By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Despite initial hopes that a pre-emptive war on Iran would be a decisive victory, Israel now faces a starkly different reality as negotiations for a new deal with Tehran progress. Reports indicate that the emerging agreement, brokered by President Trump, may be less restrictive than previous accords and has excluded Israel from direct negotiations. This situation has sparked significant criticism within Israel, with many fearing that the deal undermines years of diplomatic effort and could potentially accelerate Iran’s nuclear program, leaving the country in a precarious position and questioning Prime Minister Netanyahu’s strategy.
Read the original article here
The statement, “If Iran gets a bomb, it will be Bibi’s,” attributed to Donald Trump, has sent ripples of alarm through Israel, particularly within its security elite. This seemingly stark pronouncement has fueled anxieties about the potential unraveling of a crucial, albeit often strained, relationship with the United States. The core concern is that such a statement signals a potential abandonment of Israel by its most significant ally, leaving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, or “Bibi,” to bear the full brunt of Iran’s nuclear ambitions should they come to fruition.
This anxiety is exacerbated by the historical context of bipartisan support for Israel in the US, a cornerstone of its foreign policy for decades. Warnings were issued early in the current conflict, suggesting that Netanyahu risked jeopardizing this vital asset by pursuing a path that could lead to regime change in Iran. This strategic gamble, some speculated, might have been driven by electoral considerations or even a desire to avoid legal accountability for corruption charges. The implication of Trump’s comment is that, should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, the responsibility will rest squarely on Netanyahu’s shoulders, severing any possibility of shared blame or US support.
The sentiment within Israel, as reflected in various discussions, is one of profound concern about being “completely beholden to the decisions of a capricious, hollow and desperate American president.” While acknowledging the unpredictable nature of American leadership, there’s an underlying fear that the rug could be pulled out from under them at any moment. This vulnerability is perceived as particularly acute when dealing with a figure like Trump, whose political style is often characterized by its unpredictability and a tendency to shift allegiances. The phrase “I throw everyone under the bus eventually” from Trump himself, quoted in discussions, perfectly encapsulates this deep-seated Israeli apprehension.
Adding another layer to the concern is the interpretation of “Bibi’s bomb” as potentially signifying not just Netanyahu’s responsibility, but also a direct Israeli threat. Some analyses suggest that the statement implies Israel might be forced to use its own nuclear deterrent – a carefully guarded secret program – if Iran crosses the nuclear threshold. This interpretation paints a grim picture where the “bomb” becomes a last resort, a direct consequence of Netanyahu’s perceived failures in preventing Iran’s nuclearization. The idea that Israel might, out of necessity, be the one to deploy a nuclear weapon, effectively making it “Bibi’s bomb” in a terrifyingly literal sense, is a chilling prospect.
The Israeli government’s strategy, in this view, has been flawed. The opportunity to address Iran’s nuclear program when the country was perceived to be at its weakest has seemingly been missed. This missed opportunity, coupled with a perceived miscalculation in presenting Trump with what was thought to be an easy “quick win” that backfired, has led to a loss of support from across the American political spectrum. The dual nature of this loss – alienating both Democrats and, potentially, alienating Trump by extension – is seen as a significant strategic blunder.
The notion of leveraging sensitive information, such as the Epstein files, to control Trump is also brought up, highlighting a perceived naivete about his character. The idea that such leverage would deter him from turning on allies is questioned, with some suggesting that his mind is too unpredictable to be swayed by such tactics. This points to a broader concern about the reliability of any strategic partnerships with Trump, given his history of shifting positions.
Furthermore, the commentary reflects a widespread skepticism regarding the efficacy of international diplomacy in preventing Iran’s nuclear program. Despite past agreements and ongoing efforts, the underlying belief for many is that Iran will eventually acquire a nuclear weapon. The cycle of disbelief, where people hope that leaders won’t stoop to certain levels or that news outlets are exaggerating, is seen as a repeated pattern that inevitably leads to disappointment and a “surprised Pikachu face” moment for those who held onto such hopes.
There’s also a critical perspective that Netanyahu and his government have sacrificed the safety and security of Jews worldwide, as well as global market stability, all to avoid personal legal consequences. The argument is made that the driving factor is not solely the impending nuclear threat from Iran, but also the desire for electoral success and the avoidance of prosecution. This cynical view suggests a prioritization of personal and political survival over the broader interests of national and international security.
The concept of “strategic ambiguity” surrounding Israel’s nuclear capabilities, a long-standing policy, is mentioned, but the concern is that Trump, with his characteristic candor, might shatter this delicate balance. The fear is not that Israel doesn’t possess nuclear weapons, but that Trump might inadvertently or deliberately reveal or confirm this, creating unforeseen diplomatic fallout. The hypothetical scenario of Trump publicly acknowledging Israel’s nuclear arsenal, attributing it to past US assistance, further underscores the apprehension about his involvement.
Ultimately, the core of the alarm stems from the perception that a crucial alliance is being jeopardized by unpredictable American leadership, leaving Israel in a more vulnerable position regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The statement attributed to Trump, “If Iran gets a bomb, it will be Bibi’s,” serves as a potent symbol of this fear, representing a potential abandonment and a transfer of overwhelming responsibility onto Israel’s shoulders. The intricate dance of diplomacy, deterrence, and strategic alliances has been thrown into disarray, leaving many in Israel to wonder about their security in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.