Boehner defies Obama on Iran sanctions, invites Netanyahu

[chuckd]

"Israel is not dependent on the USA. It is a prosperous country with a healthy, rapidly growing and diverse economy"

And if anyone threatens to cut off aid, AIPAC calls them "anti-semetic".

As to the size of Israel's economy, it's small and insignificant, 291 Billion (2013).

Iran has a larger economy, 368 Billion (2013).

Even Iraq has a 222 Billion economy.

Without America and London "backstopping" Israel with it's military and financial empire, it would collapse...

Would you care to provide the per capita GDP figures?

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

Yeah, I thought not, so here it goes:

Iran - $4,763

Iraq - $6,862

Israel - $36,051

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD

To further prove the fallacy of your GDP position, the GDP figures you provided would have Iran ranking 15th, Iraq 17th and Israel 24th among the 50 US states.

If you ever had a point, you no longer have one. GDP is a ridiculous comparison to make.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP

[Steely Dan]

Here is a great article spelling out exactly why Netanyahu would be wise to accept the invitation of congress. Obama will undoubtably retaliate, but in reality he could have done little more to damage Israel than he has already done. For Israel Iran is an existential problem, for the narcissist in the Oval Office it is an imagined existential threat to his own ego that is the only issue. The Iranians know this full well and will no doubt offer next to nothing, which Obama will gift wrap as if it's the Star of Bengal. The gloves have to come off now, well done congress.

http://nypost.com/2015/01/24/white-house-going-nuclear-on-netanyahu/

[Morch]

Here is a great article spelling out exactly why Netanyahu would be wise to accept the invitation of congress. Obama will undoubtably retaliate, but in reality he could have done little more to damage Israel than he has already done. For Israel Iran is an existential problem, for the narcissist in the Oval Office it is an imagined existential threat to his own ego that is the only issue. The Iranians know this full well and will no doubt offer next to nothing, which Obama will gift wrap as if it's the Star of Bengal. The gloves have to come off now, well done congress.

http://nypost.com/2015/01/24/white-house-going-nuclear-on-netanyahu/

There's that fallacy again - equating Netanyahu's view with what's "good for Israel" (or something along these lines). Netanyahu's views on the Iranian threat and the ways to counter it, do not necessarily represent overall Israeli public opinion or, indeed, what is good for Israel. There are many who see his governments troubled relationship with the current administration and with the international community as constituting a severe threat to Israel's best interests. The only ones not seeing any issues with the way Netanyahu's speech was arranged and with its possible effects on relationships between the countries are ardent supporters of right wing parties.

This is all more to do with partisan politics in both countries, and with meddling in respective domestic politics.

[SiSePuede419]

Conservatives have had a war boner for Iran for over a decade. Why? Because they're warmongers who hate.

The whole point of stopping Iran from getting nukes is hypocritical. Many countries have nukes, including America and Israel.

For American Republicans to invite the leader of a country with nukes to America (another country with nukes) to talk about another country that wants to acquire nukes (Iran) is petty, nonsensical and is nothing but hatred (against Obama) and hatred (by Israel) against Muslims.

The most dangerous Muslim country with nukes is PAKISTAN, but thst's OK because Republican George W. Bush shoveled Billions over to them...

[Ulysses G.]

CONGRESS invited Netanyahu to speak and they are a coequal branch of government and have just as much right as Obama to invite one of our most important allies to visit.

The most dangerous Muslim country trying to get nukes is IRAN.

[ggold]

Here is a great article spelling out exactly why Netanyahu would be wise to accept the invitation of congress. Obama will undoubtably retaliate, but in reality he could have done little more to damage Israel than he has already done. For Israel Iran is an existential problem, for the narcissist in the Oval Office it is an imagined existential threat to his own ego that is the only issue. The Iranians know this full well and will no doubt offer next to nothing, which Obama will gift wrap as if it's the Star of Bengal. The gloves have to come off now, well done congress.

http://nypost.com/2015/01/24/white-house-going-nuclear-on-netanyahu/

There's that fallacy again - equating Netanyahu's view with what's "good for Israel" (or something along these lines). Netanyahu's views on the Iranian threat and the ways to counter it, do not necessarily represent overall Israeli public opinion or, indeed, what is good for Israel. There are many who see his governments troubled relationship with the current administration and with the international community as constituting a severe threat to Israel's best interests. The only ones not seeing any issues with the way Netanyahu's speech was arranged and with its possible effects on relationships between the countries are ardent supporters of right wing parties.

This is all more to do with partisan politics in both countries, and with meddling in respective domestic politics.

while I agree that this is about domestic partisan politics in both countries. To suggest that a nuclear armed Iran would be ok with Israel is obviously not the case. I wonder if the international community would have been so anti Israel if it had not been for Obama's moves in that respect.

Netanyahu has been playing the long game, he has not been able to act as he might have wished. There is not much liking for Obama's attempts to push Israel. So he is waiting for a new president to come along in 2017, who will be more friendly towards Israel!

I think the question is, who got it more wrong Obama or Netanyahu.

I have never seen such animosity towards a President as there is with Obama, from GOP even before the republicans took control of both houses, Is Obama in his rights to bypass congress? If he gets a deal with Iran shouldn't that be signed off by congress or not, as the case may be?

So while I don't agree that he will speak before congress, I understand why he is doing it. If it marginalises Obama even more than he is (is that possible). With the republicans being more supportive of Israel then waiting two years for a new president becomes irrelevant. The republicans control the agenda.

I doubt this will cause any serious damage between America and Israel, the damage is between two large ego's. And Obama doesn't look to strong any more. Any price he tries to make Israel pay will look like what it is, a losers retaliation.

[dexterm]

CONGRESS invited Netanyahu to speak and they are a coequal branch of government and have just as much right as Obama to invite one of our most important allies to visit.

The most dangerous Muslim country trying to get nukes is IRAN.

Boehner didn’t invite Netanyahu, AIPAC did..Boehner was just following orders.

What’s the point of Obama talking to Netanyahu anyway..he won’t listen. He repeatedly snubs US criticism of Israel building colonies on occupied land undermining the peace process. Last time they met Netanyahu, the PM of a tinpot pariah state in the Middle East that somehow the USA seems beholden to, lectured the President of the most powerful country in the world as if he were a naughty schoolboy.

It’s just a photo op for Netanyahu in an election campaign.

Well done Obama for once for not dancing like a fool to Israel’s tune.

Edited January 26, 2015 by dexterm

[chuckd]

<snip>

Boehner didn’t invite Netanyahu, AIPAC did..Boehner was just following orders.

<snip>

"Boehner didn’t invite Netanyahu, AIPAC did..Boehner was just following orders."

Another wild eyed claim you can't back up. Prove it by providing a valid link.

[Morch]

Here is a great article spelling out exactly why Netanyahu would be wise to accept the invitation of congress. Obama will undoubtably retaliate, but in reality he could have done little more to damage Israel than he has already done. For Israel Iran is an existential problem, for the narcissist in the Oval Office it is an imagined existential threat to his own ego that is the only issue. The Iranians know this full well and will no doubt offer next to nothing, which Obama will gift wrap as if it's the Star of Bengal. The gloves have to come off now, well done congress.

http://nypost.com/2015/01/24/white-house-going-nuclear-on-netanyahu/

There's that fallacy again - equating Netanyahu's view with what's "good for Israel" (or something along these lines). Netanyahu's views on the Iranian threat and the ways to counter it, do not necessarily represent overall Israeli public opinion or, indeed, what is good for Israel. There are many who see his governments troubled relationship with the current administration and with the international community as constituting a severe threat to Israel's best interests. The only ones not seeing any issues with the way Netanyahu's speech was arranged and with its possible effects on relationships between the countries are ardent supporters of right wing parties.

This is all more to do with partisan politics in both countries, and with meddling in respective domestic politics.

while I agree that this is about domestic partisan politics in both countries. To suggest that a nuclear armed Iran would be ok with Israel is obviously not the case. I wonder if the international community would have been so anti Israel if it had not been for Obama's moves in that respect.

Netanyahu has been playing the long game, he has not been able to act as he might have wished. There is not much liking for Obama's attempts to push Israel. So he is waiting for a new president to come along in 2017, who will be more friendly towards Israel!

I think the question is, who got it more wrong Obama or Netanyahu.

I have never seen such animosity towards a President as there is with Obama, from GOP even before the republicans took control of both houses, Is Obama in his rights to bypass congress? If he gets a deal with Iran shouldn't that be signed off by congress or not, as the case may be?

So while I don't agree that he will speak before congress, I understand why he is doing it. If it marginalises Obama even more than he is (is that possible). With the republicans being more supportive of Israel then waiting two years for a new president becomes irrelevant. The republicans control the agenda.

I doubt this will cause any serious damage between America and Israel, the damage is between two large ego's. And Obama doesn't look to strong any more. Any price he tries to make Israel pay will look like what it is, a losers retaliation.

There was not suggestion that a nuclear armed Iran is good news for Israel. It was merely pointed out that the way Netanyahu been going about it is not necessarily wholly supported by the Israeli public (and as previous reports indicated, not even by the higher echelons of Israel's decision makers).

And that's another fallacy - that Netanyahu's efforts in general, and this speech in particular, are somehow central to the final outcome of events. Or, more accurately put, that its either his way or Iran going nuclear capable. This is more of an opinion than an honest fact. There could be more than one ways to deal with the situation (well, there certainly were, at any rate), there are more optional scenarios than this binary presentation, and first and foremost - there are certain realities which need to sink in.

Netanyahu never played any long games at any point during his career. Almost by definition, all of his political moves are not executed with long term goals in mind, but are more to do with present circumstances and on-the-spot political maneuvering. The old saying about a smart man knowing how to get out of trouble which a wise man wouldn't get into to begin with, fits him like a glove. Considering that the ever changing "deadlines" after which Iran would either be nuclear capable, attack will not be possible or something or the other - the notion of having a clear idea about time frames, not to mention long games is absurd.

There's a whole lot of time between now and 2017. A lot of unnecessary unpleasantness an alienated president not running for re-election might be tempted to entertain. This may not materialize, or not bear such grave consequences - but bottom line, the USA's support is Israel's single most important strategic asset. One simply does not mess with that, certainly not in order to get a marginal advantage at the poles.

There are also no assurances that the next president will appreciate the precedent of foreign meddling at this level, and there are pretty good signs that this move is not generally well accepted (except by those already supporting either Netanyahu or the Republicans - and even then, not all). Two years are an eternity in politics, but that still does not make Netanyahu's move a long game. More like playing an apparently immediate advantage and dealing with whatever the consequences might be later.

I haven't got a strong opinion one way or the other on the partisan issues plaguing domestic politics in the USA. It hardly matters "who started it". The main issue being who will be big enough to bridge the gap - because the current state of things cannot be sustained forever. Doubt that either the Obama administration or his current opponents would prove up to the task. This is not really about protocol or who's got which right to do whatever - it is about two sides putting their own petty rivalries before what's best for the country, and not showing much skill or grace at coming to a workable compromise.

There will be a price to pay for sure as far as Israel is concerned, most probably when things with the Palestinians will become more exciting on the international level.

[Morch]

<snip>

Boehner didn’t invite Netanyahu, AIPAC did..Boehner was just following orders.

<snip>

"Boehner didn’t invite Netanyahu, AIPAC did..Boehner was just following orders."

Another wild eyed claim you can't back up. Prove it by providing a valid link.

Indeed.

One would have to be pretty unaware of USA domestic politics to not see this in context of the partisan divide.

I am pretty sure that at least some on AIPAC were appalled by the announcement and its implications.

[Publicus]

CONGRESS invited Netanyahu to speak and they are a coequal branch of government and have just as much right as Obama to invite one of our most important allies to visit.

The most dangerous Muslim country trying to get nukes is IRAN.

It is not the visit per se that is at issue, it is Netanyhu addressing a joint session of the Congress of the United States.....and doing it while not being on an official state visit, and doing it to oppose US foreign policy and national security policies...concerning nuclear energy and weapons.

The post is an extension of a thoroughly discredited thesis and argument. Perhaps the poster thinks other posters have forgotten that........

The Constitution and the Supreme Court are settled in the matter that the president is the head of government, chief of state, the "organ of the Federal Government" in international relations.

To reiterate, the congress can invite whomever it likes to speak before it. The authority of congress is not at issue. What is at issue is the judgement of Republican party leaders who control the House and the Senate.

Battles over immigration last week and now abortion and rape are two predictable fights any smart leader would want to avoid, particularly in the first month. Best quote of the week goes to Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.), quoted in National Journal as saying: "Week one, we had a peaker election that did not go as well as a lot of us would have liked. Week two, we got into a big fight over deporting children, something that a lot of us didn't want to have a discussion about. Week three, we are now talking about rape and incest and reportable rapes and incest for minors. ... I just can't wait for week four."

I bet Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) can't wait for week four, either.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/lawmaker-news/230539-another-week-another-gop-fiasco

Week four came upon us and so did this whacked out invitation from the leaders of the Republican party majority in the Congress.

I suspect February will not be for the squeamish.

[chuckd]

[Steely Dan]

Here is a great article spelling out exactly why Netanyahu would be wise to accept the invitation of congress. Obama will undoubtably retaliate, but in reality he could have done little more to damage Israel than he has already done. For Israel Iran is an existential problem, for the narcissist in the Oval Office it is an imagined existential threat to his own ego that is the only issue. The Iranians know this full well and will no doubt offer next to nothing, which Obama will gift wrap as if it's the Star of Bengal. The gloves have to come off now, well done congress.

http://nypost.com/2015/01/24/white-house-going-nuclear-on-netanyahu/

There's that fallacy again - equating Netanyahu's view with what's "good for Israel" (or something along these lines). Netanyahu's views on the Iranian threat and the ways to counter it, do not necessarily represent overall Israeli public opinion or, indeed, what is good for Israel. There are many who see his governments troubled relationship with the current administration and with the international community as constituting a severe threat to Israel's best interests. The only ones not seeing any issues with the way Netanyahu's speech was arranged and with its possible effects on relationships between the countries are ardent supporters of right wing parties.

This is all more to do with partisan politics in both countries, and with meddling in respective domestic politics.

while I agree that this is about domestic partisan politics in both countries. To suggest that a nuclear armed Iran would be ok with Israel is obviously not the case. I wonder if the international community would have been so anti Israel if it had not been for Obama's moves in that respect.

Netanyahu has been playing the long game, he has not been able to act as he might have wished. There is not much liking for Obama's attempts to push Israel. So he is waiting for a new president to come along in 2017, who will be more friendly towards Israel!

I think the question is, who got it more wrong Obama or Netanyahu.

I have never seen such animosity towards a President as there is with Obama, from GOP even before the republicans took control of both houses, Is Obama in his rights to bypass congress? If he gets a deal with Iran shouldn't that be signed off by congress or not, as the case may be?

