Contrary to White House Claims, Netanyahu Laid Out How to Beat Iran

Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to Congress yesterday shows the depth of understanding and clarity of policy that can be achieved when a leader knows his adversary.

Netanyahu used the opportunity to present the case that the threat posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran is principally ideological, and cannot be overcome with a procedural debate over the structure of a proposed nuclear deal. This was best illustrated by the prime minister’s reference to the dominant role the concept of jihad plays in the regime’s founding documents.

While the prime minister did not quote from the document itself, the Iranian constitution says the following about jihad:

…the Army of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps are to be organized in conformity with this goal, and they will be responsible not only for guarding and preserving the frontiers of the country, but also for fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God’s way; that is, extending the sovereignty of God’s law throughout the world (this is in accordance with the Koranic verse “Prepare against them whatever force you are able to muster, and strings of horses, striking fear into the enemy of God and your enemy, and others besides them” [8:60]).

Thus, as Netanyahu noted, Iran is fundamentally a jihadist state. It was completely reasonable to compare the Iranian regime to the Islamic State. The prime minister correctly noted that the difference was not a moral one, as both engaged in terror, massacred its opposition, including executing homosexuals, but merely a question of capabilities. In particular he noted that while they may be opponents, both are motivated by the desire to fulfill violent ideological objectives. The difference being that risk posed by Iran is one where as Netanyahu said, “Militant Islam is married to a nuclear weapon.”

Netanyahu also took a shot at what some have considered the essentially Pro-Iranian nature of the U.S. response to the Islamic State. While Netanyahu did not expressly say so, the United States has permitted Iranian-backed Shia militias to purge Sunnis and Kurds, seize U.S. equipment and dominate key Iraqi ministries, all in the name of preventing the expansion of the Islamic State. As Netanyahu warned sometimes, as in Iraq, “the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.”

Netanyahu related the history of Iran’s terror war against the West, particularly the United States, including the seizure of the Embassy, the Marine barracks bombing, The AMIA bombing and the targeting of U.S. troops in Iraq. He also noted how Iran itself has crowed about establishing its control over four separate Arab capitals (Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad and Sana’a).

Contrary to what the White House and its surrogates have implied, this recitation of the Islamic Republic’s evils provided a useful segway into a method of dealing with the Iranian regime.

Instead of linking the easing of economic sanctions on Iran to its willingness to engage in diplomacy as the Obama administration has done, Netanyahu essentially proposed linking sanctions to Iranian behavior. Not solely as regards its nuclear program, but rather as regards the real threat, which is the nature of the regime itself.

Destabilizing the region, supporting terrorism, threatening genocide, all of these behaviors which express the fundamental militant Islamist nature of the Iranian regime, should incur additional sanctions, while ceasing support for terror groups, loosening repression of dissidents, and recognizing the state of Israel would be reasons to loosen sanctions.

Rather than a sunset clause that grants Iran a nearly unlimited ability to conduct a nuclear breakout after an arbitrarily defined 10-year time limit, we should be seeking to sunset the Iranian regime itself. We must make clear that they can keep their virulent ideology and sanctions, or they can change, and be welcomed back into the international system.

The prime minister’s speech tracks perfectly with the proposed Secure Freedom strategy offered by the Center for Security Policy. Netanyahu truly outlined the threat on the basis of its ideological nature, and related a strategy to use economic pressure (and there are other methods to apply pressure as well), which seeks to undermine and eventually defeat Iran’s Islamic Revolution.

We can only hope that the administration will heed his advice.