Thanks
to the Iran nuclear deal, something remarkable is happening in American
politics: the irreconcilable conflict of interest between most
Americans on one side and Israel and its American supporters on the
other is on full display and impossible to ignore. In the past the
conflict could be papered over with grand empty rhetoric about the two
sides being in “lock-step” and the absence of “daylight” between them.
But no more. The conflict is out in the open where everyone can see it.
Iran should be thanked for this valuable service.

War with Iran
would be a catastrophe not only for the Iranians, including thousands of
Jewish Iranians who openly practice their religion in their ancient
community, and other people in the Middle East; it would also be a
catastrophe for Americans — hence the conflict of interest between most
Americans and the war party. Those, like Tom Cotton, Norman Podhoretz,
Bill Kristol, and John Bolton, who think an attack on Iran would be a
cakewalk, are either liars or fools. These are the same people, of
course, who said the Iraq war would be easy and would usher in a new
liberal Middle East. The result has been unspeakable sectarian violence
throughout the region, culminating in the
Islamic State and a
reinvigorated al-Qaeda.

Despite the predictable catastrophe a war
with Iran would bring, Israel and its staunchest, most prominent
American supporters are conducting a well-financed campaign against the Iran nuclear dealthat
would surely lead to that war if a Republican wins the presidency next
year. In fact, they want war because only war (followed by regime
change) would give Israel and its American supporters what they want:
unrivaled dominance in the Middle East, which among other things would
relieve the pressure to make a just peace with the Palestinians at least
by leaving the occupied territories.

Let’s acknowledge that most Jewish Americans favor
the nuclear deal and do not want war with Iran; in fact, many Jews feel
little or no connection to Israel at all. But that must not obscure the
fact that the Israeli government, which was recently returned to power
by the Israeli people, and the richest, best-organized Jewish American
groups — AIPAC and the rest of the Israel/Jewish Lobby — lead the opposition to
the deal and the neoconservative coalition in favor of war. (This is
not to overlook the prominent non-Jewish members of the coalition.) They
feign offense at being called warmongers, but they know that the kind
of deal they favor would require Iran to fully capitulate to the United
States and Israel, demands which go beyond nuclear questions, and
surrender its sovereignty. Such a deal could never be reached, and the
war hawks know it. They ought to be honest enough to admit that war is
what they want. (Some neoconservatives, Jews and non-Jews, are honest
enough, including Bolton, Podhoretz, Cotton, Kristol and Joshua
Muravchik.)

What’s noteworthy is that both sides of the divide
have taken the gloves off. We had Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, whom former Meet the Press host David Gregory once
called “the leader of the Jewish people,” invited to speak before
Congress for the sole purpose of undercutting President Obama’s efforts
to engage in diplomacy with Iran. We had senators doing the bidding of
Israel and the Lobby by writing to the leader of Iran to tell him no
agreement would be long-lasting. And most recently we had Netanyahu, in
an unprecedented display, openly urging Jewish Americans to oppose the deal with Iran: “The days when the Jewish people could not or would not speak up for themselves, those days are over,” he said in a webcastto
10,000 Jewish American activists arranged by the Jewish Federations
throughout North America and the Conference of Presidents of Major
American Jewish Organizations.

Are Jewish Americans supposed to see Netanyahu as their leader? (Not that I think they should see Obama as their leader.) Netanyahuapparently thinks so, and prominent Jewish Americans seem to agree.Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is Jewish, has courageously condemned this “arrogant” pretense. (Recall that Netanyahu has
told Western Jews that they are welcome to “return” to Israel — even
those who have never been there — to escape the dangers in their
countries. Thus he embraces the pernicious Zionist doctrine, shared by
anti-Semites, that Jews ultimately are aliens everywhere except in
Israel.)

Obama, on the other hand, has finally been willing to
openly identify the source of hawkish anti-Iranian pressure: Israel and
its American supporters, especially prominent and well-organized Jewish
Americans and non-Jews who kowtow to win their political and financial
support.
“Because this is such a strong deal,” Obama said,
“every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the
exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support.” He also
said, “Between now and the congressional vote in September, you’re going
to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of
millions of dollars in advertising. And if the rhetoric in these ads,
and the accompanying commentary, sounds familiar, it should — for many
of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the
case against the Iran nuclear deal.”

Everyone knows, first, that
the major push for the war against Iraq came from Israel and the Lobby,
supported by the neocon devotees of Israel’s agenda, and, second, that
the multimillion-dollar ad campaign against the Iran deal is run by an
AIPAC-related group, Citizens for Nuclear Free Iran, and United Against Nuclear Iran,
led by former Sen. Joe Lieberman and financed by wealthy casino magnate
Sheldon Adelson, who makes no secret of his Israel-first sentiment.

But
we shouldn’t overstate Obama’s willingness to identify the malign
influence on American foreign policy that emanates from Israel, its
Lobby, and the neocons in general. He also said:

When
the Israeli government is opposed to something, people in the United
States take notice. And they should. No one can blame Israelis for
having a deep skepticism about any dealings with a government like
Iran’s — which includes leaders who have denied the Holocaust, embrace
an ideology of anti-Semitism, facilitate the flow of rockets that are
arrayed on Israel’s borders, are pointed at Tel Aviv. In such a
dangerous neighborhood, Israel has to be vigilant, and it rightly
insists that it cannot depend on any other country — even its great
friend the United States — for its own security. So we have to take
seriously concerns in Israel.

Note that he did not
mention Israel’s large, invulnerable nuclear arsenal. Israel is the
nuclear monopolist in the Middle East and has been since the 1960s,
thanks to the connivance of its American supporters inside and outside
of government. In the context of Iran’s potential for obtaining a
nuclear weapon, wouldn’t you think that fact is relevant? Why do
establishment politicians and the mainstream news media hardly ever
mention it? Moreover, the rockets that threaten Israelis come from
people whom Zionist militias drove off their land in 1948 in a
far-reaching ethnic-cleansing campaign and
who are now routinely threatened and oppressed: the Palestinians in the
open-air prison known as the Gaza Strip, target of savage air wars and a
years-long blockade, and the people of southern Lebanon, whom Israel
has attacked repeatedly and occupied over the years.
Note also that Obama accepts the premise that Iran aspires to be a nuclear power, a proposition for which there is zero evidence and against which there is abundant evidence.
Nevertheless, to his credit, Obama did say,

As
President of the United States, it would be an abrogation of my
constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it
causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally.

It’s
not every day that an American president acknowledges that, whatever
his job is, it is not to serve the interests of Israel’s racist ruling
elite and population. That is indeed good to hear, but it would be news
to the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, among others.
Israel’s American partisans have predictably accused their opponents of anti-Semitism for
focusing on Jewish attempts to kill the Iran agreement, hoping
Americans will believe that criticism of Israel and the Lobby in itself constitutes
bigotry, if not Nazi sympathies. (Mike Huckabee’s claim that Obama is
leading the Israelis to the ovens is only the most obnoxious example.)
But taking offense at
the focus on Jewish efforts is a cynical ploy void of legitimacy.
Israel bills itself The Jewish State, representing Jewish interests
worldwide. The Lobby embraces that designation. (Not all Jews regard Israel as The Jewish State, however. Jewish anti-Zionism, which dates back to before Theodor Herzl’s time, thrives today.)
AIPAC boasts of its political clout and its command of vast resources
that can make or break political careers. An AIPAC official, asked if
the Lobby had lost influence after a scandal, once famously boasted to
a journalist over dinner, “You see this napkin? In twenty-four hours,
we could have the signatures of seventy senators on this napkin.”
In
light of all this, it’s a little absurd to object to the identification
of Israel with Jews or to rail against those who point out the obvious:
that Israel and its Jewish American partisans have been at the
forefront of the campaign for war against Muslim nations. As Chemi
Shalev, writing in the Israeli daily Haaretz, put it:

Netanyahu
is allowed to address 10,000 American Jewish leaders and activists from
Jerusalem, but mentioning their faith is forbidden; he is allowed to be
the sole foreign leader to openly campaign against the deal, but
singling him out is verboten; AIPAC can raise emergency funds, cancel
all vacations and send its lobbyists to canvass on Capitol Hill, but say
the words “lobby” or “money” and you are quickly branded a bigot; [Sen.
Chuck] Schumer can famously boast that he sees himself as a Shomer
[guardian of] Israel but you won’t dare say that when he seems to live
up to his promise.

Moreover, how absurd is it for
Israel’s partisans to accuse critics of raising the dual-loyalty issue,
which these days sounds ratherantiquated? Did anti-Semites put Netanyahu up to his machinations? Did they sponsor the trip to Israel for over 50 members of Congressjust as debate over the Iran deal was starting?

Do
not misunderstand: Israelis and Israel’s Jewish American partisans are
not promoting war with Iran because they embrace Judaism, the Torah, and
the Prophets. Many of Israel’s Jewish American supporters are secular and even atheist, and
many observant Jews oppose war with Iran, support the nuclear deal, and
hate Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians. What motivates many
Israelis and Israel’s Jewish American partisans has little if anything
to do with Judaism. Rather, they are motivated by an essentially secular
ideology and parochial identity politics — Gilad Atzmon calls it “Jewishness” to distinguish it from Judaism — that prioritizes the interests of the tribe. These Jews
judge issues by the standard “Is it good for the Jews?” (as they see
the good). This chosen-people framework is anti-liberal and
anti-universal, featuring ubiquitous enemies and impending doom. One
might think this attitude is understandable in light of the history of
persecution of Jews, culminating in the Nazi Judeocide. But since this
ideology fuels the persecution, oppression, and slaughter of innocent
others, rather than extra sensitivity to injustice no matter who the
victim, we cannot be so forgiving. Nothing in Jewish history can justify
how self-identified Jews have treated the Palestinians, or American
Jewish support for, or acquiescence in, that treatment. Israel faces no “existential threat” from
Iran or anyone else. If that treatment is an application of Jewish
values, then Americans should take note. If it is not, then in what
sense is Israel The Jewish State?

Whether this ideology has roots
in Judaic doctrine and tradition or whether it is a modern secular
phenomenon is a complicated question. But people ought to see it for
what it is — before we are dragged into another catastrophic war.

Finally, Israel’s Jewish American partisans warn that criticizing the campaign against the Iran deal risks reinforcing stereotypes and inflaming anti-Semitism (even
if in itself it does not constitute anti-Semitism). Almost anything
anyone says about anyone else could be exploited by bigots, so that is
no reason to withhold valid criticism. But if Israel’s partisans
genuinely fear an anti-Semitic backlash — which all decent people would
condemn as bigoted collectivism — perhaps they should reconsider their
campaign to provoke an American/Israeli war of aggression against Iran.

Sheldon Richman keeps the blog “Free Association” and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society.