Time for pleasantries is over

What didn't Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's detractors say about his speech to Congress in March? They said he was jeopardizing Israeli-American relations, thus putting Israel's security at risk. They said he was ruining his relationship with U.S. President Barack Obama; they said the Iran issue was nothing more than election propaganda. Today, in hindsight, we see that the fight against Netanyahu's speech was the election propaganda, and that the speech itself was part of a crucial campaign on behalf of Israel's security.

In retrospect, Netanyahu wasn't wrong: The trip to Washington, while the timing was perceived as problematic, was extremely necessary. Congress has become the last barricade able to stop the bad deal from materializing. Congress members on Tuesday had already begun formulating the opposition document.

Now that the superpowers have capitulated to the regime of the ayatollahs, to the charms of rekindling business relations and to the atmosphere of appeasement hovering in the air since November of 2008, it is only us and Congress, along with Israeli and American public opinion (all the latest polls in the U.S. point to adamant objection to the deal). In other words, Netanyahu is not alone. Israel is not alone. No one is promising that Israel will win this fight in Congress. But Netanyahu was elected in May, among other things, to fight the Iranian nuclear program. Not to clap his hands for Obama.

The same chorus that wailed against his speech in March will now do the same against the speech he gave on Tuesday to American Jews. Suffice it to say, we will likely hear the same chirping voices telling us that Netanyahu is worsening his relationship with Obama (can it get any worse-) and therefore putting Israeli interests at risk. Is it not at all possible that Obama worsened his relationship with Netanyahu, or that the terrible deal with Iran is a severe detriment to Israel's topmost interest -- its security and existence-

America needs to understand that Israel is not trying to stir up war -- quite the opposite. Netanyahu didn't say Tuesday (or any other day) that war is the preferred option to a bad deal. He simply thinks that capitulation is not necessarily the best option, and that a good deal is better than a bad one.

The White House needs to understand that the prime minister of Israel has moved beyond the realm of pleasantries and politeness. He is engaged in managing a conflict. Not only does the nuclear deal with Iran fail to foster regional stability, it bolsters terrorism, energizes a nuclear arms race and primarily strengthens the Iranian regime. And this is before mentioning that when the deal expires, it will be easier for the ayatollahs to snag a bomb than it was for them to snag the country in 1979.

Obama on Wednesday will respond to Netanyahu's speech by defending the deal to the American people. In the meantime, Obama has met with representatives of the Jewish community to explain the merits of the deal. What Obama will not do, presumably, is utter the quote by Benjamin Franklin: "Necessity never made a good bargain." Indeed, the necessity for a legacy.

The fight being put up by Netanyahu is forcing Obama on the defensive. Of course there are those who will see this and posit that Netanyahu is making the whole thing personal (between him and Obama). But it is not personal; it is a matter of principle between Israel and the regime of the ayatollahs. The administration is signing a deal with a terrorist regime that calls for Israel's destruction; a Holocaust-denying regime with anti-Semitic leanings; a regime that over the past two decades has secretly built nuclear facilities for military purposes, which can lead to another holocaust. Yet after taking all this into account, the prime minister of Israel is the one who must keep silent, lest he harm Obama's legacy-

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו