The ‘central issue’ of American policy that Shamai Leibowitz thought we had a right to know

The key paragraph in the New York Times story about former FBI translator Shamai Leibowitz leaking classified wiretaps of the Israeli embassy to blogger Richard Silverstein is this one:

The men shared a concern about repercussions from a possible Israeli airstrike on nuclear facilities in Iran. From his F.B.I. work from January to August of 2009, Mr. Leibowitz also believed that Israeli diplomats’ efforts to influence Congress and shape American public opinion were excessive and improper, Mr. Silverstein said.

Silverstein then goes on to praise Leibowitz as a whistleblower determined to stop a war.

I think he's right, and that there is evidence for Leibowitz's concern in Wikileaks cables from the State Department.

One cable reveals that ten days after the 2008 election in which Obama defeated McCain, Stewart Levey, the under secretary of Treasury under Bush, flew out to Israel to make a commitment to the Israelis that our Iran policy would not change under Obama.

National Security Council (NCS) Chairman, Dani Arditi, in a November 16 meeting with U/S Stuart Levey, asked whether Levey thought his efforts would continue into the next U.S. administration. Even though he said he planned to resign as required in January, Levey told Arditi that he believed the Obama team would be committed to continuing the ambitious program against terrorism finance that he has shepherded over the last several years. Saying counter- terrorism finance was not a partisan issue in the U.S., Levey subsequently confirmed these sentiments to Foreign Minister (FM) Tzipi Livni and Mossad Director Meir Dagan in separate meetings that occurred on the following day, November 17.

Consider: Here is a political appointee in the Bush administration rushing out to Israel to make a commitment to the highest officials there (the Mossad director, the Foreign Minister, and National Security chairman) that the next American administration will not change Bush policies. No, these policies are not partisan.  

I would guess that Stuart Levey had talked to Obama personally before making this commitment. The two surely knew one another. They were at Harvard Law School together for a year, and indeed, two months after Levey's visit to Israel, Obama reappointed him to the same high-ranking political job in his new administration.

But the question here is, What was Levey afraid of that he rushed out to Israel? And I think he was afraid of just what Shamai Leibowitz was afraid of in the months to come, that Israel would launch a strike against Iran.

You can see that concern in Levey's nearly-craven responses to the Israelis [more excerpts at the end of this post], which I am guessing were provided to him by Obama himself. 

And the great pity of this whole question is this: That the American people have no clue about any of this. No, it's not a partisan issue. That means we are not permitted to discuss the American-Israel war policy openly.

More from the cable:

FM [Foreign Minister Tzipi] Livni asked Levey during their November 17 meeting why the USG was considering a rapprochement with Iran through a U.S. Interests section in Tehran. ... Levey told Livni that this was a question better posed to the State Department, but that her concern was the central issue being debated by policy makers in Washington.

Read that again:

that her concern [about "rapprochement" with Iran] was the central issue being debated by policy makers in Washington

The United States had just been through an election in which this issue was not openly discussed. Yes Obama was for engaging Iran, and McCain slammed him for it. But if it was the "central issue" for policymakers in Washington, voters didn't have a clue.

And meanwhile, this was The Central Issue for policymakers-- and why, I believe they feared Israel was going to start a war. The war Shamai Leibowitz was trying to stop, and Stuart Levey too, and Barack Obama, too, each in his own way. It's my theory that stopping an Israeli strike is one of the main reasons that Obama has capitulated to the Israelis again and again on the Palestinian issues. And why Stuart Levey ran around the world for years clamping down on the Iranian banking system. (That and his love of Israel, but I'll be getting to that in days to come...)

Shamai Leibowitz wanted an open, democratic discussion of these most important issues. According to Richard Silverstein, Leibowitz thought that Israeli diplomats were doing their utmost to manipulate the American congress and American public opinion. So he wanted the information out there, so Americans could talk about it.

Shamai Leibowitz, grandson of a great Israeli religious philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz. God bless him.

From the December cable on Levey's visit to Israel after the 2008 election:

In a visit to Israel on 16-17 November, Treasury Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, Stuart A. Levey, reassured GOI officials that no momentum would be lost in USG efforts to combat terrorist financing or to pressure Iran during the transition to a new US administration in January. In meetings with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Mossad Director Meir Dagan, National Security Council Chairman Dani Arditi, and others, U/S Levey emphasized recent U.S. designations against the Union of Good, the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), and the recent revocation of Iran's "U-Turn" license. In response to GOI officials' pressure to have the U.S. designate the Central Bank of Iran (CBI), Levey underscored the importance of international, multilateral concurrence for such an effort to be a success....

National Security Council (NCS) Chairman, Dani Arditi, in a November 16 meeting with U/S Stuart Levey, asked whether Levey thought his efforts would continue into the next U.S. administration. Even though he said he planned to resign as required in January, Levey told Arditi that he believed the Obama team would be committed to continuing the ambitious program against terrorism finance that he has shepherded over the last several years. Saying counter- terrorism finance was not a partisan issue in the U.S., Levey subsequently confirmed these sentiments to Foreign Minister (FM) Tzipi Livni and Mossad Director Meir Dagan in separate meetings that occurred on the following day, November 17...

15.(S) FM Livni asked Levey during their November 17 meeting why the USG was considering a rapprochement with Iran through a U.S. Interests section in Tehran. She questioned whether the tactic would have a net positive outcome when measured against the negative perceptions such a move would be bound to create. Levey told Livni that this was a question better posed to the State Department, but that her concern was the central issue being debated by policy makers in Washington. In Levey's previous meeting with MFA officials Bar and Gal, he said that engagement with Iran would not work without leverage, indicating that sanctions would need to be in place no matter what the USG decides to do.