Are Jewish liberals suffering buyers' remorse over Obama's handing of Iranian bomb?

I may be mistaken, but I'm beginning to get an early sense of buyer's remorse from Jewish liberals in Congress over their support for President Obama because of his handling (or lack thereof) of Iran's headlong quest for nuclear weapons. It appears that some liberal Jews now might sense that Obama intends to do virtually nothing to stop Iran.

In Saturday's Washington Post, Los Angeles area Rep. Howard Berman wrote:

Tehran's admission this week that it has secretly constructed a second enrichment plant suggests that its program may be further along than we had imagined. We do not have much time to wait.

I support President Obama's efforts to engage Iran. Thanks to these efforts, no one will be able to say that we failed to do everything possible to give Iran a diplomatic way out. But there is more than ample reason to be skeptical that the regime in Tehran intends to come clean about its nuclear program. Friday's revelations about the second uranium enrichment plant cast a particularly dark shadow over Iranian intentions, and they come after more than 20 years of deception and stonewalling by Tehran.

It is critical that we set clear timelines and benchmarks by which to judge Iranian intentions as well as unambiguous consequences if Iran fails to meet the criteria. The window for Iran to demonstrate seriousness of purpose should start with the Oct. 1 meeting and, as Obama has indicated, should close by the end of the year. If Tehran is serious about engagement, it should agree early on to meaningful steps, such as a "freeze for freeze" in which Iran does not add to its enrichment capabilities -- including halting construction on the second enrichment facility, as verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) -- in exchange for an agreement that no additional international sanctions would be imposed during this period. Iran must also agree to verifiably suspend nuclear enrichment by year's end. Were that tohappen, the international community could enter into detailed negotiations with Iran about all issues of concern and the incentives that could be offered in exchange for a satisfactory understanding of Iran's nuclear intentions and assurance that Iran would not be able to acquire a nuclear weapons capability.

But if, as I expect, that scenario does not come to pass, we should be ready immediately to impose what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has led a call for "crippling sanctions." Iran's economy is in terrible shape, and the regime no longer can take for granted the support of its citizens. The best conduit for such sanctions would be a mandatory U.N. Security Council resolution. That would require the difficult-to-obtain acquiescence of Russia and China. Failing that, multilateral agreement by the Europeans, Japan, Australia and Canada to impose coordinated financial, trade and investment sanctions would be a serious alternative. If even that proves impossible, I believe the threat posed to our national security by the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran obligates the United States to impose sanctions unilaterally.

In July, Rep. Barney Frank changed his position from opposing a blockade of Iran to prevent it from acquiring a bomb to supporting one. As Robert Naiman wrote in the Huffington Post:

Frank is one of more than 200 Members of the House of Representatives who have co-sponsored a resolution (HConRes 362) heavily promoted by AIPAC that effectively calls for a blockade of Iran, an act of war. But when peace activists complained, he did something that, to my knowledge (and I eagerly look forward to being corrected), none of those other Members of Congress have done. He publicly admitted that he was wrong.

I can appreciate someone changing their position when they realize they were wrong, but what concerns me here is that Frank, Berman and their ilk wee happy to demagogue Bush's refusal to engage in direct talks with Iran without precondition in order to get their man elected, apparently never thinking he would actually do nothing of real consequence to stop Iran from getting the bomb or put Israel on the chopping block before the United Nations:

We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. The time has come to re-launch negotiations — without preconditions — that address the permanent-status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians; borders, refugees and Jerusalem. The goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security — a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. As we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors. In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral negotiations.

It should not need to pointed out that there is no way to effectuate this "clear goal" to make Palestine "contiguous" without ruining Israel's own contiguity. Apparently Jewish liberals were happy to naively accept the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran had abandoned working on a nuclear weapon, while the U.S. Government was nonetheless aware that Iran had a secret nuclear weapons facility at Qom.

All the NIE accomplished is to give Iran two years to keep the centrifuges spinning. Obama's current talks with Iran will only accomplish more of the same.

Maybe Berman, Frank and the like took Obama at his word during the campaign when he expressed support for Israel or that he would not permit Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, but are alarmed at the alacrity with which Obama breaks his promises.

This weekend, I saw one post where an anonymous blogger claimed to have spoken to Frank (I have no way to determine whether or not this is actually correct), but Frank was reported to opine that with respect to the Iranian bomb, we found out about Obama's true intentions about "eight months too late." "There is nothing that can now be done." [my paraphrase].

Great. They demagogue the issue while Bush is in office, get their man in, and find out too late that he will raise not one finger in support of Israel and will do virtually nothing of consequence to stop Iran from getting a bomb. They should have known better, and now because of their playing politics with national security, we're all screwed.