AIPAC and Iran’s War Against America

nat_aipac_flags_03052013-584Originally published by the Jerusalem Post

For its decision to pull anchor last Friday on its bid to pass new sanctions on Iran, AIPAC has been accused of slavish devotion to bipartisanship. Although the criticism is not without foundation, it is probably undeserved in this case.

AIPAC did not cut and run from the Iran sanctions fight because it consecrates two-party initiatives. It walked away because it lost.

If the Republicans controlled the Senate, it’s possible that AIPAC would have maintained its support for the bill’s immediate passage even in the face of President Barack Obama’s pledge to veto any sanctions law. But since the Democrats control the Senate, the bill was dead without Democratic support.

Once President Obama coerced Senate Democrats into ending their support for the bill’s passage, he killed the bill. And he didn’t kill it by making it a partisan bill per se. He killed it by making it impossible to pass the bill through the Senate.

In truth, AIPAC’s retreat from the Iran sanctions bill is probably a good thing. The pro-Israel advocacy group’s high-profile role in the US debate about Iran’s nuclear weapons program has caused US policymakers to confuse the issue.

Due in part to AIPAC’s leadership role over the past decade in getting anti-Iran sanctions passed through Congress, most Americans perceive Iran’s nuclear weapons program as an Israeli security problem, not an American problem. Since AIPAC is a lightning rod for isolationists in both parties, and for anti-Israel forces in the Democratic Party, its leadership role in the debate reinforced that perception.

Certainly it is true that Iran’s nuclear weapons program is the most acute threat that Israel faces to its long term survival.

But it is also the most acute national security threat facing the United States.

The Obama administration exploits AIPAC’s high-profile role in the Iran sanctions debate to accomplish two goals. With the American public’s interest and patience for foreign affairs at a low point, the White House has used AIPAC’s central role in the Iranian nuclear issue to discredit AIPAC.

The administration views AIPA C, and the American Jewishcommunity more generally as an adversary in its bid to reposition the US on the world stage, by among other things, downgrading the US relationship with Israel to the level of EU-Israel ties.

Since last November, when the administration forged the deal with Iran that clears the path for Tehran to complete its nuclear weapons development in peace, the White House has actively endorsed the claim that AIPAC, or “the Israel lobby,” is using its supernatural powers on Capitol Hill to pass legislation that will force the US into war, for Israel.

This message was so incendiary that it became the focal point of news coverage of the Iranian nuclear weapons story.

And that in turn advanced the administration’s second goal.

That goal is to obfuscate the fact that Iran is working to acquire nuclear weapons, both as a means to become a regional hegemon, and to carry out its goal of destroying its enemies, including the United States.

Until Friday, the administration faced two obstacles toward achieving that goal: the Congressional sanctions bid, and Iranian behavior.

The sanctions bill wasn’t important as a sanctions bill per se. The sanctions placed on Iran’s economy over the past decade had either no impact or a marginal impact on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

The sanctions bill was important because it demonstrated that it was the will of the American people, through their Congressional representatives, to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. In other words, it said that Obama’s diplomatic fetish is not the be all and end all of American power.

By killing the bill, Obama did far more than weaken AIPAC. Indeed, the real impact so dwarfs whatever harm was caused to the hated Jewish group that it exposes the entire debate on AIPAC’s power or lack thereof as completely ridiculous.

By defeating the sanctions bill, Obama showed the mullahs that the domestic constituencies in the US that oppose Iran’s nuclear program are powerless to stop it. In other words, Obama told the Iranians that they have no reason to maintain even a pretense of good will or faith.

In truth, since Iran’s phony moderate Hassan Rohani was elected to the presidency last summer, Iran’s positive signals to the West have been so weak, that in a previous era, when reality played a greater role in US foreign policy, they would have been laughed off as pathetic feints.

But at least they were there.

No more.

Just hours after the Democrats withdrew support for sanctions, (and AIPAC declared defeat), Iranian television broadcast a documentary of a simulated military attack on Israel and on US military targets, replete with drone and missile strikes on theUSS Abraham Lincoln, downing US aircraft, and striking US military installations in the Persian Gulf.

One of the interesting aspects of Friday’s broadcast of “The Nightmare of Vultures,” is that it follows a much shorter computer-simulated clip of Iranian attacks televised in early November.

That clip was broadcast a week before the conclusion of the interim deal, which enables Iran to complete it nuclear weapons program. Notably, the earlier clips only showcased Iranian strikes on Israeli cities.

The computer-simulated attacks on US targets were not included.

Friday’s dramatization of Iran’s war against America was followed on Saturday first with a verbal assault on the US by Iranian dictator Ali Khamenei.

In a speech before military officers, Khamenei referred to the US as Iran’s “enemy,” and he said that Americans are “controlling and meddlesome,” and that US officials are “lying” when they express friendship with the Iranian people and when they “tell our authorities that they are not after regime change in Iran.”

Hours after Khamenei rallied his military forces with his stirring “hate America” screed, Iranian Admiral Afshin Rezayee Haddad of Iran’s Northern Naval Fleet announced that the fleet was on its way across the Atlantic Ocean, headed for America.

In his words, “Iran’s military fleet is approaching the United States’ maritime borders, and this move has a message.”

Then on Sunday, Iran dropped the bombshell.

Speaking to Iran’s ISNA news agency, Behrouz Kamalvandi, a spokesman for Iran’s atomic energy agency, said that Iran will not allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to visit the Parchin military nuclear complex.

Parchin is believed to be the site where Iran is combining the enriched uranium and other components of its nuclear program and building its actual arsenal.

Most recently, in August 2013, the private satellite imaging company Digital Globe published new photos of the Parchin facility. According to the Associated Press, those images indicated that Iran may be building nuclear bombs at the site.

One of the many flaws of the interim deal with Iran was that the US and EU did not insist on inspecting Parchin. Given that Parchin wasn’t included, there was no apparent reason for the Iranians to restate the known fact that Parchin was not part of the deal. And consequently, Kamalvandi’s statement cannot be viewed as posturing.

It has to be seen as a threat.

AIPAC’s withdrawal from the sanctions debate may or may not be good for AIPAC. But lawmakers – from both parties – would do their country a great service if they use the occasion of AIPAC’s departure to place the domestic US debate where it should have always been – on the dire threat Iran’s nuclear weapons program constitutes for the security of the United States of America.

The author’s new book, The Israeli Solution: A One- State Plan for Peace in the Middle East, will be released on March 4. 

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Steven M Tenneshaw

    Obama strenuously engineered this. He’s an outright traitor, isn’t he?

  • Bamaguje

    “…it is true that Iran’s nuclear weapons program is the most acute threat that Israel faces… But it is also the most acute national security threat facing the United States” – Caroline Glick.

    Iran considers Israel the ‘little satan’, while America is the ‘great satan.’
    In other words America is the ultimate target of Iran’s tyrannical Mullahs.
    Not surprisingly, the Mullahs regularly organize “death to America” rallies, and have severally attacked Americans through proxies (Hezbollah, Shiite militias in Iraq).
    Before 9/11, the 1983 Hezbollah attack on US Marine attack in Beriut was the worst Jihad terror attack on America.

    Hezbollah is also collaborating with Mexican drug cartels, and has infiltrated U.S. southern border… possibly for smuggling in dirty bomb when Iran get its nukes.


    None of these matter to America’s anti-Semites who only see Israel as the problem.

    • wildjew

      If Iran joins the nuclear club, I have no doubt they will use their oil wealth to multiply many hundreds of these weapons.

      William Shirer, in his seminal “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” (copyright 1959) wrote the following in his forward:

      “Adolf Hitler is probably the last of the great adventurer-conquerors in the tradition of Alexander, Caesar and Naopoleon, and the Third Reich the last of the empires which set out on the path taken earlier by France, Rome and Macedonia. The curtain was rung down on that phase of history, at least, by the sudden invention of the hydrogen bomb, of ballistic missile and of rockets that can be aimed to hit the moon.

      “In our new age of terrifying , lethal gadgets, which supplanted so swiftly the old one, the first great aggressive war, if it should come, will be launched by suicidal little madmen pressing an electronic button. Such a war will not last long and none will ever follow it. There will be no conquerors and no conquests, but only the charred bones of the dead on an uninhabited planet.”

