A few weeks ago there were too many headlines blaming Netanyahu for intervening in U.S. elections. “The clash has led Netanyahu to brazenly intervene in the U.S. election, but is that all that new, asks Lawrence Davidson” in Netanyahu’s ‘Red Line’ on Obama is a great example.
This got me to toying with some grim thoughts. Are Israel and/or Iran going to sh*t and get off the pot or what? We’ve been on the brink of World War III for so long, even if it doesn’t feel like it.
Not that I’m calling for war – because I’m not. I’m a world peace kind of guy; but if they are in this accusatory sniping match, and on the brink of mutually assured destruction, why doesn’t it feel like we’re on the brink of war?
The United States Senate just tacked a non-binding Resolution against Iran’s Nuclear Program onto its budget extension. While it was made clear this wasn’t an authorization of war (which would require a “declaration of war”), it does let the President know that by overwhelming bi-partisan support, the United States is willing to move its “red line.” Despite this, Rand Paul voted against the measure, insisting it was “a vote for pre-emptive war.”
This begs the question – where exactly is the “red line” for the United States? Follow up question –does it really even matter what our “red line” is?
The United States (and the International Community) has made it clear that a nuclear Iran will not be tolerated, though that really hasn’t had any effect on Iran’s eagerness.
But I digress. Netanyahu has been criticized for “intervening in domestic politics.” But is he really? Netanyahu has been very critical of Obama’s unwillingness to declare a U.S. “red line” when it comes to Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon – though, he made it clear before the UN General assembly that Israel’s “red line” was at “final stages” or about 90% completion of the program.
Israel has been pushing the United States to support an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities for years now. But that may not matter now: Netanyahu hinted on September 14th that Israel may have to preemptively strike Iran without U.S. support.
That was a few weeks ago. Israel now has overwhelming support of the United States Senate. Congress reserves the power to declare war, whether President Obama likes Israel or not. If Israel goes to war with Iran, they will have U.S. support. Romney Presidency or not. That cannot even be disputable anymore.
Which begs the question, is Netanyahu actually interfering in the U.S. election? Romney has the power of an unplugged toaster and has proven to have the foreign policy savvy of Governor Palin. The Senate just gave Obama the cover he needs to remain vague on Iran.
So, the final questions become:
- Does President Obama even need to be vague with Iran?
- And does it matter how harshly Netanyahu criticizes Obama?
Regardless of the Administration’s policy, the American people will jump to Israel’s defense in nearly any contingency. Obama doesn’t need to tie his hands with strict language if the unspoken truth remains that the United States will defend Israel to the death – whether Bibi likes it or not.
Could Bibi intervene in U.S. elections even if he wanted to? No. United States Israel policy will not differ based on the president. It is a policy that has been upheld and strongly enforced since Truman and no Congress would ever let a president get away with changing US policy toward Israel.
Netanyahu is looking out for the people of Israel. I doubt his intentions were to intervene in U.S. elections. He has a responsibility to the Israeli people to be a strong and abrasive leader, especially when it is a question of national defense and security. Netanyahu has much better political intuition than Romney, which is how I know he wouldn’t risk insulting an incumbent president who is ahead in every swing-state poll as well as in the American Zeitgeist.
The entire “Netanyahu intervening in US elections” is a media fiasco and nothing more. Netanyahu has done nothing to influence my vote, and he shouldn’t affect yours either.
