Skip to main content
Part of complete coverage from

Israel, U.S. -- stop dissing each other over Iran

By Frida Ghitis
November 22, 2013 -- Updated 1254 GMT (2054 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Frida Ghitis: U.S., Israel on same side on Iran but are at bitter odds on nuclear negotiations
  • She says Netanyahu says U.S. falling into trap; Obama says U.S. trying for peace, security
  • She says Israel has legitimate existential concerns over nukes in Iran, wants strong deal
  • Ghitis: Lest they strengthen their enemies, U.S., Israel need to defend their alliance

Editor's note: Frida Ghitis is a world affairs columnist for The Miami Herald and World Politics Review. A former CNN producer and correspondent, she is the author of "The End of Revolution: A Changing World in the Age of Live Television." Follow her on Twitter @FridaGhitis.

(CNN) -- The United States and Israel are on the same side when it comes to Iran, but you might not know it watching the bitter public disagreement that has broken out between the two allies over negotiations with the Islamic Republic.

Is this a way for friends to handle their differences?

The talks with Iran present enormous challenges for Washington. One of those challenges is to move through the process without damaging existing alliances or weakening America's already diminished standing in the Middle East.

Frida Ghitis
Frida Ghitis

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that he thinks the U.S. is falling into an Iranian trap. The White House says it is moving cautiously in the interest of peace and security. The disagreement is tearing at the alliance.

Both Israel and the U.S. should find a different way to make their cases. They have moved perilously close to impugning each other's character instead of debating the merits of their positions.

Netanyahu strongly objects to the proposal that would ease sanctions in exchange for a slowdown of Iran's nuclear program during negotiations for a permanent agreement.

He is used to wielding sharp words. His tone has suggested U.S. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are being played for fools. When talks broke off a few weeks ago, Netanyahu sarcastically called the agreement that was almost reached between Iran and the so-called P5+1, the U.N. Security Council permanent members plus Germany, "the deal of the century" -- for Iran. France, too, another U.S. ally, called the proposal "a sucker's deal."

But it's not just critics of the Obama administration position who have come perilously close to insulting those with whom they disagree. White House spokesman Jay Carney responded to criticism and to calls for new sanctions by saying "the American people do not want a march to war," as if those who don't like this agreement actually want a war.

The notion that Netanyahu, that Israelis, want war with Iran is patently absurd. Some may think a war is unavoidable, but everyone in Israeli knows war with Iran would bring unspeakable suffering.

In Israel, the issue is personal for every family that lives within rocket range of Iran -- every family. Many Israelis dislike Netanyahu's style, but they share his concern. Today, only 31% of Israelis think Israel can rely on the U.S. on talks with Iran.

Iranian Jews on Tehran's nuclear program
Iran nuclear talks make headway

What Israel wants is a strong deal, one that truly prevents Iran from having the ability to quickly build a nuclear weapon when it chooses. That, incidentally, is what America's Arab friends also want, creating an unlikely alignment of interests between Israelis and Arabs.

Instead of "dissing" each other and engaging in acrimonious debate that brings satisfaction to their enemies, Israel and the U.S. should concentrate on the substance of their disagreement.

Both Israel and the U.S. -- not to mention France, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and others -- want to bring an end to what they believe is Iran's nuclear weapons program. Iran says it only wants nuclear power, but even U.N. weapons inspectors say there are indications of a military aspect to Iran's nuclear program.

Israel and the U.S., of course, have different perspectives. They differ on tactics, strategy, and to some degree on goals. The U.S. is physically distant from Iran and it has a stronger military. Israel wants Iran to end all nuclear enrichment. The U.S. is apparently willing to allow some enrichment and stockpiles.

America sees Iran and its nuclear program as a challenge to global stability, to the regional balance of power, to nuclear nonproliferation. Israelis believe Iran aims to destroy their country.

On Wednesday, as talks restarted in Geneva, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave a televised speech in which he called Israel the "rabid dog" of the Middle East and declared that Israel "is doomed to failure and annihilation." That kind of language, and a nuclear program, a wave of terrorist attacks, and the funding of anti-Israel militias, such as Hezbollah, add up to a pretty good case for Israelis to worry.

Their concerns are echoed by many members of Congress, who also question the strength of the current negotiating approach.

All want to see a deal, but only a good deal. All of them, lest we forget, are on the same side.

Israel, along with France and many members of Congress, believes relief from sanctions should come only if Iran completely stops getting closer to a nuclear weapon. They worry that once world powers start rolling back sanctions, even slightly, the entire system will start unraveling. The Obama administration says the interim deal would "put time on the clock."

But Obama too said he wants to make "absolutely certain" the Iranians are not "busy advancing their program" during talks.

On the surface, Obama and Netanyahu are saying much the same thing.

It's no simple task, but if a deal can be made that convinces everyone Iran is not within reach of a bomb, that would satisfy America, Israel, America's Arab friends and -- if Tehran is telling the truth -- it should meet Iran's goals.

We don't know the exact terms under discussion in Geneva, Switzerland, but some reports give reasons for concern.

One element under discussion, for example, would reportedly allow continuing construction of the Arak plutonium facility, with a promise from Iran to delay operating it for six months; far from ideal. It is also unclear what would happen with the Parchin site, where U.N. inspectors suspect Iran is working on ways to develop military components to weaponize its nuclear materials.

Instead of disparaging the administration's negotiating skills, Netanyahu, as a friend of the U.S., should raise questions about these issues. And instead of disparaging the motives of Netanyahu and other critics, the Obama administration should respond to the specific claims.

Ironically, Israel's strong objections strengthen the West's negotiating position. It is Iran that should explain why it will not allow inspectors into Parchin and why it needs to build a plutonium reactor.

Countries make alliances because they are stronger together. Israel and the U.S. need to defend their alliance as they work together to stop Iran's nuclear program. Anything else will only strengthen their enemies.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Frida Ghitis.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
December 20, 2014 -- Updated 0242 GMT (1042 HKT)
Conservatives know easing the trade embargo with Cuba is good for America. They should just admit it, says Fareed Zakaria.
December 20, 2014 -- Updated 0112 GMT (0912 HKT)
We're a world away from Pakistan in geography, but not in sentiment, writes Donna Brazile.
December 19, 2014 -- Updated 1709 GMT (0109 HKT)
How about a world where we have murderers but no murders? The police still chase down criminals who commit murder, we have trials and justice is handed out...but no one dies.
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 2345 GMT (0745 HKT)
The U.S. must respond to North Korea's alleged hacking of Sony, says Christian Whiton. Failing to do so will only embolden it.
December 19, 2014 -- Updated 2134 GMT (0534 HKT)
President Obama has been flexing his executive muscles lately despite Democrat's losses, writes Gloria Borger
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 1951 GMT (0351 HKT)
Jeff Yang says the film industry's surrender will have lasting implications.
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 2113 GMT (0513 HKT)
Newt Gingrich: No one should underestimate the historic importance of the collapse of American defenses in the Sony Pictures attack.
December 10, 2014 -- Updated 1255 GMT (2055 HKT)
Dean Obeidallah asks how the genuine Stephen Colbert will do, compared to "Stephen Colbert"
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 1734 GMT (0134 HKT)
Some GOP politicians want drug tests for welfare recipients; Eric Liu says bailed-out execs should get equal treatment
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 1342 GMT (2142 HKT)
Louis Perez: Obama introduced a long-absent element of lucidity into U.S. policy on Cuba.
December 16, 2014 -- Updated 1740 GMT (0140 HKT)
The slaughter of more than 130 children by the Pakistani Taliban may prove as pivotal to Pakistan's security policy as the 9/11 attacks were for the U.S., says Peter Bergen.
December 17, 2014 -- Updated 1600 GMT (0000 HKT)
The Internet is an online extension of our own neighborhoods. It's time for us to take their protection just as seriously, says Arun Vishwanath.
December 16, 2014 -- Updated 2154 GMT (0554 HKT)
Gayle Lemmon says we must speak out for the right of children to education -- and peace
December 17, 2014 -- Updated 1023 GMT (1823 HKT)
Russia's economic woes just seem to be getting worse. How will President Vladimir Putin respond? Frida Ghitis gives her take.
December 17, 2014 -- Updated 0639 GMT (1439 HKT)
Australia has generally seen itself as detached from the threat of terrorism. The hostage incident this week may change that, writes Max Barry.
December 12, 2014 -- Updated 2020 GMT (0420 HKT)
Thomas Maier says the trove of letters the Kennedy family has tried to guard from public view gives insight into the Kennedy legacy and the history of era.
December 15, 2014 -- Updated 1456 GMT (2256 HKT)
Will Congress reform the CIA? It's probably best not to expect much from Washington. This is not the 1970s, and the chances for substantive reform are not good.
December 15, 2014 -- Updated 2101 GMT (0501 HKT)
From superstorms to droughts, not a week goes by without a major disruption somewhere in the U.S. But with the right planning, natural disasters don't have to be devastating.
December 15, 2014 -- Updated 1453 GMT (2253 HKT)
Would you rather be sexy or smart? Carol Costello says she hates this dumb question.
December 14, 2014 -- Updated 2253 GMT (0653 HKT)
A story about Pope Francis allegedly saying animals can go to heaven went viral late last week. The problem is that it wasn't true. Heidi Schlumpf looks at the discussion.
December 14, 2014 -- Updated 1550 GMT (2350 HKT)
Democratic leaders should wake up to the reality that the party's path to electoral power runs through the streets, where part of the party's base has been marching for months, says Errol Louis
December 13, 2014 -- Updated 2123 GMT (0523 HKT)
David Gergen: John Brennan deserves a national salute for his efforts to put the report about the CIA in perspective
December 12, 2014 -- Updated 1426 GMT (2226 HKT)
Anwar Sanders says that in some ways, cops and protesters are on the same side
December 11, 2014 -- Updated 1439 GMT (2239 HKT)
A view by Samir Naji, a Yemeni who was accused of serving in Osama bin Laden's security detail and imprisoned for nearly 13 years without charge in Guantanamo Bay
December 14, 2014 -- Updated 1738 GMT (0138 HKT)
S.E. Cupp asks: How much reality do you really want in your escapist TV fare?
ADVERTISEMENT