So while I don't agree that he will speak before congress, I understand why he is doing it. If it marginalises Obama even more than he is (is that possible). With the republicans being more supportive of Israel then waiting two years for a new president becomes irrelevant. The republicans control the agenda.

I doubt this will cause any serious damage between America and Israel, the damage is between two large ego's. And Obama doesn't look to strong any more. Any price he tries to make Israel pay will look like what it is, a losers retaliation.

There was not suggestion that a nuclear armed Iran is good news for Israel. It was merely pointed out that the way Netanyahu been going about it is not necessarily wholly supported by the Israeli public (and as previous reports indicated, not even by the higher echelons of Israel's decision makers).

And that's another fallacy - that Netanyahu's efforts in general, and this speech in particular, are somehow central to the final outcome of events. Or, more accurately put, that its either his way or Iran going nuclear capable. This is more of an opinion than an honest fact. There could be more than one ways to deal with the situation (well, there certainly were, at any rate), there are more optional scenarios than this binary presentation, and first and foremost - there are certain realities which need to sink in.

Netanyahu never played any long games at any point during his career. Almost by definition, all of his political moves are not executed with long term goals in mind, but are more to do with present circumstances and on-the-spot political maneuvering. The old saying about a smart man knowing how to get out of trouble which a wise man wouldn't get into to begin with, fits him like a glove. Considering that the ever changing "deadlines" after which Iran would either be nuclear capable, attack will not be possible or something or the other - the notion of having a clear idea about time frames, not to mention long games is absurd.

There's a whole lot of time between now and 2017. A lot of unnecessary unpleasantness an alienated president not running for re-election might be tempted to entertain. This may not materialize, or not bear such grave consequences - but bottom line, the USA's support is Israel's single most important strategic asset. One simply does not mess with that, certainly not in order to get a marginal advantage at the poles.

There are also no assurances that the next president will appreciate the precedent of foreign meddling at this level, and there are pretty good signs that this move is not generally well accepted (except by those already supporting either Netanyahu or the Republicans - and even then, not all). Two years are an eternity in politics, but that still does not make Netanyahu's move a long game. More like playing an apparently immediate advantage and dealing with whatever the consequences might be later.

I haven't got a strong opinion one way or the other on the partisan issues plaguing domestic politics in the USA. It hardly matters "who started it". The main issue being who will be big enough to bridge the gap - because the current state of things cannot be sustained forever. Doubt that either the Obama administration or his current opponents would prove up to the task. This is not really about protocol or who's got which right to do whatever - it is about two sides putting their own petty rivalries before what's best for the country, and not showing much skill or grace at coming to a workable compromise.

There will be a price to pay for sure as far as Israel is concerned, most probably when things with the Palestinians will become more exciting on the international level.

I think the gloves are well and truly off. Obama has sent a representative to Israel to organize the election campaign against Netanyahu, which the U.S is bankrolling. I'm not at this stage sure of the chronology of this vis congress inviting Netanyahu, but the animus was such that it really makes little difference.

There are three things to consider in determining Netanyahu's best course of action. Firstly what is the likelihood of Obama agreeing to a bad deal with Iran, partly out of animus for Netanyahu and partly seeing as our Nobel peace prizewinner is desperate to chalk up some foreign policy 'success'. The second issue is whether the Iranians are rational players. With the failure of the Yemen regime and the death of King Abdullah the twelvers within the Iranian regime will be certainly taking note and may welcome a U.S or Israeli military strike if they believe it helps fulfill their end of times prophecy. Thirdly Saudi Arabia are very unlikely to acquiesce to any agreement with Iran that they are not absolutely convinced by. I suspect Israel and Saudi Arabia may be closer to each other than the U.S in their assessment of such a deal.

Finally yes, there are politics going on here for sure, but although Netanyahu has his critics I suspect when push comes to shove Israelis view this as an existential issue, which they do not trust Obama on regardless of their domestic affiliations.

[Chicog]

Is he going to hold up his inane bomb cartoon again?

If so he's looking at getting the piss ripped out of him again.

All this to supposedly win an election; let's face it by now Israelis either love him or hate him.

[Publicus]

Former prez Bill Clinton has said it many times, and here is what then Prez Clinton said after first meeting PM Netanyahu in the Oval Office.....

Wait, Who’s the Superpower Here?

Barack Obama is certainly not the first American president to find him a tough customer. In 1996, Bill Clinton remarked privately after his first meeting with Bibi, "Who the **** does he think he is? Who's the ****ing superpower here?" Now, however, and at potentially great cost for Israel, he may be going too far.

Netanyahu is doing something that is doubly foolish for Israeli-American relations. He is asking America for something it will not do.

No American president is going to allow Netanyahu to determine American foreign policy. This time, he really does need to remember who the superpower is.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2012/09/benjamin_netanyahu_should_be_careful_about_inserting_himself_too_much_into_the_presidential_race_between_barack_obama_and_mitt_romney_.html

Benjamin Netanyahu is starting to sound like Vladimir Putin, except Putin did not support Mitt Romney for prez in 2012 as Bibi not so quietly did..

