05/05/15 – Mitchell Plitnick – The Scott Horton Show

Don't you get sick of the Israel lobby trying to get us into more war in the Middle East?
Or always abusing Palestinians with your tax dollars?
It once seemed like the lobby would always have full-spectrum dominance on the foreign policy discussion in D.C.
But those days are over.
The Council for the National Interest is the America lobby, standing up and pushing back against the Israel lobby's undue influence on Capitol Hill.
Go show some support at councilforthenationalinterest.org That's councilforthenationalinterest.org Okay, guys, welcome back.
I'm Scott Horton.
It's my show, The Scott Horton Show.
On the line I've got Mitchell Plitnick, Program Director at the Foundation for Middle East Peace.
And he's got one here co-written with Matt Duss, a very important piece called Debunking the Opposition to the Iran Framework.
Welcome back to the show.
Mitchell, how are you doing?
I'm doing good, Scott.
How are you?
I'm doing real good.
Appreciate you joining us on the show today.
And so now obviously there's all kinds of hype on the right and all over the place trying to undermine this deal.
So you must have had to narrow it down somewhat when it came to picking through piece by piece and debunking a set of accusations or misinterpretations that needed to be corrected, I guess.
Maybe it would be a better way to put it here.
So how did you choose?
Where did you get the wrong information to correct here, Mitchell?
Well, it was actually pretty simple because AIPAC, the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, did it for us.
They put out a little one-page flyer detailing all of what they saw as the problems with the Iran deal.
So we were able to just take those.
And they matched up with pretty common arguments.
So it was a great little foil for us to use to launch our response.
I hope you guys were able to get copies of this thing to pass out on Capitol Hill like AIPAC surely had copies of theirs passed out.
We got some up there.
We did.
That's good.
That's good.
OK, so I guess, first of all, could you sort of give us the overview in the simplest terms of what the framework entails, what it seeks to do here?
Well, I mean, in a really general sense, it seeks to limit Iran's ability to refine uranium in sufficient amounts to ever produce any kind of nuclear weapon.
It eliminates their work with plutonium.
And it also allows for an unprecedented inspection regime so that their compliance with the agreement can be verified at all times and that there's a lot of efforts being put into making sure that they're not clandestinely violating the agreement.
It's a pretty strong agreement.
It really is.
Is it perfect?
No.
Does it permanently stop Iran from ever possibly getting a nuclear weapon?
No.
But there really isn't any way to do that.
So this agreement really is the best deal that is possible to get without completely destroying the country and bringing on another war.
Right.
OK.
So, yeah, I have to admit that the Iranians bent over further backwards than I imagined that they would.
The most surprising thing in there was, I guess, the idea that that the sanctions would be lifted as quickly as it seemed like they would be lifted in there as far as our side goes.
But on their side, yeah, it seemed like they found it where they weren't willing to go all the way to the demand.
They certainly went a lot of the way, like changing Fordo, the secondary enrichment facility, to simply a research facility and that kind of thing.
Right.
Right.
When the framework was first announced and all of the conditions of it were made public, I was pretty surprised, too, at how far Iran was willing to go.
I think it is a credit, frankly, to the Obama administration, the people working on it, because they got what is a really good deal.
They got a deal that I think if you want to attack it, you basically have to distort what it is.
And I think that's about as good as they could have done.
So and I think that given some of the things Iran has done in the past, it's reasonable to want to make sure that they're closing off as many avenues as possible for violating the agreement on the slide.
And I think that's fair.
And I think Iran has a lot of Iranians anyway.
I mean, there's certainly a fight over it in Iran, but I think a lot of Iranians have just come to the conclusion that, you know, hey, if we can if we can stop these sanctions and we can do it in a way that isn't humiliating to the country and we can come to a reasonable agreement and get our economy going again, let's just do that.
I think outside of the real hardliners in Iran, I think most of Iran has come to recognize that this fight really isn't worth it for them.
Yeah.
Well, and, you know, the background of this that they never really talk about, certainly that APAC wouldn't bring up, is that the Iranians quite obviously have never intended to be more than a threshold state with kind of half a nuclear deterrent here, an electricity program that could be a weapons program.
If you ever start bombing us, we might turn it into a nuclear weapons program is sort of the the deterrent level that they have now.
And there's really no reason to believe that, you know, I mean, hell, the the the lead to Haaretz had Netanyahu saying, oh, no, the danger here is that, of course, they'll abide by the deal 1000 percent forever.
But that'll lull you to sleep.
And then 15 years from now, then they'll make a nuke.
I mean, come on.
Well, I think I think Netanyahu's real concern is kind of that, but it's a little bit different.
I think what he's concerned with and I think what he's been concerned with from from the beginning.
And again, I can understand an Israeli leader being concerned with this, although not to the point of hysteria as Netanyahu has gone.
But what he's really concerned with is that they'll abide by the deal.
They will have a growing economy and their influence in the region will therefore grow.
And I think that is very likely to happen.
And, you know, there's there's obviously issues there.
There's ongoing conflicts between forces that are backed by Iran and forces that are backed by Saudi Arabia, which essentially means also by us, at least at least to some extent.
So there and I can I can certainly understand, given some of the things that have come from Iranian leaders mouth, that Israelis in general are concerned about expanding Iran's influence.
Certainly, the citizens of Israel are very afraid of Iran getting a nuclear weapon.
They've been made to fear that by their leaders, particularly Netanyahu.
But even without that, I can understand why they'd be concerned about basically allowing Iran its freedom.
But this is the world we live in.
And, you know, denying a country the same rights as any other country, especially in the case of Iran, which, yes, has violated some Security Council resolutions.
And that is concerning and has done some gone back on some of some agreements, although so has the West.
But but although that's true, they've also never launched an aggressive war.
And yes, they do back groups like Hezbollah and have given some funding to Hamas.
Although that relationship is shaky these days.
All that being true, they still have never invaded another country.
There are the only wars they've ever fought are defensive wars.
So they don't seem to be a real global threat in that sense.
But again, I can understand Israelis not wanting to see Iran's influence grow.
But the only option, the only the only other path leads directly to another major Middle East war.
And we saw how well that worked out for everyone concerned, you know, 12 years ago.
Well, and, you know, regarding all that, it always seemed interesting to me how after the revolution, of course, you had the hostages taken and all of this.
So immediate Cold War with the Americans.
But the Israelis kept their ties with the Iranian military and spy services and all that under.
And that was under the meaner, old, scarier looking Ayatollah back then.
And as Gareth Porter wrote in his book, Manufacture Crisis.
And as I just read this thing in Haaretz by this Israeli historian, too, saying the only reason that Rabin started demonizing Iran was to distract from the fact that he wanted to make peace with the Palestinians.
And then every prime minister after him demonized Iran to distract from the fact that they'd never make peace with the Palestinians.
But that really, in other words, I'm obviously oversimplifying based on a couple of points here.
But it seems like the Israelis could get along with the Iranians if they wanted to.
Again, why not send somebody over there to talk with somebody?
And what's the problem?
I mean, I think I think that's probably true to some extent.
I mean, there are other factors.
I would really recommend the book.
I'm trying to remember.
I believe the name is Dangerous Liaisons.
It's by Trita Parsi, who has the National Iranian American Council.
Is that the Treacherous Alliance?
Is that the one?
Treacherous Alliance.
That's it.
Yeah, that's the one that I've never read, but I sure want to.
It is.
It is a worthwhile book.
It talks a lot about the dealings between Israel and Iran over the years since the revolution.
And it's important reading for exactly the reason you bring up.
I mean, I do think that Israel and Iran could find common ground.
It's hard to do that, I think.
All right, I'm sorry.
Hold it right there, Mitch.
We'll be right back and pick right up on that point right after this break, you guys.
It's Mitchell Plitnick at FMEP.org.
So you're a libertarian and you don't believe the propaganda about government awesomeness you were subjected to in fourth grade.
You want real history and economics.
Well, learn in your car from professors you can trust with Tom Woods' Liberty Classroom.
And if you join through the Liberty Classroom link at ScottHorton.org, we'll make a donation to support the Scott Horton Show.
Liberty Classroom, the history and economics they didn't teach you.
All right, you guys.
Welcome back to the show.
I'm Scott Horton.
I am talking with Mitchell Plitnick.
