Fair and Unbalanced

Mike Littwin

"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles."

Littwin: Bibi came, wowed Republicans, offered no plan

Littwin: Bibi came, wowed Republicans, offered no plan

If you look past the Democratic boycott and past the GOP’s fawning Bibi BFF love-fest and past the regrettable fact of a Joe Biden-free joint session, it was pretty much like any other day at the Republican-controlled Congress.

Benjamin Netanyahu certainly fit right in. Like the Republicans, he doesn’t like what Barack Obama is doing. Like the Republicans, he doesn’t have a viable alternative to what Obama is doing. Like the Republicans, Netanyahu believes that stopping Obama is always the answer to the question, and then, you know, we’ll just see.

If Bibi had taken a shot at Hillary Clinton Tuesday morning, I think he could have run away with the Republican nomination. Yes, he was born in Tel Aviv, but he went to high school in Philly and college at MIT, and if your name isn’t Obama, isn’t that close enough?

If Bibi had taken a shot at Hillary Clinton, I think he could have run away with the Republican nomination.

He’s got qualifications. He’s strong. (You think Jeb Bush is strong?) He’s a good speaker. (I’m sure Scott Walker was furiously taking down notes.) He knows his sound bites — “When it comes to Iran or ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.” (Ted Cruz could only look on with envy. Of course, ISIS and Iran are the same, and while we’re at it, let’s bring out the “axis of evil.”)

The speech accomplished many things. It probably helped Netanyahu back home where there’s an upcoming election in which he’s reportedly in some trouble. It gave John Boehner some cover to say the House will pass a clean funding bill. And it almost certainly deepened the divide between Netanyahu and Obama, despite the brief and winking praise of Obama near the top of the speech. Soon, Netanyahu would get to his point — and I’ll paraphrase here — that Obama is naive in the ways of the world and that, in his ignorance, he is selling out Israel’s very existence. No wonder the Republicans went wild in their response.

Netanyahu has long buddied up to the party that the great majority of American Jews have repeatedly rejected. But if he smiled Mitt Romney’s way, that was just a flirtation. This is different. Netanyahu can appeal to fawning Republicans all he likes, but, in the real world, the president is a Democrat and the Democratic president — whose administration is currently negotiating with Iran along with the other major world actors — is the one who will actually make the call. Does it really help Netanyahu’s cause to recruit a Republican Congress as his cheerleaders?

Let’s get to the basis of Netanyahu’s argument — that the deal Obama is negotiating is worse than no deal. I haven’t seen many experts praising the outlines of the deal. There is legitimate concern that Obama so much wants to negotiate an agreement that he’ll settle too easily. It’s certain that America’s partners in this negotiation are less hardline than Obama.

But here’s Netanyahu’s alternative plan: Unless Iran gives up its entire nuclear program, removing itself forevermore from nuclear ambition, and unless it renounces the vicious anti-Semitic, we-will-bury-you, anti-Israeli rhetoric Iranian leaders regularly spew, there should be no agreement. He says that if America and the West even further tighten sanctions that that should be enough, and Iran will eventually crumble.

Unfortunately, the argument makes no sense. As the inimitable Jeffrey Greenberg points out, Netanyahu likes to call Iranian leaders a “messianic apocalyptic cult.” Do messianic apocalyptic cults crumble in the face of sanctions? Facing the current level of sanctions, the messianic apocalyptic cult has built 19,000 centrifuges. Facing the current level of sanctions, Iran and the cultists are a major player, and not in a good way, throughout the region.

Whatever Netanyahu thinks, I’m pretty sure Obama’s team is aware of all the pitfalls and the actual danger that Iran poses — and has posed for many years. What Obama is looking for is a way to contain Iran, which depends on the fact that Iran is a rational player, and prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power over the next 10 or 15 years.

As Peter Beinart says in the Atlantic, Obama is not alone. He writes:

That’s why the Bush administration’s 2007 National Intelligence Estimate said Iran is “guided by a cost-benefit approach.” It’s why Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in 2012 that “we are of the opinion that Iran is a rational actor.” It’s why Benny Gantz, then head of the Israel Defense Forces, declared the same year that “the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people.”

And so on.  

But if Iran can never be trusted to stick to a deal, if Iran can never be deterred, if Iran truly is a suicidal cult certain to rain down its bombs on Israel, what is the alternative? There’s only one — to bomb Iran out of the bomb business. No one knows if that is even possible, given all the sites that would have to be taken out — and the likelihood that Iran could simply rebuild. But what’s pretty clear is that we, the United States, would have to play a role in that. A large role. With probably large consequences.

Netanyahu gave a good, effective speech. But if you agree with him and you don’t like Obama’s plan, you might actually want to consider the real alternative before you stand up to applaud.

[ Screenshot: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressing Congress, 2015.]

Like this story? Steal it! Feel free to republish it in part or in full, just please give credit to The Colorado Independent and add a link to the original.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

About the Author

Mike Littwin

He has covered Dr. J, four presidential inaugurations, six national conventions and countless brain-numbing speeches in the New Hampshire and Iowa snow.
mlittwin@coloradoindependent.com | Twitter @mike_littwin


  1. Don Lopez on said:

    It’s not unusual that Mr. Littwin failed to embrace any of the strategies designed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

    Nor is it unusual for Mr. Littwin to fail to proffer a viable alternative.

    What is unusual is the number of questions this very unserious column left unanswered. For example:

    – Does Mr. Littwin believe preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is vital to the interests of the United States and its allies?
    – Does Mr. Littwin consider Israel an American ally?
    – Would Mr. Littwin support giving Israel aid (financial, materiel, troops) should Israel be attacked by one of its neighbors?
    – Would Mr. Littwin support giving Israel aid (financial, materiel, troops) should Israel use military force to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons?
    – Does Mr. Littwin trust Iran to keep its part of a negotiated agreement?
    – What actions would Mr. Littwin support if Iran were to break a negotiated agreement?
    – Under what conditions would Mr. Littwin support the use of American military force to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Just kidding, I already know that answer.

    I don’t expect Mr. Littwin to provide answers anytime soon but fortunately 8 million Israelis don’t have to rely on him for answers. They have Prime Minister Netanyahu who is resolute in his determination to eliminate any threat to either the Israeli people or Israel’s existence.

    The Justice Department announced Tuesday that it had closed its investigation into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin and would not bring federal civil rights charges against George Zimmerman.
    NBC News February 24, 2015

     “Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer (Darren Wilson) involved in the fatal shooting of an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday. The federal investigation did not uncover any facts that differed significantly from the evidence made public by the authorities in Missouri late last year. ” New York Times January 21, 2015

    “It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you’ve got a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.”
    President Obama redefining “randomly”

    “’Cause I don’t have no use
    For what you loosely call the truth” – Tina Turner

    Wounded Warrior Project
    Memorial Day – May 25, 2015

Leave a Response

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>