by Noah Beck
Obama and many commentators upbraid Bibi for trying to influence the very negotiations whose outcome will decide whether military force is needed, creating an absurd catch-22. If Bibi does nothing to prevent Obama from making Iran a threshold nuclear state, then he will be excoriated for any Israeli military attack undertaken to defang that threat; but if he speaks up now while a non-military solution is still possible (with adjustments to Obama’s disastrous negotiating strategy), then he is accused of meddling in U.S. politics and breaching protocol.
A bad deal on Iranian nukes would be so catastrophic to global security that presidential resistance to a related speech – by the leader of an allied democracy, who may be the greatest expert on the issue – should leave everyone speechless.
The Obama administration’s outraged accusation that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu violated protocol by accepting House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to address Congress is preposterous: Bibi’s speech before Congress in 2011 came about in the exact same way with no similar Obama outrage (predictably, given the upcoming 2012 election). And the New York Times advanced this “violated protocol” narrative all too willingly, only to correct itself as inconspicuously as possible, revealing yet again its own anti-Israel agenda. Ironically, Obama’s main, if not only, motivation for visiting Israel in 2008 (and promising policies far from those he eventually adopted) was to gain the support of Jewish voters, back when he needed them to win the presidency.
Now Obama is trying everything in his power to unseat Bibi, including what he accuses Bibi of doing: meddling in another democracy’s domestic politics. Whitehouse Spokesperson Josh Earnest’s inadvertent slip about hoping that Bibi gets voted out in Israel’s next elections was just the appetizer. The Obama administration will boycott Bibi on his next trip and is boosting the profile of his political opponents, as Obama-linked strategists actively support Israeli campaigns to defeat Bibi (after already slighting the democratically elected leader of America’s top Mideast ally on countless other occasions).
Worse still, Obama and many commentators upbraid Bibi for trying to influence the very negotiations whose outcome will decide whether military force is needed, creating an absurd catch-22. If Bibi does nothing to prevent Obama from making Iran a threshold nuclear state, then he will be excoriated for any Israeli military attack undertaken to defang that threat; but if he speaks up now while a non-military solution is still possible (with adjustments to Obama’s disastrous negotiating strategy), then he is accused of meddling in U.S. politics and breaching protocol.
But, as the Washington Post pointed out, there are compelling reasons to question Obama’s Iran policy, which has been formulated by relatively inexperienced advisers and roundly critiqued by former secretaries of state and his own former adviser, veteran Mideast expert Dennis Ross, among other heavyweights. Yet Obama appears determined to quell any dissent – whether from Congress, policy experts, or the allied countries most immediately endangered by his inept strategy.
Separation of powers improves governance precisely because overly concentrated power tends to corrupt and no single institution has a monopoly on wisdom. Congress has been involved in Iran-related decisions and sanctions for decades, so how could it be prudent or constitutional for Obama to circumvent Congress on this issue? And yet that is exactly what Obama is trying to do by unilaterally weakening sanctions and vowing to veto any bill requiring Congressional approval of his nuclear deal with Iran.
Obama’s extraordinary fear of different views speaks volumes about his amateurish policymaking approach and his dubious motives. Is he trying to get a deal at any cost just to show an ostensible foreign policy win after so many conspicuous failures (from Ukraine to Syria)? Does he not realize that his legacy would be far more tarnished as the leader who enabled the world’s leading sponsor of terror to acquire nuclear weapons?
The current deal reportedly allows Iranian uranium enrichment to continue with about 7,000 centrifuges and eventually ends inspections, leaving Iran as a threshold nuclear state. The day Tehran decides to go nuclear, terrorism itself becomes exponentially more lethal, and a wave of nuclear proliferation will spread across the Middle East. Iran’s rivals will seek to deter it with nukes of their own, making the world’s most dangerous and unstable region a nuclear powder keg, with Islamists like ISIS eager to grab whatever nuclear materials they can.
A bad deal also makes it that much harder for any state to take preemptive military action against Iran’s nukes and strengthens the very government that optimists naively think will change once the Iranian economy opens up with the lifting of sanctions. The Iranian regime’s survival will be extended by a double victory: improving the economy and keeping Iran’s nuclear program, which has broad nationalist support. The Ayatollahs will have nukes long before the world has a democratic Iran run by moderates.
But even if Israel’s survival were not a vital U.S. interest, how could entrusting the world’s leading terror sponsor with nukes possibly make the U.S. safer? Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was involved in Latin America’s bloodiest terror attacks and presumably had some role in Iran’s recent terrorist activity in Uruguay. Iran has tried to assassinate U.S. diplomats in Azerbaijan and Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Washington, not to mention countless other attacks from Europe to the Middle East (including the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing that killed over 240 Americans).
Never has a foreign leader’s Congressional address mattered so much to global security.
Fortunately, most Americans want to hear Netanyahu’s speech, before it’s too late to avoid much worse scenarios. Obama’s efforts to silence Bibi only exacerbate serious concerns about Obama’s strategy, competence, and intentions. Any time a president tries this hard to suppress an opposing view shared by myriad experts and allies, the public needs to hear that other view.
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.