So Prime Minister Netanyahu has come and gone. In a sensational speech to Congress he outlined his worldview on Iran. However mesmerizing it was, it was very weak on specifics and strong on generalities - The deal with Iran was bad. He could, however, live with a deal that he couldn’t live with, but not this one, whatever it turned out to be. Implicit in his argument was that America, that is Obama, was wet behind the ears and being taken for a ride by the canny Iranians. This was music to the ears of those that had initiated this invitation.This like much of what they do is related to their own pathological hatred of Obama.
In this blog, Jay H. Ell wants to explore Netanyahu’s delusional behavior and the destructive impact it has had and the answers that Obama must furnish before one can be reassured that the POTUS isn’t committing an unnecessary blunder in paving the way for a nuclear Iran.
Jay H. Ell, fears that Obama’s policy on Iran is unrealistic, "Blog: Iran: What is Obama Thinking?”. He in fact believes that neither of he or Netanyahu are rational on the subject. (Blog: “Netanyahu and Maybe Obama Too - Just Don’t Get It”). Peter Beinart provides an insightful theory as to the behavior of the two protagonists in an article in Haaretz. Beinart postulates that they both need to solve the Iranian dilemma so as to ensure their legacies and this is what is dictating their divergent behavior.
CONTEXT OF DRAMA
Just a few more contextural facts relating to the unfolding of this drama. This speech had its least impact back home in Israel where it is seen by the left and center as electioneering. Amongst the American populace, according to the Rasmussen polls, 66% of the Democrats and 61% agree with negotiations with Iran. These numbers are higher than those Bush 43 went into war with Sadam and can be considered the opinion of the electorate. This isn’t worrying the Republican lawmakers yet but it might in the future. Netanyahu maybe using up the goodwill that has allowed Israel to take its place among the nations. Bibi has consistently acted disdainfully towards it’s only ally, the all powerful America, who has ensured Israel’s survival both with its largesse and support. This it has done because of the rightness of Israel’s cause, at political cost and to the ire of the numerically superior Arab States. Bibi is foolishly taking that all for granted. Netanyahu has weakened the bargaining power of the six nations as the Iran negotiators have screamed that if there is no deal, like Netanyahu has recommended, they will go ahead with their nuclear program.
NETANYAHU THE CHURCHILL WANNABE
The megalomaniacal Netanyahu is unashamedly playing out a fantasy that he is his hero Winston Churchill. Like the British premier who literally saved civilization by going out on a limb in the early thirties by prophesying that Hitler and the Nazis were an existential threat to mankind his crusade relates to the danger of Khomeini’s Iran. Boehner for his own political ends played into this delusional narrative. To show you the extent of this pathetic charade the Republican Speaker presented the Israeli PM with a bust of his hero Winston Churchill following his inappropriate intervention. However, it is the height of arrogance for a foreign leader to interpose himself into the domestic squabbles of an ally. An ally that has been responsible for the survival of his own nation. Netanyahu has allowed himself to be a partisan tool in the American scene in order to indulge his paranoid delusions of grandeur. He has done this at great cost to Israel and the Jewish cause generally.
JAY H ELL DID NOT KNOW CHURCHILL BUT BIBI IS NO CHURCHILL
Firstly, Churchill, in political isolation and to universal derision, made his dire forecasts about Hitler and the Nazis. He acted from a position of weakness risking any chance of making a political comeback. Netanyahu prognosticates, as Premier, from a position of power. Also there is a universal consensus on Iran, (that is why there are sanctions and UNO resolutions), that it is an evil empire and the issue is how to deal with that reality. There was no consensus on the German threat. The UK political establishment supported Chamberlain’s appeasement policy. The USA were not interested and their Ambassador to London was sympathetic to the Fuehrer. So Bibi is no prophet.
Bibi has been forecasting Armageddon since 1996, that is for nearly twenty years, prognosticating that Iran would have a nuclear bomb within a year. He has been consistently wrong being continually contradicted by his own Intelligence Agencies. He embarrassingly testified to Congress that invading Iraq would have a transformative impact for the balance of power in the region. So there is no parallel between Churchill’s Europe and Netanyahu’s Middle East. In addition the two were entirely different personalities - Churchill in many ways humble and empathetic and Netanyahu arrogant and self centered. Churchill’s personal ethics were beyond reproach while Netanyahu has always been suspect and he and his wife are currently being investigated for financial malfeasance. Churchill beloved by the people and those around him Netanyahu at best admired and falling out with his peers with monotonous regularity.
So much for Bibi saving the world by telling them what they already know.
