Obama's Iran talks

[Rostere]

So, apparently Israel's president Netanyahu recently spoke in Congress about how he wants Obama's nuclear talks with Iran to stop. Here's the video: http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4501507/netanyahu-warns-congress-iran

 

 

Yeah, OK, that was his 1996 speech to Congress about the same thing. Netanyahu told the Israeli Knesset already in 1992 about how Iran was 3-5 years away from building nuclear weapons, then wrote 3-5 years again in a book in 1995. And that's not to talk about the false testimony he gave to congress about details in Iraq's nuclear programme in 2002, which proved to be entirely made up since any Iraqi nuclear programme did not exist. This guy clearly has a history of crying wolf.

 

Here's a full video of the real speech, if you can manage watching through all the applause: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L6GWblHqiI&t=1035

 

 

 

The speech has been boycotted by about 60 Democrats, for various reasons, the most common reason being that Netanyahu was invited by congressional Republicans in order to torpedo the President's foreign policy. The second reason is that people suspect that Netanyahu merely wanted to do this to strengthen his image at home, in advance of the Israeli legislative elections due in two weeks. My opinion is that since the effort to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear technology has already failed, he's doing this in advance in order to save face later and be able to say that he did what he could when this fact sinks in.

 

It's interesting that Netanyahu states no alternative to the talks. Iran has already achieved civilian nuclear power, and constructed enrichment facilities. They have had a research reactor (since 1967, supplied by the US), one (small) operational heavy water reactor, one light water reactor on the commercial grid, with two more light water and one heavy water reactor planned. They have been fully assisted by Russia in starting up their light water reactor.

 

So the Republicans who say "Their nuclear program must be stopped" (Jeb Bush) and "Obama Admin's negotiations w/ Iran have been a failure. We must stand united with Israel to prevent a nuclear Iran!" (Ted Cruz) are being extremely insincere, since it's not about "stopping" some future leap of technology but dismantling existing, operational reactors and enrichment facilities which have been operational since 2010.

 

There is fundamentally speaking no alternative to talks, there is nothing short of war at this point which could possibly stop the Iranian nuclear programme. The alternative the Republicans speak of might be to just wait, doing nothing, but that clearly won't prevent Iran from anything, as we've seen - there's no point in keeping sanctions on for nothing (or is that exactly what the Republicans think?).

 

Meanwhile, both the Israeli Mossad and CIA are clear on the point that there is nothing which points towards there being a military Iranian nuclear programme. Now, let's not confuse that with the possibility of Iran starting a military nuclear weapons programme in the future. With what we know they have now, Iran might have a rudimentary nuclear bomb (without delivery system) within one year. Clearly the answer is a deal which lets the IAEA inspect what they are doing.

 

So let's keep track of, and discuss, what will come out of this. And how would things have looked with a Republican president? Since Iran has been getting nuclear weapons next year every year since the 1990s, we can expect this to be a relevant question also after 2016.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Rostere

[Valsuelm]

About the only thing Obama has done even remotely correctly since he came to office in my opinion is to not be Bibi's lapdog. What the Obama administration's motives are I'm uncertain (a broken clock is right twice a day), but kowtowing to Israel at all, and especially to Bibi (who has little to no competition for the 'Most Warmongering Leader of a Nation Award' out there) is exactly opposite of what's in the best interests of the nation in which I live. That of course doesn't jive with the average layman's understanding of Israel or what most of the mainstream media has been saying about Israel for years, but the more astute and objective folks out there realize that Israel is very arguably a much greater liability (and that's probably putting it lightly) than an asset to the U.S., or most any other nation really.

 

I think there's a lot more to Bibi's visit than meets the eye. Sure, he's just spouting the usual crap, riling up the pro-Israel sentiment amongst the folks with short attention spans and the US media, both I'm sure for his political benefit at home as well as for what he sees as for his nation's benefit. But something tells me that he's here for much more than that. What exactly, we'll likely never know, but the entire thing smells off to me.

 

In a way however, Bibi might have shot himself in the foot by coming here, at least if his goal was to win more support in the US. Never in my lifetime has there been more anti-Israel sentiment (not to be confused with anti-Semitism for the race baiters or Abe Foxman disciples out there) than there is now. And that's a very good thing methinks. Of course this whole issue has turned into some kind of retarded Republican v. Democrat issue, but that's a side show for the most part.  What matters is telling Bibi to go F himself, and more people than ever are willing to do that which just a few years ago would have been political/career suicide for many.

 

So, while I might change my mind if I knew what Obama's motives were, on the surface this is one issue that I actually can say: 'Go O!'. But again, I think there's more to all of this than is currently meeting the eye.

 

Insofar as how things might be different with a Republican president. I think that of course matters who we're talking about. Obama being at odds (at least publicly) with Bibi is honestly a surprise to me.  Israel has generally received strong support from both parties for the past few decades. The lobbying Israel has done behind doors and out in the open successfully created an atmosphere where speaking objectively about Israel (let alone speaking out against it) was taboo (for many it still is), so it's not something anyone from a major party seeking the Presidency would have done, no matter what they personally thought about it. That has slowly changed over the last decade or so, and I attribute the information people have found on the internet which was (and in a large way still is) basically blacked out in the mainstream US media for years as the primary reason behind that. It's definitely not a Republican vs. Democrat issue however as some of the media is trying to portray, at least not as far as the voters are concerned. There are actually a lot more Jewish people registered Democrat here than Republican. Of course, that doesn't actually mean too much, and of course being Jewish doesn't necessarily mean you're pro-Israel (despite all of the propaganda that it does), but it serves to illustrate how the whole R vs. D thing in regards to this issue is really largely a myth.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Namutree]

 

So let's keep track of, and discuss, what will come out of this. And how would things have looked with a Republican president? Since Iran has been getting nuclear weapons next year every year since the 1990s, we can expect this to be a relevant question also after 2016.

A republican president? Depends on which one.

 

Mitt Romney: Who knows? All of Mitt Romney's ideals are unknown as all he ever did was pursue the presidency; he would say and act however he thought would get him into the white house. Once there how he governs is a total mystery.

 

John McCain: This event wouldn't have happened as we would already be at war with Iran... and everyone else.

[Rostere]

Democratic representatives rip into Netanyahu and Boehner with very harsh words:

 

http://videoshare.politico.com/singletitlevideo_chromeless.php?bcpid=309045726001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAETmrZQ~,EVFEM4AKJdT-Wv9cQWadwt8FUbtX2ID_&bctid=4091453894001

 

"At first I'd like to congratulate Speaker Boehner and PM Netanyahu on a very impressive bit of political theater. This was straight out of the **** Cheney playbook, this was fear-mongering at it's [worst]"

 

"Congress was used as a partisan tool"

 

et.c. Full video here.

 

Other comments:

 

Nancy Pelosi says: “I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech – saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.”

 

Jan Schakowsky says: “What I heard today felt to me like an effort to stampede the United States into war once again.”

 

CNN characterizes the speech as bringing absolutely nothing new, and as being "dark and Strangelovian". I think that's the next closest thing to saying Netanyahu is a crackpot.

 

Meanwhile, Republicans - the same guys who bogged down the speech with so many standing ovations it's hardly watchable - reacted to the speech with positive platitudes.

 

Rand Paul says: "It is important to work together to prevent a nuclear Iran, and the spread of Radical Islam.” How he makes it up in his head that Israel is counteracting Radical Islam is left untold. How he talks about "preventing" a nuclear Iran, when this is already a fact, I also do not know.

[Namutree]

 

Rand Paul says: "It is important to work together to prevent a nuclear Iran, and the spread of Radical Islam.” How he makes it up in his head that Israel is counteracting Radical Islam is left untold. How he talks about "preventing" a nuclear Iran, when this is already a fact, I also do not know.

Rand Paul is running for president. He's pandering. Expect more pandering until he wins the republican nomination or fails to obtain it.

[213374U]

there is nothing short of war at this point which could possibly stop the Iranian nuclear programme.

Ding ding ding.

 

Netanyahu (much like the GOP) is owned by Sheldon Adelson, who already tried to scare Democrats out of the idea of boycotting the speech. Remember, this is the same guy that wants to turn Iran into one big ol' glass parking lot. You do the math.

[Valsuelm]

 

 

Rand Paul says: "It is important to work together to prevent a nuclear Iran, and the spread of Radical Islam.” How he makes it up in his head that Israel is counteracting Radical Islam is left untold. How he talks about "preventing" a nuclear Iran, when this is already a fact, I also do not know.

Rand Paul is running for president. He's pandering. Expect more pandering until he wins the republican nomination or fails to obtain it.

 

 

Yea... it remains to be seen if alienating much of his base with his endorsement of Romney and Israel will hurt or help him more.

 

I went to see Ron Paul speak last year. The crowd of course was made up almost entirely of people who like what he says. He got lots of applause over the course of his speech and some standing ovations. On two issues only, he got a lukewarm at best response from the crowd. One was his discussion of the issue of abortion and 'a woman's right to choose', and the other was his son. The crowd was more receptive to the former. Each of the few times he tried to promote his son the crowd's applause level shank very noticeably. Prior to Rand coming out for Romney or Israel that would not have happened. And in fact it is a great point of consternation for many Ron Paul fans that Rand doesn't have his father's integrity and/or views.

