What is President Obama going to do if he and the allies reach an agreement with Iran? It's easy to know what he will do if it turns out that the Islamic Republic has no interest in a deal. Obama will just announce that he will proceed with "crippling sanctions" and that the war option remains "on the table."
He will convey that message both publicly to the media and privately to AIPAC and the donors associated with it. The latter will push for even tougher sanctions, which he will say are under consideration. He will assure Prime Minister Netanyahu that they are on the same page and that he now understands that the Iranian regime is irrational and can only be dealt with by inflicting pain, even in the form of war.
The Iran issue will then be neutralized for the general election. Sure, the Republicans and Jewish organizations like AIPAC, the American Jewish Committee, Simon Wiesenthal Center and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations will demand that Obama inflict even more pain on Iran.
Given that the people who run these organizations tend to be pro-war and anti-Obama, they will make trouble for the president through Election Day and beyond. But they won't have an impact. Few, other than people who would never support Obama anyway, are going to buy into the idea that he is "soft" on Iran.
But what if the Iranians actually put forth an offer that is reasonable? Given that the Iranian foreign minister wrote, in a very reasonable column in today's Washington Post (that the paper buried on its opinion page) that Iran does not want nuclear weapons, it is quite possible that a deal is in the offing.
What would it look like? According to Fareed Zakaria, Iran would agree to the U.S. demand to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent, the level from which fuel can be easily converted for military purposes. Iran has already said that it would consider agreeing to enrich up to only 3.5 or 5 percent. Iran then would preserve its right to enrichment but not to weapons grade.
As for Iran's existing stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium, Iran has in the past agreed that it would ship its stockpile out of the country in exchange for completed fuel plates that are used for production of medical isotopes.
But the critical part of the bargain would be that Iran would permit comprehensive inspections of its nuclear facilities. Zakaria again:
The crucial point on which Iran should make deep concessions is comprehensive inspections... The P5 plus 1 should use that as a checklist of activities that Iran would commit to refraining from and insist that the IAEA get unfettered access to the sites until the agency is satisfied that any such military program has been shut down. Iran would have to receive some reward for accepting such unprecedented inspections, and the obvious option would be the relaxation of sanctions, step by step, as inspections proceed unimpeded.
That is pretty much it. Iran agrees not to develop nuclear weapons and permits comprehensive inspections. In exchange, sanctions would be lifted, probably in stages.
There would be no war and Obama would have won a major diplomatic victory (which means that Americans, Iranians and Israelis who would die in another Mideast war would be spared).
Except for one thing. AIPAC and its Congressional cutouts (Republicans and Democrats) will not permit that to happen.
The chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen) says she opposes any form of engagement with Iran and is not interested in an agreement. She wants sanctions and more sanctions.
Now is the time to clamp down on the regime through sanctions that close every loophole and deny Tehran any breathing room. The Administration must not fall into the regime's trap and again pursue the failed policy of dialogue and engagement.
The Iranian regime is only capable of negotiating in bad-faith, which it is happy to do in order to buy even more time for its nuclear efforts. We can't afford to fall into this obvious trap yet again.
As for the Senate, it's position was made clear when in late March only one Senator (Kentucky Republican Rand Paul) opposed an AIPAC-drafted resolution imposing new sanctions on Iran. Paul said he would use his prerogative as a Senator to block the resolution from coming to the floor unless a provision was added saying that nothing in the measure "shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of use of force...."
Senate Democratic leadership, takings its cue from AIPAC, would not agree, so Paul blocked it.
The lesson is obvious. AIPAC will not permit Congress to lift sanctions no matter what the administration achieves with the Iranians. That means "no deal" unless Obama decides to stand up to the lobby, the Netanyahu government, and their cutouts on the Hill.
That seems unlikely. More likely, the United States will add some new Netanyahu-authored condition that it knows the Iranians will not accept. That would kill negotiations, preserve the status quo and prevent Obama from having to offend some of his militant Netanyahu-adoring donors.
On the other hand, Obama might do the right thing by throwing the gauntlet down on AIPAC and its Congressional followers and refuse to yield. After all, he does have the bully pulpit. He can take the issue to the country and explain that, with American lives are at stake, he will not yield to political blackmail.
I know from my AIPAC days that its biggest fear is a president who addresses the country directly and explains how and why his efforts to achieve Middle East peace are being thwarted. Actually, that may not even be necessary.
Back in 1982, President Reagan happened to be watching television when he saw footage of Israel's massive bombing of Beirut. He had his staff put in a call to Prime Minister Begin. He told Begin that the pictures he was seeing reminded him of the Holocaust. Begin was offended and said he would stop bombing in a day or two, but Reagan insisted. Here is how Reagan described what happened next in his personal diary:
I told him to stop or our entire future relationship was endangered. I used the word holocaust deliberately and said his symbol was becoming a picture of a seventh month old baby with its arms blown off. Begin called back within minutes to say that the attack had been stopped. (Source: Dutch, by Edmund Morris, p.464-465)
The lesson: if Obama decides he wants a deal with Iran, and Iran meets his terms, he can achieve it and make Israel, the lobby, and its Congressional proxies like it. Does Obama know that?
