Awesome News

A mysterious coalition of conservative Democrats and "lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel" have persuaded the party that it would be a mistake to flex some legislative muscles and make an effort to constrain the Bush administration's ability to take the country into a war with Iran. Since history has, after all, shown that when granted broad military authority Bush usually uses it wisely as a subtle negotiating tool and with brilliant results. Or something.

To state the obvious, while Israel and the United States are different countries with presumptively different interests, on really big region-wide issues one doesn't really see a ton of divergence. Insofar as letting a reckless and incompetent administration guided by a blinkered ideology have a free hand to launch a misguided war with Iran is bad for the United States it's also not going to end well for Israel.

UPDATE: Let me be clearer about the point of convergence. My analysis of the situation is that bombing Iran is not merely a poor policy option all things considered, but is likely to prove very ineffective at delaying Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon (physical damage done to the program will be undone by diplomatic damage done to the fairly successful international effort to curb Iranian acquisitions). Insofar as this is correct, we're not going to be doing Israel any favors by bombing. Obviously, the myth of the Osirak raid has even more power in Israeli politics than in US politics, so Israeli politicians don't necessarily see it that way, but they're still mistaken.

Comments

"When granted broad military authority Bush usually uses it wisely as a subtle negotiating tool and with brilliant results."

Oy you've exacerbated my hernia.

To paraphrase Josh Marshall, may as well have a laugh while we watch the US swirl down the drain, no?

Posted by Frank Furtive | March 13, 2007 1:46 AM

I've come to think you're too worried about this--I think an invasion or attack on Iran is out of our (US) hands. And I'm going to think that right up to the point the first bombs are dropped.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 13, 2007 1:48 AM

Now that I've quit laughing I've become confused. The war is unpopular, the administration is plagued with scandal and could hardly have less support among us voters. Granted the loudmouths are often the most pro-administration and hawkish, but at this stage why do they have so much sway over our congress? The heroic course doesn't even require heroism anymore, and still they won't do it. It's become downright perverse, as if spinelessness were a point of pride.

Posted by Frank Furtive | March 13, 2007 1:57 AM

Matt continues to invent crazy Israel/Jewish conspiracy theories to the detriment of civil discourse. Wickedness! Evil! Look over there: voter fraud!

Posted by Jonah Goldberg | March 13, 2007 2:01 AM

Here I am reading Eric Alterman's brilliant work about actually having "the people" involved and directing foreign policy, realizing how important it was to the founders of our nation that Congress declare rather than vesting this power in "the executive branch" because as Madison said "...the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war and prone to it;" while Jefferson termed this an "effectual check to the dog of war." and this. I'm so glad you picked up on it. I'm not sleeping well tonight. After the continual lawless crimes of this administration against the Constitution perpetrated in let-me-count the ways and the hope of the election, Congress caves on something this important? I had been getting my hopes up. (Book: Who Speaks for America? Why Democracy Matters in Foreign Policy by Eric Alterman)

Posted by Terry | March 13, 2007 2:02 AM

I assume I'm safe in assuming that it's not really Jonah Goldberg commenting here. The comment really does tread the line between right-wing insanity and satire.

Posted by Brian | March 13, 2007 2:10 AM

Ain't no Jewish conspiracy theory. The Dems themselves say they don't want to upset Israel. No theory to it, just the facts.

It's that Lieberman/Clinton wing of the party. You know, the "centrists" I believe is what they're being called these days.

Posted by Garuda | March 13, 2007 2:21 AM

"Insofar as letting a reckless and incompetent administration guided by a blinkered ideology have a free hand to launch a misguided war with Iran is bad for the United States it's also not going to end well for Israel."

A rather dubious conclusion.

Posted by Petey | March 13, 2007 2:47 AM

To amplify slightly:

I think the entire second paragraph of Matthew's post is bunk. There is an enormous divergence of interests between the US and Israel vis-a-vis an American military intervention in Iran.

Posted by Petey | March 13, 2007 2:52 AM

Very good post, though I think you're being too optimistic if you think this will harm the Israelis, (I don't mean to wish harm on them, but them getting harmed would probably be a good lesson for them to stop getting our army into this kind of crap.)

Unfrotunately, what this'll do is waste thousands of poor Americans' lives, hundreds of billions of our tax-dollars, foster millions of Mohammad Attas, harm our economic and strategic and political interest all over the world, and generally screw us over. It won't harm the Israelis in one tiny bit. Just like they benefitted immensely from Iraq at our cost, they'll benefit immensely from a war on Iran.

Just look at the bloody AIPAC conference to find out why.

Posted by Adam | March 13, 2007 3:32 AM

Petey, Adam, think this through. Who do you think the American people are going to blame when our war with Iran goes badly? Americans don't like to blame Americans, and Christians don't like to blame Christians.

So tell me, who is the most popular scapegoat in history? Hey, at least this time it'll be true.

Posted by soullite | March 13, 2007 6:07 AM

We have wildly different interests from Israel, since they have interests, as their persistent behaviour shows, in colonising and ethnically cleansing the Palestinians and we just accept the costs associated with backing that behaviour. Their chauvinist behaviour produces huge negative externalities for us, and a war with Iran is going to be yet more of the same. Why not occupy the entire Middle East while chanting "the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss and opportunity"?

Posted by otto | March 13, 2007 7:07 AM

By the way, its worth noting that we get into a war with Iran and the big three - Clinton, Edwards and Obama - are mealy-mouthed in opposing it, it's quite likely that the primaries will not be kind to them.

Posted by otto | March 13, 2007 7:13 AM

By the way, its worth noting that we get into a war with Iran and the big three - Clinton, Edwards and Obama - are mealy-mouthed in opposing it, it's quite likely that the primaries will not be kind to them.

Edwards, after flirting with direct advocacy of war in Iran, has been pretty un-mealy in his opposition to it.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | March 13, 2007 10:16 AM

While its worthwhile considering whether US and Israeli interests converge or diverge, we need to remember that those interests are not necessarily what drive policy in either country.

I'm no expert on Israeli politics, but I wouldn't be surprised if the push toward settlements since the 1970s was undertaken by conservatives in that country who had an electoral interest in keeping a low intensity conflict going and/or in rewarding religious nuts even if they thought it was bad for their country as a whole.

Similarly, neocons in the US might support an attack on Iran even if they think its bad for the US as a whole, and maybe even if they think it is bad for Israel as a whole, if they think it helps Israeli conservatives get elected, or if it makes their lives more interesting.

Posted by Jim W | March 13, 2007 10:26 AM

Democracies don't have interests that contradict the wishes of their populations.

Posted by David | March 13, 2007 3:32 PM

David: "Democracies don't have interests that contradict the wishes of their populations."

Have you not heard of special interest politics?
In a nutshell: If a small group stands to gain a LOT from a policy that will inflict little harm on each individual of the rest of the population (the vast majority), then they will manage to get this policy through.

Why? They have a lot of incentive to organize and lobby and spend money on making politicians follow this policy. The damage done from this policy is large in total but widespread over many people who are each harmed very little and therefore don't notice it. So the minority gets its way.

Example: Why do you think the US government spends billions on subsidies to farmers, and puts up protective tariffs that prevent cheaper products from getting into the US markets? Everyone is hurt, the American citizen has billions of their taxes go to the pockets of a few, and has to pay more for expensive food that they could've gotten from abroad cheaper without tariffs.

The farm fattcats make billions out of this, and because they make billions, while everyone else is damaged to the tune of a few dozen bucks, they will always have a much more effective lobbying power in the government.

Same thing applies to AIPAC.

Posted by Adam | March 13, 2007 7:06 PM

Support for Israel is very broad in this country.

Every poll taken on this subject in the past 40 years confirms this.

Posted by David | March 14, 2007 2:35 AM