Skip To Content
Back to Opinion

How Netanyahu Put the Democrats to Shame

House Democrats listen to Netanyahu’s speech / Getty Images

As the echo of the sustained ovations that greeted Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to a joint session of Congress began to fade, Democratic apologists for the Obama administration had a problem. For several weeks, the White House succeeded in focusing attention on the question of the alleged breach of protocol and partisanship that they claimed the invitation to Netanyahu represented. But once the address was actually delivered by the prime minister, this spin on events passed its expiration date.

Faced with Netanyahu’s powerful arguments explaining why an Iran deal predicated on a series of Western retreats would be a disaster, the White House and the rest of the president’s cheering section need to find a way to defend positions that have discarded the president’s past pledges to end Iran’s nuclear program. But, instead, they are reverting back to last week’s talking points. It won’t work.

Netanyahu laid out a cogent analysis of why a deal that leaves Iran in possession of its nuclear infrastructure and will eventually expire is an invitation for more Iranian cheating. But even if you believe that the U.S. has the sort of intelligence that would enable it to detect a nuclear breakout in time, the sunset clause that President Obama has discussed means, as Netanyahu pointed out, that even in the unlikely event that the Islamist regime abides by its terms, the deal may still lead to a nuclear Iran.

Moreover, contrary to his critics, Netanyahu did offer a realistic alternative to Obama’s strategy of negotiation by capitulation. By returning to the path of tough sanctions (strengthened by the Kirk-Menendez bill now before Congress) that the president prematurely abandoned in 2013, there is a chance that the regime can be forced to negotiate terms that are consistent with the president’s 2012 campaign promises. The president seems more intent on building a new détente with a terror-supporting, anti-Semitic regime bent on regional hegemony than in using the leverage he discarded.

So, however unsympathetic one may be to Netanyahu or John Boehner and however much many liberals may like the president, the speech requires a serious response. But rather than seeking a way to defend the indefensible, Democrats are merely reverting to invective.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called it “an insult to the intelligence of the United States.” Others were in denial about the terms offered by the United States to Iran that have been leaked by the administration they seek to defend. Still others simply ignored the substance and even the way Netanyahu bent over backwards throwing bouquets to President Obama for his support for Israel (while diplomatically omitting the many other instances in which he has undercut the Jewish state) and the tradition of bipartisan support for Israel. Instead, they mouthed the same tired clichés about the speech being “political theater” and recycled the charge about it being an Israeli gift to the Republicans — when not comparing the prime minister to Dick Cheney.

That’s unfortunate. The country needs a debate about the direction of the Iran talks and the way the president seeks to bury the hatchet with a nation that, as Netanyahu pointed out, still threatens neighbors with aggression, supports terrorism and threatens Israel with annihilation. Instead, all we’re getting is name-calling.

What this illustrates is a basic truth about this story. Contrary to the Democratic broadsides, it was not Netanyahu who injected partisanship into the Iran debate. It was the president and his defenders who invoked party loyalty to get some Democrats to boycott the speech and to oppose an Iran sanctions bill that has always had across-the-board bipartisan support. Now they want to use it to silence doubts about the president’s disastrous Iran policy. They shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it.

Jonathan S. Tobin is senior online editor of Commentary. Follow him on Twitter.

I hope you appreciated this article. Before you go, I’d like to ask you to please support the Forward’s award-winning, nonprofit journalism during this critical time.

Now more than ever, American Jews need independent news they can trust, with reporting driven by truth, not ideology. We serve you, not any ideological agenda.

At a time when other newsrooms are closing or cutting back, the Forward has removed its paywall and invested additional resources to report on the ground from Israel and around the U.S. on the impact of the war, rising antisemitism and the protests on college campuses.

Readers like you make it all possible. Support our work by becoming a Forward Member and connect with our journalism and your community.

Make a gift of any size and become a Forward member today. You’ll support our mission to tell the American Jewish story fully and fairly. 

— Rachel Fishman Feddersen, Publisher and CEO

Join our mission to tell the Jewish story fully and fairly.

Republish This Story

Please read before republishing

We’re happy to make this story available to republish for free, unless it originated with JTA, Haaretz or another publication (as indicated on the article) and as long as you follow our guidelines. You must credit the Forward, retain our pixel and preserve our canonical link in Google search.  See our full guidelines for more information, and this guide for detail about canonical URLs.

To republish, copy the HTML by clicking on the yellow button to the right; it includes our tracking pixel, all paragraph styles and hyperlinks, the author byline and credit to the Forward. It does not include images; to avoid copyright violations, you must add them manually, following our guidelines. Please email us at [email protected], subject line “republish,” with any questions or to let us know what stories you’re picking up.

We don't support Internet Explorer

Please use Chrome, Safari, Firefox, or Edge to view this site.