WarSclerotic

WASHINGTON — When AIPAC brings some 10,000 activists to the halls of Congress next week on their Tuesday legislative action day, they are expected to push senators to join on as co-signers to the flagging Menendez-Kirk bill.

Although Iran will be a hot topic during AIPAC’s national conference Sunday to Tuesday, lobbyists face a tough road in convincing remaining Senate Democrats to risk the ire of the administration in supporting the bill that would increase sanctions against Iran should current talks on its nuclear program fail.

It will come as little surprise to Washingtonians when AIPAC doubles down on its pressure to recruit new co-sponsors for the legislation. But in advance of the push, over four dozen major Democratic donors – mostly Jewish – sent a letter to Congressional leadership urging them to hold off on any additional sanctions legislation.

Although the letter did not mention the legislation, the donors warned that “Congress should allow these fragile negotiations [with Iran] to proceed without making threats that could derail them or tying the hands of the negotiators by imposing unrealistic terms for a final agreement.”

The donors, who were responsible for over $7 million worth of funds for Obama’s campaigns alone, ruled out any possibility for compromise on the status of the bill, admonishing that “even if Congressional action took the form of a non-binding resolution, or if the President vetoed such legislation, its initial passage would strengthen the hand of Iranian hardliners arguing against negotiations on the ground that Congress will not accept any deal reached at the negotiating table.”

“We urge you to oppose risky Congressional action that, if taken, may lead you to wake up the next morning knowing the result has been to take the diplomatic option off the table,” they added.

Earlier Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) invoked the pro-Israel lobby to argue for a delay on the bill, claiming that AIPAC agreed that the time was wrong to bring the bill to the floor.

Reid blasted Senate Republicans for tying a vote on additional sanctions against Iran to a vote on a bill that would increase health benefits and job training for US military veterans. Democrats needed 60 votes in order to pass the veterans’ bill, but hopes for the legislation dissipated when Reid refused to allow a Republican amendment to be voted upon, because it also included the additional sanctions. The veterans’ bill was ultimately defeated in a 56-41 vote

“It was disappointing – if not surprising – when Republicans almost immediately injected partisan politics into a debate over a bill that should be bipartisan – insisting on an unrelated amendment on Iran that they knew could derail the veterans’ bill,” Reid complained.

He also accused Republicans of trying to make partisan gains as a result of Iran policy. “The idea of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is so unthinkable that Democrats and Republicans have always worked together on this policy,” Reid wrote in a statement Thursday. “Unfortunately, it seems Republicans are trying to erase that history and politicize an issue that has historically been above partisanship.”

Reid noted that 10 committee chairmen “as well as Israel’s strongest supporter, AIPAC, also agree that now is not the right time to bring a sanctions package to the floor.” He quoted the pro-Israel group as saying that “stopping the Iranian nuclear program should rest on bipartisan support and… there should not be a vote at this time on the measure.”

There are currently 59 senators signed on the bill as co-sponsors, and AIPAC and the bill’s other supporters would like to see more than the 13 Democrats who have currently signed on to the bill get on board. Instead, the bill seems to have lost momentum over recent weeks in the face of personal campaigning against it by President Barack Obama.

On Saturday, AIPAC President Michael Kassen and Board of Directors Chairman Lee Rosenberg wrote an op-ed in the New York Times titled “Don’t let up on Iran”. In it, the two wrote that AIPAC supports “a policy that complements the current negotiations with a range of congressional actions that threaten greater economic and diplomatic pressure on the Iranian government.”

The AIPAC officials continued that they “strongly believe that the assertion by Congress of its historic role in foreign policy can, in fact, complement and enhance the administration’s efforts by forcing Iran to recognize the stark implications of intransigence.”

The influential organization included four asks for congress: to “outline for Iran the acceptable terms of a final accord”; to “exercise oversight to ensure that Tehran understands that our existing core sanctions architecture will remain in place for the full duration of the negotiations”; to “oversee continual implementation of the interim agreement”; and finally ending with a statement of support for the Menendez-Kirk bill, formally titled the Nuclear Weapons Free Iran Act.

In the op-ed, the two AIPAC leaders said that they agreed with Senator Menendez’s decision to delay a vote in the Senate, but not for the reasons cited by Reid – that it was the wrong point in negotiations to vote on it and that it would undermine talks. In fact, the entire first half of the op-ed was devoted to why AIPAC believes that the legislation would be beneficial to the United States’ negotiating stance.

The bill needs the additional support of eight more Democratic senators to render it veto-proof.

You can imagine what took place the day after Monday’s strike on a weapons convoy in Lebanon, when the leaders of Hezbollah met at a hideout in Beirut’s Dahiya quarter or some other secret location.

Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah probably gave a few opening remarks, then let the other members in the room take the floor. Some might have pushed for restraint, and emphasized the need to hold back in face of the challenges ahead in Syria and Lebanon.

“We have strategic goals in Syria,” they would have told him. “Let’s not put them in danger now. A couple of Israeli missiles that caused little damage and did not result in significant loss of life, that’s just not something worth losing everything for.”

But others in the meeting may have been more aggressive.

“Look, Sayyid Hassan, this lawlessness cannot continue,” they might have said. “They killed Imad (Mughniyah) in 2008, they killed Hassan (al-Laqis) only three months ago, they bomb weapons convoys headed our way. They believe they can just do whatever they want, and if we don’t respond and clarify that there is a price for their actions, it will only continue.”

This, in essence, is the dilemma facing Hezbollah in recent days: What to do about Israel’s alleged military interventions, where to do it, and when?

At least one dilemma — Hezbollah’s public reaction to the bombing — was solved by the organization, after a little more than 36 hours. Here, too, the decision was anything but straightforward. Hezbollah’s admission that the attack was carried out over Lebanese territory will force the organization to respond, even if not immediately.

Ignoring the Israeli strike would emphasize Hezbollah’s vulnerability and weakness. As it is, Israeli and Lebanese media unaffiliated with Hezbollah reported extensively on the location of the attack and that assets belonging to the group were hit. The Israeli media’s almost celebratory reaction to the bombing may have even been exaggerated, as if trying to provoke the organization to react.

Thus far, Hezbollah has chosen the first option — to explicitly stress that, although it suffered this time, next time it will be the one to deliver the blow. This would seem to be a logical choice: Hezbollah maintains its credibility, is not portrayed as cowardly, and provides itself with unlimited time to respond.

And Hezbollah can now continue to focus on what it deems truly important. For the moment at least — as odd as it may seem — an Israeli attack on several trucks carrying missiles on the border between Syria and Lebanon is the least of the Shiite group’s worries.

Still, it seems that the organization, in contrast to its recent behavior, is unlikely to hold back and maintain its restraint in the medium-term. True, Hezbollah is currently fighting on two fronts — one in Syria, and another in Lebanon as it takes on radical Sunni terrorists. These conflicts exact a heavy toll on the organization’s military, economic, personnel and political assets. Almost every day, another attack against Hezbollah by a Sunni terrorist organization takes place, in Beirut and beyond. Every day Hezbollah suffers casualties in Syria as well. Hence a campaign against Israel is somewhat less urgent.

Yet — and this is a critical point — the strike earlier this week was the first time since the Second Lebanon War that Israel has attacked a Hezbollah target openly in Lebanon. It won’t be easy for the organization to keep silent. Revenge will come, it seems; the question is when and where.

The option of a general escalation that would drag the organization into a head-on collision with Israel may result in serious consequences not only for Hezbollah, but also for its entire axis, Iran and Syria. One can only assume that if Israeli forces were to enter Lebanon, Hezbollah would have to urgently bring back thousands of troops currently in Syria, one third of its fighting force, abandoning Bashar Assad to the Syrian opposition. This would not be good news for the Syrian or the Iranian regimes.

But Hezbollah has changed its strategy with regard to its weaponry, which could pull it into open conflict with Israel. Until a year-and-a-half ago, Hezbollah missiles were primarily stationed on Syrian soil, but the civil war led it to realize that it had better move its arsenal back to Lebanon. The fact that Israel cannot accept such a development is a major point of contention, despite the fact that both sides are not looking for a fight right now.

Therefore, Hezbollah may choose an indirect response. Hezbollah has a desire for revenge against Israel, but will not risk action that can be traced back to the organization. A massive rocket attack against Israel would not be a good option. On the other hand, an attack against Israeli tourists or embassies abroad is another story entirely. This week, Haaretz’s Amos Harel reported that Israel expects Hezbollah will try to harm Israeli officials. If Hezbollah could strike at an Israeli official, the group would consider that a tremendous achievement. An eye for an eye (Imad Mughniyeh), a tooth for a tooth (Hassan al-Laqis).

The organization has another option. One of the most significant events regarding the tension between Hezbollah and Israel took place in June 2012. Drug dealers from the village of Ghajar, on the border between Israel and Lebanon, smuggled 21 kg of explosives into Israel. The ammunition made its way to Nazareth, where it was captured by security forces. An investigation revealed that Hezbollah was behind the smuggling, and defense officials believe that the organization is interested in having Palestinian or Israeli Arabs messengers carry out the revenge attack.

SIMFEROPOL, Ukraine — Armed with Kalashnikovs and looking ready for battle in full combat uniform, dozens of men patrolled outside Crimea’s main airport Friday as tensions mounted over the strategic Ukrainian peninsula where many long for Russia.

Dressed in army-green fatigues with a black badge on the upper right arm, wearing flak helmets and bulletproof vests, the men refused to speak to journalists, and it was not immediately clear what army or paramilitary group they belonged to.

They simply patrolled outside, a silent, somber presence that stood in stark contrast to the brightly dressed passengers pitching up for morning flights at the Simferopol international airport, which, according to an official, was operating normally despite the heavy contingent of armed men outside its doors.

Ukraine’s new government pointed the finger at Russia, accusing it of an “armed invasion” of the airport as well as an airfield in the southwest of the peninsula, where ethnic Russians are a majority and where pro-Moscow sentiment runs high.

Pro-Russian unarmed activists nearby said the armed men had arrived at the airport in the middle of the night following rumors that members of the new pro-West government were planning to fly in.

The activists, who were unarmed, said they were “volunteers” who were there to maintain order.

“We’re here to prevent fascists or radicals from western Ukraine from coming here by plane,” said Vladimir, 46, a former military officer dressed in an army jacket.

The comment was a clear reference to the protesters whose three-month campaign against pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych brought his downfall at the weekend, a movement condemned by its critics in eastern Ukraine as rife with neo-Nazis and radical nationalists.

“We’ll stay here as long as necessary,” Vladimir added.

Standing beside him, Vadim, a young engineer wearing sneakers, said he was “not an extremist.”

“We’re here to maintain public order. We’re not blocking anything. But if the nationalist criminals arrive, we’re going to fight them. We’ll find arms if we need them,” he said.

 ’We love Russia’

At the bus station in Simferopol, the regional capital, another group of five young men paced up and down, saying they too were determined to stop extremists from descending on Crimea, a peninsula given to Ukraine as a symbolic gift by a Soviet leader in 1954, and which has housed Russia’s Black Sea fleet for nearly 250 years.

The bus station was calm, Ukraine’s yellow-and-blue flag still flying above the building — “for now,” said a taxi driver.

But separatist commandos still controlled the regional parliament and government building in Simferopol, after seizing it Thursday and hoisting the Russian flag to chants of “Russia! Russia!” from hundreds of supporters outside.

After the raid, local lawmakers voted to hold a referendum on May 25 to expand the region’s autonomy from Kiev, and replaced the local government with a pro-Moscow official.

“We want this referendum because we want to be free and not under the power of the nationalists in the west,” said Maria, an elementary school teacher, outside the parliament after the vote.

“The trouble all started in Kiev, the coup and the murders. Who let them do those things? That’s why we’re keeping our Crimea,” said Anatoli, a factory worker, adding: “We love Russia.”