Bibi Rushes to Washington, Leaves Empty-Handed

1. An Oval Office Bombshell 

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced last weekend, while visiting Hungary, that he was heading to Washington for a meeting with President Trump, reporters and commentators struggled to make sense of the sudden detour.

On Monday, in the Oval Office, it became clear.

“We’re having direct talks with Iran, and they’ve started,” Trump revealed, sitting next to Netanyahu, as the cameras rolled. “It’ll go on Saturday. We have a very big meeting, and we’ll see what can happen.” 

Direct U.S.-Iranian negotiations over a new nuclear deal definitely qualify as a good enough reason for an Israeli leader to make an urgent trip to Washington. There’s no bigger issue for Israel than Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and there’s not a single threat, in a region filled with adversaries, that Israel fears more. Netanyahu wanted to have a say on the issue before negotiators head to Oman this weekend and to provide the administration with his input on Israel’s expectations from a possible new deal between Trump and the Iranian ayatollahs’ regime. 

The president sounded proud of his diplomatic initiative. “We’re dealing with them directly and maybe a deal is going to be made,” he said, explaining that “doing a deal would be preferable to doing the obvious.”

As is the case with many Trump initiatives, the diplomatic foray toward Iran is unfolding at record speed. It started with a letter from Trump to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei last month, offering direct talks and threatening dire consequences if Iran refused. Shortly after, the U.S. moved on to a very visible mobilization of military assets to the region. Within less than a month, direct high-level talks were already scheduled—to take place this weekend.

The move raises more questions than answers. Trump has yet to make clear what the specific parameters and goals of these talks will be, nor has he explained the end goal he is aiming for, beyond the very general wish to see Iran abandon its military-nuclear program. But it is nonetheless consequential and, if successful, could lead to reshuffling of American and Israeli interests in the region.  

2. Did Bibi Misread Trump?

To understand the significance of Trump’s newly-discovered interest in a nuclear deal with Iran, we need to go back to May 2018. Trump, two years in office, decided to quit the existing nuclear deal reached by his predecessor Obama, calling it “horrible” and “defective at its core.” The force prodding Trump to dump the deal was no other than Netanyahu, who had argued from day one that the agreement was flawed and dangerous to Israel.

Now, in an apparent about-face, Trump, in his second term, suddenly has discovered the beauty of a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis.

Netanyahu was caught by surprise.

Sure, Israel was well aware of the statements by Trump, the self-proclaimed ultimate dealmaker, expressing his desire to reach a deal with Iran, but it viewed them as mere rhetoric, as a necessary step on the way to the real goal—launching a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, or at least supporting Israel if and when it decides to take such action.

The Israeli cabinet has been preparing for such a move, and Netanyahu drew encouragement from military actions taken by Trump, including the positioning of bombers in Diego Garcia airbase in the Indian Ocean, advancing missile defense systems to Israel, and threatening that “every shot fired by the Houthis will be looked upon, from this point forward, as being a shot fired from the weapons and leadership of Iran, and Iran will be held responsible, and suffer the consequences, and those consequences will be dire!”

Israel also made clear that now is an opportune moment to attack Iran, because it has not yet recovered from Israel’s destruction of its air defense systems and therefore an attack would involve less risk and have greater chances of success.

Trump, even now, has not ruled out military action. But while Bibi expected him to turn threats into actions and live up to his tough-guy image, the U.S. president, when it comes to the use of military force, seems to be closer to the views of his predecessors who viewed it as the last resort, not a preferable course of action.

3. What an Iran Deal Means

The devil, as always, is in the details, and Trump provided very few details about his new diplomatic initiative.

There are several key questions that will determine the viability of reaching a deal and the amount of resistance Israel will mount.

Is this a return to the 2015 nuclear deal, known by its acronym JCPOA, that crafted a plan to eliminate Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons while allowing it to maintain a limited and well-monitored civilian nuclear program? Israel and critics of the JCPOA claimed that such an approach only delays an Iranian bomb but does not eliminate the threat. Trump could choose to dump this philosophy and instead require Iran to fully give up any nuclear capacity, military and civilian, but Iran has made clear that would be a non-starter.

The second big-picture question is whether the United States is seeking a comprehensive deal that will take care of all of Iran’s malign activities, which include, beyond the nuclear program, its ballistic missile operation and its support for proxies and terror organizations across the region. Iran has made clear it will not engage in any negotiation that exceeds the scope of its nuclear program.

4. Tariffs Gesture Falls Flat

Trump’s worldwide tariffs, announced on what he called “Liberation Day,” included a 17 percent tariff on all goods from Israel. This, too, caught Israel by surprise.

Netanyahu, priding himself on being the first world leader to get an in-person audience with Trump to appeal for lowering the tariffs, announced, while at the White House, that Israel will basically accept any trade-related demand Trump may have. 

“We will eliminate the trade deficit with the United States. We intend to do it very quickly. We think it’s the right thing to do, and we will also eliminate trade barriers that have been put up unnecessarily, and I think Israel can serve as a model to many countries who ought to do the same,” said Netanyahu.

This is what Trump wanted to hear. After all, the sole purpose of the tariff war was to balance America’s trade deficit, and who better than Netanyahu to take the lead and show the world how to roll over and accept the new American demands? But for some reason, Trump did not respond with a reciprocal gesture. When asked by reporters if he’d cut tariffs on Israel in return for Netanyahu’s commitment to cut the trade deficit, he responded: “Maybe not, maybe not. Don’t forget, we help Israel a lot, we give them $4 billion a year. That’s a lot. Congratulations, by the way. That’s pretty good. But we give Israel billions of dollars a year. Billions.”

Trump’s response doesn’t necessarily mean that Israel will not see some tariff relief in the future, but for now, it may indicate that Netanyahu was trying a bit too hard to please Trump.

5. Was it worth it?

Netanyahu is returning to Israel Tuesday with not much to show for his visit.

He’s now the only world leader to have met with Trump twice at the White House this term and the first to discuss tariff issues with him in person. There is little doubt that the Israeli leader has an open channel to the White House.

But in terms of deliverables, there’s not much there. His hopes of seeing a tough stance on Iran were shattered, at least for now; expectations for a breakthrough on the Gaza and hostage front were not met; and tariffs against Israel remain in place.

The lesson? Warm relations are important, but with Trump, it’s all about interests.

 

Top image: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (Credit: World Economic Forum/Valeriano Di Domenico (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)).