U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice addresses the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington on Monday.NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP / Getty Images
With tensions running high over Iran's nuclear program, U.S. and Israeli leaders clashed publicly Monday, on the eve of a controversial speech being given before the U.S. Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
While the Obama administration has argued the importance of reaching a viable agreement with Iran to limit that state's nuclear program and avoid having it develop a nuclear weapon, the Netanyahu government has insisted on eliminating all of Iran's nuclear program and making the development of a bomb impossible. Mr. Netanyahu's position on Iran has put Prime Minister Stephen Harper in a squeeze between two of Canada's strongest allies, Israel and the United States.
U.S. President Barack Obama had declined to meet in person with Mr. Netanyahu on this unwelcome visit but, in an interview with Reuters, the President insisted any deal with Iran would safeguard Israel. His National Security Adviser Susan Rice and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power used the stage of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to assure Israel there was no reason to doubt Mr. Obama's pledge.
But the Israeli leader – who singled out Canada's former foreign affairs minister John Baird in the AIPAC crowd of 16,000 supporters of Israel and thanked him for Canada's backing – delivered a powerful rationale for his decision to address a joint session of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, even over the strenuous objections of the White House.
"My speech is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama or the esteemed office that he holds," Mr. Netanyahu said. The purpose "is to speak up about a potential deal with Iran that could threaten the survival of Israel."
Mr. Netanyahu is a master at delivering a message – and it's not always in his words.
Before boarding his flight Friday to Washington, the Israeli leader made sure there was television and photo coverage of him praying at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Judaism's holiest site. That way, when he addresses the throngs at AIPAC and the joint session of Congress, it will give the impression he's come straight from the holy city, right from the ear of God, so that his words would have greater emphasis.
And when he strode onto the AIPAC stage Monday morning to persuade the U.S. Jewish community that he was doing the right thing by challenging the Obama administration in its leadership of negotiations on a nuclear deal with Iran, he was accompanied by a burly, bodyguard who stood just behind and to the left of Mr. Netanyahu throughout his speech. It was a silent way to convey the impression of an embattled leader constantly under threat – to give greater gravity to his words.
"The days when the Jewish people are passive in the face of threats to annihilate us, those days are over," he emphasized.
That he still is speaking at all to the members of Congress Tuesday is something else that catches people's attention – greater national leaders would have withered under the kind of recrimination and public pressure dished out by the Obama administration this past week.
Instead, it was Mr. Obama who played down the long-term damage from the dispute over Mr. Netanyahu's address. The Israeli leader's intervention to oppose the Iran deal was only a distraction, Mr. Obama said, that would not be "permanently destructive" to U.S.-Israeli ties.
Just last week, Ms. Rice, presumably at the request of her boss, had said the controversial visit would be "destructive of the fabric of the U.S.-Israeli relationship." It was quite a climb down.
Mr. Obama even said he would meet Mr. Netanyahu again if he wins Israel's March 17 election.
The President did take the opportunity to point out that the Israeli leader had also denounced the 2013 interim nuclear agreement with Iran, just as he's condemning the current putative deal.
"Netanyahu made all sorts of claims," Mr. Obama said. "This was going to be a terrible deal. This was going to result in Iran getting $50-billion worth of relief. Iran would not abide by the agreement – none of that has come true.
"It has turned out that in fact, during this period, we've seen Iran not advance its [nuclear] program," he noted. "In many ways, it's rolled back elements of its program."
Mr. Netanyahu assured the mostly supportive AIPAC audience that he had no ulterior motive in accepting an invitation to address Congress.
Mr. Obama left the heavy lifting to Ms. Rice, who addressed the polite but quietly hostile AIPAC gathering Monday evening.
She stressed the warm friendship with Israel she has felt since her first visit at the age of 14 and sprinkled her remarks with Hebrew expressions.
The crowd applauded when she said "strengthening the security of Israel is in the national interest of the United States." And when she quoted Mr. Obama saying to his staff: "America will do what we must to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran."
They especially liked it when she said: "I want to be very clear – a bad deal [with Iran] is worse than no deal."
But the audience was cold when it came to her description of what a good deal would look like: It would be one that is verifiable, she said. But it won't be one that completely eliminates all uranium enrichment.
"I know that's what some of you want," she said to enormous derisive cheers. "But it's neither realistic nor attainable," she added to the sound of complete silence.
Even the United States' closest partners among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany "will abandon us," Ms. Rice insisted. "This is not a viable negotiating position."
The AIPAC crowd also didn't like the idea that a good deal with Iran might allow that country to increase its levels of uranium enrichment after 10 years, albeit with strict inspection procedures in place.
Sensing the crowd was probably wondering why not take military action against Iran, Ms. Rice quickly added that 10 years was a lot better than what would be attained by a military attack that would set back the nuclear program only a couple of years and make Iran more determined than ever to produce a bomb.
It was a suspicious crowd that applauded mildly after one of Ms. Rice's closing points: "We have Israel's back, come hell or high water," she said. They weren't quite so sure.