On July 16 in Al-Monitor, I referred briefly to the unusual speed with which the diplomatic-security cabinet was convened for a crucial meeting about Israeli policy on the nuclear deal between Iran and world powers. Within a few hours, in the blink of an eye after the signing ceremony in Vienna, Israeli ministers managed to study the hundreds of articles in the agreement, debate their merit in detail and formulate a position against the agreement, determining that Israel “is not bound by it.” Apparently, none of the ministers asked for time to delve into the agreement or to consult with experts who don’t think the agreement is so bad. As Mazal Mualem noted in Al-Monitor, the establishment silenced anyone who strayed from the government's talking points.

As far as we know, not a single minister wondered whether it might be ridiculous for a small country like Israel to “reject” an agreement signed by the world’s major powers. The cabinet did not examine Israel’s options other than to try to take the train back to its point of departure after it had already reached its final destination. They did not ask whether a possible decision by the US Congress to reject the agreement would actually force Russia, China and the European Union to leave the sanctions on Iran in place. Not to mention that the slim chance of such an American decision is currently even slimmer, now that the UN Security Council has unanimously approved the agreement. All the members of the cabinet raised their hand in favor of going into battle with no prospect of winning. None of the cabinet ministers questioned the decision.

The State Comptroller’s report on Israel’s natural gas reserves (including the issue of negotiations over gas distribution and benefits), published July 20, indicates that the political echelon’s handling of the Iran issue is not unusual. Comptroller Joseph Shapira determined that flawed conduct by all the government agencies involved had led to the creation of a gas monopoly. The comptroller slammed the absence of a comprehensive government policy, lack of effective action, slow response to developments, lack of cooperation and faulty coordination among the various elements involved in negotiations between the state and the gas companies regarding regulation and market structure. The inter-ministerial work on the gas issue was not formally anchored in any government decision, nor were the standing, authority, goals, role of partners and their responsibilities or the timetable for results defined in advance.

“In dealing with the largest and most precious natural resource discovered since the establishment of the state, the organs of government must act with reverence and examine in-depth both the short-term impact and certainly the long-term implications of their decisions and deeds,” the comptroller wrote. Shapira added, “I am convinced that all the knowledgeable and expert elements in the executive arm of government will find the right way to safeguard the public interest in the best possible manner.” If only he were right. According to commentary in financial daily The Marker, “The government managed to contain itself for two whole hours before dumping the gas market regulation report compiled by the State Comptroller into the trash can.”