Bibi trying to push the US into another bad war

1642964803

During a press conference with German Prime Minister Angela Merkel Monday, President Obama ruled out another extension of nuclear talks with Iran, stressing that the time has come for Iranian leaders to make a decision:

“The issues now are sufficiently narrowed and sufficiently clarified, where we’re at a point where they need to make a decision. We are presenting to them in a unified fashion …. a deal that allows them to have peaceful nuclear power but gives us the absolute assurance that is verifiable that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon. And if in fact what they claim is true, which is they have no aspiration to get a nuclear weapon, that according to their supreme leader it would be contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon — if that is true, there should be the possibility of getting a deal. They should be able to get to ‘yes’. But we don’t know if that is going to happen. They have their hard-liners, they have their politics….

“We now know enough that the issues are no longer technical. The issues now are, does Iran have the political will and the desire to get a deal done.”

But as Obama knows all too well well, those questions can also be asked in reverse. Do the United States and its allies have “the political will and the desire to get a deal done”? Because like Iran, we too have our hard-liners and our politics; we too have groups that are eager to reject any deal with Iran. There is, however, one notable difference:

The leader of America’s hard-line contingent, the man who has tried to sabotage negotiations with Iran from the beginning, isn’t even an American. Not surprisingly, the role played by Benjamin Netanyahu also came up in Obama’s press conference, and here’s how the president responded:

“I don’t want to be coy. The prime minister and I have a very real difference around Iran sanctions. I have been very clear — and Angela (Merkel) agrees with me and (British Prime Minister) David Cameron agrees with me and the others who are members of the negotiation agree  — that it doesn’t make sense to sour the negotiations a month or two before they’re about to be completed.

“And we should play that out. If in fact we can get a deal, then we should embrace that; if we can’t get a deal, then we’ll have to make a set of decisions and, as I said to Congress, I’ll be the first one to work with them to apply even stronger measures against Iran.

“But what’s the rush? Unless your view is that it’s not possible to get a deal with Iran and it shouldn’t even be tested. And that I cannot agree with because as president of the United States, I’m looking at what the options are if we can’t get a diplomatic solution, and those options are narrow and they are not attractive.”

Netanyahu, on the other hand, wants war. That is his one and only solution. He seeks to maneuver the United States and President Obama into a trap in which our only remaining option is a broad, sustained military assault on Iran, even if such an attack would toss gasoline on a Middle East that is already aflame due in part to a previous military incursion.

Addressing a Congress dominated by Obama’s opponents on March 3, Netanyahu will try to goad them into undermining the president’s attempt at negotiation. He will be asking them to follow his own lead on a matter of war and peace, rather than the lead of the person elected to perform that duty by the American people. And Netanyahu will be asking them to endorse an approach that is highly controversial even among his own people.

However, if he’s going to make that extraordinary argument, Netanyahu should at least feel obliged to spell out for Congress and the American people exactly what his own approach entails: How would a military assault work, what would be its costs and risks, what would be its likelihood of success? How many U.S. boots will be needed on Iranian soil to ensure the dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program?

And as we listen to that explanation, we should keep in mind Netanyahu’s cocksure testimony before Congress back in 2002, in which he lobbied heavily — and unfortunately effectively — for a pre-emptive American invasion of Iraq. It is difficult to convey the depth of his single-minded insistence on multiple, repeated wars fought by the United States — if you have the time, I urge you to read his entire testimony, linked above — but here is a taste?

Why was such an invasion necessary?

“There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons — no question whatsoever. And there is no question that once he acquires it, history shifts immediately…. make no mistake about it, if and once Saddam has nuclear weapons, the terror network will have nuclear weapons. And once the terror network has nuclear weapons, it is only a matter of time before those weapons will be used.”

Are we sure?

” …. every indication we have is that he is pursuing, pursuing with abandon, pursuing with every ounce of effort, the establishment of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. If anyone makes an opposite assumption or cannot draw the lines connecting the dots, that is simply not an objective assessment of what has happened. Saddam is hell-bent on achieving atomic bombs, atomic capabilities, as soon as he can.”

What would happen if we invade?

“If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.… the test and the great opportunity and challenge is not merely to effect the ouster of the regime, but also transform that society and thereby begin too the process of democratizing the Arab world.”

Really? Won’t the backlash instead make things much more difficult? Couldn’t the removal of Saddam Hussein end up empowering Iran, for example?

“Saddam is probably in many ways the linchpin because it is possible to take out this regime with military action, and the reverberations of what happens with the collapse of Saddam’s regime could very well create an implosion in a neighboring regime like Iran for the simple reason that Iran has — I don’t want to say a middle class, but it has a large population that is — that might bring down the (Iranian) regime just as it brought down the Shah’s regime.”

And after invading Iraq? What would we do next?

 “The three principles of winning the war on terror are the three W’s — winning, winning and winning. The more victories you amass, the easier the next victory becomes. The first victory in Afghanistan makes a second victory in Iraq that much easier. The second victory in Iraq will make the third victory that much easier, too, but it may change the nature of achieving that victory.”

As he does today, he told us in 2002 that inspections wouldn’t suffice and that only an invasion could ensure that we had dismantled Saddam’s network of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. He told us that by invading Iraq, we would touch off pro-Western regime changes throughout the Arab world. And he haughtily dismissed any suggestion that an American invasion of Iraq would create spin-off terrorist groups because, he said, “there is no international terrorism if you take away the support of sovereign states, and the sovereign states are a few. If you want to win the war, you just have to neutralize these states.”

He also assured us that an invasion of Iraq was necessary for the protection of Israel. With the Arab world now more inflamed than ever, with ISIS and similar extremist groups proliferating, with Syria in collapse and Iran ascendant, it’s clear that Israel today is less secure as a result of the invasion that Netanyahu so stridently supported.

Back then, the cynical joke among the neo-cons was that “Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.” Netanyahu was a “real man,” and still is. So I suggest that we take into account the accuracy of such predictions when trying to assess the wisdom of our would-be new commander in chief.

Because Iran is many times more complicated, dangerous and unpredictable than Iraq.

Reader Comments 1

1125 comments
Aldrich905
Aldrich905

Some commenters in here are as delusional as the Russians on RT.com who defend Putin. Obama’s approval rating in Israel hovers around 40%, meanwhile 70% of U.S. Jews voted for Obama in 2012. There are 30 Jewish members in the 114th U.S. Congress. Of the 30 members, 29 are Jewish Democrats and 1 is a Jewish Republican. These are the numbers..I’m not making this up. Who do you think really-truly cares for the wellbeing of Israel? The Democrats with 97% of the Jews in congress or the republicans? These glaring statistics reflect Jewish voting, 70% of Jews voted for Obama in 2012.. 78% in 2008. Most U.S. Jews know they can’t trust the republicans because Jews know that a good number of southern republicans are anti-Semitic. Especially a large number of right-wing Evangelical Christians who are a huge section of the republican base. Not all, but it’s always some republican who is proposing to officially name Christianity the official religion of the U.S. or officially naming the King James Bible the official book of some southern state. It’s always a Republican who is exposed to have ties to the KKK. It’s the crazy republicans who believe in the asinine baseless theory that Jews control the media and Hollywood. The republicans are only using the right-wing Israeli establishment's hate for Obama, to bolster their own hate for Obama. The republicans don’t really care about the Jews and U.S. Jews know this and see right through this charade that they’re playing.

kayaker71
kayaker71

Bibi's critics on the left are similar to our own left wing liberals who would do anything or say anything to remove him from office.  Sort of like our liberals with W. These reports from Israel are being touted as being the true sentiment of the Israli people when they are most likely left wing spin from hard core liberal critics.  Israel and Bibi need the US and its assistance to survive.  He is certainly not going to get it from a Muslim like Bozo so he looks to supporters for sustained assistance to keep his country intact.  He certainly does not need a speech like this to get re-elected.  He is a shoo in at the next election however that does not keep the liberal press from spinning the lie that he is in trouble politically. 

