[The relationship between the two leaders, and their two nations,
has always been asymmetrical — the United States is the world’s sole
superpower, Israel a small country surrounded by enemies. But while Mr. Obama’s
promised reassessment of Washington’s longstanding protection of Israel in the
United Nations flexes that larger muscle, Mr. Netanyahu is now also in a
powerful position to undermine the Iran nuclear deal, his counterpart’s
signature foreign-policy initiative.]
By Jodi Rudoren
 |
JERUSALEM —
It took President Obama two days to call Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel after his March 17 electoral victory,
and any congratulations were couched in an excoriation
of Mr. Netanyahu’s hawkish and divisive campaign rhetoric.
It took Mr. Obama about two hours to call Mr. Netanyahu after
Thursday’s announcement of a framework agreement to curb Iran’s nuclear program,
and this time it was the Israeli leader who lectured the American that the
emerging deal “would threaten the survival” of his state. The White House
account of the call was conciliatory: The president promised to increase
security consultations and cooperation with Israel to “remain vigilant in
countering Iran’s threats.”
The relationship between the two leaders, and their two nations,
has always been asymmetrical — the United States is the world’s sole
superpower, Israel a small country surrounded by enemies. But while Mr. Obama’s
promised reassessment of Washington’s longstanding protection of Israel in the
United Nations flexes that larger muscle, Mr. Netanyahu is now also in a
powerful position to undermine the Iran nuclear deal, his counterpart’s
signature foreign-policy initiative.
How fiercely Israel will continue to fight the Iran deal,
particularly in Congress, could have broad implications for the strained
alliance and the Middle East peace process.
“Ironically, just because of this deal, there is a chance that
the Americans will try to compensate Israel somehow if we stop fighting against
this deal, and we should exploit it in a smart way,” Giora Eiland, a former
Israeli national security adviser, said in an interview Friday, noting that Mr.
Obama “rushed to call” Mr. Netanyahu and “tried to be as nice as he could.”
Mr. Eiland was one of several Israeli analysts who said the
emphasis should turn to strengthening the verification procedures in the deal
and clarifying the consequences if Iran violates it. “If Netanyahu chooses this
option, at least we can gain some other benefits from the situation rather than
to continue to blame and to undermine,” he said. “The time has come to make a
real reassessment in regard to the Israel-American relationship.”
Though Israeli and American officials have long denied any
linkage between the Iranian and Palestinian issues, the two are playing out
simultaneously. In the coming weeks, as Congress reviews the deal and considers further
sanctions, France plans to introduce a United Nations
Security Council resolution regarding Palestinian statehood. It is not hard to
imagine Mr. Obama vowing to block it if Mr. Netanyahu lowers the volume on
Capitol Hill.
At the same time, Mr. Netanyahu must assemble a new governing
coalition, and the Iran deal could put new momentum behind the idea of a unity
government with his center-left rival, something Washington might favor.
Mr. Netanyahu on Friday introduced a new demand for the nuclear
negotiations, saying the final agreement must “include a clear and unambiguous
Iranian recognition of Israel’s right to exist.” As he has several times this
week, the prime minister noted an Iranian general’s recent declaration that
“the destruction of Israel is nonnegotiable,” and said, “I want to make clear
to all: The survival of Israel is nonnegotiable.”
“Israel will not accept an agreement which allows a country that
vows to annihilate us to develop nuclear weapons, period,” he said. “Some say
the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s not true. There is a third
alternative — standing firm, increasing the pressure on Iran until a good deal
is achieved.”
The statement, issued in English and Hebrew shortly before the
onset of the Passover holiday, followed a special
three-hour session of Israel’s security cabinet, which Mr. Netanyahu said was
“united in strongly opposing the proposed deal.” It did not mention Congress or
hint at the prime minister’s strategy.
Dore Gold, a former foreign policy adviser to Mr. Netanyahu who
remains in his inner circle, said Friday that “it’s not for Israel to get into
legislation inside the U.S. Congress,” but noted that the world powers
negotiating the final deal by June 30 “include parliamentary democracies” and
“an active press corps in all countries.”
Critics of the deal in Israel and the United States have lately
been emphasizing what they view as Iran’s expansionary meddling in Iraq, Syria
and Yemen as another reason not to trust the Iranians. The Foundation
for Defense of Democracies, a pro-Israel group in Washington, said Friday that the deal could “further
supercharge Iranian aggression in the region” and encourage Iran’s Sunni Arab
adversaries to develop nuclear capabilities.
“This is a battle for ideas, and Israel will have to put forth
its arguments,” said Mr. Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the United
Nations and president of the Jerusalem Council on Public Affairs. “We’re past the
elections now in both countries. Everybody is making their case, their point.
If the final agreement reflects what’s in this framework, we’re talking about
something that is nothing less than a historical error.”
Mr. Gold said the framework’s provisions allowing Iran to keep
much of its nuclear infrastructure intact, in light of what he called Iran’s
history of violating international agreements, was a primary concern.
But several Israeli commentators said Friday that the deal
looked better than expected, noting that even if it only delays Iran from
producing a nuclear weapon by its decade-long duration, that is far longer than
what an Israeli or American military strike could achieve.
“Even Israel could learn to live with it,” wrote Ron Ben-Yishai, a security analyst for
the news site Ynet. “Put simply, Obama is offering an olive branch to Netanyahu
in an attempt to cooperate on the design of the final agreement over the next
three months. The Israeli government should warmly embrace the offer without
batting an eye.”
Nahum Barnea, a columnist for the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot,
described Israel’s crusade against the deal as “a resounding failure,” writing,
“As the clash between Netanyahu and Obama on the Iranian issue heightened,
Israel’s influence on the course of the negotiations and its outcome lessened.”
“The dilemma that Netanyahu faces today is not an easy one. He
can push the leaders of the Republican majority in the two houses of Congress
to try to torpedo the agreement,” Mr. Barnea said. “It is doubtful whether
doing this would achieve its purpose.”
But Emily Landau, an Iran expert at Israel’s Institute for
National Security Studies, said Israel’s campaign in recent months
had succeeded, at least, in preventing critics of the deal from being
marginalized as “warmongers or idiots.” Ms. Landau was one of many in Israel
who opposed Mr. Netanyahu’s speech in Congress last month against White House
wishes, but she said that it helped reframe the debate in newspaper editorials
and foreign-policy institutes.
“If you look at very serious analysts at the unofficial levels,
you see them coming together with the same interpretations, whether they sit in
America or France,” she said Friday. “It’s not just Israel is out of step with
the international community — we’re past that. If the Obama administration
tries to continue with that line, it’s getting old and stale. There’s a need to
confront the serious and important criticism that a lot of knowledgeable people
have.”
For Ms. Landau, that criticism starts with how Iranian
violations of the agreement would be detected, who would determine if such
violations warranted confrontation and who would “take action if it’s deemed
necessary to take action that goes beyond the sanctions.”
The situation reminded Mr. Eiland, the former Israeli national
security adviser, of an Old Testament tale in which King David fasts
for seven days after Batsheva bears him a very sick son. Once the baby dies,
the king asks for something to eat, explaining, in the book of Samuel: “Why
should I fast? I can’t bring him back to life.”
Israel
should say to the Americans, “We understand this is a fait accompli, it is
something that cannot be reversed,” Mr. Eiland said. “Let’s try to solve other
problems we have. Don’t push us to the corner in the Palestinian arena, make
sure you’re not going to be against us in the U.N. Let’s try to improve what
can be improved, let’s stop fighting because this specific game is over.”
