Ted Belman. Allow me to remind you that Obama and Bibi differed in public on the Arab Spring. Bibi was right.
In this present disagreement, I would have expected our “friend” Obama to say something to the effect to Israel, “Don’t worry I have got your back. I have gotten Iran to commit to not trying to wipe you out.” and “I have arranged for Iran to open diplomatic relations with you.” But no such luck. Not even a pretense of Israel’s interests being protected.
By Alex Markovsky
In this turbulent era, which Henry Kissinger described as one of “war of all against all,” the United States is proceeding to make a strategic choice existential to the state of Israel.
On November 24, 2013, in Geneva, Switzerland, the United States and the P5+1countries signed an interim agreement with Iran to temporarily freeze parts of the Iranian nuclear program. The Obama administration could hardly contain its euphoria. The president proclaimed that the diplomacy of the U.S. and its allies “opened up a new path toward a world that is more secure.” Secretary of State Kerry was not far behind when he said, “It will make our ally Israel safer”
Benjamin Netanyahu did not share the administration’s Chamberlain-like optimism and issued a sharp warning, calling the agreement “a historic mistake.” He also committed himself to “go anywhere I am invited to make the state of Israel’s case and defend its future and existence.” Netanyahu was not alone in his gloomy assessment of the agreement.
In his thoughtful book, World Order, Kissinger validates Netanyahu’s judgment: “When negotiations started in 2003, Iran had 130 centrifuges. At this writing [late 2014], it has deployed approximately 19,000 (though only half are in use). At the beginning of the negotiations, Iran was not able to produce any fissile material; in the November 2013 interim agreement, Iran acknowledged that it possessed seven tons of low-grade enriched uranium that, with the numbers of centrifuges Iran possesses, can be transformed into weapon-grade material in a number of months enough for seven to ten Hiroshima-type bombs.”
This contradictory interpretation of the agreement resulted in an apparent rift between the Republican majority in Congress and the administration, which is proceeding toward a nuclear agreement with Iran without a congressional mandate. Pressed by the lack of transparency and the informational embargo the administration imposed on the country, Speaker of the House John Boehner offered Netanyahu a chance to take his case directly to “We the People.” That offer infuriated the president, and congressional Democrats threatened to boycott Netanyahu’s address to Congress.
To justify its opposition, the White House cited the precedent of not offering foreign leaders a platform before their elections, in order to avoid the perception of interfering in the election process of other countries. Furthermore, the administration said, it was a violation of protocol for the Israeli premier to fail to consult the White House before accepting Boehner’s invitation. Neither of the two arguments holds water. The first is simply disingenuous, considering that the White House has …read more