June 12, 2008
Attending the annual AIPAC Policy Conference can make one believe that the entire foreign policy universe of the United States revolves around Israel and America’s relationship with Israel. It is remarkable how successful the Jewish community has become in attracting the attention of virtually all of Washington’s movers and shakers — or their surrogates — to this annual conference. The major national newspapers give the conference speeches and issues prominent coverage as well. This year some of the national TV networks carried live the appearances of the two presumptive presidential nominees.
The 7,000 attendees at this year’s June 2-4 gathering heard all the usual messages of support for Israel, foreign aid, qualitative edge in weapons, support for the war against terror, etc. There was one issue, however, that dominated the remarks of every speaker, from Sen. John McCain to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and all the House and Senate leaders: the potential threat posed by Iran to Israel, the region, and the world.
While the focus is extremely relevant, it is not entirely clear that pointing fingers at Iran at the AIPAC policy conference will have any more effect on Iran and the international community’s readiness to seriously confront Iran than it has until now. Lip service to the importance of the issue and the seriousness of the threat solves nothing. There are serious concerns here that heated rhetoric will not address. Furthermore, postponing action until the next administration takes office may be a postponement without hope.
There are four players, all of whom were heard at the AIPAC event, who need to make hard decisions about Iran.
• For the Bush administration, continuing to make idle threats and issue vain talk will result only in additional egg on the president’s face for foreign policy ineptitude. Diplomatic pressure must yield to rapid agreements and implementation of economic boycotts and sanctions. UN demands for inspections must be agreed upon. Failure to accept inspections must also produce unified, multilateral action. There must be a U.S.-led cut-off of private and public funds to Iran, to their banking institutions, and to any oil-related industry. The administration must demand from the Arab world (read: the Saudis) participation in sanctions and economic boycotts aimed at Iran, as the cost for a continued U.S. presence and protection of their interests. All of this must be accomplished on a multilateral basis with an explicitly stated willingness to use force, if necessary, if the international community is seriously interested in preventing Iran from becoming nuclear.
• For McCain, the job is simpler on its face but politically much harder. He has to pursue similar demands and not tolerate the Bush administration’s dragging its heels. McCain should require that this problem be addressed before the election, so he can ride on Bush’s success without having to take responsibility should it fail. He must walk a clear line of separation on this issue or permit it to become another policy on which he will be skewered for being “Bush III.”
• Obama has the luxury of being able to critique the Bush administration and/or McCain’s ambivalence without having to take any responsibility for possible failures. He can sound the “fire bell in the night” without bearing responsibility for failures. Should the Bush administration succeed, Obama will be able to confirm his own commitment and call for decisive action.
• For Israel, time increases its vulnerability. While the United States and the West have serious concerns about the threat posed by Iran, it is Israel that feels most directly the potential existential threat that is perceived to be virtually in place. Israel does not have the clout to create a worldwide coalition to oppose Iran; it is beholden to the rest of the world to form a multilateral front to prevent Iran’s going nuclear. Israel’s one real option is a military one and that is not only dangerous, but fraught with complex strategic and tactical military considerations — and, for Israel, extremely costly.
While AIPAC policy conference attendees may have felt excited by the hoopla and the attention that Israel and its American supporters received, it was the 10-ton elephant of Iran in the room that cries out for immediate attention. The American people are war-weary and the lame-duck Bush administration has virtually no leverage, clout, or respect. Assuming that what was said about the Iranian threat to Israel and the world is accurate, then this is the moment for this glittering array of political leaders and government officials to put action — on behalf of the world as well as Israel — into their words.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn is a professor of political science at Kean University in Union.
- Comment: comments@njjewishnews.com
