Netanyahu's AIPAC speech

[Bubblehead1980]

Just watched his AIPAC speech from today, he is an outstanding leader and statesman.Never been one to envy but it must be nice to have someone like that instead of the empty suit we have occupying the highest office. Anyone else view Netanyahu as the modern Churchill? Situation is a bit similar, he is Churchill, Obama is Chamberlain. Sure, it's a break in protocol but he accepted the invite(which is why it was extended) to speak to congress out of aggravation with our anti israeli president and his administration.Looking forward to his speech tomorrow, it's pretty historic. Hopefully it will persuade enough to ignore the ignorance coming from 1600 and allow us to stand on the right side of history, against a nuclear iran.

For those who disagree.I am curious as to why you are okay with a nuclear iran?

[CCIP]

I don't know, why are we okay with a nuclear Israel, or nuclear Pakistan, or nuclear US?

Also, requesting thread merge to some other "thanks Obama" venue!

[Bubblehead1980]

I don't know, why are we okay with a nuclear Israel, or nuclear Pakistan, or nuclear US?

Also, requesting thread merge to some other "thanks Obama" venue!


No merge, this is not about obama.

Well ideally nuclear weapons would have never been invented but they were and can not be uninvented. However, we have to stop state sponsors of terror such as Iran from getting them. Iran has proven it is a belligerent and is ran by men who are devout followers of the bane of humanity, islam. Bottom line, the countries you mentioned are responsible with their weapons, thus why have only been used twice and by the US, which no matter what any historical revisionist says, was well justified in ending a war with a fanatical, murderous enemy.

Iran is not capable of being a responsible steward of nuclear anything, thus why must be stopped.

[Cybermat47]

Bottom line, the countries you mentioned are responsible with their weapons,

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_shelling_of_Qana

Yep, they sure are responsible.

[Jimbuna]

Also, requesting thread merge to some other "thanks Obama" venue!

No merge, this is not about obama.



All is dependent on the route the thread takes as well as the number of times reference is made to Obama.

[Betonov]

I plan to visit Teheran in the future, so no, I don't like the idea of a nuclear Israel. Just as I don't like the idea of a nuclear Iran. And a nuclear India and nuclear Pakistan and nuclear N. Korea....

Russia and NATO have nukes. Safely stowed away in silos and despite the crisis here and there both sides have no interest in using them.
Israel ?? I'm not so sure.

[Tchocky]

For those who disagree.I am curious as to why you are okay with a nuclear iran?

Need more straw.

[Rhodes]

Need more straw.
http://www.museumsyndicate.com/images/3/29065.jpg

Have a haystack!

[Onkel Neal]

Gawd, what happened to normal discussions here?:/\\!!

[Oberon]

Obama is Chamberlain.

So Obama has put down the critical infrastructure that has prepared America for war with Nazi Germany? Without Obama, America would have not been able to continue the war after the fall of France?

[Subnuts]

So Obama has put down the critical infrastructure that has prepared America for war with Nazi Germany? Without Obama, America would have not been able to continue the war after the fall of France?

Obama is apparently also a Conservative. The most powerful Conservative in America, too. :hmmm:

[Oberon]

Obama is apparently also a Conservative. The most powerful Conservative in America, too. :hmmm:

:har: :up:

[Bilge_Rat]

Just watched his AIPAC speech from today, he is an outstanding leader and statesman.

I used to have a lot of respect for him, but he has increasingly shown he is just interested in staying in power. This latest stunt of speaking before Congress is just to win re-election and deflect attention from a long list of scandals:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/17/netanyahu-expenses-scandal_n_6698550.html

http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Weinstein-could-decide-on-criminal-probe-of-Netanyahu-today-392237

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.641613


For those who disagree.I am curious as to why you are okay with a nuclear iran?

And who exactly is in favour of a Nuclear Iran?

Obama has put in place the toughest sanctions against Iran of any U.S. president, including triggering the financial "nuclear option" of disconnecting Iran from SWIFT:


In January 2012, the EU froze assets belonging to the Central Bank of Iran, and banned all trade in gold and other precious metals with the bank and other public bodies. Six months later, an EU ban on the import, purchase and transport of Iranian crude oil came into force. The 27 member states had until then accounted for about 20% of Iran's oil exports. European companies were also stopped from insuring Iranian oil shipments, having previously underwritten 90% of them. In March 2012, Swift, the Brussels-based body that handles global banking transactions, cut Iranian banks from its system, making it almost impossible for money to flow in and out of Iran via official channels.

In October 2012, the EU banned any transactions with Iranian banks and financial institutions, as well as the import, purchase and transportation of natural gas from Iran, the construction of oil tankers for Iran, and the flagging and classification of Iranian tankers and cargo vessels

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-15983302

http://www.swift.com/news/press_releases/SWIFT_disconnect_Iranian_banks

That is the only reason Iran is negotiating, the ultimate goal of which is to ensure Iran does not have nuclear weapons:

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/2/five-misconceptions-about-iran-nuclear-talks.html

Do you actually read the news or just make it up as you go along? :hmmm:

[Relmu]

Just watched his AIPAC speech from today, he is an outstanding leader and statesman.Never been one to envy but it must be nice to have someone like that instead of the empty suit we have occupying the highest office. Anyone else view Netanyahu as the modern Churchill? Situation is a bit similar, he is Churchill, Obama is Chamberlain. Sure, it's a break in protocol but he accepted the invite(which is why it was extended) to speak to congress out of aggravation with our anti israeli president and his administration.Looking forward to his speech tomorrow, it's pretty historic. Hopefully it will persuade enough to ignore the ignorance coming from 1600 and allow us to stand on the right side of history, against a nuclear iran.

For those who disagree.I am curious as to why you are okay with a nuclear iran?

I'm not okay with Iran having nuclear weapons. Heck I'm not okay with the US having nuclear weapons...they've frequently shown themselves to be trigger happy (as have Russia and especially Israel).

As for Israel being...sane, they regularly target UN identified buildings and then claim, "Oh er...weapons cache...yeah...stuff." Also, Islam =/= Terrorism. Terrorism == Terrorism. Just like the IRA aren't representative of Christianity (although...)... ISIS/Al Qaeda/Iran are not representative of Islam.

With that said I am for every country in the world having the ability to build modern nuclear powerstations. The electrical energy generated within being able to be used for any means whatsoever.

I find it highly hypocritical that the west agrees (UN resolution) to allow Iran to seek Nuclear Enrichment for peaceful purposes and then sanction the living daylights out of them when they do seek it. It's high time that America has stepped off the throat of the middle east a little.

Now back to the topic at hand. Anyone can talk the talk. It is walking the walk that has always proven to be tough. Lets take a look at Margret Thatcher... awesome intentions...completely obliterated large parts of the UK under the assumption that people if they were taxed less, would do the right thing (people didn't, they just got greedy and miners got rather ticked when the 55% business subsidies were withdrawn). She was a fine speaker, full of good intentions... wasn't there someone else who was an awesome speaker that convinced millions of people to vote for them and now we all condemn unanimously on a regular basis?

Netanyahu has always proven himself not to be fine statesman but someone who always pursues what they think is a populist agenda for the sake of keeping power. A fine statesman does not govern this way they govern for the benefit of all people, to make the world a better place than when they arrived.

PS Netanyahu != Churchill

[MH]

I used to have a lot of respect for him, but he has increasingly shown he is just interested in staying in power. This latest stunt of speaking before Congress is just to win re-election and deflect attention from a long list of scandals:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6698550.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/17/netanyahu-expenses-scandal_n_6698550.html)


Well ... I don't like Bibi , I don't vote for him and don't really want him to stay in power due to the way he handles the Palestinian issue and some other internal matters yet I have respect for him in regard of handling the Iranians so far , so I give him the benefit of doubt at this speech matter.

All the another scandals ...seem like usual pre election crap people are digging out.
There may be some stuff here that is far from proper conduct , Bibi might be a little over the top sometimes, his wife might not be nicest person but well...it has nothing to do with matters at hand.

Is the speech just about the election , maybe and maybe not in the way we imagine ....yet im not sure how it helps him with winning votes so far.
He seem to take the Iranian matter very seriously , considering the pros and cons , having the needed information and still going forward with the speech.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_shelling_of_Qana

Yep, they sure are responsible. so what is that?
More healthily critique from a parson from a country where no one need to fight or defend the borders and make decisions or mistakes or the calculations.
If your country will eve need to really fight we shell see how thing will turn out.

[Relmu]

If he took the Iranian situation seriously surely he would be listening to his own Intelligence Agency a little more closely.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad

^ regarded as a Socialist/Liberal/Communist newspaper but it was backed up by conservative papers as well.

To me it just looks like the Iranian scaremongering is just that and designed to keep him in office rather than there actually being a threat.

[MH]

If he took the Iranian situation seriously surely he would be listening to his own Intelligence Agency a little more closely.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad

^ regarded as a Socialist/Liberal/Communist newspaper but it was backed up by conservative papers as well.

To me it just looks like the Iranian scaremongering is just that and designed to keep him in office rather than there actually being a threat.

the interpretation of the report is bull.....by objective Socialist/Liberal/Communist newspaper

[Betonov]

To me it just looks like the Iranian scaremongering is just that and designed to keep him in office rather than there actually being a threat.

I'm guessing the Iranians are doing the some to keep themselves in office.

[Bilge_Rat]

yet I have respect for him in regard of handling the Iranians so far.


we all know he opposes any deal with Iran, but what is the alternative?

this is not 1980 where you can take out one reactor and be done with it. All of Iran's nuclear facilities are dispersed and buried undergound. According to most military experts, you can only be sure to take them all out with tactical Nukes or a ground invasion. Israel alone does not have the capability to do it, only the U.S. does and that will obviously not happen.

[Von Tonner]

First let us deal with the nuclear issue.

I would NOT want to be a citizen of any country that did not look after my safety. I am sure that that statement is a given and accepted by all on this thread.

South Africa persued a nuclear program and ONCE ALL EXTERNAL THREATS to her citizens were nullified she willingly embarked - and became so far the ONLY country - to break down her nuclear weaponry.

Israel, the US, Britain etc have not reached that point in their history. There are forces out there that are hell bent on seeing them and their country men and women burnt to the ground along with everything they have built and stand for.

I am not in ANYWAY a pacifist though I do wish mankind could live in peace. That however is a dream eons away.

It does not matter what religion you subscribe to, what country you are a citizen of, what colour your skin, what gender you are or, god forbid, you hold to the belief the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth - what I do want is a leader of my country whose uppermost thought in his waking hours is my safety first and foremost. Taxes, roads, services, etc are important but they become insignificant if my kids can't walk down to the corner shop to buy sweets, or I cannot walk through my city without coming home safely to my family.

I want a leader who secures that or busts his balls in doing so. I sleep peacefully at night in that belief. And whether he gets a blow job in the hallowed corridors of the White House or bends the rules by breaking into Watergate - I will condemn him - but do NOT compromise my safety. That is sacrosanct.

Netanyahu I believe has the safety of the citizens of his country uppermost. We can of course disagree at how that safety is secured - but as an elected leader of Israel he must by WHATEVER MEANS secure that that safety for all its citizens no matter the religion they subscribe to is attainable. That is Netanyahu's elected mandate.

I look forward to his speech to Congress.

[Bilge_Rat]

so, that went well:

Nancy Pelosi: Netanyahu speech ‘insulting to the intelligence of the United States’

“That is why, as one who values the U.S.-Israel relationship, and loves Israel, I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech – saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation,” Pelosi said in a statement.




http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/nancy-pelosi-benjamin-netanyahu-speech-react-115701.html?hp=l2_4

[Catfish]

Some questions:

1. What did Netanyahu have to do in the US? Who invited him?
2. What possible purpose did this coup serve?

Wink wink, nudge nudge :03:

[Oberon]

So it went as well as expected then. Likud got the footage of standing ovations for its campaign ads, the Republicans got their pro-Israel card signed and some more weaponry to use against Obama next year. Everybody leaves happy. Especially Iran. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-31696322) :yep:

[Bilge_Rat]

more on Bibi:


