For Israel, the Iran deal is reminiscent of attempts to curb North Korea's nuclear programme

In a cabinet meeting at the start of this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played a short video. It was of the former American President Bill Clinton, welcoming a nuclear deal with North Korea way back in 1994.

It was reminiscent of President Obama's speech at the White House hailing the outline agreement with Iran back in April.

It was, the former president said, "a good deal for the United States and the world". Mr Clinton went on to promise that US and international inspectors would "carefully monitor" North Korea to make sure it keeps its commitments.

Well that didn't turn out so well. North Korea is now a nuclear power and Mr Netanyahu's belief is that the deal with Iran will have exactly the same result.

No-one in his government will be surprised that the deal has been made.The Israelis have been resigned to its arrival ever since the outline agreement was reached. They have been left to new ways to condemn it. This morning, Israel's deputy foreign minister described it as a "historic surrender".

The Israeli government thinks that there is something fundamentally wrong-headed about trying to negotiate anything with the Iranian regime on the nuclear issue. The Iranians are so committed to getting the bomb, Israel says, that it will commit any deceit, go back on any bargain, in order to to achieve that aim.

Mr Netanyahu has been saying again and again that "no deal is better than a bad deal". It has not always been clear what the Israeli prime minister thinks a good deal would be. He would like to see Iran’s nuclear programme completely dismantled.

But as the P5+1 diplomats would tell him, that is something the Iranians will not agree to. What’s more, they say, an Iran with a much reduced stockpile of enriched uranium, a much smaller number of centrifuges, together with a tough inspections process, is a much safer state of affairs than the one that exists right now.

Israel says it will, if it comes to it, take unilateral military action if it thinks that Iran is about to get the bomb.

Conventional wisdom has it that a decisive strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure is beyond Israel's capability. That might well be true. But history has shown that when it thinks it is under threat, Israel tends to act.

The deal, said Israel’s defence minister, might force Israel to "defend itself, by itself".