CrosswordNewsletters
DAILY BEAST
ALL
  • Cheat Sheet
  • Obsessed
  • Politics
  • Crime
  • Entertainment
  • Media
  • Innovation
  • Opinion
  • World
  • U.S. News
  • Scouted
CHEAT SHEET
    POLITICS
    • Fever Dreams
    • Biden World
    • Elections
    • Opinion
    • National Security
    • Congress
    • Pay Dirt
    • The New Abnormal
    • Right Richter
    • Trumpland
    MEDIA
    • Confider
    • Daytime Talk
    • Late-Night
    • Fox News
    U.S. NEWS
    • Identities
    • Crime
    • Race
    • LGBT
    • Extremism
    • Coronavirus
    WORLD
    • Russia
    • Europe
    • China
    • Middle East
    INNOVATION
    • Science
    TRAVEL
      ENTERTAINMENT
      • TV
      • Movies
      • Music
      • Comedy
      • Sports
      • Sex
      • TDB's Obsessed
      • Awards Shows
      • The Last Laugh
      CULTURE
      • Power Trip
      • Fashion
      • Books
      • Royalist
      TECH
      • Disinformation
      SCOUTED
      • Clothing
      • Technology
      • Beauty
      • Home
      • Pets
      • Kitchen
      • Fitness
      • I'm Looking For
      BEST PICKS
      • Best VPNs
      • Best Gaming PCs
      • Best Air Fryers
      COUPONS
      • Vistaprint Coupons
      • Ulta Coupons
      • Office Depot Coupons
      • Adidas Promo Codes
      • Walmart Promo Codes
      • H&M Coupons
      • Spanx Promo Codes
      • StubHub Promo Codes
      Products
      NewslettersPodcastsCrosswordsSubscription
      FOLLOW US
      GOT A TIP?

      SEARCH

      HOMEPAGE
      0

      Senate Dims Green-Light For Israeli Attack

      AIPAC's Iran Push

      Ali Gharib on a Senate resolution pushing for America to back an Israeli attack on Iran.

      Ali Gharib

      Updated Jul. 11, 2017 11:21PM ET / Published Apr. 17, 2013 3:45PM ET 

      Manuel Balce Ceneta / AP Photo

      With unanimous consent from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a revised version of a resolution that originally sought to green-light any Israeli attack on Iran will now pass to the hands of the full Senate. With backing from the influential Israel lobby group AIPAC and 79 co-sponsors, the non-binding resolution looks poised to pass the upper chamber. While the new language assuages some fears about the original bill, the trajectory of the stated push by one of its hawkish co-authors, Lindsey Graham, seems decidedly on track to ratchet up tensions between Iran, and Israel and the United States.The most troubling clause of the resolution itself—one that pledged unconditional U.S. support, including "military" support, for an Israeli strike on Iran—was modified in a mark-up by the committee. Joel Rubin of the Ploughshares Fund noted to ThinkProgress that invoking the mark-up procedures was "relatively rare for this type of resolution"—perhaps spurred by harsh criticisms and activism by pro-peace groups. One of the latter groups, the liberal pro-Israel group Americans for Peace Now, which pressed its activists to get in touch with their representatives on the Hill, catalogued the changes in the new version in a press release:

      • It refers to “legitimate” self-defense, making clear that the U.S. will judge what is and is not genuinely an act of self-defense.
      • It explicitly narrows the scope of what would qualify as a legitimate act of self-defense to one taken against “Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” as opposed to any Iranian targets.
      • It makes clear that support for Israel in such a case must be in accordance with U.S. law, including constitutional requirements for Congressional authorization of use of force before committing the U.S. to any military action.

      The resolution was a centerpiece of AIPAC's legislative agenda coming out of its annual policy conference in March—one of the "asks" its own thousands of activists made of Members of Congress. Yesterday, the group reacted by praising the resolution's move to the full Senate and urging its passage, while never mentioning the language changes. The AIPAC press release added: "The resolution also reiterates that the policy of the United States is to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and to take such action as may be necessary to implement this policy." This is indeed the policy of Israel, and the policy of the Romney campaign, and the policy which Graham has pressed—on the same disingenuous grounds as AIPAC—upon the Obama administration, and the policy which the Congress adopted on Graham's heels. But neither Congress nor Netanyahu nor Mitt Romney set U.S. foreign policy: that's left up to the President of the United States. Barack Obama has been unequivocal that he will prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon; the Iranian nuclear "capability" drawing the ire of AIPAC, Netanyahu and Congress is ill-defined, except that it surely sets a lower threshold for war.

      To ignore this dynamic is precisely the point. As Scott McConnell wrote of the original version of the bill, the intent was "to broadcast the falsehood that the U.S. and Israel see the Iranian nuclear issue in exactly the same terms." It's perhaps most remarkable because it requires forgetting what happened just a few short months ago when the aforementioned forces—Congress, Netanyahu and Romeny—led respective campaigns to pressure Obama into making the shift from his own "red lines" to Bibi's, which he didn't. Papering over these lasting gaps, as Netanyahu and Obama did in Israel, doesn't make them disappear, but it does maintain for now the improbable illusion that the interests of these two nuclear-armed allies are perfectly aligned.

      Netanyahu, AIPAC and Graham's Congressional pushes do, however, present this kind of unity. And that's precisely why we ought to be worried. Graham told the Washington Post's neoconservative blogger Jen Rubin—herself a war hawk—his intentions when the resolution was first introduced in January: "You have to build a case,” he said. Rubin paraphrased: "Graham favor step-by-step [sic] approach," she wrote. "First, you rule out containment, then pledge support to Israel, and if that doesn’t work, tell Obama, 'Mr. President, here’s authorization'"—that is, the authorization for the use of military force. The resolution explicitly says it shouldn't be "construed as an authorization for the use of force or a declaration of war," but Graham's plan doesn't require an authorization now. He's saving that for later. It's safe to assume AIPAC is on board and, perhaps most consequentially, Netanyahu too.

      READ THIS LIST

      DAILY BEAST
      • Cheat Sheet
      • Politics
      • Entertainment
      • Media
      • World
      • Innovation
      • U.S. News
      • Scouted
      • Travel
      • Subscription
      • Crossword
      • Newsletters
      • Podcasts
      • About
      • Contact
      • Tips
      • Jobs
      • Advertise
      • Help
      • Privacy
      • Code of Ethics & Standards
      • Diversity
      • Terms & Conditions
      • Copyright & Trademark
      • Sitemap
      • Best Picks
      • Coupons
      • Coupons:
      • Dick's Sporting Goods Coupons
      • HP Coupon Codes
      • Chewy Promo Codes
      • Nordstrom Rack Coupons
      • NordVPN Coupons
      • JCPenny Coupons
      • Nordstrom Coupons
      • Samsung Promo Coupons
      • Home Depot Coupons
      • Hotwire Promo Codes
      • eBay Coupons
      • Ashley Furniture Promo Codes
      © 2023 The Daily Beast Company LLC