by Boaz Bismuth
For U.S. President Barack Obama, the nuclear deal with Iran has become a personal issue, and that's a shame • What can he say now that his fellow Democrats are opposing the deal, are they also like the "hard-liners" in Iran?
U.S. President Barack Obama
|
Photo credit: Reuters  |
It is still difficult to predict how big of a
majority in Congress, if it all, will reject the nuclear deal with Iran
on September 17. This weekend, however, U.S. President Barack Obama
suffered a setback when senior Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer decided
to oppose the deal and jeopardize the Obama legacy.
And Schumer is not alone. In the House of
Representatives, Congressmen Eliot Engel (New York), Steve Israel (New
York) and Brad Sherman (California) have declared their opposition to
the deal. Sherman, a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee,
was the sixth Jewish Democrat to voice his opposition. He compared the
deal to the movie "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly," saying: "I might be
willing to accept the good with the bad during the first year of the
agreement. But we must force modifications of the agreement, and
extensions of its nuclear restrictions, before it gets ugly."
What, then, will Obama say now? Will he
reiterate the petty and extremely political comparison he made last week
in a speech at American University, when he said, "It's those
hard-liners chanting 'Death to America' who have been most opposed to
the deal. They're making common cause with the Republican caucus." Is it
possible that the Democratic party also consists of these
"hard-liners"?
Perhaps the president will continue playing
the game, no less dangerous than the deal itself, in which he draws a
connection between the "supporters of the Iraq war" to those opposing
the deal, simultaneously sending a conspicuous hint to the pro-Israel
lobby AIPAC? Is the president unaware that at stake is the most
important international agreement of the modern era? Does he not
understand that this isn't about a country's economic fate (Greece), but
a country's existence (Israel)? And does the president not understand
that since its establishment in 1951, this is perhaps AIPAC's moment of
truth?
Beware the revenge campaign
It's a shame Obama is making the Iranian
nuclear issue personal. Whoever is not with him is against him. Iran is
the enemy, Mr. President. Not you. Iran is the enemy -- not Israel.
America is still the "Great Satan," Israel is still the "Little Satan"
and the ayatollahs still aren't holy. Even the prominent Democratic
supporter, Haim Saban, has understood the danger and has joined the
opposition.
It is exceedingly rare for Congress to reject
an administration decision related to foreign policy. Too recall an
instance of the Senate rejecting an agreement, we must go back to the
Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the 14 Points plan proposed by one of
the greatest American presidents, Woodrow Wilson (also a Democrat, also a
recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize that same year). That was nearly 100
years ago.
Obama needs to understand that this is not
personal. All he has to do is peruse the comments made by supporters of
the deal in order to understand why people in Israel, and in America,
are very worried. Let's take, for example, Democratic Senator Kirsten
Gillibrand from New York, who supports the deal. She admits the deal is
"not perfect" and believes Iran will continue to lie and continue to get
stronger. Could it be that the deal's detractors aren't actually
"ignorant," as the president, according to commentators, tried painting
them as in his speech at American University? Perhaps they are simply
seeing clearly? And if someone is failing to understand why the polls
suddenly flipped on Saturday -- it's because people have only just begun
discovering the details of the deal. The Americans, for example, were
stunned to learn during Secretary of State John Kerry's congressional
hearing that he was not versed in the details of the secret deal between
Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency. The important thing,
however, is that here in Israel there are also those who support the
deal. Maybe they know things that Kerry does not?
Obama already has the support of 16 Democratic
senators. He needs 34 to back his presidential veto, which is certainly
an attainable goal. We must pay attention to three scenarios:
-
The first, and most likely, is that both houses of Congress reject the deal by less than a two-thirds majority. The president vetoes the decision, and manages to enlist a one-third minority of supporters. The deal passes, but with a large warning sign from Congress, which rejected it. The president compensates Israel with a handsome aid package and takes its views into account.
-
The second and less likely possibility is that after 60 days, on September 17, Congress accepts the deal. This would be a magnificent achievement for the president, and a resounding failure for Israel. We can assume that in this scenario as well Israel would receive a compensation package, perhaps sweetening the bitter pill it has swallowed.
-
The third scenario is that Congress rejects the deal. The president tries issuing a veto, but fails to enlist the required one-third minority of 34 senators. This would lead us to two possibilities. The first being that Obama and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton comprehend Israel's influence in Washington. Israel would be more involved in the Iranian issue. Iran would be free of the deal, but not from sanctions. But there is also the possibility that Obama, a lame and battered duck, would engage in an aggressive and bitter vengeance campaign (in the U.N. Security Council among other places). Could this prove to be more damaging than the nuclear deal itself? This campaign, however, would come with an expiration date, as election season has already begun in the United States. And according to television ratings for the Republican debate on Friday, America is already showing interest in the next president -- man or woman.
Boaz Bismuth
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=27447
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment