The Obama administration views the Iran deal as unstoppable. In the very definition of disregard for the American democratic values - this administration dismisses the facts that the absolute majority of the American public (as shown in extensive polls by both Gallup and PEW), and even the majority of American lawmakers oppose the deal. By painting the reasonable and sound opposition to what is acknowledged across the aisle as a bad deal, as egotistical, narrow minded, opposition-for-the-sake-of-opposition kind of colors, the president is the one who actually turns the issue into a partisan one, not the other way around, effectively destroying any serious discourse on the matter, and dismissing out of hand the national unity, one would think is necessary to put forward a deal of this kind.
The more than unsettling details of the proposed deal have been discussed thoroughly by this point:
The 15 years breakout time to nuclear weapon capability, the growing nuclear stockpile, the 24 days notice before inspections, the self inspections carried out by the Iranians themselves - the glaring holes of that deal and the constant American withdrawal from "red lines" are astonishing.
Another point that strikes me as highly curious is that the rhetoric used by the supporters of the deal to propagate it - is in fact the same rhetoric used by the opponents of the deal turned upside down. For example, the insult of intelligence celebrity filled propaganda video uses the same arguments the opposition uses: a nuclear Iran, an arms race in the Middle East and ultimately an Iranian bomb - except they manage to use all of those to support the clearly flawed deal. If the deal is as good as Obama is convinced, shouldn't the Democratic propagandists have actual sound arguments of their own other than ripping off and flipping over the counter arguments?
On September 08 it became clear Obama can filibuster the deal, denying such a crucial and influential decision the basic democratic decency of a vote. On September 09 the Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader, tweeted from his account:
The incitement on behalf of the Iranian leaders and public never stopped, not even during negotiations, and just against Israel (that's a given), but also against the "Great Satan" - The United States of America.
That renders the frequent critical comparison of the Iran Deal to the historic mistake of the Munich Agreement with Nazi Germany as completely unsatisfying. Nazi Germany didn't openly threaten the world with genocide back in 1938.
The only conclusion one can reach from all of the above is that the Obama administration didn't come to the table to negotiate, but rather to sign a deal.
What does it mean from the Israeli perspective? Is this a "new and unexpected turn for our unbreakable bond"?
I'd have to argue it's not.
From the purely Israeli perspective this Iran deal is a direct continuation of the U.S. policy in the Middle East for the past 20-25 years. The question "why?" can serve basis for an altogether different article, but is of little significance for the topic at hand. The fact remains that the embrace of the destructive two-states paradigm by both Israelis and Americans on the lawns of Oslo in 1993, stands at the foundation of this dramatic shift of alliances in the Middle East. Past ally - Israel - is now pressured to give up essential territories. Past enemies - the Muslim world - is now being sought after, pleased, appeased and favored.
No matter how pro-Israeli one can be, as long as they're operating within the two-state paradigm, a perspective, that's inescapably based on the false leftist narrative of Israel's culpability in the conflict (that I've discussed to an extent here and here), the only outcome possible is one of tearing Israel up and strengthening its enemies. A shift of alliances and priorities. Noting that, and assuming a natural escalation process since Oslo, we see the demand by a U.S. president to withdraw to indefensible borders, establish a Palestinian State (that wasn't even the original goal of Oslo), the open siding with Palestinians, the blaming of Israel in the failure of the peace process etc. On the larger Middle Eastern arena we witness the abandonment of former U.S. allied Arab leaders duirng the so called "Arab Spring" and finally the bonding with Iran against the warnings of other Middle Eastern allies.
All of those are a direct continuation of the Oslo mindset.
To emphasize the similarity: the PLO unabashedly broke each and every clause of the Oslo accords and still bore no responsibility, no negation of the failed, proven wrong two-states paradigm. In the same fashion the Iranians stalled the deadline numerous times, twisted all the American red lines, went out with everything and gave nothing back, with evidence already for breaking their parts of the deal.
Find ten differences.
Dismissing the possibility Barack Obama and his entire administration are bumbling idiots out of hand, we must conclude that the USA are changing their Middle East strategy in the deepest of senses, attracting yesterday's enemies through sacrifice of yesterday's friends. A Hillary Clinton email released at the end of July as part of her "private" emails scandal provided further proof for these conclusions, I've reached as early as February. The email revealed a Clinton adviser urging Hillary to present Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as an "obstacle to peace", and make his politics "uneasy". Although reaching several news outlets, this piece of utterly scandalous information didn't hit shockwaves around the world. There was no media frenzy, no diplomatic outrage.
Realizing how much BS is in the allegation that "Bibi is ruining the Israeli-US relations" and not the other way around, is realizing just how correct Netanyahu was to go against Obama on the Iranian deal, as publicly as he did, Congress speech and all. Not that he ever stood a chance, not with a president so adamant on signing the deal, but he secured a number of serious advantages:
1. He won the battle of public opinion both in Congress and among the American people.
2. He strengthened and put gravitas to the anti-deal arguments.
3. Since Israel wasn't a party to the Iran talks (much to the gloat of Israel's haters), the Iran deal has no legal binding on Israel under international law. Israel remains legally free to pursue its safety in alternative ways.
4. After Netanyahu went the whole nine yards with the diplomatic option, giving it every possible chance, sticking to it still, no one can accuse him of "warmongering".
Israeli politicians should start noting the shift in American policy and stop panicking over it.
One battle might've been lost, but the war is far from decided.
Israel supporters in the U.S., stop voting Democrat.
Start using your brains!