By Larry Gordon

This is the place to be this week for American Jews who support Israel. The high point, of course, was the appearance, presentation, and comments by Prime Minister Netanyahu. Until Bibi arrived in DC, however, and addressed the 16,000 delegates from around the country at the AIPAC conference, a very tight, solid and definitive message was delivered from numerous directions about the vibrant health of the U.S.—Israel relationship.

What is it that makes AIPAC so convincing, persuasive, and even powerful, and an integral component of that relationship? AIPAC is about bipartisan U.S. support of Israel. That support has rarely been more vital and important than it is today with the Iranian threat and the misguided management of the Obama administration looming so large.

Two senators who appeared together on Sunday morning demonstrated the most poignant aspect of that bipartisanship. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) spoke eloquently and with determination about the Iran nuclear situation. Cardin, the Democrat, says–contrary to the Obama administration approach–that if no agreement that makes it impossible for Iran to become nuclear-capable is reached by the March 24 deadline then he will support legislation that increases sanctions on Iran.

And this is where the point of contention exists so sorely and blatantly. Conventional wisdom says that the Iranians agreed to come to the negotiating table because sanctions imposed by the international community were wreaking havoc with the Iranian economy. Over the last several years, the export of Iranian oil, which provides 80 percent of the revenue of their economy, has been cut in half, they were virtually cut off and excluded from the international banking system, and unemployment increased in the country to more than 60 percent.

On Monday, Prime Minister Netanyahu told the delegates here at AIPAC that the Obama administration has been keeping some of the details of the framework agreement with Iran from Congress. The deceptive approach is not a new tactic employed by the Obama administration. Remember “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”? Well, none of that was exactly true. But Obamacare had to be passed into law in order for anyone in Congress to become acquainted with the details.

What we are looking at here might be a new version of that old refrain as it pertains to Iran. In other words, to the Iranians Mr. Obama just might be saying, “If you like your nuclear bomb, you can keep your nuclear bomb.” This is the backdrop to Mr. Netanyahu’s controversial appearance in Washington at AIPAC and before Congress.

The high point of the Monday sessions in Washington was indeed the appearance of Mr. Netanyahu. When the prime minister was introduced, he received a raucous standing ovation with cheering that lasted for an extended period. His emphasis was on the rock-solid relationship between the U.S. and Israel despite what people may think and what the media report.

Netanyahu cut right to the point at AIPAC, reiterating a message that he planned on delivering to Congress the next day. Amongst the things he told us was that there is agreement between the U.S. and Israel on the fact that there should not be a nuclear Iran; however, he added, there is disagreement on how that objective should be achieved.

“For the U.S. it is a matter of security,” said the prime minister; “for us it is a matter of survival.” He added that when dealing with Iran, one has to consider that the regime there is the greatest sponsor of terror on the globe today. “Their tentacles of terror are today on five continents,” Netanyahu said.

So it is stunningly puzzling that the Obama administration is determined to go easy on the Iranians. Netanyahu is convinced that the regime in Iran is playing the Obama administration and that they may be in desperate need of some very frank talk and a dose of reality.

Prime Minister Netanyahu received still another rousing standing ovation when he talked about the history of the Jewish people and our isolation and helplessness for so very long. There were pogroms, wanton murder, persecution, and the Holocaust. “The days of depending on others and not speaking up are over.” Then he reiterated: “Those days are over; we will no longer be silent.”

Netanyahu is putting the best face and probably a good deal of spin on a high-pressure situation. After six and a half years, we know that Barack Obama is not happy when he doesn’t get his way. And this is one of those situations.

It appears that over the last few weeks, Mr. Obama expected that somehow the Netanyahu address to Congress would be postponed. The prime minister, however, genuinely feels that there is far too much at stake to bend to political pressure.

Here at AIPAC we learned a great deal about the multiple aspects of the Netanyahu visit and address to Congress as well as the real status of the Iranian march to nuclear-weapons capability. There are many conflicting stories about the Obama administration’s reaction and the Israeli response to that American reaction.

Frankly, it is difficult to ascertain what is fact and what is exaggeration. One definite good thing Iran has accomplished is that there is just about zero mention of the so-called peace process and Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians, and that is quite refreshing.

That was until Monday evening, when National Security Advisor Susan Rice addressed the 16,000 delegates. Rice was good, firm, and cool despite being subjected to blistering criticism recently. She took a swipe at Mr. Netanyahu when she said that negotiations cannot be conducted by sound bite, but there is no staring down or talking down Mr. Netanyahu. He has stated it repeatedly; he will not back down when it comes to the safety of Israel’s citizens.

The administration is upset at Mr. Netanyahu, fearing he would betray confidences and divulge classified information in his congressional address. Not state secrets that can jeopardize either country’s security, but rather information that would embarrass Mr. Obama for putting himself into a weak and indefensible situation that he would prefer Congress and the general public not to know about. That information just plain makes him look bad and he does not like that. Actually, his history is that he makes himself look bad all by himself and really does not need any assistance in that department.

As it was last year, AIPAC this year was essentially about one thing only–preventing a nuclear Iran. The Obama position is that they can probably be stopped over the short term, but eventually–maybe in five or ten years–they will possess nuclear abilities. Israel and many of Israel’s supporters here say, no, that position is not acceptable.

That’s when New Jersey Democratic Senator Bob Menendez takes the stage, clears the bases, and cleans everyone’s clock. Menendez has a low threshold for the Obama doublespeak. Menendez rhetorically asked, why was it OK for British prime minister David Cameron to lobby Congress two weeks ago about not imposing new sanctions on Iran, but it is not acceptable for the Israeli prime minister to lobby Congress to increase sanctions? Menendez is co-sponsor of two pieces of important legislation. One calls for ratcheting up sanctions against Iran, bringing them to their knees until they surrender their nuclear ambitions. The other is a bill that says that any agreement with Iran needs congressional approval.

Obama does not like either option. He wants to have the first and last word on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Members of his own party, like Menendez and others, say, no, that is unacceptable.

There’s no question that despite the crisis, the U.S.—Israel relationship is still a good and strong one. Which leaves this as a personal issue between Obama and Bibi. Is that any way to manage a dangerous crisis? Is that any way to run a country? v

Comments for Larry Gordon are welcome at editor@5tjt.com.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here