Even before uttering a single word in Congress, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech has managed to draw the full attention of the American media. After endlessly discussing the personal tensions between Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, the American media on Monday dealt with the substance of the matter: Even the journalists close to Obama (i.e., Jeffrey Goldberg) admit the emerging nuclear deal "is a dicey proposition." It's not surprising that Obama is not looking forward to this speech. He is however interested in minimizing the damage during Netanyahu's visit. The bombs were already dropped before the speech. It's reasonable to assume there will be consequences for Netanyahu's speech before Congress; positive ones as well as negative ones. Obama has two years left in office, and one can assume that after the Israeli elections -- if Netanyahu is selected to assemble the next government -- Obama will try to "remind" him, in one way or another, about the speech. The administration has ways of expressing dissatisfaction. The positive aspect is that the speech is sparking considerable interest in the U.S., and suddenly it's not just Republican congressmen who are concerned about a bad deal. Democrats and public opinion have come around as well. On almost every issue, they spoke of Obama the messiah and Obama the wizard. Suddenly, as it pertains to the Iranian nuclear program they are wondering: Is the emperor not wearing any clothes? At the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Conference Monday, Obama (via his U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power) clarified that U.S.-Israel relations are independent of political tensions. The ties between the two countries are strong and sturdy. Power stressed this would not change, and that America will continue to stand beside Israel on all possible fronts, including efforts to protect Israeli interests within international institutions. There is anger, yes, but no one is flipping over any tables. The problem today is Iran. The tensions between Obama and Netanyahu are not just personal. They also stem from differences in ideology and worldview. On Monday, at Obama's instruction, the administration may have tried to shower Netanyahu with honey, but the aim may have been to attract bees. Obama views the deal with Iran as perhaps his greatest foreign policy achievement, justification for the Noble Peace Prize he received; a legacy. What Netanyahu sees is Iran with a nuclear bomb. The gap is wide. Who is right? Both sides are convinced of their own righteousness, but in Washington even Netanyahu's critics admit he is right. No one here would buy a used car from the ayatollah. Iran has lied throughout the entire process. What then, the ayatollah has suddenly become a mensch? The problem with Iran is that wherever Netanyahu sees a nightmare, Obama sees a dream -- and vice versa. Netanyahu was right to emphasize on Monday that his goal was not to undermine Obama. The problem is that in actuality, this is precisely how his speech is being translated by the administration. The overwhelming majority of American Jews votes Democrat and voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012. But on Monday, the 16,000 AIPAC attendees stood and cheered for Netanyahu, mainly when he spoke about his upcoming speech before Congress, scheduled for Tuesday. Netanyahu tried emphasizing that the speech was not anti-Obama, but rather pro-Israel. During the Cold War era, there were two camps battling one another: the West and the Communist Bloc. Today the world is also divided in two: the West and the camp that holds the West's values in contempt and fights against them. Obama needs to remember which side Israel is on and that Iran's nuclear program is a national matter, certainly not a personal one. Netanyahu's speech is supposed to highlight to the world who the good guys are in the Middle East, and who the bad guys are. From time to time, and certainly today, a reminder is perhaps in order.
