+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

On Iran, Netanyahu chooses politics over strategy

Netanyahu did not take Israel’s strategic interests into account in his latest confrontation with the United States. Will his decision cost him when it comes to the ballot box? Only time will tell. 

By Ilan Baruch

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani addresses the general debate of the 68th session of the General Assembly. (photo: UN Photo/Sara Fretwell)

Over the last several days, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s sour face has peered over at us through the screen. While his mouth was busy berating the six powers and President Obama, his eyes betrayed exhaustion. Ever since Iranian President Rouhani appeared before the UN General Assembly on his “charm offensive” directed toward the West, Netanyahu has been leading a losing battle.

Netanyahu’s paradigm, which was based on pushing the powers to take a hawkish stance to the point of military confrontation with Iran, failed. Netanyahu sought to bring Iran to its knees. He labeled any deal that would remove sanctions before Iran’s complete surrender a “bad deal,” openly preferring a “non-agreement.”

In Geneva they thought differently, and a new chapter began. The West wants to give Iran a chance to return to the family of nations. Israel’s military option was taken away, as was its ability to influence the agreement, which will be developed over the next six months. And all this despite the fact that Washington invited the Israeli government to deploy its experts and consult with the Americans during the negotiations.

From the beginning, many cast doubt on the possibility of a pre-emptive military strike by Israel. At this point every amateur observer knows that military action, be it daring or technologically savvy, would only delay the Iranian nuclear program for a few years, at most. On the other hand, it deprives Israel of the ability to move toward an era of peace and would only spur Iran to achieve nuclear deterrence. So what led Netanyahu to support a military strike on Iran (“all options are on the table”) as well as such a hardline stance against negotiations over the past several years? All while there has been an unprecedented erosion of relations between Israel and the United States, our only strategic ally, to the point of a visible crisis with the Obama administration.

It is clear that the Iranian issue keeps Israel busy on two levels: the first is security. Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon is the basis for its growing threat to Israel. This threat means Israel must maintain its deterrence vis-a-vis Syria, Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorist organizations. The second level is political. The idea that “only Netanyahu can deal with Iran,” which has turned into “only Netanyahu can deal with Obama” portends the fortification of the Likud’s grasp, headed by Netanyahu, forever. It seems that the pursuit for hegemony in internal Israeli politics is dictating the Israeli demand for Iran’s surrender.

Netanyahu’s face betrays the fact that he lost the Iranian bet. Only time will tell, since the story is not about nuclear weapons or Tehran’s threat to Israel, but rather the return of Iran as a superpower to the region. The Obama administration is seen as one with a wide-ranging political vision, which strives to put an end to the Iranian nuclear program and to dismantling the “axis of evil.” Such a dramatic change will force the U.S. and the other powers to take an assertive stance regarding peace between Israel and Palestine.

The change in Iran’s global position was not born out of Geneva and did not come into being due to Obama and Kerry. President Bush decided over a decade ago to attack Iraq and bring down Saddam Hussein through war. American military intervention lead to the disintegration of Sunni Iraq into its divided ethnic groups and to a Shiite-led government, which has warm relations with Iran. Thus, the door to Iran’s influence across the Gulf and the Levant has been opened. And who if not Netanyahu called on Bush to attack Iraq in September 2002 in order to eradicate the chemical and biological threat to Israel?

In the confrontation with the United States, Netanyahu did not take Israel’s strategic interests into account and instead is looking out for his own personal interests. Even when it was understood that the Geneva agreement was a done deal, political motives left no choice but to protest against the U.S. and the West. Netanyahu chose politics over strategy. Will he pay for it when it comes to the ballot box? Only time will tell.

Ilan Baruch is a peace activist and a former Israeli ambassador to South Africa.

Under the radar: Israel’s security establishment supports new Iran agreement
It’s stupid, dangerous and wrong to demand Iran’s humiliation

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Average American

      Please let this be true. Alot of average Americans are very tired of Netanyahu (real name Miliekowsky) and Israel.

      That said, I think anything that happens in the Middle East, at least anything my country does, is about control of oil. That’s certainly what Iraq was about, that should be admitted to the mothers and fathers whose children were killed or maimed.

      That’s certainly what Iran is about too, though I think it’s a riskier plan. Because on one hand Iran could truly unite the Shia Crescent and perhaps then not need to be friendly to USA. On the other hand, Iran could sway alot of oil and consumer products business (once they have money to spend) to the USA and USA could not need to be so friendly to Israel (if the Israel-Firsters in USA government are finally purged). In total, I wouldn’t be surprised if USA plays Iran and Israel off of each other, maybe finally for our own country’s advantage.

      Reply to Comment
    2. עיניים לראותEYES2C

      “BB” Caused more Damage to the Security of Israel than ANY other PM! (That is the Main Reason why “BB” is Under Attack by So Many Former Intel and Army chiefs.)

      Reply to Comment
      • Average American

        You’ve made me think. Rouhani as the new president is trying to turn his country around. What an equal opportunity for the next prime minister of Israel (may he come soon).

        Reply to Comment