Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress was a devastating indictment of the P5+1′s entire approach, and it reminded and
reunited Democrats and Republicans, as did Sen. Robert Menendez’sspeech to AIPAC Monday, on what is at stake and why the
deal under contemplation can never come to pass.
As a preliminary
matter, it is evident that had the president not thrown a fit, Netanyahu’s
speech might not have garnered quite so much attention. But to be honest, the
fuss mostly remained in the media. When the chips were down, it appeared that
all but far-left lawmakers and Congressional Black Caucus members attended.
That, incidentally, is a problem on the left, which has become virulently
anti-Israel, as has the left in Europe and elsewhere (hence the BDS movement’s
prominence on left-wing campuses and European capitals).
The speech was not aimed at the president, who is immune to reason, nor to the negotiators who suffer from a variation of Stockholm Syndrome, whereby they come to identify with their bargaining opponents more than the country they represent. It was aimed at American public opinion and uncertain Democrats on whose good judgment Netanyahu must rely to derail a disastrous deal. By flattering the president and Democrats, Netanyahu gave them an out to agree with him without crossing the president or appearing to give in to Republicans. He said so bluntly it was starting: This is a bad deal. No deal is better. And he explained exactly why.
In laying out his
argument in such logical order — explaining the nature of the threat, the two
central flaws in the deal (leaving Iran with most of its nuclear infrastructure
and lifting restrictions after a decade) and explaining the false choice
between this deal and war (instead, hold the line and beef up sanctions) — he
made clear that if one understands the nature of the Iranian regime and what
the concessions mean, one cannot be in favor of this deal. “Absent a dramatic
change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major
concessions to Iran. The first major concession would leave Iran with a
vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the
bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium
or plutonium for a nuclear bomb. . . . But the second major concession
creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the
deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will
automatically expire in about a decade.” The conclusion was nearly inescapable:
“It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb; it paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”
From identical talking points spouted by Obama
administration apologists, we know the Obama defense is that there is no
alternative. But Netanyahu gave them one, and in doing so pointed Congress in
the right direction.”We can insist that restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program
not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in
the world. Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that
Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors 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.” He was greeted with thunderous applause.
And how to get there? “Well,
nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn’t get you very much. A
race car driver without a car can’t drive. A pilot without a plane can’t fly.
Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water
facilities, Iran can’t make nuclear weapons. Iran’s nuclear program can be
rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and
keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the
recent collapse in the price of oil. Now, if Iran threatens to walk away
from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff.
They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do. And by
maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you
have the power to make them need it even more.” In other words, stop chasing a
deal, tighten the screws and give the regime a choice between economic collapse
and nukes.
He made three other salient points that the
administration would rather obscure.
First, even if the deal on the
table was inked, it would set off a series of events far worse than having no
deal: “So this deal won’t change Iran for the better; it will only change
the Middle East for the worse. A deal that’s supposed to prevent nuclear
proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous
part of the planet. This deal won’t be a farewell to arms. It would be a
farewell to arms control.”
Second, he explained that the
hope of Iran changing its stripes down the road is entirely illogical. “Why
should Iran’s radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best
of both world’s: aggression abroad, prosperity at home? This is a question
that everyone asks in our region. Israel’s neighbors — Iran’s neighbors know
that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when
its economy is unshackled and it’s been given a clear path to the bomb. . . .
If anyone thinks — if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road,
think again. When we get down that road, we’ll face a much more dangerous Iran,
a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential
nuclear nightmare. Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come here today to tell you
we don’t have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change
for the better. We don’t have to gamble with our future and with our children’s
future.”
And finally, he went to the
heart of the problem with the administration’s premise, namely that
reconciliation with Iran can help us defeat the Islamic State. He argued, “Iran
and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the
Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State.
Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on
the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves
who will be the ruler of that empire. In this deadly game of thrones,
there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or
Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no
freedom for anyone. So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your
enemy is your enemy.”
It was masterful in many ways.
But ultimately, Israel won’t be hobbled or restrained if Netanyahu’s message
falls on deaf ears. He wrapped up with a reminder, as he pointed to Holocaust
survivor Elie Wiesel in the gallery: “And I wish I could promise you, Elie,
that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of
the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Not to sacrifice the
future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an
illusory peace. But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish
people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are
over. We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend
ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers
who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100
generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.”
He hastened to add to tumultuous applause that “But I
know that Israel does not stand alone. I know that America stands with
Israel. I know that you stand with Israel. You stand with Israel,
because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish
people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to
history’s horrors.”
That’s the hope, and he made
it that much more likely by debunking nearly every false note, phony argument
and wrong assumption guiding the administration. He is betting congressional
Democrats and the American people are smarter and wiser than Obama. How could
they not be?
