IRAN: GIVE PEACE A CHANCE?

IRAN: GIVE WAR PEACE A CHANCE?

 

Tuesday, September 8

The Iran Deal: A Step Towards Re-imagining the Middle East

7:00 pm, Christ Church Cambridge, Zero Garden St. (Harvard T)

With Globe columnist Stephen Kinzer, Harvard Prof. Stephen Walt, Dr. Shahin Tabatabaei, an Iranian-born urologist at the Massachusetts General Hospital and professor at Harvard Medical School just returned from a visit to Tehran; MC comedian/activist Jimmy Tingle.

 

Who is against the Iran agreement?  Israel, obviously, along with the gigantic rightwing Israel Lobby in the US, funded by the deep pockets of pro-Israel billionaires. The spotlight thrown on this constellation of power and money by the struggle over the Iran deal is certainly a good thing. The Republican Party is also virtually united in opposition.  This results partly from its evolution into the major “pro-Israel” party, with its dependence on fundamentalist Christians (who are also frequently Zionists) and, increasingly, pro-Israel Orthodox Jews – together with its greed for large campaign donations from those same sources.  Polls and other indicators show that Democrats, at the base, are increasingly skeptical of the “special relationship” with Israel.

 

The other reason for Republican opposition to the deal (aside from reflexive hostility to anything proposed by the Obama administration) is their refusal to accept the verdict of the Iraq War that the US, as powerful as it remains, does not have the economic or military strength to dominate the world through direct armed intervention.  That is why Republicans push for greater military spending and more overt intervention everywhere, from Syria to Ukraine.  This is not to say that the Democrats constitute the “peace” party, but there is increasing reluctance to commit US troops and treasure toward Quixotic campaigns of military intervention -- and a willingness to pursue diplomacy and local proxies to maintain US influence.  That is the context of the struggle over the Iran deal.  

 

Meanwhile, with the Iran agreement’s survival now virtually assured, it is way too early to count out the forces of opposition.  Plans are already being floated in Congress to undermine the deal. And statements from the Obama administration and members of Congress who support the deal are uniform in expressing loyalty to the US-Israel special relationship (with promises of increased military assistance) -- as well as hostility to Iran in every imaginable way, which may limit the transformational possibilities of normalization with that country.  And don’t count out AIPAC, either, though if there is a clear-cut “winner” in DC it may be the “AIPAC-light” as represented by the more liberal pro-Israel lobby J-Street.

 

Four more Senate Democrats back Iran deal, making 38

Three key Democratic holdouts threw their support behind the nuclear accord with Iran on Thursday — onRe day after Obama clinched enough votes to guarantee Congress can’t kill his agreement. Sens. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mark Warner of Virginia and Cory Booker of New Jersey formally announced their backing. All three said the deal isn't flawless but beats the alternative… The Obama administration’s nuclear deal became all but sure to survive the Republican-led Congress when Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) announced Wednesday that she would back the agreement. That meant 34 votes were in favor of the deal, enough to sustain a veto from Obama, should he issue one. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California has said repeatedly that Democrats in her chamber would also protect the agreement.     More    (The fourth is Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, who is announcing today)

 

(The Arms Control Association has published a useful guide to the Iran agreement.)

 

WHAT YOU CAN DO:

 

--Call your member of Congress today to ask that they support this historic agreement. (and thank those who have announced their support!)

Senator Elizabeth Warren (Phone: (202) 224-4543) and Senator Ed Markey (Phone: (202) 224-2742 back the agreement. As of now, Reps. Lynch, McGovern, Moulton, Clark, Kennedy and Tsongas are announced supporters of the deal; The rest of the delegation is either “leaning yes” or “noncommittal. Capitol switchboard: (202) 224-3121 for other reps.  Representative Michael Capuano (Phone: 202-225-5111) says he expects to support the agreement “unless something new emerges before the vote”; Reps. Keating and Neal have not yet taken a position

 

The Hill has a Senate “whip count” here.

A count of all Congressional Democrats, here

 

OBAMA'S REAL ACHIEVEMENT WITH THE IRAN DEAL

Obama clearly outlined a paradigm shift with regard to Iran that is in lock step with the preferences of a majority of war weary Americans. He knows that the American public overwhelmingly prefers diplomacy and opposes war when it comes to both Iran's nuclear program and America's projection of power around the world.  Obama can initiate this paradigm shift, but he cannot complete it on his own. His allies and other supporters of the Iran nuclear deal must be mindful of the fact that military justifications for diplomatic solutions implicitly vindicate the military mindset within which the Iran nuclear deal never can be fully appreciated… Indeed, if the Iran nuclear deal solely prevents an Iranian bomb but fails to shift the security paradigm in America towards peace building through diplomacy rather than the militarism of perpetual warfare, then truly a historic opportunity will have been lost.   More

 

BENNIS: As Iran Deal Nears Approval, What Comes Next Remains Vital

Winning the fight to protect the Iran deal in Congress was a huge victory for diplomacy over war. Now we have to look to the future and figure out strategies to win new victories over the existing wars, occupations, and real—not imagined—nuclear weapons, all enabled and furthered by U.S. policies, that continue to create millions of new refugees, escalating violence, and instability across the Middle East and beyond.   More

 

How Obama defeated AIPAC on Iran

For years, the organization has worked to ensure that both Democrats and Republicans provide the Israeli government unquestioning support. But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, by embracing Mitt Romney in 2012, colluding with Republicans to organize a speech to Congress behind Obama’s back this spring and making Ron Dermer, a former GOP operative, his top representative in Washington, has made AIPAC’s work harder.  AIPAC itself has also changed. In the 1980s, when it was led by Tom Dine, a former staffer to Ted Kennedy, Democrats comprised a larger share of its membership. But over the decades, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have made hawkish Jews more comfortable in the GOP. Others have left the Democratic Party because of Barack Obama. Orthodox Jews, who vote overwhelmingly Republican, also play a larger role in AIPAC than they did a few decades ago… Why should Democrats listen to Republican AIPAC activists who will oppose them no matter what?   More

 

AIPAC's Plan B?

A summary of a draft bill…  is circulating that is designed (almost certainly by AIPAC) to appeal to those Democrats eager to “kiss and make up” after their defiance of the most powerful Israel lobby group (whose reputation for omnipotence just took a very heavy hit) and its donors. Although most of the bill appears to be innocuous and consistent with the administration’s own intentions, it also contains a number of “poison pills,” which, if approved, appear calculated to raise new obstacles to implementation and Tehran’s confidence that the U.S. will fully comply with both the spirit and the letter of the JCPOA… We hear that the sponsors intend to push this through Congress as a companion to the disapproval resolution. The idea is to enable nervous Democrats to demonstrate their strong support for Israel and their undiluted distrust and hostility toward Iran. The fear is that if this measure isn’t passed now, then it could prove much more difficult to pass once Iran begins to implement the agreement.   More

 

Bad advice from Harvard’s Mr. Burns. . .

What Should Obama Do Next on Iran?

Mr. Obama should not be content to have his veto sustained in Congress. His more important aim, looking beyond the vote, is to win the long-term struggle with Iran for power in the Middle East. To begin this effort, the administration should commit to a policy of coercive diplomacy — major steps to keep Iran on the defensive and push back against its growing power in the Middle East. The president should suggest that Republicans and Democrats agree on a separate resolution to support this more tough-minded approach. Such a resolution could begin to heal the wounds from the bruising Iran debate and to chart a more assertive American posture in the region… As Mr. Obama and congressional leaders look beyond the Iran vote, the reassertion of a stronger American presence in the Middle East could earn bipartisan support.   More

 

The Boston Globe seemed to take this same view in an editorial this week.

 

What America will offer Israel after the nuclear deal

For starters, President Barack Obama seems ready to offer an array of security enhancements. Among them are accelerating and increasing defense assistance to Israel over the next decade; increasing the U.S. military presence in the Middle East; stepping up the enforcement of non-nuclear related Iran sanctions; enhancing U.S. interdiction against disruptive Iranian activity in the region; and increasing cooperation on missile defense. There also will be an emphasis on keeping any of the tens of billions of dollars to which Iran will gain unfettered access through the sanctions relief from reaching Iran’s proxies… Speaking of Israel, he said, “We can do even more to enhance the unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation that we have with them, and to see, are there additional capabilities that Israel may be able to use to prevent Hezbollah, for example, from getting missiles.”   More

 

A push to boost military support to Israel because of Iranian nuclear deal

Obama pointed out that the administration is holding talks with Israeli officials to extend for an additional decade the Bush administration’s 10-year, $30 billion plan to pay for Israel’s foreign military purchases of equipment and training, mostly from U.S. firms. The agreement was signed in 2007 and runs out in fiscal 2018. The new deal would “cement for the next decade our unprecedented levels of military assistance,” Obama said in the Nadler letter.  Current discussions involve raising the annual amount, which at $3.1 billion a year is more than half of all U.S. foreign military sales support worldwide, to possibly $3.5 billion a year. At that level it would almost equal 20 percent of Israel’s entire defense budget. Another unique element of the Israeli weapons purchase program is that up to 26.3 percent of the U.S. money can be spent for Israeli-manufactured military equipment… Beyond that annual $3.1 billion in foreign military sales money, the administration has been providing grant money for Israeli missile defense programs. Obama noted that the United States has provided $3 billion over the years to help develop and purchase the Israeli-manufactured Iron Dome short-range missile interceptor systems and to pay for the Arrow 4 and David Sling [Israeli] missile defense systems.   More

 

Did AIPAC just waste tens of millions fighting the Iran deal? Not really.

AIPAC now operates with a $110 million annual budget, and wants to double that budget over the next five years. To do that, it needs to raise considerable money. That means giving donors a strong reason to contribute.  We don't know for sure who donates to AIPAC, since as a 501(c)(4) organization, it does not disclose its donors. But we can make an educated guess that the major donors to AIPAC have both strong feelings and very deep pockets. It would not be unreasonable to guess that some of them wanted to fight the deal even against long odds, and wouldn't blink at spending tens of millions of dollars to do so.  If AIPAC had decided to hold its lobbying fire, by contrast, it would have left itself open to charges that it had softened, that it wasn't a true supporter of Israel. If it abandoned the hard-line position, it's quite possible that some of its biggest donors would take their money to a new organization that promises to be that hard-line voice.   More