Home

The Iranian threat took center stage among Israel activists, U.S. congressmen, and Middle East analysts at the annual summit of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) May 3-5.

U.S. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), who has led congressional efforts to enact economic sanctions against Iran, told The Jewish State that Congress has yet to reach a consensus on how to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat.

"Any action that's strong enough to be effective is strong enough to have opponents," Sherman, chair of the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, said. "If you could stop the Iranian nuclear program by passing a nonbinding resolution, I think we'd get it passed. But if you have to inconvenience international oil companies, offend European diplomats, cause consternation to State Department bureaucrats, and run afoul of the ideology of total corporate independence of government action, that's harder."

When asked if he was nonetheless confident that the U.S. government would coalesce behind a strategy in time to stop Iran from attaining nuclear capability, Sherman responded: "No."

Sherman, along with Florida State Sen. Ted Deutch and Orde Kittrie, a visiting scholar at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, led a panel discussion on how economic pressure can stop Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Economic pressure, diplomacy, and military action by the U.S. or Israel were the three options discussed throughout the day. But one thing agreed on by everyone The Jewish State spoke to during the May 3 portion of the conference was that Iran was the key challenge facing Israel.

"There is no question, it is all about Iran," David Kaufman, an attorney from Highland Park, Ill., said between sessions. "Out of 10 issues we're dealing with over the next three days, one through nine are Iran. It's an existential threat."

The AIPAC Policy Conference, this year attended by more than 6,500 people, took place at the Washington, D.C. Convention Center. In addition to panel briefings, participants could take part in strategy sessions and attend major speeches, which this year included Israeli President Shimon Peres, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu (via satellite), and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, among others.

"AIPAC is not just about Israel. AIPAC is about the American-Israel relationship, because the future of America and Israel are inextricably intertwined," Gingrich said. "A world which destroys Israel will certainly destroy the United States."

The economic squeeze

Kittrie lamented that the current sanctions regime against Iran is weaker than the economic sanctions that were used effectively on Yugoslavia and South Africa. He said the U.S. should make it a "business choice" to work with Iranian companies: "A choice between doing business with Iran or doing business in the United States."

Deutch said that when Florida's pensioners found out their money was being invested in companies that are enabling Iran's support for terrorism, "they were outraged. They demanded that we take action."

So Florida's elected leaders did what several states, including New Jersey, have done, and divested their pension funds from companies doing business with Iran. Deutch said there was some pushback from investment portfolio managers, who argued that their sole responsibility was to achieve the best possible return on investment for their clients.

But Deutch responded that investing in terror sponsoring police states or apocalyptic Muslim theocracies was not the way to service their investors. Such deals "are not only wrong, they are risky," he said.

Florida has divested $1.1 billion so far, he said.

"We have one moment in history" to stop Iran, Deutch said. "This is that moment."

Sherman has sponsored seven House bills that would divest from Iran, enact sanctions on companies that do business with Iran, halt trade with Iran, and enable investment houses to pull their money out of Iranian-linked companies tax-free.

When he first saw how much trade the U.S. conducts with Iran, Sherman went to the House floor and said: "There's blood in the caviar."

Sherman said Iran is ever more dependent on Europe. Iran's oil fields are petering out, and they need better technology to continue to glean enough oil from them. The Iranians are one of the top importers of American wheat, Sherman said, adding that Iran must be made to believe they will face economic and diplomatic isolation for their nuclear quest.

"The problem is this: I can't lie that well in Farsi," Sherman said. He added that the World Bank is still loaning Iran money, and the International Monetary Fund is about to receive about $90 billion in aid from the U.S. and Europe each to become "bailout capable" -- able to bail out struggling or failing states. But the IMF becoming "bailout capable" while Iran is eligible would increase Iran's credit rating, he said. "The tools are still in our toolbox," he said, we have to use them.

Donna Gross, of Teaneck, said she's very concerned for Israel, the U.S., and Europe if Iran continues on this course unabated.

"I would like to see our government take a much stronger stand on this," Gross, who attended the conference with her husband, Reuben, told The Jewish State. "I'd like to see the sanctions implemented and followed closely by government officials, so that there's no doubt that the sanctions that have been put in place are acted upon. Otherwise, the alternative is a military alternative, and it's not a good alternative."

Gary Grossman, of Deerfield, Ill. was standing with Kaufman as the two exited a briefing by Israeli Knesset minister and former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh. Grossman said the key is to get the rest of the world to pitch in and buttress American efforts.

Kaufman added: "The U.S. is relying right now on diplomacy, and time is not on our side."

Is there a diplomatic solution?

Kaufman's concern about diplomacy was shared by two panelists on the topic, Michael Rubin and Martin Kramer. Rubin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a Ph.D. in Iranian history, and Kramer is a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the Shalem Center's Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies.

Rubin said there is a tendency for incoming presidents to attribute the blame for diplomatic failures on their predecessors, not their adversaries, and President Barack Obama seems to be going down this course. "There's always this assumption that we just never had relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran," Rubin said, before noting that for the 1979 hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy in Iran to have taken place, there had to be a functioning U.S. embassy there in the first place.

He warned that Iran, throughout the last half-century, has delighted in taking any chance it has to ignore a possible thawing in relations with the U.S. "Nothing bolsters that sense of Iranian nationalism like being able to slap at the open hand of the Great Satan," Rubin said.

Rubin said that even if the U.S. wanted to push a diplomatic solution, they can't negotiate with themselves. "If you're going to have that diplomacy, who are you going to have that engagement with?" he said.

Kramer said that many Iran scholars in the U.S. -- including some Obama has claimed have his ear -- are Iranian-Americans with something to gain by tilting their analysis toward engagement. For example, those who already toe the official Iranian line are often denied a visa to Iran. This allows the mullahs to string them along and encourage them to continue their pro-Iran coverage and "earn" that visa. On the other hand, he said, Iran readily offers visas to people like New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, who they know will offer his readers Iranian talking points and be easily manipulated by his Iranian hosts.

Kramer said that where the Americans and Israelis often differ on Iran is in the analogy they draw to illustrate where Iran policy should be headed. He said Americans see Iran as China or the USSR. China was, they believe, a case where engagement worked, and the USSR was a nuclear power the U.S. could contain and deter.

In contrast, Kramer said Israelis tend to compare Iran to either Nazi Germany or Iraq in the 1980s. The Nazis had to be defeated, and Israel was able to successfully bomb Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor -- a tactic that is on the table concerning Iran's nuclear facilities today.

"Israel's message is: Iran can no more be contained and deterred than Hitler's Germany, and that engagement is just a synonym for appeasement," Kramer said. "Such regimes must be confronted, defanged, defeated."

Kramer warned that "a rift will indeed open up between Israel and the U.S." on Iran policy, and that rift will be likely be deeper than it has been in decades. "Their historical experience in the 20th century diverged widely," he said, and then addressed the activists and lobbyists at the briefing. "Prepare yourselves, because all of you will be needed more than ever."

Don't forget about the military

Kramer was asked by The Jewish State if recent reports of the radiation deaths that would occur on an attack on Iran's Bushehr reactor would deter Israel from taking such action. Kramer responded that Israel would take into account the winds and the weather, but it would not stop them from taking action if they felt there were no alternative. "I don't think that would be a decisive concern," he said.

Rubin warned that an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would have to be the first step in a plan of action, and not an end in itself. "Governments think in the short term," he said, adding that without a strong follow-up policy, an attack on one of the Iranian facilities would simply "kick the can down the road."

Sherman said keeping the military option on the table has two advantages in terms of economic pressure. First, it may convince the Iranians that their facilities will be destroyed anyway, so they might as well get something out of it by making a deal with the West. Second, it sends a message to our European allies that the weaker the economic sanctions regime is, the greater the chance of a preemptive military strike.

Gingrich said he favors taking out Iranian missile test launches as well. He warned that the U.S. should not be under any illusions about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"Ahmadinejad, if he gets the weapons, will be every bit as evil as Hitler," Gingrich said. "He tells us this all the time."