Netanyahu as a destabilizing factor in the internal politics of the United States

The presence of the Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu in the United States creates tensions in the internal politics of the American country, but also increases the deep tension between the executives of the two countries. The invitation to speak at the Congress leaders of Tel Aviv has been done by the Republican Party, which holds the majority in both houses of parliament, and has an important symbolic meaning, since Netanyahu will make his speech before a joint session of the two rooms for the third time, equaling the record of Winston Churchill. The intention seems to be to emphasize that the harmony between the Israeli government and the parliament the US is a factor that US foreign policy can not be taken into account, even at the cost of changing the address imprinted by Obama. In addition to the candidate Netanyahu it is an election advert important, in view of the legislative election date to be held shortly. Just with the outcome of this election, President Obama will have to adjust its relations with Israel: a victory for the political party that is currently in government in Tel Aviv, would mean the impossibility of an agreement for the formation of a Palestinian state and a major hindrance in the negotiation of a nuclear Iran, conversely a victory of the opposition would open up significant possibilities to the birth of the two states and could also open up a period of detente with Iran. We understand that these are two antithetical visions, which will still have to adjust to the new US president, to be elected in 2016. Currently, however, the battle is all internal to the United States, with Obama who wants to get absolutely the final definition on the use of 'Nuclear energy in Iran, a topic that remains at the heart of the debate of American foreign policy, with obvious repercussions inside. The Republican party opposing this goal not trusting the availability of Tehran and pushing for new sanctions, in complete agreement with Netanyahu, while Obama has already warned of its total unwillingness to implement these sanctions, which considers preventive, not to adversely affect the ' outcome of the negotiations. Along the same line of reading, a broader interpretation, compared to a formal apology with which Obama has refused to see Netanyahu, justifying the fact they do not want to influence the election campaign, the canceled meeting between the two leaders is the expression of the will of not risking the creation of opportunities for its disagreement with Iran in this delicate stage of negotiations. Moreover, the position of the Israeli leader is very clear: after repeatedly threatened to attack Iran, has clearly expressed its opinion on the current negotiations, calling it a postponement of the problem. The current executive of Tel Aviv considers the possession of nuclear technology by Iran, a weapon of mass destruction aimed at Israel and the terms of the agreement that are emerging, which provide for the use of energy atomic energy for civilian purposes in Tehran, in exchange for a limitation to the enrichment of uranium for a few years (ten or twenty), might agree with him, even if only by assuming a failure to detente in the long run. These fears are shared by the US Republican Party, which still sees Iran as an enemy, despite the collaboration that has developed, albeit informally, between Washington and Tehran in the fight against the caliphate. The tensions between the two sides US policies, are likely to block even more American foreign policy, which, because of indecision Obama, has suffered significant setbacks with regard to its prestige, but that conflicted with the attitude of the Republicans now in danger paralysis. The future of US foreign policy could be a number of equal and opposite forces, capable of making it impossible for a certain line, such as to compel the United States to a policy characterized by a short-term action, coasting, making it less certain scenario Global. Perhaps it will be necessary to American country a less cautious and more expert in the difficult art of diplomacy, as Hillary Clinton might be.