Israel will not stand alone - Boaz Bismuth

by Boaz Bismuth

Despite a small minority of Democrats and Israeli reporters seeking to curry favor with Obama, Netanyahu's speech to Congress elicited overwhelming support • Most Americans want to prevent a bad deal with Iran. They want answers from the administration.

 

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses Congress this week | Photo credit: AFP

There is a famous Chinese restaurant on New Hampshire Avenue in Washington, D.C. where many members of Congress habitually dine. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden also likes to eat there, but he was not around this week. He opted to travel to Guatemala in order to avoid attending Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's historic address to Congress on Tuesday -- the address that managed to irk his boss, U.S. President Barack Obama. Incidentally, if anyone missed him, Biden's photo can be found on the wall of that famous Chinese restaurant, alongside the owner. When I dined there this week, there were three Arabic speakers at the table next to mine. They discussed Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi, but also Netanyahu. 

I introduced myself to them as a journalist from Tel Aviv and they told me they were Saudi. They told me that, like everyone, they heard Netanyahu's speech. "It was important for Netanyahu to speak because Obama clearly doesn't understand the Middle East," said Aydan, the oldest of the three. 

His friend Abdul added his criticism: "Obama doesn't understand anything. He thinks that the hearts of the Iranians can be bought, but they had him figured out from the start, and they have plenty of patience. The agreement is supposed to be in effect for ten years, and after that they will be free to make as many bombs as they want -- what is ten years for the Persian? Don't make them laugh. The last thing we need is for the Iranians to resume control over the Arab world.

"There's another thing I don't understand: How is there not a single expert on Iran in Washington that can explain to Obama who the Persians really are? The administration has gone crazy," he said. 

Indeed, that is the tragedy of the emerging deal between Western powers and Iran: While the US administration and its partners in the Middle East all want to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the Americans are convinced that their way is the right way -- but to Jerusalem, and Riyadh and Cairo too, it is clear that the emerging deal will do nothing but give Iran money and clear their path toward a nuclear bomb. 

This likely eventuality represents the massive gap between Israel and the US administration. Instead of watching American lawmakers shower Netanyahu with love and praise as he addressed Congress, Obama chose to meet with other leaders on the crisis in Ukraine. It was enough for him to read the transcript of Netanyahu's speech, and then reject its content for failing to introduce anything new. 

Obama defended the emerging deal and argued that it would prompt Iran to relinquish parts of its nuclear program and prevent the development of an Iranian nuclear bomb. Without an agreement, he asserted, Iran will accelerate its nuclear efforts. But he failed to address Netanyahu's basic arguments on the U.S.'s excessive flexibility: "The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short breakout time to the bomb," Netanyahu told Congress. "Breakout time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb."

"True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran's nuclear program and Iran's adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here's the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don't stop them," he added. 

In other words, the deal would leave massive nuclear infrastructure in Iranian hands. But Obama is not concerned with any of that. He does not want such an argument to get in the way of the deal. In his eyes, Netanyahu is the party pooper who came to destroy his deal. Obama hates hearing Netanyahu contradict him and say that "this is a very bad deal. We are better off without it." 

The bad guys versus the good guys

Keep in mind that under Obama, the U.S. was never too eager to go to war, so Netanyahu was right when he simply explained: "Now we're being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That's just not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal: a better deal that doesn't leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short breakout time."

It had to be said. But today's America, much like George W. Bush's America or Bill Clinton's or Ronald Reagan's or John Kennedy's, is a proud superpower that clings to its values and its exceptionalism. It makes the simplistic, but clear distinction between the good guys and the bad guys. All the polls indicate that more than 70% of Americans view Iran as the bad guys. To most Americans, the Iranians are the ones who seized the American embassy, regularly promote terrorism, and caused the deaths of hundreds of Marines in Lebanon. To them, Iran is the country that celebrated the national "Death to America" holiday even as Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif met with his American counterpart, John Kerry. 

As long as we are on the topic of good guys versus bad guys, in his speech, Netanyahu made a point of reminding the Americans of one simple fact: In the story of Iran and the Islamic State group, there are no good guys, only bad guys. They are on the same side of the story of Islamist terrorism, which, by now, the American public is all too familiar with. That is why it was wise for Netanyahu to speak to Congress, despite the media controversy and the presidential dismay. 

Obama would never admit it, but today in the U.S. there are more and more Americans who do not share his views. More and more Americans are beginning to question Obama's decisions. His foreign policy, for example, is viewed as a complete failure even by his most enthusiastic supporters. It is important that these supporters, as well as Obama's domestic detractors, fully understand what is hiding in the emerging deal with the Iranians. That is how things are in Obama's America, where there is still an overwhelming majority of Israel supporters. This support is abundantly apparent in public opinion and among members of Congress -- both Democrat and Republican -- even if the criticism against Israel remains rampant on liberal college campuses. It was enough to see the welcome that Netanyahu received in Congress on Tuesday. He received a standing ovation for a full seven minutes. It was a "rock star" reception, as Fox News put it. 

