6 March 2015

I watched PM Netanyahu’s address to Congress. I also read the transcript. What he said on Iran was hardly different from his UN General Assembly speech of 29 September 2014. It was the controversial nature of his Washington visit, the approaching deadline for the P5+1-Iran talks, and the “Obama-Netanyahu rift” that brought it to the world’s attention.

The fact that the Israeli PM was able to address the Congress during a visit organized with no regard for diplomatic rules is evidence to American democracy’s profound attachment to the separation of powers, a fundamental principle of democracy. The special relationship between Israel and the US and the weight Israel carries in the US are well-known. Yet, no matter how strong and deep a relationship may be, no other Western democracy would have knowingly allowed a foreign leader to challenge its government in its own parliament. In Turkey, the separation of powers is unfortunately seen as an impediment to “effective government”.

The word “APPLAUSE” appeared forty-two times in the transcript of Mr. Netanyahu’s address. Members of the Congress rose over and over again to give the PM a standing ovation. Whether this was a display of total agreement with him or a reflection of partisan politics can best be judged by Americans. But the standing ovations on this occasion may not reflect well on America’s global image because the US is expected to lead…

PM Netanyahu’s speech was designed to galvanize the Congress. In order to make his case on the need to contain Iran, the PM said that Tehran was dominating four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, and Sana’a. He asked if Iran was gobbling up four countries right now, when it is under sanctions, how many more it may devour when sanctions are lifted. But later, in arguing for more pressure on Iran for a better deal, he said it was a vulnerable regime. He was right about the risks of regional nuclear proliferation. But his failure to propose an alternative to what he called “a bad deal” did not escape attention. Even so, his address has placed a cloud over the P5+1-Iran talks, and that cloud is not going to away easily regardless of the outcome. Secretary Kerry declared once again yesterday evening in Riyadh that “progress has been made, but significant gaps remain”. The impact of the Washington visit on the positions of others around the table is also important since these talks are not a US-Iran-Israel trilateral exercise.

At present, the Middle East is in chaos. Iraq, a regional counterweight to Iran in the past, is now struggling to remain united with Tehran’s help. Syria has become a battleground. Damascus values Iranian support for its survival. The Ukraine conflict raises doubts about the level of cohesion among the P5+1 despite assurances. All of this gives Iran a stronger hand at the nuclear talks and causes the Israeli government concern. A nuclear deal should of course, be solid. This is also in the interest of Turkey. But since forcing Iran into submission is not an option, combining increased breakout time with intrusive access and verification measures may provide a solution. This may not be best solution, but one everybody has to live with under the present circumstances. Israel’s security, like Turkey’s, depends on a stable environment, not further havoc.

PM Netanyahu said that Iran and ISIL are competing for the crown of militant Islam. Militant Islam may be a threat to Israel and a serious security concern for the West and beyond. But those who suffer the most from militant Islam are the millions and millions of Muslims aspiring to democracy, progress, and modernity.

Although this was a speech about Iran, PM Netanyahu should have said something on the question of Palestine. An Israeli PM cannot address “the most important legislative body in the world” as he called the Congress and remain silent on the Palestinian problem. Failure to solve the question of Palestine serves the cause of militant Islam.

Even without Iran’s nuclear program, Middle East politics were complex enough. Today, the picture is more puzzling.

Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel agree on ousting President Assad. In varying degrees, all three are concerned about the Iranian nuclear program and Iran’s reach in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel are against the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, which they see as an extension.

Turkey gives the Brotherhood every support and seems closer to Hamas leadership than to Mahmoud Abbas.

Israel is trying to develop relations with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries. It is trying to promote the view that a broader rapprochement with the Arab world may help facilitate an Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Turkey has burnt all bridges with Assad. Its relations with Egypt and Israel are at their lowest point with no ambassadors.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey say that ISIL is a terrorist organization but have not committed against it in full force. Their relationship is usually more complicated than it seems.

Jordan is being pulled in different directions. Lebanon is taking the brunt of the Syrian war.

Baghdad appreciates Iran’s help in fighting ISIL, but must protect its Sunni population from Shia militia.

The US and Iran are on opposite sides on the nuclear program, but they are becoming de facto allies in the fight against ISIL. Turkey and Saudi Arabia are unhappy with Iranian involvement in Iraq.

To put it briefly, the region is as divided as ever.

But the most disturbing development is that people are now talking about “Sunni” and “Shia” blocs, which means that it is not only ISIL that is pushing the region back to medieval times, but also regional governments, since they have failed to rise against the challenge of sectarian strife. Atatürk introduced secularism in Turkey because he was ahead of his time. No other Middle Eastern leader dared follow him. If they had, today’s Middle East could have been a different place.