  • The Facts

    Frontpage has decided that Ms. Glick’s loyalty to the United States shall not be questioned. When reading her articles, people just don’t understand the fanaticism of this writer. On the one hand, she’s raving about AIPAC doing hypothetically better if Romney won, when it was Romney’s association with AIPAC that helped him LOSE. On the other hand, the man who gives Ms. Glick her speaking engagements in Israel is Yehuda Glick from the Temple “Institute” who proclaims he knows where the Ark of the Covenant is hidden, and who climbed the Dome of the Rock the other day to throw things, and who thinks God is going to obliterate the al Aqsa Mosque so that HE can built the Third Temple. He got arrested for trying to cut the throats of goats at the Temple Mount. These people are really religious fanatics like the Shias.

    • Steven M Tenneshaw

      You”re lost. Stormfront‘s over thataway.

    • wildjew

      Caroline Glick is an Israeli. Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama for a number of reasons in my opinion. Romney was unable to distinguish himself from Obama’s misguided and dangerous foreign and national security policies. Like Obama and Bush before him, Romney championed the Palestinian cause for statehood. I reluctantly voted for him though I was very unhappy with Romney as our Republican nominee. As to AIPAC, I have long believed Israel should wean herself from American aid and dependency. It would be good for the U.S. and it would be good for Israel.

      Do you have any links you could share that corroborate what you’ve written about Yehuda Glick. I am not familiar with this rabbi.

      • The Facts
        • wildjew

          Still (I am kind of in a hurry) I fail to see the connection between Caroline Glick and Yehuda Glick other than they share the same last name. There are Jews whose last name is the same as mine with which I have nothing in common. On a personal note (this is ONLY my opinion) I cannot say that Jews taking control of the Temple mount and rebuilding the Temple will hasten the appearance of the messiah in Israel though like many Jews I believe these events are at hand. It could be five years, ten, fifteen or more years. God only knows. Jews who believe we are living in or near the ‘end of days’ (as described in the Jewish Bible) believe the Temple will be rebuilt on that holy place but can God’s plan be expedited by taking it now? I have my doubts though I could be wrong.

          • The Facts

            I think it’s true they may only share a last name but she is speaker at some events he holds. Here in paragraph seven is the part where she speaks at Yehuda Glick sponsored events. Not that there’s anything portentous about the surname itself.


          • wildjew

            Women in Green wrote: “Despite the differences of opinion between the bodies concerned with the subject of (the extension of) sovereignty (to all of Judea and Samaria), we have decided to support the initiative of the Knesset lobby in order to raise public consciousness of this issue.”

            Women in Green is a good organization. I support their efforts. Note she (or he) writes there are differences of opinion over extending sovereignty on the political right in Israel. I have no doubt there are differences of opinion over extending sovereignty over the Temple mount immediately. I might not agree with Rabbi Yehuda Glick on some fine points with respect to Judaism yet I cannot see how he and his group are outside the bounds of normative Orthodox Judaism. Can you? Why shouldn’t Caroline Glick speak to this group?

          • The Facts

            I’d go further. No reason why she shouldn’t speak to the group. Even no reason why people don’t amicably decide to build the Third Temple through some creative mutual arrangement. What strikes me is that the degree of harping on Americans and American leadership on behalf of AIPAC and through dual citizenship, while going to engagements sponsored by the guy who is doing goat sacrifices and climbing the Dome of the Rock to throw things casts a primitivist, savage shadow across the whole thing. I think that Kach party should have no pull in the United States, the whole Baruch Goldstein, Meir Kahane, Israelis vs Muslims blowing shofars and cutting each other’s heads off b.s. I don’t think we’re immune from it. Irv Rubin tried to kill Darrell Issa with pipe bombs. Failing that, Frontpage still attacks him and others, with the same ire, the same invective. It is violent. Ms. Glick’s writing has an exasperated, pent up violence to it. When she’s at the podium, she’s huffing and puffing, snorting in anger. It’s easy to see that this outrage over the US allegedly dictating borders and lobbying limits is part and parcel to the angry settlers’ movement.

          • defcon 4

            “Blowing shofars and cutting each other’s heads off”. Who has been cutting whose heads off? Beheading seems to be the exclusive province of islam0nazism in the 21st century.

    • Habbgun

      You are just going through the Left Wing White Trash motions now. Where is the facile smugness, the self confident ignorance, the certainty that every word that comes out of drug addicted Eurotrash is moral gold. None of that is there. You seem depressed. Its almost like …… can it be ….. your mother finally threw out your Occupy bucket and your mementos of a better, simpler time.

      I can just see it. You look at the stool on the left and remember that was your best friend what’s his name…who smoked cigarettes and spit a lot. Oh the good times. The good times.

    • zoomie

      A lot of very noble men sacrificed their lives so you could live free.
      In your case, it obviously wasn’t worth it.


      Look up ad hominem in the dictionary some time.

  • Socialism: Organized Evil

    These states need to mind their own business and stay out of primitive tribal conflicts in the middle east.

    • defcon 4

      Maybe the first act of islam0nazi nuclear terrorism will change your mind. Maybe it’ll be coming to a city near you.

      • Socialism: Organized Evil

        The conflict between the Jews and the Persians is not our war.

        What makes you think that a tribal conflict between Jews and Persians warrants the involvement of these states on one side or the other?

        • defcon 4

          I seem to remember death to america being a popular chant in the muslime world — incl. the islamic “republic” of Iran.

  • richarddonna

    AIPAC proved by not opposing Chuck Hagel that it is a DHIMMI organization that is more concerned about its Muslim master OBAMA THAN IT is about Israel. The Iran situation is another example of how every member of AIPAC IS completely emasculated.

    • wildjew

      AIPAC, along with the ADL, supported “disengagement” (the forcible uprooting of thousands of peaceful, law-abiding Jews) from Gush Katif, Gaza, August 2005. They supported it so enthusiastically, they would not permit one anti-disengagement speaker the podium at their annual 2005 convention in Washington.

      • Guest

        Court Jews.

  • Bridgeport Guy

    AIPAC is a parasite to the American people.


      OPEC and socialism are parasites of the Entire World.

      • defcon 4

        I think you should add islam to your list.

  • WillielomanIII

    Thank you Caroline for once again showing the facts and truth about destructive anti-American policies coming from this White House. As you can see from the typical low information Jew hating trolls that show up when you write, you telling the facts and the truth makes the un-American bigots and Jew haters very nervous. You have millions of Americans that support you Caroline and we thank you for your upholding American values.

  • El Cid

    The facts are evident that Iran is a rising power and is fighting against the interests of the United States in every sphere. To the Iranian Mullahs, Jews and Americans are one and the same ideological enemy. The only difference is that Israel is closer geographically and more vulnerable. Hence, more alarmed and vocal.

    The decisions taken today will affect the U.S. security and economy for years to come. The consensus to prevent Iran’s emergence as a superpower was growing. Now it is unraveling with the direct help of Obama. With America’s retreat, the other nations are lining up to do business with Iran.

    There is no possibility of normal relations with a country that is run under a totalitarian, religious fundamentalist regime. It is as fantastic as imagining that we could have had normal relations with Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. Why would Obama think otherwise?

    It is beyond understanding why any President would not have taken the initiative AFTER the negotiations to increase sanctions. This would have shown resolve. Instead, America is in complete retreat from the field.

    Unfortunately, most Americans do not understand this.

  • Andrew

    Yep, AIPAC fatally wounded themselves when they ran head over heels to Obama’s beckoning finger to aid him when he waffled his way out of Syrian strikes by asking Congress to “vote” on it.

  • Lanna

    Since America’s policies under the Obama and Carter administration have been harmful to Israel, we can expect God to look unfavorably on America. Maybe some day, anti-semites against the Jewish people will understand God blesses those who bless and support Israel, otherwise the troubled times are coming!

  • Dajudgmentdayiscoming

    Mene Mene Texas uParchin

  • antioli

    The only solution is to get more Tea Party types elected to congress.