N-GA-Online
N-GA-Online

@kayaker71 Actually Kayaker it's you and the extreme right who try to remove people from office. You tried with Clinton and have beat the drums to go after Obama. As far as Bush, I just want him tried for war crimes....along with Cheney and Rumsfeld.


The neo-cons have soiled America's reputation for generations to come. And Netanyahu is just another one of them. 

Bulls_3y3
Bulls_3y3

@N-GA-Online  whine whine whine,  It was Clinton who soiled the WH carpet and then lied about it.   You people

Vietnam Vet
Vietnam Vet

@kayaker71 You along with Bibi, W, Cheney, McCain, Dumsfield, and the rest of the Neo-cons are members of the 100% wrong club. If you are so in favor of war, I suggest that you get your a$$es over to the Middle East and fight. Show your bravery---strap on a suicide vest and go blow something up do us all  a favor.

jimbob22
jimbob22

@Vietnam Vet Obama's about to send more troops to the ME to fight for Islam.  Why don't you get some intestinal fortitude and sign up for more duty.


Hurry!  There are some people that haven't submitted to Obama's puppets yet!

breckenridge
breckenridge

“A lot of these so-called gay people have been either attacked or molested by some authority figure or else a magazine or something has confused them.  Don't let kids be exposed to a bunch of pornographic magazines, because a gay magazine is filled with naked pictures of naked men doing sex with each other, that’s what’s in there, so you don’t want them to read that stuff. Whether it’s men and women or men and men or women and women, it doesn’t matter, you don’t want them to be seeing that.” Pat Robertson, 700 Club, 2-9-2015


LOL!  The old boy is always amusing with his idiocy.


FIGMO2
FIGMO2

@breckenridge

Personally, I would prefer not to see anyone while they're engaged in a sex act. Too voyeuristic. 

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

I asked this earlier, figured I'd post this in a new comment.

I hear people talk about "foreign policy success."

What do they really mean when they say that? Are they talking about stuff like Reagan's successful invasion of Grenada?  BHO hunting down and killing OBL? Neatly tied-up foreign adventures? Preferably ones that entail us going out and killing some people in the process?

(I suspect they are.)

straker
straker

Its amusing to note that those who repeatedly accuse Obama of being a wimp also love to criticize Bibi, who is a for real HARD man, like him or not.

DS
DS

"A poll cited on Israel’s popular Army Radio on Monday indicated that nearly half of those asked believed that Mr. Netanyahu should cancel his speech. Only about a third said they were in favor of him going ahead as planned."

“'It seems the Israeli public more and more realizes that this was a mistake to begin with,' said Yehuda Ben Meir, an expert on national security and public opinion at the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University. 'The whole adventure is not going to help Netanyahu in the elections, and it may harm him.'”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/10/world/middleeast/obama-says-he-doesnt-expect-more-extensions-in-talks-with-iran.html

LilBarryBailout
LilBarryBailout

@DS

Apparently, merely winning elections isn't enough for Mr. Netanyahu, or other Real Leaders.

DS
DS


@LilBarryBailout @DS 

"Even some of those who agree with Netanyahu on the danger posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions believe it would be counterproductive for him to go make the Capitol appearance."

"'The question that must be asked is whether a brilliant speech at Congress is what will make the difference,' said Yaakov Peri, a lawmaker who formerly led Israel's domestic spy agency. 'The price Israel will pay for this crisis is too high.'"

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-us-israel-netanyahu-20150211-story.html#page=2

Cupofjoe
Cupofjoe

Wasn't someone here the other night saying the Swiss bank HSBC was outside the reach of US regulatory authority? 


Will be interesting to watch as the assets include Russian oligarchs, politicians, mafia, etc.- i.e. folks who all hang out together-  thin Lizzie will have a great time.

