For Netanyahu, no conceivable deal with Iran is sufficient

bibi
In an emotional address to Congress Tuesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pleaded with the United States and the Obama administration to stand with Israel, reject a possible deal with Iran and to hold out for a much better deal.

The problem is that there is no better deal; Netanyahu knows there is no better deal; and his suggestion otherwise is a fundamentally dishonest evasion. No serious analyst believes that Iran can be forced to surrender its entire civilian nuclear program, as Netanyahu demands; no Iranian government could make such a concession and survive the national humiliation. In setting that goal, Netanyahu knows that the only way it could be accomplished is through the use of overwhelming military force that is followed by a long-term occupation of Iran.

Furthermore, no one believes that our partners in these negotiations and sanctions — Russia, France, Germany, China and Great Britain — will continue to enforce strict sanctions once they conclude that Iran is willing to negotiate a deal but the United States has walked away. If that happens — and that’s precisely what Netanyahu advocates — the global sanctions regime will collapse, international weapons inspections will cease and Iran will have no reason not to resume its march toward a nuclear weapon.

It is critically important to note that the only progress made by the West in halting or slowing the Iranian weapons program has come through these ongoing negotiations. The George W. Bush administration refused to negotiate with Iran and “addressed” the issue through a combination of military threats and half-effective sanctions. As a result, the number of nuclear centrifuges in Iran grew from 164 to more than 7,000 when Bush left office. By the time these negotiations began in 2013, the Iranians had succeeded in enriching more than 200 kilograms of uranium to at least 20 percent purity, yet as a condition of beginning the talks, that enriched uranium has since been converted or diluted to a less dangerous form. That is real, verifiable progress.

The truth is, Netanyahu doesn’t oppose just this deal with Iran. He opposes any deal. He does not believe that the Iranian regime can be trusted to keep it. (Nor does the Obama administration, which advocates a policy of “distrust but verify.”) He does not believe that a strict weapons inspections will be able to enforce it. He demands a guarantee, and it would be great if we could give him one. But if you study his writings and public statements, he believes that the only such guarantee is regime change in Iran and other Islamic nations.

In testimony to Congress in 2002, for example, Netanyahu insisted that only regime change could halt Saddam Hussein’s all-out effort to build a nuclear weapon. “If anyone makes an opposite assumption, or cannot draw the lines connecting the dots, that is simply not an objective assessment,” he said with a bravado much like that he displayed Tuesday.

In both Iraq and Iran, the goal was not just regime change, Netanyahu said, but “regime change in the fundamental meaning of that word.”

“You really have to start changing the mentality, the poison, toxified mentality that these regimes have put into the minds of millions, hundreds of millions,” he said. “That is the real task, the great challenge…. once the regimes are ousted, it is to begin the process of democratization in these places which harbor this militancy today.”

The model that Netanyahu brought up repeatedly was the decades-long occupation of Germany. “Five, six decades later when you say, what is the protection against neo-Naziism, the re-emergence of a new Hitler in Germany? It is not American tanks or NATO soldiers; it is German democracy,” he said. “There are neo-Nazis there, but they are simply washed away by democracy.”

That is his plan; I do not believe it is realistic in the slightest, not in a nation more than twice as populous as Iraq. And if the American people are given an honest choice, I don’t believe it is the option they would be willing to support.

Reader Comments 0

1009 comments
MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

From today's New York Times:


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/opinion/netanyahu-israel-unconvincing-iran-speech-to-congress.html?ref=opinion


End of NY Times article, entitled, "Mr. Netanyahu's Unconvincing Iran Speech To Congress":


"The response in Congress suggested considerable opposition to a nuclear deal.But a new poll by the University of Maryland’s Program for Public Consultation and the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development shows that a clear majority of Americans — including 61 percent of Republicans and 66 percent of Democrats — favor an agreement.


Congress must not forget that its responsibility is to make choices that advance American security interests, and that would include a strict and achievable agreement with Iran. If it sabotages the deal as Mr. Netanyahu has demanded, it would bear the blame."

Mandingo
Mandingo

Iran NEEDS nuclear weapons just like every other country in the world. It is the only way you can get the United States to mind its own business and stop all of the military invasion threats. If Afghanistan and Iraq had nuclear weapons there is no way Dubya Bush would have started a war . You will never see the US charge into North Korea because that country has nuclear  weapons to defend themselves.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

"Furthermore, no one believes that our partners in these negotiations and sanctions — Russia, France, Germany, China and Great Britain — will continue to enforce strict sanctions once they conclude that Iran is willing to negotiate a deal but the United States has walked away. If that happens — and that’s precisely what Netanyahu advocates — the global sanctions regime will collapse, international weapons inspections will cease and Iran will have no reason not to resume its march toward a nuclear weapon."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Well said.


President Obama said of Netanyahu's speech, "Nothing new was said."

TBS
TBS

sheets

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@TBS

I have a nut allergy, so I must ask: Are they nutless?

[on edit] Oh. Never mind!

barkingfrog
barkingfrog

The Israelis are clearly the destabilizing force in the ME. They are the people

building new buildings and establishing farms in the unoccupied territories while

the Palestinians only want to wipe the Israelis off the map. Actions versus ideals. 

No comparison.

St Simons he-ne-ha
St Simons he-ne-ha

oh I get it now. 

The republi-fax word of the day on wingnut media is "homebrew".

I thought they were punking their poor bootlicking base again.

"a homebrew sooper top secret double-naught spy compoooooter email"

sounds better than 'had emails routed to home' 


HOMEBREWGHAAAZI

JohnnyReb
JohnnyReb

@St_Simons_he-ne-ha - it's not emails routed to home.


It's a server located in the home where the owner has complete control over deleting the traffic.


But for the many on the Left who believed the IRS claim that Lois' emails were gone forever, comprehending that may prove difficult.

Nick_Danger
Nick_Danger

@JohnnyReb @St_Simons_he-ne-ha 

JReb, do you have any proof - any proof at all - that ANY data was EVER deleted from the "homebrew" server?  Does anyone even purport that that happened?

Just curious - thanks!

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@St_Simons_he-ne-ha

Not that I'm following this story all that closely, but wouldn't a SoS' private residence be pretty secure? like constant surveillance, that sort of thing, even when vacated? Or am I wrong about that?

LeninTime
LeninTime

@fiftythreepercenter 

Heard the news stories this morning about the cop who died in the line of duty overnight

***
What do think about the group of LAPD cops who converged on an unarmed homeless the other day and savagely beating him before pumping a rounds of bullets into him and killing him? 

Kind of tough to explain that one with self defense huh?

Peachs
Peachs

I don’t know who is learning from whom in this thing. The Republican Party and a minority of the country of Israel have become a united front that does not represent the interest of either country, but does represent the wealthy and that is what they have in common. We are going to democratize the Middle East, play to the voter’s greed, redirect the religious institutions to, “ greed is good”, as long as you tide 10%, and then they are killing for the purpose of money interest and calling it religion, not unlike what we do down south with five marriages, four divorces under our belts.

St Simons he-ne-ha
St Simons he-ne-ha

@Peachs Bootlickers Anonymous. I swear my boots are so clean & shiny already, they could eat off of em

TBS
TBS

Jam's post from down thread.  THANK YOU !


@JohnnyReb @JamVet 

Go ahead, smart boy, and tell me WHAT VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO STOP IRAN FROM GOING NUCLEAR DID HE LAY OUT FOR CONGRESS?

Here's your chance to take that fake cowboy hat off and show me your cattle!

Peachs
Peachs

@TBS @JohnnyReb @JamVet Johnny is just looking for his invite to address Congress, a lot of fake speakers lately and we wonder why they don't get anything done. 

TBS
TBS

@JamVet @TBS @JohnnyReb


He tends to shut down his own man clown show in quick fashion when he can't recall the required talking point for the question at hand. 

fiftythreepercenter
fiftythreepercenter

Heard the news stories this morning about the cop who died in the line of duty overnight.  Sad story for sure.  However, the comments that caught my attention were the police chief's comment at the end of the news report of "please pray for us" and the news reporter saying "a department chaplain will be available for support". 


I guess you libs will have to demand this police chief be fired for making her non Christian subs uncomfortable in the workplace and you'll have to demand the county stop spending money on a chaplain thereby condoning one religion over another.  


Get to it, libs.

