The Obama administration is using a time-tested pitch to get Congress to back military strikes in Syria: It will help protect Israel.
Israel’s enemies, including Iran and the terrorist group Hezbollah, could be emboldened if Congress fails to approve action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, senior administration officials said Saturday.
And for the second day in a row, President Barack Obama publicly cited the threat against Israel if Assad’s reported use of chemical weapons goes unchecked. “It endangers our friends and our partners along Syria’s borders, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq,” Obama said Saturday in the Rose Garden. “It could lead to escalating use of chemical weapons, or their proliferation to terrorist groups who would do our people harm.”
(PHOTOS: Syria: Where politicians stand)
The White House will need every vote it can get on the Syria resolution, and the senior administration officials left little doubt that Israel would be a point of emphasis in private discussions with members of Congress.
The Capitol is filled with strong supporters of Israel who understand the argument, one of the officials said.
But Israel’s security is a political razor blade that could cut both ways.
As Obama has weighed potential military action, the politics of Israel’s interests have become more delicate. The prospect of strikes against Syria triggering reprisals from Iran and Hezbollah is real enough to bolster the case against authorizing the president to use force, too, congressional insiders say.
(PHOTOS: International response to Syria)
“You’re going to see people arguing the exact opposite” of Obama, said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, who has spent time in the region. An Israel play “could really backfire.”
Even a persuasive case that Israel’s security depends on American intervention in Syria might not be enough to overcome what Capitol Hill sources say is significant opposition to the president’s proposal for using military force against Assad.
Washington’s pro-Israel lobby, typically highly critical of the Syrian regime, has been publicly silent in recent days, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asked officials in his government not to speak about possible American intervention in Syria.
“Everyone is in a wait-and-see mode about where this is all leading,” former Israeli Deputy Ambassador to the United States Dan Arbel told POLITICO earlier this week. “The fact is, right now, the picture is not so clear.”
Indeed, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most prominent pro-Israel lobbying group, wrote on its website Thursday that the Syrian crisis underscored the need to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions, delicately sidestepping the question of whether Obama should strike Assad.
The administration’s case that intervening benefits Israel will turn on what lawmakers hear from pro-Israel groups in their communities and from the reactions of leading Jewish lawmakers, said a senior House Democratic aide.
(Also on POLITICO: Obama sends Syria resolution to Hill)
The Israel angle “only has a major impact if it’s getting validated from others,” the aide said. “Doesn’t have to be AIPAC writ large, but the local AIPAC lay leaders that the members have personal relationships [with] need to be validating.”
House leaders are likely to use prominent Jewish members who are hawkish on Israel as a bellwether. That group includes Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), Ted Deutch (D-Fla.), Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and Steve Israel (D-N.Y.). Engel announced on Friday that the administration had convinced him it was appropriate to make punitive strikes against Assad, though he had been pretty clearly in the camp favoring action before that.
“We cannot stand idly by,” Engel said on NBC’s “Today” show. “If we stand idly by, then every despot in the world thinks they can commit war crimes and no one will do anything.”
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a leader in the progressive caucus who is Jewish, released a statement Saturday night praising Obama for seeking congressional approval for the use of force in Syria. But she stopped short of endorsing his authorization measure.
(Also on POLITICO: Obama’s slow-strike strategy)
“We need to determine the best way to respond to the heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria and how we can act effectively to protect civilians from further massacres,” she said.
The true test, congressional sources said, may have much less to do with the politics of Israel than district-by-district domestic politics for lawmakers who are both weary and wary of war.
“At this point, it seems to be fairly far-fetched that there would be even close to enough votes to authorize,” said Nunes, who opposes the use-of-force resolution because he believes Obama has not articulated a clear military objective.
Or, as the Democratic aide put it, “Members are going to get the s—- kicked out of them at home this week. This is going to be a really hard vote for people.”
W.H. to Congress: Help protect Israel
No comments:
Post a Comment