Page 2 of 2
Democrat dilemma over Iran
By Conn Hallinan
Israeli-Palestinian question. In a recent editorial, the Financial Times argued
that Israeli expansion in the West Bank "is what constantly threatens to set
the region alight".
A recent survey by Israeli retired Brigadier General Baruch Spiegel, a former
assistant to Israel's Defense Ministry, found that the IDF and West Bank civil
authorities were suppressing what the newspaper Ha'aretz calls "the systematic
illegal expansion of
existing settlements ... in blatant violation of the law". The newspaper called
the survey - which is yet to be reported in the United States - "political and
diplomatic dynamite".
Yet Pelosi explicitly rejects the argument that the occupation has anything to
do with the current crisis between Israelis and Palestinians. "There are those
who contend that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about Israel's occupation
of the West Bank and Gaza," she told the AIPAC audience in 2005. "That is
absolute nonsense. In truth, the history of the conflict is not over
occupation, and never has been: it is over the fundamental right of Israel to
exist."
Aside from AIPAC, the Bush administration's neo-cons, and the Israeli right
wing, few would agree with that formulation. Even British Prime Minister Tony
Blair recently argued that an Israeli-Palestinian settlement was "the core" of
a broader effort for peace in the region. Indeed, elevating the conflict to a
matter of Israel's survival plays into the hands of extremists on both sides.
Israel and Iran AIPAC and Olmert also link Israel's survival to defeating Iran. Yet,
although Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's has threatened to wipe out
Israel, his bluster is not backed up by any ability to do so. As former UN
weapons inspector Scott Ritter points out, Ahmadinejad has no authority over
anything pertaining to national security, the armed forces, the police or the
Revolutionary Guard. He is, as one former Iranian president commented, "a knife
without a blade".
In any case, according to the Center for Non-proliferation Studies, Israel has
between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons, while Iran is several years away from
producing even one. An Iranian attack on Israel would be tantamount to national
suicide. Plus, while the Israelis routinely describe Iran as a threat to peace
in the Middle East, Iran has not invaded anyone in 250 years, though it has
been the victim of several attacks.
The authority to go to war rests with Ayatollah Ali al-Khamenei, who in May
2003 offered to open up Iran's nuclear plants for inspection, rein in
Hezbollah, accept a two-state solution, and cooperate against al-Qaeda. He also
issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. The initiative was shot down by US Vice
President Dick Cheney and then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
In terms of Iran's nuclear threat to Israel or the world more generally,
Seymour Hersh says the Central Intelligence Agency has "found no conclusive
evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program".
Linking a possible conflict with Iran to the survival of Israel or to broader
non-proliferation goals is in the interests of neither Israel nor the US. Such
arguments from the Bush administration and the Israeli right wing will condemn
the region to decades of endless war.
The Democrats are going to have to make some hard choices to keep the loyalty
of those who voted for an end to the Iraq war and military adventurism. For
starters, they must call for an immediate end to Israeli's expansion of
settlements in the West Bank. To end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, they
should push hard for immediate negotiations with all Palestinian parties
culminating in full Arab recognition of Israel and a full withdrawal from all
occupied Arab land.
The US and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization should pledge to defend
Israel within its 1967 borders. To guarantee regional peace, the US should
support a regional conference, including Iran, Syria and all elements in Iraq,
to reach a peace accord and the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the
region.
The Bush administration is mustering arguments and support for its solution to
the Middle East crisis: an attack on Iran. Democrats and their dissenting
colleagues across the aisle must offer a feasible alternative. It is time to go
to work, Madame Speaker.
Conn Hallinan is a Foreign Policy In Focus columnist.
