Obama: Recognition of Israel won’t be part of Iran deal

posted at 9:21 am on April 7, 2015 by Ed Morrissey

It’s not exactly a secret that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposes the terms of the framework for the deal with Iran on their nuclear program, but he offered a suggestion to improve it this week: demand that Iran recognize the state of Israel and its right to exist. If the Iranians want to create a peaceful nuclear energy program and refrain from using the economic windfall to sponsor regional terrorism and insurrection, what better way to show it than to open normal diplomatic relations with Jerusalem?

NPR’s Steve Inskeep wondered why the US wouldn’t make that part of their demands, and Obama said, in essence, because the Iranian leadership are anti-Semites with a seething hatred of Israel. And, er, we shouldn’t expect them to comply with something so obviously against their nature. Ahem.

So there’s still going to be a whole host of differences between us and Iran, and one of the most profound ones is the vile, anti-Semitic statements that have often come out of the highest levels of the Iranian regime. But the notion that we would condition Iran not getting nuclear weapons, in a verifiable deal, on Iran recognizing Israel is really akin to saying that we won’t sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms. And that is, I think, a fundamental misjudgment.

The — I want to return to this point. We want Iran not to have nuclear weapons precisely because we can’t bank on the nature of the regime changing. That’s exactly why we don’t want to have nuclear weapons. If suddenly Iran transformed itself into Germany or Sweden or France, there would be a different set of conversations about their nuclear infrastructure.

So, you know, the key here is not to somehow expect that Iran changes — although it is something that may end up being an important byproduct of this deal — but rather it is to make sure that we have a verifiable deal that takes off the table what would be a game-changer for them if in fact they possess nuclear weapons.

Of course, the problem with this scenario is that we need to trust the Iranians to keep their word in this deal, despite the fact that they have worked in secret for a decade and in the open for another decade to get this close to a nuclear weapon. Plus, we have to assume that their decades-long efforts to exercise hegemony in the region will get put aside with this agreement, and their irrational anti-Semitism will not motivate them to cheat and lie.

Well, maybe the verification protocols will just be so doggoned awesome that trust won’t enter into it. After all, as former UNSCOM chair Charles Duelfer reminds us, we’ve decided to put all of our reliance in this area on … Vladimir Putin:

Russia (and to a lesser extent France), were the key advocates in the Security Council for Iraq. We now know unequivocally, that Saddam was buying influence. When I ran the Iraq Survey Group in 2004, we created a team to collect as much information about Iraq’s resources and how it expended them. The broad goal was to understand Iraq’s strategic intentions and understand where WMD fit in. We had a unique opportunity to record how his regime operated and how it managed to manipulate the international environment. As a priority, we obtained all the Iraqi records of the oil transactions.

Over some political objections, I published these records in the so-called Duelfer Report in 2004 (see “Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD,” Volume 1, section 2, “Regime Finance and Procurement.” These records (and extensive debriefings of top Iraqi officials) clearly show that Iraq was compensating Russian officials, and other individuals. Included among the beneficiaries in the list of Iraqi oil allocations were “the Russian Communist Party,” “the son of the Russian ambassador,” “the Russian Foreign Ministry,” and, “the Russian Presidential Office.” Putin was also a key actor in many of the Russian commercial entities that were engaged in oil transactions and the illicit export of weapons to Iraq while sanctions were in place. …

If and when a detailed verification plan is agreed for an Iran nuclear agreement, the inspectors will have less access than in Iraq. The world may point to them as credible investigators—and they are. But whatever they report will go through the kaleidoscope of the Security Council. It will not be the IAEA that decides to re-impose sanctions. It will be the Security Council.

Putin will not give up his right to a veto. Nor will other members. Russia (and others) will have a stake in sustaining access to Iran’s markets, not re-imposing sanctions. The track record of Putin and Lavrov in the Iraq case suggests that they will be working bi-lateral deals with Tehran. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper will get tough questions in closed hearings, not just on whether American intelligence and IAEA inspectors can reliably detect prohibited Iranian nuclear activities, also what deals Moscow or Beijing or others may have with Tehran.

