Right Web

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

The Incoherence of Bibi’s Sabotage Effort

Netanyahu’s attempt to punch holes in a prospective nuclear deal as well as define a morning-after narrative regarding Iran fails to stand up to post-speech scrutiny.

LobeLog

Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu can claim a victory of sorts by having set the agenda and received wall-to-wall coverage for his congressional speech. He also succeeded in making his message rather than the empty seats the story. The speech is likely to play well in Israel, and today’s events will not harm his re-election prospects. But that is probably where the good news for Netanyahu ends.

The prime minister’s speech was rhetorically skillful, but his attempt to punch holes in a prospective nuclear deal as well as define a morning-after narrative regarding Iran fails to stand up to post-speech scrutiny.

Netanyahu’s tactics seem to focus on a possible 10-year sunset clause to a deal and to encourage Congress to make that a deal breaker. At the same time Netanyahu seems to be preparing for a post-deal reality and demanding that Iran continue to be treated exclusively as a terror state. For Netanyahu to claim that after 10 years Iran would be free to do as it pleases with a nuclear program was intentionally misleading. As an NPT member, Iran (unlike Israel) would continue to be subject to a range of restrictions that prevent WMD development. The weakness of Netanyahu’s pushback is that he is wrong about the negotiations, wrong about Iran, and wrong about the alternatives.

If Netanyahu was attempting to extend an olive branch to the Obama administration in the early part of his speech then he clearly withdrew it by depicting not only the president and his negotiating team but also the entire constellation of P5+1 world powers as naïve for either believing that Iran can change or for failing to secure a better deal.

But on closer inspection it is Netanyahu’s case that makes no sense. On the one hand he says that the Iranian regime has been around for 36 years and will not change in the next 10, while on the other he claims that the regime is so fragile and vulnerable to pressure that it is on the brink of collapse. Netanyahu argues that more pressure and insistence can deliver a better deal, but decades of negotiations say otherwise. When negotiations cease and sanctions increase Iran has upped its enrichment capacity and has been able to secure better terms.

The deal under discussion would put a stop to that. But Netanyahu continues to fabricate an alternative that exists in speeches only.

From previously insisting that the nuclear issue be treated as separately, Netanyahu now wants to introduce other issues as conditions for a deal, including Iran’s regional role. When a grand bargain was presented in the past, the Israelis rejected it, a position Netanyahu never disowned until apparently today. The implementation of the Joint Plan of Action proves that a deal can hold and be implemented, puncturing yet another Netanyahu talking point.

And although Iran should win no plaudits for its regional role, the attempt to depict it as the font of all evil is so reductionist as to be absurd. Netanyahu’s terrifying depiction of the consequences of a nuclear Iran in the region should be filed alongside his testimony in support of the Iraq war and its positive knock-on effects for the Middle East.

Netanyahu’s assertions of Iran’s genocidal intentions would be news to the 25,000 Jews who continue to live safely inside the Islamic Republic, the largest community outside Israel in the region. If he is looking for regional states with a history of expansionism he might look closer to home. Finally, Netanyahu’s riff on the threat to non-proliferation was worthy of an Oscar for chutzpah.

Netanyahu’s call to follow the path less travelled should be seized upon by Congress and the administration to move ahead with a deal that offers the best prospect for ensuring a verifiable freeze and partial rollback of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program as well as a path toward non-proliferation and greater regional stability. That is the path less travelled, not the tired reheated rhetoric of Bibi declaiming doomsday and dissing diplomacy. Finally, it is hard to think of a worse idea than an Israeli prime minister promoting a campaign whose logical endpoint is to send America off to another war in the Middle East.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is one of the Senate’s more vocal hawks, and one of the prime vacillators among Republicans between objecting to and supporting Donald Trump.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and has deep connections to the Republican Party and the neoconservative movement.


The Washington-based American Enterprise Institute is a rightist think tank with a broad mandate covering a range of foreign and domestic policy issues that is known for its strong connections to neoconservatism and overseas debacles like the Iraq War.


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.”


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas and an evangelical pastor, is a far-right pundit known for his hawkish policies and opposition to an Israeli peace deal with the Palestinians.


Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, is known for her lock-step support for Israel and considered by some to be a future presidential candidate.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

The Trumpian new regional order in the Middle East is predicated on strongman rule, disregard for human rights, Sunni primacy over Iran and other Shia centers of power, continued military support for pro-American warring parties regardless of the unlawfulness of such wars, and Israeli hegemony.


A comparison of U.S. nuclear diplomacy with Iran and the current version with North Korea puts the former in a good light and makes the latter look disappointing. Those with an interest in curbing the dangers of proliferating nuclear weapons should hope that the North Korea picture will improve with time. But whether it does or not, the process has put into perspective how badly mistaken was the Trump administration’s trashing of the Iran nuclear agreement.


Numerous high profile Trump administration officials maintain close ties with anti-Muslim conspiracy theorists. In today’s America, disparaging Islam is acceptable in ways that disparaging other religions is not. Given the continuing well-funded campaigns by the Islamophobes and continuing support from their enablers in the Trump administration, starting with the president himself, it seems unlikely that this trend will be reversed any time soon.


The Trump administration’s nuclear proliferation policy is now in meltdown, one which no threat of “steely resolve”—in Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s words—will easily contain. It is hemorrhaging in part because the administration has yet to forge a strategy that consistently and credibly signals a feasible bottom line that includes living with—rather than destroying—regimes it despises or fears. Political leaders on both sides of the aisle must call for a new model that has some reasonable hope of restraining America’s foes and bringing security to its Middle East allies.


Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: “Enough! Stop this madness!” Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation’s gratitude and the support of the electorate. Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity.


To bolster the president’s arguments for cutting back immigration, the administration recently released a fear-mongering report about future terrorist threats. Among the potential threats: a Sudanese national who, in 2016, “pleaded guilty to attempting to provide material support to ISIS”; an Uzbek who “posted a threat on an Uzbek-language website to kill President Obama in an act of martyrdom on behalf of ISIS”; a Syrian who, in a plea agreement, “admitted that he knew a member of ISIS and that while in Syria he participated in a battle against the Syrian regime, including shooting at others, in coordination with Al Nusrah,” an al-Qaeda offshoot.


The recent appointment of purveyors of anti-Muslim rhetoric to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom exposes the cynical approach Republicans have taken in promoting religious freedom.


RightWeb
share