by Richard Baehr
For half a century, the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee has championed a strong
U.S.-Israel relationship on a bipartisan basis. With Congress now
enormously divided on many issues, with some evidence of personal
bitterness among some members of the Senate and House from each side of
the aisle toward members on the other side, the support for good
American ties with Israel has been one of the very few issues that has
survived the partisan bickering.
That bipartisan spirit
may well come to a critical test in the coming months over U.S. policy
toward Iran. Pressure is coming from the White House not to consider any
new congressional sanctions against the Iranian regime and to relax
certain existing sanctions in efforts to lure Iran into being more
forthcoming in the negotiations now underway in Geneva over its thinly
disguised nuclear weapons program. U.S. President Barack Obama and his
European counterparts seem almost giddy with anticipation at being able
to "close the book" on the Iranian nuclear issue, much as they have now
blissfully separated themselves from the prospect of any type of
fighting over the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons on its
opponents.
For Obama, a bad deal
(one that may allow Iran to complete its nuclear weapons program quickly
at a future date) but a deal nonetheless, after years of failed
American and European diplomatic efforts, is automatically a good deal.
Obama and EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton want to declare a
victory as they did in Syria, and they seem to have allowed their
delight at the more forthcoming nature of the recently elected Iranian
President Hasan Rouhani to dull their critical faculties. Some members
of Congress, for the moment from both political parties, seem aghast at
the eagerness to reward the Iranians with something tangible at this
point, in exchange for nothing more than a seeming change of heart
toward negotiating with the West.
A big test lies ahead.
Since Obama became president in 2009, there has been no evidence of any
significant number of Democrats ever opposing his wishes if he leans on
them in the name of party unity and loyalty. In the battle in the House
of Representatives over the Affordable Care Act in 2010 ("Obamacare"), a
few House Democrats strayed, but since Democrats comprised nearly 60
percent of the House seats at the time, and needed only a majority in
the House for passage of the legislation, those who strayed were likely
given permission to do so since a yes vote might have endangered their
chances of re-election in 2010. In the Senate, where 60 votes were
needed to kill a Republican filibuster, the Democrats had exactly 60
votes when the legislation came to a vote in 2009, and all the Democrats
stayed on board, some after securing a bundle of goodies for their
state. In the recent budget fights, the party discipline was strong on
both sides, but unanimous on the Democratic side. None of this augurs
well for Democrats having the courage to challenge Obama even if they
are convinced he is wrong to be so trusting and pliable with Iran.
There is also the
question of how firmly AIPAC will be willing to battle the president
over Iran, should it come to that. AIPAC and much of the Jewish
community have been cowed by Obama since he announced his run for the
White House in 2007. Liberal Jews looked away from Obama's troubling history with
anti-Israel advocates in Chicago, and argued that he voted for foreign
aid and was part of the mainstream consensus on Israel when he was a
Senator. Of course, many Jews were major contributors and fund-raisers
for his White House effort, and his prior Senate run. The truth of the
matter is that the great majority of American Jews automatically vote
Democratic, and not because of a candidate's stance on Israel. Abortion
rights, economic policy and the environment seem to be the decisive
factors in why Jews vote Democratic, not whether the candidate is more
or less pro-Israel.
Once Obama took office,
his administration has enjoyed the non-stop embrace of J Street, a
left-of-center group that claims it is pro-Israel and pro-peace, but
seems to have been established to pressure Democratic members of
Congress to distance themselves from AIPAC, and make it easier for the
president to steer his foreign policy away from the consensus view in
Congress. The administration has sent its top officials to J Street
events, signaling its comfort with the group, and an increasing number
of Democrats have used this endorsement by the White House to become
regulars at J Street events, accept their PAC money in campaigns, and
advocate, in a J Street way, their pro-Israel credentials.
In the run-up to what
was a potential military action against Syria over its chemical weapons
use, the Obama administration hung AIPAC out to dry, requesting that it
use its power on Capitol Hill to lobby uneasy members from both parties
to endorse a strike against Syria. The effort was hopeless, but AIPAC
nonetheless sent some of its top people scurrying around Senate and
House offices, dutifully responding with "how high?" when asked to jump.
The explanation that was offered by AIPAC for its compliance with
administration policy was that a forceful response on Syria was critical
to sending the right message to Iran about U.S. will to challenge the
regime on its nuclear program.
So now, Iran is
suddenly front and center, and the administration is pressuring Congress
to give the administration time to succeed in negotiations (with
success to be defined by the president at some future point). The signs
pointing to an impending cave-in of American will are everywhere.
Illinois Senator Mark
Kirk and New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez have been two of the leaders
in endorsing additional sanctions since Iran seems to be hurting from
existing ones, and more pressure, rather than concessions, are likely to
be the only thing that might get meaningful Iranian action on its
nuclear program. The Obama administration seems to believe that Iran conducting face to face talks is an important concession in and of itself, so Iran is now owed one by the West.
The initial meetings in
Geneva brought smiles from Western negotiators, but nothing in the way
of new concessions from Iran. Iran continued to claim that it has no
nuclear weapons program, and that they would not agree to
shut down their centrifuges or ship their nuclear fuel out of the
country. The American and EU response seemed to be "thank you, we will
take it," and "this non-offer represents great progress."
The administration is
now lobbying Congress to delay new sanctions: "Congress has been an
important partner in our efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining a
nuclear weapon. This administration continues to enforce a comprehensive
set of international sanctions against the Iranian regime. There is no
doubt that our efforts to apply economic pressure on Iran through
sanctions have gotten us where we are today -- to have the opportunity
to test Iranian intentions to seek an enduring diplomatic solution. We
believe it will be helpful to allow the ongoing diplomatic negotiations
to move forward before we consider any new sanctions legislation. We
will continue our close consultation with the Congress, as we have in
the past, so that any congressional action is aligned with our
negotiating strategy as we move forward."
But the administration
has also hit on a way to give the Iranians something substantive, for
what appears to be nothing substantive so far in return: a proposal that
ties Iranian concessions (to be determined) to relaxing existing
financial sanctions that have prevented Iran from accessing cash
associated with sale of its oil. Tens of billions of dollars are tied up
now that could become available to Iran if Western negotiators judge
the regime as having made the desired concessions. Some analysts argue that the West is throwing away its leverage in the talks by its eagerness to move the talks forward.
If Kirk, Menendez and
others move ahead with new sanctions legislation, and refuse to relax
existing sanctions, what will AIPAC do and what will Democrats do, when
Obama begins to apply pressure? Will Democrats who are skeptical of
Iran's intentions, and who believe there is no real consideration in
this administration of a military option, stand firm that sanctions are
all that is left for America to pressure Iran to give up its nuclear
weapons program, or will the army of appeasers in Congress triumph? How
will the libertarian faction among Republicans respond to the White
House pressure?
Richard Baehr
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=6067
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment