Netanyahu practices bad diplomacy

Let me begin this piece by saying that I support Israel. I'd like to think that this support comes from more objective reasons than my ethno-religious background, but it still probably plays a far larger role than I think. However, this piece is not about exactly why I support Israel, because last night while watching Netanyahu address Congress on Fox, I actually felt that he gravely overstepped. Any time a foreign leader attempts to influence the foreign policy of another country is not a good thing. This is exactly what Benjamin Natanyahu is doing by claiming to be "a representative of all the Jewish people" and with his aim to discourage congress from supporting Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.

If the Iran nuclear deal were to go through, it would mandate inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), limit the type and number of centrifuges needed for enrichment and fulfill replies to IAEA questions about past military activities. The deal's conditions also force Iran to discontinue turning uranium into rods used for civilian nuclear power or sending the material to Russia. With these measures in place, Obama hopes to establish one year of "breakout time" which means that if cooperation were to cease between the two countries, Iran would still need a whole year to develop a weapon.

In reality, one year of break out time will give IAEA inspectors and intelligence agencies plenty of time to detect any moves Iran might make toward weaponizing their nuclear material. However, Netanyahu claims that "Iran's work on advanced centrifuges" could make that time much slower — and he has a lot less faith in the world's ability to detect Iran's pivots toward weaponization. Perhaps he failed to read the fine print of the proposed deal that would restrict Iran to its current centrifuge model which is a leftover from the late Soviet Union and thus very slow at enriching nuclear fuel.

Netanyahu also claimed that "inspectors document violations; they don't stop them." This is definitely true. It would be difficult for a clipboard-touting IAEA inspector to stop Iran from enriching nuclear fuel to dangerous levels by himself (unless he's actually James Bond), but the point of inspections is simply to let the world know what's going on. A substantiated report that Iran had broken any of the conditions of the nuclear deal would justify harsh economic sanctions, UN Security Council intervention or possibly even military involvement. The world would not sit idly by and let Iran develop nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu also greatly overestimated Iran's influence in the region when he claimed that "Iran now dominates four Arab capitals: Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanna. And if Iran's aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow." Yes, Iran's influence has increased substantially in the region, but it hasn't made any territorial acquisitions. Tehran simply funds several violent groups who have taken control of these places. Iran's funding of these organizations does not substantiate Netanyahu's claim that this deal will "make the Middle East a tinder box." Netanyahu is not wrong that Iran currently funds a "global terror network,” but the chance of these groups getting nuclear weapons from Tehran is extremely unlikely. It is far more unlikely than Iran will even get them in the first place for at least the next ten years.

Ultimately I believe that Obama's National Security Adviser Susan Rice was correct in saying that it would be inadvisable to "let a totally unachievable ideal stand in the way of a good deal with Iran." What she means is that the United States cannot make Tehran "unlearn the scientific and nuclear expertise it already possess." They must have a civilian nuclear power program because they've come too far not to.

Netanyahu believes that the Iranians will continue developing new centrifuges and proceed on the path to nuclear armament while evading international scrutiny. In a brief rebuttal, he even claimed that the ten-year duration of the deal, even if the Iranians adhere to the rules, will plunge the region into chaos when it's over. I believe that ten years is a long time, and I believe that it is certainly in Washington's best interests to keep nuclear weapons away from Tehran, while still allowing civilian nuclear power. That's exactly what this deal will do in the long run.

Ex Mossad chief Meir Dagan commented on Feb. 27 to Ynet News that Netanyahu has "caused Israel the most strategic damage on Iran." Dagan agrees that a nuclear-armed Iran would present an existential threat to Israel, but she argued that Netanyahu's succeeded only in making this grim prospect more likely. As a matter of fact, "the Iranians are watching it all unfold and they are rubbing their hands in glee. They feel like they've managed to drive a wedge between Israel and its main ally, between the little Satan and the big Satan." Given that Obama cancelled the meetings he was supposed to have with Netanyahu, Tehran has no reason to doubt that the two nations have reached an impasse, and Israel is in no position to be weakening its relations with its most important ally, especially not by publicly getting involved in American domestic politics.

Furthermore, Obama was not even officially informed that Netanyahu was scheduled to give his address on National television and America noticed. According to the Wall Street Journal, 48 percent of registered voters said they disapproved of inviting another foreign leader to speak in Congress without the President’s knowledge. The man responsible for the entire affair was Speaker of the House John Boehner. Antics like this will only further polarize American politics.

Prime Minister Netanyahu made a grave mistake by insulting President Obama and grandstanding in front of Congress the way he did. The U.S. will insure that some sort of deal passes with Iran, and I bet that it's going to be a lot tougher than what was proposed initially. All the Prime Minister accomplished was an erosion of relations with his most powerful ally in one of the most undiplomatic displays I've seen in a long time.

All of this being said, I genuinely believe that the prospect of Iran having nuclear weapons is a grave threat to the entire world. In an ideal world, Obama would create a nuclear deal that had no sunset and permanently restricted Iranian nuclear ambitions to an energy program. It would also lift the sanctions if and only if Tehran stopped funding terrorist organizations across the Middle East. In many regards I agree with the sentiment behind Netanyahu's speech, but I condemn the tone and diction of how he presented his ideas. No deal with Iran is far better than a bad deal, and I believe that Obama is capable of creating a good deal that will ensure Iran never becomes a nuclear rogue state.