Even before delivering his address to Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu joked that he couldn’t remember another speech that had received more coverage before a word of it was uttered.
In the end, after all the sound and fury over the Israeli prime minister’s anti-Iran message and questions of protocol over the way the invitation came about, not much had changed — at least on the surface.
Democrats in Congress appeared unchanged in their desire to let President Obama, along with the United Nations Security Council and Germany, move forward unimpeded in negotiations with Iran.
“He called it a bad deal, but he didn’t say what would be a good deal and what would be an alternative,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who serves as the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, told MSNBC. “Is he saying that war would be a better deal?”
Other Democrats who had been put off by the speech’s timing and Speaker John Boehner’s, R-Ohio, failure to get the White House’s blessing before inviting Netanyahu, were equally or more upset after the speech.
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., called the speech condescending and insulting even after Netanyahu praised Democrats for their stalwart support of Israel over the years and said he never intended to inject politics into the speech.
“I was near tears throughout the prime minister’s speech — saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States,” she fumed afterward.
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who is seriously considering a run for Senate, said he appreciated Netanyahu’s attempts to tamp down the partisan tensions but doubted it would be enough to provide much relief in the short term.
“The prime minister certainly made some conciliatory remarks in the very beginning of the speech pointing out how the Obama administration has supported Israel,” Schiff, who is Jewish, told the Washington Examiner.
“But I don’t think it’s enough to overcome the flawed way in which the invitation was extended and so there will still need to be a lot of work done to mend the relationship.”
And strong Republican and Democratic critics of the administration’s negotiations praised Netanyahu for blasting the deal as too lenient and shortsighted.
“This was an historic speech,” said Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. “Prime Minister Netanyahu was both substantive and convincing. The United States and the Obama administration must resist a bad deal.”
Still, Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and other top U.S. officials involved in the negotiations have reason to worry about Netanyahu’s message and its timing.
The administration and its partner countries are facing a March 24 deadline for a deal with Iran. The mere prospect of the speech drew attention to the progress of the talks and prompted leaks about some of the more controversial emerging details.
Several media reports last week said the Obama administration had caved to Iran’s demands for a 2025 sunset clause and a one-year breakout window — the turn-around time that Iran could reconstitute its nuclear ambitions if it stops complying.
The speech also turned up the pressure on the administration by basically calling out Obama and his top officials for being too trusting and too desperate to make a deal to burnish Obama’s abysmal foreign policy legacy.
“I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change for the better after this deal,” Netanyahu said. “Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger?”
“If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it’s under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?” he asked.
The administration also must contend with some serious opponents to the deal in his own party — and Netanyahu’s speech amplified their message.
After accompanying Netanyahu to the House chamber, Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, took a seat in the front row.
“I think the effectiveness in addition to the presentation was that [Netanyahu] had the whole Congress’ attention riveted to the issue,” he said afterward. “And that is a very powerful opportunity to develop a different narrative than the one we have been hearing.”
On Friday, Menendez, along with Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee, unveiled legislation that would require congressional review of any deal the Obama administration and other western powers make with Iran. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he plans to bring it up for consideration on the Senate floor next week.
The measure, which is attracting strong bipartisan support, would force Obama to submit the text of any pact to Congress and prohibit the administration from suspending congressional sanctions on Iran for 60 days to allow for Congress to hold hearings and have a chance to approve or disapprove the agreement.
Obama deeply opposes the bill, and on Tuesday he responded directly to the Israeli prime minister’s speech, saying it offered nothing new and failed to include an alternative to going to war with Iran to stop its nuclear development.
The president also admitted that one of his primary foreign policy goals has been preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and called the sanctions program implemented with Congress’ help “extraordinarily effective,” adding that it “pressures Iran to come to the table to negotiate in a serious fashion.”
Netanyahu, during his remarks, however, said he preferred to keep ratcheting up the sanctions on Iran to impose real pressure and get a better deal.
“Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff,” he said. “They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.”