Edited January 27, 2015 by Publicus

[Morch]

There's that fallacy again - equating Netanyahu's view with what's "good for Israel" (or something along these lines). Netanyahu's views on the Iranian threat and the ways to counter it, do not necessarily represent overall Israeli public opinion or, indeed, what is good for Israel. There are many who see his governments troubled relationship with the current administration and with the international community as constituting a severe threat to Israel's best interests. The only ones not seeing any issues with the way Netanyahu's speech was arranged and with its possible effects on relationships between the countries are ardent supporters of right wing parties.

This is all more to do with partisan politics in both countries, and with meddling in respective domestic politics.

while I agree that this is about domestic partisan politics in both countries. To suggest that a nuclear armed Iran would be ok with Israel is obviously not the case. I wonder if the international community would have been so anti Israel if it had not been for Obama's moves in that respect.

Netanyahu has been playing the long game, he has not been able to act as he might have wished. There is not much liking for Obama's attempts to push Israel. So he is waiting for a new president to come along in 2017, who will be more friendly towards Israel!

I think the question is, who got it more wrong Obama or Netanyahu.

I have never seen such animosity towards a President as there is with Obama, from GOP even before the republicans took control of both houses, Is Obama in his rights to bypass congress? If he gets a deal with Iran shouldn't that be signed off by congress or not, as the case may be?

So while I don't agree that he will speak before congress, I understand why he is doing it. If it marginalises Obama even more than he is (is that possible). With the republicans being more supportive of Israel then waiting two years for a new president becomes irrelevant. The republicans control the agenda.

I doubt this will cause any serious damage between America and Israel, the damage is between two large ego's. And Obama doesn't look to strong any more. Any price he tries to make Israel pay will look like what it is, a losers retaliation.

There was not suggestion that a nuclear armed Iran is good news for Israel. It was merely pointed out that the way Netanyahu been going about it is not necessarily wholly supported by the Israeli public (and as previous reports indicated, not even by the higher echelons of Israel's decision makers).

And that's another fallacy - that Netanyahu's efforts in general, and this speech in particular, are somehow central to the final outcome of events. Or, more accurately put, that its either his way or Iran going nuclear capable. This is more of an opinion than an honest fact. There could be more than one ways to deal with the situation (well, there certainly were, at any rate), there are more optional scenarios than this binary presentation, and first and foremost - there are certain realities which need to sink in.

Netanyahu never played any long games at any point during his career. Almost by definition, all of his political moves are not executed with long term goals in mind, but are more to do with present circumstances and on-the-spot political maneuvering. The old saying about a smart man knowing how to get out of trouble which a wise man wouldn't get into to begin with, fits him like a glove. Considering that the ever changing "deadlines" after which Iran would either be nuclear capable, attack will not be possible or something or the other - the notion of having a clear idea about time frames, not to mention long games is absurd.

There's a whole lot of time between now and 2017. A lot of unnecessary unpleasantness an alienated president not running for re-election might be tempted to entertain. This may not materialize, or not bear such grave consequences - but bottom line, the USA's support is Israel's single most important strategic asset. One simply does not mess with that, certainly not in order to get a marginal advantage at the poles.

There are also no assurances that the next president will appreciate the precedent of foreign meddling at this level, and there are pretty good signs that this move is not generally well accepted (except by those already supporting either Netanyahu or the Republicans - and even then, not all). Two years are an eternity in politics, but that still does not make Netanyahu's move a long game. More like playing an apparently immediate advantage and dealing with whatever the consequences might be later.

I haven't got a strong opinion one way or the other on the partisan issues plaguing domestic politics in the USA. It hardly matters "who started it". The main issue being who will be big enough to bridge the gap - because the current state of things cannot be sustained forever. Doubt that either the Obama administration or his current opponents would prove up to the task. This is not really about protocol or who's got which right to do whatever - it is about two sides putting their own petty rivalries before what's best for the country, and not showing much skill or grace at coming to a workable compromise.

There will be a price to pay for sure as far as Israel is concerned, most probably when things with the Palestinians will become more exciting on the international level.

I think the gloves are well and truly off. Obama has sent a representative to Israel to organize the election campaign against Netanyahu, which the U.S is bankrolling. I'm not at this stage sure of the chronology of this vis congress inviting Netanyahu, but the animus was such that it really makes little difference.

There are three things to consider in determining Netanyahu's best course of action. Firstly what is the likelihood of Obama agreeing to a bad deal with Iran, partly out of animus for Netanyahu and partly seeing as our Nobel peace prizewinner is desperate to chalk up some foreign policy 'success'. The second issue is whether the Iranians are rational players. With the failure of the Yemen regime and the death of King Abdullah the twelvers within the Iranian regime will be certainly taking note and may welcome a U.S or Israeli military strike if they believe it helps fulfill their end of times prophecy. Thirdly Saudi Arabia are very unlikely to acquiesce to any agreement with Iran that they are not absolutely convinced by. I suspect Israel and Saudi Arabia may be closer to each other than the U.S in their assessment of such a deal.

