Nathan Guttman of The Forward looks at one of the most divisive issues in this American election season, illustrated by the tone at last week’s AIPAC conference.
Any attempt to exclude Iran from election-year politicking at the AIPAC conference was doomed to fail, as tough rhetoric and threats of military action won applause from many in the 13,000-delegate crowd. Meanwhile, calls for restraint met a polite response at best.
In a paper for the Institute of National Security Studies, Amos Yadlin, Zaki Shalom, and Emily B. Landau examine the key statements during Obama and Netanyahu’s latest encounter, and what they mean for bilateral ties.
In the context of Iran, the President’s statements were unprecedentedly definitive and resolute, both in formulation and tone. Against all those who would like to present Iran’s nuclearization as “Israel’s problem,” President Obama made it clear that an Iranian military nuclear capability is contrary to America’s national interests. In fact, it is an issue that concerns the entire international community.
Writing in the Washington Post, John Kerry takes Mitt Romney to task over his claims on the current administration’s policy on Iran.
Creating false differences with President Obama to score political points does nothing to move Iran off a dangerous nuclear course. Worse, Romney does not even do Americans the courtesy of describing how he would do anything different from what the Obama administration has already done.
Time photojournalist Willian Daniels chronicles his escape from the besieged Syrian town of Bab Amr into Lebanon.
The Syrian Army targeted Bab Amr everywhere, anywhere. There was no way to get out. We visited one night where families were staying underground. It was a big room where 150 people were, a basement, with only small lights. They had some rice and a bit of water. Everybody had someone in their family who had been killed. We felt very bad saying, “please help us get out of here, we have lost our friends.” We couldn’t say that, because they had lost everything.
Dr. Justin Frank of Time takes an analytical look at Obama’s measured response to Netanyahu and the question of a strike on Iran.
Some of the notes Obama sounded were familiar: defending his record of support for Israel; asserting his opposition to nuclear weapons for Iran under any circumstances, far stronger than a policy of containment; and reminding his audience that American support for Israel is bipartisan – continuing his insistence on getting bipartisanship into virtually every speech he makes, driven by his need to push for disparate parts of his own internal world to find ways to connect and get along. But beyond the predictable elements of his speech, he did two other things psychologically astute and adept.