Netanyahu nails the fundamental problem with Iran…writes Ben Cohen

March 5, 2015 by Ben Cohen -
Read on for article

I have to confess that I was disappointed with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference this year.

Federal legislators applaud Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday. Credit: Amos Ben Gershom/GPO.

Federal legislators applaud Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday. Credit: Amos Ben Gershom/GPO.

I felt that it was bland, packed with tired talking points, lacking in strategic direction, and generally uninspiring.

Not so with Netanyahu’s speech to Congress the following day, which was a barnstormer. In its immediate aftermath, there were the standard idiocies in response, but that was to be expected. One that caught my eye was the utterance of CNN’s Gloria Borger that Netanyahu’s reference to the Holocaust was “electioneering”—as insulting as leveling the same accusation towards an African-American politician who mentions slavery. Another came from House of Representatives Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who declared, “I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech, saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States”—a statement that itself insults the intelligence of the U.S., because if Bibi demonstrated anything, it’s that he respects and loves America, and he doesn’t want an error of historic proportions over Iran to drive a wedge through this country’s relationship with Israel.

What Netanyahu proved definitively in Congress, which he didn’t do at the AIPAC meeting, is that the current deal that the Obama administration is so keen to cut with Iran will result in the world’s principal sponsor of terrorism, and the main strategic threat to the entire Middle East, weaponizing its nuclear program. Iran is, as Netanyahu put it, “a dark and brutal dictatorship”—and no more of these regimes should ever possess weapons of mass destruction. (I say “no more” because North Korea—in part because of American diplomatic ineptitude—already has nuclear weapons.)

What’s striking is that Netanyahu had to remind us of the nature of the Iranian regime in the first place. One of the problems with the current public discourse around Iran in this country is the tendency to normalize the regime, and to elide or ignore its fundamental violations of basic human rights. Iran even has its apologists, like the left-wing Jewish pundit Peter Beinart, who outright lied in a column for The Atlantic with this claim that, “Iran isn’t doing truly reckless things like invading a Saudi ally in the Persian Gulf or launching chemical or biological weapons at Israel.” Really? Iran now controls Yemen and, to an ever-greater extent, Iraq. It is the main sponsor of Hezbollah. And it is the primary reason that the Assad regime in Syria, which has used chemical and biological weapons against its own populace, remains in power.

Now, I realize that for those like Beinart and his ilk, who believe that the only human rights that matter are those of the Palestinians, arguments like those advanced by Netanyahu in Congress will never shake their predispositions. But for the rest of us—the vast majority—the reminder that Iran’s regime is fundamentally evil, in the same manner that Saddam Hussein’s regime was evil and the North Korean regime remains evil, is a welcome counterbalance to the myth of moderation being pushed by the White House.

On a philosophical level, Netanyahu also underlined that the notion of trust in international relations does not have a one-size-fits-all meaning. Light years separate the trust that defines American relations with Canada from American relations with Iran. In our bilateral relations with Canada, we begin from an assumption of trust, whereas with Iran, we begin—or, at least, we used to—from an assumption of deep, empirically verifiable suspicion that stretches all the way back to 1979, when the newly established Islamist regime’s thugs seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

There were two other strategic points made by Netanyahu that are worth highlighting. The first concerns the current fight against the terrorists of Islamic State and how that impacts negotiations with Iran. As Netanyahu put it, in this particular section of the Middle East, “my enemy’s enemy is my enemy.” The strikes against Islamic State reluctantly launched by the Obama administration, after thousands of Christians and Yazidis had already been massacred or enslaved, should not mean a de facto alliance with Iran, and should not encourage the belief that a region dominated by Iran is preferable to a region dominated by Sunni jihadis. Yes, there are different schools of Islamism that compete, often violently, with each other, but the foundational worldview stretches across sectarian and theological divides: hatred of America, hatred of Israel, and the conviction that Jewish power is the ultimate enemy is what connects the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood with the Shi’a Basij militia, regardless of whatever else separates them.

The second point is that Netanyahu did not—despite the signs being brandished outside the AIPAC convention by anti-Israel demonstrators, who were at their most insane and vicious level this year—come to the U.S. with a call to wage war on Iran. In fact, you might even argue that what was historic about his speech was that we saw an Israeli leader calling for a negotiated deal with Iran; just not the one that is currently on the table. And this would be a deal that would compel the Iranians to stick by their declared objective of having a nuclear program for civilian purposes only. What that means is proper and unfettered monitoring, the complete unveiling of further clandestine facilities, and appropriate measures to prevent a nuclear weapons breakout—whether now, 10 years from now, or a hundred years from now.

That is the only deal that makes sense for the Arab states, for Israel, for Europe, for the U.S., and for the West in general. It is one that the Iranians are free to agree to. Yet even Obama is now starting to concede that such an outcome is unrealistic; as he told the Reuters news agency, “I would say that it is probably still more likely than not that Iran doesn’t get to ‘yes,’” adding revealingly that a deal two or three years from now is even less probable. (That suggests the president wants to leave office with a deal with Iran— any deal—as part of his legacy.)

If Obama’s instincts are correct, and we don’t reach a deal, then we will go back to a tough sanctions regime against Tehran. If that happens, our strategy should not simply be to isolate Iran. Those sanctions should be part of a package that will encourage and enable the Iranian people to repeat their heroism of 2009, by rising up against this hated regime and, this time, overthrowing it.

That would be the best deal of all.

Ben Cohen is the Shillman Analyst for His writings on Jewish affairs and Middle Eastern politics have been published in Commentary, the New York Post, Haaretz, Jewish Ideas Daily and many other publications.


4 Responses to “Netanyahu nails the fundamental problem with Iran…writes Ben Cohen”
  1. Otto Waldmann says:

    We are dealing with juxtaposed ( for a while ) issues. One is the obvious, un-denied issue of an Iran intent on developing nuclear capacities, as well evinced here and the other one is Iran’s involvement in the anti ISIS MUCH MORE current issue.
    NOBODY, including Obama is neglecting the nuclear issue, hence the 5+1 talks, but the more ardent issue of anti ISIS “alliance” MUST take temporary precedence. True Iran can do both simultaneously, contribute to anti ISIS and develop nuclear weapons, yet 5+1 would think that they will calculate the shift in priorities if Iran’s abuse of confidence will be untenable. Meanwhile Israel, as stated/known will supervise by its own means and own calculation if “dealing” with the Iran nuclear issue in a decisive way would become immediate and real, hence the Congressional support Israel has evinced so clearly, if we really needed it at all. To this, one secondary comment, “the” speech was less a Netanyahu speech ( except for electoral purposes) than a statement of reality by ISRAEL itself, regardless of who said it. Incidentally, Bibi had a go at Obama big time during the speech and he did it repeatedly; I read it between the lines so clearly , Gil, you are a clever boy and know it too….. Yes, for a while, I must admit, I did mumble to meeself, ” …if only Gil Solomon would have been the PM of Israel and HE would have told the Congress……”, but, right there me missus’ voice pierced my ear drums: ” wake up and do the bloody dishes !!!”. I was only listening to THE PM of Israel, wasn’t I !!!

  2. Gil Solomon says:


    In relation to Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, it was to me mediocre because of what was left unsaid.

    In short Netanyahu missed a real opportunity to show the world the true intentions of this US administration.

    He made no mention of Obama’s attempt to oust him in the upcoming Israeli elections by bringing into Israel a team of Obama supporters who hope that their propaganda efforts will bring in a new government which will be more to Obama’s liking. Foolish Israel for even allowing this lot to even step foot into the country and set up campaign headquarters in Tel Aviv. If it were up to me, they would have been handcuffed and deported on the first flight out of the country.

    More importantly, we now have reports that in late 2014 Netanyahu was planning military action against Iran to take out the reactors. Netanyahu failed to mention that when Obama got wind of the planned strike (through a leak in Netanyahu’s cabinet), this “President” threatened that US planes would be ready to take down any Israeli fighters if they crossed into Iraqi air space.

    Also Netanyahu made no mention of the embargo imposed by this administration on vital military hardware during the recent war with Hamas.

    This was a chance to take the gloves off, but no, Netanyahu as usual took the soft approach. Talking about a soft approach, he even praised Kerry and Obama at the beginning of his speech, a grovelling posture which would not in any way lessen this administration’s hatred of him or Israel, nor would it have any effect on Obama’s headlong rush to help the Mullahs in Tehran to acquire an Islamic nuclear bomb.
    This he will do by dragging the negotiations with Iran on and on and on until they present a fait accompli and announce to the world that Iran is a nuclear power with nuclear weapons.

    The entire nuclear weapons program undertaken by Iran should have been demolished years ago by Israel, when it would have been easier to do, but do it they still must.

    • Erica Edelman says:


      Thank goodness you are not Prime Minister of Israel.

      Just think about your “bull at a gate” tactics for a minute. Netanyahu CANNOT get the US off-side for reasons too numerous to mention here. He must APPEAR calm and diplomatic, but as I’ve said before He will not tolerate his enemies NO MATTER WHAT.
      As a matter of fact – I agree with all the facts you put forward (here in this piece and before in other articles)…about the inter-play between Israel, Iran, the US and other players at this unbelievably dangerous crossroad. Obama, in all his arrogance and naivety has chosen to seemingly trust the people he is trying to make a deal with. Netanyahu is waiting for the right moment to swoop – he made that very clear in his speech. The fat lady is only humming. We must wait for her to sing. Take a chill pill, Gil. You won’t have long to wait.

  3. Erica Edelman says:

    You nailed it, Ben Cohen. The Global Community needs to be reminded MORE OFTEN about the violent nature and regime in Iran. Human Rights organizations and watchdogs need to HOWL LOUDER! And more often. And so do the World Wide Media networks. The front covers of our newspapers should be telling it as it is! We, as a global nation are slow to react and slow to act. Pathetically so. Insular and naive and slow-thinking. We, as a Global Community, take the path of least resistance; always appearing to trust even though there is enough empirical evidence to start another world war and obliterate the scourge and threat to our very existence. If Obama doesn’t pay attention and ACT rather than ruminate we will all come to a violent and horrible end. A dead end. If Obama doesn’t get together with the powerful nations of our globe and SEND IN THE TROOPS and every bit of weaponry each country has to annihilate these barbarians (ISIS) (and soon) it will be the end of peace as we know it. Obama will be our un-doing. Get REAL Obama, Get MOVING, Get SENSIBLE! STOP trying to make deals with the devil. We are way past trying to talk sense with them. And our prayers are not enough. Get the weaponry out and GO GET THEM.

Speak Your Mind

Comments received without a full name will not be considered
Email addresses are NEVER published! All comments are moderated. J-Wire will publish considered comments by people who provide a real name and email address. Comments that are abusive, rude, defamatory or which contain offensive language will not be published

Leave a Reply to Erica Edelman Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.