OPINION:
Iran launched a direct missile and drone attack on Israel on Saturday. Iran claimed it was in retaliation for Israel’s bombing of a facility in Damascus, Syria, that is said to have killed seven Iranian military advisers. Left unsaid is that those advisers are alleged to have been coordinating proxy attacks against Israel.
The Department of Defense says the Iranian attack included more than 150 missiles and drones. Most were shot down or vaporized long before coming anywhere near Israeli soil.
At the time of the attack, President Biden said the U.S. commitment to Israel is “ironclad” and that any such attack will not and cannot be tolerated. It was a great soundbite and show of strength by the U.S. commander in chief during a campaign year in which he is being painted by his political opposition as weak. Unfortunately, it was mere hours later when Mr. Biden walked back the ironclad commitment and told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to retaliate, and if he did, America would have no part in it.
Israel is often referred to by members of both major U.S. political parties as America’s closest ally in the Middle East. Friendship with Mr. Biden however, apparently has its limits. To get some much needed context, let’s jump in the time machine we affectionately refer to as history.
In May 2021, CNN ran a story about then newly minted President Biden’s approach to foreign policy. The headline read: “Biden’s cautious stance on the bin Laden raid a decade ago tells us how he might handle a crisis now.” CNN was spot on.
The “cautious stance” CNN refers to has been referred to by others as a coward’s stance. The foreign policy high point of the Barack Obama presidency is generally considered to be the successful finding and killing of Osama bin Laden. U.S. intelligence was pretty sure they had located bin Laden. They had scoped out the building, built a replica, trained a SEAL team and crafted a plan for how to get in and out.
President Obama gathered his best and brightest national security advisers and sought their counsel as he decided whether to unleash SEAL Team Six. Among those giving advice were Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, CIA Director Leon Panetta, Mr. Obama’s chief of staff, his national security adviser, the deputy national security adviser, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the director of National Intelligence. The head of the Joint Special Ops Command was communicating and overseeing the mission from Afghanistan.
Also present was the vice president at the time, Mr. Biden.
Each offered input. Most cautiously suggested the president go ahead. Mr. Biden, according to his own account of the day, warned Mr. Obama against proceeding with the raid. “Mr. President, my suggestion is don’t go.” That can’t get much more clear. If Mr. Biden had been in charge that day, bin Laden would still be alive.
SEAL Team Six did go in, of course. They executed a near flawless mission and eliminated the man who had masterminded the killing of thousands of Americans on U.S. soil.
Mr. Biden’s paralyzing fear during the bin Laden raid was not a one-time occurrence. In 2021, he spoke to Congress about withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan. “We went to Afghanistan to get the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. We delivered justice to Osama bin Laden and we degraded the terrorist threat of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. After 20 years of American valor and sacrifice, it’s time to bring our troops home,” he said.
He didn’t mention that he had opposed delivering justice to bin Laden, nor did he mention that when the military and Mr. Obama decided to surge tens of thousands of U.S. troops into Afghanistan, he was opposed. The surge was enormously successful, yet had Mr. Biden been in charge rather than Mr. Obama, it wouldn’t have happened.
As it turned out, Mr. Biden managed to undo the successes in Afghanistan, and under his presidency, the Taliban is once again in charge there.
All of this serves as a reminder. If Mr. Biden was opposed to using the power, might and expertise of the U.S. military to get the man who murdered American civilians, and was again against using it to ensure victory against America-hating terrorists in a foreign land, how can we be surprised that within hours of declaring our “ironclad” support of Israel, that Mr. Biden was already telling Israel’s prime minister not to respond to being attacked by Iran.
The gut reaction to his advice was to wonder if he would have the same response if another country launched 150 missiles and drones against America. Logically one would think any president would respond, but the evidence suggests Mr. Biden might not. His standard line is that he doesn’t want to escalate conflict.
It’s a line that on the surface may appeal to some. There is a word for it. Appeasement. Appeasement can be considered a diplomatic strategy. It means making concessions to an aggressive foreign power to avoid war. Great Britain’s Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain advocated for appeasement of Hitler’s Germany because he wanted to avoid a second world war. Wanting to avoid war is admirable but sadly, in many cases, naive. Chamberlain’s strategy was a colossal failure. Not only was World War II not avoided, but it took the lives of an estimated 15 to 20 million Europeans.
Iran has repeatedly espoused some variation of wanting to wipe Israel off the map. They do not mince words on this desire. On Saturday, Tehran launched a direct assault against Israel. By Wednesday, Iran was threatening more, saying if they choose to do so, “nothing would remain from the Zionist regime.”
Mr. Biden’s answer? Appeasement. He told Israel not to respond and that if they did, America would not participate in any way.
Sen. John Kennedy, Louisiana Republican, making the rounds on the Sunday talk shows, may have said it best. “Peace through weakness never works. Not with these hard, hard men.” He went on to say, “More sheep is not going to solve the wolf problem.”
None of us should be surprised at Mr. Biden’s lack of backbone in tough times. Nor should we be surprised by the ripple effects. Hard, hard men exist around the globe. They sense weakness and exploit it for their own gain. We’ve seen it happen around the world during the Biden administration and can expect to see much more if there are four more years of Mr. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.