Finally yes, there are politics going on here for sure, but although Netanyahu has his critics I suspect when push comes to shove Israelis view this as an existential issue, which they do not trust Obama on regardless of their domestic affiliations.

*posts removed to allow reply*

A credible link confirming the bit about Obama sending a fixer to handle the Israeli elections and that the USA bankrolls the opposition would be appreciated. Mind, that publicly doing so (as it is obvious out) would be tantamount to assuring Netanyahu wins the election. If anything, this would seem like a Netanyahu election campaign play. The notion that the administration is bankrolling the opposition are quite amusing considering known backers of Netanyahu in the USA.

Obama will not cut a bad deal out of spite for Netanyahu's conduct. People may not appreciate or like Obama, but I doubt that things on this level would be sorted as means to settle personal scores. For one thing, there are simply too many people which are involved and most presidents will not take the risk. Additionally, I do not believe that Obama wants a nuclear capable Iran - this is simply too dangerous for USA interests (cue the chorus implying he's a traitor...). He might cut a less than perfect deal or less than what Netanyahu is publicly saying to be acceptable from Israel's security point of view. On the first option, I haven't got much to say - we'll have to wait and see. On the second, being the Middle East, any opening position, any precondition, and any line drawn in the sand are negotiable. It is pretty clear to anyone realistic enough, that Israel will not be able to get 100% of its demands rammed through, it is also obvious that these are not the actual red lines.

Any notion that the Iranians are not rational players is simply disconnected with realities. They have their own agenda, and perhaps a different mode of reasoning, but nothing that they do so far indicates something other than having an idea where they are heading. Indeed, they could even be said to be the most rational players in this drama. Doomsday predictions about Iran welcoming an Israeli strike in order to...what, exactly? Alright, they got their regional power plays, yes, they got the Shia-Sunni conflict, yes. Doesn't make them irrational players. The post I was responding to claimed Netanyahu plays a long game - if so, what would one call the Iranian moves?

Saudi Arabia is indeed a major, if relatively quiet, factor with regards to how events will unfold. Hard to say how the succession will effect things, and again, the rumors (or wishful thinking) regarding the level of cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel are neither confirmed nor necessarily guarantee the possibility of an effective action.

As for Israel's domestic politics - Obama is definitely not trusted by most Israelis (even those opposing Netanyahu) as a good negotiator. That said, this does not translate to overall trust in Netanyahu when it comes to dealing with Iran (he comes out as better than the main opposition, but that's not saying much or quite the same that he's generally seen as capable by all). There is, however, a general (aside from ardent right wing supporters) view that risking the special relationship with the USA is not a smart move.

[Morch]

Senate Democrats hold off on new Iran vote - for now

(Reuters) - Several Democratic senators said on Tuesday they would give the Obama administration at least two more months to reach a nuclear deal with Iran before voting for tighter economic restrictions, easing the threat that Congress might override President Barack Obama's veto of a new sanctions bill.

U.S. Senator Robert Menendez, co-author of the legislation that would tighten sanctions on Iran if there is no deal by the end of June, said he and other Democratic senators would not back passage of the bill until after March 24, and only in the absence of a framework agreement with Tehran.

Obama said a vote for more restrictions, which are strongly supported by Republican lawmakers, could upset negotiations under way, and pledged to veto any bill imposing new sanctions while talks are ongoing.

"Many of my Democratic colleagues and I have sent a letter to the president, telling him we will not support passage of the Kirk-Menendez bill on the Senate floor until after March 24, and only if there is no political framework agreement," Menendez said at a Senate Banking Committee hearing.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/27/us-iran-nuclear-congress-idUSKBN0L01YG20150127

No consequences, eh?

[Jingthing]

Iran's Propaganda Press TV punked (themselves)!

This satire item from Israel was on Iran's Press TV site as if it was really news!

http://www.theisraelidaily.com/diplomatic-crisis-obama-defriends-netanyahu-facebook-2/

Edited January 27, 2015 by Jingthing

[NeverSure]

To reiterate, the congress can invite whomever it likes to speak before it. The authority of congress is not at issue. What is at issue is the judgement of Republican party leaders who control the House and the Senate.

And control the lame duck Obama if they want to. $$$$$$$$$$$$$

Obama is stupid to neglect having a good dialogue going with Israel. If Israel believes Iran is on the verge of getting a nuke, it will bomb the crap out of Iran. It will not only hit it with bunker busters, but it will take out its airfields and shipping ports. It would especially do that if it felt it was all alone.

Iran has promised to destroy Israel, and it has said that the so-called Palestinians would overrun Israel. Israel has long lived with the threat. NEW YORK TIMES

Don't forget that Saudi Arabia has "had it" with Iran. Israel might find a momentary ally. If Iran gets the bomb, Saudi Arabia will feel that it needs the bomb as a deterrent.

It is Obama who is out of the loop and who is also a lame duck who is also being made to look as dumb as it gets.

