by Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror
The second argument made by Netanyahu's detractors -- that he failed to provide an alternative to the emerging "bad" deal -- overlooks Netanyahu's remarks on two important topics.
This week in Washington
I met with a number of Democratic and Republican Congress members, both
before and after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address to the
joint meeting of Congress on Tuesday. In light of these meetings, I
assert that anyone who dismisses or underestimates the value of
congressional support for Israel, on the Iranian issue as well as
others, clearly has no understanding of the American political arena.
It is true that many
Democrats were offended by the way the speech was arranged, and it seems
that Netanyahu's message both at the AIPAC conference on Monday and to
Congress wasn't enough to placate their anger. But we must not let that
confuse us: Excluding a handful of (very important) officials who have
turned Netanyahu's speech into a personal issue, most of the Democrats,
and nearly all the Republicans, in both houses understand that the
Iranian issue is a very problematic one, and that the way the U.S. is
conducting the negotiations with Iran will likely lead to a bad deal.
It is imperative to
invest every possible effort into minimizing the anger among U.S.
Democrats. Our relations with them are essential to maintaining our
special relationship with the U.S. It must also be said, however, that
the responses of some American officials to Netanyahu's speech were
rather odd. Their chief arguments were that Netanyahu didn't say
anything new and that he didn't provide an alternative.
Netanyahu could not
have possibly said anything new. The Americans specifically asked him
not to talk about the details of the negotiations and the emerging deal
between the West and Iran (to prevent undermining the ongoing talks),
and he complied. How could he offer anything new while avoiding all the
interesting details of the potential agreement?
Regardless, there was
in fact something new in Netanyahu's address: He said that "even if
Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand." Get the hint?
The second argument
made by Netanyahu's detractors -- that he failed to provide an
alternative to the emerging "bad" deal -- overlooks Netanyahu's remarks
on two important topics. On the demands to be made from Iran, Netanyahu
provided a very clear alternative, suggesting that Iran be entirely
barred from enriching uranium. It was U.S. National Security Adviser
Susan Rice who remarked on that alternative, telling the AIPAC
conference that it was not a realistic demand and that the world would
have to be satisfied with less. There is certainly a disagreement
between the two alternatives, but no one can argue that no alternative
was provided. (Incidentally, the American stance on enrichment used to
be identical to Netanyahu's).
The second alternative
provided by Netanyahu had to do with the time frame of the agreement.
Currently, the talk suggests that the emerging deal will have a five- or
10-year expiration date, and that after that Iran will be welcomed into
the "family of nations." Netanyahu's alternative was not to set a
pre-determined date, but to hinge the expiration date on Iran's
behavior. He argued that it would be wrong to welcome Iran into the
family of nations just because a certain amount of time had passed,
while Iran is complicit in various terrorist efforts around the world.
It would be wrong to ease the pressure on Iran while it continues to
support Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups; continues to back
those who are loyal to it at the expense of regional stability (and, at
times, at the expense of the very existence of other nations, such as,
most recently, Yemen).
One could argue that
such an alternative is not achievable. Others could argue that a
predetermined agreement is preferable because it would ultimately compel
Iran to change its behavior. But no one can argue that no alternative
was presented. On two major topics, Netanyahu provided a clear
alternative to the existing potential agreement. These alternatives
should be debated, not ignored as though they were not presented.
Netanyahu was also very
clear on his alternative to the agreement as a whole. He said that in
his opinion, the alternative is to continue sanctions. They are what
brought the Iranian voters to choose a leader they perceived as the most
likely to have the sanctions lifted. His views are not moderate on any
issue, but he is better acquainted with the West, and knows how to say
the right words. The dire economic situation in the country forced the
Iranians to enter into nuclear negotiations that they did not want.
Harsher sanctions could provide a good alternative to the deal (though I
think that a credible military threat would be more effective). No one
can say that Netanyahu did not provide an alternative.
Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yaakov Amidror
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=11807
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment