The Guardian view on Netanyahu in Washington: collusion or collision?
|
Version 0 of 1. The prime minister of Israel, Binyamin Netanyahu, is a clever politician whose particular forte is turning threats into votes. There is no reason to doubt he genuinely believes that Israel is a vulnerable state and that its leaders must think about the worst that might come to pass and guard against it. Few would fault him on that, in principle. But there is also much evidence over the years that he is ready to exaggerate threats and manipulate the fears of citizens when he sees political advantage in doing so. Bogged down in an election campaign in which the rising cost of living, deepening inequality and house prices are the electorate’s main concerns, it was perhaps inevitable that he would play his old high card as tough protector of a beleaguered Israel. That way, he may have reckoned, he could ensure that he and his Likud party will prevail when Israelis vote on 17 March. He has broken the rule that allies do not take partisan positions in one another’s affairs But he has played that card in a way which could turn out be damaging to Israel’s real interests and which could also lessen the chances of a deal with Iran on nuclear matters, which is in everybody’s interest. By propelling himself into American politics as essentially an ally of the Republicans in their ongoing feud with President Obama, he has broken the rule that allies do not take partisan positions in one another’s affairs. The decision by the Republican speaker of the House, John Boehner, to invite Mr Netanyahu to address Congress, with Iran’s nuclear ambitions expected to be the main topic, was irresponsible. Mr Netanyahu’s decision to accept was equally irresponsible. It looks like an act of collusion simultaneously aimed at derailing the nuclear negotiations with Iran, weakening the US president, increasing the chances that the next president will be a Republican, and helping Mr Netanyahu retain office. If this was genuinely about the argument that the Americans and the other western countries involved are moving toward offering Iran too soft a deal, one in which Tehran will be able to continue work on nuclear weapons or their precursors, there might be some excuse for the breach of protocol, the disrespect shown to a head of state, and the cavalier disregard for diplomatic norms which both Mr Netanyahu and the Republican party have displayed. But there is reason to doubt that this is the case. Only last week this newspaper revealed evidence that Mr Netanyahu presented the United Nations in 2012 with an account of Iran’s progress toward nuclear weapons that was contradicted by his own intelligence service. He must have known, when he made his speech to the UN, that his claims would be taken as reflecting the views of Israeli intelligence. This raises the question of whether he decided that the political benefit of playing up Iran’s progress and threat outweighed the Israeli state’s – and the world’s – interest in effective international pressure on Iran. A former head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, has called Mr Netanyahu’s policies on Iran “destructive to the future and security of Israel”. His differences with Mr Netanyahu go back a long way: he is now a declared political opponent, and the keynote speaker at a rally this coming Saturday calling for political change in Israel. Mr Netanyahu’s fears may be less about a nuclear threat to Israel and more about the change in Israel’s relative position in the Middle East if there is a nuclear settlement, followed by a limited reconciliation between Iran and the west. He may believe that ending enmity between America and Iran would lessen Israeli influence over a United States which supposedly regards Israel as its unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Middle East. But it is most likely that his main, and certainly his most immediate, motive is that he thinks his Congress speech will make him look good at home and help him win the election. This is quite a gamble. Israelis are worried about Iran, but they are also worried about anything that weakens the relationship with America. They may wonder not only about the immediate damage but about what happens to that relationship if the next US president is a Democrat and Mr Netanyahu is still in office. It is unlikely that his offence would be easily forgiven by a new Democratic administration. Some Israelis may also be asking themselves whether a leader who takes such risks is deserving of support. |