Iran

Is Netanyahu's Plan to Torpedo Iran Talks Backfiring?

Israeli prime minister to make the case against them to a divided Congress tomorrow.

|

State

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be addressing a joint session of Congress tomorrow morning. He's expected to explain why he believes the deal the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Russia, and China are negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program will "threaten the survival" of the nuclear-armed Israel. Netanyahu, and Washington skeptics, Republicans and Democrats, of a potential Iran deal support more sanctions against Iran.

In remarks he made today in Geneva, Secretary of State John Kerry said he was concerned about "reports" that details about the negotiations would be leaked this week, widely understood as a reference to Netanyahu's trip to the U.S., while Iran's foreign minister said all sanctions had to be lifted  for an agreement to work.

Netanyahu spoke this morning to a policy conference held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a pro-Israel lobby group that enjoys bipartisan support, insisting his address to Congress was not meant to disrespect President Obama and that U.S.-Israeli relations were "stronger than ever." In her speech to the AIPAC conference, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, agreed, saying there would "never be a sunset to America's commitment to Israel's security."

Vox.com suggests Netanyahu's maneuver could turn partisan the "rare bipartisan bright spot" that is support for the state of Israel, suggesting Netanyahu was "playing with fire" by "hoping that forcing Democrats to choose between Obama and Israel will make them pick Israel."

As Anthony Fisher wrote last week, Netanyahu is also banking on President Obama's deep unpopularity in Israel to get a boost in elections scheduled for March 17. The opposition party says Netanyahu's using Iran as a distraction from the housing crisis, rapidly rising housing prices 40 percent of Israelis blame the prime minister for. In December, 60 percent of Israelis in a Jerusalem Post said they wanted Netanyahu, who has served two non-consecutive terms as prime minister, to be replaced.

Many Democrats in Congress may be boycotting Netanyahu's address, but it's unlikely to present a wider shift on the question of sanctions. Netanyahu has campaigned against a deal with Iran (and, when it was politically expedient, President Obama) for years but Democrats like Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), who was the chair of the foreign relations committee until Republicans took control of the Senate, are at the forefront of pushing for a harder stance against Iran and bringing other Democrats in. Support for the talks, meanwhile, has created bipartisan "bright spots" as well, with senators like Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) working together to give the Iran negotiations a chance to succeed against the bipartisan hawks.

A deal with Iran is far from a sure thing, but if the negotiations are successful, Netanyahu's speech this week could help separate the "anti-Israel" attack from support for a deal, especially if his maneuvers don't get him re-elected.

NEXT: A. Barton Hinkle on How Walmart Made Liberals Turn Right

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What does Richman think?

    1. “JOOOOOS!!!!!111!!!!”

      1. Mossadegh!!!

      2. Your real name isn’t Fegley, is it?

  2. “The opposition party says Netanyahu’s using Iran as a distraction from the housing crisis, rapidly rising housing prices 40 percent of Israelis blame the prime minister for.”

    So now he’s the Prime Predatory Lender?

  3. All we are saaaying
    Is give negotiations a chance

    1. How could you not be anything less that supremely confident of John F’in Kerry protecting your interests???

  4. “Netanyahu spoke this morning to a policy conference held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a pro-Israel lobby group that enjoys bipartisan support”

    AIPAC may enjoy bipartisan support, but as of yesterday, according to the Wall Street Journal, AIPAC has withdrawn much of its support for the Democrat White House.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/pr…..1425245094

    The question the Democrats should be asking themselves is whether their attempt to marginalize both Netanyahu and AIPAC is going to blow up in their faces during the upcoming election cycle.

    You don’t want to piss off these guys. Hillary Clinton doesn’t want to piss off these guys, either.

    1. Even many liberal Jews have figured out by now that Obama and his brain/Svengali are enemies of Israel.

      You can only say “fuck you” to someone so many times before they get the hint.

      1. And the progressive chorus is reflexively singing hostility to Israel from the mountaintops.

        Even after the midterms, I don’t think the Democrats have woken up to the fact that Obama really doesn’t care what happens to them now.

        Or maybe the Democrats in Congress realize that Obama is leaving them to twist in the wind, but they haven’t figured out how to get that message out to their constituents, yet.

        I’m looking forward to reading that memo.

        Dear Democrat Constituent:

        You know all that crazy shit we’ve been peddling to the American people over the past six years about…everything?

        Well the time to start backpedaling is now.

        Sincerely,

        The Democratic Party.

        P.S. Hillary Clinton will be speaking at our official DNC Pro-Israel Picnic this spring. Buy your tickets now–space is limited!

        1. They can’t write that memo. They are fucked. Their base is too delusional to hear it. Look at Hillary Clinton. She is saying upfront she is going to run her campaign totally on “women’s issues”. That is by any reasonable standard, insane. No one runs for President on identity politics. Even Obama didn’t do that. He ran as “Mr. I have always wanted to vote for a reasonable black candidate”. But Hillary can’t do that now. She can’t run as a centrist who also happens to be a woman and an opportunity to make history. She has to go full women’s issue retard or the party won’t have her.

          1. And that strategy is insane for another reason. Women are supposed to vote for a wife who enables her sexual predator husband? Who attacks his victims? Who once got a child rapist off on a technicality, and laughed about it on tape? And not decades ago, either. That’s going to be in an attack ad.

            1. “Women are supposed to vote for a wife who enables her sexual predator husband?”

              That that didn’t cost good ol’ boy, Bill any support from feminists back in the day, but things may have changed.

              They used to call Bill Clinton “The First Black President” for stuff like that–which, in addition to being stupid, would be considered racist today.

              It may not have been racist when Toni Morrison said it, but that doesn’t mean anybody else should repeat it.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3GEu9KA0nA

              I’d like to be at one of her press conferences:

              “Ms. Clinton! Ms. Clinton! How did it feel to be married to the first black President?”

              1. In some ways feminism has gotten even more puritanical than it was back then. Plus, there’s an entire generation of voters who only vaguely know about the Clinton sex scandals. The web has a much greater reach now, and everything will get publicized again. I think Bill’s “Bill Cosby problem,” not to mention his trips to Sex Slave Island, are going to be an issue in any case, but will certainly be if Hillary’s campaign is based on her gender.

              2. “Oh, it’s twue! It’s TWUE!!”

                1. “Would you like another schnitzengruben?”

                  “No, thank you. Fifteen is my limit on schnitzengruben.”

                  “Well, then how about a little…”
                  [whispers in Bart’s ear]

                  “Baby, please! I am not from Havana.”

                  “Will I… see you again?”

                  “Well, it all depends on how much vitamin E I can get my hands on.”

        2. After following the pronouncements from this White House by Susan Rice, and now Samantha Powers, does anyone believe anything they say anymore?
          They give new definition to the term “Vagina Monologues”.

        3. Can I pay with negative dollars?

  5. Poor Obama and his fragile ego!!!

    1. This is what it’s all about. Netanyahu’s intractability threatens Obama’s “legacy”. I mean, the narrative is just too perfect, the biracial Christian, with not one, but two Muslim fathers, who was raised abroad, giving him the opportunity to be the “bridge” between the West and the East, Christianity and Islam, Black and White. The peace-bringer through education and understanding. He was born to do this, it is his destiny. How dare anyone deny Obama his destiny?

      1. It’s not like there’s a lot at stake here.

        1. It is Israel’s job to take risks for peace. This is all about Obama. The Israelis just won’t play ball and risk nuclear annihilation for the really important thing of Obama looking good to history.

          1. So the question we all must ask is, why don’t the Jews want to be on the right side of history?

            1. (That was sarcastic, in case it didn’t come through)

            2. It came out perfect. Why can’t those Jews take a chance to help a black President? Racists.

            3. Some said they were, in 1940-1945!
              They respectfully disagree.

  6. He had kind words for Obama.

    Dunno if anyone bought it but kind nonetheless.

  7. suggesting Netanyahu was “playing with fire” by “hoping that forcing Democrats to choose between Obama and Israel will make them pick Israel.”

    Except for all the evidence that such a strategy is working.
    In 2006, 12 percent of Jews polled voted Republican in the House elections. In 2014, that percentage was 33 percent. An almost threefold increase suggests that many are successfully following the drinking-gourd and escaping the plantation.

    1. I’m stunned that it’s that high. I’ve never met a single Jewpublican.

      1. My stepfather worked on Reagan’s campaign before it was cool.

        1. In California?

          Too far back?

          1. Starting with first Presidential run. My stepdad had already moved back to NY by the mid-60s.

            1. Do you think that anything you overheard at the time was significantly influential with regards to the political outlook you hold today?

              My family was rather apolitical and I believe that this was quite significant for my own political outlook.

              1. Do you think that anything you overheard at the time was significantly influential with regards to the political outlook you hold today?

                I can’t remember anything specific, really. I just remember my parents always telling me about the importance of working hard, being self-reliant, and how terrible welfare was.

        2. Your stepfather was a hipster?

        3. Reagan was never cool. He was a disater.

          1. You hear me? A A DISATER!! (Reason really needs an edit button)

            1. … and “I agree”, “I disagree” and “I think you’re full of shit” voting buttons.

      2. Give it time, I suspect you are going to meet a few in the coming years. The other thing to remember is that Obama has greatly increased Muslim immigration. The Progs have long wanted to throw the Jews over the side but couldn’t because of their power and money. If they can replace the Jewish votes and money with Muslim votes and money, they will be able to do that.

        1. On the money front, we have the Clintons laundering millions of Muslim dollars through their foundation, even while Hillary was Secretary of State.

          We also have Obama disabling security on his campaign fundraising site to allow overseas money to be taken, in violation of the law. Wanna guess where most of that overseas money came from?

          1. That is still the most amazing things ever. A Presidential candidate raised hundreds of millions of dollars from unknown sources and the media said nothing.

            The thing is that the media sold itself so blatantly to Obama so early that they couldn’t turn on him now if they wanted to no matter what he does. If they ever admit he is corrupt in any way, they will have to answer for their behavior that got him elected.

            1. Funny, though, that the FEC made the Libertarian Party refuse the check that a Canadian wanted to pay to register to hear breakout speakers at the 1996 LP Convention.

            2. I predicted that the media would start to turn on Obama after the 2014 mid-terms, when it would matter less, but now I think they’ll wait until he’s out of office. But I still think they will turn on him. There are too many juicy stories to be told, and he’s a tarnished god now.

              1. I said the same thing papaya and like you I was wrong. I am starting to think they never will. They just have too much invested in him.

            3. Isn’t that what got the president to resign in House of Cards?

          2. Funny how that fatass dipshit twit-douche Michael Moore is not making a movie about that, hm? Eh?

            1. That’s because Moore isn’t a truth seeker, he’s a proggie entertainment vehicle.

        2. Jews have cultural characteristics that make them rich and smart. Muslims…well…don’t. If TEAM BLUE wants to throw away that bloc, they’re even dumber than I thought.

          1. They are that dumb and they hate Israel and really don’t have much use for the Jews, at least not religious ones.

          2. And they were the first true organized religion!

            Hence all the pogroms I reckon. We’re pissed we weren’t first. Like Fist.

            1. Ask a Hindu about that.

          3. Ideology makes people do stupid things.

          4. Islam is a religion, not a culture. Muslims fall into many cultural traditions.

            1. And yet, because of the influence of Islam upon the behaviors, norms, and expectations of the people in those many cultures, I don’t think it’s incorrect to speak of their commonalities as an expression of “Islamic culture”.

              1. HM is correct.

      3. How about Jew Libertarians?

        1. Are sodomy, pot and tacos Kosher?

          1. Are sodomy, pot and tacos Kosher?

            No, yes, yes if you use kosher ground beef.

            1. Then there are no observant Jewish Libertarians or at least not Reason Libertarians. You have to have all three.

              1. If there aren’t, then how come then how come the articles posted after sundown on Friday are all auto post repeats? It’s got to be a Shabbat switch on the server that more or less randomly redredges from the archives.

              2. My mother was Jewish. That is the only qualification.

              3. Are Mexicans kosher?

            2. I thought that Yaweh is down with cunnilingus. That’s technically sodomy, right?

              1. Sodomy is ass sex and not oral sex I thought.

                1. No, it looks like Yaweh is pretty permissive.

                  Kosher sexual relations are not necessarily limited to those that can lead to pregnancy, either: anal and oral relations are permitted, if enjoyable to both marital partners, though Jewish men have a separate commandment to reproduce, and should generally end up having normal vaginal intercourse.

                  So as long as you knock up your wife often enough, you can bang her in the ass, is how I read that.

                  1. I was using the term “sodomy” as those acts which were specifically not permitted.

                  2. I am pretty sure they are not down with homosexual sodomy.

                  3. You posted while I was editing my own findings, Warty, which are not necessarily contradicted by what you found:

                    “Although some sources take a more narrow view, the general view of halakhah is that any sexual act that does not involve sh’chatat zerah (destruction of seed, that is, ejaculation outside the vagina) is permissible.”

                    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrar…..m/sex.html

                    I found this interesting: “Sex is the woman’s right, not the man’s. A man has a duty to give his wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer it to her without her asking for it.”

                    1. Charles,

                      There is a reason why so many gentiles marry Jewish women and so happily convert. They are not doing that because they like Kosher food or decide one day Moses really had a point.

                    2. I don’t think I could go without pork or lobster.

                  4. Remember the old joke: How do you get a Jewish gal to give up giving you a blowjob? Marry her.

              2. I thought that Yaweh is down with cunnilingus.

                Nope.Any seafood must have fins and scales and not be a bottom-feeder.

            3. Are sodomy, pot and tacos Kosher?

              The last is not unless you leave out the cheese. Which would be WRONG.

          2. Believing something is not “Kosher” or “Halal” or “i-tal” is not the same thing as believing that the government should prohibit it. This is the difference between thick and thin libertarians.

            1. Yes, I know. It was a joke.

        2. There are no libertarians. Idiot.

          1. Not female ones anyway.

    2. I don’t see how anyone who supports Israel could vote Democrat at this point. The Democratic party clearly views Israel as the problem in the Middle East and an adversary to US interests in making peace with Iran and the other powers of the region.

      1. “The Democratic party clearly views Israel as the problem in the Middle East ”

        Yeah, clearly. I mean, that’s why they’ve slashed all that money we give them and pulled back on all that diplomatic support we give them.

        Oh, wait. None of that is true.

        1. Sure, the fact that they haven’t controlled the house in five years is no obstacle to them doing that.

          It is not like the American left isn’t virulently anti-Israel or anything.

        2. Progressives never willingly cut funding to anything. Because doing so would be an admission that its possible for government to waste money, which contradicts their religion.

      2. “The Democratic party clearly views Israel as the problem in the Middle East ”

        Or acceptable losses.

  8. A deal with Iran is far from a sure thing, but if the negotiations are successful, Netanyahu’s speech this week could help separate the “anti-Israel” attack from support for a deal, especially if his maneuvers don’t get him re-elected.

    Reason as a general rule doesn’t believe in the magic power of words in other contexts, why do they believe in the magic power of the word “agreement” here? Who cares if the talks are successful if the resulting agreement doesn’t prevent Iran from giving up its nuclear program?

    For whatever reason the Obama White House has decided it wants Iran to have the bomb. The “talks” such as they are, are nothing but a quest to somehow come up with an agreement that guarantees that while also giving Obama enough talking points to lie and claim otherwise until it happens. That is really all that is going on here.

    1. I’m not sure Obama wants Iran to have a bomb. He just may not think there’s a good way to stop it. But when they do get one, you can bet that Saudi Arabia will show up in Pakistan with an airliner filled with gold and buy whatever they need to go nuclear, too.

      1. Remember an actual nuclear war, even a small one, would have enormous environmental consequences for the entire world. So we can a nuclear standoff between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Won’t that be great?

        Also, I think if Iran gets the bomb, there is a good chance they will use it before the Saudis can build their own. Why wouldn’t they? What would the world do about it? Would the US at this point risk nuclear retaliation to save Saudi Arabia?

  9. So, what are Netanyahu’s options, here?

    Obama is pretty reflexively anti-Israel. He’s a lost cause to Netanyahu. No point in trying to make nice with him, really. Sure, throw a few transparently bullshit compliments his way, but whatev.

    The Repubs are not gonna go anti-Israel and pro-Iran anytime soon. Not like the White House cares what Repubs think, anyway.

    That leaves the Dems as the only option for improving things, from Netanyahu’s perspective. Maybe Dem pressure on the White House can get it to back off its pursuit of a timeline for Iran to go nuclear. Worth a try, anyway. So that’s what he’s doing.

    Can’t make things worse, because the White House is dead set on giving Iran the green light to go nuclear. Might make things better. What’s he supposed to do?

    1. There are still Democrats in Congress who depend on Jewish votes and campaign money. They will never be able to pressure the White House into changing. But they might be able to limit the damage Obama is doing.

    2. Let’s just be clear on what the White House is negotiating here (as best as anyone can tell):

      Its a moratorium on some of the things that would make for a bomb-building program. A moratium that expires. Meaning, in effect, its a timeline for Iran to go nuclear.

      1. I honestly think Obama wants Iran to have the bomb. I don’t see any other explanation for his actions.

        1. What’s the alternative?

          1. Stopping them from having it. They are going broke. Keep squeezing their economy by pumping oil and denying them trade and continue to use covert means to screw up their program. It has worked for years. No reason why it won’t continue to work. In fact, if it wasn’t working, the Iranians wouldn’t be so interested in making a deal to get it to stop.

            Iran clearly wants the bomb and isn’t able to build one right now. The only way Obama and Iran have any common ground to agree on is if they both agree that Iran should have the bomb and the sanctions should be lifted to allow that.

            1. It’s worked for years? Bibi himself has been describing their steady progress for years

              1. And he has thus far been wrong. Unless you want to bomb them, the only other option is to continue the efforts we are making, unless of course you want them to have the bomb. In that case, since you can’t end the sanctions without some kind of agreement, the option is to do what Obama is trying to do; make a deal that allows them to do it.

                1. No, wait. You said the sanctions have been working. Bibi clearly has said otherwise. Was he lying?

                  1. No. He is wrong or is wrong so far since Iran doesn’t yet have the bomb. Since his country’s survival is at stake, it is understandable that he would be more cautious about assessing their ability to build a bomb. The truth is we don’t know how well the sanctions are working. All we can say is that they worked so far.

                    Maybe he is right and if we do nothing Iran will get the bomb anyway. I don’t know. But he might be wrong. One thing that is for sure is that if we lift the sanctions, they certainly will get the bomb. So the only reason Obama wants to do that is because he apparently wants Iran to have the bomb.

                    1. “But he might be wrong. One thing that is for sure is that if we lift the sanctions, they certainly will get the bomb. ”

                      Why is that ‘for sure?’

                      Also, didn’t you back a disastrous strategy on preventing a Middle Eastern country from getting WMDs just a few years ago? In fact, lots of the same people taking the line you’re taking now were doing the same then. Why should anyone listen to y’all now?

                    2. Why is that ‘for sure?’

                      Because it is in Iran’s interest to have the bomb. There is no reason for them not to want one and they have invested billions in getting one.

                    3. How long does Teheran physically survive if Iran gets a bomb and uses it on Israel?

                    4. The center of it, not long. But Iran is a very big country and nuclear weapons not as big as you think they are. Iran would pay a hell of a price for destroying Israel, but it would still be there and Israel would not.

                      The Iranian leadership could hide itself and easily survive a Israeli retaliation. After it was over, assuming Iran scored a dozen or so hits, Israel would be wiped off the map at the price of at worst half of the Iranian population.

                      What makes anyone think it is such a sure thing that Iran’s leaders, who obviously don’t care about their people, would not view that as a price worth paying?

                      They might not, but I wouldn’t want to bet my life on it. And that is what Israel is being asked to do.

                    5. That would also solve the Palestinian problem.

    3. “Obama is pretty reflexively anti-Israel. ”

      3 billion a year, Iron Dome, UN support.

      I wish Obama were as reflexively anti-me!

      1. yeah, because those things didn’t exist before he took office and Congress doesn’t have the final say in ending them.

        Try again.

        1. So Obama gets the blame for continuing all those Bush era policies but not this one.

          1. No. They continue because Obama doesn’t have the power to end them.

            1. Really? So Obsma couldn’t have withheld aid when, for example, new settlements were announced? Obama can’t tell Kerry and Rice to stop giving diplomatic support to Israel in the UN?

              1. No, you fucking half wit. It is called impoundment and doing that is illegal under the 1974 Budget Control Act. If the money is allocated by the Congress, the executive has to spend it.

                You really don’t know much about government do you?

                1. So when Baker did just that under Bush the elder it was illegal?

                  1. Depending on the language of the appropriation, it might have been. I do my best to try and teach you the law but you are generally untrainable. I have never met anyone with less aptitude for it.

                    Beyond that, Obama is clearly anti-Israel in his rhetoric and actions. Just because he plays politics with Democratic Jewish voters by not cutting off funding to Israel doesn’t change that.

                    I know you come here to troll and do your best to defend Obama. But you might want to be more strategic in how you do it. Even his defenders don’t claim he likes Israel. They claim that Israel is under Bibi real obstacle to peace and Obmaa’s undeniable animosity is justified and in the interests of peace.

                    1. Haha, you didn’t and don’t know what you’re talking about but are redoubling your efforts anyway. Priceless.

                    2. The Executive can withhold aid, especially in the case of settlement activity, as past administrations have done. Your mumbling about the impoundment law displays your ignorance if the law and history here but you just reload, don’t retreat, cuz that’s what partisan fanatics do. You had the answer before the discussion started, nothing’s going to change that for you.

                    3. The Executive can withhold aid, especially in the case of settlement activity, as past administrations have done.

                      Show me where it says that in the appropriations act that does it?

                      Bo you know so little about this subject it is difficult to have a conversation with you about it. You literally know nothing about fiscal law beyond “I read somewhere I think where someone did this or that”.

                      You never ad anything to any conversation, ever. You never have an interesting fact or novel argument, nothing.

                    4. Bo you know so little about this subject it is difficult to have a conversation with you about it.

                      Ypu are doing him no favors by catering to his condition. Best either to no respond or to urge him to admit his problem to himself and seek professional help. Many Aspergers’ sufferers can lead nearly normal lives with intensive therapy- but they first have to understand that they need to do something about it.

                      You need to be more sensitive and caring about this stuff, John. Those are real people behind that keyboard.

                    5. Try to teach us, please.

      2. Developed when Bush was President and by the time our Golfer in Chief began his imperial pen powered presidency, it would have required his intervention to stop it. Let’s not confuse that with him having anything to actually do with it of the success of the problem, but who accuses the media of anything but adoring worship of the man responsible for the most unstable state of world affairs in U.S. history. Giving Obama credit for this is like giving an arsonist credit for putting out a fire he started and extinguished by the fire crew that actually put the fire out before he arrived to take credit for.

        1. You really think the world is more unstable now than it’s been at any time since 1776?

          1. This is the crazy that infects this discussion board. The only interesting question is, why?

    4. I know this is “politically incorrect” but, whatever, what is the problem with Iran having a Nuclear bomb? Remember when people were freaking out at India and Pakistan both having one? North Korea has one. Russia has LOTS of them. Israel has a couple apparently. In fact, the only country ever to actually use one in a war also still has them. Class, can any of you name the only country on Earth to use a nuclear bomb in war?

      1. First, we know now that during the cold war the US and USSR almost destoyed the world by accidental war several times. So, more countries having nukes does nothing but raise that possibility again.

        Second, just because other countries have not gone insane and decided to use nukes in a first strike, doesn’t mean no one ever will. And Iran has said quite plainly its plan is to wipe Israel off the map.

        The country is trying everything it can to build nukes and says it is going to use them to destroy Israel. The only response ever given to that is “they can’t really mean that”. Well maybe. But they certainly might mean it and that is one hell of a chance to take isn’t it? And more importantly, can you really expect Israel to wait around and do nothing and hope they don’t really mean it?

        1. North Korea has also repeatably used ‘apocalyptic’ language in regards to South Korea, and despite that their limited nuclear arsenal remains unused. Isn’t it ‘one hell of a chance’ to allow North Korea to still be around despite engaging in the exact same behaviour as Iran, but with nuclear weapons they haven’t used?

      2. Vatican City?

  10. Question,

    Does anyone in the world other than members of the US media actually like Obama?

    1. I’m sure the radical Islamists probably love him as much as he loves them.

    2. The leader of every single one of the US’s adversaries?

    3. Well John, I’d like President Obama to –

      Oops. I was answering the wrong question.

    4. Anyone and everyone who’s ever negotiated against him and played him for the knave he is probably loves him.

      1. I doubt they love him. They probably think he is playing some long game they can’t comprehend because they can’t believe anyone could actually be that stupid.

    5. Canada certainly is perplexed by Obama’s aloofness regarding our ‘special relationship.’

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com…..e23225228/

    6. Yes, Facebook is littered with them.

      1. Outside of the US.

        1. I’m sure someone is making money off this bastard.

  11. Vox.com suggests Netanyahu’s maneuver could turn partisan the “rare bipartisan bright spot” that is support for the state of Israel, suggesting Netanyahu was “playing with fire” by “hoping that forcing Democrats to choose between Obama and Israel will make them pick Israel.”

    Oh, hey?! VOX said this might be a bad idea??? Back to the plane, and homeward, STAT!

    /Bibi

    1. I hear Vox has a bridge to sell him…

    2. Pretty much everything Vox says is a lie. So, it is a good bet this is going to be the right thing to do.

  12. Newcomers to the site may think they’ve inadvertently clicked on a Weekly Standard or Commentary comment board, but this actually is the comments section for Reason Hit & Run.

    1. No. They would just think you are an idiot with poor reading comprehension.

      1. Some comments are pretty over the top. Like Mike M’s “I’m sure the radical Islamists probably love him as much as he loves them.”

        Seriously, I’m far from a fan of Obama or his foreign policy, but fucking really?

        1. Like I said, you’d see this type of stuff on Free Republic and Weekly standard

        2. In fairness, the same exact quote on Daily Kos could be read as fellating Obama for being so tough on terrorism.

          1. Sure, but I would hope we had higher standards than the Daily Kos.

        3. Who takes Mike M seriously? This is the guy who thinks ‘Block Insane Yomamma’ is the height of wit.

          And of course Bo would never admit that his own childish and pedantic behaviour would be more welcome on other sites as well. This is pure self-indulgent ego-stroking for him.

    2. I’ve read Weekly Standard and Commentary comments. Ours are no where near that level. And vice versa for Huffpo and Salon (it all depends on the articles subject).

      Your concern is noted 😛

      1. Some of us like to get a chuckle once in a while. Weekly Standard and Commentary (and NR) readers, not so much.

    3. It’s true, the stupid shit coming from the right doesn’t get called out here enough. This thread is especially sad, and reads like something from Red State or Commentary.

  13. The other question is why Reason would want an agreement. Everything the subject of bombing the Iranian nuclear program comes up, Reason has kittens and demands we pursue containment. Okay, the sanctions are containment. Yet, every time the subject of sanctions comes up, Reason screams about the need to make a deal. No, we don’t need a deal, if you believe in containment. If you don’t want to go to war, and I it is certainly rational not to, then you either need to be willing to pursue sanctions or willing to live with Iran getting the bomb. Until there are new leaders in Iran, there is no good option where we somehow talk them into not wanting the bomb. So any agreement they make is going to be one that allows them to get the bomb or otherwise they wouldn’t make it.

    1. Libertarians don’t like war, restraints on trade or the US telling other nations what to do John.

      1. Tough shit, reality sometimes demand otherwise. If reason thinks freedom of trade is more important than stopping Iran from getting the bomb, they should say so. They don’t however do that. They just dishonestly pretend it won’t happen.

        1. I think they’ve said the think such fears are exaggerated and overblown.

          1. Then they shouldn’t argue for containment at all. They should say that Iran is peaceful and there is no need for containment.

            1. Captain False Dilemma reporting for duty!

              1. God you are dumb. IT is not a false dilemma just because you don’t like it. The choice is either contain Iran, which means sanctions and trying to keep t hem from having the bomb or admit there is no need to contain them.

                1. Or bomb them first. A trilemma.

            2. Just because someone thinks that those fears are exaggerated doesn’t mean they think Iran is going to be completely peaceful (I mean really, who in the world is completely peaceful).

              1. Switzerland?

                Externally, they are.

  14. Anyone else besides me have a problem with Obama’s track record of success in handling foreign affairs, most notably his handling of military matters? Contrast that with Israel’s Prime Minister’s track record of using military force to protect his homeland from external aggression committed by Iranian proxy terrorists, and I fail to see the logic that is used to take issue with Netanyahu’s speech before it even delivered. The only reason anyone perceives that they have to choose between Obama and Netanyahu is coming from Obama and his foot soldiers (e.g. Susan Rice), and make no mistake it is a false choice and a logical fallacy to suggest such.

