Reactions to the nuclear deal in Israel and Iran

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/07/20/424702931/parrying-doubts-in-two-capitals-leaders-sell-the-iran-nuclear-deal
http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2015/07/17/423484372/on-cutting-off-an-interview-subject

As expected, Bibi blew a gasket over the deal and is going all-out with his verbal attacks to potentially sway the US Congress and public (Iran is basically the 4th Reich, etc.). He took his tired Chicken Little routine to NPR (also ABC and others), and forgot that it was an interview vs. a stump speech (2nd link). The host was worried about keeping time, so he had to cut off the PM according to the show schedule. Some pro-Israel Americans felt that was disrespectful to the leader of Israel (because of course that person is special, and commands even more respect than our own president).

However, and unexpected consequence occurred in Iran. If Bibi and Israel are staunchly against something, of course that encourages Persians to think that it's a good thing. There are some hardliners and critics of the deal in Iran, but now it makes it a lot harder for them to make credible arguments that happen to align with the views of Tel Aviv. Of course Bibi is naturally focused on the US audience rather than the Iranian reaction, but it's an interesting example of multiparty cause-and-effect in geopolitics.

Views in Israel are apparently mixed, and some in the security services do not agree that the deal is bad. Also they want their leaders to remember that the nuclear deal is not the only item at play here - their relationship with the US is valuable and is it worth it to strain it further? You can tell that Obama, Kerry, and some other gov't officials are visibly irritated with Israel's reaction compared to most of the rest of the world. Instead, why not partner more with the 5+1 to make sure Iran lives up to its commitments and the deal succeeds? But like the game theory Iran-Israel-US post, our priorities are not aligned, so it might not work out.

It's possible that the extra money in Iran's coffers will exacerbate the other problems that Israel has with Iran (supporting Hamas, Hizbullah, etc.). Maybe it's justified for the US to extend the olive branch and offer enhanced cooperation/support for antiterrorism, and/or temporarily look the other way if Israel gets a little tougher on Palestine and settlements. It's like bribing a kid with a toy for him to eat his vegetables. The veggies are good for him in the long term, but he doesn't see it that way, so you have to offer a side concession?

---

I listened to the interview and Bibi was ranting.  He had talking points that he wanted to get out and the interviewer attempted multiple times to interject with a next question before doing a "rude" cutoff.  If Bibi was talking with him instead of at him that would have been easy to notice.

---

If Bibi wanted to make an uninterrupted persuasive speech, then he could have paid for TV/radio commercial time, or gone to FNC. If he agrees to an interview on NPR, he should expect to be treated like an interviewee. Listening to it again, I actually didn't think he was ranting much and there were no moments of disrespect. Green let Bibi talk a lot in the 1st half of the segment, which was maybe his bad since it led to the need to cut Bibi off later. Bibi said thank you to Green at the end, he didn't protest. Some NPR callers were maybe a little sensitive.

The NPR ombudsman seemed to be OK with Green's conduct too:

Greene was respectful to Netanyahu, apologizing for interrupting. The last question was an important one—asking Netanyahu whether he could "at some point get behind this deal"—and Greene would likely have been criticized had he not asked it. The need to cut him off was regrettable, but with the interview already eating into local station time, it was necessary. Those are the perils of live radio and the constrictions of NPR's clock, which values local news.

Netanyahu's Congressional address on the Iran nuclear deal

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/03/03/congress-netanyahu-speech

I don't want to get into the weeds about how poorly argued and substantiated his speech was (the guests in the interview above do that, but just to give you a sense, Bibi said that Iran is competing with ISIS for global domination). But I don't fault him for trying. Like in game theory, it's all about the payoffs and priorities of each player. And with the same set of facts, rational and smart people can come to wildly different conclusions. From their point of view, they're totally right based on their goals.

Re: Israel-Iran, obviously the priority of a conservative Zionist regime is the preservation of the Jewish State at all costs, and keeping pressure on their enemies in perpetuity. No other cost consideration comes close (some IDF soldiers killed - better than getting nuked, angering the Arab world - they can live with that, upsetting the US and UN - they don't really need us anymore, and there are still enough diehard pro-Israel folks here to almost guarantee indefinite US support). So they will do anything to prevent a nuclear Iran or anyone making concessions to Iran or other enemies (which includes breaking protocol to address Congress).