The Gross Hypocrisy of Benjamin Netanyahu



Let’s get a few excuses out of the way. First, the indisputable purpose of this speech was to enlist Congress as a weapon against Obama. Two weeks ago, according to Haaretz (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.642858), Israel’s ambassador to the United States—the Netanyahu protégé who negotiated the speaking engagement—told officials in Jerusalem that Netanyahu was going to Congress because Israel “has almost no ability to influence the negotiations through other channels.” Last Friday, campaigning in Israel, Netanyahu said he was coming here to lobby “the only body that may prevent (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/191929)” the Iran deal. The gist of both statements is obvious: Netanyahu doesn’t like Obama’s policy, so he’s trying to use Congress to block it.


In Israel, Netanyahu is exploiting his fight with the administration. He accuses his rivals in the center and on the left of “groveling to the international community (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/190481)” while he stands up to foreign pressure. A Likud campaign ad (http://jpupdates.com/2015/02/21/new-likud-ad-u-s-opposed-establishment-israel/) casts Netanyahu in the tradition of past Israeli leaders who, according to the ad, defied “the American secretary of state” and “the American State Department.”



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/03/benjamin_netanyahu_is_a_hypocrite_he_intended_to_o ffend_president_obama.html

[Bilge_Rat]

“Powerful speech if you’re Bibi supporter. But, in denigrating Obama/Kerry diplomacy so aggressively, he’s harmed #Israel relations with US,” Nicholas Burns, a former top State Department official under President George W. Bush, tweeted after the speech.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/benjamin-netanyahu-speech-congress-iran-israel-115699.html#ixzz3TM6nXZ7M


“This speech was straight out of the Dick Cheney playbook,” said Rep. John Yarmuth, a Kentucky Democrat. The Jewish lawmaker added: “I resented the condescending tone that he used, which basically indicated that he didn’t think anybody in Congress or the country understood the threat that a nuclear, weaponized Iran poses to his country, to the region and to the world.”




After the speech, Democrats seemed to fall into two camps: Those that believed much of the rhetoric was targeting President Obama and those that heard no such characterizations but still scratched their head over Netanyahu’s rhetoric.

“He seemed to say that there was no way [to] ever trust Iran. Which says to me you can’t have a deal with Iran. And then he said, ‘Well, why don’t you work for a better deal?’ So it was confusing,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). “I think he had circular reasoning.”

Several House Democrats who opposed Netanyahu coming to the House chamber to speak – including some who formally boycotted the address – held a news conference to criticize both Netanyahu and Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who invited the Israeli leader without first consulting the White House. Two of the House Democrats derided the speech as “political theater.”

“I was hoping to hear something from the prime minister that would justify why he came in the first place to give this speech, two weeks before his election, and why he arranged this speech totally behind the back of the White House with Speaker Boehner,” said Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) “And why he wanted to make a decision that put at risk what has always been a strong bipartisan approach towards Israel and turn it into a partisan battlefield. Frankly, I came away from the speech disappointed.”





Durbin, who disagreed with Netanyahu’s “characterization of the negotiations,” said he reached out to the Senate historian to see if there was any precedent to the approximately 60 Democratic members skipping the speech. He said there was not.

“It’s the first time in history that so many members of Congress have stepped forward to say that they would not attend a joint session. So that’s never happened before. It was much more partisan and political than it ever should have been,” Durbin said.




Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/democrats-react-benjamin-netanyahu-speech-115705.html#ixzz3TM7lW6XL

Yup, Churchillian. :arrgh!:

[MH]

Netanyahu doesn’t like Obama’s policy, so he’s trying to use Congress to block it. Ok that is obvious ...no?

In Israel, Netanyahu is exploiting his fight with the administration. He accuses his rivals in the center and on the left of “groveling to the international community (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/190481)” while he stands up to foreign pressure. A Likud campaign ad (http://jpupdates.com/2015/02/21/new-likud-ad-u-s-opposed-establishment-israel/) casts Netanyahu in the tradition of past Israeli leaders who, according to the ad, defied “the American secretary of state” and “the American State Department.” So Bibi is trying to destroy the relations with the USA for some stupid TV add nobody watches which as it seems is more design to calm down those who doubt his move rather than other way around.
People abroad should realize that Israeli are very much bored with the Iranian issue , maybe this whole thing will squeeze some votes somewhere...If all this is for show with all the consequences then it must be the least cost-effective election campaign ever.
If not negative one so far...

Some questions:

1. What did Netanyahu have to do in the US? Who invited him?
2. What possible purpose did this coup serve?

Wink wink, nudge nudge CIA?

this is not 1980 where you can take out one reactor and be done with it. All of Iran's nuclear facilities are dispersed and buried undergound. According to most military experts, you can only be sure to take them all out with tactical Nukes or a ground invasion. Israel alone does not have the capability to do it, only the U.S. does and that will obviously not happen. Nobody wants to go to war with Iran now , definitely nobody will want after Iran gets the nukes.
Question is if the international community is doing its best to deny or delay Iran the weapons.
According to Bibi it is not the case.

[Bilge_Rat]

Nobody wants to go to war with Iran now , definitely nobody will want after Iran gets the nukes.
Question is if the international community is doing its best to deny or delay Iran the weapons.
According to Bibi it is not the case.

that is the proverbial $64 million question.

Is it better to push Iran to the edge, where presumably they have nothing to lose by developping Nukes?

Or is it better to integrate Iran back into the international economy, where they would have something to lose if they develop Nukes?

OTOH, you also have to consider that if Iran really wants to develop Nukes in secret, they is really no way to stop them.

There is no clear black and white answer.

[soopaman2]

Did he project how many American lives will perish so he can use our money to establish settlements?

Did he use an "inspector gadget" like timebomb picture to say Iran will have a bomb within months, like he did years ago?

Did he convince the far right warmonger party to kill more Americans for zero gain?

I bet Boehner at all the military contracts that are about to roll in, that he can dip his beak into.

I hope Israel tells Bibi to go screw off this election, I hope his people realize the damage this did to their American support, which is reason one for their continued existence.

[Oberon]

This thread needs more duck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fyTGfoft68

[soopaman2]

This thread needs more duck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fyTGfoft68





If Iran is Daffy duck, then how do you explain all the times Elmer Fudd shoots him in the face and his bill spins around, and he fixes it and walks away.

If you cannot kill them with face shots from a shotgun then they are unkillable, even zombies die from face shots with shotguns.


This is pro Iranian propaganda.

[Bubblehead1980]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lELXynhbS84

Great speech.

[Stealhead]

I think this Foghorn Leghorn short is so fitting in the current situation. You can swap the nation/character role to fit your world view.

I should be a high school history teacher with my guidence I'm certain that the next generation of youth would develop into rounded leaders Congress members and CEOs heck maybe even a future President. I'd be the next Aristotle.


http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2VSEzZk8SBY

[Onkel Neal]

I listened to the President's speech a few weeks ago that he would get a good deal with Iran, and I felt he meant it. I think he has about 3 more months, according to his timetable. If he fails, then where does that leave us? More sanctions? He was very direct that under his administration Iran would not develop nuclear weapons. I'm not so sure. North Korea seems to have blazed this trail.

[Stealhead]

Indeed North Korea has been doing third thing for a while now. Complex problem really the only way to be certain with Iran would be a ground invasion the only way you know for certain is if you control.

Now in North Korea they do it to so e extent to recive aid; OK we will behave if you give us aid. Now Iran is different some nations like Japan their primary source of oil is Iran. Now if the US could convince Japan to put the pinch on (not impossible) along with some other nations Iran would really be hurting. We already know that not every Iranian likes their goverment. I think truly painful sanctions would cause the Iranian regime much trouble from within.

The problem is that the US would have to really do some strong diplomacy and convince nations like Japan that the short term economic hit that they will take sanctioning Iranian oil is worth the long term benefit. With this level of sanctioning things can be done this is what Netanyahu is saying only go with the strongest possible sanctions otherwise it will not have the desired effect.

[CCIP]

I listened to the President's speech a few weeks ago that he would get a good deal with Iran, and I felt he meant it. I think he has about 3 more months, according to his timetable. If he fails, then where does that leave us? More sanctions? He was very direct that under his administration Iran would not develop nuclear weapons. I'm not so sure. North Korea seems to have blazed this trail.

On the other hand, I also have to agree with Obama's response today - for all the pathos, I don't see what viable alternative Netanyahu offered. 35 years of refusing to deal with Iran has brought nothing, and they're on the verge of getting nukes now. There's no military solution, and waving big sticks will only reinforce Iran's delusions about themselves and Israel. It's better to have some opportunity to monitor and influence Iran than not. Adding weight to that is Russia, who will probably seize on any Western failure to come to terms with Iran as an opportunity to make an ally out of them again.

Besides, Iran is currently in the best geopolitical and economic position now than any time since the revolution. Sanctions will be at their least effective. All that's left is stick-waving. Not a great strategy.

[Oberon]

As I've been saying over in the Islamic Terrorism thread, I think we really need to be looking at dealing with a post-nuclear Iran. There's nothing any nation can do to stop it. Any US President that tries to will be impeached because it will involve a ground invasion and occupation, two words which are taboo in Washington after Iraq and Afghanistan.
So what needs to be looked at now is how to neutralise the threat that Iran will pose with nuclear weapons, in particular the ballistic missile threat and the nuclear terrorism threat. The former can be dealt with by surrounding Iran with ABMs and multi-phase radar, the latter is more difficult and will need a combination of official inspections and a lot of intelligence operations.

[Von Tonner]

OTOH, you also have to consider that if Iran really wants to develop Nukes in secret, they is really no way to stop them.

Ain't that the truth. As Oberon pointed out only boots on the ground will stop it.

As a South African this is all very deja vu. We had sanctions applied to us through a United Nations Security Council Resolution passed in 1977 which introduced a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa, also requiring all states to refrain from "any co-operation with South Africa in the manufacture and development of nuclear weapons"

The Russians were the first to blow the whistle on us.

"Soviet intelligence detected test preparations and in early August alerted the United States; U.S. intelligence confirmed the existence of the test site with an overflight of a Lockheed SR-71 spy plane. On 28 August, the Washington Post quoted a U.S. official: "I'd say we were 99 percent certain that the construction was preparation for an atomic test."

The Soviet and Western governments were convinced that South Africa was preparing for a full-scale nuclear test. During the next two weeks in August, the Western nations pressed South Africa not to test. The French foreign minister warned on 22 August of "grave consequences" for French-South African relations. Although he did not elaborate, his statement implied that France was willing to cancel its contract to provide South Africa with the Koeberg nuclear power reactors.

For all the huffing and puffing of the rest of the world South Africa still went on to build 6 nuclear bombs.

Iran? No chance of stopping them I'm afraid unless Rice's comments yesterday are more than just hyperbole: "Rice said President Barack Obama was committed to “ensuring that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon” and repeated the administration’s frequent statements that the US was “keeping all options on the table to prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon.”

[Cybermat47]

I'd be the next Aristotle.


Impossible. You're not nearly sexist enough :O:

[Von Tonner]

Very concise take by the New York Times.

What the West Wants

The United States and its negotiating partners want rigorous inspections, limits on the number of centrifuges with which Iran can enrich uranium, and the removal of most of Tehran’s stockpiles of existing fuel. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry insist on limits that would prevent Iran, should it break an agreement, from producing enough fuel for a nuclear weapon within a year.
“We want to recognize the main goal here is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And on that, Israel and the United States agree.” John Kerry

What Iran Wants

Tehran says it should be able to produce nuclear energy for power and medical purposes, and wants an end to sanctions that keep it from shipping oil or gaining access to global financial markets. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has said that Iran would want to build peaceful nuclear enrichment capability when a negotiated agreement expired.
“Our negotiating partners, particularly the Western countries and particularly the United States, must once and for all come to the understanding that sanctions and agreement don’t go together.”
Mohammad Javad Zarif
Iran’s minister of foreign affairs

What Critics of the Deal Want

Critics, including Israel, seek the complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, citing Tehran’s history of hiding efforts to produce nuclear fuel and pursue other weapons-related activities. They also object to any deal that would allow limits on Iran’s nuclear program to expire.
"We’ll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare."
Benjamin Netanyahu
Israel’s prime minister

What a Deal Might Look Like

The deadline for finalizing an outline of an agreement is the end of March, and a final deal would have to be reached by June. Under an agreement, Iran’s ability to produce nuclear fuel would probably be strictly limited for at least 10 years, and restrictions would be eased gradually. Iran would ship some nuclear equipment to Russia. After the deal ends, Iran would still be subject to inspections and unable to produce bomb-grade fuel. It remains unclear whether Iran would have to answer all questions from inspectors about its suspected work on bomb designs.

What Are the Other Options?

Persistent international sanctions, as well as unilateral ones levied by the United States, could continue to curtail Iran’s nuclear program for a time. The U.S. has also used sophisticated cyberattacks to slow Iran’s enriching of uranium, though the effects were temporary. Some argue for “anywhere, anytime” inspections as part of a deal, but inspections are imperfect, as the U.S. has learned from Iraq to North Korea.

[Bilge_Rat]

the biggest obstacle to increasing sanctions on Iran would be China which was never a fan of sanctions to begin with and has been expanding its trade, investment ties with Iran:


What Netanyahu's Speech Overlooked: The China Factor

(...)

Chinese media commentaries have been more blunt in calling for a deal. In advance of Netanyahu’s speech, one Xinhua (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-03/02/c_134030501.htm) commentary (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2015-03/02/c_134030501.htm) warned Washington of the “potential dangers of back-pedaling on the current promising efforts for a comprehensive deal.” Another commentary (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indepth/2014-11/24/c_133810052.htm) from November 2014, with a deadline for the talks looming, echoed China’s long-held position that “negotiations, instead of threat of sanctions, still remain the only way out of the standoff.” The piece added, “None of the parties are willing to take the consequences of failed talks.”

China is eager for a deal in part because it wants free rein to expand its ties with Iran. Beijing was quick to take advantage of the interim deal signed between the P5+1 powers and Iran, which partial lifted economic sanctions. China’s oil imports from Iran were up by 28 percent (http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/01/23/china-oil-iran-idINL4N0V126B20150123) in 2014. Also in 2014, the two countries announced an ambitious plan (http://www.tehrantimes.com/component/content/article/94-headline/114280-iran-china-finalize-roadmap-to-double-bilateral-trade-) to double their bilateral trade by 2017. Bilateral trade in 2013 was worth just under $40 billion (http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_chn/gjhdq_603914/gj_603916/yz_603918/1206_604882/sbgx_604886/) in 2013; trade in 2014 was projected to reach $44 billion (http://www.iran-daily.com/News/14404.html), representing roughly 10 percent growth year-on-year.

China-Iran cooperation also extends to the security realm. Last May, Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan met with his Chinese counterpart in Beijing. At the time, Chinese Defense Minister Chang Wanquan called Iran a “strategic partner” for China and both sides agreed to expand their military cooperation. Words turned to action in September 2014, when China and Iran held their first-ever joint naval exercise (http://thediplomat.com/2014/09/china-and-irans-historic-naval-exercise/) in Iranian waters.

China is also interested in having Iran join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a regional multilateral body focused on combating the “three evils” of terrorism, separatism, and religious extremism. Current SCO regulations prevent any country under U.N. sanctions from joining, providing even more incentive for China to push for a deal that frees Iran from sanctions.

It’s notable that the recent progress in China-Iran relations has come against the backdrop of nuclear talks. The Obama administration pushed hard during its early years to bring China on board in efforts to sanction Iran. However, China-Iran cooperation is blossoming now that hope for a deal is on the way – and ties are not likely to regress, even if negotiations fall through. China will not be eager to undo the progress it has made in its relationship with Iran, especially if a recalcitrant U.S. Congress is what finally torpedoes a deal.



http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/what-netanyahus-speech-overlooked-the-china-factor/

[CCIP]

Yup, that's just one more reason - with China and Russia both standing to expand their ties with Iran, and both Iraq and Afghanistan increasingly friendly and reliant on Iran for security, it's in a more stable position than ever. International isolation of Iran is no longer possible by political or economic means.

[Oberon]

Reminds me of a forum game where myself as China, the Russian player and the Iranian player banded together and created an organisation called RICH (Russia, Iran, CHina).

[AngusJS]

Jon Stewart's take on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv7tK2JD6Gg#t=558

Republicans would have gone ape if a Democrat had pulled a similar trick in 2003. But hey, I guess Republicans have their own rules which only apply to them.

I also think that Obama should arrange to speak before the Knesset with one of the opposition parties, without informing Netanyahu. I mean, it's obviously OK for foreign leaders and opposition parties to conspire to derail a country's foreign policy, right? I'm sure Netanyahu and Likud would have no problem with it.

:roll:

Disgusting. Boehner and Bibi have hit a new low.

[Schroeder]

Jon Stewart's take on it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv7tK2JD6Gg#t=558

Republicans would have gone ape if a Democrat had pulled a similar trick in 2003. But hey, I guess Republicans have their own rules which only apply to them.

I also think that Obama should arrange to speak before the Knesset with one of the opposition parties, without informing Netanyahu. I mean, it's obviously OK for foreign leaders and opposition parties to conspire to derail a country's foreign policy, right? I'm sure Netanyahu and Likud would have no problem with it.

:roll:

Disgusting. Boehner and Bibi have hit a new low.
As someone who watches US politics only from the outside it often seems to me as if the Republicans are more eager to play dirty than the Democrats. That or our media is biased towards democrats which wouldn't surprise me as we usually get along with them better than with GOP presidents.

[Oberon]

As someone who watches US politics only from the outside it often seems to me as if the Republicans are more eager to play dirty than the Democrats. That or our media is biased towards democrats which wouldn't surprise me as we usually get along with them better than with GOP presidents.

Both sides play as dirty as each other, especially when it draws near an election. The Dems aren't above all that, that much is certain. Most likely it's because we're Euro-Commies that our news doesn't focus on it as much. :03: :haha: Expect to see the word 'Benghazi' come up a lot in the coming twelve months. :dead:

[Stealhead]

Kind of a side track here but I usually have multiple nicknames for my pets.
I have this red tabby his actual name is Tradoux he is a very husky bull necked cat and therefore very confident. So I give him names that relate to being triumphant. So back during the civil war in Libya when the rebels took Benghazi I viewed a news clip with particularly excited rebel. So I looked at Tradoux and thought Mr. Benghazi perfect.

[Torplexed]

http://www.trbimg.com/img-537328dc/turbine/la-na-tt-benghazi-obsession-20140514-001/1150/16x9

[Onkel Neal]

:haha:

[Torplexed]

:haha:

David Horsey is terrific (and a Pulitzer Prize winner.) He used to be a local boy with the Seattle Post-Intelligencer newspaper. But after that folded in 2009, he moved on to the glittering lights of L.A. :rock:

[Bubblehead1980]

hmmm

[August]

One reason they might be fishing on dry land is that the Secretary of State chose to use a private email for all electronic correspondence rather than her official government email.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/politics/using-private-email-hillary-clinton-thwarted-record-requests.html?_r=0

[nikimcbee]

One reason they might be fishing on dry land is that the Secretary of State chose to use a private email for all electronic correspondence rather than her official government email.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/politics/using-private-email-hillary-clinton-thwarted-record-requests.html?_r=0

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/50955124.jpg

[Bilge_Rat]

hmmm

I must say you are being unusually restrained, sir!

Just because not all of us agree with you does not mean we don't enjoy reading your opinions. :arrgh!:

[Von Tonner]

Bibi is either going to have a heart attack or go ballistic himself:D

Put these babies on a few tankers and sail the high seas will give new meaning to Q-ships

http://rt.com/news/238837-iran-unveils-cruise-missile/

[Von Tonner]

http://www.trbimg.com/img-537328dc/turbine/la-na-tt-benghazi-obsession-20140514-001/1150/16x9

And then again - when you least expect it you get a bite.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/08/us-usa-politics-clinton-emails-idUSKBN0M40US20150308

Obama has now gone on record saying he never knew about these private emails.