Two must-read analyses of the Iran portion from last night’s final presidential debate are brought to us by TIME’s Tony Karon and the Arms Control Association’s Greg Thielmann. (This TPM headline also sums up the entire debate quite nicely: “Romney’s Final Debate Message: I’ll Be A Better Obama”.)
Two must-read analyses of the Iran portion from last night’s final presidential debate are brought to us by TIME’s Tony Karon and the Arms Control Association’s Greg Thielmann. (This TPM headline also sums up the entire debate quite nicely: “Romney’s Final Debate Message: I’ll Be A Better Obama”.)
Karon writes that regardless of who wins the 2012 presidential election, the United States will consider direct talks with Iran:
“It is essential for us to understand what our mission is in Iran,” Romney said in Monday’s foreign policy debate, “and that is to dissuade Iran from having a nuclear weapon through peaceful and diplomatic means.” His leverage of choice: “crippling sanctions” with the threat of military action as a last resort should Iran cross a red line toward developing “nuclear-weapons capability.” That’s broadly the same policy the Obama Administration has followed. Asked to differentiate himself, in the debate, Romney didn’t even raise the ambiguous question of where to draw the red line. (Obama sets his red line for action at Iran moving to acquire a nuclear weapon; Romney uses the phrase nuclear-weapons capability – although it’s not exactly clear whether this means the capability to build nuclear weapons, which Iran perhaps already has in latent form, or the capability to rapidly assemble and deploy nuclear warheads atop missiles.) Instead Romney simply insisted he’d have imposed tighter sanctions sooner.
But inflexibility from both sides may prevent a peaceful resolution to the Iran-US impasse:
While he may be open to a genuine compromise, Khamenei can’t be seen to surrender on “nuclear rights” for which Iran has fought and suffered growing isolation over the past decade, notes University of Hawaii Iran scholar Farideh Farhi. “With the draconian economic measures imposed on Iran in the past year, the [domestic] political terrain makes quite impossible the acceptance of a deal that does not bring about some immediate, palpable, even if small, relaxation of the sanctions regime,” says Farhi. Imagining sanctions as an alternative to military action may be misleading, she argues, because Khamenei believes their purpose is regime change, and mounting economic pain could prompt the regime to become more reckless in its effort to break out of the noose.
(Interestingly, Romney previously dodged questions about meeting directly with Iran, but Benjamin Armbruster reports that Paul Ryan was on network morning shows today saying that Romney would engage in bilateral talks without preconditions [from the Iranians?]).
Thielmann, a former senior State Department intelligence analyst, meanwhile clarifies the candidates’ positions on Iran:
Obama concluded last night that: “There is a deal to be had, and that is that [the Iranians] abide by the rules that have already been established. They convince the international community they are not pursuing a nuclear [weapons] program. There are inspections that are very intrusive. But over time, what they can do is regain credibility. In the meantime, though, we’re not going to let up the pressure until we have clear evidence that that takes place.” At the same time, he warned that “the clock is ticking” and that he would not allow negotiations “to go on forever.”
For his part, Governor Romney appeared to tack away during the debate from his previous posture on Iran. Earlier, he had followed the lead of Israel’s prime minister, appearing more skeptical that any acceptable compromise could be reached with the current regime in Tehran and more willing to imply that unilateral military action would be taken sooner rather than later. Last night, Romney’s martial alarm was barely audible. Yet his avowed interest in diplomacy was belied by his call for treating Iran’s diplomats “as the pariahs they are.” It is difficult to negotiate constructively with those you are simultaneously labeling “pariahs.”
Both candidates appeared united in making one point about Iran policy options. Whatever the consequences of exercising the military option, they each signaled willingness ultimately to launch a preventive attack against Iran. This in spite of a near consensus among experts that, short of invasion and occupation, such an attack would not prevent but would bring about a nuclear-armed Iran.
