Following the posting of yesterday's email exchange between myself and Dr. Michael Berenbaum, I advised him that if he wished to reply to me further I would post his reply and give him the last word. So here it is.
You did not address several issues:
Sanctions is a false issue. They are generally not particularly effective. They require cooperation from Allies and in this case, if the US changes the negotiations midway, then they can expect little to no cooperation from Allies and the ultimate sanction is the price of oil, which is costing Iran dearly and also taking down Russia and Venezuela. Russia will certainly not cooperate on sanctions.
The Corker proposal is far more effective, giving the Senate a veto over the agreement if there is one and thus forcing the administration to get a tougher agreement.
The Prime Minister wants sanctions as a tool to blow up the possibility of an agreement — at least that is the diagnosis of the Mossad, which called the Congressional Bill, a hand grenade on the negotiations, at least before they backed down the remark.
Presuming for a moment that military action is required, that decision can only be made by the President of the United States, who is also the only one who can offer Israel political support in the UN and elsewhere. Alienating the President — any President — is not a wise idea. Using the rostrum of the House of Representatives as a Foreign leader to attack the President is downright unpatriotic. If it succeeds, it weakens the President who must be strong to pursue military action or to carry a heavy load diplomatically. If it fails, it makes the Speaker and his supporters as well as the Prime Minister look weak.
What happened is clear to me. The Ambassador thought like a Republican political operative. The Prime Minister thought of reelection, The Speaker thought as to how to fight the President and some partisan right wing Jews thought of this as a tool to wow the Jews or at least Jewish financial support away from the Democratic Party. They have succeeded in making support for Israel — now defined as support for Netanyahu two weeks before an election campaign — far more partisan that it ever was.
It would take me too long to write another piece on the Iran negotiations. They may die of their own weight. But even military action will at best slow down the nuclear development, not end it. That was the decision of the assessment of Israel's security apparatus.
Michael Berenbaum
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It is easy to blame Boehner, Dermer, and Netanyahu for turning the US-Israel alliance into a partisan issue. Yet it is the Obama administration that has blown the alleged breach of protocol entirely out of proportion. One of our closest allies faces daily threats from a maniacal, fanatic regime, and our president is seemingly more concerned with an alleged breach of protocol than with the fact that 6 million more Jews could be wiped out in a second if Iran is allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Between this, the idea that Obama thinks Iran can be a stabilizing force in the Middle East, and the fact that both the White House and State Department refused to label the attack on the kosher grocery store in Paris as anti-Semitic, it simply boggles that mind that a majority of American Jews still stand behind the administration.
ReplyDelete