Obama administration using Netanyahu's speech to proactively defend a potential Iran deal

[karynnj]

It may turn out that Netanyahu having made this a high octane political fight has handed the WH an incredible opportunity. Without the visit, Obama would have had to fight a behind the scene effort by allies of Netanyahu and neo cons without the same ability to publicly deal with their spurious arguments. (I hope by the time this is over, Netanyahu will realize he should NEVER have made a Republican operative his ambassador)

The NYT has an article today that speaks of how the administration has started a proactive counteroffensive. It sounds like one focus is that Netanyahu has offered no other solution.

Just four days before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to a joint meeting of Congress, the Obama administration sought on Friday to refute the Israeli leader’s expected critique, arguing that he has failed to present a feasible alternative to American proposals for constraining Iran’s nuclear program.

In a briefing for reporters, senior administration officials contended that even an imperfect agreement that kept Iran’s nuclear efforts frozen for an extended period was preferable to a breakdown in talks that could allow the leadership in Tehran unfettered ability to produce enriched uranium and plutonium.

“The alternative to not having a deal is losing inspections,” said one senior official, who would not be quoted by name under conditions that the administration set for the briefing, “and an Iran ever closer to having the fissile material to manufacture a weapon.”

<snip>
While the United States has taken the lead in the nuclear talks with the Iranians, the negotiating partners also include France, Britain, Germany, Russia and China. European officials have suggested in recent days that an agreement is closer than the “50-50” assessment by Obama administration officials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/world/middleeast/white-house-offers-rebuttal-before-netanyahus-speech-on-iran.html?_r=0

This is a really interesting article that shows that the WH is taking the high road - while necessarily highlighting that Netanayhu has been wrong repeatedly.

The focus now may well be on the calm, sane voices of President Obama and Secretary Kerry to make the case vs Netanyahu. Netanyahu via his strange 2012 UN appearance with his bomb poster speaking of Iran getting a bomb in 6 months and his outrageous claims against the interim sanctions is not the serious image many have of Netanyahu. (You do not even need to throw in his Iraq warnings -- but they do add to his lack of credibility.) In the process of defending the administration's years of diplomatic effort (and that of 5 other countries), it is absolutely required to do what Kerry did in the hearing -- go after Netanyahu's credibility on Iran. (Kerry will be on this Week on Sunday - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/abc-news-exclusive-secretary-state-john-kerry/story?id=29275676 hat tip - MBS )

My observation of why Netanyahu has had previous success speaking in the US is that he sounds (if you ignore the words) soft spoken, articulate and not like Ted Cruz. However, this is a chance to show that for whatever reason he is irrationally against ANY diplomatic agreement here. What is interesting here is that vs Obama/Kerry, it is Netanyahu who is the hot, wild eyed opponent - and they will have set up the impossible question for him -- what happens if he wins and the agreement fails.

These are incredibly high stakes -- both for an Iranian deal and the Israeli elections. One annoying thing in the coverage is that the former is - by far - the more important, but the media is more comfortable speaking of politics. I was surprised by at least one article in a RW Israeli source (JP) that actually suggested it would be "dirty politics" if Obama announced the outlines of a deal before Netanyahu's speech or the election - completely ignoring that the March deadline was set well before Dermer/Boehner/Netanyahu orchestrated his speech. If the powers get agreement on the framework, this is a major WORLD accomplishment - not something done to make Netanyahu look ineffective.

So far, Netanyahu's arguments have been "you can't trust Iran" (though they complied in the interim agreement) and the agreement is "only" for a decade -- ignoring that 10 years down the road if there are problems, certainly the world can do something and that in the short term, it is not "trust", but monitoring. In Israeli papers, he has also argued that as Israel is most affected, it should have had a voice in the negotiations. His words and actions show exactly why his inclusion would have been the most obvious poison pill ever.

[Wounded Bear]

1. I basically support Israel's right to exist...

but they have a large and active neo-con faction that is doing some incredibly inflammatory and provocative actions, largely because there has been no real ramifications for their deeds. Netanyahu is the face of that evil part of Israeli politics.

Hopefully, the Israeli people see how much damage Bibi is doing to their international image and support and boot him out on his ass.