If I were John Kerry, I would not want to be defending a deal that depends upon Vladimir Putin.

Some of those tough questions will come from Senator Bob Corker, who now has to push his bill demanding Congressional review on his own after Bob Menendez’ withdrawal from the Senate Foreign Relations committee. The New York Times calls Corker the “key player in Iran accord,” and reports that he’s getting close to a veto-proof majority — especially with Chuck Schumer on board. With that in mind, the White House has begun schmoozing Corker to woo him into a delay:

It is no surprise, then, that the White House has spent the last few days publicly stroking Mr. Corker.

“A good and decent man,” Mr. Obama declared.

“Somebody who has considered this issue in a very principled way,” said the president’s spokesman, Josh Earnest.

The White House now views its central challenge as either negotiating a compromise with Mr. Corker or stopping enough Democrats from joining him so that he is short of a veto-proof majority, at least through June 30, the deadline to translate last week’s preliminary agreement with Iran onto paper. After that, officials said, Mr. Obama may be in a stronger position to argue the merits of the accord.

Conservatives are in the meantime watching carefully to make sure Mr. Corker does not soften. “Corker is under enormous pressure from the White House to delay or weaken his own bill,” said Dan Senor, a former Bush administration official. “But he has been strong on this issue, as has his committee and his caucus. I don’t think he’ll cave.”

So far, it’s no sale with Corker. He wants Obama to make the case for the deal to the entire Congress, not just to him, before lifting any sanctions on Iran. Most of those sanctions got applied by Congress, not Obama, although the statutes imposing them give Obama some leeway in enforcement for six months at a time. That will be what Corker’s bill changes, if it passes and survives a presidential veto. If he uses the same logic he offered Inskeep, Obama might just guarantee Corker a veto-proof majority.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Don’t worry about Corker – he’ll be on board with whatever Master Barry says once he is threatened with indictment … alá Menendez.

Chitcago politics at it’s finest. A freak show brought to a national stage thanks to the donkey show.

Smegley on April 7, 2015 at 9:26 AM

I’ve said this deal is like the father-in-law giving his son-in-law a house and car if he promises not to kill his daughter (son-in-law’s wife) in the next 10 years. And now apparently he doesn’t even need to grant she has a right to live.

LashRambo on April 7, 2015 at 9:27 AM

why should it?

This deal can’t be everything for everyone

weedisgood on April 7, 2015 at 9:28 AM

Do not cave corker

cmsinaz on April 7, 2015 at 9:30 AM

Obama: Recognition of Israel won’t be part of Iran deal

If Obama had his way, it would be the U.S. not recognizing Israel, at least as long as those annoying Israeli voters keep electing Netanyahu and Likud to the leadership.

jon1979 on April 7, 2015 at 9:30 AM

cmsinaz on April 7, 2015 at 9:30 AM

Odds are he will.

Bmore on April 7, 2015 at 9:31 AM

This deal can’t be everything for everyone

Indeed it is not, it is everything for Iran, and nothing for everyone else.

F X Muldoon on April 7, 2015 at 9:34 AM

why should it?

This deal can’t be everything for everyone

weedisgood on April 7, 2015 at 9:28 AM

What deal? There is no deal and there is no agreement, and there sure isn’t anything signed by anyone. All there is so far that we are aware of is Obamas word that they have agreed to continue talking about possibly working out a deal in the future. So far there aint squat, no “historic deal” as reported in the MSM.

This is all about Obama and having a fake display of a deal for his Library.

Johnnyreb on April 7, 2015 at 9:41 AM

So there’s still going to be a whole host of differences between us and Iran, and one of the most profound ones is the vile, anti-Semitic statements that have often come out of the highest levels of the Iranian regime. But the notion that we would condition Iran not getting nuclear weapons, in a verifiable deal, on Iran recognizing Israel is really akin to saying that we won’t sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms. And that is, I think, a fundamental misjudgment.

If you’ve ever wanted evidence of what an intellectual lightweight Obama is, there you go.

This is the same guy who said Guantanamo should be closed “because it’s a recruitment tool”, as if everything America does isn’t already a recruitment tool. We’re a majority (overwhelming majority) Christian nation who strongly supports used to support Israel, which the enemy twisted into their own form of propaganda just to recruit new soldiers. Yet in Obama’s “brilliant” mind, even if Gitmo is wrong morally, suddenly doing what the terrorists want and closing Gitmo down will lessen their recruitment capabilities.

Intellectual. Lightweight.

Aizen on April 7, 2015 at 9:43 AM

Voter ID in Chicago?:

Jesus Chuy Garcia @garcia4chicago · Apr 4

Only 4 hours left to early vote! You can cast your ballot at any of 51 polls no matter where you live in Chicago. Just bring an ID.

davidk on April 7, 2015 at 9:46 AM

And what exactly are the consequences if Iran builds a nook, a wagging finger from Dog Eater?

The fool is giving Iran all the tools to build a device and then saying “Don’t build one, not that we’re watching anyway, just don’t, ok? Cool. Love ya!”

Bishop on April 7, 2015 at 9:47 AM

We can’t demand that Iran change the way they think, but we sure can demand those Christian bakers do!

ctmom on April 7, 2015 at 9:50 AM

August 11, 1984–Ronald Reagan jokingly said…”We begin bombing in 5 minutes”.

January 21, 2017–President Obama says….”Iran begins bombing in 5 minutes”.

HonestLib on April 7, 2015 at 9:52 AM

Heck, Obama probably doesn’t recognize Israel. His logic that we can’t change the way Iran thinks so we must deal with them is well, illogical.

major dad on April 7, 2015 at 9:55 AM

What , if anything, has kept Iran from building a nuclear bomb these last 10 years?

Sanctions.

What does Obama say will keep Iran from building a bomb in the next 10 years?

Lifing sanctions.

*Both of these things cannot be true simultaneously.*

So who will you believe, Obama/MSM/weedisadeepthinker or your lying eyes?

Dolce Far Niente on April 7, 2015 at 9:57 AM

How ironic….recognition of you as our president isnt in our deal..

elvis lives on April 7, 2015 at 10:01 AM

In 1943, If Roosevelt had bypassed congress entirely, and made a personal peace deal with Germany’s Third Reich absolutely guaranteeing them the unhindered development and manufacture of a nuclear bomb–stating, of course, that the Third Reich “promised” to use its nuclear development for “peaceful purposes only”–how would congress have reacted? Roosevelt would have been hauled out of of the White House in hand cuffs.

This analogy is really not so ridiculous as it seems. Iran, for the past generation, has been our number one Muslim enemy and has threatened Jews with extinction. So what is a president doing dealing with them and with absolutely no congressional advise and consent? Isn’t this treason?

MaiDee on April 7, 2015 at 10:03 AM

WeedIsGood all of a sudden a “fence straddler”….enjoy your hemorrhoids, preperation H pilot!!!

elvis lives on April 7, 2015 at 10:03 AM

This weed guy must not like Jews much and he is really anti Israel,, I wonder if he likes Iran better than the USA and Israel. IF he had a choice he would live in North Korea or Iran imagine.

garydt on April 7, 2015 at 10:04 AM

When Obama said the US would defend Israel if attacked one should remember it’s perfectly ok for a Muslim to lie and pretend to eventually reach the goal of a Muslim Caliphate.

Of course Obama isn’t going to add a condition like recognizing Israel to the Iran agreement. Obama himself doesn’t recognize Israel. Besides, he’s too afraid to ask anything of the Persians for fear his Chamberlain-esque “legacy” will fall apart. It’s like a giant stack of cards where the lightest of breezes will collapse it.

iamsaved on April 7, 2015 at 10:05 AM

Top Spy: Hillary’s Emails ‘Likely’ Hacked by China, Russia, Iran
And ‘potentially the North Koreans’

Apparently the emails of the Secretary of State and thereby the most important work of the Department of State was ‘transparent’ to some of the very nations who oppose the West and this nation in particular.

Any reason to think John Kerry has taken effective security measures?

How about Obama?

thatsafactjack on April 7, 2015 at 10:08 AM

Obama on Iran: “Go in peace you facist terrorist murdering thugs. You are who you are and we understand completely. Live long and prosper.”

