Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu has warned the US against agreeing to a nuclear deal with Iran and working with a country "deeply rooted in militant Islam", saying Tehran "will always be an enemy of America".
“If the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran, that deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons - it will all but guarantee that Iran will get those nuclear weapons - lots of them,” he said.
In the most anticipated speech to the US Congress by a foreign leader in years, Mr Netanyahu said Iran’s regime was “as radical as ever”, and could not be trusted, and that the deal being worked out with the US would not block Iran’s “ way to a bomb”.
“We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror,” he said.
Earlier, Mr Netanyahu had entered the chamber to a cacophony of cheers and applause, shaking hands with dozens of lawmakers, including House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, before taking to a podium and telling lawmakers he was deeply humbled.
At the start of the speech, he sought to defuse the intense politicisation of his appearance, which has hardened divisions between Republicans and Democrats over the White House’s approach to Iran’s attempts to obtain nuclear weapons.
He said he was grateful to Mr Obama for his public and private support of Israel, including US military assistance and contributions to Israel's Iron Dome anti-missile system.
“I regret that some see my appearance here as political,” Mr Netanyahu said. “I know that no matter which side of the aisle you sit on, you stand with Israel.”
The speech escalated Mr Netanyahu’s campaign against Mr Obama’s Iran diplomacy, putting unprecedented stress on the two leaders’ already strained ties.
Although given the cold shoulder by the US administration, Mr Netanyahu had offered an olive branch, saying he meant no disrespect to Mr Obama by accepting an invitation to speak to US lawmakers from the president’s rival Republicans.
Democrats sit out
As many as 60 of the 232 members of Congress from Obama's Democratic Party sat out the address to protest what they see as a politicisation of Israeli security, an issue on which Congress is usually united.
The absence of so many lawmakers could raise political heat on Mr Netanyahu at home, two weeks before Israel’s general election. Many Israelis are wary of estrangement from a US ally that provides their country with wide-ranging military and diplomatic support.
Mr Boehner, whose unilateral invitation to Mr Netanyahu triggered the diplomatic storm, said he expected a capacity crowd to hear the speech and played down any divisions.
Mr Netanyahu, a right-wing politician who has played up his security credentials ahead of a closely contested March 17th election in Israel, has denied his speech would have any design other than national survival.
Mr Netanyahu wants the Iranians stripped of nuclear projects that might be used to build a bomb - something Tehran insists it does not want. Washington deems the Israeli government's demand as unrealistic.
Under a 2013 interim deal, the US and five other countries agreed in principle to let Iran maintain limited uranium enrichment technologies. US National Security Adviser Susan Rice had argued that this commitment could not be undone.
Obama statement
Speaking before Mr Netanyahu's speech, US president Barack Obama said Iran must commit to a verifiable freeze of at least 10 years on sensitive nuclear activity for a landmark atomic deal to be reached, but the odds are still against sealing a final agreement.
Interviewed at the White House, Mr Obama moved to calm tensions over Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu's planned speech to Congress today opposing the Iran deal, saying it was a distraction that would not be "permanently destructive" to US-Israeli ties.
He strongly criticised Mr Netanyahu’s stance and stressed there was a “substantial disagreement” between them over how to achieve their shared goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Talks between major powers and Iran to restrict Tehran’s nuclear capabilities in exchange for an easing of sanctions have reached a critical stage ahead of the end of March deadline for a framework deal and the June 30th deadline for a final agreement.
Mr Obama’s comment about the time frame for a freeze represents one of the US government’s strongest signals yet of its red line for a successful deal.
“If, in fact, Iran is willing to agree to double-digit years of keeping their programme where it is right now and, in fact, rolling back elements of it that currently exist . . . if we’ve got that, and we’ve got a way of verifying that, there’s no other steps we can take that would give us such assurance that they don’t have a nuclear weapon,” he said.
The US goal is to make sure “there’s at least a year between us seeing them try to get a nuclear weapon and them actually being able to obtain one,” Mr Obama said in the interview, carefully timed by the White House a day ahead of Mr Netanyahu’s controversial speech to the US Congress.
Mr Obama’s robust defence of a possible deal with Iran came as his administration faces criticism from some quarters that it is too eager to complete a deal, at the risk of allowing Iran to eventually become a nuclear state.
The White House last week denied a report that the United States and Iran were exploring a possible 10-year deal that would initially freeze Iran's nuclear programme but gradually allow it to increase activities that could enable it to produce nuclear arms in the last years of the agreement.
In the interview, Mr Obama again criticised a plan by Republicans and some Democrats in the US Senate to impose additional sanctions on Iran if no deal is reached by June 30th, saying it could undermine the delicate talks.
“I’m less concerned, frankly, with prime minister Netanyahu’s commentary than I’m with Congress taking actions that might undermine the talks before they’re completed.”
Despite recent progress in the talks, Mr Obama suggested there had been little change in his assessment that the negotiations have less than a 50 per cent chance of success.
“I would say that it is probably still more likely than not that Iran doesn’t get to “yes”, but I think that, in fairness to them, they have been serious negotiators and they’ve got their own politics inside of Iran. It is more likely that we could get a deal now than perhaps three or five months ago,” he said.
An Iran nuclear deal would be a potential signature achievement for Mr Obama, whose foreign policy legacy is mixed, with just two years left in office.
Israel fears that Mr Obama’s Iran diplomacy will still allow Iran to develop an atom bomb. Tehran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons.
Mr Netanyahu has spoken scathingly about a possible deal, saying negotiators appear to have given up on a pledge to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He says a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an existential threat to the Jewish state.
In a speech on Monday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), the largest US pro-Israel lobby, Mr Netanyahu again warned that a nuclear deal could threaten Israel's survival while insisting the US-Israeli relationship was "stronger than ever."
‘Not personal’
Mr Obama said the rift with Mr Netanyahu, with whom he has already had frosty ties, was not personal and that he would meet the Israeli leader again if he wins Israel’s March 17th election. In a nod to Israeli concerns, he acknowledged that Iran’s government had a history of “anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statements”.
But he reiterated the administration’s criticism of Mr Netanyahu’s address and said the Israeli leader had been wrong before, with his opposition to a 2013 interim deal with Iran.
“Netanyahu made all sorts of claims. This was going to be a terrible deal. This was going to result in Iran getting $50 billion worth of relief. Iran would not abide by the agreement. None of that has come true.
“It has turned out that, in fact, during this period we’ve seen Iran not advance its programme. In many ways, it’s rolled back elements of its programme.”
Mr Obama said that a key doubt was whether Iran would agree to rigorous inspection demands and the low levels of uranium enrichment capability they would have to maintain.
“But if they do agree to it, it would be far more effective in controlling their nuclear programme than any military action we could take, any military action Israel could take and far more effective than sanctions will be,” he said.