[Publicus]

To reiterate, the congress can invite whomever it likes to speak before it. The authority of congress is not at issue. What is at issue is the judgement of Republican party leaders who control the House and the Senate.

And control the lame duck Obama if they want to. $$$$$$$$$$$$$

Obama is stupid to neglect having a good dialogue going with Israel. If Israel believes Iran is on the verge of getting a nuke, it will bomb the crap out of Iran. It will not only hit it with bunker busters, but it will take out its airfields and shipping ports. It would especially do that if it felt it was all alone.

Iran has promised to destroy Israel, and it has said that the so-called Palestinians would overrun Israel. Israel has long lived with the threat. NEW YORK TIMES

Don't forget that Saudi Arabia has "had it" with Iran. Israel might find a momentary ally. If Iran gets the bomb, Saudi Arabia will feel that it needs the bomb as a deterrent.

It is Obama who is out of the loop and who is also a lame duck who is also being made to look as dumb as it gets.

Prez Obama knows the following to be true as do many Israelis and others in the ME and in almost any capital in almost any country......

Netanyahu may go into history not as another Churchill, but as another George W. Bush. Like Bush before the invasion of Iraq, Netanyahu is twisting the facts to make his case; and like Bush he may drag Israel into a war that may take an exorbitant toll on Israel and the world economy, without preventing Iran from going nuclear in the long run.

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/netanyahu-s-dangerous-holocaust-analogy-1.417039

Prez Obama knows what is going on and the P5+1 negotiators with Iran know it as well. They continue to follow the lead of the president, as do the six Democratic party senators who have withdrawn their support of the Republican design to impose new unneeded sanctions which, if imposed, would all but destroy the negotiations. Which means the Senate will not be able to override the president's veto of more and new unnecessary sanctions.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the longer we negotiate the better for us. The chief negotiator told Congress last year deception is in the DNA of the people over there, the Iranians, the Persians. We know this and we are proceeding intelligently, wisely, with diligence. The anti-Obama hysteria does not extend beyond the far right and among the most conservative center-right Republicans in the US.

[GentlemanJim]

So why do the Democrats not just boycott the session of Congress when Netanyahu speaks. If feeling is that strong then it would seem a natural course of action to take.

[Choctastic]

Netanyahu's views on the Iranian threat and the ways to counter it, do not necessarily represent overall Israeli public opinion

'From Ehud Barak to Meir Dagan, Israel’s leading security specialists have, time and again, made clear that even if Iran were to attain the bomb, this would not endanger Israel’s existence.'

http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/strenger-than-fiction/netanyahu-must-stop-misusing-the-holocaust-1.409191

[Credo]

To reiterate, the congress can invite whomever it likes to speak before it. The authority of congress is not at issue. What is at issue is the judgement of Republican party leaders who control the House and the Senate.

And control the lame duck Obama if they want to. $$$$$$$$$$$$$

Obama is stupid to neglect having a good dialogue going with Israel. If Israel believes Iran is on the verge of getting a nuke, it will bomb the crap out of Iran. It will not only hit it with bunker busters, but it will take out its airfields and shipping ports. It would especially do that if it felt it was all alone.

Iran has promised to destroy Israel, and it has said that the so-called Palestinians would overrun Israel. Israel has long lived with the threat. NEW YORK TIMES

Don't forget that Saudi Arabia has "had it" with Iran. Israel might find a momentary ally. If Iran gets the bomb, Saudi Arabia will feel that it needs the bomb as a deterrent.

It is Obama who is out of the loop and who is also a lame duck who is also being made to look as dumb as it gets.

Obama has no plans to engage in any further military interventions unless absolutely necessary and at this point in time, it is not necessary to take out Iran's nuclear capability. Everyone has complained about the US playing the 'world policeman', so let someone else intervene on the military front.

I don't know that disagreeing with Netanyahu means that there isn't a good dialogue with Israel.

If Israel wants to take out the Iranian nuclear facility, they can go ahead and do so. I am 100% confident they will have the full backing of the US. It's pretty obvious congress backs them; it's rather certain that the US public will support them and, hell, even the Saudi's might support them.

Nobody likes the police, but the world is beginning to see how well things go when someone doesn't take on the role.

[Chicog]

Iran's Propaganda Press TV punked (themselves)!

This satire item from Israel was on Iran's Press TV site as if it was really news!

http://www.theisraelidaily.com/diplomatic-crisis-obama-defriends-netanyahu-facebook-2/

presstv2.jpg

Not for the first time, that station is almost as entertaining as North Korean News.

[Chicog]

The Republicans aren't renowned for turning up to security briefings, but they might find that there are plenty of unofficial discussions going on involving permutations of Saudi, Iran and the US that cover areas of mutual interest - particularly defeating IS.

Roosevelt famously quoted "Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick", but the big stick is a given - the GOP maybe need to learn to stop trying to score points and do a bit of speaking softly.