Limerick on April 7, 2015 at 10:11 AM

garydt….good point. He should try smoking weed in THOSE countries. Stupid douchebag!!

elvis lives on April 7, 2015 at 10:15 AM

So let me get this straight, Iran doesn’t have to recognize Israel,

“Iran recognizing Israel is really akin to saying that we won’t sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms. And that is, I think, a fundamental misjudgment”

But forcing Christian religions to recognize Gay marriage, against it’s fundamental teachings is OK?

Am I the only one seeing a disconnect?

LouisianaLightning on April 7, 2015 at 10:22 AM

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Sheerq on April 7, 2015 at 10:32 AM

Don’t you just hate our effing president?

Sherman1864 on April 7, 2015 at 10:38 AM

So let me get this straight, Iran doesn’t have to recognize Israel,

“Iran recognizing Israel is really akin to saying that we won’t sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms. And that is, I think, a fundamental misjudgment”

But forcing Christian religions to recognize Gay marriage, against it’s fundamental teachings is OK?

Am I the only one seeing a disconnect?

LouisianaLightning on April 7, 2015 at 10:22 AM

Christians in America are the bad guys, Iran just wants to live in peace with nuclear weapons.

Get with the program, Tea Gabber!

Aizen on April 7, 2015 at 10:56 AM

Corker will cave.

Joseph K on April 7, 2015 at 11:01 AM

why should it?

This deal can’t be everything for everyone

weedisgood on April 7, 2015 at 9:28 AM

What deal? Iran is holding a paper that says things completely different than the U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/05/world/middleeast/outline-of-iran-nuclear-deal-sounds-different-from-each-side.html?_r=0

This deal is whatever you wish to say it is.

It can be everything to everyone, you dolt. Just say it and it’s real.

itsspideyman on April 7, 2015 at 11:05 AM

Iran does not recognize Israel. Good.

Israel (Bibi) does not recognize two state solution. Bad.

The picture is clear to me.

HonestLib on April 7, 2015 at 11:10 AM

There is no “deal”.

This talk is all about obama/Kerry sitting on the same side of the table, eliminating the sanctions.

All else is bullshit.

obama is never on your side, unless you are leftist or terrorist thugs.

Schadenfreude on April 7, 2015 at 12:15 PM

This talk is all about obama/Kerry sitting on the same side of the table (with Iran), eliminating the sanctions.

Schadenfreude on April 7, 2015 at 12:15 PM

Don’t you just hate our effing president?

Sherman1864 on April 7, 2015 at 10:38 AM

Ignore that narcissistic sick child.

Blame the approx. 97 senators who go along with him.

Schadenfreude on April 7, 2015 at 12:16 PM

why should it?

This deal can’t be everything for everyone

weedisgood on April 7, 2015 at 9:28 AM

What do you think Iran will do with the bomb once they have it?

Dick Richard on April 7, 2015 at 12:37 PM

Well, a vague upside to this is hussein’s continual demonstration of how intellectually, morally, and spiritually deficient he is. We wouldn’t really want some accidental action of his to taquia us into thinking he really did have any elements of the three. Much easier to deal with when his shiftless, criminal, destructive imbecile remains “honestly” consistent.

RL on April 7, 2015 at 1:47 PM

But the notion that we would condition Iran not getting nuclear weapons, in a verifiable deal, on Iran recognizing Israel is really akin to saying that we won’t sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms.

Does King Obama actually think such a statement shines a light on his incredibly awesome intelligence and negotiating skills?

He’s a blathering idiot if he thinks regime change and recognition of Israel aren’t important factors in making a deal. They should be the foundation of the deal.

Hear that sound? It’s the laughter coming from Iran.

fogw on April 7, 2015 at 3:44 PM

It’s not exactly a secret that Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposes the terms of the framework for the deal with Iran on their nuclear program, but he offered a suggestion to improve it this week: demand that Iran recognize the state of Israel and its right to exist.

Yeah, I’m sure the administration will file your suggestion appropriately.

Tlaloc on April 7, 2015 at 6:23 PM