When discussing Iran and Israel, words matter

Those who listened to the impassioned speech of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu must realize this is one of those monumental moments in history, a crossroads that we must encounter.

It is instructive that in a 2012 Atlantic magazine interview, President Obama seemed to agree with the stance of his Israeli counterpart. He said, “I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don’t bluff. I also don’t, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are.” He added, “But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.”

{mosads}These words, if taken seriously, have significant implications. It is precisely the word “bluff” that Netanyahu is addressing. For years, Obama has maintained that an Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable. In fact, he employed almost exactly the same words as Netanyahu, who said: “The true question is whether Iran will have nuclear bombs to implement its intention to destroy the State of Israel. That is something we will not allow. This is not a political issue either in Israel or the U.S. This is an existential issue.”

Apparently, Obama does bluff. It is also the case that his second claim of not “advertising … intentions” is equally false. The president effectively told the Taliban when U.S. forces would withdraw from Afghanistan. Most recently, he effectively told the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) when ground forces would be mobilized to attack Mosul.

Last, of course, is the most controversial claim. Based on leaks from the P5+1 (the United States, United Kingdom, Russia, China and France, plus Germany) negotiations, it appears likely that Iran will retain the capability of further uranium enrichment. The only question that remains unanswered is “breakout,” that time when weapons are deployed. So much for the president’s firm assurance about this matter.

In politics, words have meaning. It is easy to be hoisted by one’s petard. Claims of the moment are easily recalled as Google changes the meaning of historical memory. It seems obvious that Obama will not hesitate to contradict himself or assume that his words won’t be remembered.

In a scant three years, his position has changed. His questionable devotion to Israel as an ally is problematic and his belief that Iran can be a stabilizing force in the region reinforced. Therefore, in the calculus between Israeli security and Obama’s view of the larger Middle East equilibrium, the Israeli position has been sacrificed. In every respect this is a misguided gamble. Nonetheless, Obama has paved this pathway and will not yield.

Netanyahu’s words to Congress have enunciated this existential threat, words President Obama once embraced. But we have entered a new chapter in foreign diplomacy. The words of the past do not apply. For many, they aren’t even in a memory bank. Yet it is worth recalling that words have meaning; they also have consequences.

London is president of the London Center for Policy Research.