Op-ed: Another meeting of unlike minds

  • By Cal Thomas
  • Monday, October 19, 2015 9:03pm
  • Opinion

When President Obama meets in Washington November 9 with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, I would imagine Netanyahu’s main concern will be to find out exactly what the U.S. means by “infringement” as it applies to the Iran nuclear agreement. What exactly will the U.S. do when, not if, Iran violates the deal? What if Israel and the U.S. disagree as to whether there has been a violation?

Former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Zalman Shoval, spoke with me last week following his address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington.

Given the president’s reluctance to do much in response to various foreign challenges, Shoval is not optimistic the U.S. will do more than drop resolutions on the Iranian regime should it continue working to finish building a nuclear bomb and a missile system to deliver it to its chosen targets — Israel and possibly the U.S. One can imagine a scenario in which Iran attacks Israel and threatens to launch a missile at one or more U.S. cities, possibly with the assistance of North Korea, which has already threatened such an attack and sides with Israel’s enemies. At a minimum, Iranian agents already in the U.S. might ignite terrorist attacks, causing panic and damage to the economy.

In Shoval’s address, he noted that 85 percent of all Israelis see a nuclear Iran as an “existential threat” — and about the same number think the deal with Iran will do nothing to keep them from getting a nuclear bomb. The polls cut across Israel’s multiple political parties in a rare display of unity.

Shoval told the CSIS audience that Iran sees the nuclear deal with the U.S. and five other countries differently: “…(Iran) feels itself encouraged (and) emboldened by the nuclear deal and by American attitudes, to escalate not only its support for Hezbollah, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad — as well as for President Assad in Syria — but also in confronting American intentions and activities directly or indirectly in Iraq, Yemen and in the Gulf states.”

This is key. Even in the unlikely event the Iranians live up to the agreement and don’t surreptitiously continue work on a nuclear bomb, they can keep on fomenting terrorism through their various proxy groups.

Shoval noted that there have been sharp disagreements on policy issues between the U.S. and Israel over many years, but this one is different. Referring to the Iran nuke deal, he said, “Iran was seen by the president as a major, the major diplomatic international achievement of his whole presidency and he wouldn’t let anything come against it — while in Jerusalem there is a patriotic and historically minded prime minister who is convinced that Israel and the Jewish people face for the second time in modern history, an existential threat from a country whose leadership is serious in its declared intentions to wipe the Jewish state off the face of the earth — and is soon to be in possession of the means to do this — means which even Hitler didn’t have. For this he was willing to risk much of his political capital in the U.S. … and even risk temporarily, the comfortable warmth of the bipartisan relationship.”

President Obama is fond of assuring Israel that he has their back. Given the likelihood Iran will violate the agreement and continue underwriting terrorism, Netanyahu should make sure that when the president pats him on the back, he isn’t holding a knife.

Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com.

More in Opinion

Alaska Department of Education and Early Development Commissioner Deena Bishop and Gov. Mike Dunleavy discuss his veto of an education bill during a press conference March 15, 2024, at the Alaska State Capitol. (Mark Sabbatini/Juneau Empire file photo)
Opinion: Strong policy, proven results

Why policy and funding go hand in hand.

Former Gov. Frank Murkowski speaks on a range of subjects during an interview with the Juneau Empire in May 2019. (Michael Penn / Juneau Empire File)
Opinion: The Jones Act — crass protectionism, but for whom?

Alaska is dependent on the few U.S.-built ships carrying supplies from Washington state to Alaska.

Cook Inlet can be seen at low tide from North Kenai Beach on June 15, 2022, in Kenai, Alaska. (Photo by Erin Thompson/Peninsula Clarion)
Opinion: Solving the Cook Inlet gas crisis

While importing LNG is necessary in the short term, the Kenai Peninsula is in dire need of a stable long-term solution.

Sockeye salmon caught in a set gillnet are dragged up onto the beach at a test site for selective harvest setnet gear in Kenai, Alaska, on Tuesday, July 25, 2023. (Jake Dye/Peninsula Clarion)
Capitol Corner: Creating opportunities with better fishery management

Sen. Jesse Bjorkman reports back from Juneau.

The ranked choice outcome for Alaska’s U.S. Senate race is shown during an Alaska Public Media broadcast on Nov. 24, 2022. (Alaska Division of Elections)
Opinion: Alaska should keep ranked choice voting, but let’s make it easier

RCV has given Alaskans a better way to express their preferences.

The Alaska State Capitol on March 1. (Ashlyn O’Hara/Peninsula Clarion)
Opinion: Keep Alaska open for business

Our job as lawmakers is to ensure that laws passed at the ballot box work effectively on the ground.

Brooke Walters. (Courtesy photo)
Opinion: A student’s letter to the governor

Our education funding is falling short by exuberant amounts.

Rep. Justin Ruffridge, R-Soldotna, speaks in support of debating an omnibus education bill in the Alaska House Chambers on Monday, Feb. 19, 2024. in Juneau, Alaska. (Ashlyn O’Hara/Peninsula Clarion)
Capitol Corner: Compromise, not games

Rep. Justin Ruffridge reports back from Juneau.

Image provided by the Office of Mayor Peter Micciche.
Opinion: Taxes, adequate education funding and putting something back into your pocket

Kenai Peninsula Borough taxpayers simply can’t make a dent in the education funding deficit by themselves, nor should they be asked to do so.

Most Read