Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

The Incoherence of Bibi’s Sabotage Effort

Netanyahu’s attempt to punch holes in a prospective nuclear deal as well as define a morning-after narrative regarding Iran fails to stand up to post-speech scrutiny.

Print Friendly

LobeLog

Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu can claim a victory of sorts by having set the agenda and received wall-to-wall coverage for his congressional speech. He also succeeded in making his message rather than the empty seats the story. The speech is likely to play well in Israel, and today’s events will not harm his re-election prospects. But that is probably where the good news for Netanyahu ends.

The prime minister’s speech was rhetorically skillful, but his attempt to punch holes in a prospective nuclear deal as well as define a morning-after narrative regarding Iran fails to stand up to post-speech scrutiny.

Netanyahu’s tactics seem to focus on a possible 10-year sunset clause to a deal and to encourage Congress to make that a deal breaker. At the same time Netanyahu seems to be preparing for a post-deal reality and demanding that Iran continue to be treated exclusively as a terror state. For Netanyahu to claim that after 10 years Iran would be free to do as it pleases with a nuclear program was intentionally misleading. As an NPT member, Iran (unlike Israel) would continue to be subject to a range of restrictions that prevent WMD development. The weakness of Netanyahu’s pushback is that he is wrong about the negotiations, wrong about Iran, and wrong about the alternatives.

If Netanyahu was attempting to extend an olive branch to the Obama administration in the early part of his speech then he clearly withdrew it by depicting not only the president and his negotiating team but also the entire constellation of P5+1 world powers as naïve for either believing that Iran can change or for failing to secure a better deal.

But on closer inspection it is Netanyahu’s case that makes no sense. On the one hand he says that the Iranian regime has been around for 36 years and will not change in the next 10, while on the other he claims that the regime is so fragile and vulnerable to pressure that it is on the brink of collapse. Netanyahu argues that more pressure and insistence can deliver a better deal, but decades of negotiations say otherwise. When negotiations cease and sanctions increase Iran has upped its enrichment capacity and has been able to secure better terms.

The deal under discussion would put a stop to that. But Netanyahu continues to fabricate an alternative that exists in speeches only.

From previously insisting that the nuclear issue be treated as separately, Netanyahu now wants to introduce other issues as conditions for a deal, including Iran’s regional role. When a grand bargain was presented in the past, the Israelis rejected it, a position Netanyahu never disowned until apparently today. The implementation of the Joint Plan of Action proves that a deal can hold and be implemented, puncturing yet another Netanyahu talking point.

And although Iran should win no plaudits for its regional role, the attempt to depict it as the font of all evil is so reductionist as to be absurd. Netanyahu’s terrifying depiction of the consequences of a nuclear Iran in the region should be filed alongside his testimony in support of the Iraq war and its positive knock-on effects for the Middle East.

Netanyahu’s assertions of Iran’s genocidal intentions would be news to the 25,000 Jews who continue to live safely inside the Islamic Republic, the largest community outside Israel in the region. If he is looking for regional states with a history of expansionism he might look closer to home. Finally, Netanyahu’s riff on the threat to non-proliferation was worthy of an Oscar for chutzpah.

Netanyahu’s call to follow the path less travelled should be seized upon by Congress and the administration to move ahead with a deal that offers the best prospect for ensuring a verifiable freeze and partial rollback of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program as well as a path toward non-proliferation and greater regional stability. That is the path less travelled, not the tired reheated rhetoric of Bibi declaiming doomsday and dissing diplomacy. Finally, it is hard to think of a worse idea than an Israeli prime minister promoting a campaign whose logical endpoint is to send America off to another war in the Middle East.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Former Sen. Jim Talent (R-MO), a stalwart advocate of Pentagon spending now based at the right-wing Heritage Foundation, says he would have voted for the Iraq War even if he had known the Bush administration’s claims about WMDs were false.


Mike Pompeo (R-KS) is a conservative Republican congressman who was voted into office as part of the “tea party” surge in 2011 and nominated by Donald Trump to be director of the CIA.


Although better known for his domestic platform promoting “limited” government, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has expressed strong sympathies for projecting U.S. military power abroad.


James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) was one of Congress’s staunchest foreign policy hawks and a “pro-Israel” hardliner.


A self-styled terrorism “expert” who claims that the killing of Osama bin Laden strengthened Al Qaeda, former right-wing Lebanese militia member Walid Phares wildly claims that the Obama administration gave the Muslim Brotherhood “the green light” to sideline secular Egyptians.


Weekly Standard editor and PNAC cofounder Bill Kristol is a longtime neoconservative activist and Washington political operative.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Spurred by anti-internationalist sentiment among conservative Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration, the US is headed for a new confrontation with the UN over who decides how much the US should pay for peacekeeping.


Print Friendly

Decent developments in the Trump administration indicate that the neoconservatives, at one point on the margins of Washington’s new power alignments, are now on the ascendent?


Print Friendly

As the end of Donald Trump’s first 100 days as president approaches, it seems that his version of an “America-first” foreign policy is in effect a military-first policy aimed at achieving global hegemony, which means it’s a potential doomsday machine.


Print Friendly

Hopeful that Donald Trump may actually be their kind of guy, neoconservatives are full of praise for the cruise-missile strike against Syria and are pressing for more.


Print Friendly

Steve Bannon’s removal from the NSC’s Principals Committee doesn’t mean that he’s gone from the White House or no longer exerts a powerful influence on Trump. His office is still located very close to the Oval Office, and there’s nothing to indicate that his dark and messianic worldview has changed.


Print Friendly

Promoting sanctions that could undermine the Iran nuclear deal, pushing security assistance for Israel, combatting BDS, and more.


Print Friendly

Contrary to some wishful thinking following the Trump administration’s decision to “put Iran on notice” and seemingly restore U.S.-Saudi ties, there are little signs of apprehension in Tehran.


RightWeb
share