

Israel is a magnificent and heroic story but it is not our story, it is not our destiny and it should not be considered in our national interest to risk nuclear holocaust on its behalf. It is one thing to recognize Jerusalem as the legitimate capital of Israel-that can be considered to have been a moral and decent action by Trump. Likewise, recognition of Israel's strategic need of the Golan Heights Is a practical understanding of reality.

At a time when America is threatened with the end of its superpower status partly because it is overextended and has engaged in bootless and seemingly endless wars without accomplishing any recognizable advancement of our security interests, why would we compound these errors? Why double down? Israel is one of the hottest spots on earth, surrounded by hundreds of millions of enemies bent on its destruction. One can only think of the consequences of Germany issuing a "blank check" to Austria to make war on Serbia in 1914. There is no upside for us and the downside could be utterly catastrophic as it was for Germany.

A decision to make war is an element of sovereignty and every mutual security obligation constrains our sovereignty to some degree. If an occasion arises in which a beleaguered Israel requires our assistance, even our alliance in war, let us make that decision on an ad hoc basis, let Congress decide, let the judgment be made about what is in our national interest at the time. It would be folly to commit now to circumstances unknowable in the future.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Totally agree. But the neo-con wing of FR will scream that you’re anti-Semitic for merely suggesting that we shouldn’t be constantly sticking our noses into the Middle East.

[Trumpisourlastchance]

What you said.

[chajin]

One can only think of the consequences of Germany issuing a "blank check" to Austria to make war on Serbia in 1914. There is no upside for us and the downside could be utterly catastrophic as it was for Germany.

This was my first thought, and it is a valid concern.

My second thought was that the purpose of such an agreement is to cower the enemies of Israel, since they will know that to attack Israel is to invite our wrath.

My third thought was that jihadists aren't cowered by anything, since they would rather die than have a world which includes Israel, so the agreement wouldn't accomplish its intended purpose.

My fourth thought is that Israel is God's chosen land and its people are God's chosen people, and those who bless Israel are blessed by God, while those who curse Israel are cursed by God.

Given the divine implications, the agreement is risky but has its upside.

[steel_resolve]

That’s a 10-4. +10000

[gaijin]

Plucky, democratic, entrepreneurial, determined, little Israel is HALF the size of San Bernadino County and I yugely admire them.

Yet this is a formula for everlasting war.

This is breathtaking in its recklessness.

[Jumper]

The US is fully linked and has integrated billions of dollars in war reserve stocks located in underground storage in Israel for American forces use... And in addition there is more designated lend-lease equipment for Israel’s use.

Microsoft and numerous top companies have R&D and production there.

There are over 600,000 Americans with dual citizenship.

Simply stated, US citizens represent nearly 10 percent of the country’s population. It is a vital US interest to protect US Citizens.

Iran needs to be made to clearly understand that American will not tolerate its attempt to destroy Israel and by making these statements on linked treaties Trump has essentially made a moot point of involving the Senate... or unlike Obama sidestep a treaty because after the attacks by Iranian proxies in Saudi Arabia, and against Israel this week Iran was just put on official notice that the US had separately informed Russia and Iran we would not object and further the we might provide a hand in retaliation upon Iran and her proxies.

Freepers might object but the unresolved issues from 1979 are going to settled by Trump just as he is dealing with the 1953 NK issue.

[mbrfl]

While that may be true, I see no evidence that Trump plans to involve us in any more quagmires around the world, whether in Israel, Afghanistan, Iran or North Korea. I’d say his general foreign policy philosophy in this regard is pretty clear by now. This is just a headline at the moment. No details have been revealed, and it may never go beyond informal discussions. More likely Trump is mentioning it publicly to try and reassure those who have concerns about a possible peace deal with Iran (i.e. any U.S. peace deal with Iran will not be at the expense of the security concerns of our allies).