Arguing that Iran, a nation where the US was involved with a coup against it's leadership, has passed economically devastating sanctions against them, backed a rival nation's war on Iran despite the regular use of chemical weapons and other inhumane actions, and so much more, is aligned against us solely because of our alliance with Israel and would totally cool with us if not for that element is....that's simply absurd.
Additionally, even if that were true, as I said before, cutting ties with an ally in order to appease terrorists is politically impossible for any government, they'd be thrown out of office immediately if they were seen as capitulating like that.
The law said exactly what I was claiming:
The secretary of state cannot, in fact, declare any organization he dislikes to be a terrorist group, and there are very clear limits on what he can do.
Realpolitik isn't just a magic word you can wave to justify anything you want, it actually has a clear meaning that is against what you are claiming. Realpolitik is about acting only for cold blooded, purely pragmatic reasons, rather than moral or ideological concerns. "They deserve to be punished for their crimes" is a moral concern, that is not realpolitik.
The closet you come to realpolitik is saying we should cut ties with Israel in order to build better ties with the rest of the muslim world, however you haven't really established that it's an either or situation, in fact under Trump we made considerable diplomatic progress on both fronts at the same time.
We cannot send mossad agents to war crime trials.
1. Mossad agents are, as it happens, Israeli citizens and not Americans, we have no jurisdiction over them.
2. The ICC, the international body that usually has jurisdiction over such matters, has no authority here as Israeli is not a signatory of the ICC.
3. War crimes require a state of war, which does not exist between Israel and most of it's enemies.
4. War crimes charge also require the commission of actual war crimes, which mossad does not do. Assassinating people is, generally speaking, not a war crime.
I have to say it's also very amusing to see you here, acting aghast that Israel would run around assassinating people and taking offense to that, and then also trying to wrap yourself in the flag and talk about how our associating with them damages America's standing in the world. Because I don't think people are nearly as mad at us for our vague link to Israeli assassination programs as they are at us for our own, much more widespread and collateral damage prone assassination program. At the Israelis mostly just shoot people with bullets and not anti-tank missiles with a kill radius several meters across.
You've repeatedly demonstrated a monomaniacal obsession with attacking Israel, regardless of the legality of the course of action you demand. It's not a personal attack to suggest you have a different set of motives than what you claim.
As for AIPAC, I don't care what some former leader said (which he classified as a loophole. Loopholes are, by definition, in full compliance with the letter of the law. AIPAC
cannot be a foreign agent per your own source), I care about the actual established legal facts, and you have not be able to actually cite any actual facts to support your position.
I don't care what some former senior members says, I care what the actual law and facts say, because we're a nation of laws and not a nation of "some dude says".
A pity the former senior members don't have any evidence beyond "trust me bro" to go on, and that the article you are waving around explicitly said AIPAC broke from Israel and advocated different things, which means they don't act on the orders Israel and are not a foreign agent.
That in no way whatsoever establishes that AIPAC takes orders from the Israeli government. Are you even reading your own sources?
Also, a quote in a newspaper is not legally admissible testimony. You have a constitutional right to confront your accusers, and so things like that newspaper quote cannot be admitted, because you cannot cross examine an article. It could only be admitted if your brought in the guy quoted to testify and he stood by it, which he might not, because you're allowed to just make stuff up for a newspaper article but not on the stand (or at least, you face much higher changes of a perjury charge than a libel conviction).
After your previous legal errors I don't have any reason to believe that this time you totally know what you're talking about.
I think you've got this backwards, gaslighting is when I try to convince you that you're crazy, not when you try to convince me that you're crazy, that's just called "being a crazy person on the internet".