What was Herzog thinking? - Dan Margalit

by Dan Margalit

[Herzog] said he had trust in Obama when it came to Iran, saying Obama's handling of the nuclear talks proved he knew what he was doing. Herzog is wrong, big time. Even if Iran were to cease being an existential threat to Israel, it would still be a regional-strategic menace of the highest order because of the violence it is perpetrating all over.

Several senior government officials, who would like to see Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speak to the U.S. Congress, have an explanation for the current state of affairs: Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama are so far apart that a thaw in their relations seems beyond the realm of possibly. The Israeli leader believes the administration no longer views the ayatollahs as a threat to world peace, and therefore, even if he were to forgo the speech to Congress -- effectively capitulating to the White House's demands -- he will have gained almost zero brownie points among Obama's people. 

Everything else remains to be seen. Netanyahu hopes both sides maintain their security cooperation, which has been described as excellent. He hopes Washington continues to have Israel's back on the world stage. But he must realize that things could take a turn for the worse. Then what? Netanyahu supporters hope all will be forgotten by the time the presidential election cycle shifts into high gear, around November 2015. Perhaps, or perhaps not. 

The emerging nuclear deal between Iran and the U.S. is bad for Israel and bad for the West. It may warrant an unrelenting effort to torpedo it. That is why I am baffled by what Labor Party Chairman Isaac Herzog told The Washington Post the other day. He said he had trust in Obama when it came to Iran, saying Obama's handling of the nuclear talks proved he knew what he was doing. Herzog is wrong, big time. Even if Iran were to cease being an existential threat to Israel, it would still be a regional-strategic menace of the highest order because of the violence it is perpetrating all over. 

Obama is not trying to prevent Iran's nuclearization, he is trying to work out some interim agreement. At most, he is willing to buy some time, hoping that one day Iran will change its aggressive behavior. "The Iranian regime is the problem, not the answer," Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon said on Monday, taking a swipe at Obama for letting the ayatollahs keep some 6,500 centrifuges intact. 

Can Washington and Jerusalem do something to get over their rough patch? Obama and Netanyahu may have crossed the point of no return. Their strained relations mean they will have to hunker down in their positions. But ironically, Iran has created room for optimism by focusing on the technicalities of the agreement. Iran would like to finalize all the outstanding provisions right now. The U.S. wants to pen a framework agreement now and a comprehensive deal in late June. This bone of contention is why White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday that there was only a 50 percent chance for a deal. This statement may help cheer up the delegates in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference, the crown jewel of the American Jewish experience, at least in the public sphere. But will we actually see happy campers there? I believe the probability lies well below 50 percent.

Dan Margalit

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=11695

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.