Netanyahu’s criticism of Iran - was it necessary?
By Sara Rajabova
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s long-awaiting speech at the U.S. congress on March 3 on nuclear negotiations with Iran finally took place, sparking however more disapproval than approval.
Netanyahu still believes that an agreement on Iran's nuclear program, which is being discussed between the Islamic Republic and six world powers, could jeopardize the security of the Jewish state, the United States and entire world. Therefore, he urged the United States not to ink any deal, rather than a “bad one” warning that such an agreement could "pave Iran's path to the bomb" rather than block it, according to U.S. media.
However, Netanyahu's controversial speech has received much criticism from Iran, Democrats in Congress, as well as from President Barack Obama, who was not in favor of the Israeli Premier’s speech since it was expected to castigate his policy towards Iran. Obama declared that Netanyahu’s speech contained “nothing new.”
This move was considered as a direct interference in U.S. foreign policy by some experts. Furthermore, some Americans felt insulted and rejected the notion that Israeli officials would show them how to deal with Iran.
Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi issued a statement following Netanyahu's speech saying it had been an "insult to the intelligence of the United States" that had left her near tears.
U.S. officials invited Netanyahu to address the Congress without first consulting the White House.
Should the world listen to Netanyahu’s advice?
A main question arises whether Netanyahu’s criticism of Iran at all necessary, particularly at a time when world powers are attempting to reach a final agreement with the Islamic Republic?
The Israeli top official insisted that Iran has proven time and time again that it could not be trusted. He noted that Iran has previously tried to mislead the international inspectors and probably will continue this practice in the future.
"Iran has on its territory the secret nuclear facilities and following the agreement will continue to have an extensive nuclear program,” Netanyahu said, depicting Iran as a "threat to the entire world."
Iran would not be the only Middle Eastern country with an active nuclear program. Although Israel keeps very tight-lipped about its nuclear program, it is widely accepted as a fact that Israel is a nuclear-armed state. The Jewish state never admitted to having nukes, however, the country is believed to be the sixth country in the world to have developed them.
Netanyahu’s recent arguments against Iran were reminiscent of his “advice” given to the U.S. government prior to the invasion of Iraq, supporting the U.S. intervention and forced removal of Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein.
The Israeli PM is reported to have predicted that the removal of Saddam Hussein would help the region be democratized. And yet, the U.S. never found any weapons of mass destruction and the country descended into chaos. Instead this unwarranted and unfounded war claimed the lives of tens of thousands of people.
Netanyahu’s criticism of Iran is not a new thing. Even Iranians didn’t take Netanyahu’s speech in Congress too seriously, calling it repetitive and part of an election campaign.
Marzieh Afkham, Iranian foreign ministry spokeswoman, said the "Iranophobic" speech was a "deceitful show and part of Israeli hardliners’ electoral campaign".
Netanyahu’s tough position on Iran is somehow understandable. Both countries are after all self-declared mortal enemies.
That being said and regardless of what Israel and other world powers might think of Iran, Tehran remains entitled to peacefully use nuclear technology, as stated by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Does Iran need nuclear program?
Iran has insisted that its nuclear energy program is developed purely for peaceful purposes. Even though world powers have imposed sanctions on Tehran by arguing the country is looking to build a nuclear bomb.
Another point that raises an important question pertains to Iran's determination to pursue its nuclear program.
Iran has argued that it has the inherent right to peacefully use and develop nuclear technology.
Iran repeatedly stated that it has a legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the NPT. However, the real character of its nuclear program is disputable and world powers have attempted to lift the proverbial lid on such truth.
It could well be that Iran is trying to learn from history by equipping itself with the means to defend itself against potential future attacks, from known and unknown enemies.
Another reason could be that Iran aspires to be a regional leader. Nuclear power would indeed strengthen its position in the region and place it to a higher level.
Within this context, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which both seek to act as regional leader could seek to develop nuclear programs of their own.
Iran has already developed its nuclear energy program. With or without the West’s accord, Tehran has maintained it will not halt its uranium enrichment program, especially at such a time when the Middle East is convulsed by wars.
World powers, especially the U.S. and Iran have every interest in brokering a long-lasting agreement, especially since such a stand-off will only harm stability.
The Obama administration doesn’t want to be a loser in such a nuclear game, especially following the criticism it received towards its foreign policy. Therefore, many officials remain in favor of talks until June 1st deadline.
Iran, which has been squeezed by a series of harsh international sanctions over the past several years, notwithstanding the recent drop in oils prices, also would benefit from an agreement
This round of negotiations that is expected to continue till mid-summer will the last attempt at a truce in between Iran and western powers as there will no more extension given.
--
Sara Rajabova is AzerNews’ staff journalist, follow her on
Twitter: @SaraRajabova
Follow us on Twitter @AzerNewsAz