[Scootaloo]

3. Israel's existence is not in any way in question

Seriously, that's a goofy meme used by people to justify Israel's abuses. As if without abusing a captive population, Israel would dry up and blow away on the wind or something.

Find a real reason to support Israel, if you can. it might be hard, depending on your personal principles, but i'm sure there must be something (I hear they have a fairly decent environmental record?)

[Wounded Bear]

7. Please save your black/white thinking for the rubes...

I'm not looking for justification for anything. I acknowledge there are abuses on both sides, including the 'side' that has sworn to 'wipe Israel off the map.' That is mostly an empty threat, yes, but it's being used by extremists in Israeli gov't to 'justify' their abuses.

Assholes like Netanyahu and most of our own Republicans will never accomplish peace in the region, because they don't really want to. Their only vision of peace involves conquest and subjugation.

[Scootaloo]

8. I didn't say you were looking for justification

I said Israel's existence was never in question, and that the meme is used by people looking for justification for Israel's abuses. Which you seem to agree with:

but it's being used by extremists in Israeli gov't to 'justify' their abuses.

I also suggested finding an actual reason for Israel to have your support, since "existence" is nonsensical.

Not sure why you needed to be so hostile with someone you're agreeing with.

[KittyWampus]

19. Actually for some groups Israel's existence certainly IS a question. Denying that reality

is asinine.

[Scootaloo]

20. And delusional

So, maybe people who proclaim they "support Israel" should find an actual issue to support Israel on, instead of flailing at the meaningless fever-dreams of a handful of ignoramuses.

[karynnj]

4. I am an American Jew, and I also support Israel's right to exist

I have been following the Israeli election and see that the process differs greatly from the US process. There are many parties and each has a list. All parties getting over the threshold needed (I think 3.5%) get a proportional number of seats in the Knesset. These seats are given to the n highest people on their list of candidates.

The President (Rivlin) will get to ask the leader of some party to try to form a government including at least 61 (of the 120) members of Knesset. The problem in recent years is that the center/right parties have an easier time getting to that number -- and two elections ago when Kadima got more of the vote than Likhud, Likhud was asked to form the government as it was more obvious how they could get there.

I hope that Netanyahu's stunt backfires - which could happen if Obama is able to get the platform he needs to get support for an Iranian agreement. (If you look at the polling, when Obama first publicly started the effort, it was overwhelmingly popular. The popularity has decreased as it has been demonized by the neo cons and Netanyahu.)

One thing that is obvious is that Netanyahu is a meglomaniac, who is willing to lie to get the ends he wants. (One incredibly despicable time was when he wanted more time before a ceasefire in Gaza was set, that he put out the Hamas offer - conveyed to him by Kerry, who was working with the French and others and who got that position via Qatar - as the Obama/Kerry plan! This was quickly corrected by the US, but some on the far right - here and in Israel - still use that as proof that Obama is against Israel. )

One thing surprising in the Israeli media is that it is completely accepted that Netanyahu is mean spirited, dishonest and a miserly person (both in using his own money and emotionally.) While he is not liked, he is STILL seen by more people than anyone else as the man best suited to be PM. This would be like the US electing Cheney, rather than the "nicer" face of GWB.

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. Excellent piece. Thanks. And the there is this inconvenient truth about bombing Iran

Not only would it directly lead to full fledged war, not only would Iran strike back directly at both the U.S. and Israel, not only would it inspire and motivate new waves of terrorists, not only would it devastate the world economy with a complete disruption of shipping of Mid Eastern oil, not only will hundreds of thousands die...

But bombing Iran would only set back its nuclear program by three to five years, according to military experts. Unless we are prepared to invade and occupy Iran indefinitely, they will end up armed with nukes anyway, fortified as far below ground as needed to withstand all but nuclear blasts. And they will be mad as hell. Would we then go nuclear in a war with Iran?

The U.S already has Sunni crazies gunning for us, do we really need highly motivated state supported Shiite crazies gunning for us also while we are also fully engaging our conventional forces in war. Might not North Korea and Russia see the U.S. being bogged down in a massive mid eastern war as a perfect time to engage in behavior that ordinarily they would hesitate to embark unless the U.S. is diverted? What about those Baltic states the Russians would love to reabsorb?

[karynnj]

5. Well said

Bombing Iran would be insane for all the reasons you list -- not to mention, it would be completely immoral.

[glasshouses]

6. Obama has been unequivocal about his stance allowing them to develop

a nuclear bomb. He has stated many times it will not happen on his watch.

I believe Obama will launch air strikes before allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

This can get very very ugly.

[YvonneCa]

9. "This can get very ugly"...

...your words. I agree completely. All the more reason to SUPPORT Kerry's efforts to find a solution through diplomacy.

[glasshouses]

12. In the end it will come down to yes or no

I know it's a complicated situation but in the end it will be Iran who decides their fate.

[karynnj]

10. I don't see Obama ordering strikes on Iran

You ignore the fact that Obama opened the first negotiations with Iran since the 1970s! Not to mention, Iran is almost certainly not going to get an nuclear weapon during Obama's term.


Especially if the agreement is reached.

[glasshouses]

11. Agree If the talks work , If they don't he will not allow a nuclear armed Iran.

Obama will not leave the White House knowing he allowed that...no way
He will order strikes and have no hesitation about it.

[karynnj]

13. I would bet that you are wrong - given the timeline

There is no way that in the heat of the 2016 election he starts a war. Not to mention, as Kerry explained to the House the breakout time does not mean the point at which you have nuclear weapons, but the point when you could have enough fissile material to make one bomb.

Even if the talks broke down irretrievably at the end of the month - under the very best efforts for the Iranians (who say they are not working on a nuclear bomb) it would be well into next year when they would have enough material.

Not to mention, Iran has attacked exactly no country in the past century. It is really hard to anticipate a situation where Obama in the last few months in office bombs Iran.

However, there is something better to do than worrying about Obama, the supposed war monger. That is to enlist your representative and Senators to back Obama in his effort to get Congress not to do anything to damage what could be the most important agreement in the last several decades. Remember that it was OBAMA who agreed to work back channels in 2012 (with Kerry as Senator helping) and who took the political risk in starting these negotiations.

[glasshouses]

14. You miss understood me , he won't start a war he will take out the sites

It will knock them back another 10 years by doing so.

This is all hypothetical of course but I'm convinced if ...and yes that's a big if

If the talks fall through and Iran starts to develop a nuclear weapon he will bomb the sites.

He will not leave office leaving Iran with a nuclear weapon . That will not be his legacy
when he has repeated over and over again he will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

I believe him

[karynnj]

18. You assume that we can "take out" multiple sites -- and it would not be war?

There were articles in the Israeli press a few years ago when the idea of "someone" doing this was speculated. One big problem is that many sites were in mountains -- located so it was not clear that even bunker buster bombs would succeed.

It since them has become clear that Israel has abandoned the idea that they could do so.

For the US, this would be a war with a country MUCH bigger and much more developed than Iraq. In addition, the current Iraqi government is to some degree aligned with Iran - as is Syria. We are currently working with others to fight Sunni extremists. If we were stupid enough to attack Iran, that puts us smack dab in the middle of a middle east wide civil war -- where we are hated by everyone --- except maybe Israel and a few Sunni states. I doubt that Obama wants that for his legacy.

What he wants is the agreement to be done. If that fails --- especially if it fails due to allies of Netanyahu, the failure -- and the likely attainment of a nuclear bomb is on them. One minor advantage of NOT getting the path you chose, is that you can always argue that it would have been the perfect solution.

[Cha]

17. mahalo, karynVT! Well Done!

[glasshouses]

22. He won't allow a nuclear Iran

Obama will do what ever it takes to stop them.

You seem to think he has some sort of hesitation in ordering air strikes.

I find that sort of amusing

[Cha]

15. No he won't.

[glasshouses]

16. He's far from a pacifist and has no problem ordering air strikes as we all know

He'll have no problem ordering air strikes on their nuclear facilities .

None what so ever

[Comrade Grumpy]

21. That would be an act of war against a country that hasn't attacked us.

Just sayin'.