Tuna Meowt
Tuna Meowt

@fiftythreepercenter @Visual_Cortex Yeah.  Chaplains are required to minister to *all* faith traditions, not just the one in which they're ordained.


And the fire chief WASN'T a chaplain.  Plus, he was told not to publish his book, which makes him insubordinate -- and that's got nothing to do with religion.


fiftythreepercenter
fiftythreepercenter

@Visual_Cortex @fiftythreepercenter I'm sorry, but it was Bookman who posted that line of thinking, which most of you libs supported, not me.  


I don't suppose you'd be interested in telling us the difference in this case and the fire chief would you?

Peachs
Peachs

@fiftythreepercenter 

you got a district that has 66% minority with a practically all white police force, that is who I am praying for. It is like carpetbaggers running your communities, which is what happened to the south. We were upset about that but now pray for the carpetbagger because we have no dog in that fight. Pretty sorry on our part but the South has never been a guide for moral thinking just selfishness.

JamVet
JamVet

@fiftythreepercenter 

You are an emotional child blogging on an adult forum.

I'd recommend that obsessing about this supposed hatred of Christians, you work on your own soiled non-Jesus-like Christian reputation...

Mr_B
Mr_B

@fiftythreepercenter @Visual_Cortex No problem. The police chief violated no personnel

policy by making her statement. And BTW, as a "lib," I have no problem asking the Father to comfort the family of the slain officer. 


Many of us are "libs" because of our faith.

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@fiftythreepercenter

 you libs will have to demand this police chief be fired for making her non Christian subs uncomfortable

Par for 53%er's course, this^^.

Oh how he aches!

Visual_Cortex
Visual_Cortex

@Nick_Danger @fiftythreepercenter @Mr_B @Visual_Cortex

you didn't know that chaplains minister to people of all faiths

Likely the case.

This would appear to be another example of 53 pretending to know something he didn't actually know, going in.

See also--the PPACA Medicaid funding gap. He clearly didn't understand how that worked, and made up a ridiculous fall-back about the President being able to EO a solution to it. A solution that literally no lefty has ever, to my knowledge, even suggested that he attempt.

Tuna Meowt
Tuna Meowt

@JohnnyReb "Instead, they have no where to turn but back to blaming W."


When y'all stop bleating about FDR and Carter, then I'll give your objection some credence.


fiftythreepercenter
fiftythreepercenter

@Visual_Cortex @fiftythreepercenter @Tuna Meowt @JohnnyReb Why do you keep asking me that question?  I'm not the person who thinks he as the authority to EO whatever the hell he wants, that would be Obama.  Why don't you ask him why he can EO 5MM illegals into legal status but he can't EO a provision out of the ACA that keeps medicaid eligible people from gettting subsidies?  


Or maybe you'd like to explain the difference in those 2 things???

_GodlessHeathen_
_GodlessHeathen_

"Clinton exposed confidential and potentially dangerous information to a nonsecure, commercial email system. She gave Chinese spies a better shot at reading her emails than U.S. taxpayers."

That's a good 'un.

The ChiComs wouldn't have much trouble reading     Hill_Bill_Chel@aol.com

Normd
Normd

It still amazes me how the "Israel and End of Times" thing keeps us attached to Israel by the hip.  Israel has played on that forever.  Folks, the only end times will be when people wise up and throw off the shackles of all religion.  Then we will know peace.

JohnnyReb
JohnnyReb

Hillary during her time as SOS courted and succeeded in getting foreign governments to contribute big bucks to the Clinton Foundation.


No wonder they wanted her emails not to go the archives.


But again, the Libs will give her a pass on that also.


Seems they long for more Clinton scandal.


Hide your daughters. 

Tuna Meowt
Tuna Meowt

@JohnnyReb FWIW, I think she should be investigated just like any other government official would be for doing what she's alleged to have done.  And, as Scouty McScouterson says, let the chips fall where they may.


That said, any punishment she'd receive would be small and it wouldn't prevent her from running for President.  The cons are still going to have to sweat over her in 2016 if she chooses to run.


Normd
Normd

@JohnnyReb 


If she wants it, come '16, Hillary will be our next president, period.

Nick_Danger
Nick_Danger

@JohnnyReb 

Boy, the fear of the impending "President Clinton" smells strong today...