‘Dangerous lack of distinction’

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hysterical reaction to the deal reached between Iran and the five permanent Security Council members plus Germany (P5+1) was particularly disturbing because opposition parties in what the liberal Israeli daily Haaretz called the “Zionist political spectrum” echoed his line. “The Herzog-Livni duo of the Zionist Union as well as Yesh Atid’s Yair Lapid parroted Netanyahu, arguing that when it comes to the Iranian issue, there is no distinction between coalition and opposition,” Avner Cohen wrote in Haaretz on July 17. A US-based Israeli academic, Cohen is the undisputed expert on nuclear weapons, including those possessed by Israel.

This lack of “distinction” is very dangerous because the opposition has clearly bought into Netanyahu’s over-the-top line which he uses to terrorise Israelis into backing his position and standing by his narrowly based hard-right government. Cohen rates the final accord as being “far from clear and perfect, but it is a reasonable, realistic compromise, and on certain points, it is actually good.” On one hand, says Cohen, the agreement limits Iran’s nuclear programme, a “substantial diplomatic achievement”. On the other hand, the agreement “gives legitimacy to Iran’s special nuclear status” which could, after a decade or two, when the deal lapses, allow Iran to become a “nuclear [weapons] threshold state”, if Tehran decides to pursue this route.

But since this threat is far down the road, Cohen contends that Netanyahu and other politicians can now stop manipulating the “Iran threat” and turn to dealing with Israel’s own difficult-to-tackle social and economic problems which have been sidelined while Netanyahu and its colleagues hype the “Iran threat”.

While parroting Netanyahu’s anti-deal rhetoric, Yitzak Herzog and Lapid castigated him for failing to convince Washington to follow Israel’s instructions and abandon the negotiations. Lapid called on Netanyahu to resign because of the way he ran his anti-agreement campaign which has closed the door to the White House to him and induced half of Congress to shun him.

In spite of criticisms over his handling of the issue, Netanyahu remains determined to challenge US President Barack Obama as well as European, Russian and Chinese leaders over the programme, focusing primarily on Obama who faces opposition from servile Republicans who control both houses of Congress, Israeli lobbies and pro-Israeli donors to US political campaigns who are highly influential at present due to the 2016 presidential and congressional elections.

Netanyahu condemned the deal before it was proclaimed as the accommodation with Iran has deprived him of the possibility of launching an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, an attack that would drag the US into another regional conflict that a war-weary Washington does not want. Iran has threatened to respond to any Israeli/US strikes with attacks on Gulf oil producers allied to Washington and disruption of the flow of oil from this region to Europe and the US. A conflict with Iran, a large country of 77.5 million people and vast energy resources, could produce far greater destabilisation than the chaos caused by the Bush administration’s disastrous 2003 war on Iraq.

While continuing to reject the deal with Iran, its opponents have shifted the focus by arguing that once the harsh sanctions regime is lifted, Tehran will use the $100 billion of Iranian money frozen in Western banks to fund “terrorism” in the region. Netanyahu means aid to Hamas in Gaza, Hizbollah in Lebanon, the Syrian government, and dissident Shiites in states neighbouring Iran. While Obama has admitted the possibility that Iran could spend more on its foreign allies, he and most experts insist that Tehran will have to invest most of its cash in repairing the country’s degraded oil fields and facilities, buying new commercial aircraft and spare parts for existing planes, purchasing scarce medications and undertaking projects that provide jobs for unemployed Iranians.

In an editorial Haaretz warned that Netanyahu’s “attitude to Iran is... tainted with an obsessiveness that sabotages Israel’s interests”. The paper accused Netanyahu of “butting his head against the wall” of disapproval of the world’s powers by carrying on with opposition to the agreement. Netanyahu has already mobilised all-too-willing members of the US Congress against Obama who has said he would veto any legislation passed by Republican majorities in both houses. The only way to overcome Obama’s veto on anti-deal measures is to secure a super two-thirds majority in the Senate.

Netanyahu’s longstanding campaign against a nuclear agreement with Iran and his flat refusal to negotiate a US-mediated territorial settlement with the Palestinians has already soured US-Israel relations. He was not constantly kept informed of the progress in the negotiations and had to rely on leaks from unnamed pro-Israeli figures. The US has added new procedures that could delay the delivery of military equipment and weapons to Israel, even at times Israel is waging war. In fact, last summer during Israel’s latest Gaza war, there were delays in deliveries of ammunition and Hellfire missiles used by helicopters. The US military and intelligence agencies have, reportedly, reduced cooperation with Israeli counterparts.

Although US Defence Secretary Ashton Carter visited Israel this week with the aim of demonstrating Washington’s unflagging commitment to its security, the country is already paying a price for Netanyahu’s bullying rhetoric and mobilisation of pressure with the aim of blocking the nuclear deal with Iran. This price could become steeper if the Obama administration delays talks on an arms and equipment deal that would boost Israel’s “defences” against attacks by Iran or any of its allies. Israel receives $3 billion in military aid annually and this could be increased to $3.6-3.7 billion as “compensation”, for toning down opposition to the nuclear agreement with Iran. Both Carter and US Secretary of State John Kerry have said that the military option would be used if Iran obtained or was about to obtain nuclear bombs. They have said nothing, of course, about the large nuclear arsenal Israel has had for decades.