As the saying goes, the more things change, the more they stay the same. That can said of the sad situation in the Middle East today. Saudi Arabia launches its offensive against the Houthi-led regime in Yemen, with possible assistance by Turkey and Pakistan. Along with the ISIS conflict, these latest developments point worryingly to what was once a Sunni-Shia cold war suddenly becoming a hot one. This all is happening in the backdrop of a potential deal between Iran and the US plus five other world powers, which may be a regional game-changer.
The deal seeks to create a limit on Iran's nuclear centrifuge capacity and ability to develop a nuclear weapon, while allowing Iran to produce nuclear energy for peaceful civilian use and be granted relief from debilitating Western sanctions. It is unclear how many concessions Iran will be able to make in the face of stiff Western demands, and if an outline of a deal will be agreed upon by the approaching deadline.
The deal is vehemently opposed by Israel (along with Saudi Arabia). The fear-mongering over Iran possessing and using a nuclear weapon against Israel is simply a cover though, as there there is no certainty they even intend to make the weapon (Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatullah Khamanei has issued a fatwa against their use), nor would they be suicidal enough to use it against a similarly nuclear-armed opponent. The real concern is that Iran continues to assert itself as a regional power in the region, and normalization of its political and economic ties with the West would only further solidify this position.
Thus, the recently reelected Israeli Premier Benjamin Netanyahu and co. are using every tactic to undermine this deal from being actualised. The recent speech on 3 March in front of the US Congress was a typical piece of political theater to garner points back in Tel Aviv and ratchet up pressure from Congress on President Obama to scuttle any deal. That Netanyahu didnt inform the President of his intention to speaker shouldn't be seen as an accident. The dozens of standing ovations he received only highlighted the timidity of the elected representatives of the most powerful country in the world kowtowing to a foreign leader in defiance of their own head of state.
Commentators from outside the US often obliquely refer to the fact that somehow 'Israel owns the US' as an explanation for why US policy in the Middle East is so skewed in favor of Israeli political demands. A more accurate picture needs to to factor in the essential role of the pro-Israeli lobby, which is a critical pressure group, in shaping the political landscape in the US.
More than any country in the world, political in the US is dominated by lobbies which funnel campaign funds to select candidates to finance their campaigns, and funds from the public are minuscule in comparison. Freshman politicians often spends over five hours a day asking for cash from different funders rather than drafting legislation. In over 90% of the political campaigns in the US, the better funded candidate wins, regardless of what he or she proposes. It doesn't take a genius to see that the policies that end of getting enacted favor lobby groups more than the general public interest.
The Israeli lobby has garnered a reputation as perhaps the most formidable lobby in DC. The American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) is often thought of as the sole lobby group but as scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt document in their famous book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2006), the lobby can extend to their different agents with politics, media and other sectors of power. The varied means of the lobby to frame the debate, select their choice congressional/presidential candidates and draft legislation on US foreign policy are too many to document here,
There are two main views regarding the extent of the lobby's power. The first is that 'the tail wags the dog', essentially that the Israeli lobby exerts near absolute influence in bending US power to its will in order to further Israeli military interests. The other view (put forward by Prof. Noam Chomsky and others) is that the lobby is merely one among many pressure groups, and ultimately Israel functions to serve US hegemonic interests rather than the other way around. When there is a clash of the lobby versus US government demands, the lobby will yield.
The reality, as can be seen in the case of Iran and the nuclear deal is perhaps a mix of both. Certainly, the lobby's hold over Congress members, who need its vital support to be reelected, is rock solid. But the hold over the Presidency is less than absolute as he only has two terms to be concerned about campaigning for, and is less dependent on the lobby's good wishes after his initial election. Having said that, it is extremely rare for a US president to break away from lobby demands and pursue a different decision, as President Obama appears to be attempting in this exceptional case. Usually, there is a high political cost for such boldness. In the case of a nuclear deal, the President seems to be somewhat apathetic to the idea of a military confrontation with Iran that could have horrific consequences, and wants to close it off via the diplomatic route. Whether this succeeds, time will tell.
Commentators from outside the US often obliquely refer to the fact that somehow 'Israel owns the US' as an explanation for why US policy in the Middle East is so skewed in favor of Israeli political demands. A more accurate picture needs to to factor in the essential role of the pro-Israeli lobby, which is a critical pressure group, in shaping the political landscape in the US.
More than any country in the world, political in the US is dominated by lobbies which funnel campaign funds to select candidates to finance their campaigns, and funds from the public are minuscule in comparison. Freshman politicians often spends over five hours a day asking for cash from different funders rather than drafting legislation. In over 90% of the political campaigns in the US, the better funded candidate wins, regardless of what he or she proposes. It doesn't take a genius to see that the policies that end of getting enacted favor lobby groups more than the general public interest.
The Israeli lobby has garnered a reputation as perhaps the most formidable lobby in DC. The American-Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC) is often thought of as the sole lobby group but as scholars John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt document in their famous book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy (2006), the lobby can extend to their different agents with politics, media and other sectors of power. The varied means of the lobby to frame the debate, select their choice congressional/presidential candidates and draft legislation on US foreign policy are too many to document here,
There are two main views regarding the extent of the lobby's power. The first is that 'the tail wags the dog', essentially that the Israeli lobby exerts near absolute influence in bending US power to its will in order to further Israeli military interests. The other view (put forward by Prof. Noam Chomsky and others) is that the lobby is merely one among many pressure groups, and ultimately Israel functions to serve US hegemonic interests rather than the other way around. When there is a clash of the lobby versus US government demands, the lobby will yield.
The reality, as can be seen in the case of Iran and the nuclear deal is perhaps a mix of both. Certainly, the lobby's hold over Congress members, who need its vital support to be reelected, is rock solid. But the hold over the Presidency is less than absolute as he only has two terms to be concerned about campaigning for, and is less dependent on the lobby's good wishes after his initial election. Having said that, it is extremely rare for a US president to break away from lobby demands and pursue a different decision, as President Obama appears to be attempting in this exceptional case. Usually, there is a high political cost for such boldness. In the case of a nuclear deal, the President seems to be somewhat apathetic to the idea of a military confrontation with Iran that could have horrific consequences, and wants to close it off via the diplomatic route. Whether this succeeds, time will tell.
