Iran

Netanyahu's Impossible Dream

Arms control tends to bring out unwarranted panic and fury, and Netanyahu is squarely in that tradition.

|

Benjamin Netanyahu came to the U.S. Capitol Tuesday and offered an idea so simple and brilliant that everyone in the White House must have felt dumb for not thinking of it. His alternative to the imperfect deal the U.S. may strike with Iran? A perfect deal.

It was fitting that the Israeli prime minister made reference to the HBO series Game of Thrones, because fantasy pervaded his address. He thinks of negotiations as a process by which one side gets everything it wants and the other side gets nothing.

I'm guessing the next time he goes to a car dealership with a purchase in mind, he'll have all his money at the end, some of which he'll need for cab fare to get home.

Netanyahu took it upon himself to disclose that the Iranian regime "will always be an enemy of America." Well, yes. There's no need to negotiate arms control agreements with your friends.

The Soviet Union, like Iran, was an inveterate foe—and a far more dangerous one. That didn't stop Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan from forging accords designed to make us safer while providing some beneficial inducements to the other side.

Nor did it stop hardliners from objecting. When Reagan signed an arms control agreement with the Soviets, conservative groups ran newspaper ads likening him to Neville Chamberlain. "Appeasement is as unwise in 1988 as in 1938," they proclaimed.

Arms control tends to bring out unwarranted panic and fury, and Netanyahu is squarely in that tradition. It's true that the deal the administration hopes to get would not guarantee that Iran will never get nuclear weapons. But it offers a genuine prospect of obstructing and delaying that outcome for a decade or more.

The prime minister's oration was rich in contradictions. He complained that, if Iran abrogated the deal, it would be able to build a bomb in a year or less. But right now that "breakout time" is much shorter—about three months. Before the temporary agreement reached in 2013, it was just a month or so.

He warns that Iran will cheat. That risk is why National Security Adviser Susan Rice says the administration's motto is "distrust and verify." A deal would compel Iran to give inspectors unprecedented access to confirm compliance—and afford the U.S. and its allies plenty of time to take action if it cheats.

Cheating is not inevitable. Recently the International Atomic Energy Agency, in a report obtained by The New York Times, "reaffirmed that Iran had complied with its responsibilities under an interim agreement during the negotiations to suspend production of nuclear fuel that could be quickly converted to bomb-grade, and limit production of reactor-grade fuel."

A treaty that shackles Iran for 10 years is unacceptable, Netanyahu argues, because that is a "blink in the eye of the life of a nation." But there is no such thing as an eternal bargain. Even if the U.S. got the Iranians to accept a permanent ban, they could abandon it anytime. So could we.

He claims the world can force capitulation with sanctions: "Iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil."

As if. The regime has weathered far worse conditions than these. It survived the 1980s in spite of a collapse in the price of oil, U.S. economic sanctions, and a devastating eight-year war with Iraq.

On the one hand, the prime minister thinks the Tehran government would launch a suicidal nuclear attack on Israel if it could. On the other, he thinks it will do anything to escape the considerably milder pain of economic isolation. He can't be right on both. More likely he's right on neither.

The real option is a military attack, which at best would delay Iran's acquisition of a bomb for a few years, while giving it a powerful new inducement. Not to mention that we would then be at war with Iran, which might not be a cakewalk.

The negotiations are not final and may not produce an agreement. Iran may want nukes more than it wants anything else.

But there is a clear difference between what the administration seeks and what Netanyahu envisions. Obama has in mind a decent deal that may actually come to pass. Netanyahu has a better one, which won't.

Advertisement

NEXT: Deputy Shoots and Kills Pony; Says Horse Was Critically Injured But the Facts Don't Match

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. One question: Why do you posit that an Iranian attack on Israel would be suicidal?

    A handful of large nuclear weapons would completely destroy the country. Depending on the delivery mechanism Israel might not have time to respond militarily at all.

    I find it very doubtful that the US would retaliate with nuclear weapons on Israel’s behalf. But they might invade as they did in Iraq. Except who in the region would stand with the US? They all hate Israel more than anything else. I suppose they all fear Iran too…. so maybe that would get them to flip to the US side if Iran was going to be brought low.

    But suicidal? You already mentioned how they survived the 80’s – how much worse would this be? Coming off of the revolution and with major sanctions and a costly and dangerous war with their neighbor – perhaps they think they could skate by intact after destroying Israel and just capitulate on a few things, like giving up their nuclear weapons.

    1. “I find it very doubtful that the US would retaliate with nuclear weapons on Israel’s behalf”

      I don’t find it doubtful at all, given the hawkishness of our current political class, even with the current occupant of the White House. I think one Ohio-class sub in the Indian Ocean would be ordered to turn Iran into a wasteland. Maybe Teheran should be warned in advance that this is what will happen to them if they use their nucs offensively? Though I believe they know it already.

      1. I don’t find it doubtful at all,

        Hell, I think it should be our policy:

        “We don’t care who nukes first. We’ll nuke second, and last.”

    2. Israel has subs with nuclear missiles. If they are good enough for us as the primary MAD weapon, they ought to be good enough for you.

    3. I’m pretty sure the Israelis are smart enough to figure out how to retaliate even after an obliterating nuclear strike. They have submarines, for starters.

      http://www.realcleardefense.co…..07381.html

  2. Just as Joseph said I’m alarmed that a stay at home mom can earn $5046 in 4 weeks on the computer .
    check out the post right here …… ?????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  3. Obama has in mind a decent deal that may actually come to pass.

    Decent? Really? In what way? Like the one we had with the Norks?

    I’m amazed at the pervasiveness of the false dichotomy, the stupid assumption that it’s either a deal or we fight on Israel’s behalf. There’s really no third or fourth alternative?

    Oh, Chapman. That’s right. I forgot. Never mind.

    1. So, we get Chapman and Richman all in the same day. Yay! It’s almost the perfect storm of idiocy.

      1. The two should merge into a single ChRiapchman. Or RiChapman. Or Crapman.

        1. na na na na na na na na…CRAPMAN!

      2. What amazed me was the sheer dishonesty of even the TITLE of Richman’s drivel. Netanyahu said NOTHING about going to war.

          1. Go back to your fucking chocolate, hole-filled cheese, and cuckoo clocks!

            1. I think that was sarcasm.

              1. So was mine.

                1. I thought of that after posting my opinion. Having read other posts by you I really should have realized that your capacity for sarcasm would remain undiminished even while you were heatedly arguing points about a topic for which you have clear strong opinions.

                  Please accept this bag of adult-themed sweets – made with only real-sugar as sweetener – as an apology.

                  1. Any HFCS and I’ll go all Cornholio on you.

          2. Swiss,

            I maintain that not everything Mr. Richman wrote earlier today was invalid because of his bias. It is possible for me to reject his invective while verifying or debunking the evidentiary material he presented.

            I’m addressing you because I think you can help me understand the “backlash” Richman and others get when raising concerns regarding Israel vis a vis Iran*. I hope you’ve seen enough of my comments to have the sense that I attempt to discuss matters in good faith (that is, when I’m being serious).

            *Do I need to try and prove my distrust and deep dislike of the Iranian government, or are you willing to trust me? I ask because I think we’ll disagree on several points here and I don’t want there to be any confusion on that score.

            Charles

            1. Richman makes increasingly frantic arguments about the US being at fault for everything bad in the world, except when it is Israel’s fault. He excuses and makes up elaborate arguments on behalf of the IRC, the alphabet soup of Pali terror groups (Nationalism bad – except when it is Pali!) – for this he was sniped and snarked at….then came the Chris Pyle = Adam Lanza column…it is like some sort of gasket blew in his head and now he gets more shrill and illogical every column. And all this from a guy who used to comment in a fairly libertarian manner on all sorts of things. He is a badly out of tune One Note Flute.

              I mean, if we want dull, plain idiocy… we have Chapman!

              *ducks*

              1. Thanks Swiss.

                Now, there’s this libertarian leaning Danish politician I’d like you to meet….

        1. What amazed me was that there exist people who lapped Richman’s shit up like hungry kittens at a bowl of milk.

          1. I was listening to the radio on the way in to work this morning; the host managed to combine this same bullshit with a deep slurping of Obama’s cock. There are thought processes that are beyond comprehension.

  4. Steve Chapman: Netanyahu’s Impossible Dream

    ? ?
    To dream the impossible dream
    To fight the unbeatable foe
    To bear with unbearable sorrow
    To run where the brave dare not go
    To right the unrightable wrong
    To love pure and chaste from afar
    To try when your arms are too weary
    To reach the unreachable star

    This is my quest
    To follow that star
    No matter how hopeless
    No matter how far

    To fight for the right
    Without question or pause
    To be willing to march into Hell
    For a heavenly cause

    And I know if I’ll only be true
    To this glorious quest
    That my heart will lie peaceful and calm
    When I’m laid to my rest

    And the world will be better for this
    That one man, scorned and covered with scars
    Still strove with his last ounce of courage
    To reach the unreachable star ? ?

    1. * Marvin Gaye’s family files suit for IP infringement *

  5. Recently the International Atomic Energy Agency,…

    Yes, I completely trust the United Nations, especially on this subject. The United Nations, as an organization, is completely trustworthy, competent, and is capable of dispassionate analysis.

    1. Geez, I bet you don’t even believe the IPCC, either.

    2. They are pretty much a tool of the security council, which at this point is not cool at all with Iran having nukes, which is its job. Sure Russia may be allies of Iran but they’re in no way influencing the IAEA like the US and Europe are.

    3. I trust the United Nations imlicitly; whatever they decide will be a mistake. Whatever they try to do, they will scre up. Wherever they go, they will bring waste and corruption.

      The U.N.; idiocy you can count on.

  6. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobs-check.com

  7. “Cheating is not inevitable.”

    Right. The only government that lies, cheats, dissembles, thimblerigs and exhausts the whole thesaurus of duplicity is the USA. We can trust everybody’s else’s government except Israel, of course. The Iranian mullahs are paragons of straight dealing.

    1. Hey, if we could get Hans Blix as an inspector, we’d be in good shape!

      1. Hans Blix? Well, Mr. Magoo isn’t available so why not?

      2. You breakin’ my bawrs, Hans Brix!

        1. +1

          1. +1 shark tank!

    2. The really stupefying thing was that Chapman’s proof of that claim was that the Iranians weren’t actively breaking the interim agreement, while negotiations were happening. That’s like having a prisoner come up for parole and saying ” He hasn’t shanked anybody since we scheduled the parole hearing last week. So I guess we should let him out.”

  8. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobs-check.com

  9. If aliens showed up they would be treated to the spectacle that our species apparently has decided that the moral authority to dictate who possesses nuclear weapons goes to the one country ever to have used them on people. There’s your solution to the Fermi paradox.

    1. Say, who did they get used on anyways?

      1. Hundreds of thousands of civilians?

        1. Yes, completely innocent civilians for absolutely no reason at all. I mean, it’s not like there was a total war going on or anything. That the innocent victim’s country started. Nope.

          1. If somehow it becomes OK to indiscriminately kill mass numbers of civilians, then there are no rules of war and nobody has moral standing to criticize any action in war, including anything Japan or Germany did. There are only victors and losers, no moral victors.

            1. It’s hard to believe that anyone is actually stupid enough to believe shit like this, but there it is.

              1. War crimes are OK if perpetrated by the USA!

                1. A ‘war crime’ is whatever ‘Tony’ wants it to be!

                  Jesus Christ you’re a fucking idiot.

                  1. Indiscriminate mass killing of civilians is a war crime now and it was a war crime then. If Germany had nuked two American cities and then lost the war, would that have been considered a war crime? Would you consider it to have been a war crime?

                    1. You really are an aggressively ignorant, dishonest little toll, aren’t you?

                2. Tony|3.5.15 @ 1:14PM|#
                  “War crimes are OK if perpetrated by the USA!”
                  Stupid statements are OK if posted by Tony!

            2. So, imstead we should have invaded the Japanese mainland, with the expectation that we would lose a million soldiers killed, and God alone knows how many Japanese too?

              You first, fucker.

            3. WW II pretty much removed any barrier against bombing civilians.
              My mother was in Cologne when it got hit with the 1000 bomber raid.
              She was lucky that England had yet to perfect their fire storms.

        2. Tony|3.5.15 @ 12:48PM|#
          “Hundreds of thousands of civilians?”

          So you’re a complete ignoramus regarding the end of WWII.
          OK, shitpile, let’s hear how you would have ended the war. I’ll be waiting.

          1. ‘Tony’ continually demonstrates his ignorance and stupidity on virtually every issue, why should this one be any different?

          2. I hasten to point out that nuking people is a form of government coercion. Let me present a moral choice to you and your sophisticated libertarian worldview: which is the morally worse hypothetical government action: nuking Tehran or raising income taxes on billionaires by 5%?

            1. Tony|3.5.15 @ 1:01PM|#
              “I hasten to point out that nuking people is a form of government coercion.”
              Quit changing the subject, shitpile; how would you have ended WWII?
              Put up or shut up, asshole.

              1. Quit changing the subject, shitpile; how would you have ended WWII?
                Put up or shut up, asshole.

                He would have raised taxes on “the rich” to provide subsidies to the Japanese people so they didn’t feel compelled to prosecute their war against the United States. And everyone would have cake.

              2. Such out-of-touch pacifists as Chester Nimitz and William Leahy felt that the nukes were unnecessary to ending the war. Some think the Soviet entry was enough. Opinions differ. I’m not talking about ending the war. That could have been achieved by the Allies surrendering. Ending the war is a noble moral end, but morality being the subject, the use of nuclear weapons unquestionably constituted a war crime and international terrorism. That wasn’t the only action that possibly rendered Allied victory a morally hollow one, but it was the cherry on top.

                1. Oh, boy, here we go!
                  Tony|3.5.15 @ 1:10PM|#
                  “Such out-of-touch pacifists as Chester Nimitz and William Leahy felt that the nukes were unnecessary to ending the war.”
                  And neither could offer a valid alternative, so that means absolutely nothing.

                  “Some think the Soviet entry was enough.”
                  Only ignoramuses claim that, and that would have meant the Japanese under the tender mercies of the Soviets. Why, only a quarter of a million Japanese went ‘missing’ in China after the Soviets attacked. What a great idea!

                  “Opinions differ. I’m not talking about ending the war. That could have been achieved by the Allies surrendering.”
                  I’d have been happy to surrender you.

                  “Ending the war is a noble moral end, but morality being the subject, the use of nuclear weapons unquestionably constituted a war crime and international terrorism.”
                  It did nothing of the sort, you steaming pile of shit. It saved far more lives than ANY alternative and it takes someone of truly abysmal ignorance to presume otherwise.
                  You would support mass murder of millions more as an alternative. Fuck off, you slimy excuse for humanity.

                  1. The name calling really adds a necessary soup?on of je ne sais quoi to your reasoning. The blanket assertions and clear nationalistic bias almost get you to an argument, but the name calling cinches it.

                    1. Tony|3.5.15 @ 1:29PM|#
                      “The name calling really adds”…

                      Asshat, deal with the facts.
                      I’m tired of reading lies from steaming piles of shit.

                    2. Tony|3.5.15 @ 1:29PM|#

                      The name calling really adds a necessary soup?on of je ne sais quoi to your reasoning. The blanket assertions and clear nationalistic bias almost get you to an argument, but the name calling cinches it

                      Thanks for admitting you have no argument and are totally ignorant on yet another subject.

                    3. Between the pretentious ignorance, the smug dishonesty, and the prissiness, Little Tony Fountleroy remains an embarrassment to faggoty everywhere.

            2. Holy shit, you can’t even parody this idiot!

              1. Dude, you can’t even make a point; I don’t expect you to contemplate the dark recesses of political ethics. So feel free run along now.

                1. Keep bringing the derp, moron, it is actually quite entertaining, until it gets tedious.

            3. Libertarians are not against coercion, persay — they are against unjustified aggression. Like it or no, the A-bombs came at the conclusion of a knock-down drag-out fight between the US and Japan started by Japan. They also destroyed valid military targets, were less damaging than all of the alternatives, and concluded the war to the satisfaction of the aggrieved party with far less damage than the alternatives. There is nothing special about nukes and libertarianism does not itself answer this question with any satisfaction. The facts on the ground, however, do help answer this question and the evidence suggests that nukes were the best and even most humane course of action in concluding the war.

              1. Aw, IT, you should have let him twist in the wind.
                I’m sure he’d have trotted out the canards about how Japan was really ready to surrender, or that we could have embargoed the islands and ‘saved lives’.
                I have to admit a certain enjoyment in ripping the anti-nuke ignoramuses new assholes.

              2. You’re wasting your time, TIT, ‘Tony’ does not operate by normal rules of logic and morality.

              3. That is by no means a consensus opinion of historians or even of the contemporaneous major military figures. And any American coming to this conclusion would rightly be automatically suspected of harboring some measure of bias.

                But to return to the subject, it is absolute fact that the US and Israel do not possess the moral authority to restrict Iran’s access to nuclear weapons. We do so by brute political force. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, depending on where you are.

                1. Yet ‘Tony’ has maintained previously that brute political force, such as the tyranny of the majority, is perfectly moral, no matter what the position. Logical consistency not really a strong point.

                2. Tony|3.5.15 @ 1:18PM|#
                  “That is by no means a consensus opinion of historians or even of the contemporaneous major military figures.”
                  Cite missing, slimebag.
                  Here: “Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire”
                  After you finish that, you get back to me and refute ONE SENTENCE in that book.
                  Fuck you and your ‘well some people’ crap.

                3. Re: Tony,

                  That is by no means a consensus opinion of historians or even of the contemporaneous major military figures.

                  Not to mention that the “Unconditional Surrender” policy imposed by the fascistic Roosevelt government only served to prolong the war and the suffering of countless millions in both theaters of operations. The Japanese were more willing to surrender to the Soviets, a fact that hastened the decision to end the war by whatever barbaric means the Truman government had at its disposal, including dropping a second bomb on a mostly-Christian population in Nagasaki.

                  Your preoccupation with the lives of innocents is very touching considering your preferred social and economic policies would seek to make their lives poorer, but at least you’re right in pointing out that the doctrine of Total War was justified by a barbaric and cynical viewpoint that turns all people into combatants.

                  1. Ol’ Mex, serious question:

                    I would agree with you that the Allies’ policy of unconditional surrender is more at fault with the bloody way the war had to be ended than were the nukes — but given the state of mind of the Japanese government, what concessions do you think were justified which the Allies could have made without either running the risk of the same story repeating itself, and which would have ended the war to the satisfaction of both parties?

                    From all that I have read, the Japanese leadership was holding out for a continuation of their government on the Home Islands (plus perhaps Korea and Taiwan) and probably a pact with the US against the Soviets, even late into the war — I don’t see how regime change would have been an acceptable compromise position for the Japanese. (To be clear, this was the Japanese position after Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Battle of Manila, etc.)

                    If this is accurate, one must argue that accepting the continuation of this horrible government in the hopes of a negotiated settlement was not only acceptable, but preferable to the point of it being the only moral option if one wishes to condemn the “unconditional surrender” policy (which is why I ask the question, to see if there is some information I’m missing). I am not prepared to condemn this as a war goal, and find regime change to have been an appropriate goal in this instance. (IMO my view is validated by Japan’s post-war behavior.)

                  2. “The Japanese were more willing to surrender to the Soviets, a fact that hastened the decision to end the war by whatever barbaric means the Truman government had at its disposal, including dropping a second bomb on a mostly-Christian population in Nagasaki.”

                    Gonna need a cite, OM. Frank and others make clear that the Jap government was willing to be the US only had one of those, and continue the war.

                    1. —willing to BET the US only had one—

                    2. “Gonna need a cite,”

                      You really don’t need a cite. The idea is idiotic. You ever heard of a place called Ekaterinburg? Silly question, of course not. I assure you the Japanese dictators knew about it.

              4. “and the evidence suggests that nukes were the best and even most humane course of action in concluding the war.”

                I think your error is to make the assumption that it was humanitarian motives that led Japan’s miltary dictatorship to surrender. This is terribly naive as the regime was quite content to see the sacrifice or untold millions, even Japanese civilians. To think that the deaths of thousands in a distant, Christian ridden backwater like Nagasaki succeeded in breaking their will to fight when far greater devastation in Tokyo did nothing is a terrible misunderstanding.

                The Japanese dictatorship was every bit as bad as Stalin’s or Hitler’s in its willingness to inflict and sustain civilian casualties. You give them far too much credit.

                1. mtrueman|3.5.15 @ 6:06PM|#
                  “I think your error is to make the assumption that it was humanitarian motives that led Japan’s miltary dictatorship to surrender.”

                  Oh, look! The guy who brags about lying is here and expects to be taken at face value! I think your error is typing something here.

                  1. You flatter yourself. How you value what I write here is not a concern of mine.

                    I repeat, to assume that the Japanese regime surrendered out of compassion for the lives of innocents is ridiculously naive, and surprising too. Surprising also that in a libertarian website, I’m the only who challenges this nonsense.

              5. Libertarianism doesn’t require suicide. When law and adjudication doesn’t exist in a time of war, killing innocent bystanders to save your own is allowed, and if necessary to save yourself, your attacker is morally culpable, not you.

                1. “killing innocent bystanders to save your own is allowed, and if necessary to save yourself, your attacker is morally culpable, not you.”

                  Innocent bystanders are not attackers, by definition.

          3. A case can be made that far fewer Japanese civilians died as a result of the A-bombs than would have died if the Allies kept up conventional bombing and put a total blockade around the home islands (U.S. subs had already destroyed about 90% of Japan’s merchant fleet.)

            1. No,” the use of nuclear weapons unquestionably constituted a war crime and international terrorism”, because ‘Tony’ says so.

              ‘Tony’ unquestionably constitutes domestic terrorism, and crimes against humanity.
              See how easy it is to make unsupported assertions?

              1. Tony is sewage and always has been. That his fantasies include Allied surrender and Societ invasion of Japan show us his neonazi character.

            2. creech|3.5.15 @ 1:06PM|#
              “A case can be made”…

              Not only can it be made, it is no longer questioned by anyone who would rather deal with facts than whine about the ‘morality’ of one weapon or the other.
              By now, there is no doubt that the bombs saved millions upon millions of Japanese lives. And when the food stops, the army eats first; you know who dies.

              1. Certainty is valuable to you, isn’t it? Necessary perhaps?

                1. Tony|3.5.15 @ 1:32PM|#
                  “:Certainty is valuable to you, isn’t it? Necessary perhaps”

                  That’s the best you’ve got, shitstain?

                  1. Nope. I just sense that you struggle with moral ambiguities and ambiguities in general.

                    1. Tony|3.5.15 @ 1:36PM|#
                      “Nope. I just sense that you struggle with moral ambiguities and ambiguities in general.”

                      Yeah, and I sense you’re a lefty asshole who struggles with reality.
                      Now, any argument, or just more misdirection? And I want cites, not arm waving; the ‘moral ambiguities’ of murdering millions because you can’t think really don’t appeal to me.

                    2. I’m against murdering millions. You’re the one arguing in favor of dropping nukes on people.

                    3. I’m against murdering millions.

                      Sorry, didn’t you say at one point that you wanted to see your opposition lined up against a wall and shot?

                    4. Actually you are the one always making an ostensive argument for capital punishment.

                    5. Oh Tony. You and sense have no truck with each other and never have. You are a Lani Davis/Simon Roaenberg/Josh Earnest nob gobbler, hoping to swallow dear leader’s seed for doing such a good job parroting his spin.

                2. Still no argument or understanding of the facts of the issue, I see.

            3. And I don’t wish to morally distinguish between “conventional” civilian murder and the version done via nuke. But that is yet another arbitrary moral distinction that informs the debate about the past and present–which aliens might struggle to follow.

              1. Tony|3.5.15 @ 1:56PM|#
                “And I don’t wish to morally distinguish between “conventional” civilian murder and the version done via nuke.”

                So you have been slowing smoke out your ass and are hoping we’ll ‘look over there!’?
                Slimy excuse for humanity…..

      2. Dr. Suess’s hated enemies.

    2. Re: Tony,

      If aliens showed up they would be treated to the spectacle that our species apparently has decided that the moral authority to dictate who possesses nuclear weapons goes to the one country ever to have used them on people.

      It’s a good thing that aliens don’t exist.

      1. It’s a good thing that aliens don’t exist.

        Sure they do.

      2. How could you possibly know that?

      3. Maybe he’s a former Krugman intern with the alien fantasies. I think they dress up like aliens when they do desk duty under the Krugman desk.

    3. If an alien lands on Earth, the smartest thing to do would be to kill it immediately…if you could.

  10. If you want a deal Israel must be a member of the talks .That’s how it works. Both parties are involved. This is a deal that is made by the U.S and forced upon Israel. Both sides have to be involved. I doubt Iran will agree to that.

    1. For that matter, sanctions need to be agreed to by all of the major powers if they have any hope of working — that is to say, the European Union, Russia, and China (at a minimum) have to agree to them or Iran will always have an economic fuckbuddy to get them past the rough times.

      It is one reason why multilateral action, while attractive, is so difficult to sustain.

    2. Reason is so happy with the way Obama makes deals for our health care and stuff I can see why its writers are offended that Netanyahu objects to letting Obama negotiate Israel’s security with it’s sworn enemy.

      1. That was the dumbest part of this.

  11. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobs-check.com

  12. On the one hand, the prime minister thinks the Tehran government would launch a suicidal nuclear attack on Israel if it could. On the other, he thinks it will do anything to escape the considerably milder pain of economic isolation. He can’t be right on both.

    An enemy cannot be irrational and rational at the same time.

    1. It is possible to be rational about one thing and irrational about another at the same time.

  13. This and Richmans article prove once again that peak derp is not possible

  14. I think that Bibi should man up and deal with Iran himself.
    He has a powerful deterrent to deal with any belligerents who stop him, and Israel has some of the word’s best scientists and engineers, so, even though the west is becoming more and more hostile to Israel over the plight of those poor innocent Hamas fighters, there are a lot more trading partners in the world other than western Europe and North America.

    1. I think Netanyahu knows that. Very likely he wants to set things up so that Obama and associated peaceniks can’t hinder him when it’s time to pull the trigger on Iran’s nuke program.

    2. It’s not that Bibi won’t sit down with Iran, it’s the other way around – the Mullah’s don’t even want to admit that Israel exists, which should put up some pretty red flags on this deal.

      1. I didn’t say sit down with, I said deal with, as a man deals with a nest of vipers.

      2. I have clients in DC who are from an Arab country near Israel, or their families are. The husband was born here and is a tenured professor of Arab history and politics. The wife was born there, to a Westernized family where women have had professional degrees for a couple of generations, and she went to an Ivy League school here. She doesn’t wear the gear, but she also doesn’t drink.

        Her sister was a relief worker in the Gaza strip, so she went to visit her, and then decided she would cross into Israel with her US passport. Everyone in Israel thought she was a Separdic Jew or an American (she’s attractive and dresses smartly). When leaving she used her other passport, returning to her family’s original country with their passport stamped as having visited Israel. This was a deliberate experiment.

        She was jailed and a General came to interrogate her. “How could you bring shame on your family by visiting the country of the dirty Jews?” he asked when she convinced him she was ditzy, not a spy. She then showed her US passport too, and he had to let her go. If she had not had one she says they could have jailed her indefinitely.

    3. Israel needs to make business friends in its neighborhood. All that know how can be put to good use in the region.

      The only problem with that is that the societies in the region aren’t too crazy about throwing away money as much as the people of the United States are.

  15. Hey chapman, are you always this idiotic or do you just sometimes sound like it?

    I’d back Netanyahu all the way baby, all the way, and Iran can go fuck itself.

  16. Why would we trust Obama’s deal? http://insomniaclibertarian.bl…..srael.html

  17. It’s all about trust. First, last and all things in between. I don’t trust Iran and I certainly don’t trust the current fire-aim-ready crew at 1600. I frankly like Bibi’s “shit’s about to get real” approach. Refreshing.

  18. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here… ……

    http://www.wixjob.com

  19. It is amazing how many evil scum (wtf, sevo, and many more) without an iota of moral reasoning, visit a site called reason.com.

    Yes, I have heard israhell pays well for spewing evil garbage, like their comments, on the net.

    Enjoy guys, while it lasts… for a short while 🙂

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.