Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s >>controversial speech before the Joint Session of the United States Congress in the first week of March was constantly punctuated by applause and rounds of standing ovation. But the content of his speech was familiar and predictable. He continued playing a politics of fear, denouncing Iran as a threat “to the peace of the entire world” and urging Congress to resist the emerging nuclear deal with Iran. U.S. President Barack Obama, on reading the speech transcript, said: “On the core issue, which is how to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon which would make it far more dangerous, the Prime Minister did not offer any viable alternatives.” The event was a spectacle, a public display of differences, both within the United States and between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu. It is also an instance of rapidly changing geopolitics. There is reasonable hope in the international community, especially among European diplomats, that the nuclear deal may potentially be a viable alternative to the currently adversarial, sanctions-driven relations of the West with Iran. The deal, which may be finalised by the end of March, will attempt to regulate strictly Iran’s ability to produce nuclear fuel for at least ten years, and then gradually ease the restrictions. In turn, the West would ease its sanctions that currently curtail Iran’s oil exports and prevent it from accessing global financial markets. In this context, Mr. Netanyahu’s call for a complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure seems unrealistic, outdated and worthy of being ignored.
Within the U.S., the opposition to Mr. Obama is getting increasingly bitter. Forty-seven Republican Senators sent an open letter to Iran’s leaders on Monday, warning them that any nuclear deal that they sign with President Obama could last only as long as he remains in office, which is until January 2017. To this, Mr. Obama reportedly said: “I think it’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran.” The fact is that as Iran’s clout in the region grows, it is gradually stealing Israel’s thunder. Iran is playing a key role in defending Iraq against the IS onslaught, and the U.S. recognises the value of an Iran-backed militia fighting in Tikrit. Though America is uncomfortable with the Syrian regime, it sees the strategic significance of Iran’s support to Bashar al-Assad in countering IS. So it is IS that is becoming a common cause for the U.S. and Iran, giving reason for a rapprochement. Mr. Netanyahu’s concern is understandable, but when given an opportunity to present his case he has made little of it.