]]>
In last night’s vice presidential debate moderated by ABC News’s Martha Raddatz, Vice President Joe Biden and GOP nominee Paul Ryan (R-WI) focused extensively on the Iranian nuclear program and the US-Israeli response to it. Ryan sought to portray Obama Administration’s public disagreements with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as [...]]]>
In last night’s vice presidential debate moderated by ABC News’s Martha Raddatz, Vice President Joe Biden and GOP nominee Paul Ryan (R-WI) focused extensively on the Iranian nuclear program and the US-Israeli response to it. Ryan sought to portray Obama Administration’s public disagreements with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as sending “mixed messages” to Tehran that would only encourage Iran to develop nuclear weapons, while Biden moved to attack the Congressman’s lack of foreign policy experience.
Ryan started off by reiterating the new Romney campaign red line: no nuclear weapons capability, a position endorsed by Congress and the Government of Israel:
RYAN: We cannot allow Iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability. Now, let’s take a look at where we’ve gone — come from. When Barack Obama was elected, they had enough fissile material — nuclear material to make one bomb. Now they have enough for five. They’re racing toward a nuclear weapon. They’re four years closer toward a nuclear weapons capability.
Ryan asserted that it has been the Republican Party, and not the White House, that has been the primary driver on the sanctions:
RYAN: Mitt Romney proposed these sanctions in 2007. In Congress, I’ve been fighting for these sanctions since 2009. The administration was blocking us every step of the way. Only because we had strong bipartisan support for these tough sanctions were we able to overrule their objections and put them in spite of the administration.
Imagine what would have happened if we had these sanctions in place earlier. You think Iran’s not brazen? Look at what they’re doing. They’re stepping up their terrorist attacks. They tried a terrorist attack in the United States last year when they tried to blow up the Saudi ambassador at a restaurant in Washington, D.C.
And talk about credibility? When this administration says that all options are on the table, they send out senior administration officials that send all these mixed signals.
The Vice President countered that the Republicans have been pushing too hard on sanctions that the rest of the world would refuse to support them:
BIDEN: It’s incredible. Look, imagine had we let the Republican Congress work out the sanctions. You think there’s any possibility the entire world would have joined us, Russia and China, all of our allies? These are the most crippling sanctions in the history of sanctions, period. Period.
When Governor Romney’s asked about it, he said, “We gotta keep these sanctions.” When he said, “Well, you’re talking about doing more,” what are you — you’re going to go to war? Is that what you want to do?
Biden also rounded on Ryan for the Romney campaign’s repeated suggestions that Obama is not serious about preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon should it choose to do so:
RYAN: We want to prevent war.
BIDEN: And the interesting thing is, how are they going to prevent war? How are they going to prevent war if they say there’s nothing more that we — that they say we should do than what we’ve already done, number one.
BIDEN: When my friend talks about fissile material, they have to take this highly enriched uranium, get it from 20 percent up, then they have to be able to have something to put it in. There is no weapon that the Iranians have at this point. Both the Israelis and we know — we’ll know if they start the process of building a weapon.
So all this bluster I keep hearing, all this loose talk, what are they talking about? Are you talking about, to be more credible — what more can the president do, stand before the United Nations, tell the whole world, directly communicate to the ayatollah, we will not let them acquire a nuclear weapon, period, unless he’s talking about going to war.
The two then clashed over Ryan’s (unsubstantiated) assertion that Iran is now “four years closer to a nuclear weapon”:
]]>BIDEN: … they are not four years closer to a nuclear weapon.
RYAN: Of course they are.
BIDEN: They’re — they’re closer to being able to get enough fissile material to put in a weapon if they had a weapon.
RADDATZ: You [Biden] are acting a little bit like they [the Iranians] don’t want one.
BIDEN: Oh, I didn’t say — no, I’m not saying that. But facts matter, Martha. You’re a foreign policy expert. Facts matter. All this loose talk about them, “All they have to do is get to enrich uranium in a certain amount and they have a weapon,” not true. Not true.
They are more — and if we ever have to take action, unlike when we took office, we will have the world behind us, and that matters. That matters.
RADDATZ: What about [former Secretary of Defense] Bob Gates’ statement? Let me read that again, “could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations.”
BIDEN: He is right. It could prove catastrophic, if we didn’t do it with precision.
Republican vice presidential designate Paul Ryan is in Las Vegas today to meet with casino magnate and would-be political kingmaker Sheldon Adelson. He will also hold a public rally and private fundraising event at the Adelson-owned Venetian. Laura Myers of the Las Vegas Review-Journal noted, “The Sands [...]]]>
Republican vice presidential designate Paul Ryan is in Las Vegas today to meet with casino magnate and would-be political kingmaker Sheldon Adelson. He will also hold a public rally and private fundraising event at the Adelson-owned Venetian. Laura Myers of the Las Vegas Review-Journal noted, “The Sands Corp. chief is a generous GOP donor who already has contributed $10 million to a political action committee, Restore Our Future, supporting Romney’s campaign.” The advocacy group, ProgressNow Nevada, has announced it will be holding a counter-rally.
In making his obeisance to the moneyman upon whom Mitt Romney is staking his political fortune (Romney’s paltry net worth of $250 million is only a tad over 10% of Adelson’s nearly $24.5 billion), Ryan will no doubt try to assure Adelson that they are on the same page about Israel, or rather, Adelson’s own view of what is good for Israel.
Ryan’s congressional website outlines his position on Israel under the header of National Security:
America has no better friend in the Middle East than the nation of Israel. Not only is Israel the region’s only fully functioning democracy, with a government based on popular consent and the rule of law, but it is also a valuable ally against Islamic extremism and terrorism. Our shared democratic values and national interests are supported by maintaining a close friendship with Israel. Americans also have a strong interest in Israel achieving a lasting peace with its neighbors – including the Palestinians.
Reasonable people – including those who live in the Middle East – differ about how the conflict between Israel and Palestine can be resolved. However, I believe at least one thing is clear: we cannot advocate for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that jeopardizes Israel’s safety or legitimizes terrorism. Hamas, which is one of the two major Palestinian political factions, is an Islamist terrorist group whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction, refuses to recognize Israel’s existence, and calls Osama Bin Laden a “martyr.”
While I do not have a role in the diplomatic discussions over the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, America should not pressure Israel to agree to a peace deal that is unlikely to result in peace and security. Real peace will require Palestinians to recognize that Israel has a right to exist, even as it will require two states for the two peoples. Introduced by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor on May 13, 2011, H. Res. 268 reaffirms the United States’ commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct negotiations. I co-sponsored this legislation, and it passed the House on July 7, 2011 by a vote of 407-13. I was also a cosponsor of H.R. 4133, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, also introduced by Majority Leader Eric Cantor, which passed the House on May 9, 2012 by a vote of 411-2. H.R. 4133 states that it is United States policy to reaffirm the commitment to Israel’s security as a state, provide Israel with the military capabilities to defend itself, expand military and civilian cooperation, assist in a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and encourage Israel’s neighbors to recognize its right to exist.
It should be noted that H.R. 268 had 356 co-sponsors and H.R. 4133 had 304. Legislation deemed to be “pro-Israel” (for better or for worse) almost invariably attracts bipartisan sponsorship and support, and passes the House by an overwhelming majority. As Haviv Rettig Gur writes in the Times of Israel:
…Ryan, like Romney himself, has little experience or visible record in dealing with foreign policy issues. He is a signatory to letters and bills presented by fellow members of Congress, especially from the Republican side of the aisle, which deal with Afghanistan, Pakistan, the UN, Israel, and other issues, but none of these was initiated by Ryan.
So, there is nothing particularly remarkable about Ryan’s voting record on foreign policy issues. Touting his record as a pro-Israel advocate, Ryan is grasping at straw, hoping to spin it into gold. It is noteworthy, however, that Ryan doesn’t go out of his way to draw pubic attention to the numerous House appropriations bills he’s voted in favor of that have included generous aid for Israel.
Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren recently met with Ryan and praised him for being “very supportive” of Israel. The Republican Jewish Coalition gleefully seized upon Oren’s approval of Ryan, depicting it as an enthusiastic endorsement:
…we are pleased that by picking Paul Ryan, Gov. Romney has opted for a running mate who has a record Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, has already praised as ‘very supportive’ of the Jewish state. Paul Ryan has earned appreciation from pro-Israel voters by rejecting the Obama administration’s tactic of pressuring Israel to make concessions its leaders believe will undermine its security – and he rightly insists that a rejection of violence and incitement on the Palestinian side is an essential precondition for a meaningful peace agreement.”
Right-wing Jewish news sites and blogs are cherry-picking and parsing Ryan’s pro-Israel platitudes and voting record. Ryan’s mention on his website of “reasonable people” differing about how to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is being ignored, as is Ryan’s reference to “two states for the two peoples.” Nevertheless, a criticism of Romney’s pro-Israel position published back in June, in the very conservative and orthodox-oriented Jewish Press, is equally applicable to Ryan’s position:
The Romney campaign literature states that “with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mitt’s policy will differ sharply from President Obama’s,” but continues to state that “as president, Mitt will reject any measure that would frustrate direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. He will make clear to the Palestinians that the unilateral attempt to decide issues that are designated for final negotiations by the Oslo Accords is unacceptable.”
Essentially, it means that Romney endorses Oslo, but with a better behaved Palestinian partner. And although his campaign threatens that “the United States will reduce assistance to the Palestinians if they continue to pursue United Nations recognition or form a unity government that includes Hamas,” it still envisions a reality in which a more compliant Palestinian Authority will be rewarded with a state.
In other words, any “two-state solution” is unacceptable to right wing Jews. This includes Adelson, who told Jewish Week editor Gary Rosenblatt that “the two-state solution is a stepping stone for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people”, and that he sees no distinction between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.
Also being politely overlooked is Ryan’s silence and evident lack of enthusiasm about Israel or the U.S. attacking Iran. Ryan has, like the overwhelming majority of members of Congress, consistently voted in favor of increasingly stringent Iran sanctions. Nonetheless, Matt Yglesias of The American Prospect points out that in a foreign policy speech to the Alexander Hamilton Society on June 2, while Ryan “called for America to ‘speak boldly for those whose voices are denied by the jackbooted thugs of the tired tyrants of Syria and Iran,’ he did so without embracing neoconservative demands for military action.” In the same speech, Ryan mentioned Israel only once: “What we can do is affirm our commitment to democracy in the region by standing in solidarity with our longstanding allies in Israel and our new partners in Iraq.”
In a joint interview on CBS’s Sixty Minutes this past Sunday, the subject of Israel never came up, while Iran came up once in passing. Romney described Ryan to Bob Schieffer — who had been gently blowing puffball questions at the political newlyweds — as a “…policy guy. People know him as a policy guy. That’s one of the reasons he has such respect on both sides of the aisle.” Romney also tried to attach the “policy guy” description to himself: “…believe it or not. I love policy. I love solving tough problems. And we face real challenges around the world, places like Syria, Egypt, Iran.”
Neither Romney nor Ryan offered any clue as to how either of these two policy guys would deal with the “challenges” Romney alluded to during the interview. In response, Schieffer quickly returned the feel-good interview to chatter about Ryan’s role in the upcoming campaign.
Haviv Rettig Gur offers what is probably the most clear-eyed assessment about the real impact of Middle East foreign policy questions on the 2012 presidential election:
While Israel’s media is currently in the grip of a government leak-fueled obsession with the question of whether Israel is about to strike Iran — and whether the US can be relied upon to thwart an Iranian bomb if Israel holds its fire — even this issue, with its potential to prompt radical regional drama, isn’t figuring in the presidential campaign.
Barring significant developments, such as an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, it is likely that Israel, or any foreign policy agenda, is now tabled for the duration of the campaign. The American people are simply not listening. The Romney campaign now views foreign policy differences as a distraction from the business of hammering the president on the economy, and the Obama campaign can’t afford to get distracted from the battle to control the narrative on the country’s economic and fiscal woes.
Except when it means spinning straw into gold.
]]>