Sometimes You Need to Get Your Hands Dirty!

One of my favorite Old Testament Stories is in the Book of Esther. Briefly stated, a talented and attractive young Jewish woman named Esther is chosen by a pagan King named Ahasuerus (also referred to as Xerxes) to be the new Queen in an unlikely and remarkable set of circumstances. King Ahasuerus was a powerful king whose kingdom ran from India to Ethiopia. One of the King’s top officials named Haman hated the Jewish citizens and devised a wicked conspiracy to annihilate the Jews living in the kingdom of King Ahasuerus. Esther’s adopted father, Mordecai, learned that Haman had convinced the king to proceed with the plan, and urged Esther to intervene with King Ahasuerus to prevent the carnage. Esther was very reluctant to do so because her unilateral outreach to the king without his invitation would place her life in great danger. Mordecai ultimately prevailed upon Esther to take the risk to help her people by imploring her to understand that if the Jewish people were attacked, she would not be spared herself, and that God would ultimately use someone else to save the Jewish people. In a great act of courage and creativity, Queen Esther successfully entreated King Ahasuerus and foiled Haman’s wicked plan to destroy the Jewish people.

So why am I sharing this Old Testament story now?  In many ways I see a parallel between the military campaign between the United States and Israel against Iran and the situation which Queen Esther faced. The response from the UK, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy has largely been to reject providing meaningful military support for the United States and Israel. This reluctance is most likely because of fear of Iran, but the publicly stated rationale is along the lines of the following: The conflict with Iran is not our war; this is not the right time for a military conflict with Iran; there must be better ways of dealing with the threat posed by Iran; we had no advance warning about the military action being taken against Iran; and the United States has no clear strategy for ending the war. But in the background and not publicly stated is a deep antipathy toward President Donald Trump and deep resentment toward him for his public chastisement of them for failing to maintain adequate national defense capabilities. Also in the mix of resentment is President Trump’s far too “cordial” relationship with their nemesis Russian President Vladimir Putin. For purposes of this blog, I will grant legitimacy to some of the concerns and arguments put forth by these European nations. To be sure, they were not given a heads up before the military action began, and President Trump’s public response to the push back by the European nations has been at times unduly harsh and unpresidential. And why President Trump “buddies up” with Vladimir Putin remains a major mystery to me. What benefit has the United Staes received from this unusual “friendship”?  Even with these qualifications in mind, the European nations must understand that they must deal with and work with the current President of the United States and not a different President of the United States they would prefer to work with.

With that said, I largely find the public response and attitude of the European nations most unfortunate, shortsighted, and dangerously foolish. Whether the current military campaign against Iran is the best strategy to deal with the Iran nuclear threat can be debated, but the military campaign has been initiated and cannot now be ignored or “wished away.”

One must wonder what the UK and France learned from the 1930s. How did appeasement work in response to the threat posed by the Third Reich? Do they not understand that a nuclear armed Iran would be a threat to their nation’s security in much the same way a nuclear armed Iran would be a threat to the United States and Israel? Do they truly believe they would somehow be cloaked with some protective “halo” and get a “free pass” from Iran?  Are these European nations naive enough to believe that if Iran gains a nuclear weapon, they would not be placing their entire nations at risk? Would a blackmail threat from Iran concern them? Short of a nuclear armed Iran, how would they deal with a ballistic missile armed with a “dirty bomb” headed for Berlin; Paris; Rome; Madrid; or London?

Nothing prevents the European nations from opposing the military campaign against Iran. That is their perfect right. But decisions have consequences and a decision to take a seat on the sidelines in the military campaign against Iran may have consequences for their countries that they may later deeply regret. Queen Esther did not enjoy placing her life and queenship at risk but understood the dire ramifications to her people if she failed to do so. At great risk to her personal safety and position, she rolled up her sleeves and “got her hands dirty.” Will the European nations decide to do the same now with respect to the malevolent threat posed by Iran? Only time will tell.

God bless you and thank you for the privilege of your time in reading my blog.