There was no way on earth that Netanyahu’s controversial appearance in Congress could have turned into a triumph with his rare oratorical skills persuading Congress to adopt a policy on Iran that he dictated to the President of the United States of America. He knew it, Speaker Boehner knew it, the whole of Congress knew it as did the President of the United States of America. In fact it had to achieve the opposite. With his narcissism he has weakened Israel’s position in America. Where it had been politically untenable to oppose Israel in Congress he has opened a partisan divide. Nancy Pelosi the Democratic Leader in the House felt humiliated by his speech. Was it really worth it?
They can get all hysterical at AIPAC but the Jewish vote, which is far from monolithic, only represents just more than 2% of the electorate. Maybe a reality check is needed.
OBAMA OWES AN EXPLANATION
Bibi may have gone through the motions of kumbahya but Obama no longer cares. He called the Israeli Premier’s speech “theater” pointing out that he had offered no concrete proposals. As far as Netanyahu is concerned there should be no talks at all until certain preconditions are fulfilled. In fact if you parse all Netanyahu’s if’s and buts war should be declared tomorrow.
All of this does not relieve the POTUS of explaining how America’s policy changed from no negotiations and strict sanctions on Iran to be bargaining how many nuclear centrifuges they can have. No one can argue with negotiations as long as they don’t end up in capitulation. The fears of Iran obtaining a nuclear capability are real throughout America and the world. Many cannot he reassured by the bland statements that ,”A bad deal is worse than no deal”, “There is no way Iran will be allowed a nuclear bomb” or “At least they are being stopped for ten years”. This particularly so when the media is awash with details of the deal.
* To help the President it is obvious that the impact of sanctions on Iran brought them to the table. Otherwise why are they there? They could have gone on curtailing their nuclear aspirations on their own if they so desired. The fact that wasn’t the way they were leaning is reaffirmed by the outburst of Premier Rouhani to Netanyahu’s speech. He threatened to go ahead with his nuclear development if a deal wasn’t reached. As this is all obvious why does one get the feeling that Iran is sitting in the pound seats and that to quote one source, they are getting 80% of what they asked for? Put another way what is it that none of us can see that gives Iran so much leverage? Is it ISIS? If it is that is not acceptable. Is it, as Beinart has postulated, Obama’s desire for a meaningful foreign policy legacy? That too will not past muster.
Quite frankly Jay H. Ell, may appear insensitive, but he does not believe this landmark deal should be chisseled around Iran's "self respect".
* If x is the number of centrifuges allowed what is the science behind such a decision? Apparently the Secretary of Energy has attended these talks with his counterpart from Iran. Surely they can provide some input as to why x is “safe”? The impression gained thus far that a number is being argued about is a poker game unrelated to nuclear reality. The rationale please the rationale?
* What evidence is there that after 10 years or whatever Iran will move into a freedom loving state with no colonial, war mongering, terrorist and anti Israeli ambitions? They did after all blow up a mock US Battleship as recently as February 25, 2015. Jay H. Ell is worried about his grandchildren who will then just be entering their teens. Why, if a period had to be defined is this not predicated on monitoring, assurances and measurement of objective behavior?
* How is all this going to be overseen especially in the light of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s statement that they are unable to survey thousands of centrifuge operations and the fact that just two weeks ago they reported the Iranian regime to the Security Council for non compliance?
* What assurances have the six nations received that if a deal is reached that the Arab Gulf States are not going to start a nuclear race?
* What is Plan B if there is no deal as the administration maintain that there is only a fifty percent chance of one?
* What is Plan C if there is a deal and it is broken? There has to be some credible mechanism in place because quite frankly Jay H. Ell really doesn’t trust this crowd. For example, how quickly can the economic sanctions be put in place. Is there anything that can be held as security for any violation such as a stockpile of oil or delayed payments on oil?
* Has any thought been given to the fact that It is the six nations who hold the cards and if Iran walks out what they should put into effect and how quickly?
* If the administration cannot discuss all of this publicly how about sharing it with a couple of the relevant legislative committees. In spite of the rabid partisanship on the hill if the POTUS has reasonable explanations it tends to lower the temperature of the debate.
AT THE END OF THE DAY
The GOP, sans administration transparency, were going to attempt to take control of the Iranian deal with or without the Israeli Prime Minister dazzling and clear cut oratory. The latter, who has a knack of alienating all and sundry, like unilaterally declaring himself King of all the Jews, has not helped the situation, rather he has succeeded in making Israel a partisan issue and split the Jewish Community in two not only here but in Europe. This incidentally makes it more difficult not less for the GOP to get the votes they need from Democrats to take over control of the Iranian policy. Notwithstanding all of that the POTUS needs to explain himself or hand the Republicans, on a plate, the one issue they may get public backing for.
No comments:
Post a Comment