A random photograph

And this is the country, Phil, we live in with so much freedom and opportunity–nothing immutable about America either:

Washington Is Worth a War: Obama, Iran, and the Israel Lobby
By Stephen J. Sniegoski

When, in 1593, Henry of Navarre converted from Protestantism to
Catholicism in order to become king of a united France, he is reputed to
have said: “Paris is worth a mass.” For President Obama, as Robert Wright
points out in his article, “Obama’s Drift Toward War With Iran” in “The
Atlantic” magazine (June 14), his re-election to the presidency would seem
to be worth a war. Wright, a senior editor of “The Atlantic,” writes: “The
most undercovered story in Washington is how President Obama, under the
influence of election-year politics, is letting America drift toward war
with Iran.” Wright notes that “There are things Obama could do to greatly
increase the chances of a negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear
problem, but he seems to have decided that doing them would bring political
blowback that would reduce his chances of re-election.” And the blowback
Obama fears is “largely from Bibi Netanyahu, AIPAC, and other ‘pro-Israel’
voices.” In short, Obama fears the Israel Lobby more than he opposes a war
that would be unnecessary and also of unknown, but possibly immense,
consequences.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/obamas-drift-toward
-war-with-iran/258433/
http://bit.ly/KFRdu9

It is apparent that Obama does not want war with Iran, and he is certainly
being pilloried by neocons and other members of the Israel Lobby along with
Republican hawks for his alleged appeasement of that country, but although
he may eschew outright war measures, the fear of the Israel Lobby causes
his administration to pursue an inflexible, pro-Israel hard-line diplomacy
toward Iran on the nuclear issue that does not include any real quid pro
quo; the diplomatic process has been simply geared to demanding that Iran
make concessions, with no reciprocation being offered by the United States
and its allies.

The United States is unwilling to offer Iran any significant relief from
the draconian sanctions imposed on it “even in exchange for Iranian
concessions that would have moved the world further away from war,” in
Wright’s words. Most significantly, “Those concessions would have included
Iran’s ceasing production of uranium enriched to 20-percent levels.”
Weapons grade uranium is 90 percent enriched, but Western officials have
been expressed the dire concern that the 20 percent enrichment version,
which is used for medical research purposes, could quickly be converted
into nuclear weapons-grade material. (Much lower enrichment levels are used
for peaceful nuclear power.) Such an Iranian concession would thus be in
line with America’s near-term goal of preventing the 20 percent enrichment
and would reduce the chances of war. Even if Romney should be elected
president, it would be politically more difficult for him to launch an
attack, if he so desired; and, if should he think otherwise, it would
provide him with more justification not to do it.

Wright’s reasoning appears to be perfectly sound. President Obama
definitely would seem to have the power to greatly reduce the chances of
war with Iran, if he so desired. And Wright also is on the mark when he
labels Obama’s willingness to improve his election chances by “imperiling
peace and America’s security” as a “little scandalous, ” and that it is
even “more scandalous” that people in the “Washington establishment” do not
complain about it. But Wright also adds the highly questionable claim that
the blowback Obama fears “is probably less forbidding than he assumes. And
the political upside of successful statesmanship may be greater than he
realizes.”

However, though the Israel Lobby is not all-powerful, its staunch
opposition would be sufficient to tip the scales against Obama in a close
election. It should be pointed out that the only two recent US presidents
who lost re-election bids-Jimmy Carter (1980) and George H.W. Bush
(1992)-had taken positions antithetical to those of the Israel Lobby and
drew its full ire. In short, in political terms Obama’s fear of the Israel
Lobby is perfectly reasonable for a politician concerned about winning
elections, which would seem to be the case for most politicians. And it is
obvious that almost all elected politicians act in this manner toward the
Israel Lobby-as clearly indicated by the votes in Congress and the extreme
pro-Israel rhetoric of most of the Republican presidential candidates this
year.

And to make the political power of Israel crystal clear to Obama,
multi-billionaire Zionist Sheldon Adelson, who during the Republican
primaries had single-handedly kept Newt Gingrich in the race, has pledged to
spend $100 million or more to defeat President Obama. Adelson is an
ultra-hard-line Likudnik hawk, but Obama must realize that there are many
more less-ardent pro-Israel magnates who would come out openly against his
re-election if he should dare to make an open effort to establish peace
with Iran, currently Israel’s foremost enemy.

Moreover, a contingency which Wright neglects to consider is that if it
appears that Obama is falling behind Romney in the polls, which is
completely possible given the state of the economy (and some current polls
actually show Romney slightly ahead in the nation-wide popular vote),
involvement in a war with Iran could likely enable him to snatch victory
from the jaws of defeat-the American people patriotically uniting behind the
President in wartime.

Phil Weiss, a very courageous American Jew who dares to openly oppose the
Israel Lobby, looks at Wright’s article in a very different light. He
finds the very fact that a mainstream individual in a mainstream publication
would dare to make mention of the Israel Lobby to be an issue of utmost
significance. He writes: “I believe this is a new consensus: outspoken
Americans are actually building a new understanding in the global discourse,
that the United States is hamstrung by the special relationship with
Israel.”
https://mondoweiss.mystagingwebsite.com/2012/06/wright-obama-is-drifting-toward-war-with-iran-
out-of-pathetic-fear-of-blowback-from-the-lobby.html
http://bit.ly/LSc1Ci

If there were such a consensus, Obama and other politicians would begin to
stand up against the policies advocated by the Israel Lobby. But the fact
is that nothing approaching a “consensus” of “outspoken Americans”
opposing the Israel Lobby has emerged, as Wright appropriately notes when
he refers to the issue of Iran and the Israel Lobby as the “most
undercovered story in Washington.”

So it would appear that President Obama will continue his policy of “drift
toward war with Iran,” at least until after the November election. Should
he be re-elected, perhaps he would change in his second term, but he still
must consider the effect such a move would have on the political success of
his second term, his legacy, and, as a relatively young man, his career
after the presidency, all of which could be seriously jeopardized by his
taking positions that run afoul of the Israel Lobby.

Best,
Stephen Sniegoski
http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal

Our votes in the Fall won’t matter at all.