    Iran is most certainly aggressive and threatens Israel and the U.S. on a regular basis, a fact that the President with the 0 for 10 batting record would be wise grow up and be realistic about. In the meantime what we have is a President who has a track record for using military force in places that were then overrun by ISIS and Iranian backed new thugs on the block (Libya), supporting the Iranian backed party in Egypt and then opposing Egyptian military intervention to dislodge the Muslim Brotherhood after it attempted to override Egypt’s Constitution, and on and on with one failure after another with one consistent thread… Obama supporting Iran and it’s proxy patsies.

    1. You can’t see why in general having a foreign leader who has an election coming up be invited to specially address our legislature at the behest of someone who was motivated by trying to ‘get back’ at the President for his executive action in another area might be problematic?

      1. Not when our President sent his people over to specifically interfere with that election.

        Obama actively assisted the opposition in the last election in Israel. So spare us this bullshit.

        Moreover, Obama is not King. The Congress is the first branch and is free to hear from whomever they like. Obama has absolutely no authority or right to tell them who can and can’t speak before Congress.

        1. Exactly.

      2. I’m not really seeing how it’s problematic for us to invite him hear to speak. Congress is it’s own branch of the government and they don’t owe fealty to the executive.

  15. nuclear-armed Israel

    Hsst.

    1. They’ve had the bomb for forty years, if they were going to use, they would have done so long ago.

  16. Rep. Steve Cohen (Tenn) said that this negotiation is more than likely the last chance to avoid war. And its not hard to see that as the reality. If the talks fail, then things continue on as they were, which was Israel claiming Iran is building nuclear weapons, and therefore it is just an amount of time before Israel takes those weapons out. Which of course would mean war. How it unfolds would be anyone’s guess.

    But it won’t just be a war between Iran and Israel…other countries will join in, including us. And that is a fact whether McCain is President, Obama, and yes, even Rand Paul. We won’t be sitting on the sidelines.

    1. A nuclear armed Iran makes war less likely?

      Oh, that’s right, we’ll have an *agreement* that prevents them from getting nukes. How did that work out with NK?

      1. That is the whole point of the negotiations…to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

        It didn’t work out with North Korea, did it? Oh that’s right…its because the GOP was asleep at the switch.

        By the way, how many wars started since NK got the nuclear weapon, hmmm?

  17. Subtitled “Never underestimate the power of stupidity and incompetence to overrule common sense and the common good”

    The 0bummer Regime WANTS an Islamic bomb, don’t you get it? They want Israel destroyed.

  18. Since Israel has nukes, it’s utterly hypocritical of them to try to insist that Iran may not have them. If Israel wants a nuke-free Iran, it’s first step ought to be to get rid of its own nukes.

    1. “Since X (a sane and responsible citizen) has guns, it’s utterly hypocritical of him to try to insist that the insane gangsters in his neighborhood who keep trying to kill him may not have them. If X wants the insane gangsters be gun-free, his first step ought to be to get rid of his own guns.”

  19. Lets see you have Iran who in 1979 captured embassy personal Held them For a ridiculous amount of time.Iran is the country that supplies Hamas and Hezbollah with missiles and anything else they need provided they attempt to kill Jews! These are friends of Barack really doesn’t care if you are Shiite or if you are sunni is here to unite both. ready for a heckuva awakening.
    You really should know the way the wind is blowing.

  20. You actually extend veracity to Vox.com, a blatant mouthpiece for the Obama Administration, an administration that has never missed an opportunity to denigrate and disparage both the Israeli Government, and its Prime Minister?
    Shame, shame, shame.

    Then we have the “interesting” combination of Rand Paul and Barbara Boxer working together to further minimize Netanyahu’s words to the American People, neither of which I would trust in giving me directions to an outhouse.

  21. “He’s expected to explain why he believes the deal the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Russia, and China are negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program will “threaten the survival” of the nuclear-armed Israel. ”

    Oooh, scare quotes around “threaten the survival”.

    What could Israel possibly find threatening about the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, run by apocalyptic theocratic totalitarians who have pledged to wipe Israel from the map, getting nuclear weapons?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.