‘Anti-Semitism’ vs. ‘dual loyalty’: the Iran debate gets ugly

1.

A month ago, the day the deal with Iran was completed, I wrote an article under the headline A ‘bad’ agreement with Iran: Adjust or fight? in which I highlighted some of the “crucial points that make this agreement highly problematic”.

Four weeks later, with opponents and supporters of the agreement in full battle mode, we ought to remember that while the battle rages, while political winds blow, and the public mood shifts, while leaders say harsh words, and then harsher words, while scientists send letters of approval, and experts write papers of disapproval, while legislators ponder their options – while all this is happening one thing hasn’t changed: the deal.

The deal with Iran has not become better (nor worse) with the passage of time. If the President of the United States seems more convinced today than he was a month ago that the agreement is a master stroke of diplomatic genius, it is not because the agreement has improved with time. If the Prime Minister of Israel seems to up the ante of opposition with each passing day, it is not because of yet another Iranian achievement.

2.

The deal has not changed – you can still read it and decide for yourself what it’s worth. Most of the questions about it have also not changed. It is still a deal that does nothing to curb Iranian ambitions of Middle East domination, and that does little to ensure the long term prevention of Iran becoming a military nuclear power. The Obama administration believes that it was the best option compared to all other options. That is a defensible position. Critics of the deal believe that more pressure would have led to a better deal. That is also a reasonable position.

Opponents also believe that even under the current circumstances an alternative better than accepting the deal is available. That claim is crucial but it stands on shakier legs. The path from a vote against the deal in Congress to a better deal with Iran, or to a better solution to the problem of nuclear Iran, is not quite clear. That is to say: the opponents' main challenge is not to prove that the deal is not great deal – because it is not. The challenge is to show how America and the world could get to a better deal, or a better solution, from the one they have now.

3.

The Obama administration is fighting tooth and nail to pass the deal. That should come as no surprise. The administration is using ugly tactics and does not hesitate to be rhetorically abusive to pass the deal. That should also come as no surprise. President Obama is not going to lose this fight standing. He is not going lose this fight without him using whatever means available to him to win. He will threat the nation with war, he will point to the opponents of the deal as those responsible for this imaginary war, he will hint that pro-Israel opponents of the deal betray American interests. In fact – his administration has already done all those things. That’s how the editors of Tablet magazine came to a point where they “can’t stomach” the use “of Jew-baiting and other blatant and retrograde forms of racial and ethnic prejudice as tools to sell a political deal”.

I’d urge them to purchase a dose of chewable Tums. That is, because the battle is at an early stage. If the administration gets to a point where it feels it really might lose it – the tools it is using today could still pale in comparison to the tools it will no doubt use later.

4.

Seriously, the fast deterioration of the Iran debate into an “anti Semitism” vs. “dual loyalty” exchange of insults is worrying. Such exchanges, on the one hand, could have a paralyzing effect on Jewish opponents of the deal. On the other hand, they bring back ugly memories (and insinuations) from Obama’s early days. Such exchanges are delicate to handle at the best of circumstances, and are impossible to handle when the stakes are so high and the atmosphere so tense.

Is the President finally showing his true beliefs about Jewish Americans? I don’t think he is.

Is the President using dangerous language without quite being aware of it? I doubt that too. 

In other words: President Obama is not anti-Semitic. He just wants to sell a deal. Wants it badly.

His opponents believe that anti-Semitic insinuations are a tool that Obama irresponsibly chose to use in his campaign of selling the deal. “The president is not ignorant (the accusation he lays against his opponents) and must know he is here feeding a deep line of anti-Semitism that accuses of American Jews of getting America into wars”, wrote one of them (Elliott Abrams).  

His administration and his supporters believe that accusations of anti-Semitic rhetoric are also no more than a tool that Obama’s opponents chose to use in their campaign of killing the deal. “The anti-Semitic theme is implanted completely by [Obama’s] critics. It exists nowhere in or near the text of Obama's own words”, wrote one of them (Jonathan Chait).

5.

This must be said too: Opponents of the deal – many of them supporters of Israel (supporters in the real sense, not those who express their support by opposing every Israeli policy) – also made a decision not to lose this fight standing. The Israeli government made a decision not to lose this fight standing.

In my first article after the deal was signed I wrote that the dilemma for the opponents of the deal, Israel included, is whether to adjust to the deal or fight it. I currently see no sign of adjustment. The Prime Minister realized early on that any such sign, even a slight hint that he might consider an adjustment, could derail the barely-viable battle against the deal. So he would not budge. His political opponents in Israel criticize him for making the relations with the Obama administration even worse than they are today. The administration keeps suggesting that it would be wise for him to come around to accept the new reality. But Netanyahu refuses to take the bait. At least for now, he can still argue that while the odds are against his position, the fight is not yet over.

6.

As I wrote yesterday, the fight is not over until the people of America sing. The more the administration retorts to problematic language and laughable claims (a vote against the deal is a vote for war), the more one realizes that the White House is worried. It is worried not because the deal has gotten worse – it is the same deal. Not because new revelations were made about the deal – some were made, but not quite enough. It is worried because it sees that many members of Congress are waiting to see what their constituencies want. It is worried because with at least some constituencies the deal is losing ground.

7.

Quoting myself for the last time (today), here’s the concluding sentence from my article three weeks ago: “I am not sure there is really a way to prevent the ugly scenario from playing itself out. In fact, you can count the Jewish rift as a first damaging impact of a troubling agreement with Iran”.

So here it is: the ugly scenario.