Dan Drezner outlines how the deal with Iran could “fall apart”. He lists five ways:
- Disagreement over the sanctions timetable. I think there’s more than a timetable that’s still undecided. What has been promulgated is a framework for an agreement rather than an agreement and, judging from the published sources, there does not appear to be agreement among the parties about the framework let alone its timing.
- Each side sabotages the other with its domestic sales pitch. The statement of the framework published by the White House was much longer and more detailed than those put forth by the EU or Iran. And note the reports of rejoicing in Tehran. It certainly appears that somebody is overselling something.
- The regional situation melts down further. Or, said another way, circumstances change.
- The Sunni Arab states remain unconvinced. This is a point made by Walter Russell Mead. The P5+1 organizational structure left out some important stakeholders, namely the Gulf States and Israel. Like it or not they have veto power over any agreement.
- Scott Walker (R) is elected president. I take that as an instance of synecdoche. If anything in the final agreement requires action by the U. S. that will require approval from the Senate and I sincerely doubt that will be forthcoming.
I have said all along that I don’t think an agreement will actually happen. I largely agree with his key points. The sanctions will be an issue. This is mostly a matter of style. The Israeli dominated US Senate and House want to present Netanyahu with an unequivocal victory, guaranteeing he stays in power. Not lifting sanctions until Iran complies with every last bit of the agreement is that kind of victory.
The sales pitch won’t work. If this needs a vote, it fails. However, most of these agreements never really get a vote, so it might work.
I have no idea how the Gulf states go on this. It is probably their best chance to keep nukes out of the hands of Iran, but they have always been short-sighted group. These are the guys who created ISIS after all, and now seem to regret it.
Absolutely on Walker, but really any GOP candidate, probably even Paul. An election of a GOP candidate to POTUS means our ME foreign policy will be outsourced.
Steve
Yeah, ’cause all those Jews in the Republican caucuses really punch above their weight class.
… 47 senators. (And if you pay attention, you know this is really the GOP base and their eschatology.)
Steve
Cross party coalitions are still possible, Steve, as reaction to the Iran negotiations have shown.
But I’m enjoying your “Republicans are pawns of Israel” rants, conveniently overlooking who’s in which party.
To the best of my understanding the eschatological views of some evangelical Protestants are what steve is complaining about. IIRC white evangelical Protestants comprise about 50% of Republican primary voters and a much smaller percentage of Republicans. I’d be surprised if even a majority of white evangelical Protestants hold the foreign policy views they do for eschatological reasons. Contributing factor? Sure. Perhaps steve can provide evidence that a majority of Republicans hold the foreign policy views they do because they want to hasten the end of the world.
White evangelical voters support Israel at about the same rate as Orthodox Jews. That is pretty well established.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/27/strong-support-for-israel-in-u-s-cuts-across-religious-lines/
This far exceeds that of White Catholics and mainline Protestants. So the question is why. Let’s see what the good folks at Red State think.
http://www.redstate.com/2015/03/23/npr-evangelicals-israel/
They think it is because of theology, and because they think, for some reason, that Israel is wonderful. So the question is what percentage do you ascribe to that support. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever surveyed or polled this, and heaven knows many articles and even books have been written on the topic. However, if you read those with substantial followings, people like Robertson, Dobson and Hagee they make it clear in their writings that it is their primary motivation. Beyond that I would have to say that having grown up in that culture and based upon talk with family, it remains a key motivation.
Steve
My recollection is in 2002 the Bush Administration deliberately derailed agreements on North Korea’s nuclear program by piling on additional sanctions (labelling the country a member of the “axis of evil” contributed to this). The conservative tendency to think one gets the best from others by relentlessly beating them is a greater threat to a successful deal than the apocalyptic evangelical faction’s desire to provoke the Second Coming.
I’d forgotten the Bush Administration put together a policy review laying out options for a nuclear strike against North Korea in 2002, which only made matters worse. Again, the “I’ll bluster bigger than you” (always a sign of personal insecurity) tendency of conservatives will be one of the biggest impediments to a successful deal.
So, anecdotal then. It just rings true to you.
Partially anecdotal. As I said, there is no survey or poll on the topic. We had discussed here not long ago, most media in the US pretty much ignore religion. But when you have people acting as the spiritual leaders of millions openly stating they support Israel because of end times issues, I think it goes beyond anecdotal. When you hear it from family and people at work, it is clear that it actually exists. What I cannot do, I will concede, is put a number on it. Just as a reminder, no one has ever conducted a RCT on whether beheading is 100% fatal, but I am willing to accept the anecdotal evidence.
Steve
To back Steve up, this is George W. Bush:
In the winter of 2003, when George Bush and Tony Blair were frantically gathering support for their planned invasion, Professor Thomas Römer, an Old Testament expert at the university of Lausanne, was rung up by the Protestant Federation of France. They asked him to supply them with a summary of the legends surrounding Gog and Magog and as the conversation progressed, he realised that this had originally come, from the highest reaches of the French government.
President Jacques Chirac wanted to know what the hell President Bush had been on about in their last conversation. Bush had then said that when he looked at the Middle East, he saw “Gog and Magog at work” and the biblical prophecies unfolding.
In my experience, the weirdest thing about evangelical Christians is that they believe in everything the Bible says, up to and including Revelations, yet they go on living mundane lives based on the assumption the world will not end.
I think that for every Republican who supports Israel for eschatological reasons there are ten who support it because they think Israel is our closest ally in the Middle East. Just for the record I disagree with that. I think that Israel is our client rather than our ally and it’s a pretty crumby client at that. Maybe it’s just the Republicans I’m exposed to.
I think there’s truth to both aspects- conservatives support Israel for a wide variety of reasons. What is less clear to me is why it matters so much. As far as I can tell, I small minority of followers of fundamentalist sects believe something that is politically dangerous; the hard line determinalist eschatology along with a desire to be among the generation that experiences it (thus they are undermining any potential peace process.)
I see no evidence that there are large numbers of those people (perhaps explaining the disconnect Steve sees, because a lot of people loosely believe in the Rapture and other end times prophecies but not strongly enough to affect the way they lead their lives.) Aside from the small group of dangerous true believers I don’t see a problem, and I see much more that undermines peace than this group. On the Palestinian side there is a large confluence between those who gain political power from the continuation of conflict, and those who believe in the Islam fundamentalist eschatology.
Steve’s link indicates that 49% of non-Evangelical Christians support Israel, which means there is a large non-Evangelical-specific base for supporting Israel. Part of the issue is the contrast being provided by the Palestinian Authority.
According to Gallup, 70% of Americans view Israel favorably, including 60% of Democrats (down from 74% a year ago). Interestingly, there was little partisan gap in 2000, and one opened as Republicans increased their support for Israel at a faster rate than Democrats increased their support.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/181652/seven-americans-continue-view-israel-favorably.aspx
Modulo Myself: But Bush is not an evangelical Christian.
“But when you have people acting as the spiritual leaders of millions openly stating they support Israel because of end times issues, I think it goes beyond anecdotal.”
Maybe it’s because of a lack of formal religious exposure in my life, but I’ve seldom if ever heard a Jewish person speak of “end times” as a foundation for bedrock beliefs. Mainly, such doctrines are more common in cultist groups, who become lemmings to fanatical, controlling leaders spewing end of times messages as a way to manipulate people into a group-think format.
As for the Jewish culture, I don’t understand the mistrust and guttural hatred of these people. I also find the wisdom in their proverbs, life rituals, the importance of life, work ethic, and survival tenacity to be a stabilizing force in a society, let alone in the turbulent Middle East.
“To back Steve up, this is George W. Bush”
Rarely is there a discussion regarding present day events, commentary, or domestic/foreign policy crisis where GWB isn’t brought into the conversation to deflect any criticism that might flow into the present day.
Bluster isn’t only for the booze insecure. Lots of big time athletes use a lot of bluster for various reasons. I’m pretty sure Bird , Jordan, &Sapp, to name three, ever felt that insecure on the field of play.
Where did “booze” come from? More and more random craps is being inserted by autocomplete.
“Maybe it’s just the Republicans I’m exposed to.”
Sure. I certainly don’t get the impression that you have extensive exposure to evangelicals. Doubt if you can find it anymore, but read David Kuo’s book to get an idea how influential they are in the party, and the efforts made to keep them happy.
“there are ten who support it because they think Israel is our closest ally in the Middle East.”
And why is that? There is zero evidence that they are. I don’t think Republicans, or evangelical Republicans are stupid. I think it is highly influenced by their religious beliefs, which include, but are not limited to, their eschatology.
Steve
Good public relations.
Religious crazies:
“Today, the sons of Abraham and the daughters of Sarah are fulfilling the dream of the ages — to be “masters of their own fate†in “their own sovereign state.†And just as we have for these past 65 years, the United States is proud to stand with you as your strongest ally and your greatest friend.”
. . .
“I want to begin right now, by answering a question that is
sometimes asked about our relationship — why? Why does the United States stand so strongly, so firmly with the State of Israel? And the answer is simple. We stand together because we share a common story — patriots determined “to be a free people in our land,†pioneers who forged a nation, heroes who sacrificed to preserve our freedom, and immigrants from every corner of the world who renew constantly our diverse societies.”
“We stand together because we are democracies. For as noisy and messy as it may be, we know that democracy is the greatest form of government ever devised by man. ”
“We stand together because it makes us more prosperous. Our trade and investment create jobs for both our peoples. Our partnerships in science and medicine and health bring us closer to new cures, harness new energy and have helped transform us into high-tech hubs of our global economy.”
“We stand together because we share a commitment to helping our fellow human beings around the world. When the earth shakes and the floods come, our doctors and rescuers reach out to help. When people are suffering, from Africa to Asia, we partner to fight disease and overcome hunger.”
“And we stand together because peace must come to the Holy Land. For even as we are clear-eyed about the difficulty, we will never lose sight of the vision of an Israel at peace with its neighbors.”
“So as I begin this visit, let me say as clearly as I can –the United States of America stands with the State of Israel because it is in our fundamental national security interest to stand with Israel. It makes us both stronger. It makes us both more prosperous. And it makes the world a better place. ”
President Obama in Tel Aviv
PD Shaw:
Who cares? The guy told Jacques Chirac (allegedly) that we needed to be in Iraq because of Biblical prophecies.
Does this not trouble you? What if an interpretation of the Bible was the cause for the invasion of Iraq?
Bi-partisanship:
“O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.” (Koran 5:51)
MM: I don’t make anything out of second hand hearsay that Chirac admits that he didn’t understand. There is no mystery about why we invaded Iraq and why most politicians and people supported doing so.
So Obama supports Israel? Strange–the Republican party would have me believe that Obama is Israel’s enemy. Are they just lying? Or is this a sincere conviction?
MM that Obama quote was from 2 years ago. I’m sure there were GOP who criticized him for this at that time too, but his actions and words toward Israel have certainly chilled since then.
MM: The Obama quote was to help increase steve’s estrangement from American opinions on Israel. Obama views Israel as an avatar of freedom and capitalism. Its people should be uniquely greeted with reference to their religious mythology. You should probably ask steve if he thinks Obama was lying about these things. I don’t think so.
The knock on Obama in the Israeli press appears to be that they think he is a self-admiring amateur who doesn’t know how to make a deal or stand behind a position. I don’t know that they think Obama means ill or hates Israel, but that he doesn’t care that much or will get distracted or back-down at the critical moment. Whether or not it’s true, it creates its own dynamic.
. . . and I’m sure the knock on George W. Bush in the French press was no less complimentary. Americans vote domestic concerns and the world loathes it.
PD–
I look at Haaretz and see basic cautious optimism, for the most part. I have no doubt that Obama is being portrayed as you said in other Israeli quarters though.
As far as Bush goes, this was a guy who used to get daily briefings on Iraq adorned with Bible quotes, so it’s not like our foreign haters pulled the story out of their asses.