He's got this great piece at FMEP.org.
That's the Foundation for Middle East piece, FMEP.org.
It's called Debunking the Opposition to the Iran Framework.
And I'm sorry, Mitch, because I do want to actually get through some of the particulars here.
But you're so interesting on so many different subjects.
Where we left off, we were talking about how if the Americans and the Israelis can sell a bunch of missiles to the mean old Ayatollah in the 1980s, they can certainly get along now.
And so why is it so necessary that everybody's at such odds here?
Well, I think there's a few factors that are there in 2015.
I mean, there's obviously some history.
And it's not all from one side.
The recent years with Ahmadinejad in power and the role of the presidency in Iran and some of the things he said and did, some of which were mistranslated.
But even the mistranslations made it sound worse, but they weren't nice to begin with.
Certainly things that I as a Jew found very offensive, a conference on Holocaust denial, that sort of thing is not really endearing to me.
And so there is that.
The Revolutionary Guards, who are extremely powerful in Iran, reflect that same sort of thinking.
So you have that sort of deep in Iran as well.
And both sides have demonized the other.
I mean, with the death to America and the great Satan and this sort of thing from Iran and all the things that we've heard out of Netanyahu and from George W. Bush and others, the axis of evil.
I mean, there's been a lot of that and populations listen.
So we have that problem.
But I think what's unique about right now is that on the one hand, you have the biggest anti-Iran fanatic, I would say, in Netanyahu in power.
I heard Netanyahu screaming about Iran back in the 80s, and he's the one guy who's never really let up on that point.
And I think it's actually almost an obsession with him.
And then on the other side, you have the election of Rouhani in Iran, and that brought Iran into the other direction.
So you have the most extreme on one side in Israel, and Rouhani pulling Iran to a more moderate place on the other.
And in the end, it was Netanyahu who has largely been made to look bad.
His credibility around the world has taken a serious hit.
And let's face it, most of the world supports coming to this deal and recognizes that Iran's come a long way.
There's plenty of problems with Iran.
The Iranian regime is not the nicest bunch of people, but the fact is they have come a long way on this issue.
And there's a potential to engage them on many others.
And there's also a potential for the West to recognize how much of a hand we've had in causing these situations.
There's still plenty of blood in Iran based on the fact that the United States and Israel were such close allies with the Shah.
So there's a lot of work there to do, but it can be worked out because there is a history, a positive history, between Iran and Israel.
And it wasn't only because the Shah was in power.
There was real communication between Israelis and Iranians and Americans and Iranians.
And from what I can tell, a lot of Iran wants to have that back.
Well, to that, I mean, the whole world can see basically Netanyahu's propaganda is about Iran's nuclear program specifically is fit only for American TV.
I mean nobody else in the world looks at it from such a ridiculous conspiratorial point that like, oh, yeah, but have you turned over every single boulder in Persia to make sure there's not a secret entrance to a secret parallel nuclear weapons program there?
Nobody else is thinking of it in those terms because that's stupid.
But that's the way they try to portray it to the American people in order to prevent a deal.
So you can see why the rest of the world, they just roll their eyes and continue negotiating in real terms based on the real world that we live in.
And the fact is so do most Americans.
Right.
You know, the from the beginning, the framework and the proposed deal and all of Obama's negotiations with Iran have been supported by a clear majority of the American people, including, you know, a minority.
It's true, but a significant minority of Republicans who, you know, who and, you know, you can't find a single one on Capitol Hill.
But they're not representing their party in being so absolutely dead set against any kind of deal.
There are many Republicans who support this and, you know, the Democratic support is overwhelming.
Right.
OK, now.
Well, geez, I wonder, is there.
Well, oh, yeah, no, I'll be the top.
Let's go ahead and switch to Palestine.
I'll just tell everybody to go read this article and get the point by point in here.
Yes, please.
Because there's no point in just really going through one by one.
But the article is at FMEP.org debunking the opposition to the Iran framework.
It's by Mitchell Plitnick and Matt Duss.
And they just go through and they take all the talking points from the AIPAC flyer on why not to allow Obama to sign this deal with Iran.
And they just explain the real truth of the deal here about all the different possible military dimensions and centrifuge facilities and all the rest.
So go and check that out.
But now I want to switch in the time we have remaining here, Mitchell, to this article that you wrote for Loeb blog, Jim Loeb's blog at Loeb.
Just like your earlobe, everybody.
Loeb blog dot com.
It's called Elliott Abrams shell game on settlements.
So, first of all, just for fun, remind us who Elliott Abrams is.
Well, Elliott Abrams is a leading neoconservative veteran of the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations in which capacity he well, he was convicted by he was convicted of lying to Congress during the Iran-Contra scandal 30 years ago.
I was eventually pardoned, of course.
And he but but, you know, he's he's an architect of those sorts of policies in the Reagan administration.
And again, in the George W. Bush administration, he had a strong hand in the evasion of Iraq.
And and in terms of Israel, Palestine, he is a very strong supporter of Netanyahu.
And in 2003, he was one of the leading advocates of the letter that George W. Bush gave to then Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that basically said Israel's keeping these major settlement blocks.
Israel does not have to even talk about Palestinian refugees and the right of return and and essentially said that, you know, took all of that off the table and said the Palestinians negotiate from here.
And, you know, it was a big reason why negotiations just became even more impossible than they were before.
So that's that's Abrams.
And he is very much the sort of guy who says he support, you know, technically will say he supports a two state solution.
But in every detail, he actually opposed it.
Well, and he's also as incompetent as any of the rest of these hardliners, too, right?
Like, can you talk about the the results of the election where Hamas got elected in 2006 and then how Abrams tried to engineer a Fatah coup against them and how that worked?
Yes.
Abrams, among others, the way that Hamas ended up being in control of Gaza with the with Fatah in control of the West Bank is, you know, the the election happened.
Despite the fact that Abbas and most of Israel was telling the Bush administration, this isn't a good idea.
The Fatah is not ready to campaign properly and and we're really afraid Hamas is going to win.
In fact, Hamas did win the Palestinian legislative elections in 2006.
And in 2007, the effort between the United States, Israel, Fatah and some of their agents on the ground in Gaza was to engineer a coup, which would essentially expel Hamas.
And what ended up happening was Hamas won and ended up expelling the PA and became the sole rulers of the Gaza Strip.
Elliott Abrams, among many of the other neoconservatives, were strong proponents of this and helped to facilitate it, in fact, and facilitated a lot of the communication that was necessary between the United States and Israel in a clandestine fashion.
Because, of course, if you read about it in the news, you had no idea that the United States or Israel was involved in this at all.
All right.
Well, but if you ask these neocons, they're all a bunch of geniuses.
So is there any chance that they really did that on purpose in order to split the Fatah and Hamas so severely by geography and and the rule over the Palestinian territory?
You know, it certainly is possible.
But I think that that sounds a little too, frankly, a little too clever for them to me.
Me too.
I was just checking.
Yeah.
I mean, I mean, if you read David Rose's take on that coming, I think I think Sharon may well have seen that coming when he was when he was still he was still prime minister at the time, at least at the time of the election.
So he may have seen something like that coming, but he's a little smarter than most of the guys we're talking about here.
Right.
So now tell us about Abrams peace and foreign affairs here.
Well, Abrams basically seemed for, you know, to the naked eye to be saying that the settlements are indeed a problem and an obstacle to peace.
He has maintained, of course, for for many years that they're not, you know, the settlements are irrelevant.
If there's a deal, Israel, just take them down, whatever.
And of course, it's never that simple on the ground.
And he's well aware of that.
But now he's saying, well, the problem is that the settlements that are being built outside of the separation barrier, because the separation barrier basically is stretches out around the big settlement blocks in in the West Bank.
And so his point was that that's what Netanyahu has to stop.
And if he just allows the settlement blocks to keep growing and takes care of these ones that are outside of them, that the two state solution is still possible.
And the only way you can maintain that point is be talking to people who've never actually been to the West Bank, because you can see very easily what's happened.
And this, I do think Abrams saw coming 12 years ago when he pushed Bush into the letter that I mentioned earlier.
He understood that natural growth in the settlement blocks meant that they would expand well into into the West Bank and really carve up any potential Palestinian state.
And that's exactly what they've done.
