US-Israeli Tension Increases With Kerry's Remarks

The behind the scenes moves of the players involved in the high-stakes US-Iran negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program are continuing to fester out into the open. It appears that the Obama administration is increasingly loosing patience with Netanyahu’s meddling. Illustrative of this, tension between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached a new height on Wednesday. Speaking to the US Congress in the run-up to Netanyahu’s planned congressional visit in March, Kerry reminded US officials that the last time Netanyahu spoke before the Congress back in 2002 he was giving his strong support for a US invasion of Iraq. To observers aware of the increasing conflict between the administration and Netanyahu, the implication of Kerry’s statement should be clear, “He cannot be trusted”.

Behind closed doors is a continued sense of anger and tension between US President Obama and the Israeli leader. Only weeks ago, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Obama had called and demanded that Netanyahu stop interfering with US lawmakers. Netanyahu is reported to be personally lobbying US senators and congressman for increased sanctions on Iran, an action that would effectively abort any progress on negotiations between the White House and Tehran. Thus, Kerry’s public remarks seem to be expressing in a much softer tone what the White House truly feels towards Netanyahu’s continued interference. Notably, and perhaps showing the personal nature that has come to define the Obama-Netanyahu relationship, these are some of the most recent open attempts to thwart Netanyahu’s attempts to influence US politicians. Remember, it wasn’t long ago an anonymous US official summarized the administration’s feelings with “Netanyahu spat in our face. There will be a price”. Observers should expect a continued increase in public statements in the lead up to Netanyahu’s visit, with Kerry and other unnamed officials likely making increasingly candid statements.

For those still questioning why Netanyahu would continue to threaten bilateral ties and destroy what little goodwill existed between himself and the Obama administration, consider the earlier speech to which Kerry was referencing. It can be clearly observed that his advice has turned out to be disastrous for the US. In the September 12, 2002 remarks, Netanyahu said the decision to invade Iraq was a “good choice, the right choice” and guaranteed “enormous positive reverberations on [sic] the region”. With Iraq in shambles and IS risen from the simmering ashes, Netanyahu’s earlier statements and his belief that the only way to deal with terroristic regimes was “to apply military force” should call into question his ability to guide the US towards correct actions in the region. None of this matters to Netanyahu however, as he believes his advice is the only way to face his believed existential threat from Iran.

This does not mean that Netanyahu’s advice to invade Iraq or to resort to military actions in dealing with the Iranian regime is wholly incorrect. This depends by which country you measure the benefits from following Netanyahu’s advice. When considering his final remarks to Congress back in 2002 it is his last statement that is the most telling. Speaking emphatically, Netanyahu proclaimed “If I had to say the three principles of winning the war on terror…the three principles of winning the war on terror are the three W’s, winning, winning, [and] winning.” The US and the Middle East is certainly not winning anything by following Netanyahu’s hawkish advice, Americans would do well to consider who is.

Latest from International Affairs

The Prism

We must develop and institutionalize individuals and values within democracy, and build structures that safeguard this. Leadership that constantly threatens humanity, like Putin's, is far behind the times. To lead the policies of less developed and developing countries, new types of global mechanisms that also utilize technology are needed; global leadership should be developed with these mechanisms. Therefore, there is a need for new approaches that support the existing nation-state system and leadership that will engage with it.

Potemkin Democracy

In fact, people in the world cannot expect to learn democracy and develop from leaders like Putin or Xi, can they? However, if leaders have authoritarian and populist characteristics, then the idea of developing through democracy will suffer the most. What people need is to be able to further develop through American democracy, to become even more advanced individuals through democracy. What humanity definitely needs is not the proliferation of arrogant and populist figures like oligarchs, authoritarian rulers, and personalities who only know how to work for themselves like Potemkin. Such leaders and politicians highlight oppression and distortions within democracy and foster the development of unwanted tissues in society. People need leaders and politicians who know how to develop within democracy.

Actor’s Stage

Today, we see that alongside states, non-state actors are increasingly prominent on the world stage. Moreover, due to the fact that approaches to these actors are turning into political arguments, there is inevitably a state of instability emerging. Here, we are talking about structures that can be dealt with using quite complex and multiple equations. It's a very challenging situation. Now, let's examine this topic and try to clarify it a bit.

The Nature of the Subject

Whether we express it or not, in every place where politics exists, we contemplate confidence-building measures and the ability to control the situation. Let's describe the most prominent subject of the natural situation that occurs here. If those who lead our organizations act with sufficient consciousness, this will result in a more beneficial outcome for humanity. The explanations here will show us with very natural reasons, what power does the United Nations have?

Strategic Situation and Iranian Geopolitics

Those who hold control are those who know the strategy. If you are talking about conflict, it should be understood in the manner of these new methods. Iran is a significant area of conflict. Israel, under the guise of the more pressing issue of Iran, is interested in making progress in the Eastern Mediterranean for its own benefit.