Despite the talk of agreement, it’s evident that there’s now a U.S.-Israel gulf over Iran. Insults fly in U.S.-Israel showdown

One way to measure just how tense U.S.-Israeli relations have become: Look at how prominent proxies for both sides are duking it out in public.

By that standard, the friendship is cratering, with supporters and opponents of a White House-backed nuclear deal with Iran rhetorically at one another’s throats.


A well-regarded Obama foreign policy surrogate with close White House ties, Colin Kahl, and the best-known media voice for pro-Israel forces in Washington, Josh Block, got into a nasty Twitter tangle over the weekend that laid bare how caustic the Iran debate has become between the two staunch allies.

“As usual, U don’t know what UR talking about & R advocating max alt[ernative] that’ll lead 2 war,” wrote Kahl, a top Pentagon official during Obama’s first term and the co-chairman of the president’s foreign policy board during his 2012 reelection campaign.

( POLITICO Magazine: 34 Years of Getting to No with Iran)

“There you go again - typical vile smear,” replied Block, a former spokesman for the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “Hateful notion fm WH that supporters of talks 4 better terms R ‘warmongers’ & urge media,allies 2 smear critics as not acting 4 US interests.”

“Thanks Mr. Pot. Sincerely, Mr. Kettle,” Kahl countered later.

The bitter showdown occurred just outside the veil of officialdom, where diplomatic conventions and the desire to keep intact the broad bipartisan coalition supportive of Israel dictate that formal spokespeople for the White House, the Israeli government and the largest pro-Israel groups carefully measure their on-the-record comments.

( Also on POLITICO: Barack Obama asks lawmakers for Iran sanctions delay)

The cause for the current fight: the Obama administration’s drive to strike an interim deal intended to halt and/or roll back Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for a limited easing of sanctions on Tehran. Despite intense Israeli objections, such a pact was almost agreed to at international talks with the Iranians a couple of weeks ago — negotiations that are set to resume on Wednesday in Geneva.

The new conflict comes in the wake of a series of pointed disagreements between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in recent years over issues like the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the U.S. response to the Arab Spring movement.

“It’s the worst I’ve ever seen,” said Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. “The government officials on both sides aren’t going to say they’re enraged, but they are, and their supporters will tell you that. People on the fringes in Israel are saying it, supporters here are certainly saying it and Obama supporters are saying it, but not with a swipe at Israel.”

“Both sides are fighting viciously here,” said the Brookings Institution’s Ken Pollack, a National Security Council staffer under President Bill Clinton. “That same polarization that we’ve seen with health care, immigration and gun control, we’re seeing it now with Iran.”

( WATCH: Lindsey Graham slams easing Iran sanctions)

Netanyahu and top U.S. officials have tried to maintain the polite diplomatic facade, but those efforts haven’t been able to mask the divide.

“This is a big issue, and people of good faith can have different opinions,” Netanyahu said Sunday on CNN. “Friends, and the best of friends, can have different opinions. We agree on a lot of things. There are some things we disagree on.”

“We always listen to the concerns of our Israeli friends, particularly on issues related to the Iranian nuclear program,” U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told Israel’s Channel 2 television. “There are some tactical differences. … Our view is even when we have some differences that are aired publicly that the fundamental goals remain the same.”

Despite the talk of agreement on broad goals, it’s evident that there’s now a wide U.S.-Israel gulf over potentially crucial strategy toward Iran.

( POLITICO Magazine: John Kerry vs. the ‘Babble’)

Netanyahu’s denunciation of the proposed interim agreement with Iran as the “deal of the century” for that country and a “grievous historic error” effectively painted Obama in an unflattering light, as either a rube too naive to understand Iran’s intentions or insufficiently committed to Israel’s security.

That rhetoric angered White House officials, who believe the Israeli leader was distorting the provisions of the proposed agreement.

“We have been very firm with the Iranians on what we expect,” Obama said Tuesday at a Wall Street Journal conference in Washington. “Let’s look. Let’s test the proposition that over the next six months we can resolve this in a diplomatic fashion while maintaining the essential sanctions architecture. … I think that is a test that is worth conducting.”

For its part, the White House has incensed advocates for Israel by portraying war as the likely, certain — or perhaps, for some, desired — alternative to the Geneva talks.

( POLITICO Magazine: Obama’s Fight With Israel: This Time It's Serious)

“The American people do not want a march to war,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said last week. “And it is important to understand that if pursuing a resolution diplomatically is disallowed or ruled out, what options then do we and our allies have to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon?”

Kahl’s tweet, suggesting that rejection of an interim deal will lead inexorably to war, clearly touched the same nerve.

“There is something deeply disturbing about the charges being leveled by officials and journalists that people critical of the administration’s approach or terms of the Iran negotiations is a warmonger, anti-diplomacy or isn’t acting because they believe it to be in America’s interest, but because they have some ulterior motive,” said Block, now CEO of the Israel Project.

“A deal with Iran that reserves financial relief in return for a halt to enrichment and a dismantling of its nuclear infrastructure is the kind of deal American diplomats should be seeking precisely because it is smart diplomacy, and because it is is the surest way to peaceably stop Iran from being able to build a nuclear weapon,” he added.

Kahl, senior fellow at the Center for New American Security, declined an interview request.

Follow @politico

On Tuesday, Carney seemed to soften his previous “march to war” statement, without completely omitting that specter.

“The president is determined to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and firmly believes that it would be preferable to do so peacefully, therefore he has a responsibility to pursue current negotiations before turning to other alternatives, including military options,” the press secretary said.

Some analysts say the rhetoric on both sides has become overheated.

“It is incorrect and unhelpful to liken the president to Neville Chamberlain or to insist that his opponents are nothing but warmongers,” Pollack said. “Most of the people on both sides simply have different ideas about what constitutes a good deal and how best to get it, but the over-the-top rhetoric threatens to prevent us from doing either.”

The heated exchanges between pro-Israel forces and the White House have also caused tensions within some advocacy groups, particularly for those with political or professional ties to Obama’s team.

After Carney’s “march to war” comments last week, the pro-sanctions group United Against Nuclear Iran issued a statement slamming “the White House’s false choice between the P5+1’s interim deal and war.”

“The Obama administration engaged in a coordinated pressure campaign that included the White House press secretary irresponsibly accusing Congress of a ‘march to war.’ In response, a strong, bipartisan consensus has emerged, rejecting as false the choice of the administration’s preferred deal on one hand and a ‘march to war’ on the other,” said UANI CEO Mark Wallace, an ambassador under President George W. Bush.

The statement was surprisingly strident given the fact that UANI bills itself as bipartisan and its leadership has included prominent former Democratic officials such as Clinton-era Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross. The group’s president, Gary Samore, was the Obama White House’s point man on nonproliferation until earlier this year.

In an interview, Samore declined to discuss the statement slamming the White House he recently served, but he said the strategy his former colleagues are pursuing is broadly consistent with what he advocated while at the National Security Council.

“During the four years I was doing Iran negotiations, Israel’s position was that any proposal the U.S. put forward was giving away too much without Iran doing enough in return,” Samore said. “Step-by-step has always been a U.S. view. …There’s just a fundamental disagreement between Netanyahu and Obama over how to conduct these negotiations.”

Indeed, while Netanyahu has railed against aspects of the proposed interim deal, he conceded over the weekend that he would not favor any short-term deal that doesn’t definitively end Iran’s nuclear weapons potential.

“I don’t advocate partial deals. I think partial deals are bad deals,” the Israeli prime minister told CNN. “If you want to do a partial deal, then decide what the final deal is, and then do one step.”

Samore signaled a different viewpoint, closer to the White House’s.

“The choice is not between an interim deal and a comprehensive deal. The choice is between no deal and an interim deal,” he said. “The White House, if they could get a comprehensive deal, would. It’s not because they haven’t tried. It’s because it’s not available.”

White House allies also accuse the pro-Israel camp of advancing fantastic claims, such as a persistent, fevered rumor that Obama senior adviser and longtime friend Valerie Jarrett is overseeing secret, back-channel talks with the Iranians.

The talk of Jarrett’s sub rosa role surfaced in a fresh report last week on Israeli television, prompting the White House to issue an on-the-record denial Saturday.

“Those rumors are absolutely, 100 percent false,” National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan told the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz.

Samore agreed that U.S.-Israel tensions are at a high point, but warned they could grow even worse.

“It’s pretty extraordinary,” Samore said. “I can’t remember anything like it in my career in Washington, when there has been such an open split between the U.S. and Israel.”

If the U.S. and its partners reach an interim nuclear deal with Iran, Samore said, Netanyahu will have to decide whether he wants to try to torpedo it by promoting new sanctions legislation or other measures that could nullify the pact. And while some in Netanyahu’s circle are reportedly beginning to recognize that an interim deal is all but inevitable, the prime minister himself has not yet let up publicly on his demand for complete capitulation by the Iranians.

It also means some thought has to be given to how to move ahead with U.S.-Israeli relations, but that’s going to be difficult. The relationship between the two leaders may never be the same, Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy wrote in POLITICO Magazine this week.

“No kiss-and-make-up effort can erase the scars that will be left behind,” Satloff said.

Follow @politico