 

So Rand has likely lost a lot of votes with his pandering. Will he get more than he lost from the pandering? We'll find out next year.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Agiel]

It does seem totally insipid to the core that Netanyahu is exploiting this opportunity to be condescending towards its greatest political and military patron just for the sake of votes, all of it made worse by the fact that the information given to him by Mossad, among the world's most terrifyingly effective foreign intelligence groups, flies in the face of everything Nethanyahu has been saying about Iran's nuclear program, and that's before we even talk about the delivery platform. Back in the Iran-Iraq War and the Second Gulf War, Iraq had to stretch the technical limits of his modified Scud missiles to hit targets in Tehran and Israel, but the result was a missile that had a CEP that could be measured in counties and only capable of carrying an extremely modest payload. Nuclear warhead and associated triggering mechanisms or chemical payload with associated proximity fuse? Hogwash. So it's unlikely any foreseeable Iranian missile could ever have any meaningful strategic effect on Israel before an Aegis BMD destroyer off Israel's coast, THAAD (the US Army-manned complex in the Negev Desert is the only foreign military presence in Israel), or Israel's own Patriot missiles ever had the chance to swat them out of the sky.

 

Israel, like most foreign policy, tends to be one of those things that transcend political boundaries in the US. For instance, George H. W. Bush had threatened to withhold loans to Israel unless serious effort on he part of Israel was made towards rapprochement to the PLO and curtailing settlements, a policy that was reversed once Bill Clinton took office. It would seem that Obama isn't going to let this black-eye affect his current dealings with Iran, but what I fear is what Israel will demand in return:

 

 

 

[The Israelis] themselves had a useful relationship with Iran up until the Iranian revolution, and they know the country well. Whatever Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might tell journalists, I don’t think he actually believes that he can permanently prevent some degree of American-Iranian rapprochement. He may, however, be demanding a bribe for his eventual acquiescence: All right, you will have a deal with Iran. Now, what are you going to give me in return? More West Bank settlements, more and cheaper armaments, more intelligence-sharing?

 

Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/warming-to-iran/383512/

 

I absolutely *DO NOT* object to the latter two, especially as it pertains to actual existential threats to Israel, but if it undermines the first, then forget it.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Agiel

[Gorgon]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31716684

 

Am i the only one who is worried that Netanyahu can only keep track of three or four sentences at a time. Look at that pile of pages. There is room for a lot more bullet points on an A4 page than that and since everything is a punchline I don't see how one would need anything other than bullet points. 

[Valsuelm]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31716684

 

Am i the only one who is worried that Netanyahu can only keep track of three or four sentences at a time. Look at that pile of pages. There is room for a lot more bullet points on an A4 page than that and since everything is a punchline I don't see how one would need anything other than bullet points. 

 

We're talking about a guy who uses info-graphics such as the below to make his points. He's pandering to people who are pro-Israel no matter what, or have a political mentality and attention span about on par with that of an elementary school kid. Unfortunately for the world there's a helluva lot of the latter out there, many of whom go to the polls and vote every election.

 

Edited March 4, 2015 by Valsuelm

[Volourn]

Rather pro Isreal than pro Iran. Iran, the country that mass murders their own country and are guilty of EVERYTHING anti US  freaks hate the US for . LMAO

 

\But, hey, I guess Isreal should toe the line and be okay with one of their allies being buddies with a country who wants to wipe Isreal off the map.

 

HAHAHAHA!!!!!

[BruceVC]

Yeah I have been saying this for ages, the relationship between the USA and Israel is still good but its also  at a historical low

 

This of course will confuse the various conspiracy theorists on these forums who keep making statements like  "the Jews control America "  and " American foreign policy is aligned to what Israel wants"....this is patently not true 

 

 

Obama is absolutely following the correct course by going the route of negotiation as far as Iran is concerned. The reality of the USA going the military route is not only  highly unlikely but will also further destabilize the region, it would be very irresponsible and counterproductive to really stopping Iran developing a nuclear weapon 

 

Netanyahu has overplayed his hand by aligning to Republicans, I don't know the last time any Democrats boycotted a speech by an Israeli Prime Minister  but the last thing that Israel should be wanting is fractured support from the USA. They are use to unequivocal support. But even certain ex-Israeli generals were concerned by the way Netanyahu was approaching this speech, they see this  as more divisive than helpful

 

 http://www.newsmax.com/World/GlobalTalk/israel-netanyahu-congress-generals/2015/03/02/id/627666/

Edited March 4, 2015 by BruceVC

[HoonDing]

Mr President must dance to the tune of the misozionist lobby. News at eleven.

[Volourn]

Yeah so he should suck the **** of the man who prefers to support the country that wants to destroy his country. That's ludicrous. Anyone who defends  any pro Iran stance is evil. This is a country who publicly declares theya re going to wipe other countries off the map.  They should be treated exactly the way NK is not worth negoiations.  The US has made about a billion 'deals' with Iran and Iran has basically laughed at every single of them more than willing to break them. They'll do the same with the current deal about to be agreed on.

