In a recent article for the Atlantic, “The Netanyahu Disaster,” writer Jeffrey Goldberg excoriated the Israeli prime minister for his decision to speak to Congress about Iran. Goldberg’s main argument was that the United States is an enormously powerful ally while Israel is small, reliant and weak. As such, Israel should listen respectfully to President Obama’s policy cues and never actively disagree with him. Goldberg concludes that by accepting House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation, Benjamin Netanyahu has insulted Obama and the United States, thus damaging Israel’s interests.
This line of thinking might be reasonable under normal circumstances, but does it really apply in a situation of existential danger? Iran’s leadership routinely boasts of its determination to destroy the State of Israel. Iranian-sponsored terrorism is responsible for the murder of Jews around the world from Argentina to Bulgaria. Given past behavior, Netanyahu believes that a nuclear-armed Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, and addressing this threat has been the guiding light of his foreign policy; he has repeatedly urged action to prevent a belligerent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
To maintain a working relationship with Obama, Netanyahu has put aside his pride and swallowed the many insults and offenses that have defined his treatment by the White House. On his first state visit under Obama’s presidency in 2010, Netanyahu was given no reception and forced to enter the White House through a back entrance. He was left to languish in a conference room for over an hour after Obama unexpectedly left to have supper with his wife.
In 2011 an open mic picked up some derogatory comments made by Obama who thought he was talking to French President Nicolas Sarkozy off the record. More recently, in another Jeffrey Goldberg article, Netanyahu found himself referred to as a “chicken-s—t” by administration officials who were apparently gloating over the fact that he didn’t have the nerve to attack Iran. And the list goes on.
Recognizing that the United States is the only power that can decisively deal with the Iranian threat, Netanyahu has ignored insult and injury in exchange for Obama’s pledge to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. At this point, it has become clear to everyone including Netanyahu that his strategy of playing ball with Obama and eating crow on the side has clearly not gotten the results he had hoped for. After years of talks and as we enter the 13th month of a final six-month round of negotiations, we are yielding on one issue after another to Iranian demands.
In Obama’s latest State of the Union speech, he confirmed that the White House is ready to lift the sanctions on Iran in exchange for the most modest concessions, displaying his eagerness to strike a deal with Iran that leaves the mullahs within sprinting distance of a bomb and permanently endangers both Israel and the free world.
Netanyahu has been forced to recognize that Obama’s pledge to stop Iran from going nuclear has turned out to be just another of his famous vanishing red lines. Hence when Boehner invited him to address Congress on Iran, Netanyahu seized the opportunity. By accepting the invitation, Netanyahu indeed insulted the president and probably caused irreparable fallout with the current administration. But given Obama’s politics of appeasement, Netanyahu has made the decision to turn to Congress as Israel’s last best hope for help in dismantling Iran’s nuclear program.
It is a bold and risky move, but Netanyahu deserves praise for pursuing it. Although he was often criticized domestically for not standing up to Obama, Netanyahu acted with caution and humility through the long years when there was hope that Obama would stop Iran. Now that this charade is over, Netanyahu has demonstrated that he can act decisively and assertively when it matters. He has shown that he is willing to risk confrontation, not for personal pride, but for the welfare of his nation.
Daniel Grynglas is a retired engineer living in San Jose.