Maine Owl

In first post-primary stop, presumptive Democratic nominee again declares fealty to Israel at AIPAC conference


Senator Barack Obama spoke from his heart as a true friend of Israel: "The bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, unbreakable tomorrow, unbreakable forever."

There was no "denouncement" of former president and independent diplomat Jimmy Carter this time (as there was in Boca Raton, FL two weeks ago), but the message was clear. The U.S. under an Obama administration will have an incontrovertible, unshakable, unbreakable, permanent commitment to Israel, no matter what. The image of Israel as a helpless island for the world's best people surrounded by a sea of the worst of the worst radiated from the podium again and again to the sound of thunderous applause. The gathered partisans need not fear the real Obama for he is not the soft-on-the-terrorists Obama of alarming emails that evidently have been circulating.

Skipping about 2/3 of the way into the 35-minute address, we come to the usual line in the sand drawn against the worst of the worst of the worst, Iran, perhaps with a little more staccato relish than is typical:

Obama: I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon -- everything."

One thing that could be done--in my opinion the only key thing that has to be done to prevent any Iranian bomb of the future--would be to put Israel's advanced full-blown nuclear triad of land-, sea-, and air-launched nuclear weapons out in the open and on the negotiating table.

It seems that President Carter recently has been trying to do just that-- make the Israeli nuclear arsenal a matter for public discussion. But this throws shudders through the system:

CNN - THE SITUATION ROOM
Aired May 26, 2008 - 18:00 ET

WOLF BLITZER:Jimmy Carter is generating a new controversy. A British newspaper says the former president of the United States is offering information on Israel's unacknowledged nuclear arsenal.

Let's go live to our White House correspondent Ed Henry.

Ed, just what did the president say, and how is the White House responding to all of this?

ED HENRY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, according to "The Times of London," Wolf, Jimmy Carter said over the weekend at a literary festival in England that Israel has 150 nuclear weapons in its arsenal.

This is startling, obviously, because Israel is not a declared nuclear power, even though it is widely assumed throughout the world that in fact Israel does have some nuclear weapons. The newspaper says the former president made these comments in the context of saying he believes the Bush administration should speak directly with Iran to try and convince Tehran to give up its own thirst for nuclear weapons.

And I reached out to spokeswoman Dana Perino here at the White House. she would not comment on this story. Neither would the State Department, nor an official at the Israeli Embassy here in the United States. The Carter Center also is not speaking out just yet on exactly what the former president said, what he meant by it.

It's also unclear when was the last time he actually had access to this highly classified intelligence, any sort of intelligence that would give him this kind of information. But while the White House is not commenting, you can bet officials in the administration are paying close attention to this. This story has enormous ramifications moving forward in the Mideast -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Well, let's talk about that. You were just there in the Middle East. You covered the president's visit to Israel, elsewhere in the region. How is this likely to play out?

HENRY: Well, the fact that the administration right now is trying to make sure and rally the international community to make sure Iran does not have nuclear weapons, it's going to be that much harder if there's a story out there from a former U.S. president, who is considered an authority on subjects like this, for him to speak out and suggest that Israel has not just a few, but 150 nuclear weapons, it's going to be that much harder to get Iran, Syria, other folks in that region that the U.S. is pushing back against, it's going to be harder to get them to give up their own thirst for nuclear weapons -- Wolf.

BLITZER: Well, even though his hope, Jimmy Carter, would be for nonproliferation, it could have exactly the opposite effect by speaking publicly about that.

HENRY: Exactly. And that's why the White House is going to be monitoring this story very closely, Wolf.

What this says is that as long as a bloke like me or even an analyst writing for NTI, the Wisconsin Project, Global Security, FAS, or the like writes that Israel has an advanced nuclear arsenal, well that's no big deal, we all officially are ignored. But a former President? Whoa! Who's he been talking to? What intel. does he have? Hell, that might screw with the anti-Iran narrative and cast some light on regional nuclear "thirst." Public may inch in the wrong direction--towards understanding of the real balance of power and the identity of the real nuclear rouges, the U.S. and Israel, and away from unmitigated fear of Iran.

This is the subtext of the milieu into which Obama delivers his pro-Israel message--the pro-Israel lobby is in a strong, power-hungry expansionist mode rather than the weak defensive mode it wants to project.

Obama drove home hard in the speech an aggressive anti-Iranian sanctions and military threats. A course suggested by Clinton-era Middle East diplomat and strong Iran hawk Dennis Ross is evident in the Obama's program of Iranian discipline:

OBAMA: If you [Iran] refuse [to abandon your nuclear program and terrorism], we will ratchet up the pressure. My presidency will strengthen our hand as we restore our standing. Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize others to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear to the people of Iran and to the world, that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. And that will strengthen our hand with Russia and China, as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council.

And we should work with Europe, Japan, and the Gulf States, to find every avenue outside the United Nations to isolate the Iranian regime--from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, who['s] Quds Forces have rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.

Obama leaves no doubt what would be on the table should his diplomatic program fail to adequately cow the Iranians:

OBAMA: Finally, let there be no doubt, I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security, and our ally Israel. Do not be confused. (massive applause)

Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts. That is the change we need in our foreign policy--change that restores American power and influence--change accompanied by a pledge that I will make known to allies and adversaries alike, that American maintains an unwavering friendship with Israel, and an unshakable commitment to its security.

I'm going to provide only a brief analysis here. The major point is that given an "unshakable" U.S.-Israel alliance, the "side" the U.S. is on in Mideast diplomacy never can be perceived neutral. Iran is fully demonized and without legitimate concerns-- for example the covert action the U.S. has ordered through presidential finding. I'm not arguing that Iran does not have clandestine programs of it's own, it almost certainly does. It's just that when they do it, it's terrorism, but when U.S./Israel does it, it's just the legitimate activity of our highly esteemed special forces.

I've already offered an Iranian rationale for those willing to try understand the Iranian point of view on nuclear weapons. The American intelligence estimate shows that Iran does not care to possess such a weapon. Unlike Israel, Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. And unlike Israel, by all assessments, Iran does not now have a nuclear weapon. It doesn't have one, it stopped trying to develop one, but it does want to enrich its own uranium. Just that much is enough to force the U.S./Israel block to react.

Can it be so hard to imagine that this reaction is seen by the Iranians as a legitimate bargaining position, given the advanced nukes it has pointed at it? If not, because the U.S. cannot be neutral, the war Obama promises is "on the table" is in fact inevitable. I'll leave it there for now.

Walls
I found the section of Obama's speech dealing with the participation of Jews in the American civil rights movement quite inspiring. And hopeful. But, with a glaring contradiction--perhaps a purposeful, intentional one, I don't know how exactly to read this message. At one point well before this section, Obama made a brief and perhaps a halfhearted mention that Israel should curtail settlement activity. [to be continued]