Any nuclear pact with Iran must protect Israel

By Brian Greenspun (contact)

Sunday, March 8, 2015 | 3 a.m.

Well, the sky didn’t fall.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu came to Congress, said his piece and went home. All of the drama surrounding his visit has all but dissipated (hard feelings will soften and hurt feelings will heal — at least that is our hope) and what is left is the message.

That message, not unlike or inconsistent with the prime minister’s prior warnings about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the international response to them, is resonating not only through the halls of our nation’s capital but throughout the country. Whatever the P5 +1 (the negotiating team that includes the United States) comes up with at the end of March as a framework for further discussion — assuming they do reach an agreement — will be scrutinized by Congress and a citizenry through the added lens of our ally Israel’s existential concerns.

That will happen in large part because Netanyahu was not shy about expressing his grave concerns for the fate of his country. After all, nuclear weapons in the hands and atop the missiles of a nutty theocracy determined to obliterate Israel is not a position a good friend and ally should ever foist upon its good friend and ally!

All that said, it is time to take that deep breath I wrote about last week. We don’t know whether a deal will be reached, and we surely don’t know what that deal will look like if there is an agreement. Leaving the negotiators to their work — to make sure they incorporate the essential demands that make sense for everyone on this side of the table — is what needs to be done now.

I heard two major concerns from Bibi, who favored, as most of us do, a political settlement to a much harsher response. One was a breakout time — the time it takes for an Iran hell-bent on producing a nuclear weapon — from a year or less to a multiple of years. That extra time, coupled with a robust and proactive inspection regime, would give the rest of the world the ability to deal with an Iran run amok. The second issue, and this provides the context for the first and all other concerns, is that Iran has demonstrated time and again that it is not like most other nations. Iran has made it clear through its actions on a daily basis that it is a terrorist-sponsoring, terrorist-paying and terrorist-encouraging nation. And that terrorism is directed at the United States and its interests around the world. Iran is also a country whose leaders dream of annihilating Israel. Mix the terrorism with a nuclear weapon and, well, you can see the reason for the alarm.

Addressing those two issues must be a top priority for the negotiators because, unless I am mistaken, those issues are seared into the minds of Americans who will demand the same. I am sure there are a hundred other important matters to be decided, but the truth is we really don’t know what will be in the agreement until there is an agreement. The real issue is that there is a bit of the chicken-and-egg syndrome at work. And that poses the question: After an agreement is announced, will it be too late to effect a change?

What seems certain to me, as a result of Netanyahu’s speech, is that the scrutiny will be significant. If that is the only good thing Bibi accomplished, then that is good enough.

What is more interesting to me is that the day before Netanyahu was introduced before the joint session of Congress there was a speech, one of a number of speeches that were given to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) meeting in Washington, that summed up the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship and the danger to the world of the rogue state of Iran.

It was given by a Democrat — remember the Democrats were the people who were supposed to be upset about Bibi’s coming to Washington — and it crystallized the value of the Israeli relationship and the importance our country places on that strategic alliance.

We are witnessing daily challenges to our almost 70-year relationship with the only true democracy in the Middle East. College campuses vote for divestiture, other groups lobby for an end to our special bond with Israel in favor of a well-oiled view of our strategic interests (read that as a friendlier relationship with those who sell us oil who have demanded we sell out Israel), and there’s an increasing call by some who see Israel’s self-defense as some kind of oppressive aggression to realign our interests (read that as “dump Israel”). And, of course, the chorus of dreamers who daydream about a misunderstood Iran that just wants to get along, who desire that we do just that, no matter what the cost to our way of life.

For anyone even slightly confused by all of this, I commend Sen. Robert Menendez’s speech to AIPAC this past Monday. It is clear, it is concise and it is unambiguous in setting forth what I believe is the compelling case for the U.S.-Israel relationship. You can find it here and above.

Listen to the words of Menendez, who has become a household name recently for other reasons, read the words of any agreement that may be reached with Iran, and determine for yourself whether the United States is acting in its own best interests. After all, this isn’t about the petty politics that define America these days. This is about real life. Or the loss of it, should we make the wrong deal.

Brian Greenspun is owner, publisher and editor of the Las Vegas Sun.