Did Netanyahu make the case? Updated 2106 GMT (0506 HKT) March 3, 2015 Netanyahu: Iran could get the bomb by keeping the deal 03:20 (CNN)CNN Opinion asked a range of contributors to assess the impact of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress. The opinions expressed in these commentaries are theirs. Ana Navarro: Obama administration fumbled The Obama administration effectively has had a six-week public tantrum as it tried to stop Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from addressing a joint meeting of Congress. Now we know why. Netanyahu destroyed the administration's argument in favor of signing a nuclear deal with Iran. We've continuously heard from the Obama administration that no deal is better than a bad deal. Anyone watching Netanyahu's speech with even the slightest objectivity was, at the very least, left questioning whether this is that bad deal. Ana Navarro The Obama White House fumbled this one badly. By fighting this speech so long, so hard and so publicly, the White House elevated its profile. With some regularity, foreign leaders are invited to address Congress. Most of the time, the majority of us don't pay much attention. This time was different. I suspect that many Americans, like me, were glued to the TV. What I heard Netanyahu say greatly worried me. I have a feeling I'm not alone. Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist and commentator, was national Hispanic campaign chairwoman for John McCain in 2008 and national Hispanic co-chair for Jon Huntsman's 2012 campaign. Follow her on Twitter @ananavarro. Julian Zelizer: The speech backfired Tuesday's speech to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is here to warn against a deal with Iran just two weeks before the Israeli elections, clearly backfired if the goal was to shore up political support for Israel. Since the nation was founded in 1948, one of the biggest political virtues for champions of Israel within the United States has been the way in which support has cut across partisan lines. Even after what has taken place in recent months, some of the most contentious in U.S.-Israeli relations, this still remains true. Julian Zelizer But Tuesday's speech strains that bipartisan support more than almost anything else that has happened in recent years. Fifty-five members of Congress boycotted the speech, which some have dismissed as an election stunt and others call a direct slam against President Barack Obama as his administration tries to work out an agreement over nuclear weapons with Iran. Worst of all for Israel, the speech is creating the strong impression that there is now a partisan alliance between the GOP and the Israeli leadership. In the current age when partisan polarization is so strong on Capitol Hill, this perception could become devastating. According to a recent Pew poll, 53% of Americans reported positive views of Netanyahu, with 21% being unfavorable. Only 28% of Democrats saw him favorably, with 35% registering unfavorable ratings. What comes next will be important. It is clear that there is growing pressure within Israel for a different kind of political posture and different political leaders. As Jonathan Alter has recounted in a fascinating piece for The Daily Beast, there are many figures, including those on the Israeli right, who are unhappy with Netanyahu's brazen moves. The good news for Israel here in the United States is that American Jews still remain overwhelmingly Democratic and they are reluctant to switch over to the GOP (despite Republicans having courted their vote for decades). American Jews remain pretty liberal on most domestic issues. This means that as Republicans become more ardent in their support for Israel, the Democratic Party is not likely to switch its basic position on this alliance dramatically. The biggest question will be whether Netanyahu's critics in Israel can build the kind of coalition that would challenge the Prime Minister, or create sufficient pressure on him to change his tactics, and revitalize the bipartisan foundation of support the nation has enjoyed in the United States for decades. Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University and a New America fellow. He is the author of the new book "The Fierce Urgency of Now: Lyndon Johnson, Congress and the Battle for the Great Society." Fareed Zakaria: A brilliant speech, but no solution? This was a very good speech from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's perspective. It was brilliantly written, and it was brilliantly delivered. It combined intelligence with emotional appeal, and he tied it very powerfully to a defense of the existence of the Jewish people. So I found it very moving. But the problem is the speech didn't provide us with a sense of an alternative to a deal. The other countries that have signed on to the negotiations -- Russia and China, for example -- want a deal. Fareed Zakaria And the current sanctions are going to get very leaky soon. In fact, under sanctions, Iran has been able to build about 19,000 centrifuges. So imagine the next 10 years with no deal -- where will Iran be? I would imagine that with no deal, Iran would get much closer to where Netanyahu doesn't want it to be. Fareed Zakaria is the host of CNN's "Global Public Square." Tom Z. Collina: Netanyahu has a fantasy, not a plan Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Congress on Tuesday that the emerging nuclear deal would "pave Iran's path to the bomb" by allowing Iran even a limited, transparent nuclear energy program. But he failed to offer a realistic alternative. Imposing unrealistic demands on the talks could blow up the best chance in decades to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. Many share Netanyahu's concerns and would rather completely eliminate Iran's enrichment capability. But as President Barack Obama said Monday, "There's no expert on Iran or nuclear proliferation around the world that seriously thinks that Iran is going to respond to additional sanctions by eliminating its nuclear program." In this context, Netanyahu's plan to walk away from this deal and try to get a better one is no plan at all. It is a fantasy, and it's a dangerous one because it would sacrifice a good deal for one that does not exist. As national security adviser Susan Rice said Monday, "We cannot let a totally unachievable ideal stand in the way of a good deal." So let's be realistic. If the Iran talks fall apart, we can expect new U.S. sanctions on Iran, and Iran would accelerate its nuclear program. The risk of U.S. military action would increase, adding fuel to the fire in the Middle East. The United States, Israel and the world would be much better off with a good deal that prevents an Iranian nuclear bomb. This is a historic opportunity, and we must not waste it. Tom Z. Collina is the director of policy at Ploughshares Fund, a global peace and security foundation. Danielle Pletka: Obama's biggest problem is not Netanyahu What an odd sight -- the Prime Minister of the state of Israel striding into the House chamber to address a joint meeting of Congress for all the world looking more popular than the President of the United States. Not a page from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but rather the fine PR work of a White House that ought to know better. Perhaps House Speaker John Boehner should not have invited Benjamin Netanyahu to speak. Perhaps Netanyahu should have declined. But in the face of those two realities, the White House, far from ignoring the event, went berserk. Sunday shows. AIPAC. Interviews with the President. Protests. Background sniping. In so doing, they only demeaned themselves and blew L'Affaire Bibi into the spotlight. Danielle Pletka And what of the speech itself? It was finely executed, a litany of Iran's depredations, and a clear explanation of the perils of a deal that, to paraphrase Netanyahu, paves the way to an Iranian nuclear weapon. Ironically, the terms of the deal are ones that even Obama would once have opposed: Keeping uranium enrichment capacity; keeping a heavy water reactor; writing off military dimensions of the program; a 10- to 15-year sunset. ... But now the White House insists that this deal is the only way to avoid war. Obama's biggest problem is not Israel's Prime Minister -- it is his own willingness to concede every point to skilled Iranian negotiators. In seeking to defend Iran from criticism, and desperately trying to close a flawed deal, the President has been at the heart of all the problems with Congress, the Gulf and Israel. All Netanyahu did was notice. Danielle Pletka is senior vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Reuven Y. Hazan: The good and bad Netanyahu In his speech before Congress, we saw both the good and the bad in Netanyahu. The good is his eloquent ability to make the case against Iran. The bad is his tunnel vision, almost messianic in nature, that he must save Israel. His eloquence is important in an era of personalized leadership, but it is superficial. His singular focus on Iran, and his avoidance, even dismissal, of the domestic agenda in Israel only two weeks before a general election is a mistake. Reuven Y. Hazan Most Israelis no longer want to be guided by fear when they cast their vote. Most Israelis want to be able to hold their leaders accountable for election promises that they can deliver.