Will Netanyahu Achieve His Goals?

Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, spoke on Tuesday at the U.S. Congress opposing the nuclear deal with Iran. He reiterated that a bad deal with Iran is worse than no deal at all and that the U.S. must understand that Iran needs this deal more and that it does not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In an analysis by Habib Hosseini-Fard and Rasoul Nafisi on Radio Farda, they evaluated Netanyahu's speech. Hosseini-Fard believes that the speech will not have a major impact, although he noted that Barack Obama, the President of the United States, is concerned that Congress's stance could disrupt negotiations with Iran. He adds that with the measures taken by the U.S. government, Netanyahu's 'propagandistic' and 'provocative' speech cannot have a significant effect. Furthermore, according to Hosseini-Fard, Netanyahu lacks strong support within Israel, as evidenced by statements and declarations from various groups and parties against him. He states that the current Israeli government shows no eagerness to resolve its issue, which is peace with the Palestinians, and this was not emphasized in the speech either. However, some Arab countries, according to this political analyst, show 'sympathy' with Netanyahu's speech and such statements are satisfactory to them. Rasoul Nafisi in the U.S. also mentions that if this speech had new information, Iran's position in negotiations would weaken, but he considers Netanyahu's speech to be 'weak', 'emotional', and 'lacking new information', ultimately benefiting Iran. Nafisi points out that Netanyahu's speech contained a threat, stating that Israel will not allow its nation to face the threat of annihilation and emphasized that the U.S. will stand by Israel. According to Nafisi, the implicit threat in these remarks is that Israel will go to war if necessary and will drag the U.S. along with it; following these remarks, members of Congress applauded for a long time. This political analyst predicts that Iran will continue its path regardless of this speech. He states that lifting sanctions and limitations on the nuclear program is the subject of negotiations, not Netanyahu's speech. On the other hand, Hosseini-Fard also doubts that this speech has provided Netanyahu and the Likud party with domestic political capital. He states that the 'exaggeration' of the Iranian threat has been one of the levers for Likud and Netanyahu for electoral purposes to convince the Israeli people that this party guarantees the security of the country. However, if the Likud party wins, Hosseini-Fard assesses that it will be weaker than before, as new elements have emerged in the political landscape of Israel. This political analyst suggests that the 'latent aggression' in Netanyahu's speech does not stem from 'confidence' but rather from 'very difficult conditions' and being 'cornered'.