More to the point, if Israelis and Palestinians are really ready to conclude a peace treaty, no Congress will deny the president the security, economic, or technical assistance they need. In this regard, the national interest pursued in a smart way by a capable president always triumphs narrower domestic policy interests. ~Aaron David Miller

Miller is kidding, right? Admittedly, all of this speculative, since none of us, Miller included, believes that the Israelis and Palestinians will be “really ready” to conclude a peace treaty in our lifetimes. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that this improbable event occurs. Does Miller really think that its implementation wouldn’t be held hostage by opposition in Congress? Obama’s opponents in Congress fundamentally reject Obama’s handling of Israel policy and believe him to be an enemy of Israel. They would be the last to accept a treaty, because they would be convinced that the treaty had been “forced” on Israel or was too favorable to the Palestinians. We don’t need to be able to see the futue to know that Obama’s partisan foes extend their reflexive hostility to foreign affairs. Just look at the lock-step rejectionism that has greeted the new START.

The new START is a good test of Miller’s argument. The arms reduction treaty is something that has overwhelming support from the military, most arms control experts, and former national security officials, and it is a good example of Obama trying to do “something serious abroad.” It is also almost certainly dead, thanks to near-universal Republican hostility. It won’t even be debated during the lame-duck session if there aren’t enough votes to ratify, and after January it has no chance of passing with the addition of five or six new Republicans in the Senate. A modest, but important arms control treaty will go down in flames to satisfy a Republican fantasy that they are resisting “appeasement” and “weakness,” and the U.S. will be worse off for it. We can expect more of this in the coming years if the GOP should win a majority in the House.

So I agree with Miller that Obama should not focus on foreign policy for the next two years, but that is because anything substantial he is likely to achieve will most likely undermined or sabotaged by political opposition at home.