Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, took time away from a tough reelection campaign in his home country to address a joint session of Congress on the topic of Iran. The lead up to the speech has been controversial, even if the content of the speech was not. In it, Netanyahu laid out a precise case against the current nuclear arms treaty with Iran, which President Obama hopes will be his signature foreign policy achievement.
Prime Minister Netanyahu received the invitation from the Speaker of the House, not from the President. After years of watching President Obama encroach on the Constitutional powers given to Congress, Speaker Boehner saw an opportunity to embarrass the President on foreign policy. There is little doubt that the Speaker's motivation was, in part, to embarrass Obama. There is also little doubt that President Obama is embarrassed. He should be. Prime Minister Netanyahu persuasively presented his case against Iran in a way that President Obama has not. He demonstrated a command of the issues, a superior understanding of the players and their motivations, and provided crucial historical context. While it was not quite Churchill, it was a good speech.
It was, however, a Churchill moment. Shortly after World War II ended, Winston Churchill lost his bid for reelection. Embarrassed but undeterred, he was invited to give a speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. President Truman was in attendance. In that speech, Churchill famously laid out the case against the emerging Soviet threat, announcing that an "Iron Curtain" had fallen across Europe. His speech foreshadowed decades of cold war and pinned upon the Soviets the shameful label of world menace for generations to come.
Churchill was an effective leader because he was prescient and because of his unique ability to explain threats in clear terms. He was never afraid to see things for what they are. Throughout his political career, his clear vision and sharp analysis were ignored by political rivals, most of whom were later embarrassed when his dire predictions came to fruition. Churchill often took principled but unpopular positions because, in his view, the alternative was unacceptable. Had his peers listened at the time, the world would have been a very different place. These Churchillian moments became historically important only because his advice was ignored and the consequences suffered. In a nuclear world, however, we cannot make that mistake again.
Iran wants nuclear weapons and it is on the verge, according to all parties involved, of developing those weapons. Prime Minster Netanyahu correctly pointed out the obvious: Militant Islamic regimes that believe they have a religious obligation to use weapons of mass destruction on non-believers should not possess any nuclear capability - ever. The current nuclear deal would only delay the inevitable. It has an automatic expiration date just ten years from its inception. Under the terms of the deal, Iran would then be free to legally develop nuclear weapons, and they would possess the means with which to do that in less than one year. Eleven years is not a long time. Where were you eleven years ago? For most people, that seems like just yesterday. The more appropriate question, however, is this: How old will your children be in eleven years? Now imagine a world in which the Ayatollah can attend a nuclear weapons test right after his weekly "Death to America" rally in Tehran. I think most Americans would agree that this should be avoided at almost any cost.
The Prime Minister had to point out the obvious because many in this country would rather just ignore it. Iran is run by a dark and insidious regime that oppresses its people and menaces the peaceful nations of the world. It is the largest sponsor of terrorism in the world. Intelligence reports that only recently have been released show that Iran was working with Al Qaeda and even Osama Bin Laden himself to attack the West. Iran is our enemy and they cannot be allowed to develop the technology necessary to build a bomb. It is impossible to overstate the threat.
Liberal Democrats boycotted the speech because they did not like the circumstances surrounding the invitation. To the extent the President was embarrassed by the speech or the invitation, he has brought that embarrassment on himself. He has had six years to pursue his engagement strategy. During that time, he has chosen to denigrate Israel and Netanyahu while the efficacy of his own strategy has been unclear to say the least. To the extent Israelis and their leaders don't trust the President, it is by his own doing.
This is a speech Netanyahu had to give. A nuclear Iran is so great a threat to Israel, that if the current deal doesn't go far enough in giving Israel the assurances it needs, Israel will have no choice but to strike. Israel cannot wait to see whether Obama, who has negotiated some famously bad deals, suddenly gets it right on Iran. The Prime Minister was giving us fair warning.
As Netanyahu said, Israel will go it alone if it has to. They will strike Iran as they have stuck other countries that pose a credible threat to their ultimate survival. It is difficult for many of us as Americans to understand why the Israelis are so impatient, and the Prime Minister was prepared to provide us with an explanation. He brought with him Elie Wiesel, who was sitting in the gallery. If you don't know who that is, you need to read his book Night. You will understand why, exactly, the Israelis will never again stand by while an aggressive enemy exterminates jews. That aside, no country has the right to ask them to take that risk.
The Prime Minister, in his Churchill moment, argued that the world is at a crossroads. Almost everyone agrees with this sentiment. Down one path is a policy of containment under which the West will attempt to keep Iran more or less in check. As we saw during the Cold War however, containment is a costly, painful policy that ultimately does not prevent wars. In 40 years of containment, the United States fought the Korean War, the Vietnam War, made multiple incursions into South America and the Middle East, and reached the brink of nuclear war on at least two occasions. But for the fact that nuclear war was ultimately avoided, the efficacy of that containment policy would be questionable at best. The Soviets were able to oppress millions of people and menace the world with the threat of total annihilation for generations. Since the Soviets already had nuclear weapons, we had little choice. In the case of Iran, we have a choice.
The President, to his credit, has repeatedly said that he will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. He has assured the public and the Israelis that he would rather have no deal than a bad deal. He has not taken the threat of military force off the table. However, to achieve his stated objective, President Obama will have to negotiate a much better deal than the one being reported today. More importantly, however, if he fails, he will have to be committed to using whatever force is required to ensure the long term stability of that region. This is because if he's wrong, the consequences may well mimic biblical Armageddon. That, of course, makes a nuclear Iran an existential threat to all of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment