For two decades, Prime Minister Netanyahu has been,
metaphorically speaking, screaming from the rooftops that Iran was on the verge
of attaining a nuclear weapon and that the world had better pay attention. While Prime Minister Netanyahu has been far
off base in claiming, since the early 1990’s, that Iran would imminently have a
nuclear weapon, I wholeheartedly believe that if it weren’t for Prime Minister
Netanyahu, no one would have paid attention to this issue whatsoever. That would have had disastrous results. Prime Minister Netanyahu made the world wake
up to the Iranian threat even when they desperately wanted to look the other
way.
Prime Minister Netanyahu hasn’t just talked the talk of
making Iran Israel’s top priority, he has walked the walk. The Prime Minister’s belief that Iran was the
biggest threat facing Israel was carried out in policy. Billions of shekels have been spent on
monitoring and counteracting this threat.
Furthermore, the Prime Minister’s focus on Iran has been a clear
priority over dealing with other security issues such as the Palestinians,
settlement expansion in the territories and internal security matters. Time and again, he has warned that Iran must not be allowed to “break
out” (make the final pieces of a nuclear weapon).
Along the way, Prime Minister Netanyahu has convinced
others, albeit reluctantly, that something must be done. None of the world’s powers want Iran to have
nuclear weapons. While Iran has
threatened Israel consistently for more than three decades, the entire world is
at risk from an Iranian nuclear weapon. While
skeptical at first, I too have been convinced by Prime Minister Netanyahu that
this is a vital issue for Israel and the world. That the world woke up to this threat is to
the Prime Minister’s credit. However, in
his criticism of President Obama’s policies over Iran during this last year, the
Prime Minister has not given the US, or the President, any credit for keeping
Iran’s nuclear program in check. The
United States was Israel’s partner, Israel’s only partner, in assassinating the
head of the Iranian nuclear program – setting it back, according to experts, by
a year or more. The United States was
Israel’s partner, Israel’s only partner, in developing and deploying the
Stuxnet Worm which infected Iranian nuclear centrifuges, destroying thousands
of machines and setting the Iranian program back by years. I wouldn’t categorize that as sitting on one’s
hands as the Prime Minister has intimated that Obama has done.
Contrary to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s depictions of
President Obama, the US has done these things even though the risk of Iran
considering them acts of war was high – exposing the US to either terrorism or
direct military action from Iran. Additionally, every Israeli Minister of Defense over the last seven
years has proclaimed publicly that the Obama Administration has done more
than any previous administration to build up Israel’s defensive capabilities
and has increased military and intelligence cooperation to never before seen
levels. The Prime Minister is not only
disingenuous when he depicts the US as some Chamberlin-esque capitulator, he
has been a most ungrateful recipient of help on what is his self-proclaimed
most important issue.
With that as a backdrop, I would like to highlight why I am
not opposed to the deal with Iran.
First, this is a good deal for Israel. If Prime Minister Netanyahu is correct and
the biggest threat to Israel is an Iranian nuclear weapon, then Iran not having
one achieves this goal. The deal is far
from perfect, and clearly falls short of what the Prime Minister would like it
to do, but that doesn’t mean that it is a bad deal under the
circumstances. As the deal is
structured, it would be at least 10-15 years before Iran could reinstitute
parts of its nuclear program – longer for other parts. That is 10-15 years, or more, of Israel not
living under the threat of nuclear attack, something that, without the deal,
could happen as soon as two months from now. Even if the deal provided fewer years of safety, it is better than a two
month breakout period.
Of course, there are trade-offs that do not make me happy in
this deal, but trade-offs are exactly what happen in a negotiation – any
negotiation. You have to give to get and
both sides did plenty of giving and getting. One area of concern that has been raised often in this last week is that
of conventional weapons. With the inflow
of cash to Iran and with the easing of the embargo, Iran will clearly be able
to increase its conventional weapons budget which could certainly be a threat
to Israel and even, perhaps, to the United States. That is possible. However, Israel has made it very clear that
its concerns were with nuclear weapons, not conventional ones – until now. By asking for no nukes and by trying to limit
conventional weapons, Israel is trying to have her cake and eat it too. Israel has shown that it is the regional
superpower with conventional conflict and it will continue to be that
superpower. Of course, Israel has its
own nuclear program that gives its conventional warfare a mighty hammer to go
with its anvil. Hard numbers also show
that Israel will not only have the qualitative edge, it will have the
quantitative edge, even with a cash boost to Iran. Iran’s current military budget is $15
billion. Israel’s is $18 billion ($3
billion of which comes from the US).
Without the billions of dollars Israel spends each year countering
Iran’s nuclear program, that will feel like an extra billion or two; putting
Israel 25% ahead of Iran right out of the gate. If Prime Minister Netanyahu were a diplomat, he would be flying to each
of the 6 countries who negotiated with Iran to ask for more military aid. If, on average, each added $1 billion in aid
(which they are capable, and I would even hazard, willing), Israel could be
outspending Iran tomorrow by nearly double. Of course, Israel doesn’t use all of its military spending against Iran,
but neither does Iran use its spending in any meaningful way against
Israel. Even those numbers, however, do
not reveal the biggest edge that Israel has – its heretofore unnamed allies:
Sunni Muslim countries. They spend $130
billion alone and also seek to keep Iran both without nukes and without the
means to upset the apple cart further in the Middle East. Without any adjustments, today, Israel and
the Sunni countries outspend Iran ten to one on military spending. They will spend more if Iran does. Iran will not be able to outspend their
enemies. Israel might even make some new
friends out of this situation. That is
why this is a good deal for Israel: no nukes for Iran, more money for Israel
(you can be sure that the US alone will sweeten the pot) and alliances with
strange bedfellows.
Second, this is a good deal for America. The United States has too much to lose by not
working with the other countries involved and we were receiving ample pressure,
particularly from Russia and China, to end the sanctions against Iran. If they decided to pull out of the embargo on
their own, the US would have no leverage to get a deal later. China alone has the need and the money to buy
every drop of oil that Iran produces at market rates – and they want to. The US has been holding its finger in that
dike for years and there is only so long you can do that.
The US has other interests here too – whether we like it or
not, Iran is already our ally in the fight against ISIS. We have been bombarding by air and Iran has
been fighting on the ground. The
Administration and the overwhelming majority of US citizens would like to keep
it that way – with as few US boots on the ground as possible. With the exception of China, the other
nations in the negotiations, like the US, have been fighting ISIS attacks on
their own soil. Iran’s fight against
ISIS gives those nations more tools to defend themselves against domestic
terror attempts. We can debate the soundness
of using Iran for a proxy war with ISIS, but it has been US policy for over two
years now. Opponents of this deal are
fighting an uphill battle because of real US strategic interests. This is a good deal for America because it
makes us safer, preserves important alliances and deepens our ability to fight
our enemies.
When it comes to Iran, the US has a national security
interest which is not in lock step with Israel's. That is rarely the case, but
in this case, it is true. I chose my
words carefully – not in lock step is not the same as opposing interests. Both the US and Israel want to keep Iran
without a nuclear weapon, want to keep Israel as the regional superpower and
want to avoid an outright war with Iran.
That is hardly the chasm that some portray between our respective
national interests in this matter. So,
US interests in Iran and Israel's differ, slightly. Reflective of that, we have
different approaches to dealing with the issue.
Prime Minister Netanyahu doesn’t negotiate, with anyone about
anything. He has that perverse luxury
because Israel is relatively isolated in the world, politically speaking, as
is. The US, on the other hand, negotiates because it can and because it should. The two countries have different parameters
for how they deal with the rest of the world. One is the only superpower and the other is a small country that is a
regional superpower with few allies as good as the one superpower. Those are the truths. Israel cannot arm twist a different reality
into the world no matter how hard it tries to do so.
Israel and the US have differing interests here. Are we, therefore, by default, as Jews,
supposed to look the other way, as Americans? There are complicated conflicting values at play here. Everyone is
trying to make it so simple. The US and Israel are allies, but they are not one
country. Each would be doing a disservice to its citizens if it didn't look out
for its own interests first. That is what the US (and Germany, England, France,
Russia, China and the UN) has done. Israel is trying to do the same. Israel
doesn't have the influence that the rest of the world has to get its agenda
accomplished.
Third, there are no better alternatives. Opponents of this deal have said repeatedly
that no deal is better than this deal. This is far from true. No deal
means the following in short order: Iran develops a nuclear weapon in 60-90
days. China and Russia, for their own
economic reasons break the embargo (are we willing to fight our biggest trade
partner and tell them they cannot buy the oil that fuels the economy from which
we buy so much?), Iran will use the threat and protection of a nuclear weapon
to attack our allies in the region such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc…
Could there have been a better deal? Maybe, but unlikely. Short of being treasonous, no one can offer a
legitimate reason why President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry wouldn’t
have gotten a better deal if they could have. The worst case scenarios to not having a deal in place is all out war
with a nuclear nation.
Yes, this deal just kicks the can down the road, but that is
far better than having that can blow up in our faces right now. The monitoring system in place is also
flawed, but gives us 99% of the access we wanted and it is nearly impossible
for Iran to hide serious infractions under these conditions.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has insisted over and over that no
deal would be better than this one, but, not once, has he offered a realistic
alternative. He knows that there is no
military option because they don’t have what it takes to do the job. Even if the US gave Israel the bunker busters
that are needed, it would only set the Iranian program back a few years – while
at the same time, it would likely spark an all-out war between Iran and Israel,
which is why the US has held onto those bombs so tightly. There is no better deal and having no deal is
worse than this deal.
Lastly, I think that this whole issue comes down to whom you
trust. Do I trust Iran? Not as far as I can throw them. We shouldn’t just keep a watchful eye on
Iran, we need to keep both eyes on them every step of the way for the next 25
years, until this deal expires. What I
do trust about Iran is that they have real needs as a nation. They need money and this deal gives them
access to it. This deal gives them money
and it is naïve to think that it will all be used for military purposes. The ayatollahs are not idealists who are
seeking to open up to the west, they are seeking these funds to keep a grip on
their power – to give their people something they hope the people will not
overthrow them to get. I don’t trust
them, but I trust their desire to stay in power – what else do tyrants have? They have a lot to lose by blowing this deal.
Do I trust Israel? Yes, of course. While we have a
divergent path here, Israel is a rational country and will not do anything that
will permanently harm itself. That is
why they haven’t tried a military option against Iran and why they haven’t been
even more brazen with the US (and Germany, Israel’s second largest
supporter). The issue is that I do not
trust Prime Minister Netanyahu. I don’t
think he will try something foolish with Iran, or even with the US. What I don’t trust is his style and the
collateral damage he is causing to US/Israel relations and what he is doing to
the American Jewish/Israel relationship. Prime Minister Netanyahu’s campaign against this deal comes dangerously
close to forcing American Jews to choose between supporting our own
administration and his. We have worked
far too hard, for far too long, to shed the “dual loyalty” accusation to allow
the Prime Minister to tear it all down. He has nothing to lose by using this approach, after all, he has said
very clearly that he believes that all Jews should live in Israel. So, in his mind, if the US gets uncomfortable
for us, the better. All the more so if
he gets what he wants in the process. It
is a dangerous game for him to play with our loyalties.
US Jews, by and large, and most especially in the
Conservative and Reform Movements, have almost nothing in common with the Prime
Minister. Both movements favor a
territorial compromise with Palestinians so that they can have their own
state. Besides a little lip service, he
has shown that this is not his intention. Both movements have stated their opposition to settlement
expansion. The Prime Minister is their
biggest advocate. Both movements have
advocated for religious freedom for non-Orthodox Jews in Israel and he makes
partnerships with those who oppose us and accuse us of not even being
Jews. Our movements have been at the
forefront to combat Israeli racism and sexism and his coalition aids and abets it
at every turn. This is not about
opposing the Prime Minister’s policies, it is about his values – we just don’t
share them. Except for one. We both love Israel. Sometimes, love just isn’t enough.
I trust President Obama for the very reasons I cannot take
sides with the Prime Minister. While not
Jewish, we liberal movement Jews share an immense array of values with the
President. Each and every accomplishment
of the Obama Administration has had broad Jewish support: healthcare, gay
rights, civil rights, environmental issues, saving the economy through
stimulus, not allowing crippling tax cuts, and much more. We share values. And, I truthfully believe, we share a love
for Israel – not the same kind of love, but a love nonetheless. Plus, President Obama has never asked us to
choose between our love of country and our love of Israel. He would never ask. I have had my share of frustrations with the
President, but I have never questioned his sincerity or his prudence. On the contrary, I am often exasperated with
his lack of fire and the measured pace he takes with everything he does.
In summary, this is a good deal for Israel and a good deal
for the United States. Besides, there
isn’t a better deal out there– despite people wishing that were so.
I encourage you to participate in this dialog. Read, pay attention and speak your mind
(thoughtfully and respectfully). If you
would like to read further about this issue, I think you should have a look at
these pieces:
