Sen. Dianne Feinstein: Netanyahu should contain himself, Iran deal doesn't threaten Israel

[Jefferson23]

U.S. senator was responding to comments by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticizing the deal.

By Haaretz and Reuters | Apr. 5, 2015

A nuclear framework agreement reached between world powers and Iran does not threaten the survival of Israel, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein said on Sunday.

Feinstein, a leading Democratic voice on foreign affairs as vice chairman of the Senate select committee on intelligence, was responding to comments by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticizing the deal. Netanyahu has rejected the framework agreement reached on Thursday, saying it risks Israel's security and would make it easier for Iran to obtain an atomic bomb.

“This can back backfire on him,” Feinstein said. “I wish that he would contain himself, because he has put out no real alternative. In his speech to the Congress — no real alternative. Since then — no real alternative.”

Feinstein was one of the more outspoken opponents of Netanyahu's speech to Congress , calling it "humiliating, embarrassing, and very arrogant."

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.650590

[still_one]

1. No surprise there. I know some think Senator Feinstein is a rabid right winger, but the facts are

she has always been a moderate, and a liberal on social issues

Al Franken, Bernie Sanders, and other Jewish members of the Senate also feel positive toward the deal

It is actually a no brainer. Netanyahu is hurting not only his credibility, but Israel

[Jefferson23]

3. He has hurt Israel on many levels, unprecedented, actually,

given so much of it was done publicly.

Feinstein has always been a solid supporter of Israel and yet the rift that Dermer, Bibi
and the Republicans have created is not working. So far, it looks like Obama can count
on the Democrats regardless of AIPAC. It is time that Democrats separate from that lobby,
even if it is only for this deal with Iran. I don't expect to see a shift when it comes to the
I/P conflict yet Obama has put a tremendous step forward in ending the neocon
foreign policy approach to the ME...outstanding move for the better.

One should not count on Saudi Arabia to not interfere too..they have their
own agenda as well.

[still_one]

5. It would be nice if all lobbists were prevented, but that isn't going to happen. Obama can count on

the Democrats, and perhaps some republicans like Collins. However, even if the Senate won't approve it, Obama can still sign the agreement without their consent. True, after Obama's term that can be reversed, however, this is NOT just between the U.S. and Iran, this is an international agreement, and in 2 years if the deal holds up it will be very difficult for anyone to undo.

Incidentally, I have no issue that Feinstein and most of the other Democrats are solid supporters of Israel. Bernie Sanders and Obama are also. However, in the end they realize that they will do what they believe is in the best interest of the U.S.

[Jefferson23]

7. I support working to over turn CU and fight for public funded elections. We are seeing estimates

that amount to 1 billion dollars needed to run for president in 2016..so we are not going to have a
thriving democracy while lobbies thrive, no matter who they are, their interests are detrimental
to ours.

I have a big issue with AIPAC but it is not the only reason we ignore international law
to resolve the conflict...our strategic alliance is another one and the Palestinians have
horrid leadership.

I agree, most likely Obama will succeed and the agreements with Iran will remain.

I appreciate any move away from decades of failed foreign policies, to me this is one
of Obama's greatest achievements.

[leveymg]

2. I wish she and others had said that earlier, before the President gave them political cover.

American politicians, with few exceptions in both parties, have endorsed hysterical and unrealistic notions about Iran for a long time.

About Israel, as well.

[Jefferson23]

4. The sanctions did not work, Iran adjusted, Obama did too..because he knew

this would be the best way forward. He killed the neocon's boogeyman meme on Iran,
that's why their losing their collective minds over it. The Democrats would not have
ever done it on their own, imho.

[still_one]

6. I beg to differ, the sanctions did work. The last election in Iran was evidence of that. The

change was because of that election.

[Jefferson23]

8. No, they really did not. Iran was expected to cave and give up everything per earlier

requests, that did not happen. The deal they agreed to was much different.

[still_one]

9. We are going to disagree on that Jefferson, but that's what makes the world go around

It isn't like we are part of the negotiations, which I am sure Bill O was there at the table personally

[Jefferson23]

10. That's fine. I have no reason to doubt it, as history will show why Obama did indeed

bring this to fruition as a result of the endurance of Iran. Note too, Iran and
Hezbollah were removed from the terrorist list as well by the US before the
deal was brokered.

ha ha, I am sure Bill O was there too..to be photo shopped in perpetuity...good one, still_one.

[still_one]

11. Sounds good, either way at least we have the potential to avoid a war

Last edited Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:34 PM - Edit history (1)

[Jefferson23]

12. Exactly. n/t