So you suddenly want to listen to what the military says? 2 notes on Iran

1.

In recent weeks some writers have been trying to convince their readers – and Obama administration officials have been encouraging this – that while the Israeli “government” opposes the Iran deal, Israeli “intelligence officials” really support the deal. These people point to several former officials that do not see the agreement as hugely damaging to Israel and even as somewhat beneficial, former officials such as Admiral Ami Ayalon. A debate about this is already under way, as Martin Kramer criticized JJ Goldberg for what he termed “polemical and politicized nonsense”. But really, the focus should not be the articles of one single person. Goldberg was hardly alone in highlighting the views of a few Israeli dissenters. The views of these few dissenters served many other writers and activists who make a case in favor of the deal.

There is not much I can contribute to the factual debate. Yes – it is most likely just nonsense. Yes – “politicized” nonsense. Israel is a free country in which people have a right to have a view. That a few of them chose to be in favor of the deal (and if you look at the many accounts describing this supposed “support” for the deal it is always the same three names) doesn't make Israel's “intelligence community” generally supportive of the deal. Ayalon decided to be a dissenter on the Iran deal. Good for him. Just remember that he is not a man behind which the “intelligence community” rallies, but rather one man who thinks differently. In a place like Israel you can always find someone who thinks differently – conveniently, you can always find someone who thinks like you do.  

But there's another noteworthy issue regarding this debate, and that is the sudden tendency of supporters of the deal to put the opinion of military (or intelligence) officials on a pedestal higher than the one reserved for political leadership.

That is a dangerous tendency, because in a democracy you want the political leaders to be the ones calling the shots. It is also a dishonest tendency, because in many cases the same writers and activists who currently use the views of military officials against the Israeli government would be the first ones to warn against adhering to the views of military officials when they disagree with other government officials.

For example, when former Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon opposed Ariel Sharon's disengagement from Gaza, you could hardly find people on that end of the spectrum supporting the view of the military professional against the one of the politician. Similarly, when Chief of Staff Shaul Mofaz was against PM Ehud Barak's plan to withdraw from Lebanon, most pundits of – well, let's just say it – leftist tendencies did not hale Mofaz's “professional” opinion and did not use it to criticize Barak's “political” decisions.

Bottom line: with all due respect to generals and former generals, Israel's policy is determined by the political leadership. That is a good thing.

2.

Look at this interesting poll from CNN on what Americans think on the Iran deal. One version of the survey included the following question:

As you may know, the U.S. and other countries have imposed strict economic sanctions against Iran while that country has nuclear facilities which could eventually allow it to produce its own nuclear weapons. Do you favor or oppose an agreement that would ease some of those economic sanctions and in exchange require Iran to accept major restrictions on its nuclear program but not end it completely and submit to greater international inspection of its nuclear facilities?

Another version included a different question instead:

As you may know, the U.S. Congress must approve the agreement the United States and five other countries reached with Iran that is aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons before it can take effect. Do you think Congress should approve or reject the deal with Iran?

The result: the first question provided a majority in favor of the deal – 50% to 46%. The second question provided a majority in opposition to the deal, namely, a majority that want Congress to reject it – 56% to 41%.

What can we learn from these two questions? That the deal is a confusing matter, and that some of the voters are confused about it. That there is no clear majority for any position and a lot depends on the way the deal is portrayed. We also learn that the trend is against the administration's position, as in both questions the percentage supporting the Obama position was higher in previous surveys taken in previous months.

Why, then, does the trend in Congress seem to be in favor of the administration's position? Why would Congress ignore a growing disillusionment with the agreement? I assume it is because of two main reasons: most legislators assume that by the time they have to face the voters, the deal will be a long forgotten issue that won’t be likely to come back and haunt them. They don't see in the battle on Iran the same zeal and enthusiasm that was evident in the debate about, for example, healthcare reform. Moreover – and here, again, healthcare reform is good example – legislators today are more concerned about opposition from within their own party than about the worries of the general population. They tend to vote along party lines because facing a challenge from an enthusiastic and angry left in the primaries is more threatening than having to face a challenger from the right that will make Iran an issue against them.