[Publicus]

As far as I know Netanyahu has not announced a decision concerning Boehner's invitation to speak before a joint session of the Congress March 3rd. It's hardly finalized...Bibi hasn't yet said he will or he will not, at least not that I've seen or heard.

That Boehner publicly announced the invitation would indicate a prior agreement in private, especially since it originated with the Israeli ambassador in Washington, but even Bibi is waiting to hear the full sheet of music play out on this one.

Ds in Congress may well boycott it if he does go ahead to speak. Most Jews vote Democratic party and very heavily so and they know a D party boycott could send a wrong message to organizations such as Hezbollah and Hamas, not to mention the Palestinians, Iran etc. Democrats in Congress would have to get a good read of their constituencies back home before deciding to go ahead with a possible boycott.

I'd doubt very much the prez would take a public position in favor of a boycott by his party of the Israeli PM addressing the Congress in a joint sitting. Possible but doubtful. Really doubtful.

[chuckd]

The Republicans aren't renowned for turning up to security briefings, but they might find that there are plenty of unofficial discussions going on involving permutations of Saudi, Iran and the US that cover areas of mutual interest - particularly defeating IS.

Roosevelt famously quoted "Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick", but the big stick is a given - the GOP maybe need to learn to stop trying to score points and do a bit of speaking softly.

I know it'a a problem for you Brits keeping the Republicans and Democrats straight. I have the same problem with your parties.

Just for the record, however...

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

The Government Accountability Institute, a new conservative investigative research organization, examined President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

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

[Jingthing]

U.S. support for Israel security should not be a partisan issue and has not generally been one. But this situation might make it one. For that I blame mostly Netantahu and Boehner not Obama. Netanyshu has dissed both Obama and Kerry too much. Obama is the U.S. president. Show some freakin' respect.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Publicus]

Everyone at the White House says it is past the time when Israel could have attacked to successfully take out Iran's nuclear program. Now only the US has the military resources and the political clout to do it, whether presently or at any time going forward and that the ayatollahs know this.

Netanyahu can order an attack but it would not be successful because the time has passed, and Netanyahu knows this from his own military and intelligence services.

This however has made Netanyahu ever more certain the end of Israel is near and that the United States must strike or else. This guy is worse than George W. Bush in the leadup to the Bush-Cheney invasion of Iraq in 2003.

We need to keep the Iranians talking and Netanyahu silent because Bibi is determined to get the US to make the strike he so desperately couldn't order for his own country to do. Inside the White House they said Netanyahu was "chickenshit."

The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations Is Officially Here

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/the-crisis-in-us-israel-relations-is-officially-here/382031/

[Chicog]

The Republicans aren't renowned for turning up to security briefings, but they might find that there are plenty of unofficial discussions going on involving permutations of Saudi, Iran and the US that cover areas of mutual interest - particularly defeating IS.

Roosevelt famously quoted "Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick", but the big stick is a given - the GOP maybe need to learn to stop trying to score points and do a bit of speaking softly.

I know it'a a problem for you Brits keeping the Republicans and Democrats straight. I have the same problem with your parties.

Just for the record, however...

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

The Government Accountability Institute, a new conservative investigative research organization, examined President Obama’s schedule from the day he took office until mid-June 2012, to see how often he attended his Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) — the meeting at which he is briefed on the most critical intelligence threats to the country. During his first 1,225 days in office, Obama attended his PDB just 536 times — or 43.8 percent of the time. During 2011 and the first half of 2012, his attendance became even less frequent — falling to just over 38 percent. By contrast, Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-is-obama-skipping-more-than-half-of-his-daily-intelligence-meetings/2012/09/10/6624afe8-fb49-11e1-b153-218509a954e1_story.html

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

Irrelevant chaff that conveniently omits what Obama does.

American Enterprise Institute fellow and Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen has been pushing a recent finding that President Obama has not attended about half of his daily intelligence briefings as evidence that “national security has not necessarily been” Obama’s “personal priority.” Theissen based his claim on a recent study by the conservative Government Accountability Institute, which said that Obama has attended only 43.8 percent of his Presidential Daily Briefs, or PDBs. “By contrast,” Thiessen wrote, “Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush almost never missed his daily intelligence meeting.”

This particular statistic, however, doesn’t mean a whole lot. President Obama may not physically get briefed by intelligence officials every day but he does receive and read the PDBs, a point Theissen himself acknowledged when reporting the White House’s response to the charge.

“This is how it was done in the Clinton administration,” Thiessen’s Post colleague Dana Millbank noted, “before Bush decided he would prefer to read less.”

I can understand George Jr.s problem with reading big words though.

McCain blasts administration for not providing answers on Benghazi after skipping classified briefing on Benghazi

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), another Homeland Security committee member who was on television complaining about the lack of Benghazi information, also did not show up for the Wednesday hearing. Paul did a CNN interview from the Capitol building Wednesday in which said he had questions about the anti-Islam video, the lack of Marines in Libya, and diplomatic security. At one point he says, "I don’t know enough of the details."

And so on.....

Just to check.... I don't think I mixed up my D's and my R's did I?

Edited January 28, 2015 by Chicog