Bibi Throws Down a Tough Choice for Obama

It’s either an Iranian deal or a Palestinian deal, he seems to be telling the president, but not both.

Benjamin Netanyahu and Hassan Rouhani
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Michael Hirsh
Nov. 17, 2013, 4 p.m.

The prob­lem is not so much that Ben­jamin Net­an­yahu and Barack Obama don’t like each oth­er. The prob­lem is they don’t trust each oth­er. Which ex­plains the Is­raeli prime min­is­ter’s ful­min­a­tions last week in blast­ing, from afar, a tem­por­ary deal be­ing ne­go­ti­ated in Geneva that would have frozen Ir­an’s urani­um-en­rich­ment pro­gram. But if Net­an­yahu ex­acts re­venge, it may not be on the Ir­a­ni­ans. It may well be on the Palestini­ans.

Ever since he first met then-can­did­ate Obama in mid-2008, Net­an­yahu has lumped the Ir­an and Palestini­an is­sues to­geth­er and in­sisted they be solved se­quen­tially — Ir­an first, peace and state­hood second. “If Ir­an be­came nuc­le­ar it would mean the vic­tory of the mil­it­ants in Hamas and Hezbol­lah and un­der­cut the mod­er­ates,” Uzi Arad, Net­an­yahu’s then-na­tion­al se­cur­ity ad­viser, ex­plained in an in­ter­view at the time. So now Net­an­yahu, in his um­brage, has an ex­cuse to put off the is­sue of Palestini­an state­hood yet again — and, frankly, the Is­raeli-Palestini­an talks are go­ing so poorly that not too many Is­rael­is would blame him.

The hard-line Net­an­yahu, son of an ul­tra-right­ist schol­ar who brooked no rap­proche­ment with Ar­abs and be­lieved that Jew­ish his­tory was simply one holo­caust after an­oth­er, has rarely seen a ne­go­ti­ation he likes, wheth­er on Ir­an or Palestine. (Former top U.S. peace ne­go­ti­at­or Den­nis Ross called him “in­suf­fer­able” dur­ing Net­an­yahu’s first ten­ure as PM in the 1990s.) And yet for all Is­rael­is, the is­sue of trust is a very real one. Do they really be­lieve Obama’s “got their back” against Ir­an — in oth­er words, will he en­sure that Tehran nev­er gets a bomb — as the pres­id­ent pledged in 2012? Or will they, in the end, de­cide they have to take ac­tion against the Ir­a­ni­an nuc­le­ar pro­gram them­selves, ne­go­ti­ations or no?

It didn’t help to in­spire trust last week when French For­eign Min­is­ter Laurent Fabi­us — one of Bibi’s new bud­dies — pub­licly slammed the nuc­le­ar deal as a “suck­er’s bet” al­most as soon as he ar­rived in Geneva, em­bar­rass­ing Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry and en­ra­ging the chief Ir­a­ni­an ne­go­ti­at­or, For­eign Min­is­ter Mo­hammad Javad Za­rif.

Some of this was pos­tur­ing. Par­is gets piqued when it’s not fully con­sul­ted on ma­jor Middle East is­sues, es­pe­cially since it has taken a mus­cu­lar lead in ad­dress­ing re­cent flash points from Libya to Mali. And French Pres­id­ent François Hol­lande is still fum­ing over the way Obama sud­denly spurned mil­it­ary ac­tion against Syr­ia a day after Hol­lande en­dorsed it, mak­ing the lat­ter look a little fool­ish at a time when he is already deeply un­pop­u­lar at home. Gal­lic pride is sorely in need of a patch-up.

Net­an­yahu is do­ing some pos­tur­ing, too. Whatever threats he might make about Is­raeli mil­it­ary ac­tion against Ir­an, he knows that’s not go­ing to hap­pen in the middle of these ne­go­ti­ations. Nor is it likely to hap­pen any time soon: His mar­tial bluster can’t hide the fact that most of Is­rael’s de­fense/in­tel­li­gence ap­par­at­us is res­ist­ing a strike — be­cause an at­tack could, in the end, achieve the pre­cise op­pos­ite of what Is­rael needs. It might dam­age Ir­an’s nuc­le­ar fa­cil­it­ies only par­tially, mar­gin­al­ize the mod­er­ates in Tehran, and send Ir­an ra­cing even faster to­ward a bomb, many Is­raeli of­fi­cials fear.

And yet the trust is­sue is not go­ing to go away. Most signs point to­ward some kind of tem­por­ary pact between the West and Ir­an, es­pe­cially since Obama and Hol­lande spoke by phone Wed­nes­day. But the Is­rael­is fret that as more time passes in ne­go­ti­ations, not only does Ir­an get closer to in­dus­tri­al ca­pa­city to pro­duce a bomb, but Is­rael’s re­tali­at­ory op­tions weak­en as well. The Is­raeli mil­it­ary may not have the bunker-busters and oth­er fire­power ne­ces­sary to take out deeply bur­ied en­rich­ment fa­cil­it­ies such as For­dow, near the city of Qom, once they be­come fully op­er­a­tion­al. Thus, what Is­rael wants from Ir­an is something close to total sur­render of its nuc­le­ar fa­cil­it­ies be­fore any­one dis­cusses eas­ing sanc­tions at all.

Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials say the only sanc­tions re­lief they are dis­cuss­ing in ex­change for a freeze is tem­por­ary and can be turned on and off like a “spig­ot,” in the words of Deputy Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Ad­viser Ben Rhodes, at the pleas­ure of the U.S. gov­ern­ment if Tehran doesn’t halt all nuc­le­ar-weapons work. But of­fi­cials around Net­an­yahu sus­pect that Obama and Kerry are both a little too eager for a deal that in the end will still al­low Tehran to slip quietly to­ward nuc­le­ar cap­ab­il­ity — a sus­pi­cion high­lighted when Fabi­us in­sisted that con­struc­tion of the heavy-wa­ter re­act­or at Arak be in­cluded in the six-month freeze agree­ment.

All of which brings us back to the Palestini­ans. Kerry badly wants to push peace talks, know­ing they are a cru­cial part of the sta­bil­ity equa­tion in the un­rav­el­ing Middle East. And just be­cause Net­an­yahu is mostly blus­ter­ing on Ir­an (al­though he has some power­ful en­emies on Cap­it­ol Hill who are threat­en­ing to add new sanc­tions), the Is­raeli knows he has some real lever­age. Net­an­yahu claimed to have been taken by sur­prise Tues­day when his hous­ing min­istry sud­denly an­nounced plans for an­oth­er 20,000 units in West Bank set­tle­ments, prompt­ing Palestini­an ne­go­ti­at­ors to threaten a walkout. But the move was all too re­min­is­cent of oth­er such cal­cu­lated re­buffs, like the time the Is­raeli in­teri­or min­istry an­nounced con­struc­tion of an ad­di­tion­al 1,600 apart­ments in East Jer­u­s­alem in 2010 — in the middle of a vis­it by Vice Pres­id­ent Joe Biden.

Non­ethe­less, Net­an­yahu is play­ing a dan­ger­ous game, gambling with both Is­rael’s fu­ture and his own repu­ta­tion. In­deed, the chief vic­tim of the prime min­is­ter’s ef­forts to shoot down Palestini­an talks could well be his own foot. Put­ting off a two-state solu­tion, however sat­is­fy­ing to hawks, could still someday turn Is­rael in­to a Middle East ver­sion of an apartheid na­tion, and pos­sibly even des­troy the Jew­ish nature of the state. The Ir­a­ni­ans are hardly the only ex­ist­en­tial threat.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.