After all the fuss, Netanyahu said nothing new

Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to accept a Republican invite to address Congress without consulting the White House plunged US-Israel relations to new lows. More than 50 Democratic lawmakers, outraged at the clear snub to the Obama administration, were expected to boycott the event. Those refusing to attend included high profile liberal senators like Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken. The timing of Netanyahu’s speech made it particularly provocative: talks on Iran’s nuclear programme are close to the critical deadline of late March. The US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China are seeking an agreement to curtail Iran’s nuclear programme in exchange for some relaxation of sanctions.

“Never has so much been written about a speech that hasn’t been given,” Netanyahu joked at a preview of the speech to the lobby group AIPAC on Monday. The same day, the White House revealed some details of the emerging deal with Iran, as part of a clear push by the administration to prevent Netanyahu from derailing talks by lobbying Congress to step in. Barack Obama said that a successful deal was by no means certain, but suggested that an arrangement that would prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb for at least 10 years could be agreed.

When it finally happened on Tuesday, Netanyahu’s speech contained few surprises. He repeated his long-held line that Iran poses a “threat to the entire world”, adding that “Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted”. He also intimated, again, that Israel will take unilateral action if it has to: “Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.” He received a rapturous response from the mainly Republican audience, with upwards of 20 standing ovations.

Whether the speech will actually have any impact on US policy or on the outcome of the deal is unclear. Certainly, Netanyahu did not offer any new detail or substance to the argument that he has been making for years: that Iran is hell-bent on acquiring a nuclear weapon and must be stopped. It’s possible that Netanyahu and his government feel that they can bypass the Obama administration and talk directly to Congress about Israel’s security, but this is a strategy fraught with risks. Israel needs the support of the White House and the State Department too. While no-one is predicting the immediate severing of the alliance, it is notable that Netanyahu did not meet with any senior officials from the administration during his visit to Washington. If he remains in office, he can’t really afford for the relationship to get any worse.

Of course, impacting US policy and the outcome of the deal was not the only aim of the speech: Netanyahu was also talking with voters at home in mind, given that Israeli elections are happening in a fortnight. His aim is for the speech to highlight his strong leadership in protecting Israel’s interests, although his opponents are stressing the fact that he is undermining peace efforts and has jeopardized Israel’s crucial relationship with the US.

In the interviews he gave earlier in the week, Obama said that Netanyahu’s speech was a “distraction” from the priority of negotiations with Iran. “Not only does it look like it politicizes the relationship but what’s also a problem is when the prime minister’s speech is an area where the executive branch – the US president and his team – have a disagreement with the other side,” he said, adding that he though tit was a mistake for the prime minister of another country to speak before Congress just before an election as it created the impression of the US taking sides.

The BBC’s diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus has described Netanyahu’s intervention as a win-win situation for Iran: “Nothing Mr Netanyahu can say will derail a nuclear deal if one is really possible. And if there is no deal, why then Mr Netanyahu may well have to share some of the blame rather than just Tehran”. It certainly does not seem that there has been any immediate gain, beyond triggering huge controversy.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.