Netanyahu Spoke Before Congress Today

[sunmaster14]

I was following the run-up to the speech for some weeks in the Times of Israel. Consensus is that the visit is mainly for electoral purposes, and the timing so close to elections is criticized as gross posturing, aided by the willing chorus in the Republican Party, who can be counted on for this type of empty, worthless showmanship.

I have been following this stuff closely for a while too, as well as Netanyahu's career for over 25 years, and my considered opinion is that the accusations of political posturing by Netanyahu is mostly political posturing by his detractors and opponents. Netanyahu may have a bit of a messiah complex in pursuit of his main mission for the last 25 years, i.e. to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Islamic world, but that doesn't mean he's doing it for selfish reasons, nor that he's wrong.

The split on the ToI is between those who realize it's bomb Iran every two years or make a deal, and those who hold out for a perfect world (Netanyahu 'beliebers"), just like here.

It's a false choice. The economic sanctions were wreaking havoc in Iran and brought Iran to the table. Now, with the price of oil at $50/bbl instead of $100/bbl, Iran is even more vulnerable to sanctions. Why release the pressure for the sake of a deal that Iran probably would have been happy with even before the sanctions were implemented?

If there is any consolation to a nuclear Iran, it is the ensuing complete reliance of Sunni states in the region on US and Israeli dissuasive military power. This gives leverage to stop or slow whatever Islamic-inspired nightmare policy it is they are practicing at a given moment. That is, until they, too, decide to build nukes.

Even without nuclear weapons, Iran is a big enough threat to force many of the Sunni states into a secret alliance with Israel and the US. Nuclear weapons would just give Iran virtual immunity to do whatever it wants in the region.

Those criticizing the US administration on this one have entirely forgotten that the US has absolutely no monopoly on any of the things Iran needs to build nuclear weapons, but does have strategic interest in keeping what goes on as visible and transparent as possible.

The rest of the world was already on board with tough sanctions. It was Obama's decision to loosen those in exchange for an interim deal and talks. I think Obama cares more about the appearance of doing something about Iran's nuclear ambitions than about actually doing something about Iran's nuclear ambitions. He has always been the "kick the can" man, at least on foreign policy issues, which interest him very little.

Leaving the table in a huff is fun, and Reps like to behave in that 'manly' table-slamming way, but that accomplishes nothing, like any other childish tantrum.

Once again, this is a false choice. You don't leave the table. You demand a better deal, using economic sanctions as the stick (or, from another perspective, the removal of economic sanctions as the carrot).

Meanwhile, it's not the nukes, it's the crazy nutjob ideology of Islam that is the threat.

It's the combination which strikes me as an unacceptable risk. There's really not much we can do about the crazy nutjob ideology of Islam. It's not going away for many generations, at best. There is something we can do about keeping nuclear weapons out of their hands though, and it seems to me that we should be doing more than we are.

I think it's kind of interesting that some of the people here who freak out about climate change and demand that we take many drastic and desperate measures to have a small chance of mitigating any projected global warming, are sort of like "Meh, so a terrorist, theocratic, Islamic regime, whose leaders hold crazy "end-times" beliefs, gets nuclear weapons. Whatchya going to do?"

 

[ponderingturtle]

I have been following this stuff closely for a while too, as well as Netanyahu's career for over 25 years, and my considered opinion is that the accusations of political posturing by Netanyahu is mostly political posturing by his detractors and opponents. Netanyahu may have a bit of a messiah complex in pursuit of his main mission for the last 25 years, i.e. to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Islamic world, but that doesn't mean he's doing it for selfish reasons, nor that he's wrong.



It's a false choice. The economic sanctions were wreaking havoc in Iran and brought Iran to the table. Now, with the price of oil at $50/bbl instead of $100/bbl, Iran is even more vulnerable to sanctions. Why release the pressure for the sake of a deal that Iran probably would have been happy with even before the sanctions were implemented?



Even without nuclear weapons, Iran is a big enough threat to force many of the Sunni states into a secret alliance with Israel and the US. Nuclear weapons would just give Iran virtual immunity to do whatever it wants in the region.

So we should stop bombing ISIS and start arming them so they can have a proxy war with Iran? I am pretty sure that would be the most Reagan solution.

 

[Craig B]

Actually it's what the crazy Islamists have led us to believe.

They can make you believe that their own ideology is nuts, but they are hardly able to prescribe the ideology of their many Muslim enemies.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

I have been following this stuff closely for a while too, as well as Netanyahu's career for over 25 years, and my considered opinion is that the accusations of political posturing by Netanyahu is mostly political posturing by his detractors and opponents. Netanyahu may have a bit of a messiah complex in pursuit of his main mission for the last 25 years, i.e. to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Islamic world, but that doesn't mean he's doing it for selfish reasons, nor that he's wrong.

His convictions are real, I'll agree with you on that. The choice and timing of venue for the speech do not advance his cause, however. It is not enough to be right, you need to build bridges, not burn them with fanfare.

It's a false choice. The economic sanctions were wreaking havoc in Iran and brought Iran to the table. Now, with the price of oil at $50/bbl instead of $100/bbl, Iran is even more vulnerable to sanctions. Why release the pressure for the sake of a deal that Iran probably would have been happy with even before the sanctions were implemented?

Tactically I agree that Iran has shifted in response to events. I do not see a strategic shift, and the annihilate-Israel rhetoric continues.

Even without nuclear weapons, Iran is a big enough threat to force many of the Sunni states into a secret alliance with Israel and the US. Nuclear weapons would just give Iran virtual immunity to do whatever it wants in the region.

Yes, already the case. Not sure it is good for us right now. See recent reports of widespread belief in Egypt, for example, that the US is behind ISIS (and not as simple prior cause of events, but as direct sponsor). I suggested this as an temporary advantage, but with high costs.

The rest of the world was already on board with tough sanctions. It was Obama's decision to loosen those in exchange for an interim deal and talks. I think Obama cares more about the appearance of doing something about Iran's nuclear ambitions than about actually doing something about Iran's nuclear ambitions. He has always been the "kick the can" man, at least on foreign policy issues, which interest him very little.

In this, I tend to agree. I do not think that Obama is a very good statesman at all for precisely this reason: he plays to self-image alone.

Once again, this is a false choice. You don't leave the table. You demand a better deal, using economic sanctions as the stick (or, from another perspective, the removal of economic sanctions as the carrot).

Which is the advice Netanyahu needs.

It's the combination which strikes me as an unacceptable risk. There's really not much we can do about the crazy nutjob ideology of Islam. It's not going away for many generations, at best. There is something we can do about keeping nuclear weapons out of their hands though, and it seems to me that we should be doing more than we are.

Nothing short of a complete ban would provide the impetus. Otherwise, nukes exclusively in the hands of superpowers, who coincide mostly with the Security Council, is really impossible to justify. I realize there are some modern equivalents to nukes, such as fuel-air bombs, that are nearly as destructive in terms of explosive power, so this is no blanket solution. But at least we might avoid a nuclear winter.

I think it's kind of interesting that some of the people here who freak out about climate change and demand that we take many drastic and desperate measures to have a small chance of mitigating any projected global warming, are sort of like "Meh, so a terrorist, theocratic, Islamic regime, whose leaders hold crazy "end-times" beliefs, gets nuclear weapons. Whatchya going to do?"

While I rant in some threads here about this, I really am hard at work trying to think of reasonable measures to promote for when I finally calm down. (I have been a little too close to some events, fwiw). Tough to think of workable measures, though. The Gordian knot was eventually cut by Alexander; maybe we should grab some of his DNA and resurrect the guy.

 

[Tony Stark]

It is actually Israel (who did't bother to sign the NPT like almost every other country in the world including Iran) who brought nuclear weapons into the Middle East.

 

[sunmaster14]

It is actually Israel (who did't bother to sign the NPT like almost every other country in the world including Iran) who brought nuclear weapons into the Middle East.

Brought them from where? And if Iran hadn't signed the NPT, we wouldn't have a legal basis for challenging its nuclear program. Of course, neither would Iran be as far along in its program since it wouldn't have had nearly as much access to nuclear technology.

 

[Spindrift]

Brought them from where?

From their nuclear bomb factory.

And if Iran hadn't signed the NPT, we wouldn't have a legal basis for challenging its nuclear program.

Then isn't it a good thing they did. Unlike Israel.

Of course, neither would Iran be as far along in its program since it wouldn't have had nearly as much access to nuclear technology.

Evidence? Israel didn't sign the NPT and they managed quite well.

 

[Tony Stark]

Brought them from where?

Now you're getting all cute with semantics.

And if Iran hadn't signed the NPT, we wouldn't have a legal basis for challenging its nuclear program. Of course, neither would Iran be as far along in its program since it wouldn't have had nearly as much access to nuclear technology.

The NPT gives Iran the right to have a civilian nuclear program (a right which they are never going to give up). The only thing that the NPT allows is monitoring and safeguards to make sure it isn't being used to make weapons. No country under this monitoring has ever developed nuclear weapons.

 

[Tony Stark]

F
Evidence? Israel didn't sign the NPT and they managed quite well.

Also India and Pakistan.

 

[dudalb]

It is actually Israel (who did't bother to sign the NPT like almost every other country in the world including Iran) who brought nuclear weapons into the Middle East.

If you are now going into "Blame Israel " mode, count me out.

 

[dudalb]

I was following the run-up to the speech for some weeks in the Times of Israel. Consensus is that the visit is mainly for electoral purposes, and the timing so close to elections is criticized as gross posturing, aided by the willing chorus in the Republican Party, who can be counted on for this type of empty, worthless showmanship.

The split on the ToI is between those who realize it's bomb Iran every two years or make a deal, and those who hold out for a perfect world (Netanyahu 'beliebers"), just like here.

If there is any consolation to a nuclear Iran, it is the ensuing complete reliance of Sunni states in the region on US and Israeli dissuasive military power. This gives leverage to stop or slow whatever Islamic-inspired nightmare policy it is they are practicing at a given moment. That is, until they, too, decide to build nukes.

Those criticizing the US administration on this one have entirely forgotten that the US has absolutely no monopoly on any of the things Iran needs to build nuclear weapons, but does have strategic interest in keeping what goes on as visible and transparent as possible.

Leaving the table in a huff is fun, and Reps like to behave in that 'manly' table-slamming way, but that accomplishes nothing, like any other childish tantrum.

Meanwhile, it's not the nukes, it's the crazy nutjob ideology of Islam that is the threat.

This. I wonder if Bibi's paranoia toward Iran is really misplacing resources. Iran getting nukes is NOT a good idea,but I debate that "Genocide against the Jews" is Iran's main reason for wanting Nukes. Main reason is the political muscle that Iran could throw around with nukes. And for all of Iran's anti Zionist rhetoric, they are really not following it up. I think if Iran was smart, they would do a Sadat with Israel.
I hope that the Republcians are just using this to beat up on Obama. If they are dead serious,they are basically saying they want war with Iran, and as much as I despise the Islamic republic that is not a good option.

 

[Tony Stark]

If you are now going into "Blame Israel " mode, count me out.

Did I say anything that was untrue? Are they not the ones that introduced nuclear weapons to the Middle East?

 

[Leumas]

You demand a better deal, using economic sanctions as the stick (or, from another perspective, the removal of economic sanctions as the carrot).

Perhaps that is the problem for why they are trying to attain a STICK of their own.

Perhaps if we stopped treating people like DONKEYS that we ride and steer using sticks and carrots then maybe they would not need to kick and buck trying to get us off their backs.

However, if we insist on looking upon other peoples and nations as DONKEYS to be EXPLOITED as PACK MULES then it might behoove us to stop being indignant at their "insolent impertinence and ingratitude" when they buck and kick while trying to throw us off their backs.

We ought to get off that high horse of SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS and admit to ourselves that we are just another PREDATOR like all the other predators and stop being insulted by the insolence of our PREY when they try to EVOLVE better defensive sticks with which to stave off our PREDATION UPON THEM.

 

[Craig B]

It is actually Israel (who did't bother to sign the NPT like almost every other country in the world including Iran) who brought nuclear weapons into the Middle East.

But they need that stuff so they can do Armageddon. It's all very holy.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Perhaps that is the problem for why they are trying to attain a STICK of their own.

Perhaps if we stopped treating people like DONKEYS that we ride and steer using sticks and carrots then maybe they would not need to kick and buck trying to get us off their backs.

However, if we insist on looking upon other peoples and nations as DONKEYS to be EXPLOITED as PACK MULES then it might behoove us to stop being indignant at their "insolent impertinence and ingratitude" when they buck and kick while trying to throw us off their backs.

We ought to get off that high horse of SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS and admit to ourselves that we are just another PREDATOR like all the other predators and stop being insulted by the insolence of our PREY when they try to EVOLVE better defensive sticks with which to stave off our PREDATION UPON THEM.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5128254f89e79c9e3b.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5128254f89eaa329fd.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5128254f89ecf5634b.jpg[/qimg]

Well said.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It was weird that Obama grasped at the first offer by Iran to talk, just as the economic sanctions were starting to bite (and they were biting).

Isn't that the point of sanctions, though? Was there something written into the sanctions against Iran specifying a certain level of "discomfort" that the country must achieve before requests from them to talk should be taken seriously?

 

[Leumas]

From here

The Disgraceful Spectacle in Congress​

...... One remarkable thing about the event was how shamelessly the prime minister repeated one dishonest or tendentious claim after another......

......Needless to say, Netanyahu’s record of false predictions and warnings about Iran’s nuclear program makes him an especially unreliable source of information. The fact that his obnoxious performance was received so warmly in Congress today is not surprising, but it is nonetheless deeply discouraging for anyone interested in peace or foreign policy restraint.

The other remarkable thing was the embarrassing, rapturous response of the assembled members in the audience. Except for extremely rare occasions when an American president has enjoyed stratospheric approval ratings, I cannot recall such a loud, overwrought response from members of a Congress to a visiting speaker. The audience this morning enthusiastically cheered on the sabotage of a major U.S. diplomatic initiative, the undermining of an important U.S. policy goal, and the blatant meddling of a foreign leader in our domestic politics. It is one of the more disgraceful things I’ve seen an assembly of American political leaders do, and that is really saying something.

 

[sunmaster14]

Perhaps that is the problem for why they are trying to attain a STICK of their own.

Perhaps if we stopped treating people like DONKEYS that we ride and steer using sticks and carrots then maybe they would not need to kick and buck trying to get us off their backs.

I doubt it. Relations between nations don't work the same way as relations between individual human beings, and this is especially true for autocratic regimes. The interests of leaders and the citizens they lead can diverge quite a bit even in democracies, so I think speaking in moral terms about the rights and dignity of autocracies is misleading.

However, if we insist on looking upon other peoples and nations as DONKEYS to be EXPLOITED as PACK MULES then it might behoove us to stop being indignant at their "insolent impertinence and ingratitude" when they buck and kick while trying to throw us off their backs.

We ought to get off that high horse of SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS and admit to ourselves that we are just another PREDATOR like all the other predators and stop being insulted by the insolence of our PREY when they try to EVOLVE better defensive sticks with which to stave off our PREDATION UPON THEM.

Who's insulted? Certainly not I. I don't care to claim that we're more moral than Iran, or more deserving of the bomb or whatever. I just don't want them to have one. It would be bad for me, and it would be bad for people I like and care about. Hopefully, enough of my fellow citizens agree so that, collectively, we can do something about it. If Iran changed its behavior, then I might become convinced that its pursuit of a bomb is no longer a threat. Probably a Catch-22 I'll admit though.

 

[sunmaster14]

Isn't that the point of sanctions, though? Was there something written into the sanctions against Iran specifying a certain level of "discomfort" that the country must achieve before requests from them to talk should be taken seriously?

Yes and no, respectively. I'm just going based on what I've read that it didn't seem like Iran offered very much at all to get the sanctions suspended. As I said before, it's either bad negotiating strategy on the part of Obama, or he really has reconciled himself to Iran becoming a nuclear power and he thinks that by smoothing that transition and extending it over a few years, he can turn Iran into a positive and stabilizing power rather than what it has been for the last 35 years. Either way, I think he's making a mistake.

 

[Jango]

Here is a link to it:

http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/234429-live-netanyahu-speaks-to-congress

I thought it was a good speech. I'll have to comment more when I have time, but I liked what he had to say overall.

I'm interested in what fellow ISFers thought of it.

It was a good speech.

However, some of the content of the speech is being scrutinized, as it should. While I don't want Iran having a nuclear program, the fact that Netanyahu and his security services are of a different opinion on the program itself is telling. Netanyahu wants to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities. I don't blame him for wanting to do that. Israel cannot afford the lullabies of peace, not when leaders of countries in their region are Tweeting about Israel's destruction.

This speech, like many of Netanyahu's, was a call-to-arms. He wants our help in destroying Iran's nuclear capability. Israel has been clamoring for the machinery to pull off such a mission for years. Netanyahu and many others within the Israeli government (and officials here in the states too) have been pounding on the war drums with Iran for a long time now. Iran is very much still on the list of To-Be Toppled.

I've been following this on-going clash for many years now, IIRC, since Ahmadinejad was threatening the U.S. Navy about entering the Strait of Hormuz. The can has been kicked down the road ever since. It is as though President Obama has just been trying to weather this storm until the end of his Presidency and the new POTUS inherits this whirlpool of a mess we find ourselves stuck in.

Iran has to concede. Give up their nuclear program entirely. If they do, the chances of an assault, even a unilateral one, goes way down. Back to manageable levels. Iran refusing to give up its program and continuing to enrich uranium brings with it the realistic expectation of an Israeli assault, even a unilateral one.

Obviously, not good.