Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Congress last week and argued that the deal that the P5+1—United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France plus Germany—are pursuing with the Iranian government to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons is too weak. 

The speech was shrouded in controversy before it even began, with supporters of President Obama arguing that the invitation to speak before Congress, without so much as consulting the President  beforehand, is inappropriate and could threaten the strong relationship that the two countries have enjoyed for decades. Many also noted that Israeli elections are less than a month away and argued that his appearance would simply amount to a stump speech. 

While complaints regarding the inappropriate nature of the speech were not unfounded, matters of national security like the existential threat a nuclear Iran poses to Israel and the rest of the world supersede those qualms. If the Israeli leader could provide salient information, which would help in the formation of a better deal, then it is worth enduring a public relations scandal to get the message across. Therefore, Netanyahu could have silenced his critics by offering a rational retort to the plan on the table. 

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece published prior to the speech, Alan Dershowitz claimed that Netanyahu had the right to lecture that Congress on the issue and Congress had the obligation to listen to him because he “probably knows more about this issue than any world leader.…It threatens the very existence of the nation state of the Jewish people.” 

The content of the speech proved this claim to be faulty on two fronts. First, while it is true that the state of Israel likely has the most at stake in this deal given the continued threats of annihilation coming from the Iranian government, the salient point that Netanyahu was arguing had to do with the negotiations between the U.S. and Iran. If the Prime Minister’s sole purpose was to remind us that Iran poses a tremendous threat to Israel and the rest of the world, the speech would have been even more pointless because he would simply be reiterating what everyone already believes. The threat Iran poses to Israel make his opinions relevant, but he is not, as his defenders claim, in a unique position to be commenting on the negotiations. Still, throughout the speech, Netanyahu continuously insisted that the U.S. abandon the concessions they plan to make in the deal in pursuit of a “better deal.” Specifically, he mentioned the fact that while restrictions will be imposed on the nuclear program, none of the nuclear infrastructure will be demolished, and the deal will expire after a decade due to a sunset provision. However, he never described what his idea of a better deal would look like. If he is unable to provide a useful alternative to what the P5+1 is pursuing, it once again calls into question whether Netanyahu’s intentions were really to use his expertise to enlighten the American government, as Dershowitz suggests.

Second, many of Netanyahu’s claims regarding the aforementioned concessions and the overall state of Iran’s nuclear apparatus contradicted what those in the intelligence community of the U.S. and Israel have said about the issue. Gary Sick, a senior researcher at Columbia University’s Middle East Institute who has served on the U.S. National Security Council under three presidents, published a blog arguing that Netanyahu misrepresented how close Iran is to attaining weapons by failing to mention that they have reduced their accumulation of enriched uranium and that the deal will require Iran to almost entirely cease the production of plutonium at their heavy water reactor in Arak. According to a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran neutralized eighty percent of its enriched uranium gas as a part of an interim deal last year.

But perhaps the most egregious example of Netanyahu’s dishonesty came in his contention that the deal would operate in a 10-year window and would cease to have any effect on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure past that point. He argued that the so-called “sunset provision” would allow Iran to continue its pursuit of nuclear weapons completely unimpeded once the ten years are up. This piece of evidence was perhaps Netanyahu’s strongest in supporting his contention that the deal the U.S. and others in the international community are pursuing will “pave the way” to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. However, it is completely untrue. In reality, as the White House has clearly stated and as National Security Advisor Susan Rice reiterated at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference the day before Netanyahu’s speech, inspections will continue beyond ten years. As part of the deal, Iran will be required to allow inspectors access to all nuclear facilities —both declared and undeclared—even after the ten years is up. There is no limit to how long Iran will have to allow these inspections to take place. Although the restrictions will be lifted, it is still blatantly dishonest to suggest that the sunset provision will free Iran to pursue its nuclear ambitions unimpeded. 

Not only is the content of Netanyahu’s argument disproven by American experts, it runs counter to what those in the Israeli intelligence community believe about the Iranian case. Outspoken ex-Mossad Chief Meir Dagan told the Jerusalem Post that Netanyahu’s assertion that Iran was less than a year away from producing nuclear weapons was inaccurate. It is not the first time that Netanyahu has contradicted the Israeli government’s own intelligence agency. Just last week, a Mossad cable produced a month after the Prime Minister’s famous speech on the floor of the U.N. in which he used a cartoon of a bomb to represent—or rather, misrepresent—how close Iran was to obtaining nuclear weapons was leaked. The report stated that Iran was “not performing the activity necessary to produce nuclear weapons.” 

All of this is not to say that Iran’s nuclear program is not an issue, but the fact that Netanyahu continuously engaged in hyperbole in his speech renders his main argument problematic. Dershowitz may be correct in asserting that Netanyahu is privy to some esoteric information regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities. However, it is clear that his goal was not to present it in an honest manner. 

Therefore we can deduce that Netanyahu’s true intentions were not to enlighten Congress, as his defenders suggest, but rather to make a speech that presents the Iranian threat as being greater than it actually is and present himself in a hawkish manner. This will undoubtedly endear him to many Israeli voters who are rightfully terrified of their tyrannical neighbor. It is therefore not surprising that Netanyahu never provided any details regarding what a “much better deal” would look like. After all, campaign speeches are known for elaborate rhetoric and a lack of specific solutions to problems. Although Prime Minister Netanyahu was undoubtedly pleased by the grand reception and frequent bouts of applause that greeted him in Washington, he knew that his true audience was back home.