WarSclerotic

In May 1996, when he was first elected to the office of prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu was already warning anyone who would listen about the dangers of a nuclear Iran. At the time he spoke of Iran as “the largest existential threat facing Israel since 1948.” At a Likud rally a year earlier, Netanyahu also warned of a nuclear Iran.

At that time, Barack Obama was a law school lecturer at the University of Chicago, one year away from entering political life in the Senate as a representative from Illinois. Obama was an extremely accomplished lecturer, and that year was promoted to senior lecturer. In those days the ambitious Obama was devoted to a number of issues. It is entirely uncertain, however, that Iran was one of them. We can assume that had he thought about Iran, it was more in the vein of human rights and an oppressed people.

Neither Netanyahu nor Obama ever imagined in their wildest dreams that one day they would find themselves butting heads with one another, in what appears to be the fight of their lives, over the issue of a nuclear Iran. Obama is now fighting for his desire to leave behind a legacy and enter the history books in the mold of John F. Kennedy. Netanyahu, meanwhile, is fighting for the role allotted to him by history, which is to correctly manage an Iranian crisis that he believes threatens the future of the State of Israel, in addition to his desire to uphold the Begin doctrine which states that an enemy state of Israel’s must not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.

Fate has arranged a very interesting showdown between the two. Although they lead two allied countries with historical ties predicated on shared values, they both hold very different worldviews. It was evident from the outset that they were on a collision course. Iran has become a sparring ground for two leaders who simply could never have been friends. The writing was on the wall as far back as 1996, before they even met.

This week their fight reached a new level. After the signing of the Vienna deal, which one of them views as a bad deal while the other sees a masterpiece of diplomacy, the quarrel has moved to America. The major battle is over swaying Congress, but also public opinion.

Congress is supposed to decide within 60 days, by Sept. 17. Until then the fight will be waged in America. Netanyahu’s management of the campaign is forcing Obama to continue fighting on the Iranian front. One wants a legacy, the other wants to preserve his country. The desires are not exactly identical. For Netanyahu this game is being played abroad, for Obama it is being played at home.

The fate of the ‘Little Satan’

While there is a Republican majority in Congress, it is not enough, because a presidential veto means that a two-thirds majority is required to nullify the deal with Iran. In the meantime, it was a good week for Obama, who saw three important democratic senators — Tim Kaine from Virginia, Barbara Boxer from California, and Bill Nelson from Florida — come out in support of the deal. It is still unclear though how other Democratic senators intend to vote, among them several Jewish senators.

The timing, incidentally, is playing into Obama’s favor because election season is underway in the U.S., and it’s hard to envision Democrats, in an election year, handicapping their candidate, Hillary Clinton, whose name is also on the Iran deal. This is no simple matter.

Netanyahu is waging a complex campaign. On one hand, public opinion in the U.S. and Israel doesn’t put any trust in Iran, thus the deal is viewed as bad. Netanyahu also has the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on his side to help fight the deal, and even Opposition Leader Isaac Herzog (Labor) is opposed to it. Netanyahu’s problem is the rest of the world, and that is a big problem.

This is precisely what led Obama, in his speech at Washington University, to tell Netanyahu that “with the exception of Israel, every country supports the agreement,” and therefore the prime minister “is wrong.” Obama forgot to add that Israel is sitting in the crosshairs of Iran’s missile arsenal, not Moscow, Washington, Paris, London, Berlin or Beijing, which conducted the negotiations with the Iranians.

Obama sees a legacy, the world sees dollars, and only Israel sees a nuclear program. To each their own interests. To each their own concerns. We can imagine that Netanyahu would happily swap concerns with the other leaders. In contrast to Obama, however, Israeli leaders first and foremost think about their country’s existence, and only then about a legacy.

It was another stormy week for the Obama-Netanyahu relationship. No one is even trying to conceal the discord anymore. We can assume their respective memoirs will include a few choice anecdotes on one another. The tragic aspect of this story before us is that they were supposed to be allies against the shared Iranian threat. From Iran’s perspective, America is the “Great Satan” and we are the “Little Satan.” Obama shattered the equation. The Great Satan has become a partner. And what will become of the Little Satan?

In his speech, Obama attempted to ascribe to himself attributes reserved for the likes of Ronald Reagan and Kennedy. But the comparisons were out of place. He sought to attribute to Ayatollah Khomeini the rationality of Karl Marx. But Marx’s disciple Nikita Khrushchev was not Khomeini’s successor Ayatollah Khamenei, and this is what Obama does not understand.

When the Cuban missile crisis erupted in 1962, there were certain points where Khrushchev almost soiled his pants. Even during the negotiations between Reagan (whom Obama mentioned) and Mikhail Gorbachev, there was never a moment where Reagan appeared anxious. On the other hand, during the negotiations with Iran, Obama struggled to conceal his desire to get a deal done. At no point throughout the process did Khamenei look anxious. Quite the opposite. Without fail, at the start of each new round of talks he would boastfully disparage America. Nothing less.

And this is where we must ask the grand question: Where is American dignity, where is the strength? Obama opposed the war in Iraq and used it as a reason to avoid the fight against Iran.

But this is precisely the thing: The gigantic gap between the U.S. and Iranian defense budgets ($600 billion versus $15 billion) should have made the Iranian fold without a shot ever being fired, and with only a little more pressure applied during the negotiations. Meanwhile, Obama didn’t hesitate to use a cheap trick against detractors of the deal. He compared the Republicans to the masses in Tehran shouting “Death to America.” This was not well received in the U.S.

Over 50 years ago, President Kennedy delivered a speech very similar to Obama’s this week, in which he hailed diplomacy as a means with which to stave off nuclear conflict with the USSR.

Obama’s supporters tried comparing him to Kennedy this week. Obama himself loves the comparison.

Let us just remember one small difference: One of them empowered America, the other empowered Iran.