JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People

The Iran debate exchange

By Eric Fingerhut · September 27, 2008

Friday night’s debate discussion about the Iran threat featured a lot of talk about Israel. John McCain cited some of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s ugliest rhetoric against the Jewish state as a reason not to talk to him, while Barack Obama defended diplomacy while also noting Israel was “our stalwart ally.”

Here’s some of the transcript:

LEHRER: New lead question. And it goes two minutes to you, Senator McCain, what is your reading on the threat to Iran right now to the security of the United States?

MCCAIN: My reading of the threat from Iran is that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it is an existential threat to the State of Israel and to other countries in the region because the other countries in the region will feel compelling requirement to acquire nuclear weapons as well.

Now we cannot a second Holocaust. Let’s just make that very clear. What I have proposed for a long time, and I’ve had conversation with foreign leaders about forming a league of democracies, let’s be clear and let’s have some straight talk. The Russians are preventing significant action in the United Nations Security Council.

I have proposed a league of democracies, a group of people - a group of countries that share common interests, common values, common ideals, they also control a lot of the world’s economic power. We could impose significant meaningful, painful sanctions on the Iranians that I think could have a beneficial effect.

The Iranians have a lousy government, so therefore their economy is lousy, even though they have significant oil revenues. So I am convinced that together, we can, with the French, with the British, with the Germans and other countries, democracies around the world, we can affect Iranian behavior.

But have no doubt, but have no doubt that the Iranians continue on the path to the acquisition of a nuclear weapon as we speak tonight. And it is a threat not only in this region but around the world.

What I’d also like to point out the Iranians are putting the most lethal IEDs into Iraq which are killing young Americans, there are special groups in Iran coming into Iraq and are being trained in Iran. There is the Republican Guard in Iran, which Senator Kyl had an amendment in order to declare them a sponsor of terror. Senator Obama said that would be provocative.

So this is a serious threat. This is a serious threat to security in the world, and I believe we can act and we can act with our friends and allies and reduce that threat as quickly as possible, but have no doubt about the ultimate result of them acquiring nuclear weapons.

LEHRER: Two minutes on Iran, Senator Obama.

OBAMA: Well, let me just correct something very quickly. I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization. I’ve consistently said so. What Senator McCain refers to is a measure in the Senate that would try to broaden the mandate inside of Iraq. To deal with Iran.

And ironically, the single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. Iraq was Iran’s mortal enemy. That was cleared away. And what we’ve seen over the last several years is Iran’s influence grow. They have funded Hezbollah, they have funded Hamas, they have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon.

So obviously, our policy over the last eight years has not worked. Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East.

Now here’s what we need to do. We do need tougher sanctions. I do not agree with Senator McCain that we’re going to be able to execute the kind of sanctions we need without some cooperation with some countries like Russia and China that are, I think Senator McCain would agree, not democracies, but have extensive trade with Iran but potentially have an interest in making sure Iran doesn’t have a nuclear weapon.

But we are also going to have to, I believe, engage in tough direct diplomacy with Iran and this is a major difference I have with Senator McCain, this notion by not talking to people we are punishing them has not worked. It has not worked in Iran, it has not worked in North Korea. In each instance, our efforts of isolation have actually accelerated their efforts to get nuclear weapons. That will change when I’m president of the United States.

LEHRER: Senator, what about talking?

MCCAIN: Senator Obama twice said in debates he would sit down with Ahmadinejad, Chavez and Raul Castro without precondition. Without precondition. Here is Ahmadinenene [mispronunciation], Ahmadinejad, who is, Ahmadinejad, who is now in New York, talking about the extermination of the State of Israel, of wiping Israel off the map, and we’re going to sit down, without precondition, across the table, to legitimize and give a propaganda platform to a person that is espousing the extermination of the state of Israel, and therefore then giving them more credence in the world arena and therefore saying, they’ve probably been doing the right thing, because you will sit down across the table from them and that will legitimize their illegal behavior.

The point is that throughout history, whether it be Ronald Reagan, who wouldn’t sit down with Brezhnev, Andropov or Chernenko until Gorbachev was ready with glasnost and perestroika.

Or whether it be Nixon’s trip to China, which was preceded by Henry Kissinger, many times before he went. Look, I’ll sit down with anybody, but there’s got to be pre-conditions. Those pre-conditions would apply that we wouldn’t legitimize with a face to face meeting, a person like Ahmadinejad. Now, Senator Obama said, without preconditions.

OBAMA: So let’s talk about this. First of all, Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it’s going to keep America safe.

And I’m glad that Senator McCain brought up the history, the bipartisan history of us engaging in direct diplomacy.

Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who’s one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran – guess what – without precondition. This is one of your own advisers.

Now, understand what this means “without preconditions.” It doesn’t mean that you invite them over for tea one day. What it means is that we don’t do what we’ve been doing, which is to say, “Until you agree to do exactly what we say, we won’t have direct contacts with you.”

There’s a difference between preconditions and preparation. Of course we’ve got to do preparations, starting with low-level diplomatic talks, and it may not work, because Iran is a rogue regime.

But I will point out that I was called naive when I suggested that we need to look at exploring contacts with Iran. And you know what? President Bush recently sent a senior ambassador, Bill Burns, to participate in talks with the Europeans around the issue of nuclear weapons.

Again, it may not work, but if it doesn’t work, then we have strengthened our ability to form alliances to impose the tough sanctions that Senator McCain just mentioned.

And when we haven’t done it, as in North Korea – let me just take one more example – in North Korea, we cut off talks. They’re a member of the axis of evil. We can’t deal with them.

And you know what happened? They went – they quadrupled their nuclear capacity. They tested a nuke. They tested missiles. They pulled out of the nonproliferation agreement. And they sent nuclear secrets, potentially, to countries like Syria.

When we re-engaged – because, again, the Bush administration reversed course on this – then we have at least made some progress, although right now, because of the problems in North Korea, we are seeing it on shaky ground.

And – and I just – so I just have to make this general point that the Bush administration, some of Senator McCain’s own advisers all think this is important, and Senator McCain appears resistant.

He even said the other day that he would not meet potentially with the prime minister of Spain, because he – you know, he wasn’t sure whether they were aligned with us. I mean, Spain? Spain is a NATO ally.

MCCAIN: Of course.

OBAMA: If we can’t meet with our friends, I don’t know how we’re going to lead the world in terms of dealing with critical issues like terrorism.

MCCAIN: I’m not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I’m president of the United States. I don’t even have a seal yet.

Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president – and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.

OBAMA: Of course not.

MCCAIN: He said that there could be secretary-level and lower level meetings. I’ve always encouraged them. The Iranians have met with Ambassador Crocker in Baghdad.

What Senator Obama doesn’t seem to understand that if without precondition you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a “stinking corpse,” and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments.

This is dangerous. It isn’t just naive; it’s dangerous. And so we just have a fundamental difference of opinion.

As far as North Korea is concerned, our secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, went to North Korea. By the way, North Korea, most repressive and brutal regime probably on Earth. The average South Korean is three inches taller than the average North Korean, a huge gulag.

We don’t know what the status of the dear leader’s health is today, but we know this, that the North Koreans have broken every agreement that they’ve entered into.

And we ought to go back to a little bit of Ronald Reagan’s “trust, but verify,” and certainly not sit down across the table from – without precondition, as Senator Obama said he did twice, I mean, it’s just dangerous.

OBAMA: Look, I mean, Senator McCain keeps on using this example that suddenly the president would just meet with somebody without doing any preparation, without having low-level talks. Nobody’s been talking about that, and Senator McCain knows it. This is a mischaracterization of my position.

When we talk about preconditions – and Henry Kissinger did say we should have contacts without preconditions – the idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks.

And, you know, the Bush administration has come to recognize that it hasn’t worked, this notion that we are simply silent when it comes to our enemies. And the notion that we would sit with Ahmadinejad and not say anything while he’s spewing his nonsense and his vile comments is ridiculous. Nobody is even talking about that.

MCCAIN: So let me get this right. We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, “We’re going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth,” and we say, “No, you’re not”? Oh, please.

OBAMA: No, let me tell…

MCCAIN: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who’s been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama’s depiction of his – of his positions on the issue. I’ve known him for 35 years.

OBAMA: We will take a look.

MCCAIN: And I guarantee you he would not – he would not say that presidential top level.

OBAMA: Nobody’s talking about that.

MCCAIN: Of course he encourages and other people encourage contacts, and negotiations, and all other things. We do that all the time.

LEHRER: We’re going to go to a new…

MCCAIN: And Senator Obama is parsing words when he says precondition means preparation.

OBAMA: I am not parsing words.

MCCAIN: He’s parsing words, my friends.

OBAMA: I’m using the same words that your advisers use.

0 Comments | Share This | barack obama, debates, Iran, Iraq, Israel, John McCain, Presidential Race

JINSA says it wasn’t consulted on conference’s rally decision

By Eric Fingerhut · September 19, 2008

Calling the decision “inappropriate and foolhardy,” a member of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations is condemning the decision to disinvite Sarah Palin from Monday’s an anti-Iran rally sponsored by the conference and other Jewish groups.

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs says it was not consulted before the decision was made and wants to know who is “responsible” for the withdrawal of the speaking invitation to the Republican vice presidential nominee.

In a strongly worded letter to Conference of Presidents executive vice chairman Malcolm Hoenlein, JINSA executive director Tom Neumann said those who pushed to have Palin disinvited were imposing “their narrow partisan agenda on a very important undertaking.”

“I call for those who are responsible for this decision to step forward and speak in their own name and not hide behind the skirts of the Conference of Presidents. In disgracing themselves, they disgrace us all,” wrote Neumann.

The invitations to Palin and other elected officials to speak at the rally were withdrawn on Thursday afternoon, two days after Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) pulled out of the event claiming the Palin invitation made the rally partisan. Here’s the full letter:

Dear Malcolm:

When I heard the disturbing news that the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations had allegedly chosen to disinvite vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, I was in a state of disbelief. I cannot and do not believe that you, the consummate professional, could have made such an inappropriate and foolhardy decision.

My first instinct was that, as a member of the Conference of Presidents, JINSA would disassociate itself from the rally to be held on Monday. Nothing, however, could be more important on the American agenda than preventing Ahmadinejad’s Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Therefore, we must remain united in opposition.

So while we cannot withdraw from the rally, we want to be very clear that we not only dissent from the decision to disinvite Governor Palin, but we condemn in no uncertain terms those within the Conference of Presidents who chose to impose their narrow partisan agenda on a very important undertaking.

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, as a member organization, was not consulted on the decision, as I’m sure was the case with many other members. I call for those who are responsible for this decision to step forward and speak in their own name and not hide behind the skirts of the Conference of Presidents. In disgracing themselves they disgrace us all.

Tom Neumann
Executive Director
Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs

15 Comments | Share This | hillary clinton, Iraq, Presidential Race, Sarah Palin

Shonda? or Karma? We report - You decide.

By Ron Kampeas · September 16, 2008

Gabriel Nathan Schwartz, a Denver delegate to the Republican Convention in Minneapolis earlier this month, wuz robbed. By a pretty lady who slipped him a mickey in his fancy hotel room. To the tune of $120,000 according to disbelieving cops; Schwartz says it’s more in the range of $60,000.

Schwartz won earlier notoriety (one he likely welcomed) when he told a lefty webcast that he’d like Israel to, uh, do to Iran what he no doubt had hoped would happen to him up in the hotel room.

0 Comments | Share This | Iraq, Israel, Republican convention

Can Biden and Palin be believed?

By Ami Eden · September 12, 2008

Remember the hubbub back in April, after George Stephanopoulos asked Hillary Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel and she said the Islamic Republic would be met with ”massive retaliation”? Well the question – and henceforth the answer – struck me as utterly besides the point.

After all, does it really matter what the United States would do if God forbid such a thing took place, considering that Israel is believed to posses a second-strike capability? The real question is what the next president will do if the Israelis decide to launch a first strike against Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

Well, if the veep candidates have any say, the answer is that the next administration will trust whatever decision the Israelis make. “We are friends with Israel,” Palin told ABC’s Charlie Gibson on Thursday. “I don’t think we should second-guess the measures that Israel has to take to defend themselves and for their security.”

As for Joe Biden ... “This is not a question for us to tell the Israelis what they can and cannot do,” the Democratic vice presidential candidate said last week in a conference call with members of the Jewish media. “I have faith in the democracy of Israel. They will arrive at the right decision that they view as being in their own interests.”

Clinton’s answer may have been honest, but the question was irrelevant. In contrast, Biden and Palin tackled the fundamental question – yet their answers were thoroughly unbelievable. This isn’t 1967, 1981 or even 2007, when ultimately Israel bore the bulk of the risk, responsibility and consequences of a preemptive strike against a looming threat. By most accounts, it will be impossible for Israelis to attack Iran without U.S. knowledge and cooperation, considering America’s control over Iraqi air space and Israel’s need for the electronic Identification Friend or Foe codes that combat planes need to cross international airspace. And, if you believe the gloomiest of doomsday scenarios, Iran would not only retaliate with a rocket barrage against Israel, but would also move to cripple the world’s oil supply with pinpoint attacks and unleash a wave of terror against U.S. and European targets.

This is not to say that a President McCain or a President Obama would automatically order the Israelis to hold their fire (though, depending on whom you believe, the Bush administration is doing just that right now). It’s just to stress how suspect Biden’s and Palin’s answers are – how implausible it is that, given the need for U.S. cooperation and the wider ramifications of a strike against Iran, Obama or McCain would blindly follow the lead of the Israeli government.

1 Comment | Share This | barack obama, Iran, Iraq, Joe Biden, John McCain, Presidential Race, Sarah Palin

Sholom on peace

By Ron Kampeas · September 3, 2008

Sholom Keller, an Iraq War vet turned peace activist with Brooklyn Lubavitcher roots, talks to Eric Fingerhut after a busy ten days of protesting in Denver and St. Paul. It’s not often you get war vets fretting about lashon hara.

2 Comments | Share This | Iraq, JTA Video, Republican convention