by Jonathan S. Tobin
Back in 2015, the GOP and most Americans opposed Obama’s appeasement of Tehran. Now, Democrats are against Israel on any issue, and Republicans will not defy Trump.
 |
| Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu waves to the crowd during his address to a joint session of
Congress in Washington, March 3, 2015. Photo by Amos Ben Gershom/GPO. |
In the never-ending churning of news cycles, commentators and the
public alike are always ready to overreact to each aspect of every story
as they roll out. Under these circumstances, historical perspective is
rarely part of anyone’s understanding of events. This was amply
illustrated by the discussion about the United States signing a
Memorandum of Understanding with Iran.
The deal, whose terms were at first kept secret and have since been revealed, will conclude, at least for the next 60 days, the war America and Israel waged on Tehran starting on Feb. 28.
Hysteria
about the implications of the deal for Israel, which was cut out of the
negotiations over the agreement, is probably unwise. It’s not clear how
much of the Jewish state’s freedom of action to defend itself against
Iran, as well as its Hezbollah auxiliaries in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza,
will be curtailed. Nor can we know for sure what President Donald Trump
will do in the immediate future.
Trump’s priorities
His
desire to end the fighting and for the renewed flow of oil to lower gas
prices at the pump appears to be his main priority. For the moment,
that seems to outweigh concerns about his desperation to get a deal that
will accomplish these goals, which led him to strike a bargain that
bears a troubling resemblance to the one former President Barack Obama
concluded with Tehran in 2015.
Trump can always change his mind
about that and order strikes once it becomes clear—as anyone who knows
anything about the subject understands—that Iran’s leaders have no
intention of keeping their word about not acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Though his public comments about the agreement make that seem highly
unlikely, given the president’s panic about his sinking poll numbers
linked to the rise in gas prices. But it’s still theoretically possible.
It’s also a dead certainty that it will continue its buildup of
missiles and terrorism that threaten its neighbors and the West.
There
is one thing, however, that can be said with absolute certainty about
the current situation. Now that we know the deal is as bad as many
feared, those who speak up against it are not only in no position to
stop or even slow the process down. They will also be far more isolated
than those who opposed Obama’s deal.
Simply put, unlike the
situation 11 years ago—when a broad coalition of Democratic security
hawks, Republicans and pro-Israel advocates spoke up against Obama’s
disastrous Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—critics of Trump’s Iran
deal will be limited to the pro-Israel community. And they are likely to
stand alone.
Unpersuasive advocates
Trump and Vice
President JD Vance have been doing their best to fend off criticism of
their decision to end the war with what the former described as a “peace
deal” with the Islamist terror regime. That effort was undermined by
their initial unwillingness to reveal details of the agreement—something
that Vance claimed was due to sensitivities in the Muslim world, an
excuse that raised even more concerns about its implications.
Trump’s
supporters have been telling everyone who has criticized the deal in
the days since it was announced to take a deep breath, and to wait and
see what happens. There’s a certain logic to that. The structure of the
accord appears to hinge on what will happen during a 60-day period when
America lifts its blockade of Iranian ports so Tehran stops menacing
shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Yet now that the details are
known—with unfrozen funds already flowing to Iran, no mention of Iranian
missiles and terrorism in it, and no mechanism, other than a resumption
of the war, to prevent a regime that can claim it forced Trump to back
down from resuming its march to a nuclear weapon—optimism about it seems
deeply unpersuasive.
In theory, Trump could reverse his
decision, and sensible observers should not abandon all hope that he
will. Accepting a terrible deal—and the terms of the agreement make it
clear that the United States is doing almost all of the giving and Iran
nearly all of the taking—would be out of character for a man who thinks
of himself as having mastered “the art of the deal.”
With Trump’s
characteristic hyperbole, he has characterized the results of the
indirect negotiations conducted by Middle East special envoy Steve
Witkoff and adviser/son-in-law Jared Kushner in flattering terms. He has
even declared the Iranian negotiators to be “rational people” who are
“nice to deal with,” even though the desperate-for-a-deal-at-any-price
duo never actually sat down with them. But the man who spent the last
decade rightly mocking Obama and his negotiators for their weakness and
gullibility ought to be ashamed of accepting terms that seem to depend
on Iran’s goodwill and trustworthiness.
Trump’s critics should acknowledge that not only is the current president far preferable
to his Democratic predecessors or to any Democratic Party alternative
when it comes to his approach to the Middle East and Israel. They should
be equally willing to speak of the damage done to Iran’s military,
nuclear and missile programs, and other war-making infrastructure both
as part of the 12-day war last June and from the fighting since Feb. 28.
The ability of a government that has been at war with the United
States, Israel and the West since 1979 to inflict terror on the region
and the rest of the world has been set back, perhaps by years.
At
the same time, Israel is far stronger vis-à-vis its Islamist foes than
it was on Oct. 6, 2023, before the Iranians and their allies launched
their cruel war on the Jewish state with the atrocities of Oct. 7.
Still,
it appears that Trump has kicked the can down the road with respect to
ending the threat from Iran. And it is also almost certainly true that
despite raising the hopes of Iran’s tortured people, he has nevertheless
ensured the survival of a despotic regime that murdered tens of
thousands of them in January. This means that the long war Iran has been
waging on America, Israel and the West will continue. It will doom the
world to years of more terrorism and the ever-present threat that it
will be able to acquire the ability to inflict mass destruction on the
Jewish state and moderate Arab countries that oppose it.
As such, this agreement deserves to be vigorously debated. And, to his credit, Trump has offered to submit any deal to Congress for its approval.
If
so, that will make it equally clear that the political correlation of
forces with respect to Iran is now very different from the situation in
2015 when Obama rammed his catastrophic JCPOA down the throats of an
unwilling Congress and American people.
The JCPOA was unpopular
It should be recalled that Obama’s Iran policy was deeply unpopular. A Pew Research Institute poll
taken in September 2015 showed that the Iran deal was opposed by a
large plurality of Americans, with 49% opposing it and only 21% in
favor, with 30% saying they did not know (an unsurprising result given
that most Americans pay little attention to most foreign-policy issues).
And the more Americans knew about the agreement, the less they liked
it, something indicated by the fact that opposition to the deal
increased over the course of the year.
Majorities in both Houses of Congress also opposed the JCPOA.
It
was only approved by a sleight-of-hand bargain in which Obama and Sen.
Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the feckless Republican who chaired the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, agreed that it would be put to a vote,
which required a two-thirds majority to kill it. This was the opposite
of the constitutional requirement for a two-thirds majority to pass a
treaty. The House voted 269-162 (with 244 Republicans and 25 Democrats
voting no) not to approve the JCPOA, with an equally large majority in
the Senate also ready to vote against it. But since that fell short of a
super-majority, Obama’s signature foreign-policy “achievement” that
guaranteed that Iran would eventually get a nuclear weapon snuck
through.
Trump won’t have to resort to those kinds of legislative tricks.
More to the point, the party opposed to the sitting president will play a very different role in 2026 than it did in 2015.
11 years makes a big difference
A
decade ago, Congressional Republicans were united against the Iran deal
while Democrats were split on it. The GOP even went so far as to invite
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of
Congress that year, during which he gave an unprecedented address in
which he urged its members to oppose Obama’s effort to enrich and
empower an Iranian regime that threatened the United States as much as
Israel.
It was only by making support for the measure a litmus
test of loyalty to himself that Obama was able to rally most Democrats
behind a policy of appeasement that all but the most hard-core
left-wingers in the party had opposed only a couple of years earlier. In
2015, there were still pro-Israel Democrats willing to speak up against
Obama, even though most of those who had once claimed that title, like
Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Corey Booker (D-N.J.), failed to
maintain that stance when push came to shove.
If anything, the
current Democratic caucuses will be even more eager to terminate the war
and appease Iran than they were then. While members of the opposition
to the administration would seize on any pretext to thwart Trump, he can
rely on them to support an end to the war. They will also be eager to
do something that will be perceived as undermining Israel’s security.
By
contrast, the House and Senate GOP caucuses today are, as they were in
2015, almost uniformly pro-Israel and hawkish on Iran, with only
outliers like lame-duck Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and his fellow
libertarian Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the rare exceptions to that rule.
What will Republicans do?
That said, how many pro-Israel Republicans will vote against Trump on his Iran deal?
Doing
so will not only require the temerity to oppose a president who doesn’t
lightly brook opposition and often gets even with those who do so, no
matter how long it takes. It will also mean risking being portrayed as
warmongers or advocates for a policy that would raise gas prices. It’s
far from clear that even the most ardent supporters of a strong Israel
and those most interested in stopping Iran would think it wise to try to
thwart Trump from ending a deeply unpopular war, even if it is clearly
in America’s best interests.
Nor does it require much of an
imagination to predict what Trump’s reaction would be to Netanyahu or
any other Israeli or pro-Israel organization that advocated for Congress
to turn down his version of Iran appeasement, as they did in 2015. It
would make Obama’s spiteful attacks on those who opposed him on this
issue seem quite tame by comparison.
Thus, while Israel’s
strategic position in the Middle East is far stronger than it was in
2015, in the United States, opposition to an appeasement of Iran on
Trump’s part would be minimal. Those voices decrying a deal that trusted
Iran to keep its word or which would depend on an unlikely decision by
this president or one of his successors to resort to the use of force
against the Islamist regime would find themselves largely alone,
abandoned by Republican friends and mocked by Democratic foes.
Don’t blame Netanyahu
There
will be those who will blame this predicament on Netanyahu. His
domestic opponents will claim that he depended too heavily on Trump’s
friendship for Israel and that of the Republicans. And they will say he
alienated Democrats.
This is both untrue and deeply unfair.
Whatever one might say about Netanyahu when it comes to navigating the
political landscape of his country’s sole superpower ally, the current
alignment has little or nothing to do with his unpopularity in the
United States or his judgment.
The drift by Democrats away from
Israel is the result of the growing influence of toxic left-wing
ideologies that falsely label it as a “white” oppressor state. Their
willingness to accept and spread blood libels about Israel committing
“genocide” in Gaza is not the product of Israeli behavior, but of the
hijacking of the Democratic Party by antisemitic progressives. The prime
minister had no chance of preserving a pro-Israel Democratic Party; the
same would have been true of any Israeli leader.
That means that
Israel and its friends are in a position where they have no choice but
to rely on pro-Israel Republicans to preserve the alliance. That worked
wonderfully so long as Trump was behaving—as he has done during the
first five-and-a-half years of his two terms—as the most pro-Israel
president since the founding of the modern Jewish state. But with Trump
adopting a more equivocal stand in which he may be waving the white flag
on Iran and bristling with resentment at Netanyahu’s refusal to stop
defending his citizens, that leaves supporters of Israel isolated in the
United States on this issue.
We must hope that it doesn’t come to
that—and that Trump isn’t willing to go on deceiving himself and the
American people about the dubious prospects for a policy that will
preserve the despotic regime in Tehran and ensure that there will be
more Middle East wars and bloodshed in the coming years.
But if he
is determined to stand by his own Iran deal, it won’t just signal that
the aggressive presidency of the past 17 months is about to become a
lame-duck administration, even before the outcome of the midterm
elections is known. It will also mean that Israel and its friends will
largely stand alone when it comes to the debate about this latest
appeasement of the Islamist regime of Iran that Trump has given a new
lease on life.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor-in-chief of the Jerusalem News Syndicate, a senior contributor for The Federalist, a columnist for Newsweek
and a contributor to many other publications. He covers the American
political scene, foreign policy, the U.S.-Israel relationship, Middle
East diplomacy, the Jewish world and the arts. He hosts the JNS “Think Twice”
podcast, both the weekly video program and the “Jonathan Tobin Daily”
program, which are available on all major audio platforms and YouTube.
Previously, he was executive editor, then senior online editor and chief
political blogger, for Commentary magazine. Before that, he was editor-in-chief of The Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia and editor of the Connecticut Jewish Ledger.
He has won more than 60 awards for commentary, art criticism and other
writing. He appears regularly on television, commenting on politics and
foreign policy. Born in New York City, he studied history at Columbia
University.
Source: https://www.jns.org/opinion/column/jonathan-s-tobin/who-will-stand-with-israel-against-a-new-iran-deal
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
