Nuisance Effect
So what conclusions can we draw from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s noisy speech to the U.S. Congress? That diplomatic dialogue and negotiating an international nuclear agreement with Iran are necessary.
Over 20 years ago, “Bibi” Netanyahu declared that Tehran should not acquire nuclear weapons. He reiterated this point on Tuesday before a majority-Republican Congress immensely sympathetic to his rhetoric in an efficient and, frankly, sensational speech, sprinkled with references to the Holocaust and apocalyptic predictions of a nuclear deal that may be reached with the Iranian theocratic regime. His speech was a compendium of all the evil he thinks Iran is capable of, including its anti-Semitic and “genocidal” regime, and the “existential” threat that its terrorist activities in the Middle East and its quest for nuclear weapons represent for Israel, in his view. This demonization is not entirely undeserved, of course, especially considering the lack of democratic freedoms in Iran. Netanyahu made some passing valid points, but in the end his rhetoric was too overblown to be truly credible.
Iran and the Islamic State are two sides of the same coin, he said in substance; there is no greater threat than the “marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons.” As if, according to him, Iran is not in any way to be trusted, and we must continue to stifle the regime with sanctions. The conclusion of the agreement contemplated by Washington and its international partners would allow Tehran to arm itself “with full international legitimacy” and launch the “countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.”
His speech, generously applauded by Republicans, was above all an exercise in anti-Iranian, and anti-Obama, propaganda. Across the oceans, it was a rallying cry to his own electorate — because Israelis will go to the polls on March 17 — from one of the most prestigious foreign legislatures.
So the fact is that Republicans were yielding to hyperpartisan impulses in the hope of putting a spoke in the wheels of the Democratic president when they invited Mr. Netanyahu to come and make a speech. Still, the speech will not go down in history as a useful contribution to the debate.
The negotiations involving, on the one side, Iran, and on the other, the U.S., Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, China and France, are at a critical juncture. The goal is to reach a preliminary agreement by March 31 and a final agreement by June 30. It is far from being finalized, President Obama told Reuters on Monday, in an anticipatory response to expected criticisms from the Israeli prime minister. Contrary to what Bibi continues to suggest, why would the group called P5+1 sign a flawed agreement? It’s true that we know little about the nature of the negotiations. But Iran, in brief, is in the process of accepting to verifiably cap its production of enriched uranium, in return for a progressive easing of sanctions, so that it will only serve civilian purposes. The agreement would last 10 years.
In fact, Israel has a beam in its eye: Iran is a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty, but Israel is not. Israel also possesses nuclear weapons and has always refused to authorize the inspection of its nuclear facilities.
This situation calls for restoring dialogue and diplomatic bridges with Iran. The Americans’ “liberation” of Iraq has brought Tehran into the picture. A nuclear deal is a necessary step.
Over 20 years ago, “Bibi” Netanyahu declared that Tehran should not acquire nuclear weapons. He reiterated this point on Tuesday before a majority-Republican Congress immensely sympathetic to his rhetoric in an efficient and, frankly, sensational speech, sprinkled with references to the Holocaust and apocalyptic predictions of a nuclear deal that may be reached with the Iranian theocratic regime. His speech was a compendium of all the evil he thinks Iran is capable of, including its anti-Semitic and “genocidal” regime, and the “existential” threat that its terrorist activities in the Middle East and its quest for nuclear weapons represent for Israel, in his view. This demonization is not entirely undeserved, of course, especially considering the lack of democratic freedoms in Iran. Netanyahu made some passing valid points, but in the end his rhetoric was too overblown to be truly credible.
Iran and the Islamic State are two sides of the same coin, he said in substance; there is no greater threat than the “marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons.” As if, according to him, Iran is not in any way to be trusted, and we must continue to stifle the regime with sanctions. The conclusion of the agreement contemplated by Washington and its international partners would allow Tehran to arm itself “with full international legitimacy” and launch the “countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.”
His speech, generously applauded by Republicans, was above all an exercise in anti-Iranian, and anti-Obama, propaganda. Across the oceans, it was a rallying cry to his own electorate — because Israelis will go to the polls on March 17 — from one of the most prestigious foreign legislatures.
So the fact is that Republicans were yielding to hyperpartisan impulses in the hope of putting a spoke in the wheels of the Democratic president when they invited Mr. Netanyahu to come and make a speech. Still, the speech will not go down in history as a useful contribution to the debate.
The negotiations involving, on the one side, Iran, and on the other, the U.S., Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, China and France, are at a critical juncture. The goal is to reach a preliminary agreement by March 31 and a final agreement by June 30. It is far from being finalized, President Obama told Reuters on Monday, in an anticipatory response to expected criticisms from the Israeli prime minister. Contrary to what Bibi continues to suggest, why would the group called P5+1 sign a flawed agreement? It’s true that we know little about the nature of the negotiations. But Iran, in brief, is in the process of accepting to verifiably cap its production of enriched uranium, in return for a progressive easing of sanctions, so that it will only serve civilian purposes. The agreement would last 10 years.
In fact, Israel has a beam in its eye: Iran is a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty, but Israel is not. Israel also possesses nuclear weapons and has always refused to authorize the inspection of its nuclear facilities.
This situation calls for restoring dialogue and diplomatic bridges with Iran. The Americans’ “liberation” of Iraq has brought Tehran into the picture. A nuclear deal is a necessary step.