US presidents and Israeli PMs disagree on stuff, and it can cost the PM his job if the Israeli public perceives that the PM is endangering the US-Israeli special relationship. That contributed to Bibi's ouster the first time around, as he butted heads with Clinton one too many times. But currently, I think the Israeli public is so fearful of a nuclear Iran that US relations are a distant concern (or they take it for granted, hence the persistence on expanding West Bank settlements). Even liberal press in Israel support Bibi's view (but not necessarily his methods) that the US should not give an inch to Iran.

Even if Iran's leadership is more moderate now, and with the proposed controls it's highly unlikely that they can develop and test weapons covertly, Israel can't even tolerate a 0.1% chance. So they will bomb if they need to, which will trigger a regional war of course - which I bet they think they can win (might be right, but what about the consequences to other parties?). Or they will try to derail the current negotiations, which in their opinion won't curb the nuclear development, but will ease sanctions and enable Iran to get stronger. They're in the mindset that Israel's enemies are insane genocidal religious fanatics who can't be trusted under any circumstance. So there's no point to negotiate - you know, the typical justification between enemies.

The irony is that the hardliners in Tel Aviv and Tehran want the same thing - no detente, no talks, and just cold/hot war (it reminds me of the plot of Star Trek 6). The talks were kicked off by the moderate/reformist regime of Rouhani (secret overtures to the Obama admin.), but he is on a short leash and has rivals. The nuclear program is one of their few trump cards, and it's by far their best card. He banked his political survival on this, so the hawks want his efforts to fail so they can assume power again - and fight the infidels their way. That is not a great outcome for anyone, especially the Iranian people.

Apart from the hawks, I'm not really sure what Iran's priorities and goals are. I know they want to get their economy going, and the people want to be part of the global scene (and they want better relations with the US and West). I guess the gov't still wants to keep tight control and develop a nuclear program for their prestige/leverage. But I don't know what their official stance is on foreign policy. Are they truly imperialistic as Israel claims? I think the problem with diagnosing aggression is that it's often rooted in fear/defense. Very few regimes just want to conquer and kill everyone (ISIS may be an exception, but they're not a state with leaders who are held accountable to anyone). We ostensibly invaded Iraq to make the world safer. It's possible that Iran supports Hizbullah and other Shia militias because they fear the Sunni and Western enemies all around them, not because they want to dominate the region. And even if Iran wants to become the most prominent power in the Mideast, the goal could be regime preservation in the face of potential aggression against them, not necessarily continued global expansion. But to Iran's enemies, of course they want to assume the worst motives. I wonder what the Iranians think the US and Israel want.

For the US, obviously we have an interest in the strength and survival of Israel (and the defeat of Islamist groups), but we also want to broker a 2-state solution and have Arab/Persian-Israeli peace. Or at least the absence of war, which would be disruptive to energy markets and global stability. Yes, some factions in the US want war in the Holy Land to bring about Armageddon, but I am not sure how prevalent and influential they are. We don't want Iran to nuke anyone, but we have a little more faith in their restraint than Israel does (esp. with the right incentives and threats in place). So the payoff we get from taking a chance on negotiation is maybe worth it to avoid isolation and escalation to war (which seems inevitable as long as hardliners are in power in Israel and Iran). So where does that leave us?

(#s are guesses for demo purposes)

ISRAEL

Negotiate -3

Don't Negotiate (keep status quo) 5

Fight Now 1

IRAN MODERATES (currently in power)

Negotiate 3

Don't Negotiate (keep status quo) -3

Fight Now -5

US (5+1 nations)

Negotiate 3

Don't Negotiate (keep status quo) -1

Fight Now -5

I am not sure how officially involved Israel is in the talks, but their goal is probably to change the 5+1's payoffs so that Negotiate becomes the least favored option (hence the references to Hitler and whatnot). Bibi actually said we should "make a better deal" (better for Israel of course), but that means he wants us to be more of a hard-ass. Though we know Iran won't just cave (this is their best card to play as I said, and they expect top dollar); they may walk away if our demands are too extreme. That would sink Rouhani and the reformers, and lead to the hardline war-is-likely outcome that some parties want.