Oren, Abrams, and Ross Address AIPAC: What Should U.S. Foreign Policy Be?
The opening foreign policy session of AIPAC featured the three major foreign-policy analysts working on the Middle East crisis: Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. and well-known historian Michael Oren, followed by the former Obama advisor Dennis Ross, and then Bush administration Middle East advisor Elliott Abrams (who is now at the Council on Foreign Relations).
What is most notable about their three presentations, in our estimate, is their essential agreement on where our country stands, and what must be done in the future. That Ross comes from advising a Democrat president and Abrams a Republican one makes little difference when it comes to what they say needs to be accomplished.
In Ambassador Oren’s Q and A with moderator Frank Sesno, he made the following points. The forthcoming trip by President Obama, he said, is important because it will be a message to the world that the United States stands behind Israel. As ambassador, of course, Oren is first and foremost a diplomat—who represents his government. That means he has to be circumspect. He is not expressing his personal opinion, but framing what in effect is a message from the prime minister he serves.
Hence Oren stressed that when Netanyahu put Likud on record as favoring a two-state solution of a Palestinian state standing in peace next to Israel, it was a game changer, proving that Israel is taking steps to peace. Now, he said, the Palestinians have to show that they too will take the very same steps
On the issue of Syria, Oren said that “Israel will not remain silent.” Assad must be forced to leave. Calling Assad “reckless and unpredictable,” Oren stressed that his departure will also be a major blow to Iran, which is arming his forces.
Turning to Iran, Oren said the Iranian regime must be told it will not be permitted to go nuclear, and that all options must be on the table. Iran, he stressed, has engaged in diplomacy that has not worked, and is moving ahead to full attainment of a nuclear arsenal. The question, then, is when will it be too late to prevent them, and the issue is the price of inaction.
Concluding his remarks, Ambassador Oren stressed the importance of maintaining U.S. administrative and congressional support for the state of Israel. Given what he called the “Jihadist view of the world” held by the mullahs of Iran, Oren presented in effect a skepticism about the possibility of getting Iran to negotiate seriously. As to his own state and the Palestinian issue, Oren argued that Hamas cannot be negotiated with unless it recognizes Israel, and that Abbas of the PA must be told that he cannot put into place a reconciliation with Hamas, which would permanently make a peace process forever impossible. That, he said, would be a “game changer.”
Next came a dialogue between Elliott Abrams and Dennis Ross. What is most interesting is the essential similar analysis each presented. Abrams began by saying that the president’s forthcoming trip was a good sign, and meant he faced a challenge telling the Israeli public that he understands them and the challenges they face. Ross added that it could be a new beginning for both Obama and PM Netanyahu, presenting a chance to establish a new connection for the president with the Israeli people.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies is in a dog." (Winston Churchill)
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies is in a dog." (Winston Churchill)
Anyone who at this point does not believe Barack Obama wants Iran to go nuclear has not been paying attention. It was obvious from the beginning, but it became crystal-clear when he sat on his hands, and kept silent, during the Iranian "Green Revolution" of 2009.
His plan has always been to use the promise of US protection from the threat of Iranian nukes to force Israel to grant the "Palestinians" the most extravagant wish list they can dream up, so that he will retroactively "earn" his Nobel by midwifing the birth of the "Palestinian" state that will gladden the heart of his old friend Rashid Khalidi. And if, after he... (show more)
Anyone who at this point does not believe Barack Obama wants Iran to go nuclear has not been paying attention. It was obvious from the beginning, but it became crystal-clear when he sat on his hands, and kept silent, during the Iranian "Green Revolution" of 2009.
His plan has always been to use the promise of US protection from the threat of Iranian nukes to force Israel to grant the "Palestinians" the most extravagant wish list they can dream up, so that he will retroactively "earn" his Nobel by midwifing the birth of the "Palestinian" state that will gladden the heart of his old friend Rashid Khalidi. And if, after he leaves office, Iran decides to nuke the tattered vestige of Israel that this dream deal of his leaves intact---well, isn't that just terrible? Tsk, tsk. Who could possibly have foreseen it? (show less)
There's nothing we can do. We do nothing, like in Turkey, they get voted in. We meddle, Islamists come to power. We don't meddle, Islamists come to power.
So what should we do? How about mind our own business? If we're lucky, they'll fight among themselves. If they don't, and try something, we simply bomb a country to smithereens. No nationbuilding.
There's nothing we can do. We do nothing, like in Turkey, they get voted in. We meddle, Islamists come to power. We don't meddle, Islamists come to power.
So what should we do? How about mind our own business? If we're lucky, they'll fight among themselves. If they don't, and try something, we simply bomb a country to smithereens. No nationbuilding.
Equal? That's not a way to support your allies and defeat tyrants.
And handing over cash and weapons to an opposition with a significant presence of Islamofascists isn't a good idea either if you are interested in sustainable peace.
We have probably missed the window for direct US intervention to attain a decisive victory, followed by the establishment of a rights-respecting government that might have a chance of securing a sustainable peace.
Once again, the nattering nabobs of moral equivalence, who think they are "above" getting their nations'... (show more)
Equal? That's not a way to support your allies and defeat tyrants.
And handing over cash and weapons to an opposition with a significant presence of Islamofascists isn't a good idea either if you are interested in sustainable peace.
We have probably missed the window for direct US intervention to attain a decisive victory, followed by the establishment of a rights-respecting government that might have a chance of securing a sustainable peace.
Once again, the nattering nabobs of moral equivalence, who think they are "above" getting their nations' hands dirty with the effort to interdict tyranny, have let a bad situation fester into something worse. So much for their "genius". (show less)
The days of making countries out of nothing on a map, calling them Jordan and putting some king from somewhere else on the throne are over. May as well try and arm the rebels with armored model-t's and blimps.
And then there's the next inevitable country coming there soon - Kurdsville.
The days of making countries out of nothing on a map, calling them Jordan and putting some king from somewhere else on the throne are over. May as well try and arm the rebels with armored model-t's and blimps.
And then there's the next inevitable country coming there soon - Kurdsville.
But no one is looking for a stick, we both (US and Israel) have them. Israel probably has the will to use its stick, but lacks a reason that will pass muster before "world opinion" ( a significant portion of Israel needs be a smoldering cinder before it passes that muster).
I don't think the US is even contemplating using a stick.
But no one is looking for a stick, we both (US and Israel) have them. Israel probably has the will to use its stick, but lacks a reason that will pass muster before "world opinion" ( a significant portion of Israel needs be a smoldering cinder before it passes that muster).
I don't think the US is even contemplating using a stick.
And the consensus was quickly reached that a pre-emptive war in the absence of an imminent military threat was far too risky.
Israel can launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran if they choose. I would support whatever decisions they make in that regard.
But the U.S. should not launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran. We tried a pre-emptive war in Iraq with disastrous results.
Once you start bombing a nation that has prepared for years for such an eventuality, you can't be sure of a successful outcome.
And the consensus was quickly reached that a pre-emptive war in the absence of an imminent military threat was far too risky.
Israel can launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran if they choose. I would support whatever decisions they make in that regard.
But the U.S. should not launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran. We tried a pre-emptive war in Iraq with disastrous results.
Once you start bombing a nation that has prepared for years for such an eventuality, you can't be sure of a successful outcome.