Skip to main content

GOP White House hopeful Mitt Romney and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu go way back.  Their friendship dates back to the 1980's when, as Governor Romney pointed out during a December GOP debate, "We worked together at Boston Consulting Group."  And from his aborted campaign for state pension fund disinvestment from companies doing business with Iran and his call for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be indicted on war crimes charges to his five year push for striking Tehran's nuclear facilities, Romney has done Bibi's bidding ever since.

But now with Mitt struggling to secure the GOP nomination and lagging President Obama in the polls, Benjamin Netanyahu is about to return the favor.  Because when Bibi comes to Washington next week, virtually the entire Republican Party and some Democrats in Congress will join Mitt's BFF in pressing President Obama to attack Iran.

For months, American and Israeli leaders have engaged in a high-stakes kabuki dance over the confrontation with Iran.  Hoping to forestall a unilateral Israeli strike against Tehran's nuclear facilities, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and intelligence director James Clapper warned of the retaliatory threats to U.S. interests, economy and even the homeland.  Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey declared an attack by his overstretched military would not be "prudent" and reiterated for Congress today that Tehran is a "rational actor."

For their part, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak downplay the risks of Iranian retaliation from an Israeli preemptive strike.  The stakes, they along with many of their Likud allies in the Unites States, are nothing less than preventing a second Holocaust.  More as a means of turning the screws on the Obama administration than providing the U.S. with plausible deniability, Netanyahu's government has insisted for months that it will not provide the U.S. with advance warning of an Israeli attack.  And with the articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post suggesting that only the U.S. has the capability to destroy the Iranian nuclear program once its enters the supposed "zone of immunity," the political pressure on President Obama to bless a strike by Israel now and promise an American attack later if necessary, is growing rapidly.

Next week, those simmering tensions will be aired publicly.  As Time explained, President Obama will address America Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Sunday before meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House the next day:

Top of the agenda on both occasions is Iran, which has also been chosen by Republicans as the Number 1 foreign policy issue of the presidential race. And publicly aired differences in the assessment of, and strategies for dealing with, Iran's nuclear program have become a source of friction between the Administration and the Israelis. Netanyahu's leverage in the debate is boosted not only by Israel's threat to take unilateral military action if it deems Washington's efforts to restrain Iran insufficient, but also by Obama's need to remain onside with the flagship Israel lobbying organization.
CBS reported Thursday that "Netanyahu wants Obama to state unequivocally that the United States is preparing for a military operation in the event that Iran crosses certain 'red lines.'"  Just in case Obama needs extra persuading, the Likud Prime Minister is enlisting the help of his Republican allies to turn up the heat:
Netanyahu and his advisers briefed a group of senators and senior congressmen during the past two weeks on the Iranian issue, and asked them to pressure Obama on the matter. Last week, Netanyahu met a group of five senior senators over lunch, headed by Sen. John McCain, who ran four years ago against Obama for president. Netanyahu reportedly told the senators he was not interfering in U.S. politics and expected U.S. officials not to interfere in Israeli politics either.
When John McCain emerged from that meeting with Netanyahu to declare, "There should be no daylight between America and Israel in our assessment of the [Iranian] threat...unfortunately there clearly is some," it was music to Mitt Romney's ears.  And not just because McCain is one of Mitt's highest-profile endorsers.  As it turns out Romney has been the mouthpiece for his buddy Bibi's hard line message for years.

As Mitt explained in an interview with the Bibi-friendly Israel Hayom in October, President Romney would follow Israel's lead:

The actions that I will take will be actions recommended and supported by Israeli leaders. I don't seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel's leaders thought that a move of that nature [the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem] would be helpful to their efforts, then that's something I'll be inclined to do. But again, that's a decision which I would look to the Israeli leadership to help guide. I don't think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process, instead we should stand by our ally. Again, my inclination is to follow the guidance of our ally Israel, as to where our facilities and embassies would exist.
And during his exchange with Newt Gingrich during a December Republican debate, Romney left no doubt which Israeli leader he was talking about:
"I've also known Bibi Netanyahu for a long time. We worked together at Boston Consulting Group. And the last thing Bibi Netanyahu needs to have is not just a person who's an historian, but somebody who is also running for president of the United States, stand up and say things that create extraordinary tumult in his neighborhood...Before I made a statement of that nature, I'd get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say, 'Would it help if I said this? What would you like me to do?'"
As it turns out, that's exactly what Mitt Romney has been doing since before his first run for President of the United States.

Consider Romney's 24 hour disinvestment campaign in early 2007, an effort cut short by revelations his own former employer had recent business dealings with Tehran. Romney followed the lead of his one-time BCG colleague and then-former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was touring the U.S. calling for pension funds to unload any holdings in companies doing business with Iran. Romney began his own grandstanding on Iranian disinvestment the next month by targeting the Democratic-controlled states of New York and Massachusetts. On February 22, Romney sent letters to New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton as well as state comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli urging a policy of "strategic disinvestment from companies linked to the Iranian regime." Romney's theatrics continued:

"With your new responsibilities overseeing one of America's largest pension funds, you have a unique opportunity to lead an effort to isolate Iran as it pursues nuclear armament. I request that you immediately launch a policy of strategic disinvestment from companies linked to the Iranian regime. Screening pension investments and divesting from companies providing financial support to the Iranian regime or linked to Iran's weapons programs and terrorist activities could have a powerful impact. New investments should be scrutinized as long as Iran's regime continues its current, dangerous course."
As it turns out, scrutiny begins at home. As the AP and others detailed, Romney's former employer and the company he founded had links to very recent Iranian business deals.  Caught flat-footed by his hypocrisy that took the AP less than a day to uncover, Romney feebly responded:
"This is something for now-forward. I wouldn't begin to say that people who, in the past, have been doing business with Iran, are subject to the same scrutiny as that which is going on from a prospective basis."
Romney's role as Netanyahu's water carrier also explains Mitt's passing comment during the November 22nd CNN national security debate. When Romney said he wanted to "indict Ahmadinejad for violating the Geneva -- or the Genocide Convention," he was just awkwardly repeating an agenda Bibi has been pushing for years.

In January 2007, Romney joined Netanyahu among the speakers at the Herzliya Conference. There, he first announced his support for Netanyahu's approach.  Then in the fall of 2007, Romney took his case to the United Nations. He not only demanded the General Secretary Ban-Ki-Moon "to revoke any invitation to President Ahmadinejad to address the General Assembly," but insisted that the UN prosecute the Iranian President for his 2006 boast that he would "wipe Israel off the map."

"If President Ahmadinejad sets foot in the United States, he should be handed an indictment under the Genocide Convention."
As Mother Jones detailed last year, there are a host of legal barriers to Romney's gambit. For starters, "U.S. policy has been to not honor the International Criminal Court; we are not a signatory to the Rome Treaty." And as MoJo reported:
It's widely interpreted that a statement supposedly egging on genocide is not legally considered a tool of genocide, unless it can be taken into evidence as proving direct intent and premeditation. Furthermore, it would be unprecedented to indict a foreign leader for a genocide that hasn't even taken place yet.
That may explain why Romney's nearly five-old year quest to prosecute the Iranian president has fizzled out.  Of course, on the issue that matters most - the Iranian nuclear program - Benjamin Netanyahu and Mitt Romney have always seen eye to eye.

As it turns out, many of Romney's advisers not only helped bring you the war in Iraq, but have for months been advocating an American attack on Iran "before it's too late." In 2007 Romney declared he favored all options "from blockade to bombardment" and announced that "if for some reasons [the Iranians] continue down their course of folly toward nuclear ambition, then I would take military action if that's available to us." And in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in November titled, "I Won't Let Iran Get Nukes," Romney talked tough in two languages:

Si vis pacem, para bellum. That is a Latin phrase, but the ayatollahs will have no trouble understanding its meaning from a Romney administration: If you want peace, prepare for war...Only when the ayatollahs no longer have doubts about America's resolve will they abandon their nuclear ambitions.
In last week's Arizona GOP debate, Mitt Romney repeated a pledge certain to please Benjamin Netanyahu:
"We must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. If they do the world changes, America will be at risk and someday nuclear weaponry will be used.  If I'm president that will not happen. If we reelect Barack Obama it will happen."
In a few days, Romney's good friend Bibi Netanyahu will be in Washington to help make sure the reelection of Barack Obama doesn't happen.

* Crossposted at Perrspectives *

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Netanyahu is one nasty dude. (8+ / 0-)
    The Obama administration's suspicions concerning Netanyahu were further fueled after Netanyahu and his advisers briefed a group of senators and senior congressmen during the past two weeks on the Iranian issue, and asked them to pressure Obama on the matter. Last week, Netanyahu met a group of five senior senators over lunch, headed by Sen. John McCain, who ran four years ago against Obama for president. Netanyahu reportedly told the senators he was not interfering in U.S. politics and expected U.S. officials not to interfere in Israeli politics either.

     The topic quickly turned to Iran, according to reports. Netanyahu apparently complained bitterly about certain officials in the Obama administration who spoke out against an Israeli strike on Iran. But between the lines, some suggest that Netanyahu was speaking about Obama himself, as well as the other very senior officials in the administration. He reportedly told the senators that this kind of public discourse serves the Iranians.

    Pentagon Papers Daniel Ellsberg, “It was always a bad year to get out of Vietnam.”

    by allenjo on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 05:30:14 PM PST

  •  Call his bluff (5+ / 0-)

      President Obama should just tell Bibi that if he wants a war with Iran, he's on his own.

      Even Bibi won't risk obliterating his own country just to try to get rid of Obama.

      Or would he?

    "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

    by Buzzer on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 05:31:09 PM PST

    •  That would be nice (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I wish it would happen but I think everyone knows that it won't. We've gone about as far as we will go with this by announcing clearly that we do not believe Iran has a nuclear weapons program. (Panetta)

      Meanwhile Bibi's war drumming and subsequent world-wide concerns over the possibilities and consequences of a war with Iran are bringing on increased speculation adding to oil prices.

      This is not good for Obama as Americans are easily ticked off over high gasoline prices. If prices continue to increase this will work in Romney's favor. Bibi knows what he is doing.

      This could get out of hand and that would not be a good situation.

      “Humankind can not bear very much reality.” - T.S. Eliot

      by truong son traveler on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 06:51:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Been Saying The Same Thing Here For 5 Years Now (0+ / 0-)

      If fellow neocon Cheney told him to have a nice day when first proposing this, what's Obama going to say?

      Bibi wants to show how badass he is, he's more than welcome to go it alone. Let him start WW3 on his dime, not ours'.

      It's likely not happening. The neocons are only pitching this in a vain attempt to derail Obama in the upcoming election. Good luck on that one.

  •  The fact is that the Iranian regime is very (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    dangerous -- to its own people and to its neighbors. There is absolutely no disagreement on that between Netanyahu and Obama. The only question is what to do about it.

    •  Even if that's true: (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poco, truong son traveler
      The fact is that the Iranian regime is very
      dangerous -- to its own people and to its neighbors.
      What does that have to do with the United States?

      That's all it takes, really...pressure and time.

      by Flyswatterbanjo on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 06:17:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's bull feathers (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco, Flyswatterbanjo


        “Humankind can not bear very much reality.” - T.S. Eliot

        by truong son traveler on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 06:53:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Well for one thing (0+ / 0-)

        we still have tens of thousands of soldiers in Afghanistan. Iran has so far refrained from aiding the Taliban, but Iran has a huge army and could potentially intervene there -- Iran has always thought of much of what is now Afghanistan as their sphere of influence and only British intervention stopped an Iranian invasion in the 1830s.

        And for another, a regime that has been supporting some of the most un-progressive violent forces in the region such as the Assad regime and Hezbollah getting nuclear weapons should chill anyone.

        And that is not even taking into account Ahmadinejad's expressed desire to "wipe out" Israel. Even if you don't care about the six million Jews and five million non-Jews who could be vicitimized by a nuclear attack, consider the political consequences for a Democratic President under whose watch such an attack occurs. Say hello to President Gingrich -- and 350 Rethugs in the House of Representatives.

        •  Sure, Charlie. (0+ / 0-)

          Consider the political consequences for president bush when there was an attack on American soil that happened under his watch. Re-election.

          And it would be an attack on Iran by the US or Israel that would further endanger our troops, not the convoluted "potential" intervention by Iran you imagine.

          Hezbollah and Assad? Again, what do they have to do with the US that would necessitate our attacking Iran? Nothing.

          That's all it takes, really...pressure and time.

          by Flyswatterbanjo on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:10:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Andrew Sullivan's been following this as well (4+ / 0-)

    He has some data and links that Obama's only way to fight against this alliance is public opinion in both the U.S. and Israel. Israelis don't want to risk war with Iran without the help of the U.S., and obviously Americans are wary after Iraq... So Obama can call bibi's bluff and take it to the American people. Will it work? I hope so because it's almost a sure thing that Bibi is going to pressure O next week.

    "If these Republicans can't stand up to Rush, how can they stand up to the Iranians?" - Redmond Barry

    by xsonogall on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 05:49:25 PM PST

  •  "Before it's too late"... (4+ / 0-)

    ...let's be honest; is it ever "too late" to attack for GOP hawks?

    I'm not sure that's even possible.

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 06:14:43 PM PST

  •  OK one more time; the last Wikileaks dump of intel (0+ / 0-)

    showed that Mossad backed Kurdish/MEK groups in a series of raids, killed key nuclear and security personnel and did enough damage to key nuclear installations to set any potential nuclear capability back by two or more years, assuming that Iran is trying to develop a nuke.

    While this is greeted with some skepticism because it would burst the bubble on the super secure measures Iran has taken to protect its facilities to have some McGyver style commandos able to do significant damage, if true, and if Iran were trying for a nuke, 2 years is an appreciable window for some sort of accommodation to be worked out.

    However if the insurgent attacks were supported or coordinated by Israeli/Western interests and the facilities were actually for peaceful nuclear development, then we have a potential time bomb in the roadway to any sort of accommodation.  This could potentially be as damaging to US interests as the Iraqi WMDs  

    •  Israel's leaders don't care about US interests (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Statusquomustgo, cany, Little Flower

      They had their spies use U.S. passports so that if there were reprisal terrorist attacks, they'd be against us instead of them. For pete's sake, I hardly think Israel's current regime cares how what they do affects the U.S. If they ever did, they certainly haven't since the Bibi rolled into power.

      •  One of the problems in dealing with Bibi's state (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bettywill, entlord

        is shown by this diary. Donald Huff in his Warriors for Jerusalem account of the 1967 war, and how Israeli partisans dealt with Lyndon Johnson, included detailed accounts of how people lobbying for Israel became or were friends with Johnson, often trusted friends, and used that friendship for Israel's benefit. Also friendships with other US government officials.

         One of the things that has long troubled me about Bibi is somewhat the same, the sheer number of people who react to a state politcal question with an answer one of whose components is the longstanding personal friendship with Bibi. Starting with Hillary Clinton, as came out in an interview on Fox with Greta von Sustren. Bibi has been working his contacts for years, and Mitty's action is evidence of that. Using the weeks before this visit to brief and prepare Republican officials whose interests oppose those of Obama to have them ready when the O meeting takes place is just par for the course.

        What makes it most ironic is that even as Bibi is doing this, he is complaining that whatever Obama is doing is interfering in the internal domestic politics of Israel, although what he himself is doing is apparently not. Different rules for different ....

        Bettywill is also right about the Israeli government's consideration of the effects or aftereffects on the US, supposedly its closest ally from what the Israeli government is proposing, that is, it has given no consideration to them at all that I have seen. Not their problem.

  •  Obama can promise this jackass ... (0+ / 0-)

    A massive strike after the election ... and then say, 'Nevermind!'  Fuck Netanyahu.  Lie to the prick and don't think twice.  If not, that fucking warmonger will put Romney in the White House with an attack on Iran; all these happy polls we see don't mean a hill of shit, sorry to say, IMHO.

    Andrew Mellon & GOP: 'In a Depression, assets return to their rightful owners'

    by Tuffie on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 06:55:56 PM PST

    •  It wouldn't matter what Obama did on this, if Bibi (0+ / 0-)

      thinks he can get rid of him by doing a unilateral attack, an October surprise which will foul up gas prices, create an international crisis in which Russia and others figure, and using the cry that Obama had betrayed Israel, and the like, all to benefit Rs, since the R Presidency would give him any war he wanted and all the toys he wanted to fight it, and have the same view of Palestinians that he does - one an Israeli poet put in the concept that Israel was people in search of a land, and an empty land, that is, no Palestinians in it worthy of note -  in search of a people.

  •  I guess Mitt baptized him (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Statusquomustgo, Little Flower

    or vice versa.

    Both creepy guys. Creepy bedfellows.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site