To mark IDC Herzliya’s 20th anniversary, we spent a day following Prof. Uriel Reichman, IDC’s founder and president, and Jonathan Davis, VP for External Relations, around its delightful campus.
Most analysts seem to be in agreement that Iran has mounted its current charm offensive aimed at President Obama and the West generally because the broad effects of sanctions have been taking hold and causing economic misery across Iran, fanning growing unrest.
Where many disagree, however, is on whether Iran is serious about accepting restrictions on its nuclear aspirations or is just playing for more time in an effort to soften the sanctions by promising to negotiate in good faith.
We tend to agree with Prime Minister Netanyahu that it is all a bluff. But we also agree with President Obama – and perhaps Mr. Netanyahu does too, judging from his choice of words during his visit to the U.S. this week – that there is no choice under the circumstances but to give diplomacy one more chance, with conditions.
Yet underlying all of this is the fear that even if Iran is sincere, any rapprochement between the US and Iran – even a non-nuclear Iran – would change the geopolitical dynamics in the region.
Much is being made of Mr. Obama’s receptiveness to the overtures of Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani. And, to be sure, that receptiveness has raised concerns in Israel and countries such as Saudi Arabia that the U.S. is placing too much stock in the declared intentions of Iran’s leadership. But here is part of what Mr. Obama actually said in his speech at the UN last week:
“To succeed, conciliatory words will have to be matched by actions that are transparent and verifiable…. this isn’t simply an issue between America and Iran – the world has seen Iran evade its responsibilities in the past, and has an abiding interest in making sure that Iran meets its obligations in the future.”
Acknowledging the widespread skepticism over Iran’s intentions, the president said that “the roadblocks may prove to be too great, but I firmly believe the diplomatic path must be tested.”
For his part, Prime Minister Netanyahu in his UN speech this week shredded Rouhani, insisting he is no different from any of his predecessors since Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution.
“They’ve all served that same unforgiving creed, that same unforgiving regime,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “I wish I could believe Rouhani but I don’t….”
Though he also raised the issue of preemptive military action by Israel if it determined Iran was moving closer toward a nuclear weapons capacity, he also seemed to acquiesce in Mr. Obama’s decision to take the diplomatic route, for now.
It didn’t get much notice but in his UN speech Mr. Obama, referring to the Iran situation and the Israeli/Palestinian dispute, said that “While these issues are not the cause of all the region’s problems, they have been a source of instability for far too long, and resolving them can help serve as a foundation for a broader peace.”
The problem, of course, is that U.S. interests in the Middle East might diverge from those of Israel if what was required in crafting an overall settlement would not meet Israel’s needs.
In that case, what sacrifices would Mr. Obama require of Israel?
And what would the president be prepared to concede to Iran in order to get it to drop its nuclear weapons quest and thus avoid a military confrontation? It’s no secret that Iran seeks regional hegemony and indeed is the principle supporter of Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah. While a nuclear-weapons capacity would catapult Iran to the forefront of regional leadership, even without that capacity it could become, with U.S. assistance, the preeminent regional power.
And, of course, lurking in the background and alluded to in Mr. Rouhani’s UN speech is the notion Israel, as part of any agreement, be required to give up its own arsenal of nuclear weapons.
In sum, for all the ballyhooed talk of moderation in Iran’s position and signs that Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Obama have moved somewhat closer to each other’s stated positions, no resolution appears anywhere in sight.
About the Author:
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Comments are closed.
“We don’t just care for the children; we make sure they have the best quality of life.”
“Why do people get complacent with the things they’re told?”
Arab opposition to a Jewish State of any size was made known by word and deed in the form of terror
As Arabs murder and maim Jews, Jordan’s leaders bark the blood libel of “Israeli aggression.”
Perhaps attacking a terrorist’s legacy broadly and publicly would dissuade others from terrorism?
R’ Aryeh yelled “Run, I’ll fight!” Using a chair against terrorists to buy time so others could flee
Riot started when Muslim students wore the Pal. kaffiyeh and Druze students demanded them removed
The “Media” didn’t want us to know what a kind, giving, loving young woman Dalia was.
A “Palestine” could become another Lebanon, with many different factions battling for control.
Maimonides himself walked and prayed in the permissible areas when he visited Eretz Yisrael in 1165
Having a strong community presence at the polls shows our elected officials we care about the issues
Israel’s Temple Mount policy prefers to blames the Jews-not the attackers-for the crisis.
When Islam conquered the Holy Land, it made its capital in Ramle of all places, not in Jerusalem.
I joined the large crowd but this time it was more personal; my cousin Aryeh was one of the victims.
Last year the Obama administration sought to minimize civilian deaths from drone strikes by generally requiring that missile attacks be limited to instances where Americans were directly threatened and there was a “near certainty” that no civilians would be killed.
Toward the end of Operation Protective Edge this past summer, the president was unusually vocal about Israel’s so-called disproportionate use of force and alleged lack of compliance with international humanitarian law.
There was no accompanying caption, but the cartoon could not help but feed the anti-Semitic canard that Israel was responsible for 9/11.
An accomplished Torah scholar and ardent adherent of Bobov chassidus, he was renowned for his self-effacing dedication and skills as an international lawyer and law professor
The fact that the United States government after World War II sought to take advantage of the expertise of German scientists, even those known to have contributed to the Nazi war effort, is well known and largely accepted as having been necessary for America’s national defense. (Wernher von Braun is perhaps the most famous and […]
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/editorial/iran-obama-and-netanyahu/2013/10/02/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online: