Angry over Israeli's planned speech, Dems hope to limit harm

[Publicus]

According to this article the last time Netanyahu was invited to speak by congress there was no shows of indignation. True it is close to Israeli election time, but this is an existential issue, not a short term political one, though Obama no doubt wants to gallop off into the sunset with a short term fix, which is akin to lighting the blue touch paper.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/noah-beck/speechless-on-iranian-nukes/

Seldom if ever has there ever been a U.S president more out of his depth and more psychologically unfit for office than Obama.

The real current state of the P5+1 nuclear negotiations with Iran need to be known because the heated rhetoric from the usual suspects of the far right continues unabated.

The hard-liners in the US and the hard-liners in Iran have the same purpose and goal, which is to scuttle the negotiations. Leaders in both countries are in fact taking the responsible and reasonable approach, which is to continue negotiating.

There are those in the US and in Iran and in Israel who would return relations among Iran, Israel, the United States, to their past 35 years of hollering insults, shouting threats, issuing denunciations. Yet, instead, there are now new words from Tehran and Washington such as "productive" and "positive" which are being spoken for the first time since any Iranian-American encounter or exchange since 1979. Some people however can't stand it.

The fact is the seven countries involved in the 14 months of negotiations have what might still be 80% of the issues outstanding and still unresolved. There is the matter of the quality of centrifuges Iran could keep, the disposition of enriched fuel in Iran's possession, the depth and extent of IAEA inspections, the extent of allowable Iranian nuclear research, the timeline for sanctions relief, the duration of the agreement itself and much more.

This is a full plate of seven set pieces among the P5+1 and Iran.

So here is what has in fact been agreed...

The principles that have already been agreed to are crucially important. These principles are: 1) Iran will remain a non-nuclear weapons state; 2) Iran will have the full right to use nuclear energy and materials for peaceful purposes under the terms agreed to as an Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signatory; 3) Iran has agreed to International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) monitoring, inspections, and safeguards in accordance with the requirements of the NPT, including the Additional Protocol; 4) the IAEA has effective means to monitor and verify Iran’s observance to the terms of an agreement, provided that the IAEA receives Iran’s full cooperation; and 5) economic and other sanctions imposed against Iran related to its nuclear program will be removed.

There is no reason to believe that the technical gaps that remain between the parties’ positions cannot be bridged in ways that are perceived by all parties as fair and just.

http://iranprimer.us...-next-diplomacy

Neither side has given away the store nor will either side give away the store. The hard-liners in the US are wrong, the hard-liners in Iran are wrong, the hard-liners in Israel are wrong. The Republicans who control the Congress in Washington are simply lost in their own ongoing and long running subterfuge.

You are putting a very naive spin on negotiations. Iranian commentators observed that the U.S was begging them for a deal. I don't believe much that comes out of Iran, but in this I'm inclined to believe them.

Of course there are people who as in this instance immediately and happily believe the ayatollahs and cheerfully side with them against the P5+1 negotiators and the purposes and the goals of the negotiators, which is to get a mutually compatible agreement instead of a failure and a nuclear armed Iran for sure.

The admirers and supporters of the ayatollahs in the US hate Obama too and also will go to any lengths to oppose Prez Obama. Believing the ayatollahs instead of the president of the US fits the bill exactly for them.

Iran came crawling to the negotiating table after the EU and US expelled Iran from the global SWIFT electronic banking system, to include their central bank. The ayatollahs are negotiating because they need a deal....they desperately need a deal. Even the Russians and the Chinese support all of the sanctions against Iran...and support as well as participate in the negotiations.

The only people opposed to the P5+1 are the hard-liners in the US, the hard-liners in Iran, the hard-liners in Israel.

Edited February 12, 2015 by Publicus

[Ulysses G.]

The hard-liners in Iran are against the negotiations because they WANT to develop nuclear weapons and are afraid that it will be take longer to so, if a deal is made.
The so-called "hard liners" in the US and Israel are skeptical of the negotiations, because Obama has proven himself to one of the worst negotiators on the planet and almost no one trusts him to stop the Iranians from developing nukes sooner, rather than later. This is probably the most important issue of our times and we have the guy in charge who traded 5 important Taliban terrorists for one deserter. Why wouldn't anyone think that he will give away the shop?

Edited February 12, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Publicus]

The hard-liners in Iran are against the negotiations because they WANT to develop nuclear weapons and are afraid that it will be take longer to so, if a deal is made.

The so-called "hard liners" in the US and Israel are skeptical of the negotiations, because Obama has proven himself to one of the worst negotiators on the planet and almost no one trusts him to stop the Iranians from developing nukes sooner, rather than later. This is probably the most important issue of our times and we have the guy in charge who traded 5 important Taliban terrorists for one deserter. Why wouldn't anyone think that he will give away the shop?

I posted above with authoritative information that refutes the dogmatic assertions of the radical Republican right in respect of the negotiations between the P5+1 and Iran.

[Ulysses G.]

"Authoritative information"? It looks more like personal opinion to me.

The only people opposed to the P5+1 are the hard-liners in the US, the hard-liners in Iran, the hard-liners in Israel.

[chuckd]

<snip, snip, snip>

The admirers and supporters of the ayatollahs in the US hate Obama too and also will go to any lengths to oppose Prez Obama. Believing the ayatollahs instead of the president of the US fits the bill exactly for them.

I do believe you will find many posters on this forum believe neither the Ayatollah's nor the Prez.

Both are proven liars.

[Chicog]

Both have a ways to go to plumb the depths of Netanyahu's credibility.

[Ulysses G.]

Not really.

[up-country_sinclair]

I wonder if it went to a vote how many Americans would want to see their tax dollars wasted on munitions given to Israel free of charge to dump on civilians in Gaza?

Israel is rich enough to pay its own bills without freeloading on the USA taxpayers.

Be nice if they allowed international weapons inspectors to check out their nukes as well.

This is where the Israeli-Firsters" and Hasbara-bots trot out that canard that it's really the US companies which are benefiting from that $3 billion annual aid package to Israel.

But OK, if it's truly the US that is benefiting, then let's take that $3 Billion and give it to our actual allies. For example, I'm sure our traditional European allies would appreciate our generosity and not spit in our faces. Also, South Korea has a hostile neighbor and could surely use the most advanced technology to monitor its border. And God forbid, how about using some of that technology at home on our own southern border?

President Obama should cut Israel off immediately. Not a dollar more of funding, and no more protection at the UN.

Thankfully, Americans are starting to wake up to the reality that Israel is not a true friend of the US. It's a parasitic leech that mistakenly believes it's the host.

Edited February 12, 2015 by up-country_sinclair

[Morch]

I wonder if it went to a vote how many Americans would want to see their tax dollars wasted on munitions given to Israel free of charge to dump on civilians in Gaza?

Israel is rich enough to pay its own bills without freeloading on the USA taxpayers.

Be nice if they allowed international weapons inspectors to check out their nukes as well.

This is where the Israeli-Firsters" and Hasbara-bots trot out that canard that it's really the US companies which are benefiting from that $3 billion annual aid package to Israel.

But OK, if it's truly the US that is benefiting, then let's take that $3 Billion and give it to our actual allies. For example, I'm sure our traditional European allies would appreciate our generosity and not spit in our faces. Also, South Korea has a hostile neighbor and could surely use the most advanced technology to monitor its border. And God forbid, how about using some of that technology at home on our own southern border?

President Obama should cut Israel off immediately. Not a dollar more of funding, and no more protection at the UN.

Thankfully, Americans are starting to wake up to the reality that Israel is not a true friend of the US. It's a parasitic leech that mistakenly believes it's the host.

Can't make a post without tagging posters. eh?

Write your representative on the hill. Tell him you think funds should be otherwise used. I have no issues with such claims. Who gets cake is usually a political decision, and it can represent more than one view. So if enough voters were to express the same views, sure - things could and ought to be changed. However, as it stands, it does not seem like there is overwhelming support for this position. My comments on this issue are pretty limited - that most of the funds allocated are not wholly "given" to Israel as such, and that the relevant lobby is not necessarily (or solely) AIPAC.

As far as I am aware, cutting the aid would require more than Obama saying "make it so", but would have to do through some legislation process. Furthermore, as pointed out, large bits of these funds are already allocated for future purchases, meaning orders will have to be canceled etc. Not something lightly done, even if it would please some forum posters.

I don't know that there is a major shift in USA voters position regarding Israel (albeit there are signs it could be so in the future).

[Jingthing]

The long term GRADUAL trend is probably less U.S. support for a close relationship with Israel. It's not much about Muslms ...but more about both Latinos and young Jews. Latinos are a fast growing U.S. demographic and they are less pro Israel than other major demographics. Not the same thing as being obsessed against Israel, just less pro Israel. Young American Jews identify less with Israel than older generations though with Israel being under threat with the BDS movement and Jews being targets of antisemitism as all Jews are often seen by haters as proxies for Israel on U.S. campuses, that factor may go away.

[Jingthing]

Some inside baseball.

"Speechgate"

Big damage or small?

We'll see:

Why Israel Lobby Is Biggest Casualty of Feud Over Benjamin Netanyahu's Speech AIPAC and Jewish Backers Fume Over Being Dumped by Bibi

“It’s a tragedy of unintended consequences,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, who broke ranks with other mainstream Jewish leaders to call on Netanyahu to scrap the speech. “The Jewish community is very, very anxious not to get caught in the middle.”

...

But veteran activists are less dismissive, viewing this fight as more than a bump in the road, one that the Jewish community and Israel will not easily overcome.

“It’s a big deal,” said Seymour Reich, a former chairman of the Conference of Presidents Presidents Conference. “Damage has already been done. The American people don’t like to see their president being pushed around, and this will have a long -range effect.”

Read more: http://forward.com/articles/214591/why-israel-lobby-is-biggest-casualty-of-feud-over/#ixzz3RY6o1PSe

Edited February 12, 2015 by Jingthing

[Publicus]

<snip, snip, snip>

The admirers and supporters of the ayatollahs in the US hate Obama too and also will go to any lengths to oppose Prez Obama. Believing the ayatollahs instead of the president of the US fits the bill exactly for them.

I do believe you will find many posters on this forum believe neither the Ayatollah's nor the Prez.

Both are proven liars.

The worst and most dedicated liars are the people who will say anything to stop the negotiations which in turn would practically guarantee Iran would develop nuclear weapons.

The worst and most persistent liars are the hard-liners in the US, the hard-liners in Iran, the hard-liners in Israel.

[Jingthing]

I'm not smart enough to know what can possibly prevent Iran from getting nukes or at least be minutes away from getting nukes. It's clear the consensus in Iran is to want to get them, any kind of liners. It's not irrational for them to want them either but it's also not irrational for much of the world to want to stop them from having them. Aren't they really just negotiating how close Iran will be to getting them and then later Iran if they wish can just break the agreement any time they want and proceed anyway?

Edited February 12, 2015 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

He has been out maneuvered with every turn, the sanctions have been relieved so many times they barely exist, deadlines have been passed over and the march towards a nuclear Iran continues unabated.

Obama is desperate for a foreign policy achievement. Everything he has touched in the foreign policy arena for the past six years has blown up in his face.

It is very likely this one will as well.

[Publicus]

I'm not smart enough to know what can possibly prevent Iran from getting nukes or at least be minutes away from getting nukes. It's clear the consensus in Iran is to want to get them, any kind of liners. It's not irrational for them to want them either but it's also not irrational for much of the world to want to stop them from having them. Aren't they really just negotiating how close Iran will be to getting them and then later Iran if they wish can just break the agreement any time they want and proceed anyway?

It certainly is the central issue.

The P5+1 negotiators know their bottom line and they know what they want from Iran and Iran knows what the negotiators want.

If a verifiable agreement that includes comprehensive and regular inspections can be reached, then it would be sufficient to know that that would at all times leave Iran one year away from constructing a bomb(s).

Japan very recently gave up its highly confidential weapons grade nuclear materials that it had had for many years and that had Japan at all times one year away from nuclear weapons. This is the same idea, except for Iran, which is far less liable than Japan to readily agree to such an arrangement.

The P5+1 negotiators are the permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany, which means the US, UK, France, Russia, China are negotiating. Russia and China fully support the sanctions against Iran, and fully support the negotiations as they have developed and are proceeding. If those guys and my president are reasonably confident about such an arrangement then I'd have to go with it too...the hard liners will of course immediately pounce to loudly and forcefully reject that premise.

One year is plenty of time to respond...even six months time if that might happen to be the case. Thorough and comprehensive inspections by neutral inspectors. It is the last thing wanted by the hard liners in the US or in Iran and the ME....ME and religion based governments reaching mutually compatible agreements with one another or with the United States. Even when Allah is willing.

[Publicus]

He has been out maneuvered with every turn, the sanctions have been relieved so many times they barely exist, deadlines have been passed over and the march towards a nuclear Iran continues unabated.

Obama is desperate for a foreign policy achievement. Everything he has touched in the foreign policy arena for the past six years has blown up in his face.

It is very likely this one will as well.

political spam

[snarky66]

Here are the facts. You do not need to be able to do enrichment for nuclear power purposes. Fuel can be imported and then made into fuel rods. Enrichment is exclusively needed to produce nuclear weapons. Which is apparently obama's goal. Iran is a threat to the world. Let Netanyahu give the speech to highlight the folly of obama pandering to the mullahs.

[snarky66]

Hopefully Congress will enact sanctions against Iran over barry's hysterical objections Crushing sanctions.

[NeverSure]

I'm not smart enough to know what can possibly prevent Iran from getting nukes or at least be minutes away from getting nukes. It's clear the consensus in Iran is to want to get them, any kind of liners. It's not irrational for them to want them either but it's also not irrational for much of the world to want to stop them from having them. Aren't they really just negotiating how close Iran will be to getting them and then later Iran if they wish can just break the agreement any time they want and proceed anyway?

"I'm not smart enough to know what can possibly prevent Iran from getting nukes..."

Israel will. Israel has been hoping other Western countries would step up to the plate but if push comes to shove... One of Israel's biggest fears of course is for Iran to have nukes. Israel has the choice of attacking Iran with conventional bunker busters going after underground facilities right after knocking out its airfields and port facilities, or it can nuke them. I would expect the conventional method.

Israel is one of just five nations with all of the methods of delivering nukes including ICBMs and nuclear powered submarines.

Israel, due to Obama, feels all alone in this Iran thing. It will cut the head off the snake one way or the other before it lets Iran have viable nukes.

[ggold]

<snip, snip, snip>

The admirers and supporters of the ayatollahs in the US hate Obama too and also will go to any lengths to oppose Prez Obama. Believing the ayatollahs instead of the president of the US fits the bill exactly for them.

I do believe you will find many posters on this forum believe neither the Ayatollah's nor the Prez.

Both are proven liars.

The worst and most dedicated liars are the people who will say anything to stop the negotiations which in turn would practically guarantee Iran would develop nuclear weapons.

The worst and most persistent liars are the hard-liners in the US, the hard-liners in Iran, the hard-liners in Israel.

negotiations won't guarantee they don't develop nuclear weapons. The reality may be that it is already too late. throughout the long drawn out process of negotiations Iran has been continuing to develop their nuclear capabilities. They stiil haven't answered IAEA questions regarding those capabilities.

The West gains nothing, Iran is making a fool of Obama.

[Jingthing]

Hopefully Congress will enact sanctions against Iran over barry's hysterical objections Crushing sanctions.

Practically, I don't think they would have enough votes to overturn a veto, would they?

[Jingthing]

I'm not smart enough to know what can possibly prevent Iran from getting nukes or at least be minutes away from getting nukes. It's clear the consensus in Iran is to want to get them, any kind of liners. It's not irrational for them to want them either but it's also not irrational for much of the world to want to stop them from having them. Aren't they really just negotiating how close Iran will be to getting them and then later Iran if they wish can just break the agreement any time they want and proceed anyway?

"I'm not smart enough to know what can possibly prevent Iran from getting nukes..."

Israel will. Israel has been hoping other Western countries would step up to the plate but if push comes to shove... One of Israel's biggest fears of course is for Iran to have nukes. Israel has the choice of attacking Iran with conventional bunker busters going after underground facilities right after knocking out its airfields and port facilities, or it can nuke them. I would expect the conventional method.

Israel is one of just five nations with all of the methods of delivering nukes including ICBMs and nuclear powered submarines.

Israel, due to Obama, feels all alone in this Iran thing. It will cut the head off the snake one way or the other before it lets Iran have viable nukes.

Well, recently, Israel has been all talk and little action in that regard. I get the feeling, sorry, that Israel is afraid of the price they would have to pay to escalate military action against Iran's program if they don't have full buy in from Washington ... which they clearly do not have.

[Jay Sata]

Talk of cutting off the head of the snake makes me suggest the best option is to remove the nuclear weapons at Dimona.

A great option for the US is for Netanyahu to address Congress in his own language.

If Israel is so great why is the international language from my land of birth and nation that gave the world democracy.

Pity we messed up by getting involved with Rothschild and Balfour.

[ggold]

He has been out maneuvered with every turn, the sanctions have been relieved so many times they barely exist, deadlines have been passed over and the march towards a nuclear Iran continues unabated.

Obama is desperate for a foreign policy achievement. Everything he has touched in the foreign policy arena for the past six years has blown up in his face.

It is very likely this one will as well.

political spam

I see you are one of those that regardless of whether Obama is right or wrong you blindly support his every move!

Obama has been a total failure as far as foreign policy goes. You don't need to be American to see that. I don't know of any other President that would be so keen to allow a pariah State to potentially achieve nuclear capabilities? It is so far removed from American foreign policy of the past. Regardless of which party was in power.

It is not just Israel that is worried it is also another country that America has a very special relationship with! Saudi Arabia, did Obama ask them what they think or feel about the likely hood of Iran having nukes?

In fact Obama even gives Iran dominance in the region by saying Iran is needed in the fight against ISIS etc. Yet Iran is financing islamic terrorists!

It shows a lack of political maturity to blindly follow any leader, Just because he is the leader!

[ggold]

Talk of cutting off the head of the snake makes me suggest the best option is to remove the nuclear weapons at Dimona.

A great option for the US is for Netanyahu to address Congress in his own language.

If Israel is so great why is the international language from my land of birth and nation that gave the world democracy.

Pity we messed up by getting involved with Rothschild and Balfour.

yes your country also gave the world concentration camps!

[Chicog]

I don't know of any other President that would be so keen to allow a pariah State to potentially achieve nuclear capabilities?

Let me assist you.

On October 9, 2006, North Korea announced it had successfully conducted its first nuclear test.

[Jay Sata]

The most dangerous radical warmongering state in the Middle East is Israel

This is the nation that has been stealing nuclear secrets and covertly making bombs since the 1950's.

The former speaker of the Knesset, Avraham Burg, broke the taboo last year, declaring Israeli possession of both nuclear and chemical weapons and describing the official non-disclosure policy as "outdated and childish" a rightwing group formally called for a police investigation for treason.

Meanwhile, western governments have played along with the policy of "opacity" by avoiding all mention of the issue. In 2009, when a veteran Washington reporter, Helen Thomas, asked Barack Obama in the first month of his presidency if he knew of any country in the Middle East with nuclear weapons, he dodged the trapdoor by saying only that he did not wish to "speculate".

Well despite over half a decade in the White House press corp Helen was soon toast.

So how is the world expected to justify sanctions and control over one Middle East state when another with a history of invasions is allowed to avoid disclosure?

This article in the Guardian is worth reading.

Israel has been stealing nuclear secrets and covertly making bombs since the 1950s. And western governments, including Britain and the US, turn a blind eye. But how can we expect Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions if the Israelis won't come clean?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/truth-israels-secret-nuclear-arsenal

Edited February 13, 2015 by Jay Sata

[ggold]

I'm not smart enough to know what can possibly prevent Iran from getting nukes or at least be minutes away from getting nukes. It's clear the consensus in Iran is to want to get them, any kind of liners. It's not irrational for them to want them either but it's also not irrational for much of the world to want to stop them from having them. Aren't they really just negotiating how close Iran will be to getting them and then later Iran if they wish can just break the agreement any time they want and proceed anyway?

"I'm not smart enough to know what can possibly prevent Iran from getting nukes..."

Israel will. Israel has been hoping other Western countries would step up to the plate but if push comes to shove... One of Israel's biggest fears of course is for Iran to have nukes. Israel has the choice of attacking Iran with conventional bunker busters going after underground facilities right after knocking out its airfields and port facilities, or it can nuke them. I would expect the conventional method.

Israel is one of just five nations with all of the methods of delivering nukes including ICBMs and nuclear powered submarines.

Israel, due to Obama, feels all alone in this Iran thing. It will cut the head off the snake one way or the other before it lets Iran have viable nukes.

Well, recently, Israel has been all talk and little action in that regard. I get the feeling, sorry, that Israel is afraid of the price they would have to pay to escalate military action against Iran's program if they don't have full buy in from Washington ... which they clearly do not have.

It could be hearsay But Obama offered Netanyahu stealth planes to do the job! But I Also think Obama warned Netanyahu that if he did attack, America might not rush to re arm Israel While negotiations are ongoing! Indeed Obama was reluctant to resupply hellfire rockets to Israel over Gaza.

But for sure if America was to support the idea, Israel might have already gone in. Israel may still go in, But I think that is on hold till a new US administration is in Power.

[ggold]

I don't know of any other President that would be so keen to allow a pariah State to potentially achieve nuclear capabilities?

Let me assist you.

On October 9, 2006, North Korea announced it had successfully conducted its first nuclear test.

OK, but they had the protection of China. And North Korea don't have a death wish.

Like the evangelical longing for Armageddon, The Iranians also share that longing. With Nukes they will have the tool to start Armageddon.

[Ulysses G.]

The most dangerous radical warmongering state in the Middle East is Israel

This statement is so foolish that it is hardly worth addressing. Something like 300,000 people have died in Syria in the last few years, just for starters.