The Israeli prime minister’s attacks on the US government may be brinkmanship – but they could be genuine attempts to goad Obama into military action

Binyamin Netanyahu’s latest hostile jab at the Obama administration, claiming the US has “given up” trying to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons capability, enraged the secretary of state, John Kerry.

But, like many in Israel and the west, Kerry must be wondering: what does Israel’s pugnacious prime minister really want?

Netanyahu’s acceptance of the Republicans’ divisive invitation to address Congress next Tuesday dismayed Barack Obama and the Democrats, and triggered heated name-calling and mutual snubs.

The Israeli leader will use his speech to warn against the deal with Iran being negotiated by the US and its European allies. Obama is keen to bring Iran in from the cold. He believes detente with Tehran could radically change regional dynamics, help end the Syrian war and open the way to collaboration on fighting Islamic State (Isis).

Netanyahu believes a deal, on almost any terms, would pose an existential threat to Israel by allowing Iran to eventually acquire the bomb. “From the agreement that is forming, it appears that they have given up on their commitment [to stop Iran] and are accepting that Iran will gradually, within a few years, develop capabilities to produce material for many nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told a meeting of his rightwing Likud party in the West Bank settlement of Ma’ale Adumim.

Kerry quickly slapped him down. It was premature to criticise a pact that was as yet incomplete, he said, echoing White House claims that Netanyahu was deliberately misrepresenting the US position. “He may have a judgment that just may not be correct here,” Kerry said.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest John Kerry has accused Netanyahu of wilfully misrepresenting the US position on Iran. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

In an improbable twist, Kerry portrayed Netanyahu as a hothead because he supported the 2003 Iraq invasion (which Kerry also backed). Netanyahu had been “profoundly outspoken about the importance of invading Iraq ... We all know what happened with that,” Kerry said. The diplomatic path should be fully explored before “extreme measures”, such as military action, are contemplated, he added.

This level of public recrimination has not been seen since George HW Bush fell out with Yitzhak Shamir over illegal settlements in 1991, and perhaps not even then. Obama’s officials put it down to campaign posturing. Netanyahu faces a tight general election on 17 March and, as ever, presents himself as the only leader Israelis can trust with national security.

As the Guardian revealed this week, Netanyahu has repeatedly talked up the Iranian threat in the past, making alarmist claims unsupported by Israel’s intelligence agencies. In this he was assisted by the former hardline Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who appeared to threaten Israel with annihilation.

There is bad blood between Netanyahu and Obama, two very different characters. One is a former special forces commando, the other an urbane intellectual. Maybe the Israeli leader figures he could be dealing with a like-minded Republican president such as Jeb Bush, if he can hold out until January 2017. Netanyahu knows that, however abrasive his exchanges with the Obama administration, the politically influential Jewish-American community will never allow any US government to cast Israel adrift.

And there may be an element of bargaining in Netanyahu’s stance. He knows he cannot scupper a deal with Iran if the US wants it, but he could toughen its terms. Whether accurate or not, leaked details of the negotiations implying a softening of the US position have alerted Congress to take a closer interest. “I think his [Netanyahu’s] voice will resonate more credibly if that’s the deal that’s in the making,” said Abraham Foxman, president of the Anti-Defamation League.

Netanyahu’s immediate objective may be to so undermine the credibility of any accord that the Republican-controlled Congress rejects it, and votes to impose additional sanctions on Iran. But that could backfire. In such an eventuality, Tehran officials say, Iran would accelerate its nuclear programme. Escalation would certainly follow. Iran is already considering buying advanced Russian anti-aircraft missile defences. It might even move to develop the very nuclear weapons capability that, it claims, it has so far eschewed.

This self-fulfilling disaster scenario could lead Israel to undertake the “extreme measures” Kerry cautioned against – namely air strikes, which have long been threatened and planned. Yet, given that the perceived threat posed by Iran is not going to suddenly disappear, could it be that war, with the US sucked in on Israel’s side, is what Netanyahu really wants?