To Peter Beinart, it is inconceivable that a liberal Democrat could share the views of AIPAC. That says more about Beinart than about Newark’s mayor or many other liberal Democrats.
In Defense of Cory Booker
American Policy Has Changed the Balance of Power in the Middle East—For the Worse
By pursuing rapprochement with Iran and simultaneously undermining its traditional alliances, including with Israel, the United States has created a new order in the Middle East. Despite the Obama administration’s hopes, writes Tony Badran, this new order is bound to produce the very opposite of greater stability:
President Obama wants to extricate the United States from the region, has no interest in maintaining the old American order, and is therefore willing to recognize Iran’s position at the head of the regional table. Hence, the administration has found itself repeatedly acting as Iran’s lawyer, excusing and justifying its behavior, legitimizing its ambitions, and instead lashing out at old regional allies. These dynamics, which the administration set up in order to cooperate with Iran, were codified in the [nuclear deal] and give Iran substantial leverage to determine the terms of the U.S.-Iranian relationship. . . . Sustaining the deal with Iran and gaining its cooperation in the region . . . requires the United States to downgrade traditional allies like Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, which are in direct conflict with Iran throughout the region—in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. . . .
If Iran turns out to be a force of peace that brings order and stability to the region, and in the process relieves the United States of that task, saving it the cost of wars in the Middle East, then the president’s gamble will have paid off. The thing is, there is no evidence whatsoever that such a scenario is transpiring or will transpire in the future.