Image via RepublicReport.org
When the Geneva deal over Iran’s nuclear program was announced on Saturday night, reactions came in fast and furious–except from America’s foremost Israel lobby group. The silence didn’t last long, though. On November 25th, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) made its position known.
In a policy memo, AIPAC ran through the deal’s details and expressed considerable skepticism over an interim agreement that contains “implicit acceptance of Iranian enrichment.” But what they didn’t do is press for new and immediate sanctions on Iran over its enrichment program–which would violate the terms of the deal–as the lobbying group did in the weeks before the Geneva accord was reached.
AIPAC is playing the long game on sanctions. They can’t try to scuttle an interim agreement already reached with Iran, as distasteful as they find it. Much like the fight over Chuck Hagel, which AIPAC sat out lest it go head to head with an administration they need to work with, AIPAC is not pushing for immediate sanctions because it would set up a public confrontation with the Obama administration.
Instead, they’re pushing for sanctions that would be passed in the coming months but that would only kick in if Iran violates the interim agreement or if Iran does not agree to an “acceptable deal.” In other words, they’re saving their best for last: the far-reaching agreement that the West and Iran are attempting to forge over the next six months. As an AIPAC source told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s Ron Kampeas, “new sanctions legislation could help shape the outcome of a final-status deal.” The AIPAC memo hints at what the lobbying group wants in a final deal: denial of enrichment capacity for Iran, which would effectively amount to Iranian capitulation.
The memo criticizes the Geneva accord for allowing Iran to continue to have a nuclear program. AIPAC laments that Iran still retains the capacity to enrich uranium, though the Islamic Republic agreed to not enrich uranium above the 5 percent level, far from the much higher percentage of enriched uranium needed to build a nuclear bomb.
The heart of the memo is what AIPAC wants next. “The U.S. must ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapons capability. Any final agreement must deny Iran both uranium and plutonium paths to develop nuclear weapons,” the lobbying group states. “Congress should establish clear consequences—by legislating additional sanctions—should Iran violate this agreement or fail to agree to an acceptable final deal.”
In line with AIPAC, new sanctions legislation is being worked on by two of the lobby group’s closest Senate allies: Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ). According to the Associated Press’ Bradley Klapper, their efforts would require the Obama administration to certify that Iran is adhering to the Geneva deal every 30 days and that the state hasn’t been involved in terrorism against the U.S. Without that certification, sanctions relief would be lifted and new, more crippling sanctions on investments in Iran would be imposed.
It’s unclear whether President Obama would sign legislation with those provisions. The net effect of even having the legislation on the table, though, is to “shape” the final outcome of a far-reaching deal with Iran.
But if AIPAC has its way on the U.S. denying Iran enrichment capacity, Iran will walk away from the table. What comes next after that is more sanctions–and more escalation of the U.S.-Iran crisis.
P.S. Note that the ADL has taken a similar position. And the Forward reports that Jewish organizations have decided not to have an all-out fight with the administration over the deal.
I think it is clear Aipac wants to block any deal between the P5+1 and Iran, even if this badly injures the national security interests of the American people.
Given this break in the cycle, there may not be a long-game in AIPAC’s direction. They were fine as long as they could hold and shape the “Iran bad. Sanctions forever.” line before Iran was publicly portrayed as reasonable, but they lost that battle. The proverbial “barn door” scenario.
Agree. But that means significantly higher energy/gas costs. People are paying attention and are fed up with it. Business wants in on a significant “new” market, with history with, and affinity for US products.
There’s really no way for these groups to positively spin maintaining or increasing the sanctions, as long as Iran behaves modestly responsibly and constructively. I think they should try though. See what happens. Pop that balloon.
One question in all this is who Israel-via-AIPAC has on the inside in a position to influence the compliance “certification” process?
Great reporting. Thanks.
“The U.S. must ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapons capability. Any final agreement must deny Iran both uranium and plutonium paths to develop nuclear weapons,” the lobbying group states. “Congress should establish clear consequences—by legislating additional sanctions—should Iran violate this agreement or fail to agree to an acceptable final deal.”AIPAC.
The US must tell Israel/AIPAC to get lost and allow the adults to get on with the task of making peace.
This should be transmitted in a crystal clear message that includes “clear consequences if they keep butting in to the internal affairs of a Sovereign Nation.
Someone suggested that the US cancel one sanction against Iran every time Israel whines or their spokes persons attempt to condemn the process.
Maybe that will shut these tiresome b——-s up.
If Israel is serious about advocating a non-nuclear Middle East, it needs to put up or shut up regarding its own nuclear *weapons* capability.
AIPAC may well succeed. Remember it’s not just AIPAC. It’s the ADL, AJC, Conference of Presidents as well as individual donors like Haim Saban and others who have tremendous influence within the Democratic party. Cohen, the VP of Comcast, is another.
The lobby is going full force on this. The political strategy is sophisticated. However, they are all doing it out in the open. Even if they succeed, if their battle is sketched in the press every step of the way, will it be a phyrric victory? I’m guessing most people won’t care until/when the lobby seriously starts pushing for war. Then we’ll see sparks fly, making the Syria debate look like pancakes in comparison.