It is not good, that the american/israeli relationship is in disarray, we need to mend the gap.

I propose a solution:

A common goal.

What would a common goal be like? Well it depends on the strategical situation, the involved armament, and most of all; the ideals we strive to uphold.

What are they? Seen from an israeli standpoint it is quite simple; Israel is the realization of Abrahams project; to spread love in the world in opposition to the chaotic circumstances that was in the first republic of Babylon.

Abrahams mission cannot be separated from the situation it tries to mend; the lack of understanding in a situation where democracy is in its corrupt phase.

This leads to a link between the mission of the US and the mission of Israel. Because United States of America is a leader of democracy, of free speech and freedom of the individual.

Now a democracy cannot work if it is totally free neither can it work if it is totally communal, a democracy has to strike a balance between the two, or rather, one cannot work without the other.

There are other measures apart from the basic principle that the two countries fight for, that you would need to make a true democracy. But these two principles are the foundation.

We are like two brothers or sisters fighting for the same cause, but with a little difference in the basic priority of the end result.

We should accept that, and work together.

Then again, we have to focus on the ongoing conflict.

We are leaving the cold war and we are entering another setup, with other means of conflict.

In the cold war, the media situation was very closed, the people of the world did not understand what really happened in the next country, let alone, countries far away. This has, in reality, changed dramatically, everything, and really everything is open for scrutiny.

The closed situation of the cold war, gave the opportunity to the secret organizations as to manipulate with everything. And they did. It also gave a situation where a mission did not really have any consequence to the image of the home country. Nobody knew, then nobody cared.

That has changed dramatically, everybody now knows that the iranian nuclear physicists was killed by Mossad.

There are probably a few things you can still hide, but you never know what will slip out to the public, and the free hacker community is very good at digging up material otherwise hidden.

Add to this the principle of tyranny opposed to the tyrannised, you have a way to strategize for the future.

Let me explain, as I see it. All parties in a conflict have a certain amount of political capital. This political capital defines the status, the other parties give to the given single party.

Now, what determines the political capital? The way the party is in terms of justice. If a party is very honourable and just, it has a high political capital, if it is unjust it has a low political capital. What you lose most political capital from, is by being tyrannical, that is to oppress people. But there are other ways to lose political capital; by lying, by speaking in a foul manner, by showing a lack of respect and so on. It is all about ethics.

Now, there are examples in the history of the West and the East of very just rulers, the best are, to my knowledge the Spartan kings. Sparta was all about justice, and the kings were some of the must just of the Spartans. So, according to the historical sources, Spartan kings were extremely respected. In a conflict the mere appearance of a Spartan king could lead to peace just because he was respected for his wisdom and insight into justice.

Now, the Hellenic world in the ancient time was close to the modern world in terms of society and transparency. Media did not play much of a role, and the citizens of the ancient world more or less knew what was happening. Great treason was hard to make, and not really liked by the Hellenes.

Now the situation we are in is a bit of the same, that was why I recommended a transparent strategy based on justice in the Libyan war, and it did succeed. The resources used in the war were few, and now the Libyan people can, more or less, fend for themselves. We did not create a situation as seen before, where ground troops had to be in the country for a long time, we helped the Libyan people fend for themselves, as friends.

Now Iran is another situation. In Libya Gaddafi was an obvious tyrant, and everybody agreed that he was too much. The moral upper hand was on our side. This was why Russia stayed out of the conflict.

In Iran, Israel has had a long fight already, and done some mistakes in the past. The worst mistakes were the aggression aimed at Lebanon where civilians died. In the first Lebanese wars, the strategy developed in the later Gaza confrontations, were not so overly developed, and we really did a mistake there killing innocents, we should say that we are sorry about that, and we have learned, as we have. I am sorry, killings civilians is never at good thing, especially for the jews who people tend to expect to be more ethical than other, because of the Covenant Abraham envisioned for the jewish people, and the consequent striving of the jewish people to do what they promised Abraham.

So, as jews the stakes are higher. If we live up to the expectations, we are like spartan kings; widely respected and even adored, if not were are reviled.

It all comes down to arrogance, it is the most dangerous thing for the jews. We should always respect others even, though we can see that they do mistakes. It is difficult, but it is what we are supposed to do in the face of a conflict.

Now back to Iran.

The Hormuz strait situation is not an easy situation, but a situation we can extricate ourselves from, if we can analyze the strategical balances in the game.

As I see it, we are not the ones Iran is threatening in the Hormuz confrontation, not the Americans either, it is the Saudis and the other arab countries. What is the consequence of a close down of the Hormuz strait? It is an economical situation for the arab countries. Yes the entire world will pay in terms of economical breakdown, fuel prices skyrocketing and so on. But the direct threat would be aimed at the arab countries, because they are the ones who are harmed in terms of freedom of commerce for their goods.

In a just world, friends help each other, but Saud i Arabia and the other arab countries have done their best to harm Europe through OIC and the US through CAIR. So they are not our friends but our enemies.

This does not spell well for a confrontation between the US/european/israeli alliance and Iran. We have not the moral basis of a confrontation with Iran in specifically the contest over Hormuz.

It is a confrontation between arabs and Iran.

If we help the Arabs in a confrontation, we would use taxpayers money in a quest helping an enemy, that would be seen as a bad thing, and the popular support for such a cause would be small, especially in the US.

There is another thing worth noticing, and that is the fact, that it is election year, and a small war, with a serious chance of winning would look good for the Iranians. As I can understand from sources on the internet, there are elections in march.

Now, if Iran did not think that they would have a serious chance of winning the contest over the american fifth fleet, they would not do it, they believe they have a serious chance of winning. How come? As I see it, there is only one thing that would answer the question; they are ready for naval war.

How do you fight a naval war? You put ships in front of each other, and you shoot from boat to boat. What do a small nation with a limited budget and no fleet work on to be competitive? They build subs. Germany did so in the second world war, and Iran has done so.

We do not know how many subs Iran has, but it seems enough to risk a confrontation with the fleets, but not anywhere, they try to taunt us into their home turf; the persian gulf. The small submarines the Iranians have is built to work in the persian gulf, so they would love to give war to us there.

The Hormuz confrontation is a ruse, I think. A ruse to put the fifth fleet and other ships where the small but deadly iranian subs can reach them.

But, there is a but. First, the Iranians have a deadline; the election in march. After the election, the confrontation would not give as much credit internally as before an election, in terms of voting power of the ruling iranian part. The risks would be too high compared to the gain. Second, the pressure is not really on the West in the Hormuz conflict, it is on the arabs.

The best course in the conflict would therefore be to lay low. If the Iranians want to close the strait, let them do it. If they do it, it would give them a war with the arabs. If the arabs and the Iranians are at each other throat, it is worst for themselves. A prolonged conflict would give us a serious cassus belli. The rest of the world would perhaps be open for at joint operation securing the vital resources in the hands of warmongering local fighters.

So, my idea would be to lay low until the election is over, if the Iranians attack us anyway, well then we have to defend ourselves. If not, we could just wait and see how they react with a new man on the presidential post.

Be the David not the Goliath, preserve our strength not waste it, be prudent and humble.

G-d bless us all