Is Netanyahu manipulating Obama?
What was the point of this week’s meeting between Israeli and U.S. leaders?
What was the point of this week’s meeting between Israeli and U.S. leaders? asked Akiva Eldar in the Tel Aviv Ha’aretz. It’s not as if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was going to hear anything from President Obama that he hadn’t heard already from his own advisers and from top U.S. officials. Obama simply reiterated that an Israeli attack on Iran before the U.S. presidential election in November would be “tantamount to attacking the incumbent president.” And Obama probably told Netanyahu that he would be “prepared to pay generously” for a “time-out”—presumably by ignoring the festering Palestinian issue.
But this is not some political game, said The Jerusalem Post in an editorial. Netanyahu’s decisions about Iran are based on considerations of Israel’s security, just as Obama is driven by concerns about U.S. security. American pundits on the Left say that Obama is bowing to Israeli pressure with his tough talk on Iran, while those on the Right say that he is just pretending to be hawkish to woo Jewish voters. But the truth is that Obama gets it. He knows that a nuclear Iran is “a cardinal threat to essential U.S. interests.” And he agrees with the Israeli prime minister that the two countries should use all means, including military ones, to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear. The only major difference between them is the timetable: Obama is willing to wait longer to see if sanctions work.
That’s the crux of the problem, said Ron Ben-Yishai in the Tel Aviv Yedioth Ahronoth. Obama says he won’t let Iran possess nuclear weapons—but Israel says that “defining the red line this way would in fact enable the Iranians to become a nuclear power.” If Iran is allowed to develop the ability to produce lots of highly enriched uranium, it will be able to build a bomb within six months whenever it feels like it. The U.S. won’t be able to prevent that because, “as opposed to uranium enrichment, the development of the actual weapon can be hidden relatively easily.” Remember, the Americans didn’t know it when India, for instance, built its first bombs—the telltale sign in that case was a test nuclear explosion. So the crucial question is whether Netanyahu persuaded Obama on this point.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
This isn’t a matter of persuasion, said Sefi Rachlevsky in Ha’aretz. Netanyahu’s plan is to “drag the United States into war.” Iran already has a fortified underground enrichment complex, at Fordo. No Israeli strike can wipe that out, so if Israel attacks Iran unilaterally, all it can do is delay the nuclear program. In the aftermath, “a revenge-hungry Iran” will redouble its efforts and go nuclear within two years. The U.S. knows this, too. An Israeli strike, then, is meant to “compel Obama to send the only military force capable of destroying Iran’s nuclear program.” Such a war would be disastrous. Our only hope is that Israel’s generals and retired generals “make it clear to Netanyahu that it can’t be done his way. You don’t gamble Israel’s security on conspiracies.”
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
-
Why is Bluey such a cultural phenomenon?
In the Spotlight Kids are obsessed — but parents get just as much out of the show, if not more
By Anya Jaremko-Greenwold, The Week US Published
-
Is it actually economical to fly basic economy?
The Explainer Airlines have placed so many restrictions on basic economy, you may wonder if it's even worth the savings anymore
By Becca Stanek, The Week US Published
-
So bad, so good: the best worst movies
The Week Recommends These films are as enjoyable as they are terrible
By Anya Jaremko-Greenwold, The Week US Published
-
Arizona court reinstates 1864 abortion ban
Speed Read The law makes all abortions illegal in the state except to save the mother's life
By Rafi Schwartz, The Week US Published
-
Trump, billions richer, is selling Bibles
Speed Read The former president is hawking a $60 "God Bless the USA Bible"
By Peter Weber, The Week US Published
-
The debate about Biden's age and mental fitness
In Depth Some critics argue Biden is too old to run again. Does the argument have merit?
By Grayson Quay Published
-
How would a second Trump presidency affect Britain?
Today's Big Question Re-election of Republican frontrunner could threaten UK security, warns former head of secret service
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Published
-
'Rwanda plan is less a deterrent and more a bluff'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
By The Week UK Published
-
Henry Kissinger dies aged 100: a complicated legacy?
Talking Point Top US diplomat and Nobel Peace Prize winner remembered as both foreign policy genius and war criminal
By Harriet Marsden, The Week UK Last updated
-
Trump’s rhetoric: a shift to 'straight-up Nazi talk'
Why everyone's talking about Would-be president's sinister language is backed by an incendiary policy agenda, say commentators
By The Week UK Published
-
More covfefe: is the world ready for a second Donald Trump presidency?
Today's Big Question Republican's re-election would be a 'nightmare' scenario for Europe, Ukraine and the West
By Sorcha Bradley, The Week UK Published