The crux of the battle in Capitol Hill between the Obama administration and a large and powerful faction in Congress is not solely about the Iran nuclear deal. Although the deal undoubtedly shapes part of the conflict, it is framed more so by the tensions arising from the world views of the two camps: the pro-Israel faction, and their opposing faction led by the Obama administration, which relentlessly attempts to disentangle United States foreign policy from the decades-long influence of the Israel lobby.
In an unprecedented academic move in 2006, two distinguished international relations scientists — Harvard University’s Stephen Walt and the University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer — published an essay, later expanded into a book, arguing that “no lobby has managed to divert” US foreign policy “as far from what the national interest would suggest” as the Israel lobby has done.
The bottom line, they argued, is that “Israel’s enemies get weakened or overthrown... and the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding and paying”.
Before Barack Obama, George H.W. Bush was the last president to publicly criticise the Israel lobby. In a conference in September 1991, he said that “he was up against some powerful political forces”. He added, “There are 1,000 lobbyists up on the Hill today lobbying Congress for loan guarantees for Israel and I’m one lonely little guy down here asking Congress to delay its consideration of loan guarantees for 120 days.”
The story was that Israel was seeking $10 billion (Dh36.7 billion) in loan guarantees from Washington. Bush wanted then Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir to promise not to use the loan guarantees towards expanding Jewish colonies in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Shamir would make no such promise.
Bush’s confrontation with Shamir and the Israeli lobby ensured a failed re-election effort in 1992.
When addressing American politicians, the tone of Israeli leaders has at times been a clear depiction of the tail trying to wag the dog.
Before the second Iraq invasion, then Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon told US undersecretary of state John Bolton that Israel was concerned about the security threat posed by Iran. According to Haaretz, Sharon “stressed that it was important to deal with Iran even while American attention was focused on Iraq”.
In 2012, after decades of the Israeli lobby effectively influencing the outcome of US elections, something unprecedented happened. Obama, the candidate who openly collided with the lobby head-on, won the election. Perhaps even more exceptional was that Obama secured the presidency despite Israel and its lobby’s relentless efforts to support his rival, Mitt Romney.
According to some US officials, during that election campaign, the Israeli prime minister’s actions looked to Obama and his aides like “crude, vulgar and unrestrained intervention in the US election campaign”.
From that point on, US-Israel relations took a dramatic turn.
As soon as negotiations for reaching a nuclear agreement with Iran began in 2013, the conflict between the US administration and the Israeli government intensified to new heights. Meanwhile, the US establishment became increasingly fragmented along the fault line of the Iran nuclear deal and Israel’s interests. Even some high-ranking Democrats such as Chuck Schumer, who has been thought to be next in line for a top Democratic leadership position, abandoned the Obama camp and joined those who oppose the deal in the Congress.
As hostility peaked between the two sides in March over a nuclear agreement with Tehran, Netanyahu’s speech before the US Congress only led to a further breakdown of relations between Israel and the US. Netanyahu’s remarks in opposition to the Iran deal also deepened the rift between the two camps within the US establishment.
In an August 9 interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Obama, amid a fierce battle with the pro-Israel lobby regarding congressional votes on the Iran nuclear deal, said that Israeli interference in internal US affairs was unparalleled.
The reality is that Israel and its lobby constantly seek to establish a perpetual stalemate with Iran that could potentially lead to a war with the country, albeit fought by Americans. The opposite camp, led by Obama, has strenuously resisted this campaign.
British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, realising the urgency of the situation, told the British parliament in July, “The question you have to ask yourself is what kind of a deal would have been welcomed in Tel Aviv. The answer of course is that Israel doesn’t want any deal with Iran... Israel wants a permanent state of standoff.”
During a historic August 5 speech at American University, Obama said, “Between now and the congressional vote in September, you’re going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising. And if the rhetoric in these ads, and the accompanying commentary, sounds familiar, it should — for many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.”
He added, “Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any US administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option — another war in the Middle East... I say this not to be provocative. I am stating a fact. Without this deal, Iran will be in a position — however tough our rhetoric may be — to steadily advance its capabilities. Its breakout time, which is already fairly small, could shrink to near zero. Does anyone really doubt that the same voices now raised against this deal will be demanding that whoever is President bomb those nuclear facilities?”
In his speech, Obama made a reference rare for an American president. He said, “On the other hand, I do think it’s important to acknowledge another, more understandable motivation behind the opposition to this deal, or at least scepticism to this deal, and that is a sincere affinity for our friend and ally, Israel.”
Obama told Americans that it is “abrogation of my constitutional duty” to defer to Israel on the Iran deal.
Obama seeks to convey to Americans that he wants to end the decades-old trajectory of US foreign policy where Israel’s interests are able to determine US foreign policy, even if the American interests are at a high stake. For this reason, the outcome of the battle over the Iran nuclear deal could be a turning point.
A victory for Obama and like-minded politicians in the US establishment would be a second blow to the Israel lobby after losing the battle in the 2012 elections. It would be a spectacular evidence, potentially establishing a new era in US foreign policy, that the tail will no longer wag the dog.
Will Obama succeed in bringing this monumental change even if he defeats his opponents over the Iran nuclear deal? It is a possibility, but determining with absolute certainty whether it can be done is hard to say. At a time when a congressional seat comes with a $10-million (Dh36.7 million) price tag, the US Congress is precisely the place where the power of the Israel lobby can be projected.
Shahir ShahidSaless is a political analyst and freelance journalist writing primarily about Iranian domestic and foreign affairs. He is also the co-author of Iran and the United States: An Insider’s View on the Failed Past and the Road to Peace, published in May 2014. He lives in Canada.
