I’ve got it on in the background. Harry Reid decided to stick around. Obama is apparently on a video conference that was too important to postpone.
Is he revealing the shit they didn’t want him to reveal about the Iran/US nuclear agreement? I was going to make a post earlier about it but didn’t. I think he will do what ever he thinks is best for his country just as the US would to.
That Metal Show is more important at the moment.
No.
Welcome to the United States of Israel.
Great article about AIPAC in the New Yorker a few months ago= Very Scary
I watched. Nothing new really. Pretty good overview, and while only describing the difficulty of making a “good” deal, the speech was a good explanation of why the current deal may be something you could call a win in the very short term, but will be very bad in the longer term, for Israel, the mideast, and the world. Still don’t understand why it was so important to the admin (noone from the admin attended) that Netanyahu not speak. Their active resistance elevated his speech to epic proportions.
16 Likes
Still don’t understand why it was so important to the admin (noone from the admin attended) that Netanyahu not speak.
There are a number of reasons.
First, this speech wasn’t arranged through the branch of govt responsible for foreign relations. This speech was arranged through Congress, rather than through the State Dept, which is really where this type of thing should originate.
Second, this speech wasn’t even really arranged through Congress, so much as by direct invitation from Rep Boehner. It wasn’t a bipartisan invitation. It’s a pretty obvious attempt from Rep Beohner to thumb his nose at the administration.
Third, PM Netanyahu is up for reelection, and those elections take place in two weeks. This speech is as much a pre-election stump speech and a political event for his campaign as it is a real foreign policy discussion.
Fourth, we’re in the middle of tense and delicate negotiations with Iran. Things like a highly publicized meeting between the US and a hardline anti-Iran Israeli PM right before his election cycle could easily be the type of thing that hurts those talks.
Lastly, like a lot of things in our govt right now, there is some childishness going on, on both sides (as well as PM Netanyahu who should know better) regarding this.
8 Likes
Aware of all that, and all but the fourth point is politics and protocol. Juxtapose all those things with what many in Israel see as an existential threat, and I can certainly see why Netanyahu wanted, and should get, an airing. I do think Netanyahu should have met with Durbin and Feinstein, as they sought, and not copped out with “I don’t want to make this more political”. It is massively political because this admin wants a deal so badly, and what might normally be a policy difference on a less important front, has outsized local and international ramifications.
1 Like
Hurts those talks? You mean the ones where Iran gets everything they want including propoganda to show how the got one over on the good old USA?
Yes we don’t want to offend those perfectly sane Iranians who support terrorists organizations killing innocents ( including our citizens and military)daily and shouting they will destroy Israel? Yes let’s not offend them or endanger those mutually beneficial talks.
Nice breakdown of the talking points put out by the White house btw.
5 Likes
Hurts those talks? You mean the ones where Iran gets everything they want including propoganda to show how the got one over on the good old USA?
Yes we don’t want to offend those perfectly sane Iranians who support terrorists organizations killing innocents ( including our citizens and military)daily and shouting they will destroy Israel? Yes let’s not offend them or endanger those mutually beneficial talks.
Nice breakdown of the talking points put out by the White house btw.
Whether or not you like the goal of the talks is really irrelevant. Any talks with Iran are delicate, and can be influenced by things like meeting with a hardline anti-Iran leader of their most hated neighbor.
As for the talking points, I was responding to a question about why the Administration didn’t like this speech/visit. Whose talking points do you suppose I should have used? Seems like Administration talking points would tend to generally represent the views of the Administration.
Aware of all that, and all but the fourth point is politics and protocol.
Sure, but these are politicians. What do you expect them to be concerned about? Certainly politics and protocol are among those things you would expect high level federal officials to have in mind.
Juxtapose all those things with what many in Israel see as an existential threat, and I can certainly see why Netanyahu wanted, and should get, an airing.
Anyone can see why PM Netanyahu wanted to be heard. Whether he should be heard right this minute is a different discussion, and whether he should be negotiating with the legislative branch to get around the Executive branch is another. Contrary to the beliefs of a certain segment of the US population, Israel and the US have separate and distinct national self interests, and just because Israel feels an existential threat doesn’t mean they necessarily have any right to be heard by the US population or Congress.
I do think Netanyahu should have met with Durbin and Feinstein, as they sought, and not copped out with “I don’t want to make this more political”.
I think he should have arranged his visit and meeting through the Executive branch, like any foreign head of state would customarily do. I don’t know what his reaction would be if a foreign head of state arranged to come visit the Knesset without consultation with him, but I doubt it would be a positive one.
It’s the President’s prerogative to run foreign policy. It’s not Congress’s role to potentially short circuit that policy through direct interaction with foreign leaders. Their role is in controlling the laws and purse strings. If they don’t like a deal the Pres makes with Iran, they have recourse within the purview of their Constitutional roles and responsibilities.
I think compared to the fuit loops working their way through Syria, lebanon and Iraq, that the Iranians appear to be Boston liberal at the moment…even if this deal does punt a problem down field for future negotiations to resolve, the far more worrying situation is that with ISIL.
The likelihood of Iran EVER taking ANY action against Israel or anyone else when you have the 5th fleet sat in Barhrain, and US Airforce bases in both Qatar and SA is almost non-existent.
Everyone recognises that the only thing preventing SA from deciding to annex parts of the other states in the Gulf is the presence of the US military, I doubt its escaped the Iranians notice that they have a presence there
3 Likes
I think compared to the fuit loops working their way through Syria, lebanon and Iraq, that the Iranians appear to be Boston liberal at the moment…even if this deal does punt a problem down field for future negotiations to resolve, the far more worrying situation is that with ISIL.
