The multiple moving parts of American-Israeli-Iranian relations made this weekend’s American Israeli Public Affairs Committee conference, the largest in its history, a swirling mix of war rhetoric and state power display. While the issue of Israel’s illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was brushed aside, Israel became a “political football,” in the words of Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif. This topic was used to pander voters for or against President Barack Obama in the upcoming elections.  

Israeli President Shimon Peres spearheaded anti-Iran war mongering with statements like “Iranians aspire to take control of the Middle East and to destabilize existing regimes.” While there is some truth in what Peres said on the links between Iran and the Lebanese Shi’a Hezbollah, his statements are meant to incite fear in the hopes of attacking Iran on the basis of its nuclear capabilities. 

Peres, along with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, argues the nuclear abilities of Iran are not only alarming but are also a cause to attack the Islamic Republic due to its open opposition to the Israeli state. Peres’ speech this weekend to the AIPAC audience and American politicians was an attempt to budge Obama’s “red line.” 

Obama’s “red line” phrase popped up in several analyses of Obama’s speech at the conference, which assured pro-Israeli voters that he has “Israel’s back.” What he doesn’t have is the willingness to change his red line, or warrant for war, from Iran having nuclear weapons to Iran being capable of making nuclear weapons. Essentially, he’ll say what he has to, but when it comes to taking Israel’s hard line position against Iran, the president will not take any definitive action. 

As always, Obama’s opponents accuse him of empty rhetoric to appease Jewish voters, and they are correct. Yet the issue of Iran is used to undermine Obama by Peres and Netanyahu, who are well aware that Obama’s soft stance towards Iran, although it could hardly be characterized as such with economic sanctions nearing an all-out embargo, is proof that he does not in fact have “Israel’s back.”

Empty or not, the war rhetoric was alarming. A Cold War-era fear is constantly disseminated to supporters of Israel. Outwardly labeling Iran as a “evil, cruel and morally corrupt” regime, Peres implored AIPAC members, the most influential lobbyists in Israeli-American affairs, to stop Iran’s ambition to control the Middle East, as it is a “danger to the entire world.”

What’s missing in Peres’ picture is the reality of Iran’s nuclear program. According to an article written by the Pentagon’s Colin Kahl, the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for the Middle East, a pre-emptive strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, as some Israelis are calling for, would not bode well for the ultimate goal for peace in the region. 

In the article, Kahl outlines the shortcomings of Israel’s attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility in 1981, a situation strikingly similar to that of Iran today. In the attack, facilities in Osirak, Iraq, were destroyed as a preventative measure to protect Israel from attack. 

Kahl finds that the attack actually increased Saddam Hussein’s interest in nuclear weaponry, kicking his spending on nuclear facilities up from $400 million to $10 billion after the attack revealed the vulnerabilities of his program. The nuclear facilities were also moved underground, away from international inspection. Were it not for Iraq’s war with Kuwait, it is likely that nuclear weapons would successfully have been assembled. 

Although Iran is a few steps ahead of Iraq in its nuclear capabilities before the Osirak attack, it still is not capable of creating a nuclear weapon. The frenzied war-mongering that took place this weekend would be valid perhaps if Iran did have nuclear capability. However, the argument loses its teeth when that fact that Iran cannot manufacture the weapons is taken into account. 

In the meantime, the persistent issues to peace in the region, namely the occupation, have been brushed aside. Election-year politics give Israel the upper hand in gaining American backing against Iran, and judging from the reported cheering at Peres’ anti-Iran speech, it won’t be hard to find.

Meher Ahmad ([email protected]) is a junior majoring in International Studies and Middle Eastern studies.