We'll see.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
Jamal Abdi: How Hawks on the Hill Plan to Kill Talks With Iran
Ahmed Shihab-Eldin: Human Rights in Bahrain, a Casualty of Obama's Double-Standard
Ida V. Eskamani: A Less Bright Future: Florida Is Breaking Its Promise to Students
Jonathan Granoff: Regarding Iran, America Must Look to the Constitution
Tehran says its enrichment labs are only making nuclear fuel for energy and research reactors, and insists it has no intention of producing weapons. Washington and allies worry the enrichment sites could eventually churn out weapons-grade material.
Now looms greater challenges of actually hashing out proposals that bridge very different agendas: The West and its allies seeking to rein in Iran's nuclear enrichment, and Tehran strongly refusing to accept any significant reverses in its atomic program.
This is where negotiators may begin to parse the enrichment capabilities.
Iranian officials have indicated they could consider suspending production of 20 percent enriched uranium, which is used for Iran's medical research The 20 percent uranium is significant concern for the West because it can be converted into weapons-grade material - at 90 percent enrichment - in a matter of months.
......The USA said Iran must send their fuel out for enrichment. Brazil brokered the deal with Turkey...THE USA REFUSED...lately the USA RAISED THE BAR and now says Iran must go thru with the above deal.
........Iran now says they are tired of dancing to the tune of Israel . first you want us to jump 3 ft. now 6 ft. which is it as we are tired of playing your game.
Ah! True! US military engagement in Asia is a failed policy. The administration knows that, but pursues it anyway. As for dialogue, what Iranian wants to negotaite with a gunman?
American lives are at stake precisely because we put our soldiers on Iran's doorstep. Whether Iran agrees with us is not relevant and never will be. Were Iran to agree totally with US demands, Washington would still be expected to find another demand to which they would not agree.
The nitty-gritty of this so called dialogue is that the threat of war is a very good business in the USA. For as long as we can maintain that threst, our government will continue to feed the coffers of the 1%. Best we follow the example set by the now defunct USSR and get our troops out of Asian territory. The USSR couldn't afford it then, and we can't afford it now.
"The lesson: if Obama decides he wants a deal with Iran, and Iran meets his terms, he can achieve it and make Israel, the lobby, and its Congressional proxies like it. Does Obama know that?"
Of course he knows it! Ohama is not stupid. The proper question is whether he will act upon that knowledge. Unfortunately, that is politics. As the writer says: "we'll see."
Power and politix are shifting into a regional alliances, which make Washington slide into irrelevance. You have got Americas Hemispheric leaders giving Washington ultimatum to lift 50-year Cuban embargo or risk Isolation. You’ve got ME choosing their leaders. And finely, rest of the world is looking to East for trade and commerce as suppose to broken economy of the West. On the other hand NRA, ALEC, FOX and American Crossroads are running Washington internally where Natenyahoo’s AIPAC is setting USA foreign policy parameters.
Americans need to understand that they are losing and cannot keep imposing their will to the rest of the world. Israelis need to understand that peace can only be achieved by righting and correcting past wrongs or time will correct against their will.
The US during 1950’s- 1980’s were in part, due to our nearly 500 years as the colonized part of Western Europe, the Communists in power, and the problems still with Europe freely or easy communicating with the Far East. The US has allowed our wealth, and power following WWII to go to our heads and hearts. Communists are no longer part of the equitation and 21st century solutions provide real answer to the historical problem of the size of the globe.
I agree with your post and only post in support of it. Thank you.
You would have us equate an iraq-like war with Iran with being Pro Israel? You obviously dont care much about Israel, or the US, or much of the rest of the world.
Rather, I think this entire thing is being dragged out by settler supporters who wish to Hurt Obama, cover for the ongoin illegal settlements program, and just maybe, create a war that will empower the ultra radical settler supporters who currently Govern Israel to kill or ethnically cleanse possible millions of Palestinians under the fog of war, claiming they were agents of Iran.
It is the settlers and their backers who are anti Israel, as they wish to make Israel an apartheid state that will practice ethnic cleansing and other atrocities until there is no possibility of a two state solution, until the one state solution takes effect. Palestinians will become the underclass majority, and Israel will eventually go the way of south Africa.
The settlers don't care how many Israelis, Palestinians, or Americans die or suffer as the result of their ultra radical agenda.
Um! Any prerequisites?
In the political arena, it might be called: Big Brother To The Rescue. The only trouble is that President Bush refused to play the game. So too President Obama, to the frustration of PM Netanyahu and AIPAC.
Now if Israel were to strike oil in her own legitimate territory do you suppose some US president might reconsider his options?
And you talk about big brother but where was America when Israel defeat 8 arab nations in 1948, 4 arab nations in 1967 and all by itself in the Yom Kipur War of 1973? Your statement is false and shows your anti Israel agenda. Plus you mention " AIPAC" which is anti-Israel keyword of the year.
:)
That would put AIPAC and their slavish servants who run Congress very much in their place.