President Obama’s efforts to sell his nuclear deal with Iran focuses heavily on overcoming objections by pro-Israeli and Jewish groups, to the point where some are saying the campaign is flirting with anti-Semitic stereotypes.
A pattern in the administration’s rhetoric has raised concern that the White House and its allies are singling out Jewish and pro-Israeli interests for criticism, despite a larger universe of lobbying interests on both sides of the deal who may have other reasons for their positions. This tactic stretches back to before the deal was signed on July 14.
Critics argue that the language being used plays into the historic trope of Jews as people who are small in number and use their wealth to influence policy in nefarious ways.
Tablet magazine, a liberal Jewish publication, decried the trend in a much-quoted editorial on Aug. 7:
“This use of anti-Jewish incitement as a political tool is a sickening new development in American political discourse, and we have heard too much of it lately — some coming, ominously, from our own White House and its representatives,” the editors wrote.
“Let’s not mince words: Murmuring about ‘money’ and ‘lobbying’ and ‘foreign interests’ who seek to drag America into war is a direct attempt to play the dual-loyalty card. It’s the kind of dark, nasty stuff we might expect to hear at a white power rally, not from the president of the United States — and it’s gotten so blatant that even many of us who are generally sympathetic to the administration, and even this deal, have been shaken by it.”
The president’s comments, which most directly triggered the editorial, along with other complaints from Jewish leaders, came in an Aug. 5 speech defending the deal at American University.
“So this deal is not just the best choice among alternatives, this is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated, and because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support,” he said.
“Between now and the congressional vote in September, you are going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising,” Obama said. “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.”
He also suggested Americans who opposed the deal for that reason were working against the interests of the United States and, in fact, advocating war.
It was a point he also made later that day in a meeting with a select group of reporters, saying of opponents’ concerns that “there’s a little bit of this that’s not on the level” and tying that to concerns by Jewish and pro-Israeli groups.
“When I sit down with a group of Jewish leaders, just as when I sit down with members of Congress, just as when I sit down with policy analysts, I do not hear back credible arguments on the other side. I hear talking points that have been prepared,” he said.
This wasn’t the first time the president has made such a statement. In a July 21 appearance on “The Daily Show,” Obama told host Jon Stewart that he hoped the political system would respond positively to his Iran deal “despite the money, despite the lobbyists.” Three days later, Secretary of State John Kerry, in an appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, alluded to pro-Israeli interests lobbying against the deal, saying “I fear that what could happen is if Congress were to overturn it, our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated and more blamed.”
Obama reportedly also clashed with a key critic on Iran, Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, at a Democratic retreat in Baltimore in January, when Menendez said he took “personal offense” to a suggestion by the president that lawmakers pushing for tougher Iran sanctions were under pressure from “donors,” according to an account of the exchange in the Times.
Many media outlets have taken a cue from the language used by the administration and its supporters. For example, Foreign Policy published a story Wednesday about potential Senate Democratic votes against the deal under the following headline: “These 8 Democrats Are AIPAC’s Best Chance of Killing the Iran Deal.”
The headline implied that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a major lobby in Washington that opposes the deal, stands alone in its opposition.
Indeed, one of the most fervent opponents of the deal in Congress, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., isn’t Jewish, and has a more personal reason for any hostility toward Iran: He’s a former Army officer who tangled with Iranian-backed militants while serving in combat in Iraq.
Though Jewish voters are an important constituency for Menendez, a Cuban-American Catholic, he’s also been a persistent thorn in the White House’s side on Iran’s nuclear ambitions through administrations of both parties, not just Obama’s.
In his speech Tuesday announcing his opposition to the nuclear deal, Menendez reminded his audience that he had been criticized for voting against invading Iraq in 2003, but said it was still “one of the best decisions I have ever made.”
Many of those critics are now allied with him against the Iran pact.
