My column today has nothing whatsoever to do with Presidential power:
Combined with the longstanding enmity between Israel and Iran, this means that Israel faces a potential future in which it has acrimonious relationships with its three largest and most powerful neighbors. Israel has never faced this situation before: During the period of constant conflict with Egypt, Israel maintained cordial relations with Iran and Turkey, while the Camp David Accords that secured peace with Egypt roughly coincided with the Iranian Revolution that installed a hostile regime in Tehran.
Such a situation would seem to demand a strategic rethink on the part of Israel. But thus far, there appears to be little coordination in Israel’s strategic approach to each of the “Big Three.” Hostility with Iran, tension with Turkey and uncertainty with Egypt have not thus far produced hedging behavior, in the sense of Israel trying to repair relations with one partner as a defense against a collapse in relations with another. Rather, the Netanyahu government appears to be treating each of the three as separate, distinct foreign and security policy problems. It also appears to have rejected the idea that the pursuit of a comprehensive accord with the Palestinians could modify either the character or the depth of hostility from any of the Big Three.
To the extent that Israel has any coordinated strategy for facing the unremitting hostility of the three largest countries in its neighborhood, it appears focused on maintaining and increasing the support of extra-regional allies, primarily the United States and Europe.
Our MB7-223 and 70-621 exams resources are playing a vital role in IT world. If you are looking for fast success in mcdst certifications then join today to explore complete MB5-198 & 70-351 resources.