Although the Nov. 24 deal regarding Iran’s nuclear program failed to satisfy the hopes of everyone involved in the negotiations, it is by all means a favorable middle-ground given the leverage the international community has due to the most recent crippling sanctions against the Iranians. 

This deal eliminates Iran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon in the short term by eradicating Iran’s uranium, which is 20 percent enriched, freezes Iran’s ability to enrich high-grade uranium, provides a legal basis for invasive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency and creates a definite timetable for a permanent solution to the timeworn issue of Iran’s nuclear program.

And to top it all off for the anti-nuclear Iran advocates, all of the above stipulations were reached without a total end to the economic sanctions that are responsible for Iran’s willingness to negotiate.

Despite this, hardliners such as the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, expressed vehement disapproval of the provisions outlined in this short-term agreement.

Netanyahu, who has described the new and more progressive Iranian Prime Minister Hassan Rouhani as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” called for the complete annihilation of Iran’s nuclear technology in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, even if it is used for peaceful purposes such as medicine or power.

Historically, Iran-Israel relations have been less than friendly. Iran’s former Prime Minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been outspoken in his call for the destruction of the Jewish state as well as his denial of the Holocaust.

But it is important to note that Rouhani is radically different from his predecessor. Rouhani effectively ended the international diplomatic deadlock that characterized Iran’s foreign policy (or lack thereof) since 1979.

Israel’s rejection of the latest nuclear deal in pursuit of total Iranian proliferation is strikingly unrealistic, lacks any trace of empathy and is becoming burdensome foreign policy stance to bear on the part of its allies, particularly the United States. 

Iran’s leaders have repeatedly stated that they are not in the business of trying to procure a nuclear weapon. But even if they were, there is an argument for them to be able to do so: Iran, like Israel, is an ethnic minority surrounded by nations that can reasonably be considered to be a threat; moreover, how can Israel, a country subject to numerous resolutions by the U.N. for war crimes against Palestine, and a possessor of nuclear weapons, claim that Iran has no right to produce them?

Despite this, the U.S. and the rest of the international community are overwhelmingly in favor of a non-nuclear Iran. After all, what good is there in having more highly dangerous weapons in a relatively unstable region?

But although the alliance in foreign policy preference between the U.S. and Israel has been tightly knit for centuries, the issue of Iran’s nuclear program may lead to its unraveling a situation that is unfavorable for both parties, particularly Israel. 

Americans, their leaders and even American Jews are in favor of a nuclear deal with Iran, much to the dismay of Netanyahu.

Fifty-six percent of Americans support a nuclear deal with Iran, according to the latest CNNpoll. President Barack Obama said, “For the first time in a decade, we’ve halted the progress on Iran’s nuclear program,” and that the deal was a result of “clear-eyed, principled diplomacy,” The New York Times reported.

Unlike Obama, Netanyahu characterized the deal as a “historic mistake,” and said, “Israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.” He moved on to state that relations between Israel and Washington are “under severe strain.”

A poll of American Jews by the Anti-Defamation League revealed that although 76 percent considered Israel a “strong ally,” 48 percent were in favor of neutrality whereas 40 percent advocated American support for Israel, should Israel attack Iran. 

A divide such as this between Americans and Israelis regarding key policy issues is unprecedented and could be a sign of greater disagreements to come. Disagreements such as these are not in the best interest of any party.