FIGMO2
FIGMO2

It would appear the Brown family has accused the AJC of supplying outright false or unsubstantiated info regarding BK.

schnirt

Normd
Normd

But you have to hand it to ol' Ted...a Canadian coming down here to tell us how to run our government.  Almost as bad as Bibi...heh, heh...

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

@Normd 

And most Americans ask "Ted who?" 

Your worldview is more than a little myopic, Normd. 

alexander2
alexander2

@Yes_Jesus_Can It is possible that many people don't care  about extraneous info, not myoptic, I prefer essentialism....

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

Look at the obama photo at left.  Doesn't it set the new low standard for a smug appearance in a photograph? 

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

@Normd @Yes_Jesus_Can 

Can't say I blame him, sitting next to the world's most feckless leader since .... well, obama sets a new low in that regard too.  Even Carter had some international record that wasn't entirely failure. 

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

@Visual_Cortex @Normd @Yes_Jesus_Can 

.....and now for something completely different......

..........er. Oh, didn't see you guys had already changed the subject to me.  You already ended the discussion.  Good for you. 

I couldn't find any obama foreign policy successes either.  It really was time to hang it up. 

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@Normd @Yes_Jesus_Can

What's laughworthy is that at least a half-dozen rightie-regulars posting here really do believe that they could. 

Why, they'd just don W's cowboy boots and strap on a couple of six-shooters (figuratively speaking) and tell those uppity Middle Easterners who's boss.

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

@Visual_Cortex 

Believe they described him as an "avowed atheist". 

Hard to blame it on "atheism" as you say because atheism is only defined by its negation. 

So either the guy is an avowed atheist or he isn't, and obviously you have a problem with the reported facts, not apparently Fox News. 

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@Yes_Jesus_Can @Visual_Cortex

Hard to blame it on "atheism" as you say

These are Fox "News" readers. Not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

This is clearly spin control so that the extremist Christians who've been inciting this kind of violence for years can try to keep their hands clean.

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

Jay Bookman writes:

 another bad war

---------------------------------------

Oooooooooooooooooooh, another "bad" war.....

How did we survive on this earth before such amazing journalistic perspicacity and wisdom????!!!

Normd
Normd

Just like the GOP, instead of focusing on jobs and infrastructure, they choose to be homophobic.  Since Ted Cruz worries about this so much, I suspect he's hiding something in his closet...know what I mean, Verne?

Yes_Jesus_Can
Yes_Jesus_Can

@Normd 

"focusing on jobs and infrastructure"...

Wow!  Guess our president wasn't so "shovel-ready" was he? 

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@Normd

they choose to be homophobic.

They can't afford to lose their LBB-centric base, can they?

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@Yes_Jesus_Can @Normd

The only thing wrong with the Recovery Act was its scale. And the naive belief that if there were tax cuts included, some GOPers would sign on to help their fellow Americans.

Instead what we got was hoary "shovel ready" quips the past five years.


Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

Looks like the Islamophobes have something to celebrate this morning.


Orange15
Orange15

Is hillary dodging sniper fire this morning?

gotalife
gotalife

Our country is moving left for more balance.


Transformational.

alexander2
alexander2

@gotalife >>>regression to the mean in statistical terms (with emphasis on regression)

breckenridge
breckenridge

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is calling on his colleagues to pass a bill that would make same sex marriage a state issue.

Cruz, along with 11 other Republican senators, re-introduced the State Marriage Defense Act on Tuesday, which aims to allow states to adopt their own definitions of marriage and would block the federal government from applying its own definition of marriage onto states.

Ted Cruz = Bozo the Clown of the United States Congress.



Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@breckenridge

a bill that would make same sex marriage a state issue.

Bet it doesn't even make it out of committee.

Trackbacks

  1. […] Americans. “Who is our commander in chief?” Obama or Netanyahu? And the ad pillories Netanyahu for selling the Iraq war 13 years […]