Observation: Error in narrative of critics of Netanyahu could lead to disastrous policy conclusions

http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=62459

Let’s be clear about this: the bad deal that the United States rushed to sign – a deal that explicitly refers to Iran having the capability enrich uranium in the final arrangement, did not come to be because relations between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and President Obama were not “intimate”.

President Obama knew loud and clear both what Israel considers to be red lines vis-a-vis nuclear Iran and the logic behind Israel’s position.

Obama’s compulsion to make a deal with Iran come-what-may is driven by considerations that take precedence over the USA-Israel relationship, or to be more exact the Obama-Netanyahu relationship.

Simply put, Netanyahu could have been sleeping with Obama in the White House engaging in pillow talk on how Israel would withdraw to the ’67 line, divide Jerusalem and welcome 600,000 Palestinian refugees to Tel Aviv and Obama would have still been determined to make a deal with Iran come-what-may.

Whatever improvements there may have been in the interim agreement with Iran weren’t the result of behind the scenes intimate conversations. Thanks to Obama’s determination to reach a deal with Iran come-what-may concerns raised behind closed doors fell on deaf ears.

Those improvements came because Netanyahu and those working with him engaged in a campaign that put Obama under pressure from other important elements to improve the deal.

In point of fact: in the absence of this pressure, the Iranians would have never had any reason or justification to accept the improvements.

If this was the end of the Iran negotiations this backstabbing of Netanyahu would be no more than part of the regular blood sport that is Israeli politics.

But the “main event” is yet to come.

The policy conclusion of the critics is that Binyamin Netanyahu should shut up, smile and leave his comments to behind closed doors.

But the opposite is the case.

By the same token that the interim deal with Iran was driven by a desire to make a deal come-what-may, the same will be the case in six months.

The issue of enrichment and other elements that place Iran weeks from making a bomb at any time are matters that President Obama is clearly willing to compromise on in the final agreement in order to sign a piece of paper.

And that is not going to change solely via intimate conversations.

And it is not going to change because we offer to divide Jerusalem.

It is only going to change if Obama faces so much pressure, both domestic and international, that he finds himself opting for the right path rather than the easy path.

And that pressure can only be achieved by continuing, over the next six month, with the campaign to alert the world to just how dangerous an inadequate deal with Iran will be.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(Mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-3-7255730
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
Website: http://www.imra.org.il