Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

AIPAC Conference Pushes for Sanctions on Iran

Last week’s annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee provided a stark reminder that although the lobby has come under increasing fire in recent years, it remains a force to be reckoned with.

(Inter Press Service)

The annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the powerful and hawkish pro-Israel lobby, wrapped up on May 5 with a speech from Vice President Joe Biden, capping three days primarily devoted to the threat of a nuclear Iran.

Discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the Middle East peace process took a back seat to the Iran issue at the conference, which ended with attendees heading to Capitol Hill to lobby for a bill that would impose sanctions targeting the Iranian energy sector.

While representatives of the Barack Obama administration, the Benjamin Netanyahu government, and AIPAC itself all sought to emphasize points of consensus and cooperation, it’s unclear whether the various parties will be on the same page going forward.

The Obama administration has given high priority to diplomacy with Iran and a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine, but the Netanyahu government has shown distinctly less enthusiasm for these goals, and the mood at the AIPAC conference suggested that most attendees shared Netanyahu’s skepticism.

The conference drew an estimated 6,500 attendees, as well as many members of the U.S. Congress and numerous U.S. and Israeli political luminaries. It was a stark reminder that although AIPAC may have come under increasing fire in recent years, the group remains a force to be reckoned with.

Speakers included Biden, Israeli President Shimon Peres, U.S. Senator John Kerry, former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and several top Congressional leaders. Netanyahu addressed the conference via satellite, and other notables such as Kadima party leader Tzipi Livni and White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel also participated.

Attendees had their choice of numerous panels and information sessions. Iran loomed large, with six separate panels devoted to it; by contrast, only two panels focused on Palestine.

There were also a number of private, off-the-record panels and master classes that were closed to the press, with titles like “The Palestinians Never Miss an Opportunity to Miss an Opportunity: The History of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.”

The conference’s rhetorical focus on the Iranian menace was in line with AIPAC’s current top legislative priority, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA).

On  the last day of the conference, attendees lobbied their representatives on Capitol Hill, asking them to support the bill, which would require President Obama to impose sanctions on foreign firms exporting refined petroleum products to Iran.

AIPAC argues that the bill will strengthen Obama’s diplomatic outreach to Iran by providing him additional leverage, but other pro-Israel groups such as J Street and Americans for Peace Now have oppose the proposed legislation on the grounds that it would send mixed messages and undercut the administration’s diplomacy.

Most speakers at the conference expressed cautious support for Obama’s diplomatic outreach to Tehran, but warned that if it did not bear fruit quickly, harsher measures would have to be taken. Sen. Jon Kyl, one of the lead sponsors of the sanctions bill, called for a “short and hard end date” for diplomacy. He and others suggested the summer as a deadline.

The Obama administration has not taken a public position on the legislation. In his AIPAC speech, Biden alluded to the need to examine “other options” should diplomacy fail, but did not mention the word “sanctions,” which had been a constant refrain during most of the conference.

In the conference’s final two speeches, Biden and Kerry reaffirmed  the administration’s commitment to a two-state solution, and called on the Israeli government to halt or reverse settlement construction.

“You’re not going to like me saying this, but [do] not build those settlements. Dismantle existing outposts, and allow the Palestinians freedom of movement,” Biden said.

Biden’s prediction about the audience’s reaction appeared to be correct. While the crowd had welcomed him warmly and gave him several standing ovations, his statements about Israeli obligations garnered only scattered applause.

Similarly, Kerry’s calls to freeze settlements, strengthen the Palestinian Authority, and provide a “light at the end of the tunnel” for children in Gaza received a tepid reaction.

The lukewarm response to Biden’s and Kerry’s statements about the peace process was a reminder that a gulf may remain between AIPAC and the Obama administration.

AIPAC has traditionally been aligned with Netanyahu and his Likud party, and in the 1990s joined him in working behind the scenes to bring down the Oslo peace process, according to a March article by former AIPAC chief lobbyist Douglas Bloomfield.

Although AIPAC has broken with Netanyahu in supporting a two-state solution, like him, the group has made dealing with Iran’s nuclear program a higher priority than the peace progress. The Obama administration, by contrast, has insisted that the two issues must go hand-in-hand.

For his part, Netanyahu told the conference that he supported a “triple track toward peace,” consisting of political, security, and economic measures.  He also asserted he was ready to resume peace negotiations without precondition. But he stopped short of endorsing a Palestinian state.

Others at the conference struck a more militant tone. Gingrich, the former Republican leader who remains an influential figure within the party, headlined the first day of the conference with a fiery speech calling for regime change in Tehran; his good-and-evil rhetoric unmistakably recalled George W. Bush.

“We need to break the lawyer’s sophistry that all nations are equal,” Gingrich said. “There are some regimes you will never be able to cut a deal with because they are in fact evil.”

“Talking in good faith and seeking reconciliation with Adolf Hitler would have been a dead end, because he was the personification of evil. [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, if he gets the weapons, will be every bit as evil as Hitler.”

Gingrich advocated preemptive military action to take out Iranian and North Korean missiles at their sites, and he supported the petroleum sanctions bill—not in order to strengthen U.S. diplomacy but to “break” the Iranian economy and “oust the ayatollahs.”

His speech drew sustained applause from the audience, but was quickly denounced by J Street and other critics.

The AIPAC conference came only days after prosecutors moved to dismiss charges against Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, two former AIPAC staffers who were fired and accused of violating the Espionage Act by receiving classified information and passing it to reporters and to the Israeli government.

The story took another turn in late April, when it was reported that Rep. Jane Harman, a powerful Democrat and AIPAC stalwart, had been caught on a government wiretap discussing an alleged “quid pro quo” deal, in which she would intercede with the Justice Department on Rosen and Weissman’s behalf in exchange for help in landing a top congressional intelligence post.

On May 3, Harman made a defiant appearance at the AIPAC conference,  characterizing herself as a “warrior on behalf of our Constitution and against the abuse of power.”

Daniel Luban writes for the Inter Press Service and PRA’s Right Web (https://rightweb.irc-online.org).

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Update was slow, but still no lag in the editor window, and footnotes are intact.     This has been updated – Bernard Lewis, who passed away in May 2018, was a renowned British-American historian of Islam and the Middle East. A former British intelligence officer, Foreign Office staffer, and Princeton University professor, Lewis was…


Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps — or someone worse — to come.


The United Nations has once again turn into a battleground between the United States and Iran, which are experiencing one of the darkest moments in their bilateral relations.


In many ways, Donald Trump’s bellicosity, his militarism, his hectoring cant about American exceptionalism and national greatness, his bullying of allies—all of it makes him not an opponent of neoconservatism but its apotheosis. Trump is a logical culmination of the Bush era as consolidated by Obama.


For the past few decades the vast majority of private security companies like Blackwater and DynCorp operating internationally have come from a relatively small number of countries: the United States, Great Britain and other European countries, and Russia. But that seeming monopoly is opening up to new players, like DeWe Group, China Security and Protection Group, and Huaxin Zhongan Group. What they all have in common is that they are from China.


The Trump administration’s massive sales of tanks, helicopters, and fighter aircraft are indeed a grim wonder of the modern world and never receive the attention they truly deserve. However, a potentially deadlier aspect of the U.S. weapons trade receives even less attention than the sale of big-ticket items: the export of firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.


Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


RightWeb
share