Home

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak offered a moment of refreshing candor while in Washington Feb. 26, making it clear that there was "a certain difference in perspective and difference in judgment" between the U.S. and Israel on the subject of Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

The U.S. administration, Barak told a gathering at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, imagines a nuclear Iran as a dangerous -- but palatable -- addition to other rogue regimes who have gone nuclear, like North Korea. Israel, however, believes a nuclear Iran would be just the beginning of a cascade of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East -- not just dangerous, but unacceptable.

Barak's point was confirmed in an explosive report published in the N.Y. Times two weeks later, on March 7.

After combing through "federal records, company reports and other documents" the Times reporters found that "The federal government has awarded more than $107 billion in contract payments, grants and other benefits over the past decade to foreign and multinational American companies while they were doing business in Iran, despite Washington's efforts to discourage investment there, records show. That includes nearly $15 billion paid to companies that defied American sanctions law by making large investments that helped Iran develop its vast oil and gas reserves."

Surely that was no surprise to Ehud Barak, who intimated as much before that report went to press. And it was no surprise to Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), who, as a member of the House committees on foreign affairs and financial services, has been out in front on Iran sanctions legislation.

The news was "deja vu all over again. It's what I've been up against since I got to Congress," Sherman told me in a phone interview Monday. "Three administrations have deliberately violated United States law because they thought that the rule of law in the United States didn't matter, and they thought that anything that aggravated or annoyed a European country couldn't possibly be law, or at least not law binding on the Executive Branch."

If the U.S. isn't going to follow it's own lead (and I use the term "lead" generously here), neither is Europe.

I asked Sherman if Congress could legislate in a way that would force our government to comply with our own laws (a question that sounds ridiculous to ask, by the way). He said the president has enough power to get the bills watered down in the Senate, which saves the president the trouble of having to veto a bill that's too much vodka and not enough tonic for his taste.

"We could be effective against Iran -- so effective as to force them to abandon their nuclear program," Sherman told me. "In order to do that, we would have to take action that would drive oil companies and Wal-Mart and foreign governments a little bonkers. And we're not even willing to take on the epicureans and tell them they have to make do with Russian caviar."

The day I spoke with Sherman, Reps. Mark Kirk of Illinois (a Republican) and Ron Klein of Florida (a Democrat) announced they were introducing sanctions legislation that would amend the original Iran Sanctions Act to require the administration to investigate any potential violators. It also would require the disclosure to Congress of any potential violators.

"The U.S. government should be enforcing the Iran Sanctions Act, not rewarding firms that violate it," said Kirk, who co-chairs the House Iran Working Group. "Our legislation will put an end to mixed signals and bring the economic pressure necessary to allow diplomacy to succeed."

In October, Klein led a bipartisan group of legislators in requesting a list of firms that had invested over $40 million in Iran's oil sector. On Feb. 26, Sherman questioned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about it at a hearing of the House foreign affairs committee. It's now mid-March, and Congress has not been provided that list, despite the promise they'd have it within 45 days of their request.

"I drove home [thinking] how odd it is that her department is spreading the word around the world about the importance of democracy and the rule of law, but when it comes to the State Department's following the law, they haven't done it since before Madeleine Albright," Sherman said about his reaction to Clinton's testimony.

All this brings us back to the question of practicality: Does this make an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities more likely?

"I don't think there's anything in this [report] that's news to Israel," Sherman told me. "If Israel were to take military action -- and that's a decision Jerusalem will have to make -- don't let anybody say, 'Well, they should have waited for the sanctions,' because these sanctions are phonier than a $3 bill at this stage."

Whether by design or not, successive American administrations are by their actions (and inaction) pushing Israel closer to attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. In this way, Ehud Barak may have been wrong; America may fully support ending Iran's quest for nukes -- they just expect Israel to do it.

Seth Mandel is the managing editor of The Jewish State.