The likelihood of Iran EVER taking ANY action against Israel or anyone else when you have the 5th fleet sat in Barhrain, and US Airforce bases in both Qatar and SA is almost non-existent.
Everyone recognises that the only thing preventing SA from deciding to annex parts of the other states in the Gulf is the presence of the US military, I doubt its escaped the Iranians notice that they have a presence there
Huh? When have the Saudis ever made any aggressive moves towards the other states in the Gulf? Since “everybody recognizes” this, care to post a reference from a reputable source?
Spot
1 Like
I have minimal interest in his opinion of Iran. It strikes me that he wants us to have a war with them. I’m leery of the guy on the sidelines egging on a fight.
all the nationals I work with in the ME - their long term concern is the loss of their air force base and its subsequent impact on borders.
Up until Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait were established as states, they were protectorates of the UK, nationals at that time were not identified as Bahraini, Qatari, Kuwaiti, did not hold passports, have national ID’s or have registers of births and deaths - leading to the odd situation of 13 siblings, 6 being given Qatari citizenship and 7 Bahraini on the days the protectorates were ended.
a close colleague of mines grandfather was a saudi ambassador, his father an ambassador from another GCC state, and he’d tell you that the links to his tribe are greater than those to the country given half his family live 60 miles away in a different country
So, down the Majlis, the chit chat amongst those who’s siblings are Qatari, Bahraini, Emirati and Saudi is that the borders and countries within the GCC would change if their were no international pressures not to.
So, is their a precedent of Saudi expanding its borders? NO (Israel of course is a different story) but does that mean that they wouldn’t if the circumstances were right? Ive no idea, I do know that every single national I know in the region that has the means have their kids in the US or europe and invest all their money in property overseas - now that can’t be because they feel totally secure where they are can it?
Fuck Netanyahu for trying to get America into a war with Iran. The nerve of Netanyahu to tell us that we should not try and strike a deal with Iran. No surprise that Netanyahuis beating the drums of war because Netanyahu is a war mongering right winger just like the republican war baiting scum who inited him over to preach his pro war bull shit.
I try to like Netanyahu. But his speech was over the top.
“Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.”
Iran = ISIS? And Iran is going to take over the world? Pure fear-mongering. The last time Iran seized land from another state, it was Iraq. And they ended up having to give that territory back.
Iran can barely rule itself, much less the region or the world.
As one commentator said after the speech, Netanyahu’s speech was just a gift to Iranian hardliners who use fear-mongering about Israel and the U.S. to maintain power. And Netanyahu is using fear-mongering to maintain power himself.
2 Likes
Still don’t understand why it was so important to the admin (noone from the admin attended) that Netanyahu not speak.
Let’s say you’re the CEO of Apple. A member of your board of directors arranges a private meeting with the CEO of Microsoft in order to discuss a pending lawsuit against Samsung, but doesn’t invite you or board members considered loyal to you.
Would you just laugh that off? I wouldn’t, if I wanted to be taken seriously as CEO of Apple.
6 Likes
Iran has what ISIL is trying to establish/maintain, a place from which to work, and I’d argue Iran projects a lot of power. There’s this from Netanyahu’s speech, " In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa.".
There were reportedly many US soldiers killed and injured by Iranian military equipment and individuals that crossed to Iraq during our time there.
Yemen, until recently was a friend Obama touted, but now: “Washington (AFP) Feb. 24, 2015- Iran’s support for Shiite rebels in Yemen ‘contributed’ to the militia’s takeover of the Yemeni capital and the collapse of the government, top US diplomat John Kerry said Tuesday.”
They’ve supported Assad’s slaughter of civilians. They spend millions to have one of the most controlled and locked down internet environments on earth, while launching successful cyber attacks against many banks and even Vegas casinos here in the states. Hell, they’re even purportedly behind the 1994 bombing in Argentina, the investigation of which led to the more recent death of the Agentinian prosecutor, and continued unrest there. Many more examples of their ability to project power through terrorism and tyranny by their minions, so I’d disagree that they are weak as cupcakes and should not be worried about.
http://time.com/3730318/transcript-netanyahu-speech-to-congress/
http://www.mojahedin.org/newsen/33349/Iran-’contributed’-to-collapse-of-Yemen-government-Kerry
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/iran-behind-many-recent-cyber-attacks/
Still don’t understand why it was so important to the admin (noone from the admin attended) that Netanyahu not speak.
Let’s say you’re the CEO of Apple. A member of your board of directors arranges a private meeting with the CEO of Microsoft in order to discuss a pending lawsuit against Samsung, but doesn’t invite you or board members considered loyal to you.
Would you just laugh that off? I wouldn’t, if I wanted to be taken seriously as CEO of Apple.
In a better realm there would be freedom for the admin and other countries to negotiate with Iran, then the resultant agreement could be debated *before* any final sign on. That does not happen, and it looks as if they are dialing in on a deal that one of the most affected, Israel, finds weak and counter-productive. For you and me it's another of those "we have to pass it for you to see what's in it" moments, (much like the new FCC regs). Netanyahu already knows what it looks like, and there is no other time to speak out, to shout out in protest, than now. He and Obama are both doing what they think is best, and I think it's just fine that they disagree, and that Bibi has gone public with his thoughts.
5 Likes
If Obama wasn’t such a self serving narcissist and an amateur, this wouldn’t be happening.
He has set a lot of precedents with power grabs that nobody dared do in the past because it was unheard of, viewed as bad or unconstitutional, etc. I don’t think he is a wise politician as much as an opportunist taking advantage of the polarization and not caring what people think. I wonder what a more effective leader will do with this same power and precedents set by him. I know, I couldn’t help myself.