Biden Administration’s Careless Nuclear Deal – A Threat to Netanyahu’s Israel
Just ten years prior, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fervently criticized an emerging nuclear deal between the U.S and Iran. He took his potent disapproval to every public platform available to him, including delivering a blistering speech to Congress – seen as a stark challenge to the Obama administration. Presently, with negotiations regarding a new deal underway, the Prime Minister’s boisterous objections have ceased to echo. It seems the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran that Netanyahu once so vigilantly rallied against is losing his vocal opposition as he seems constrained, a far cry from the fervent critic of past years.
An Iran freighted with nuclear weaponry poses an existential menace to Israel. Netanyahu’s apprehension about a new U.S. pact with the perceived archenemy is as potent as ever. He fears that it might not adhere to his stringent standards. Yet, inexplicably, Netanyahu appears restricted in the era of former President Donald Trump. Despite Trump’s clear affection for Israel and a no-nonsense approach to criticism, the Israeli PM remains tight-lipped in critique.
An echo of Netanyahu’s perplexing silence is felt in analysts’ remarks. Yoel Guzansky, an Iran expert at the Institute for National Security Studies, a Tel Aviv-based think tank, contends Netanyahu is ‘paralyzed’, unable to act against Trump, whom he perceives as a staunch ally of Israel. The seeming inaction comes at a high-stake time when Netanyahu’s homeland has achieved a significant strategic advantage over Iran in the ongoing conflicts that span the volatile Middle East.
Israel’s recent trouncing of Iran’s partners in Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria, coupled with its concentrated attack on Iran’s crucial air defenses the previous year, all speak volumes about its strategic supremacy in the region. Military strategists weigh Israel’s current advantage as a golden opening for an impactful strike on Iran’s nuclear constructions with limited regional retaliate.
Nonetheless, even with this palpable superior footing, Netanyahu appears to have failed in spurring Trump to prioritize a decisive attack on Iran’s nuclear operations. An operation that would understandably hinge on U.S. military support to ensure its success. As long as the U.S. remains in dialogue with Iran, Israel’s right to pursue unilateral military action is considered dubious at best.
Eytan Gilboa, a specialist in U.S.-Israel relations at Bar-Ilan University near Tel Aviv, points to Netanyahu’s tricky position. Netanyahu had banked on Israel’s advantageous stance over Iran to further amplify during Trump’s regime. However, stark reality paints a contradictory picture, one of dashed hopes and unfulfilled promises.
Netanyahu and his right-leaning supporters saw Trump’s re-entrance in the White House as an opportunity. Banking on Trump’s historical backing for Israel, they hoped for potential U.S. support for a strike on Iran’s nuclear sites. Much to their dismay, Trump’s policy towards Iran and his vested interests seemed to deviate from traditional alignment.
Netanyahu’s continuous objection against Iran’s nuclear advancements has defined his stance over the years. He positioned the nuclear program as the pressing peril to Israel’s existence and launched worldwide opposition to the Obama deal. Israel, currently the sole nuclear force in the Mideast, seeks to maintain this advantageous position. Under Netanyahu’s ardent insistence, Trump withdrew from the Obama-era agreement.
However, Trump’s hospitality towards Israel under the second term offered, it an undisturbed hand in its clash against Hamas in Gaza. The worsening humanitarian crisis remained unchecked, and measures were undertaken against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. Nonetheless, with U.S. resuming talks with Iran, Netanyahu is caught between maintaining favor with his ally, Trump, and opposing a critical foreign policy.
Israel’s clear communication to Washington about its priorities concerning a potential deal is evident. It gauges the likelihood of carrying out a strike on Iran alone if negotiations continue. During a speech in Jerusalem, Netanyahu relayed his terms for a probable deal with Trump. He emphasized the entire dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program infrastructure and prevention of any ballistic missile development equipped to launch a bomb.
But with Iran rejecting any notion of giving up its right to enrich, it’s unclear whether Trump will impose such stringent conditions, reconstructed on the lines of Libya’s 2003 deal which saw destruction of its nuclear facilities and allowed inspectors unrestricted access.
With Tehran claiming its nuclear program is for peaceful pursuits, while officials increasingly exuding threats of potentially pursuing a bomb, expert discussions are ongoing. Having shifted military assets to the region and despite asserting a military option remains open, Trump delineates a preference for diplomacy over aggression.
However, the challenge to Netanyahu does not end with a deal if one is successfully negotiated. The scenario post-Trump abandoning Obama-era agreement, Iran ramping up its nuclear enrichment, and increased uranium stockpile presence does not bode well for Netanyahu’s strained relationship with the Biden administration over Gaza’s problematic handling.
The current status quo crumbles Netanyahu’s reliance on Democratic allies to carry his cause. The struggle to discover any Republicans willing to publicly oppose their previous President on this issue further complicates the situation. If a deal is secured, he may resort to deploying proxies like his far-right allies to voice his opposition.
Consequently, the best case scenario, however unfortunate it may seem, for Netanyahu seems to be a collapse of the talks – a bleak prospect he can only hope for as he navigates through his existing challenges.