A silent battle took place before and during the speech that lasted for 40 minutes, Netanyahu’s third speech in the Congress since 1996. The silent battle was between Democrats and Republicans, who possess the majority of empty seats and never hesitated to stand up repeatedly and clap. About 50 Democrat representatives interrupted the Israeli Prime Minister’s speech at the congress last week; those who were present expressed deep annoyance towards what they considered a completely biased speech.
Nancy Pelosi, head of the Democratic bloc in the House of Representatives, expressed annoyance during the speech by shaking her head, looking up and making loud comments more than once.
In an unusual strongly-worded statement straight after the speech, she said: “As a person who is proud of the US-Israel relations and who loves Israel, I was saddened by the underestimation of US intelligence, as a member in the P5+1 group, as well as the underestimation of our knowledge of Iranian threats.”
“Now the prime minister can return to his country and launch a campaign. He said he gave the congress and Americans a lesson regarding things they clearly know nothing about. I didn’t like the belittling tone that sought to spread fear,” said Democrat John Yarmuth in a press conference comparing Netanyahu’s way to Dick Cheney’s, former Vice President and one of those who started the war on Iraq.
Democrat Jan Schakowsky also said: “Netanyahu was an enthusiastic supporter to the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, but what I heard today was an attempt to drag the US to war again.”
On the other hand, all Republicans sympathised with Netanyahu, where Kevin McCarthy, majority leader in the House of Representatives, said: “I hope that Americans consider the base for their fears expressed by Israeli Prime Minister.”
The Republican Party believes that Israel’s point of view is worth taking into consideration and must be present in America’s efforts to manage the nuclear file with Iran.
Netanyahu presented the Israeli point of view regarding Iran’s nuclear file twice in two consecutive days, the first time in front of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the second in the congress.
Netanyahu condemned the agreement which P5+1 countries are trying to seal with Iran before the 31 March deadline. The agreement is supposed to allow Tehran to develop civil nuclear energy with the prevention of acquiring nuclear weapons.
At the beginning of his speech, Netanyahu tried to reduce tension caused by his visit to the House of Representatives, which was considered a challenge to US President as he was not notified in advance, which angered the White House and pushed Obama to take unexpected action by excluding the option of meeting him.
Netanyahu said: “Some things that Obama has done to Israel will never be known as they are strategic and critical, but I know these things and I will always be grateful to President Obama because of his support.”
After this complimentary introduction that didn’t change much, he attacked the American policy in the entire speech. He described the agreement that the US wants to seal as “very bad” and “will not prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb”, adding that it will enable Iran to own nuclear weapons. Netanyahu believed that “the agreement will ensure the existence of the Iranian nuclear programme without changes, enabling Iran to own nuclear weapons within a year.”
Then Netanyahu switched the speech to talk about the Iranian regime, saying that “Iran’s regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons, we must fully understand the nature of the regime.” He added: “Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.”
He also said that “at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations. We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror”, adding that “if Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country.”
Netanyahu, for whom the American parliamentarians clapped for a long time (26 times), considered that the “concessions” in the current agreement between Washington and Tehran will leave Iran with “vast nuclear infrastructure”, saying that “a deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet”, referring to the Middle East.
Returning to his speech, Netanyahu said that, before lifting sanctions, “the world should demand that Iran do three things: First, stop its aggression against its neighbours in the Middle East. Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world, and third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.”
Netanyahu continued saying: “My friends, for over a year, we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it. Now we’re being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That’s just not true. The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.” He also added that the US current approach will give nuclear weapon to Iran.
After the speech, the first comment spread among Democrats was that Netanyahu, along with the Republicans, committed an assassination against Barack Obama. Moreover, any step that will be initiated by the actual regime concerning the treaty with Iran about its nuclear file will push the American public opinion to recall these tough criticisms.
We should not dismiss the fact that Republicans were involved in this game, and that they will make an attack against Democrats in the coming elections. Republicans see that Obama’s regime has led the US to a retreated position and to an unfortunate dilemma in the Middle East. As we can observe, Republicans do not skip an opportunity unless they censure and accuse the current regime concerning their alliance with the Political Islam, especially, the Muslim Brotherhood. The people who estimated Washington’s losses after this alliance considered Egypt a big loss. Those who warmly applauded for this speech are the same who criticise Obama`s policy and describe it as lost bets phase, they describe it this way because it led to the loss of long strategic relations with an important country like Egypt. In return, the price was an illusion called the Muslim Brotherhood. Republicans added that, nowadays, the intention to appease Iran through lost treaties is not logical, because Iran is described, long time ago, as the rebel country that supports terrorism.
On the other hand, the relation between Israel and Obama`s government, is passing through its worst phase ever, and supporting Israel turned to be, to a big extent, a partisan issue, a fact that was not witnessed long time ago. The Jewish community in the US is under pressure, because it should either choose to support Israel or its president in the US. Maybe Netanyahu hopes that the issue will be solved by its own, when Americans vote through ballot boxes in 2016. This speech could help the Likud party, under Netanyahu’s leadership, to firmly win the elections. It is noteworthy that comments saying Netanyahu insulted the intelligence of Americans shows the harm caused by the Prime Minister, when he ascended the Congress platform to give his speech.
Iran represents the third angle of this triangle. Perhaps Iran cared a lot about the media hustle surrounding Netanyahu’s speech to the Congress. Iranians somehow feel victory, because they are sure that Netanyahu`s comments will not affect any agreement concerning the nuclear file, in case it will be held. It will take much effort for them to ignore Netanyahu`s rebellious speech. Years ago, he thought Iran is the main cause of disturbance in the region, as it supports Hamas and Hezbollah in Lebanon, and also due to its intervention in some conflicts. Suddenly Iran has become a significant side due to the conflicts and chaos in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
Tehran did not expect the sudden rise of IS [Islamic State], because the support offered to Bashar Al-Assad’s regime besieged in Syria and the fragile government in Iraq represents a more important and clear strategic dimension and an opportunity for the mentioned regional power of Iran. On the other hand, the same facts that benefit Iran are the strategic fears declared in the negotiations, concerning also its nuclear power programme, which pushes us to clearly say that reaching an agreement between the West and Iran is doubtful, until the last minute.
It is known that the first goal for negotiations is limiting the Iranian nuclear power programme. Obama government officials expressed hope that Iran will be completely obligated to abandon enriching uranium, but unfortunately, Iran did not this. On the contrary, Iran stuck to its announced rights to enrich uranium, according to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), without showing any flexibility. During the negotiations, the main issue was how to limit the nuclear programme, in a way that not only does not let the noncompliance of the NPT restrictions and the effort to possess a nuclear bomb be clear, but also in order to give a space time during which the international community could investigate the issue.
The noncompliance period`s extension of the NPT restrictions for Iran was the main negotiations’ theme. The deadline for these negotiations to achieve their goals is coming soon on 24 March. The goals are: creating balance between nuclear activities; the stock of enriched substances saved; and the verification level needed to guarantee the compliance of any agreement. It seems that Iran is willing to accept a package of procedures, including decreasing the centrifugation devices and modifying its characteristics.
American reports expressed their hope that Iran is ready to export the majority of its enriched uranium stock to Russia and is ready to allow some changes to be made for Arak Reactor, in order to reduce the level of plutonium that could be produced. The realistic American side, that observes the history and the steps of Iran, during the whole negotiations marathons period declares that any agreement needs firstly unremitting efforts, through restrictions, to guarantee the its fulfilment, including even providing sufficient time to warn Iran from any future noncompliance under any excuses; secondly, the role that the international community should previously play in a situation like this, because Tehran is using the card of the unstable region, trying to appear to the US as always useful, and that it controls the key of this card, ready to bargain and barter, with prices that are related deeply with its ambitious nuclear programme.
Khaled Okasha
Security Analyst and Director of the National Center for Security Studies
