Cheering for Failure

Why Netanyahu is afraid of diplomacy


Cheering for Failure
by Trita Parsi

Netanyahu and Obama are at it again. The hardline Israeli Prime Minister, standing next to Senator Joe Lieberman, accused Obama of having given Iran a “freebie” during the Istanbul talks this past weekend. Iran can continue to enrich uranium “without any limitation” for another five weeks, Netanyahu charged.

Nothing could be further from the truth, Obama shot back moments later from the other side of the world, at the Latin America summit in Colombia. "The notion that somehow we've given something away or a 'freebie' would indicate Iran has gotten something,” he said. “In fact, they've got some of the toughest sanctions that they're going to be facing coming up in just a few months if they don't take advantage of these talks."

The bar had been set very low for the talks. But progress was made, not because neither side compromised, but precisely because both did. The Iranians dropped their precondition for addressing the nuclear issue, and the US agreed to resolve the issue within the framework of the NPT, sending yet another implicit signal that Washington will accept enrichment on Iranian soil under strict inspections.

Of course, Netanyahu is wrong in arguing that Iran gained time. The laws of the universe remain the same; time will pass regardless of whether the parties negotiate or not. Talks would enable the Iranian to play for time would only if time miraculously stood still whenever diplomacy doesn’t take place.

(Then again, Obama is not likely to take advice on peacemaking from Netanyahu. If he did, we would be in serious trouble.)

But however correct, Obama’s answer was still inadequate. Rather than arguing obsessively about the moment-for-moment accounting of who is on top or who has conceded the most, he should shift the focus back to the larger picture.

Here’s what really matters: We have been on the brink of a disastrous war, but have managed to initiate a process that can achieve our key objectives. We can prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, we can prevent a calamitous war. Ordinary Americans won’t have to pay $8/gallon gas, nor will the global economic recovery be jeopardized.

Instead, Netanyahu should answer the question: Why does he fear the success of diplomacy more than its failure?

Behind the rhetoric and hysterical talking points, there are legitimate Israeli concerns about the impact of diplomacy on its security. The Netanyahu government (and its predecessors since the Rabin-Peres government) have feared that successful negotiations would lead inevitably to a compromise that would permit Iran to continue with limited enrichment activities on its soil.

They are right.

But rather than viewing this as a beneficial compromise that at the end of the day prevents Iran from building a nuclear bomb, Israel fears that this will permit Iran to become a virtual nuclear power, which in turn would shift the balance of power in the region to Israel’s detriment.

Virtual nuclear parity in the region would damage Israel's ability to deter militant Palestinian and Lebanese organizations and cause it to lose strategic maneuverability. It would damage Israel’s image as the sole nuclear-armed state in the region and undercut the myth of its invincibility. Gone would be the days when Israel's military supremacy would enable it to dictate the parameters of peace and pursue unilateral peace plans. "We cannot afford a nuclear bomb in the hands of our enemies, period. They don't have to use it; the fact that they have it is enough," veteran Israeli politician Ephraim Sneh explained to me in an interview for my book.

This geopolitical shift could force a reluctant Netanyahu government to accept territorial compromises with its neighbors. Arguably, Israel would not be able to afford a nuclear rivalry with Iran and continued territorial disputes with the Arabs at the same time.

Second, by striking a deal with Iran, the US would reduce tensions with the autocratic rulers of Tehran. There would, however, not be a proportional reduction in Israeli-Iranian tensions. This would trigger the Israeli fear of abandonment— the idea that it would continue to face a hostile Iran in the region while the US would patch up its differences with Tehran and turn its focus elsewhere. The ripple effect this would have on other, non-related challenges Israel face—such as its demographic battle— could be decisive.

There are several flaws in the reasoning behind these fears. First, it presumes that Israel must retain the regional balance of power in its favor as a measure for survival. This puts an unbearable burden on Israeli society—its ability to balance and outgun a country fifteen times its size in the long run remains slim.

Second, it discounts the ability of diplomacy to reduce Israeli-Iranian tensions. Rather than positioning itself in favor of diplomacy in order to ensure that Israeli concerns are on the agenda for the talks, Israel has explicitly opposed diplomacy and created numerous obstacles for its success. This has put Israel on a collision course with the US—who desires and needs a deal with Iran—its most important ally.

Israel needs a paradigm shift on its security outlook. The region is changing in fundamental ways, yet Israel refuses to adjust. It insists on remaining the same. It is not a strategy that serves it well.

First published in

Trita Parsi is the President of the National Iranian American Council and the 2010 Recipient of the Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order.


Recently by Trita ParsiCommentsDate
Bibi’s Three Steps Forward, One Back
Oct 13, 2012
Mistaken Path
Jun 22, 2012
Give Obama Elbow Room on Iran
Jun 15, 2012
more from Trita Parsi

Ignoring the Reality

by Faramarz on



Here we go again.

Once again Trita making the whole issue about Israel, AIPAC and the NeoCons and ignoring the big criminal in the room, Rahbar and the Islamic Republic.

Also, the only reason the Regime finally decided to show up at the negotiation table and make concessions was the sanctions and the pressure, lots of it, which is exactly the opposite of what Trita and NIACie homeboys have been advocating.

This guy has zero credibility with the Iranian-American community and has demonstrated his poor judgment and questionable motives in Iranian politics and affairs.


Great Article .

by Albaloo on

Great Article .


BiBi Netanyahu for Iran President and you better believe it!


It's time for Israel to help Iran to get rid of the barbaric Islamists. The love between Iran and Israel is mutual, natural, and a win-win for both sides!

Dr. Love, Ph.D., M.D., J.D., Member of Iran-Israel Love Association.

dingo daddy En passant

Article is correct, Zionsts stand to lose big

by dingo daddy En passant on

The article is right. Zionists stand to lose big if the negotiations lead to de eschalation. Mr. Parsi has got it right on this. The proof is obvious. Zionists' lifeline depends on bogeyman threats from a made up threat and they will not hazitate to kill men women and children to sustain it. It's not an accident that Zionists have nothing to say but only bitter adhominem attacks against this position (sorry fred, I like some of your stuff, but you are not fooling anybody with your around the clock monitoring in support of israel)


Islamist Rapists are never at fault

by Fred on

Is there ever a time when the lifetime president of the NIAC Lobby will find the Islamist Rapist Republic (IRR) culpable, or is it going to be everyone is at fault except the messianic weaponized nuke acquiring Islamist Rapists who have said their mission is to “manage the world”?

It is no accident the policies advocated by the lifetime president of the NIAC lobby are the mirror image of the Palestine-centric policies of the Islamist Rapists, and all to the determent of Iran and Iranians. Policies which guarantee longevity of the Islamist Rapist rule over Iran and continuation of stalemating any chances of  peace in the Middle East.