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.
No comments:
Post a Comment