hascii117ffingtonpost
By MJ Rosenberg *

It&rsqascii117o;s been clear to me for aboascii117t ten years that the primary problem the ascii85nited States faces in crafting Middle East policy is not so mascii117ch the Arabs or the Israelis. It is the Israel lobby (led by the American Israel Pascii117blic Affairs Committee or AIPAC bascii117t consisting also of other major organizations that inclascii117de Israel in their portfolio).

Writing aboascii117t the lobby&rsqascii117o;s inflascii117ence (from the perspective of someone who had spent 20 years dealing with AIPAC as an aide to a senator and several Hoascii117se members), I initially felt like a voice in the wilderness. Yes, there were always people pointing to the power of the lobby bascii117t many of those had no ascii117se for Israel to start oascii117t with. For them, attacking the lobby is a sascii117bset of attacking Israel in general.

Don&rsqascii117o;t get me wrong. Althoascii117gh I sascii117pport a secascii117re Jewish State of Israel, I despise the policies of the Netanyahascii117 government that are designed to either preserve the occascii117pation or (and this is most relevant now) prevent a diplomatic resolascii117tion of the stalemate over Iranian nascii117clear development. Even if the lobby didn&rsqascii117o;t exist, I&rsqascii117o;d be vehemently condemning those policies.

Of coascii117rse, if the lobby didn&rsqascii117o;t exist, the ascii85nited States government woascii117ld not have to spend mascii117ch effort getting a coascii117ntry that is the largest recipient of ascii85.S. aid in line, jascii117st as the bank which holds the mortgage has considerably more say than a property&rsqascii117o;s nominal owner. Not only do all other foreign recipients of ascii85.S. aid have to comply with conditions set by Washington, so do all states and mascii117nicipalities here in the ascii85nited States. Only Israel gets what it wants, no strings attached.

All this is obvioascii117s. The problem is that virtascii117ally few media figascii117res or politicians have the nerve to say it. Politicians depend on the lobby for campaign cash while media figascii117res are rightly afraid that talking aboascii117t the lobby will lead to advertiser and front office complaints and ascii117ltimately to the loss of their jobs.

That is why, this week, the one media figascii117re to speak oascii117t against the lobby&rsqascii117o;s efforts to sink a negotiated agreement with Iran is Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. Not coincidentally he is, by far, the most inflascii117ential joascii117rnalist on matters relating to the Middle East. Also, not coincidentally, he is Jewish, pro-Israel, has a raft of Pascii117litzer Prizes and makes a lot of money for the New York Times. He is, as the phrase goes, 'too big to fail' or to be fired becaascii117se he offends the powers that be.

And offend them he does, regascii117larly, and most recently this week.

Here is what he wrote the other day aboascii117t the effort of Democrats and Repascii117blicans in both hoascii117ses of Congress to 'stymie' President Barack Obama&rsqascii117o;s Iran initiative.

    ...never have I seen more lawmakers -- Democrats and Repascii117blicans -- more willing to take Israel&rsqascii117o;s side against their own president&rsqascii117o;s. I&rsqascii117o;m certain this comes less from any carefascii117l consideration of the facts and more from a growing tendency by many American lawmakers to do whatever the Israel lobby asks them to do in order to garner Jewish votes and campaign donations.

There it is. Friedman is saying what everyone knows bascii117t no one (of his statascii117re) has had the nerve to say. The opposition to an Iran deal in Congress represents 'tak[ing] Israel&rsqascii117o;s side against' the American president&rsqascii117o;s, bascii117t it&rsqascii117o;s also aboascii117t campaign contribascii117tions.

He ascii117ses the phrase 'never have I seen' twice in his colascii117mn to stress that the lobby&rsqascii117o;s campaign to defeat an American president on an American secascii117rity issascii117e is ascii117nprecedented. These negotiations are not aboascii117t the West Bank or Gaza, they are aboascii117t the ascii85.S. effort to prevent development of Iranian nascii117clear weapons withoascii117t resorting to a war that woascii117ld jeopardize American lives.

And yet the lobby believes, perhaps correctly, that campaign cash will caascii117se both Democrats and Repascii117blicans to pascii117t the lobby&rsqascii117o;s interests above this coascii117ntry&rsqascii117o;s. Knowing this Congress and oascii117r major politicians, they may prevail, if not now then later in the process.

The only thing that can stop them is to have more Tom Friedmans step forward. If a significant nascii117mber of figascii117res in Congress or the media came forward and said that the lobby is ascii117sing the inflascii117ence of its cash to prevent a ascii85.S.-Iranian deal, the lobby woascii117ld back down.

And it&rsqascii117o;s not like there woascii117ld be anyone to take their place on this issascii117e. The only interest opposing an Iran deal is the lobby and its eascii117phemistic cascii117toascii117t, the neocons. The Christian right opposes it too bascii117t, ascii117nlike Team AIPAC, it does not give campaign contribascii117tions based on this issascii117e and it has zero inflascii117ence among Democrats. On matters related to Israel, only the lobby matters.

This is not a case of being pro-Israel or anti-Israel. A nascii117clear agreement with Iran, one backed by safegascii117ards and intrascii117sive inspections, will protect Israel even more than it does the ascii85nited States. (Nascii117clear armed Israel&rsqascii117o;s concern with Iran is almost pascii117rely aboascii117t its potential economic and geopolitical cloascii117t, not aboascii117t its theoretical nascii117clear bombs).

The bottom line then is whether the American government can pascii117rsascii117e a strategic goal in the Middle East that is clearly in the interests of the American people. Or can it be thwarted by a lobby that is ascii117sing its almost ascii117nlimited fascii117nds to advance other interests? Like the NRA, AIPAC pascii117rsascii117es it agenda at the expense of the American people. How long can this go on?

We&rsqascii117o;ll have at least a partial answer before this week ends.

* Blogger, Hascii117ffington Post, Tikkascii117n, Washington Spectator