Obama at AIPAC- For Once He Doesn’t Cave to Pressure


President Obama made the yearly pilgrimage to the AIPAC conference today. This is an event where it is actually considered acceptable for the President of the United States and members of Congress to swear fealty to a smaller, belligerent client state/foreign power.

Despite almost non-stop pressure from the Israel Lobby, the Israeli government and political commentators, Obama seemed to reject PM Netanyahu’s demand that he articulate clear bright line rules for when the US will attack Iran. Essentially, Netanyahu has moved the goal posts and now wants a US commitment to attack Iran as soon as Iran develops nuclear weapons capability, which is preposterous because that means that even in the absence of any plan or intent to develop the weapons, the US would attack. From HuffPo today:

The dispute on the nuclear issue is centered on red lines. Israel, like the Bush administration, considers a nuclear capability in Iran a red line. It argues that the only acceptable guarantee that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon is for Iran to have no enrichment program.

The Obama administration puts the red line not at enrichment — which is permitted under international law — but at nuclear weapons. This is a clearer, more enforceable red line that also has the force of international law behind it.

While expressing his sympathy and friendship with Israel, Obama did not yield his red line at AIPAC. With the backing of the U.S. military, he has stood firm behind weaponization rather than weapons capability as the red line.

He said: “I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon[emphasis added], I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say.”

This is crucial because it is essentially a question of war and peace.

Critically, Obama’s rejection of containment at AIPAC was in the context of containing a nuclear-armed Iran, not a nuclear capable Iran.

He said: “Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

Nowhere in the speech is he aligning himself, or even mentioning, the Israeli red line of “nuclear capability.”

The president’s tough words regarding his readiness to use military action is all in the context of preventing a nuclear weapon in Iran, not a nuclear capability. Strikingly, the president uses the D word — diplomacy — more than the M word — military action — in his speech (even though he primarily presents it as move that enabled greater sanctions on Iran.)

Yesterday, the NYT ran a surprisingly candid article about the public campaign by AIPAC and members of Congress aimed at painting Obama in a corner with respect to Iran:

From the corridors of Congress to a gathering of nearly 14,000 American Jews and other supporters of Israel here this weekend, Mr. Obama is being buffeted by demands that the United States be more aggressive toward Iran and more forthright in supporting Israel in its own confrontation with Tehran.

While defenders of Israel rally every year at the meeting of the pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, this year’s gathering has been supercharged by a convergence of election-year politics, a deepening nuclear showdown and the often-fraught relationship between the president and the Israeli prime minister.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu will both speak to the group, known as Aipac, as will the three leading Republican presidential candidates, who will appear via satellite from the campaign trail on the morning of Super Tuesday. Republicans have seized on Iran’s nuclear ambitions to accuse Mr. Obama of being weak in backing a staunch ally and in confronting a bitter foe.

The pressure from an often-hostile Congress is also mounting. A group of influential senators, fresh from a meeting with Mr. Netanyahu in Jerusalem, has called on Mr. Obama to lay down sharper criteria, known as “red lines,” about when to act against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

“We’re saying to the administration, ‘You’ve got a problem; let’s fix it, let’s get back on message,’ ” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who took part in the meeting with Mr. Netanyahu and said the Israeli leader vented frustration at what he viewed as mixed messages from Washington.

“It’s not just about the Jewish vote and 2012,” Mr. Graham added. “It’s about reassuring people who want to avoid war that the United States will do what’s necessary.”

To give teeth to the deterrent threat against Iran, Israel and its backers want Mr. Obama to stop urging restraint on Israel and to be more explicit about the circumstances under which the United States itself would carry out a strike.

Specifically, Israeli officials are demanding that Iran agree to halt all its enrichment of uranium in the country, and that the suspension be verified by United Nations inspectors, before the West resumes negotiations with Tehran on its nuclear program.

The White House has rejected that demand, Israeli and American officials said on Friday, arguing that Iran would never agree to a blanket ban upfront, and to insist on it would doom negotiations before they even began. The administration insists that Mr. Obama will stick to his policy, which is focused on using economic sanctions to force the Iranian government to give up its nuclear ambitions, with military action as a last resort.

Despite the position of the Israelis and Aipac, the American intelligence agencies continue to say that there is no evidence that Iran has made a final decision to pursue a nuclear weapon. Recent assessments by American spy agencies have reaffirmed intelligence findings in 2007 and 2010 that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program. …[emphasis mine]

The irony of all this is that for the past several months the Israel Lobby has been trying to purge the Center for American Progress (CAP) and Media Matters of any criticism of Israel (see also here). Alan Dershowitz, who has lost whatever academic credibility he once had when he decided to become a hysterical, paranoid crusader against academic freedom in his efforts to try to get various professors fired or denied tenure, is leading the charge against MJ Rosenberg of Media Matters, while over at CAP, they have already bowed to pressure and fired one if their bloggers for using the phrase “Israel Firster” in a tweet. Thus, the CAP blog Think Progress has been censored of any criticism of Israeli policy.

While Obama tries to prevent the U.S. from entering another disastrous war, Congress is going to tie his hands with legislation that will try to force a confrontation with Iran- all at the behest of AIPAC and the Israeli government.

Advertisements
, , , ,

About Stacy

Attorney, Publisher, Foreign Policy wonk

View all posts by Stacy

Subscribe

Subscribe to our RSS feed and social profiles to receive updates.

3 Comments on “Obama at AIPAC- For Once He Doesn’t Cave to Pressure”

  1. Carolyn-Rodham Says:

    Yes, nice to see Obama show a little backbone for once. And in the comments to the Times’ article, I was glad to see public opinion (at least as represented by the Times’ blogosphere) solidly behind the President. The Republican hysteria about Iran sounds increasingly shrill and defensive. How to make sense of this?:

    “It’s not just about the Jewish vote and 2012,” Mr. Graham added. “It’s about reassuring people who want to avoid war that the United States will do what’s necessary.”

    Huh?

    Reply

    • Stacy Says:

      IT’s incredible how the media and a small powerful group of lobbyists drive the debate.

      This debate is about US hegemony in the region, that’s it. Iran won’t attack a nuclear weapons state unless it wants to be annihilated. Also, an Iranian attack on Israel, even if it had nuclear weapons, would kill tons of Arab Palestinians. It’s just such a stupid debate. If anything provides incentive for Arab states to build WMD’s it’s Israel’s huge nuclear arsenal. The obvious solution to this problem is a nuclear weapons free Middle East but of course, the US and Israel don’t support that. So this isn’t about minimizing an imminent threat, this is about regime change in Iran. Historically, as Steve points out, attacks on nuclear facilities tend to only provide a new incentive for a state to build weapons.

      Reply

  2. Steve Says:

    The irony is that no one in the media (or politicians) seem to find it relevant that Israel has a HUGE nuclear arsenal, Iran has none and bombing the Iranian facilities could actually result in what happened when Israel bombed Saddam’s nuclear facility in Osirak in Iraq- it motivated them to pursue a weapons program with all deliberate speed. A preemptive attack on a sovereign Iran will build support and even possibly paint Iranian leaders into a corner FORCING them to build a nuclear weapon, assuming they even have the materials and capability to do so in secret- weapons inspectors are still allowed in the country, just not granted access to all facilities.

    This is smoke and mirrors, nothing more. That US Jews and the body politic buy this bullshit is telling indeed. Poor defenseless Israel with it’s hundreds of nuclear warheads!

    Reply

Leave a Response

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: