President Reagan led the US
battle on state-sponsored terrorism, vanquished the USSR and significantly
enhanced US strategic ties with the Jewish state.
In April 1986, Reagan ordered
the US Air Force to bomb Qadaffi’s palace, Qadaffi’s capital and a few other
targets in Libya. The staggering commitment to combat state-sponsored terrorism
was undertaken in response to escalated Libyan terrorism, which was responsible
for the murder of four US GIs in West Berlin and in Frankfurt. The bombing
transformed the US from a “Paper Tiger” (as misperceived by the world) to the
leader of the war on global terrorism. Gone were the days of national
humiliation (1979/80) – when Iranian terrorists took over the US embassy in
Teheran – and gone were the days of the US running away from Syrian and PLO
backed Islamic terrorists in Beirut (1983), following the murder of 300 American
GIs in 1983. President Reagan realized that retreat and disengagement from
terrorists bring terrorism closer home. The bombing of Tripoli has become
Reagan’s “Business Card”, reflecting his world view, which has also led to the
demise of the USSR.
According to Reagan, a durable
peace with rogue regimes could only be obtained through the employment of
strength and deterrence, rather than (the short-lived false sense of peace)
through concession and appeasement.
Therefore, he bolstered the
defense budget by 35%, initiated SDI to neutralize the threat of ballistic
missiles, toughened the negotiation posture vs. the USSR, toppled a pro-USSR
hostile regime in Grenada, supported anti-communist undergrounds in Central
America and Africa, bombed oil installations in Iran and expanded the US naval
presence in the Persian Gulf. Reagan did not apologize for the deployment of
disproportional force against Libyan terrorism. He aimed at forcing Qadaffi to
seek peace with the US, as a means to avoid further US punishment. He did not
stick to agreements and covenants, which were systematically violated by the
other party, and did not consider the attainment of agreements as “the goal”,
but rather as “a means” to advance a strategic goal. Reagan did not consider the
courts, the UN or the negotiation process as the proper arena to deal with the
plague of state-sponsored terrorism. That was the background for his famous June
1987 proclamation: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!” And, both the
wall and the USSR collapsed.
Reagan’s legacy has shed light
on the difference between statesmanship and petty-politicking. He espoused a
cohesive world-view, driven by long-term principles and goals, rather than by
cynical political considerations driven by short-term convenience. He realized
that the inherent conflict between Western democracies and terror regimes was
not territorial, but rather existential-ideological. A victory in the conflict
requires – per Reagan’s legacy – faith (optimism) in one’s cause and
capabilities, steadfastness in face of domestic and international pressure and
temptation, moral clarity and determination based on tradition, values and
patriotism.
Reagan’s world view determined
his special affinity toward the Jewish state. The 40th President valued
Israel as a special ally, which embodied the core of his own values and global
strategic considerations. For Reagan, and for many of his followers, the
defiant, can-do Israel was “the Reagan of the global community”. Thus, he
was the only US president to sign (any, let alone) three strategic memoranda of
understanding with Israel. The 1981 MOU was signed – and a military embargo on
Israel was terminated – once Reagan realized the unique benefits derived from
Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s nuclear reactor. The 1983 MOU was concluded – and a
bitter strain was eased – when Reagan concluded that the mutuality of the
Islamic terrorism threat was more critical than the disagreement over Israel’s
war on the Lebanon-based PLO terrorism. The 1988 MOU has been the most
comprehensive ever signed between the US and Israel. It determined that the
regional and the global context of mutual challenges were more pertinent than
the narrow context of the Intifada-caused bickering.
President Reagan went farther
than any president so far, expressing his opposition to the establishment of a
Palestinian state, in a televised address to the nation on US Policy for
Peace in the Middle East (September 1, 1982): “In the pre-1967 borders, Israel
was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. I am not about to ask Israel to
live that way again...”
Peace cannot be achieved by the
formation of an independent Palestinian state in those territories...” Moreover,
one of the ripple effects of the Reagan-motivated November 1980 conservative
revolution in Congress has been a substantial enhancement of Republican support
of the Jewish State, which was until then overwhelmingly dominated by Democrats.
The enhanced support has been reflected via a litany of legislation and
resolutions, supported by legislators, who have been made aware – by President
Reagan and his legacy – of the shared Judeo-Christian values, joint-interests
and mutual-threats, binding together the US and its sole soul ally in the
Mideast.
The closer the Israeli national
security policy to the Reagan legacy – of peace through the employment of
strength and deterrence – the deeper the respect toward Israel by Reagan’s
followers. However, the more Israel embraces the “Counter-Reagan” elements of
Oslo, Wye, Roadmap and Retreat/Disengagement, the more difficult it is to
sustain the respect toward Israel, instilled by Reagan in the heart of millions
of his followers in the US and beyond.