[BruceVC]

Yeah so he should suck the **** of the man who prefers to support the country that wants to destroy his country. That's ludicrous. Anyone who defends  any pro Iran stance is evil. This is a country who publicly declares theya re going to wipe other countries off the map.  They should be treated exactly the way NK is not worth negoiations.  The US has made about a billion 'deals' with Iran and Iran has basically laughed at every single of them more than willing to break them. They'll do the same with the current deal about to be agreed on.

 

 

Iran represents a much  more complicated situation than NK and definitely can't be treated the same way as NK

 

Also there  are and have been constant negotiations with NK. But consider the Shia relationship that Iran has with Iraq and its support of terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, plus its influence in Syria. If the USA attacks Iran all these alliances  will be directly impacted, for example Hezbollah may become  more active,  and this will affect the entire region

 

So like it or not we should really consider negotiation with Iran as the only feasible option for sustained peace in the Middle East

[obyknven]

Comrade Obama continue deliver lulz for us

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191966#.VPRDdUmaXQd

 

Obama Threatened to Shoot Down IAF Iran Strike

 

 

Win of US elections by Obama is a best operation of KGB/FSB forever.

[Gfted1]

Have we pumped all the oil out of Iraq yet? Then we can bring Iran freedom and relieve them of their burdensome resources.

[Malcador]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31716684

 

Am i the only one who is worried that Netanyahu can only keep track of three or four sentences at a time. Look at that pile of pages. There is room for a lot more bullet points on an A4 page than that and since everything is a punchline I don't see how one would need anything other than bullet points.

Or he's just too proud to get his eyesight checked and get glasses.

[BruceVC]

Have we pumped all the oil out of Iraq yet? Then we can bring Iran freedom and relieve them of their burdensome resources.

 

 

"Iran freedom " .....that was really funny....you win the much coveted " BruceVC funniest post of the week "  award

Edited March 4, 2015 by BruceVC

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

How is Israel trying to get the goyim to work for it news?

[HoonDing]

Elections in Israel are coming up. That's all one needs to know.

[Enoch]

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31716684

 

Am i the only one who is worried that Netanyahu can only keep track of three or four sentences at a time. Look at that pile of pages. There is room for a lot more bullet points on an A4 page than that and since everything is a punchline I don't see how one would need anything other than bullet points.

Or he's just too proud to get his eyesight checked and get glasses.

 

 

A number of years back, I had occassion to see the late Senator Robert Byrd give a brief talk.  He used notes, bound in a 3-ring binder, that were printed in what I estimated to be a 72-point font. 

 

Politicians-- even octogenarian ones-- don't like being seen with their reading glasses on. 

 

 

Edit:  As to the circumstances and content of the speech, this is the kind of thing that everybody comes out of looking bad.  Just a terrible idea to begin with, with foreign officials on both sides publicly allowing themselves to be used as props in the internal politics of their supposed allies. 

Edited March 4, 2015 by Enoch

[Meshugger]

Open trade and diplomatic relations with Iran instead.

 

The future is bright with a youth that is highly secular and down-right anti-islamic. Many are embracing their Persian heritage and some even convert to Zoroastrianism. Also bear in mind that even if it is an Islamic country, they are predominantly Shia, which makes them an outsider compared to all the other middle eastern countries.  Align with them, and the Israeli lobby slightly loses power and most importantly, the land of terrorism, Saudi-Arabia loses some as well. With this new alliegence, there is of course the difficulty of what to do ISIS, but it's Iran's interest to defeat them as much as the Syrian government. Make way for the possible dissolution of Iraq for the Kurdish nation in the north Sunni-Iraq in the middle the Peoples Republic of Shia-Iraq in the south after ISIS is finally defeated. Iran will ofcourse have more influence in P.R.S.I., but it will be a good leverage against the Saudi in the south. Turkey of course will hate it, but what are they gonna do as NATO member? Align with Russia? Hahaha.

 

With the new indirect influence over Hezbollah thanks to better diplomatic connections, there is also more hope of permanent peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thanks to having dimished the power and influence of all in favour of a slightly stronger Iran will leave no one with any bigger advantage. Without this power, a peace conference will be possible and permanent lines drawn in the sand in the holy land.

 

Obama is so stupid, elect me as God-Emporor and I will do this within a year. 

Edited March 4, 2015 by Meshugger

[Volourn]

"If the USA attacks Iran"

 

I never said the US should attack Iran. That's like extremely last resort. But, it's also silly to negoiate a 'deal' when the side you negoiate with has no intention to honouring said deal and you are getting nothing for it.

[Namutree]

"Obama is so stupid, elect me as God-Emporor and I will do this within a year."

Not sure how realistic your idea is, but I liked this line and your confidence.

 

EDIT: For some reason my posting box is all white and generally messed up. It seems I couldn't quote you properly.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Namutree