by Richard Baehr
The Obama
administration is facing long odds for the president's party to retain
control of the U.S. Senate in the elections this Nov. 4. If the
Republicans win control of the Senate to add to their House majority,
foreign policy issues may become far more contentious in the next two
years.
Two of the issues on
which the two sides may bang heads concern Israel. The more pressing
item concerns the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. The
current talks between the P5+1 and Iran have already been extended once,
and if no deal is reached by Nov. 24, may be extended again. That
would avoid an admission of defeat by an administration that has been
loath to ever admit defeat about any policy or programmatic failure, of
which there have been many.
On the other hand,
there are also fears that in order to avoid another extension of the
negotiations, the administration and its partners will humble
themselves before the mullahs by offering much more of what the
Iranians are demanding to close the deal. This would include
concessions on the number of spinning centrifuges, inspections, weapons
systems, and elimination or reduction of sanctions against the regime
in the five weeks remaining before the deadline. This may still not be
enough to avoid the Iranians pulling the rug out, since they have
learned that delay never hurts them, so long as a few more concessions
are pocketed while they agree to continue to talk. In other words, if
the Iranians are unhappy with America's best offer today, they know it
is not our final offer, and that the next offer after this one, which
may come near the deadline of the next extension will probably be even
better for them. But expect any extension to be accompanied by some
sanctions relief and concessions on centrifuges by the P5+1.
Unfortunately, the
Obama administration may feel the need for a deal this November,
especially if it receives a stinging rebuke from voters in a few days,
and wants to change the political momentum with a "victory" of some
sorts. So there may be added incentive for it to get this done in the
two months between the elections and the swearing in of the new
Congress in January, which is likely to be less friendly.
This raises the issue
of exactly what it is that gets done, if something is done. The
administration, through its loyal mouthpiece, The New York Times, has
made it clear that it will not sign a treaty with Iran, but rather a
multiparty agreement.
What this means is that the Senate will not get a shot at approving a
"treaty," which requires two-thirds of those voting to pass, and the
president will do what he chooses to do without the consent of the
Senate. This will not go down well in a Republican-controlled Senate.
Keeping Iran from
obtaining nuclear weapons has been a bipartisan concern among senators
and House members for decades. It is one of the few such issues that
attracts members from both parties.
However, when New
Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Menendez and Illinois Republican
Senator Mark Kirk attempted to strengthen the sanctions against Iran as
a fallback if negotiations failed earlier in the year, the
administration applied immense pressure on Senate Democrats, urging
them to refuse to sign on, as a show of loyalty to the White House and
trust in its efforts. The White House argued that Senate passage of the
new sanctions bill would drive Iran away from the negotiations and
increase the chances for war. The real history of the sanctions bills
over the past few years is that only when they began to bite Iran hard
enough, did that country show some serious interest in a deal. The
other uncomfortable truth the White House and its supporters ignore or
obfuscate is that they opposed toughened sanctions every step of the
way and demanded waiver authority to relax them, something they intend
to use.
Some critics of the
administration have argued that the White House's attitude about
sanctions is part of a broader policy shift to turning Iran from foe to friend, which includes adoption of a policy of containment rather than prevention in terms of an Iran with nuclear weapons.
Treating Iran as an ally rather than pariah is far from the consensus
view in Congress, but it is not at all rare among the foreign policy
solons in Washington who think they know better and are more
"realistic" than members of Congress, since they are freed from the
chains of the supposedly all-powerful Israel lobby that columnist Tom
Friedman has claimed has bought and sold the members of Congress.
The other lightning rod
in the years ahead between the White House and Congress relating to
Israel is likely to be Israeli settlements and negotiations with the
Palestinians. When talks fail, as they always do, only Israel is
blamed. Now Secretary of State John Kerry, moving rapidly along the
path from mediocrity to fool, is arguing that the rise of Islamic State
is attributable in part to the failure to achieve a two-state solution
as well as climate change.
The one thing that
seems to have most enraged President Barack Obama, his staff, and the
State Department, has been Israel building apartments for Jews in its
capital city. These construction activities are always described as
obstacles to peace, or at times, even making peace impossible. When the
supposedly moderate Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas'
Fatah party praises a terrorist who ran over a group of Israelis,
killing an infant, the State Department calls for calm.
The Fatah statement honoring a murderer (hardly the first time this
has happened) is never described as an obstacle to peace. Nor does
anyone at Foggy Bottom seem very annoyed that Iranians regularly insult
Obama while he makes nice to them.
On the other hand, Israel's Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon is persona
non grata when he comes to Washington for talks, since he angered the
administration by being openly critical of Kerry a few months back.
When some civilians
used as human shields by Hamas were killed in the recent war in Gaza,
this was also a source of bitter rebuke of Israel by the administration.
But the apartment building has been a more constant problem for this
team. Israel is a country where the birth rate is more than 50 percent
higher than it is in any other developed country, with 176,000 births
in the last 12 months, about three-quarters of them Jewish. One might
think it makes sense that housing would be a priority for the
government. But it is only Jews moving into existing apartments in Arab
neighborhoods, or Israel building housing for Jews in areas beyond the
Green Line, that gets official Washington unhinged, never Israel
building housing for Arabs nor Arabs moving into Jewish neighborhoods.
The State Department policy seems to be that what is theirs (Arabs') is
theirs, and what is yours (Jews') can also be theirs.
Many Democrats in
Congress are under increased pressure from Muslim and left-wing
activists in their districts or states to become less supportive of
Israel. So far, most have resisted, though their support for Israel
lately has come more on easy stuff (foreign aid). If Obama seeks to
join the United States up with the EU nations in blasting Israel over
the failure to achieve peace, and over settlement activity, and
completes the turn toward Iran, then some of these members will be
tested in the next two years.
But if Republicans are in the
majority come January in both the House and Senate, there will be a
pushback against Obama as he tries to complete his turn away from
Israel and its security concerns. Harry Reid, the Democratic senator
from Nevada and current majority leader, worked to protect the president
of his party when push came to shove over Iran sanctions, Israel be
damned. Obama may just be getting started and his anti-Israel agenda
may be much clearer over the next two years. If so, it would be good if
Congress were in friendlier hands.
Richard Baehr
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=10363
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment