WarSclerotic

Israel’s former ambassador to the United States Michael Oren is previewing a new book concerning his years in Washington working with the Obama administration, devastating in its documentation and thoroughly credible coming from a man at the center-left in Israeli politics. It seems he kept a daily diary, and oh, what a story he has to tell. In an interview last week he gave us a peek behind the curtain:

Don’t get me wrong. You can have disagreements. The Obama administration was problematic because of its world view: Unprecedented support for the Palestinians. Reconciling with what Obama calls the Muslim world; even the choice of the term is interesting. And outreach, reconciling with Iran. From the get-go. You see that right from the beginning. He comes into office going after Iran.

But (the administration) is also problematic because the White House jettisoned the two core principles of the alliance, which were “no surprises” and “no daylight.” Obama said it: I’m putting daylight. And proceeds to put daylight, public daylight. And then surprises. I was told that with previous administrations — I’m certainly going back to Clinton — we were always given advance copies of major policy speeches. The Cairo speech (that Obama delivered in 2009) was twice as long as the First Inaugural Address. It touched on issues that were vital to our security. We never had any preview.

His criticism is not limited to Obama, however: “The good news is that America is not just the administration, as you know. America is America. America is the Congress. My biggest fear is not the Obama administration. I am deeply concerned about the future of the Democratic Party, with the progressive wing in the background. I think we have to do much more to reach out to that progressive wing.” This is ironic given that American conservatives were often frustrated with him, finding his willingness to ingratiate himself with Israel’s left-wing critics maddening — as was his refusal to be clear that the failure to maintain bipartisan support of Israel rests with the party that is no longer so supportive, not with the GOP for which support for the Jewish state is a litmus test.

His most devastating criticism concerns a failure of the president that was aided and abetted by the far right and left: “The bottom line is that the day that Obama didn’t act against the Syrians (for their use of chemical weapons in 2013, and thus failed) to maintain the Syrian ‘red line,’ was the day that the debate (over whether Obama was serious about his military option on Iran) stopped here. Did you notice that? Just stopped. Dead. And everyone went quiet. An eerie quiet. Everyone understood at that point that that was not an option, that we’re on our own.” Some lawmakers who were with Obama on that, encouraging a fatal error, will have some explaining to do in 2016.

But for Obama apologists, Oren’s bird’s-eye view and the level of detail he is able to provide must be bracing. He knows what Obama’s critics long suspected: This is a president who doesn’t like the Jewish state all that much.

The administration has a mantra: If you don’t make moves on peace, if you don’t freeze (settlements), you’re going to be isolated, you’re going to be boycotted, you’re going to be sanctioned. We all understood this was a threat. When your parents say if you don’t clean up your room… it’s a threat. I always thought it was the wrong approach. I say in the book, Israelis make concessions when we feel secure. “If you do this, no matter what anybody tries to do to you, we’re going to defend you” — that should have been the approach. But it wasn’t. It was always trying to hit us over the head. Maybe someone thought that if you beat Bibi on the head frequently enough, he’ll give in. After all, they called him “chickens[—].” Until he showed up in Congress and all of a sudden he wasn’t chickens[—] any more.

His book is a challenge to Obama supporters, to the entire Democratic Party (does it want Obama to set a pattern for the party or be a failed aberration?) and to those who flinched when a strong U.S. presence was needed most of all. In that regard — like two former secretaries of defense who served under Obama — he has provided invaluable insight into a failed president and, if voters listen, some measure of accountability. For all that, we can say, well done, Mr. Ambassador.