Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, emerged from a meeting with his ministers and security officials on Friday to declare that Israel would not accept a deal between world powers and Iran “which allows a country that vows to annihilate us to develop nuclear weapons”.



Declaring his cabinet united in opposition to the draft framework hammered out in Lausanne to limit the scope of Iran’s nuclear programme, Netanyahu demanded that Iran recognises Israel’s right to exist as a precondition to any final agreement.

But with Israel not a party to the talks, and its objections largely marginalised, it was unclear what, if any, pressure Israel can bring to bear on a deal that international negotiators have cautiously hailed as a breakthrough.

Netanyahu’s statement seemed designed for domestic consumption, as some depicted the deal as a defeat for Netanyahu’s lobbying.

“This deal would pose a grave danger to the region and to the world and would threaten the very survival of the state of Israel,” Netanyahu said. “The deal would not shut down a single nuclear facility in Iran, would not destroy a single centrifuge in Iran and will not stop R&D on Iran’s advanced centrifuges.

“On the contrary, the deal would legitimise Iran’s illegal nuclear programme. It would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure. A vast nuclear infrastructure remains in place.

“The deal would greatly bolster Iran’s economy. It would give Iran thereby tremendous means to propel its aggression and terrorism throughout the Middle East. Such a deal does not block Iran’s path to the bomb. Such a deal paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”

The prime minister’s political allies weighed in, including the intelligence and strategic affairs minister, Yuval Steinitz, who said earlier: “We will do everything to fight this and to close the breaches in the agreement. This is truly a deceitful illusion that sends a bad message to the entire region.”

Although Steinitz has attempted to suggest in recent days that an Israeli military option remains on the table, few believe that it is a realistic possibility, not least because Netanyahu has already deferred once to objections to military action among senior military and intelligence leaders.

While Israeli rhetoric threatening military action has died down over the past year or so, the head of Israel’s military planning directorate, Maj Gen Nimrod Sheffer, has also warned that it is still a possibility.

“The military option has always been on the table, as we have said all along,” Sheffer told the Israel Hayom newspaper on Friday. “If it has not been mentioned much in the media recently, that does not reflect a change in policy.”



Realistically, however, an Israeli military strike without US backing and directed against a keynote foreign policy of a sitting US president supported by key players on the UN security council and the EU seems highly unlikely.

The US secretary of state, John Kerry, delivered a sharp rebuff to both Israeli demands and those of Israel’s Congressional supporters in the wake of the agreement.

US secretary of state, John Kerry, speaks to the press after the agreement. Photograph: Pool/Reuters

“Simply demanding that Iran capitulate makes a nice soundbite, but it is not a policy, it is not a realistic plan,” he said.

While Netanyahu has continued to insist that a better deal was available, Israeli commentators were split over the draft deal, with some painting it as a defeat for Netanyahu after he had staked so much on his efforts to derail it.



Writing in Yedioth Aharonth, columnist Nahum Barnea was harsh in his assessment: “Netanyahu made the battle against the Iranian nuclear programme a top priority for his government … The truth should be told: this was a resounding failure for Israel.

Simply demanding that Iran capitulate makes a nice soundbite, but it is not a policy, it is not a realistic plan John Kerry

As the clash between Netanyahu and Obama on the Iranian issue heightened, Israel’s influence on the course of the negotiations and its outcome lessened. The Americans did not share the details with Israel.”

He added: “The dilemma that Netanyahu faces today is not an easy one. He can push the leaders of the Republican majority in the two houses of Congress to try to torpedo the agreement. Congress can, ostensibly, insist on continuing the sanctions. Such a course of action would be unusual in the American political tradition, and it would entail various risks, but it is possible. It is doubtful whether doing this would achieve its purpose.”

Barnea’s comments reflect the assessment that Netanyahu’s most likely course of action will be to attempt to rally supporters in Congress to block the agreement.

But with the draft agreement far more explicit and involving more concessions than Israel has vociferously claimed, including over the number centrifuges Iran will be allowed to retain, some believe Israel may have overplayed its hand already, not least with the more hawkish Democrats whom it will need to convince as well as Republicans.