WarSclerotic

There are articles that stand as monuments of shame or embarrassment for respected world newspapers.

The Times of London does not highlight the praise it heaped on Neville Chamberlain in 1938 when, upon his return to London after signing the Munich Agreement, he said, “I believe it is peace for our time.” Haaretz never repeated the editorial it published in July 1946 after the bombing of the British administrative headquarters in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem.

The New York Times had reason to bow its head after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his U.N. speech on Tuesday, quoted from its embarrassing 2005 editorial on the success of diplomatic efforts to prevent North Korea from going nuclear. But instead, The New York Times attacked Netanyahu’s speech. Journalists, like all human beings, do not enjoy being reminded of their humiliations.

The argument put forth by The New York Times is that Netanyahu is hindering U.S. President Barack Obama’s attempt at diplomacy with Iran. But is this the case? Netanyahu merely warned, legitimately, about the malicious intentions of the Iranian regime. Only the future will tell whether this warning was warranted. But Obama, as the head of the world’s democratic coalition, could use Israel’s threats to improve his position in negotiations with the Iranians.

Iranian leaders claimed on Wednesday that Israel’s sword has rusted and that Netanyahu’s anger brings them pleasure. This was a natural reaction. What else could they say? That they are gripped with fear?

Not one word said on Tuesday indicated an impending Israeli attack that could disrupt the line of dialogue established between Obama and Iranian President Hasan Rouhani. Netanyahu mentioned Israel’s military strength due to his wish to see sanctions against Iran preserved, if not bolstered. Indeed, the Israeli military threat will bolster, not weaken, America’s hand at the negotiating table.

Iran’s grin, in fact, hides its concern about the fact that Netanyahu’s speech showed that Israel and the U.S. have moved closer to having the same red line regarding Iran’s nuclear program. The potential cooperation between Israel and the U.S. increases the threat facing Rouhani. Netanyahu did not declare that Israel would act alone against Iran. Rather, he said that, even in a worst-case scenario in which it is left standing alone against Iran, Israel would not give up the military option. Iran understands this well.

In Israel Hayom, some writers have hinted that Obama’s weakness regarding the massacres in Syria has led a number of Middle Eastern nations to contemplate forming a new anti-Iran axis. They see America as a broken reed. This is not completely true. But on Tuesday night, Channel 2’s Udi Segal reported that Arab officials have been making pilgrimages to Israel seeking to form a front against Iranian imperialism.

Israel does not have, and must not develop, the megalomania that would be required to take America’s place in defending the sovereignty of other Middle Eastern nations. But if Israel wants to be part of the link, one of the relay stations, and if it wants to strengthen its credibility, then it must echo the message that came from Netanyahu on Tuesday.