The focus of my piece last week on AIPAC was mainly on its promotion of legislation to ramp up US confrontation with Iran. An article I published last year (below) shed some additional light on Israel's anti-Iran campaign in the US.
Israel's aim is to pressure the US into a war to overthrow the Iranian
regime, thus eliminating Israel’s last remaining strategic rival in the Middle
East. The supposed Iranian nuclear
threat is a pretense – and when the Israelis worry about “the clock ticking”
on Iran's (civilian) nuclear program, their main fear is a diplomatic settlement that removes the window of
opportunity for a military attack.
Last month, for example, at a support Israel rally organized by
the Neocon Jerusalem Post, the keynote speaker said she would limit her
comments on the Iran issue to two words: “Bombs Away!” – and they gave
her a standing ovation.
One tool to demonize Iran has been
to promote state-by-state legislation to “divest” pension funds from companies which do business
with the Islamic Republic. This article was published last year in CounterPunch, with a slightly
different version on MONDOWEISS:
July
30, 2012
Made
in Israel
Romney’s
Iran Campaign
by
JEFF KLEIN
Over the weekend
Mitt Romney launched his electoral swing to Jerusalem – with a coordinated
effort in the US from the usual suspects at the Emergency Committee for
Israel here and here, in tandem with the Republican Jewish Coalition -- it’s worth
remembering that this is not necessarily just a cynical campaign
maneuver. No doubt, there is the ambition to peel off some Jewish votes,
especially in states like Florida, while the expected fundraising affair in
Jerusalem ($50,000 minimum ticket) promises to add quite a few shekels to
Romney’s campaign coffers. But that’s only part of the story.
Romney is no
Willard-come-lately when it comes to serving the interests of Israel. His
ties to the Israeli Right and especially Likud Party President Benjamin Netanyahu
go back many years. Mitt met Ben in 1976, when the two were business
school graduates in Boston. Netanyahu, then calling himself “Benjamin
Nitai” from MIT’s Sloan School, and Romney, with a Harvard MBA, worked
together as corporate consultants. Their close relationship continued over the years, through the various political ups
and downs experienced by the ambitious duo.
When Romney was
elected for one term as Governor of Massachusetts in 2002 his presidential
ambitions were already clear. After leaving office early in 2007 – his
successor, Deval Patrick was inaugurated on January 4 – Romney wasted no time
in effectively launching his first presidential bid, not in Boston or Salt Lake
City, but in Israel. On January 20, 2007, the brand-new ex-Governor
flew off to Herzliya for the annual Interdisciplinary Security Conference,
whose theme that year was “Still Time to Stop Iran”. (Romney was not
alone; aspiring candidates Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain also
spoke, though via satellite, to the assembled delegates.)
The next day,
Romney was in the audience to hear Netanyahu – Likud Party leader but then out
of elected office -- address the Conference:
…on the economic level, we are taking action to advance voluntary sanctions on Iran. There is no need to wait for the United Nations to impose significant sanctions in the Security Council. A historic example of this is the action take against the Apartheid regime in South Africa.
It must start in the large financial institutions in the West, led by the US pension funds. We are at the start of this plan, but we need to increase efforts. The moment the snowball of voluntary sanctions against Iran starts rolling, it will put an immense amount of pressure on the regime and the Iranian people. Such voices are already being heard in Iran.
An operation is needed here that isn’t partial, that is coordinated, and that Israel needs to lead. First and foremost, the action needs to focus on the United States, and must kickstart Jewish public opinion, the Congress and the Senate, American media, economic forces, and the average citizens.
It has been said that we need to maintain a low profile in regards to Iran. This is true in regards to our means of self-defense. However, when recruiting an international front against someone who is threatening genocide against the Jewish people in Israel is in question, who will lead this campaign if not the Jews themselves?
Whether
Netanyahu thought up this idea on his own– he had been in the US during the
1980’s when the grassroots campaign for divestment from South African Apartheid
took off – or if it was whispered in his ear by any of the numerous right-wing
pro-Zionist operatives he knew (like Charles Jacobs or Frank Gaffney), is
impossible to know for certain. The idea for a US Iran divestment
campaign had already been floated in
a 2006 paper by Christopher Holton, who later became head of the “Divest
Terror Initiative” at Gaffney’s far-right and anti-Islam Center for Security Policy.
Romney had dinner with Netanyahu in Jerusalem the next evening,
where the two planned how to organize the proposed anti-Iran
divestment campaign:
When Mr. Netanyahu informed Mr. Romney of a personal campaign to persuade American pension funds to divest from businesses tied to Iran, Mr. Romney offered up his Rolodex. Before he left Israel, Mr. Romney set up several meetings with government officials in the United States for his old colleague. "I immediately saw the wisdom of his thinking," Mr. Romney said. Back in Massachusetts, Mr. Romney sent out letters to legislators requesting that the public pension funds they controlled sell off investments from corporations doing business with Iran.
On January 23
Romney in his own address to
the Herzliya Conference, “called for economic sanctions against Iran "at
least as severe" as those imposed on South Africa during its apartheid
era, in an effort to isolate the Central Asian nation and convince it to give
up its pursuit of a nuclear weapon.” He continued:
We also have to be imaginative in the way we pressure Iran economically and send a message to its leaders and its people that the world is not happy. In my meetings in Israel this week, I have become aware of a potential US pension system to further isolate the Iranian economy. We should explore a selective disinvestment policy. After a series of briefings here, I actually contacted the Treasurer of my own state of Massachusetts and the Governors of some of the neighboring states to begin this process.
Netanyahu was
not on hand for Romney’s speech because he was already in Boston (via Romney’s private jet?) to meet
with Massachusetts State Treasurer Tim Cahill, legislative leaders and members
of the local Jewish Community Relations Council. The response to the
proposal was apparently lukewarm at first. Cahill said he would examine
the idea, but that any action would have to be approved by the legislature.
Meanwhile,
members of the Boston JCRC pressed the issue more widely, arguing at
the February national meeting of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs “to form
a ’Stop Iran’ coalition that would launch political, economic and educational
initiatives against the Iranian nuclear threat, including a mass demonstration
in Washington and a divestment campaign.” But the rest of the delegates
were skittish. Jewish-American opinion had turned decisively against the
Iraq war and there was little stomach for another campaign that could climax in
a military confrontation. Not only that, but Walt and Mearsheimer’s initial
essay on The Israel Lobby had already appeared in the London Review of Books
and there was intense nervousness about what might be perceived as another
Jewish-establishment and Israel supported military confrontation.
It took AIPAC to
whip the troops into line. On March 13, 2007 Haaretz reported that “various Israeli sources and the
pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), are
also contributing to the efforts, particularly through specific legislation in
various American states where pension funds hold stock in firms invested in
Iran.” At its annual Washington DC Policy Conference later in March
there were at least two panels on Iran divestment and the tactic was formally
adopted after a closed-door meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu.
Vice-President Dick Cheney got a warm reception, but all the 2008 presidential
candidates were there. Obama’s
speech -- apparently written by WINEP’s Dennis Ross, among others -- was
full of strident calls for punishing Iran with “aggressive diplomacy”.
(Ross went on to co-found the anti-Iran lobbying group United Against Nuclear
Iran - UANI).
By May 9, AIPAC
published its memo “Divestment: An Important Tool in Preventing
Nuclear Iran” (revised and reissued in 2010) advocating “state-level campaigns to
divest public pension plans from companies investing in Iran’s oil and natural
gas sector provide another means to pressure the regime.” Preparations
got under way for a strategic – and bi-partisan -- state-by-state campaign for
Iran divestment.
However, there
were some concerns about the legality of such state-based initiatives.
Earlier court decisions had struck down similar efforts as usurping federal
powers or becoming restraints on trade; there were also fears of corporate or
investor lawsuits if plaintiffs could show financial harm. So lawyers at
AIPAC duly arranged for the filing of Congressional legislation on May
16: H.R. 2347 Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007; a
parallel and identical bill was launched in the Senate on the next day.
HR 2347 was
fast-tracked in the House and passed 408-6
on July 31, 2007. However, in the Senate, where procedural rules allow a
bill to be put on hold, the legislation was blocked by Republican Senator Richard Shelby of
Alabama, reportedly at the request of the Bush administration. To the
discomfort of AIPAC and pro-Israel advocates of confrontation with Iran, Bush
apparently felt that two disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were more than
enough for the time being; and in any case, sitting presidents usually
oppose having their hands tied by Congress on foreign affairs. The Iran
Sanctions Enabling Act would not be fully passed and signed into law until
2009.
Nevertheless,
the state-by-state divestment campaign took off. The legalities mattered little
in the end because the effort really aimed to stir up public hostility against
the Iranian regime and prepare the way for possible armed confrontation
later. The practical effect of this first round of Iran sanctions was
mainly symbolic, but served to open another front in the strategic propaganda
war that has continued for more than a decade. After the destruction of Iraq,
Iran was Israel’s last potent enemy state left in the region, an irresistible
target.
The Iran
divestment campaign marched relentlessly from state to state across the country
with depressing uniformity. For years Google alerts would deposit links
to new reports of legislative efforts and state divestment bills enacted – or
much more rarely defeated – into my email inbox on a daily basis.
Everywhere
divestment initiatives were launched and trumpeted by the local Jewish communal
organizations and in the Jewish press, by AIPAC supporters, in the Neocon
blogosphere and sometimes among local pro-Israel Christian
fundamentalists. Sometimes token allies would be rounded up here and
there – in the labor movement or in communities of color – but this did little
to disguise the true source of the legislative initiatives. When
the campaign was successful in passing divestment bills, it was usually
accomplished through focused lobbying efforts and mobilization of the troops
through the JCRCs and the synagogues. Despite the initial hopes the cause
never took off as the broad public campaign its initiators had imagined.
The so-called grassroots campaign was strictly astro-turf.
Florida was the
first state to enact an Iran divestment law on June 8, 2007, followed by
Louisiana (July 9), Illinois (September 11), California (October 14) – with
little publicity an virtually no organized opposition. Eventually the
list included New Jersey, Ohio, Georgia, Mississippi, Iowa, Texas, Colorado,
Washington state, reaching 17 states plus the District of Columbia and many
city councils too. I gave up counting when the wave reached Alaska. .
. Occasionally a divestment bill was delayed or even defeated , as in
Maine, usually when pension boards or public sector unions took notice of
possible damage to state retirement fund bottom lines.
What about
Massachusetts, where, thanks to Romney, the Iran divestment effort all
began? It wasn’t in the first, or even the second wave of states to pass
a divestment bill. The local legislative calendar did not allow the
introducing a bill until 2008 and by then it was possible to muster some organized opposition in
coordination with a few determined state legislators, the head of the state pension investment board
and the State Treasurer (until he changed his opinion after deciding to run for
governor). Embarrassingly, the Massachusetts divestment bill, camouflaged
as “An Act Protecting Pension Fund Investments from the Global Securities Risk
of Investment in Iran,” was defeated first time out and only passed two years later after some behind-the-scenes
arm twisting by pro-Israel lobbyists and legislative leaders.
It’s worth
emphasizing that the campaign against Iran was and remains “bi-partisan” in
character. The Iran Divestment Enabling Act of 2007 was not the product of some
Southern Republican or Neocon mouthpiece in Congress, but was introduced by that
well-known Massachusetts “progressive” Barney Frank. The matching Senate bill
was sponsored by an ambitious young freshman from Illinois named Barack Obama,
-- who later signed it into law during his first year as President.
By now Obama is
learning the perils of electoral pandering to the Israel Lobby. Ever more
extreme AIPAC-written Iran sanction bills – some over the tepid opposition of
his administration -- have poured out of Congress. The political pressure
mounts to compel armed confrontation rather than diplomacy with Iran and for
the President to prove his fealty to Israel by one concession after another.
The bar is constantly raised, so that no increase in military aid or security
cooperation with Israel, no amount of bellicose rhetoric or overt preparation
for military attack on Iran will ever suffice to prove that Obama is a “true
friend” of the Jewish State. The President is learning – perhaps too late –
that feeding the Israeli crocodile does not work.
Meanwhile, in
Jerusalem on Sunday, Netanyahu -- with Romney at his side -- was smiling his
crocodile smile in preparation to making Obama his next meal. And Sheldon
Adelson was close by, writing another big check.
No comments:
Post a Comment