John Kerry is right: Netanyahu (and Israel) will be blamed if Congress rejects the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program.

When the deal between the United States and its negotiating partners and the Islamic Republic of Iran was announced last week, all eyes immediately turned to Israel. More specifically, they turned to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Israel’s political establishment came out overwhelmingly against the agreement with Iran. From the left to the far right, it was lambasted as a “historical capitulation,” a “black day in history,” to simply “dangerous and harmful.” The only real difference between the voices from within the governing coalition and from the opposition is one praised Netanyahu for his efforts to fight the deal while the other blasted him and called it his personal failure.

A bit of attention had to be paid to those on the campaign trail in the United States. The response from the current crop of Republican candidates for President were to be expected, but they had to be given their time. None of them were going to risk sounding anything like supportive of the Obama Administration so early in primary season. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker threw down the gauntlet to his opponents when he declared that he would scrap the deal the day he entered office. Former Governor Jeb Bush was not ready to go that far, saying “that sounds great, but maybe you ought to check in with your allies first. Maybe you ought to appoint a secretary of state, maybe a secretary of defense. You might want to have your team in place before you take an act like that.”

Attention has, of course, been on Congress and their right under the 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act to have 60 days (up from the original 30 because of their much-needed Summer recess) to review and vote on the deal reached with Iran. The tone was set by House Speaker John Boehner, who attacked the agreement despite admitting that he had not seen all of the information. They are almost certain to reject the agreement, forcing Obama to use his veto. As such, the predictions are about whether Obama can build enough support to ward off a veto override rather than if Congress will give him majority support.

The debate over the agreement with Iran has become not so much about its merits (or lack thereof), but about the ongoing battle between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu. It has been going on since Netanyahu took office in 2009, but has intensified since earlier this year when it was announced he would be speaking in front of Congress in March to warn them against the ongoing negotiations with Iran.

Netanyahu made it clear from the beginning that he was going to try to turn Congress against Obama. In this he has the support of opposition leader Isaac Herzog of the Zionist Union party, who similarly said Congress must be convinced to change the agreement. Netanyahu made the rounds on the Sunday shows in America soon after the agreement was forged, and has taken every opportunity to speak out about the deal.

U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter (right) and Netanyahu ( Landov Media/Barcroft Media)

However, in doing so, he has managed to threaten not only his own weak standing among world leaders, but Israel’s fragile diplomatic stature in general.

The Prime Minister has assumed the role as the leader of those in the world who are against the deal. In order to sway Congress in his direction, he has enlisted the aid of Jewish lobbying groups, most prominently AIPAC. AIPAC has declared open war on the agreement, and has announced its intentions of martialing its full resources hound Congress, including flying in hundreds of its supporters to DC to march through the halls of the Capitol Building.

They have tried twice in the past to go after an American president, in 1981 against President Reagan and the deal to sell AWACS aircraft to Saudi Arabia and in 1991 against President George H.W. Bush’s refusal to grant loan guarantees unless settlement activity was curbed. Both times they failed, but that hasn’t dampened their enthusiasm for defeating President Obama.

Netanyahu’s own attacks, in addition to those of his government, and his use of lobbying groups in the United States to go after the Iran deal in Congress, have made him the focus of intense criticism from around the world, and even from Israel’s close allies. German Foreign Minister Walter Steinmeier responded to Netanyahu’s comments earlier last week by saying that “this [the Iran deal] is a responsible deal and Israel should also take a closer look at it and not criticize the agreement in a very coarse way.”

British Foreign Minister Philip Hammond slammed the Israeli government, saying that “The question you have to ask yourself is what kind of a deal would have been welcomed in Tel Aviv. The answer of course is that Israel doesn’t want any deal with Iran. Israel wants a permanent state of stand-off and I don’t believe that’s in the interests of the region.”

Secretary of State Kerry was a bit more subtle during his testimony on July 23 in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. When asked by Colorado Senator Cory Gardner whether Kerry though Netanyahu knew what he was talking about in relation to Iran, Kerry responded, “he knows, as Prime Minister, the fear that he is expressing.” It was a subtle, yet stinging rebuke of Netanyahu.

Netanyahu’s position has been undermined, to a certain extent, by recent developments in the Israeli domestic scene. His attempts to coerce Isaac Herzog into joining his government failed utterly, with Herzog delivering a damning indictment of the Prime Minister and his government in front of the Knesset. Yisrael Beitenu party leader Avigdor Liberman, in the opposition but very much a right-wing politician (and once close ally of Netanyahu), called for the Prime Minister to be replaced, calling him an “excellent campaigner” who nonetheless a failure who has made Israel the laughingstock of world diplomacy.

More troubling for Netanyahu, though, is a number of prominent former leaders of various Israeli security agencies in favor of the Obama Administration and the Iran Deal. This includes Ami Ayalon (the former head of the Shin Bet internal security service), Efraim Halevy (formerly in charge of the Mossad), Amos Yadlin (former military intelligence director), Meir Dagan (another ex-Mossad chief). This was a development that was made even more embarrassing because John Kerry brought it up during his testimony. Even Ehud Barak, former Prime Minister (as well as Chief of Staff of the IDF), although not particularly supportive of the deal, said Netanyahu had to focus on working with Obama and not against him.

The Iran deal is turning into a huge mess for Prime Minister Netanyahu, both within Israel and internationally. He has suffered a massive defeat on the policy issue that is the most important to him, and will likely be unable to get Congress to defeat a presidential veto. Yet he still goes on the attack in a futile effort to try to salvage his position. In doing so, though, he is only causing a further deterioration in Israel’s standing, both in Washington and internationally.

That is why John Kerry is right when he says that Israel, not Congress, will bear the brunt of the anger should the deal be rejected, despite Congress actually being the one who did the deed. “I fear that what could happen is that, if Congress were to overturn it, our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated,” said Kerry, “and more blamed.” Netanyahu’s efforts, both direct and indirect, to influence Congress on the Iranian nuclear issue has put a target on his back. He will be the one who is criticized and blamed. As such, being the Prime Minister, that blame will be turned on Israel and the Israeli people in general.

Benjamin Netanyahu is in trouble, and he’s taking Israel down with him.