Posted on 03/01/2015 6:18:00 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Not only is it his right to speak, he will touch off a needed debate on the Iran nuclear deal.
Despite the Obama administration’s campaign to dissuade Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from addressing a joint meeting of Congress on Tuesday, he has remained committed to delivering the speech. Here are five reasons why Netanyahu has made the right decision.
1. Canceling the event will change nothing. The White House identifies the manner in which the speech was arranged as the cause of the conflict. Netanyahu, it claims, did not coordinate the visit with the president, and he allowed himself to be used by Republicans who are pursuing a partisan agenda.
If these were President Barack Obama’s only concerns, then he would have worked behind the scenes to reduce the tension. Instead, the White House immediately demanded, in public no less, that the Israeli prime minister make a humiliating gesture of obeisance by canceling the speech. It did so in keeping with an established policy of diminishing Netanyahu — a policy that was already set in stone months ago, when a senior official in the White House anonymously described Netanyahu to The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg as a “chickenshit.”
Netanyahu is up for reelection on March 17. Obama’s campaign against him is a sly way of making the case to the Israeli electorate that he is incapable of managing relations with the United States, Israel’s greatest ally. If Netanyahu were to phone Obama, apologize and cancel the appearance before Congress, Obama would simply pocket the concession and proceed with his efforts to hobble the prime minister.
2. Netanyahu’s speech is the act of a true and courageous friend. All of America’s traditional allies in the Middle East are deeply distrustful of Obama’s outreach to Iran. Allies in Europe and Asia are similarly fearful regarding what they consider to be flagging American resolve in the face of threats from Russia and China. Few allied leaders, however, will express their concerns to the president plainly — even in private — for fear of retribution. When they see the White House treating Netanyahu to a level of hostility usually reserved for adversaries, their trepidation only increases.
Even worse, Obama’s apparent reluctance to stand up to adversaries gives allies incentive to hedge. The case of France is instructive. As our colleague Benjamin Haddad recently argued, elements of the French elite are now saying that the French government would be foolish to take a hard line against Russia and Iran. If Washington is going to fold in the face of pressure from Moscow and Tehran, how can France alone hold the line?
3. It was Congress, a co-equal branch of government, that invited the prime minister. Whether Obama has the authority to sign the proposed agreement with Iran without consulting lawmakers is a question in dispute, but no one doubts that Congress has a right, indeed an obligation, to exercise oversight in the realm of foreign policy. It has a duty to keep itself and the people that it serves well-informed about consequential matters — by listening to whomever it pleases.
Obama, however, has systematically worked to keep Congress in the dark. Secretary of State John Kerry inadvertently admitted as much when he recently stated, “[A]nybody running around right now jumping in to say, ‘Well we don’t like the deal …,’ doesn’t know what the deal is.” If they do not know all the details, there is a reason why: Namely, the administration will not divulge them. The White House obviously prefers to hide the terms of the deal until after it is signed, by which time it will be too late for anyone to mount serious opposition.
The time for debate is now, and if Obama will not respect the wishes of a co-equal branch of government, at least Netanyahu will.
4. Netanyahu’s appearance will also spark a vital debate about more than just the nuclear deal, which is only one aspect of a broader policy of outreach to Iran. Evidence mounts by the day that Obama sees Iran as an attractive partner of the United States in defeating the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and stabilizing the Middle East more broadly and that he sees the nuclear deal as the key step to realizing that partnership.
These apparent intentions are deeply troubling to the Israeli government, which is watching today as Iran leads Syria and Hezbollah in a combined offensive on the Golan Heights against the rebels who threaten to topple the Assad regime. If Iran wins, Israel and Jordan will find Iranian troops ensconced on their border. While this prospect alarms them, it also vexes the traditional allies of the United States in the Persian Gulf. They fear that a nuclear deal will strengthen the defensive umbrella that Iran already provides to the Quds force as it builds a network of Shiite militias from Baghdad to Beirut.
Netanyahu’s visit will thus raise public awareness of the connection between the nuclear issue and the destabilizing activities of Iran in the region — an issue that deserves much more attention than it has received.
5. The Israeli prime minister’s views are reasonable, if not judicious. His opinions about the proposed Iran deal are not idiosyncratic; they are not exclusively Israeli; nor are they extreme. American observers with substantial reputations and with no ax to grind have themselves begun to express similar doubts about the proposed deal. Citing Henry Kissinger and others, The Washington Post editorial board recently wrote that “a process that began with the goal of eliminating Iran’s potential to produce nuclear weapons has evolved into a plan to tolerate and temporarily restrict that capability.”
If the president follows through with such a plan without first subjecting its terms to a rigorous debate in Congress, he will be concluding an agreement that is entirely personal in nature. The legitimacy of such a deal would be hotly contested, rendering it inherently unstable, if not dangerous. By helping to force a more thorough examination of the matter, Netanyahu is therefore performing a service to us all. When a president turns a deaf ear to a good friend bearing an inconvenient message, he works against his own interests, whether he realizes it or not.
Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence from 2011 to 2015, is host of the Westwood One radio program “Something to Think About,” a CNN national security commentator and a distinguished fellow at the Hudson Institute.
Michael Doran is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
He is intelligent, well informed, coherent, logical, has common sense and he speaks English very well.
After six years of 0bama it will blow the American people's minds!
Good article. Thank-you!
I demand that all foreign governments stay out of influencing our government, and stay out of our wallets.....whether it be Netanyahu or Mexico, or those from any any other country.
Bibi is a great warrior and he needs to go do warrior thing with the 100’s of billions we have sent Israel. I wish them luck and God speed. I have no desire to fight their wars.
Do I sense that the left is now falling all over itself to say his speech is now a good thing? Wow, what a change from just a few days ago. And double wow, almost immediately after news broke of BHO’s threat to shoot down Israeli planes. I smell something very, very fishy going on!
Obama seems to be unique among Presidents in that he seeks to inflict regime change on America’s friends and allies and resists attempts to support regime change within America’s enemies.
Not that anyone should question his love for America as a result, though. /s
. . . and tell that Laffy-yette feller to go home!
Not all foreign governments are equal.
Another way to think of it is, sometimes it's helpful for America to listen to a foreign ally, since a foreign enemy is occupying the White House.
How about you tell Zero to do the same thing?
This Obama line that Bibi sandbagged him reminds me of when Susan Rice put out the lie that the Video on youtube which virtually nobody saw caused the Benghazi embassy attack. Obama et al along with Hillary kept repeating this until lots of evidence came out and proved it a lie.
This time the Liberal NY Times, a major Obama Supporter heard Obama’s blaming Bibi and I guess going after an Ally was too much for the Times to go along with and they told the truth.
The truth is the White House knew before Bibi got said invitation that he was getting it, and they knew he accepted it right away too.
This lie is still being put out there as truth and Susan Rice an unusually good liar is the Johnny Appletree of liars, spreading the seed of hatred for Bibi everywhere she speaks.
Meanwhile the Congress is not being informed as to what is in the agreement being crafted with Iran. Iran jokes that Obama is desparate and they are getting the deal of the century.
Bibi is a senior leader 9 years as PM of our best Ally. Bibi has had to choke down being called a coward, left without joint news conference, sitting in a room while Obama went to eat, and walked in and out the White House service entrance past the garbage cans.
Maybe the Congress will show him some respect, and maybe the American Jews will wake up and smell the Coffee that the Democrats don’t support Israel like the American people do.
Awww. Bammy's all pissed off the Republicans made him walk out the back of the airplane.
Gee, that’s mighty big of the Lefties to allow this Jew to live.
So, congress doesn’t really know what’s in the Iran deal? I’ll bet Bibi knows, and I hope he tells all to Congress. We have to find out from visitors or foreign news sources.
Netanyahu wants Israel to continue to exist. 0 doesn’t.
What’s the point of calling it Pollutico?
What we need to hear from Bibi is a recording of Obama threatening to shoot down Israeli planes (an act of war) followed by an announcement the Iranian reactor has just been obliterated.
Could half the government's on the planet say the same thing about the U.S. Government?
That being said, this is a genuine real foreign entanglement mess which I do not see being cleaned up by speeches from any camp. Lots of anger with Russia and millions of voodoo worshiping religious nutcakes in the mix. We're up to our necks in it, not to mention the disastrous mess here in the homeland.
Something eventually triggering a full blown mega event would not be unexpected IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.