One of the Fox News presenters remarked that Netanyahu had more charisma than anyone she had ever met. "Even more than Bill Clinton," she said, stressing how much America loves the Israeli prime minister, even if the reporters accompanying his trip did not spare him the usual criticism. Even if the reporters covering his speech had been Iranian rather than Israeli, they probably would have had more sympathy toward him. 

Dangerous flexibility

"Great speech," said Republican Senator and old acquaintance Lindsey Graham, who is expected to announce his candidacy for president next month. "I think that Netanyahu's speech was a perfect combination of content, logic and emotion. He came here to remind us what a bad deal looks like, and that we should not agree to one. The American people want to know. The American people needed clarification, and Netanyahu, who is an expert on the topic, provided it." 

He vowed that in addition to Netanyahu's speech, which served as an excellent vehicle for informing the American public, he and a long list of well-respected Senators (including Democrats like Robert Menendez) planned to pass a law that would require the administration to get Senate approval for any deal with Iran. He vowed further that they would demand a two-month time period to examine the lifting of sanctions. "I suppose that these two things in conjunction -- Netanyahu's speech and our bill, which is very likely to pass, will help prevent the emerging bad deal. But take note that the administration plans to throw all its weight into this. Obama is determined to sign a deal." 

Graham believes that most of the American public identified with Netanyahu's speech: "60% of Americans don't trust the Iranians; 70% of Americans think that the administration is being too flexible with the Iranians in nuclear talks. This is a country that currently dominates four Arab capitals and jeopardizes the stability of the region and the entire world. The American people know this very well." 

Incidentally, Graham is not opposed to Iranian nuclear capability, as long as it is purely civilian. "There are 15 nations in the world that enjoy the benefits of civilian nuclear power. They don't have enrichment capability, and they do not seek it. There is a way to give Iran civilian nuclear power without endangering Israel. If they truly want a peaceful nuclear program, why are they insisting on enriching uranium? Can anyone in the administration explain that to me?"

Republican Senator Ted Cruz from Texas was also among the members of Congress who gave Netanyahu a standing ovation when he said, "The days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over. ... Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand." 

Cruz is perplexed by the fact that a country that overtly seeks to destroy another U.N. member state can enjoy a nuclear agreement that allows it to enrich uranium. That is why he fully agreed with Netanyahu's declaration that "I know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with Israel." Makes sense. 

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel, who works tirelessly to commemorate the victims of the Holocaust (which he himself survived), also enlisted to support Netanyahu and attended the speech. He recently said that he believes the Iranians on only one thing -- their plans to destroy the State of Israel. 

Historical justice

U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power said this week that the bond between the U.S. and Israel "transcends politics" and that Israel enjoys "bipartisan support." This explains why everyone who attended Netanyahu's speech was moved. 

However, it is abundantly clear that not everyone in Washington was happy with the Israeli prime minister. Several dozen Democrats, looking to curry favor with the White House, boycotted his address. CNN even aired the feelings of this small minority, saying that Netanyahu and Obama had taken the gloves off. After six years of trying to downplay their differences, CNN reported, the two leaders were no longer willing to conceal their animosity and were duking it out in front of the cameras. 

Congressman Steve Cohen from Tennessee offered this explanation: Netanyahu addressed Congress to deliver a message in the same way that Obama delivers a message in his State of the Union address. This posits Netanyahu on an equal plane to Obama, and "[he did not] think that was a wise thing to do." 

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who gave her own speech, does not think that Netanyahu is right to question Obama, either. She even said that his speech drove her "near tears." 

But the popular Fox network opted to accuse the administration for blowing the tension with Netanyahu out of proportion. They pointed an accusatory finger at the Democrats who skipped the address. "It was the wrong thing to do. Very impolite," they said. One commentator suggested that Obama reserve the cold shoulder he is giving to Israel for Iran. He suggested further that the president show the kind of flexibility he has offered the Iranians toward Israel and the Republicans. 

These things underscored the fact that even if Netanyahu's speech did not stop Iran from gaining nuclear capability, it is still a historic speech given in the same month that Western powers and Iran are poised to sign a permanent deal. This was a "money time" speech, to borrow a sports term, warning the world of the dangers of Iran. 

This is not the time to curry favor with commentators and the handful of Democrats who did not want to irk the American president. This is also not the time to appease Obama himself. It is the time to satisfy history.

Israel knew how to confront the US administration when we wanted to establish a state, when we wanted to unite Jerusalem and when we wanted to ensure the security of the Galilee by annexing the Golan Heights. In the past, we never hesitated to do battle with a good friend like Reagan when we wanted to remove the threat of an Iraqi nuclear bomb. 

In retrospect, in all these historical instances Israel was right. Israel was also the one to make the decision. Today, more than ever, it is important to include curbing the Iranian nuclear program on that important list. So yes, Obama and Netanyahu have taken the gloves off, but they both should direct their fists at Iran, where the centrifuges continue to spin.

Boaz Bismuth

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=23957

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