The different settlement blocks stretched very close now to major Palestinian cities.
And the way they do it is because the built up area of the settlement is only a small part of the settlement blocks.
The surrounding area is much larger than the built up areas.
So if you build out as these settlements have done, well, you're saying this is our land anyway, so we're going to just build out.
The problem is then that perimeter also widens and it just becomes this never ending cycle.
So eventually they would just spread throughout the West Bank by that way, by that line of thinking.
And isn't that what happened with this?
Isn't it called the what's it called?
I want to call it the E3, but that's something else.
There's some new one.
The E1 corridor.
Yeah, yeah.
Explain that.
Could you?
Yeah, the E1 corridor connects Jerusalem to the settlement of Maale Adumim.
And actually Maale Adumim was set up very consciously in the late 70s as a sort of marker of how far greater Jerusalem was eventually going to spread.
And the E1 corridor is what connects those two.
And that's always been the issue, that if Israel builds in the E1 corridor, then we can't eliminate that.
And the United States has always pushed them not to build there for that reason.
And Israel keeps coming up with plans, and then the United States objects and they put it off.
And they have a plan in there now.
They haven't yet started building, I don't think.
But that's another place.
That's how Israel – these settlements are not where they are by accident.
And the idea of expanding them – 15 years ago, had a deal been struck, it would have been very difficult, but at least possible, to have some sort of contiguous Palestinian state with Israel keeping the settlement blocks.
Today, now with all the growth, it is no longer possible.
So if there's going to be a Palestinian state, that part, which is the basis of the two-state solution and has been since the idea first gained political traction, that part has to be completely rethought.
That's a big deal.
All of a sudden, the two-state solution isn't so obviously the solution anymore.
Yeah, that's what they mean by facts on the ground.
What are you going to do about it?
And that's what Eliud Abrams is trying to make sure doesn't happen, that reconsideration.
He's basically arguing for the status quo by saying just take care of the settlements outside of these blocks.
Those are the ones that are the problem.
And it's quite – it's exactly the opposite.
The ones that are the problem are the blocks and the amount that they've grown.
He knows this.
He's making it look like he's really moving to a more moderate position when, in fact, he's reinforcing the position he's taken, which was to prevent a Palestinian state.
Okay.
Thanks so much for your time.
I kept you over time, but I sure appreciate it, Mitchell.
Okay.
Thanks, Scott.
All right, so that's Mitchell Plitnick.
He is program director at the Foundation for Middle East Peace.
Find him at loblog.com and at fmep.org.
We'll be right back.
Hey, I'm Scott Wharton here for The Future of Freedom, the monthly journal of the Future Freedom Foundation at fff.org.
Subscribe.
Since 1989, FFF has been pushing an uncompromising moral and economic case for peace, individual liberty, and free markets.
Sign up now for The Future of Freedom featuring founder and president Jacob Horenberger as well as Sheldon Richmond, James Bovard, Anthony Gregory, Wendy McElroy, and many more.
It's just $25 a year for the print edition, $15 per year to read it online.
That's fff.org.
Subscribe.
And tell them Scott sent you.
Hey, all.
Scott here.
If you're like me, you need coffee.
Lots of it.
And you probably prefer it tastes good, too.
Well, let me tell you about Darin's Coffee, company at darinscoffee.com.
Darin Marion is a natural entrepreneur who decided to leave his corporate job and strike out on his own, making great coffee.
And Darin's Coffee is now delivering right to your door.
Darin gets his beans direct from farmers around the world, all specialty, premium grade, with no filler.
Hey, the man just wants everyone to have a chance to taste this great coffee.
Darinscoffee.com.
Use promo code Scott and get free shipping.
Darinscoffee.com.
Hey, all.
Scott Horton here for Liberty.me, the social network and community-based publishing platform for the liberty-minded.
Liberty.me combines the best of social media technology all in one place.
It features classes, discussions, guides, events, publishing, podcasts, and so much more.
And Jeffrey Tucker and I are starting a new monthly show at Liberty.me, Eye on the Empire.
It's just $4 a month if you use promo code Scott when you sign up.
And hey, once you do, add me as a friend on there at ScottHorton.
Liberty.me.
Be free.
Liberty.me.