Where does the Iranian nuclear deal leave Binyamin Netanyahu?

Guardian

First it was bad. Then it became very bad; soon, exceedingly bad. Finally, it was condemned as a "historic mistake" which made the world a "much more dangerous place".

The blunt rhetoric and raw anger of the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, over the deal struck between six western nations and Iran in Geneva last weekend reached its apotheosis in the hours following the pre-dawn signing of the accord.

This was not about the minutiae of corridor diplomacy in Geneva's Intercontinental hotel. For Netanyahu, the devil was not in the detail, as so many said in the aftermath; the devil was in the bigger picture – the potential unravelling of his core vector, the defining issue of his premiership.

Netanyahu has made it his life's mission to protect the Jewish state from potential annihilation by Iran's Islamic regime. He has cast the threat from Tehran in terms of the rise of nazism in the 1930s, and warned against a similar failure to stop it in its tracks by whatever means necessary.

And, somewhat to his credit, the world took notice. The Iranian nuclear threat became of paramount importance on the global stage. For a while, it looked like Israeli military action – with or without US involvement – was simply a matter of time.

But, now, most of the world wants to find a diplomatic resolution of the Iranian nuclear problem, compromising with Tehran in order to avoid another war. Where does this leave Bibi, as the Israeli prime minister is known, whose shouts of "no compromise" have been heard but not heeded?

"He was hurt politically by Geneva," said Gil Hoffman, political editor of the Jerusalem Post. "This was a man who was elected for being the great communicator, for his ability to convince the world about the most important issue it faces. And he failed. He's known as King Bibi, but he doesn't look much like a king now."

But Avraham Diskin, professor of political science at Hebrew University, said: "At the bottom line, Netanyahu is not fundamentally weakened. His basic stance still has widespread support in Israel."

The US and Europe are now striving to keep Netanyahu inside the tent. The British foreign secretary, William Hague, telephoned to urge him to play a "full and constructive part" in the next few months, and Simon Gass, the UK's chief negotiator at Geneva, was dispatched to reassure Israel over the deal. The French also sent a senior diplomat, Jacques Audibert.

And the US secretary of state, John Kerry, is to visit Jerusalem next week to discuss Iran and peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

According to Daniel Levy of the European Council for Foreign Relations, Netanyahu has three options: embrace, strike or undermine. "He could say Iran has capitulated and claim victory. He could bomb, which I've never believed he was going to do on his own. Or he can try to ensure this deal gets tripped up in the coming months – and I assume that's what we're going to see."

Having described the Geneva agreement as the "deal of the century" for Iran, Netanyahu could not now credibly claim it as a triumph for his position. And, despite his insistence that Israel is keeping the military option on the table, the chances of a unilateral strike while the major world powers are committed to pursuing a diplomatic resolution are negligible.

So engagement to try to shape – or undermine – the ongoing diplomatic process, while continuing to talk tough, is Netanyahu's only realistic option. That may not rule out continued covert operations against specific Iranian targets.

Public opinion in Israel appears to be solidly behind the prime minister. Polls in the aftermath of Geneva indicated around 58-60% believe the deal endangers their country, and 55-58% support Netanyahu's stance.

"Israelis are often at each other's throats, but when faced with an existential threat, they come together. The way Netanyahu has handled the Iran issue has pretty much across-the-board support," said Matt Rees, co-author of Psychobibi, an ebook about the prime minister.

Few alternative positions are articulated by Israeli politicians. "On the Iran question, it's not that Netanyahu is paramount. There simply is no other actor on the stage," said Amit Segal, chief political correspondent for Israel's Channel Two. The new leader of the opposition, elected to the helm of the Labour party this week, Isaac Herzog, accused Netanyahu of "creating unnecessary panic" over the Geneva deal, but few expect him to fundamentally challenge the prime minister's stance on Iran.

According to Levy, the lack of credible opposition on the issue gives Netanyahu "more space to 'act up' than if he was in a more competitive political environment".

Yet, despite popular support for Netanyahu over Iran, it is not the issue of greatest concern to most Israelis. The past few years have seen the economy emerge as the public's top priority, in a notable shift from security issues. Bibi has little to offer voters on their day-to-day concerns, but constant warnings of existential threats ensure his continued domestic hegemony.

However, doom-mongering is also likely to further test the patience of Israel's key ally, the US. Kerry is "increasingly disabusing himself of the notion that he has a political partner in Netanyahu", according to Levy.

"Netanyahu's repeated unreasonableness and repeated willingness to play US domestic politics has put him in a grey zone where there are voices in the US administration, which I imagine are gaining traction, who are saying we've simply got to work around this guy," he said. "It's a combination of substantive rigidity and the cavalier way in which he's willing to brazenly stick it to them in their own political backyard that is testing people's patience."

But, according to Hoffman, international isolation can have the effect of shoring up Netanyahu at home. "The people of Israel blame Obama, not Netanyahu. Obama is seen by Israelis as hostile, and therefore when Netanyahu stands up to him – especially on an issue seen as an existential threat – it goes down well," he said.

As well as trying to get Netanyahu onside over Iran, Kerry will also be trying to keep the peace talks with the Palestinians on track during his visit next week. Netanyahu, having failed to prevent a "bad deal" in Geneva, may be less willing than ever to compromise with the Palestinians.

"The Palestinian issue is the big casualty of this deal," Bruce Riedel, of the Brookings Institution in Washington, told the New York Times. "Now that they have an Iran deal, over the strong objections of Israel, it's going to be very hard to persuade Netanyahu to do something on the Palestinian front."

Others say there was no sign of the talks leading anywhere anyway. "To suggest that this could derail [the process] does an injustice to just how thoroughly stuck it is anyway," said Levy.

Netanyahu – who "only sees threats, never opportunities" – has had his core political project subverted by the Geneva process, he added. "What does his premiership become now? Does it really just become about outlasting [David] Ben-Gurion [Israel's first prime minister, who spent more than 12 years in office]? Does longevity make up for any ground-breaking substance?"

According to Rees, Netanyahu's faith in his historic role will not falter. "He sees himself as a great strategic thinker. He believes very firmly that not even the US can be the guardians of Israel's security. Isolation only confirms his deepest psychological traits – it doesn't make a crisis for him but makes him stronger."