Click on WORD or PDF for full content
Jonathan Tobin posts on the Netanyahu treatment the administration is giving to Egypt. Makes sense; the president apparently dislikes this country so much that anyone wanting to be our ally is suspect.
In a Middle East where Islamist terror groups and the Iranian regime and its allies have been on the offensive in recent years, the one bright spot for the West in the region (other, that is, than Israel) is the way Egypt has returned to its old role as a bulwark of moderation and opposition to extremism. The current government led by former general Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has clamped down on Hamas terrorists and has been willing to deploy its armed forces to fight ISIS in Libya while also clamping down on a Muslim Brotherhood movement that seeks to transform Egypt into another Islamist state. Yet despite this, the Obama administration is unhappy with Egypt. Much to Cairo’s consternation, the United States is squeezing its government on the military aid it needs to fight ISIS in Libya and Sinai terrorists. As the Israeli government has already learned to its sorrow, the Egyptians now understand that being an ally of the United States is a lot less comfortable position than to be a foe like Iran.
The ostensible reason for the holdup in aid is that the Egyptian government is a human-rights violator. Those concerns are accurate. Sisi’s government has been ruthless in cracking down on the same Muslim Brotherhood faction that was running the country until a popular coup brought it down in the summer of 2013. But contrary to the illusions of an Obama administration that hastened the fall of Hosni Mubarak and then foolishly embraced his Muslim Brotherhood successors, democracy was never one of the available options in Egypt.
The choice in Egypt remains stark. It’s either going to be run by Islamists bent on taking the most populous Arab country down the dark road of extremism or by a military regime that will keep that from happening. …
Perhaps, says Craig Pirrong, the prez is channeling his inner Woodrow Wilson.
I have compared Obama to a previous progressive president enamored of executive power and impatient with checks and balances: namely, Woodrow Wilson. Obama is now moving into the League of Nations phase of Wilson’s presidency, intent on ramming through a foreign policy deal in defiance of intense Senate opposition.
Actually, this comparison is unfair. To Wilson. At least he submitted the treaty to the Senate for ratification. It failed because he refused to compromise on Article X. Obama in contrast, refuses to involve Congress in any way, least of all by submitting any agreement for ratification. He scorns the very idea.
Today Obama stooped to a new low. In response to a letter from 47 Republican senators warning him that without ratification, Obama’s deal with the mullahs would not bind a future president or Congress, Obama responded by questioning their loyalty: “It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran.” …
Kevin Williamson thinks it’s just dandy the Senate is doing something.
What, exactly, is the point of that great big hulking building with the cast-iron faux Roman dome in Washington? Joe Biden worked there for many years, and Barack Obama worked there for about five minutes, and neither of them has figured it out.
“Biden Rebukes Senate Republicans over Letter to Iran,” harrumphs the New York Times, Gomer Pyle and Forrest Gump apparently having been otherwise occupied. Joe Biden is a national figure of fun, and it is difficult to remember that Barack Obama’s campaign brought him into the fold for his special brand of gravitas, which is, like the subtle notes of freshly cut grass and charred orange rind emanating from a freshly decanted bottle of fine wine, detectable only by the rarest breed of connoisseur and the most common sort of bulls–t artist. Before becoming president, Barack Obama’s main foreign-policy experience had been gazing wistfully at a Rand McNally desktop globe and trying to figure out which spot on earth would place him the farthest from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Joe Biden was added to the ticket purportedly to ease our national mind about the question of whose hand was on The Button. People joke that Biden’s real role in the Obama administration is acting as a human insurance policy against assassination, and, if you think about the key Democrat players of the Obama years — Biden, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Janet Napolitano, Eric Holder — there does seem to be a walk-tall-among-the-dwarves strategy in place.
Biden is tumescent with indignation because 47 senators reminded the president — by reminding the Iranians with whom he is engaged in nuclear negotiations — that the president does not have the authority to enter into a binding, long-term international agreement based on nothing more than his own juice. If he cuts a bad deal, Congress can reject it — something the Atomic Ayatollahs ought to have in mind.
Naturally, the Left is in convulsions: …
Rick Richman points out how obama has reneged on commitments made by the country during the Bush administration.
The White House “outrage” at the “open letter” to Iran signed by 47 senators, led by Sen. Tom Cotton, was reinforced by Vice President Biden’s formal statement, which intoned that “America’s influence depends on its ability to honor its commitments,” including those made by a president without a vote of Congress. Perhaps we should welcome Biden’s belated insight. As Jonathan Tobin notes, President Obama on taking office in 2009 refused to be bound by the 2004 Gaza disengagement deal in the letters exchanged between President George W. Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. His secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, announced that such commitments were “unenforceable”–that they were non-binding on the new administration. In 2009, Obama disregarded previous commitments not only to Israel but also to Poland, the Czech Republic, and Georgia; he “fundamentally transformed” America’s previous commitments, as he likes to describe the essential element of his entire presidency. …
And John Hinderaker reminds us how obama undercut the Bush administration’s nuclear negotiations with Iran.
In 2008, the Bush administration, along with the “six powers,” was negotiating with Iran concerning that country’s nuclear arms program. The Bush administration’s objective was to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. On July 20, 2008, the New York Times headlined: “Nuclear Talks With Iran End in a Deadlock.” What caused the talks to founder? The Times explained:
“Iran responded with a written document that failed to address the main issue: international demands that it stop enriching uranium. And Iranian diplomats reiterated before the talks that they considered the issue nonnegotiable.”
The Iranians held firm to their position, perhaps because they knew that help was on the way, in the form of a new president. Barack Obama had clinched the Democratic nomination on June 3. At some point either before or after that date, but prior to the election, he secretly let the Iranians know that he would be much easier to bargain with than President Bush. Michael Ledeen reported the story last year:
“During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Mr. Obama used a secret back channel to Tehran to assure the mullahs that he was a friend of the Islamic Republic, and that they would be very happy with his policies. The secret channel was Ambassador William G. Miller, who served in Iran during the shah’s rule, as chief of staff for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as ambassador to Ukraine. Ambassador Miller has confirmed to me his conversations with Iranian leaders during the 2008 campaign.” …
Thomas Freidman’s Adelson Derangement Syndrome gets more attention from Jonathan Tobin.
Regular readers of Thomas Friedman’s column in the New York Times are aware of the fact that he doesn’t like the fact that a bipartisan pro-Israel coalition predominates in the U.S. Congress. Friedman is stuck in the conspiratorial world of the Walt-Mearsheimer “Israel Lobby” thesis that falsely alleges that backing for the Jewish state is purchased by the cash of pro-Israel donors. And the most conspicuous of those donors is casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who seems to be occupying a rather large space in Friedman’s head these days. Last week after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, Friedman repeated the slurs against the pro-Israel community and Adelson that he first lobbed in 2011. That he doubled down on those charges in today’s column is of little interest. But what is worth noting is Friedman’s attack on Israel Hayom, the Israeli newspaper Adelson owns. According to the columnist, the paper is subverting Israeli democracy in the manner that Adelson and other donors are supposedly undermining American foreign policy. But what we really learn from this piece is that Friedman likes neither democracy nor freedom of the press.
Friedman believes the ovations Netanyahu received from Congress in 2011 and last week were “bought and paid for by the Israel Lobby.” This is a profound misunderstanding of the way American democracy works. Members of Congress are pleased to accept contributions from pro-Israel donors, but those relationships help solidify the alliance. If that stand were not popular with the overwhelming majority of Americans, of whom more than 98 percent of are not Jewish, no amount of money could purchase it. …