The issue of whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s March 3 speech to Congress halted, or at the least delayed, Iran’s nuclear program reminds me of something said by Thomas Pickering, the senior US diplomat who served as undersecretary of state during the Bill Clinton administration and before that as ambassador to the United Nations, Russia, India and Israel. “The problem with you Israelis,” he told me sarcastically, “is that you lack sensitivity to nuance.” He was referring to the harsh criticism that senior members of the US administration, himself included, had leveled against the settlement enterprise through diplomatic channels and occasionally in public.

Any other country — or one might say, any “normal” country with a population of about 8 million — would not dare to provoke the president of a superpower with more than 320 million people. A reasonable leader of a country whose army is equipped with American weapons and whose diplomacy relies on the veto power of the United States would never wager his free pass to the White House. On the other hand, considering the polling results shortly before the prime minister's trip to Washington, it would appear as if the people of Israel had heard only a feeble echo of the shrill cries in opposition to the speech coming from the White House, Democratic Party representatives in Congress and broad swathes of the American Jewish community. Here are a few of the "nuances" that got lost in the commotion surrounding the speech.

First, when the prime minister of Israel says that it would be better if the negotiations between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1) end in failure, instead of with the signing of the “very bad agreement” that the parties are supposedly assembling, he is actually helping Iranian President Hassan Rouhani sell the agreement in Iran. In the zero-sum game being played between Israel and Iran, conservative opponents of the agreement in Tehran would have a harder time accepting a deal praised by Israel than one that Netanyahu argues is a bad deal. According to Netanyahu’s own logic, what is bad for Israel is good for Iran and vice versa.

Second, let us assume for a moment that the Democratic Party will forgive Netanyahu for humiliating President Barack Obama and will vote with the Republicans for additional sanctions against Iran. Even then, who can ensure that other nations in the negotiations will follow the United States' lead?