Obama’s wrong to accuse Netanyahu of interfering in U.S. foreign policy

President Obama has accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of improperly interfering in American foreign policy by actively opposing the Iran nuclear deal. In an interview with Fareed Zakaria, Obama said he couldn’t recall a similar example where a foreign head of government had injected himself into an American political debate. He continued: “Prime Minister [Netanyahu] is wrong on this. And I think that I can show that the basic assumptions that he’s made are incorrect.”

This is an absurd and dangerous accusation that should be universally condemned. From Lafayette to Churchill, foreign leaders have tried with varying degrees of success, to influence U.S. foreign policy, as well they should when their national interests are at stake. Indeed, earlier this year, David Cameron, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, was personally lobbying Senators regarding the Iranian nuclear negotiations; so too Shinzo Abe, the prime minister of Japan, regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

{mosads}Israel has a considerable stake in the Iran deal—a stake far greater than the members of the P5 + 1 that negotiated the deal—and yet it was excluded from the negotiation. It would be irresponsible for any democratically elected leader of Israel not to try to influence the congressional debate over the deal.

Israel is the primary intended target of an Iranian nuclear arsenal. This was made clear in 2004 when the former Prime Minister of Iran, Hashemi Rafsanjani, a supposed moderate boasted that were Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, it would kill as many as 5 million Jews. He later elaborated that “the dropping of one atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel.” Despite Iran’s participation in negotiations, such rhetoric has continued unabated. In May of this year, General Yahya Rahim Safavi, a military advisor to Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khameni stated that Iran and its allies had more than 80,000 rockets ready to fire and that “Iran, with the help of Hezboollah and its friends, is capable of destroying Tel Aviv and Haifa….” This was followed in July by Ayatollah Khamenei himself stating “Israel’s security will not be ensured whether there will be an Iran Deal or not.”

Great Britain, Germany, France, Russia and China have little to fear from a nuclear Iran. The United States does have something to fear but not as much as Israel. The risk- benefit ratios are very different for each country. Yet Israel, which has had little or no input into the negotiations or final deal, is being asked by President Obama to silently accept the consequences of what it regards as a bad and dangerous deal. Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot: if other countries had negotiated a deal involving our security but we had been excluded from the negotiation!

Would we silently accept a bad deal as a fait accompli?  Of course not. We would be aggressively trying to protect our legitimate interest. Any American leader who failed to do that would be justly condemned.

Nor can Israel be content with the Obama administration’s promises never to let Iran develop a nuclear weapon. Indeed, the Obama administration has consistently broken its promises regarding the objectives of it negotiations with Iran. As it stands, the deal fails to provide for a strong “anywhere, anytime” inspections regime, and it does not guarantee that Iran will never be able to acquire nuclear weapons. It is also unclear how IAEA inspectors will actually gain access to Iran’s nuclear sites, given that the Obama administration has not disclosed the content of the side deals between that organization and the Iranian government.

Rather than attacking Netanyahu for advancing his nation’s legitimate national security interests, the Obama administration should encourage all interested parties to voice their opinions on this important issue. Instead of using his considerable power to chastise opponents of the deal, Obama should address the concerns and arguments of its critics. I hereby challenge any administration defender to debate me, or other opponents of the deal, on its merits and demerits. This is the time for a great debate on the substance of the Iran deal rather than for making personal attacks on its critics. 

Dershowitz is a lawyer, constitutional scholar, commentator and author. His new book is The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran From Getting Nukes? (Rosetta Books, August 11, 2015).