Netanyahu Address

[GoIrish41]

I don't think that you can have a permanent diplomatic solution that ensures 1) regional stability 2) no weapons of mass destruction as long as the country is headed by a guy with religious/racial beliefs akin to Hitler.

You either need regime change to a secular government or at least an Ayatollah that does not harbor overtly bigoted, hateful, and genocidal attitudes towards Israel and frankly all non-Muslims.

The best you can hope for is appeasement and stop-gaps that after an indeterminate period of time will return you to a similar or worse situation.

A diplomatic solution is plausible... but if and only if current variables change.

Current variables inevitably change.

 

[Woneone]

I have no idea what you're driving at here. That the Iranians will nuke the Saudis because of overproduction? That's beyond dumb.

Anyway, the whole point of the negotiations is to keep the Iranians from getting a nuke. We have more leverage now than we will in the future. A basic principle of negotiating is that you want to strike a bargain when you have more leverage.

You think temporary economic turmoil will somehow facilitate a "good deal"? Ask Putin what he thinks about that.

Keep them from getting a nuke? Can you site a source? From what I've seen this does nothing more than delay it (although, that's even debatable given reports from Watchdog groups in Tehran).

And yea, Overproduction is the only possible reason the Iranians would dislike the Saudi's. It has nothing to do with other Geopolitical, religious, or economic factors. Na, nothing. They're buddies. I'm sure if they were nuclear capable, the Saudi's would just love it.

 

[IrishLax]

Current variables inevitably change.

Sure, but when and how?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I don't think that you can have a permanent diplomatic solution that ensures 1) regional stability 2) no weapons of mass destruction as long as the country is headed by a guy with religious/racial beliefs akin to Hitler.

This grossly overstates the importance of what regimes publicly say they will do, versus how they actually conduct themselves. Regimes like Iran and N. Korea spout all sorts of absurd bullsh!t which would have started WWIII long ago if it was even remotely plausible. But they instead act in rational, predictable ways, which is what allows us (along with the intelligence generated by our spies and allies) to base our foreign policy on those countries' actual interests instead of their propaganda.

The Cold War would not have had a happy ending if we were required to take everything the Soviets stated at face value.

You either need regime change to a secular government or at least an Ayatollah that does not harbor overtly bigoted, hateful, and genocidal attitudes towards Israel and frankly all non-Muslims.

How have our last few experiments in "regime change" gone? The Taliban will regain control of Afghanistan sooner than later, Iraq is a sectarian mess, Libya is in complete anarchy, and Syria isn't far behind.

By neighborhood standards, Iran has acted a lot more responsibly than some of our "allies" over the last decade.

The best you can hope for is appeasement and stop-gaps that after an indeterminate period of time will return you to a similar or worse situation.

I wouldn't be so dismissive of a ten-year moratorium on advancing Iran's nuclear program. That's a very long time in the realm of IR. So much can change in the interim. And anything that avoids a nuclear arms race in the least stable part of the world is worth pursuing.

 

[phgreek]

Not once did I mention war or military action of any kind, so go shove that one. It is dangerous and naive to allow Iran and its leaders of a 9th century mindset to continue its nuclear program the way it is. Also, good luck during your negotiations in finding common ground with said 9th century leaders...they'd dance in the streets if you were killed. A country with nuclenuclear capability that wants to destroy Israel and the US isn't fear mongering. It's reality of the world we live in.

My plan? For now...money talks. Economic sanctions work. Put more on them. Do NOT strike a deal allowing them to do whatever they deem "reasonable." And remind them that any attack against an ally of the US will be met with appropriate response.

How bout you?

Here is mine...

Western nations apply and enforce sanctions with a countdown to bombs flying against known enrichment sites in Iran. Iran will identify sites, and allow free and open inspections to prove compliance. Enrichment sites will be turned down. In cases where the deadline passes and a site is identified it will be bombed. In return for compliance, we will help them establish power plants and WE will supply and manage the material, but Iran should not have any enrichment capability....at least for the foreseeable future. Throw some trade shit in there...whatever. To the degree we are forced to instigate military operations, oil fields will be seized, and proceeds will be used to pay for our involvement. At such a time as we are break even, the oil fields will be turned back. And yea, stare down the Soviets and China, and anyone else who'd be miffed. Seriously, what are they going to do? About as much as we've done in the Ukraine?

There is just no room for Iran to enrich a pile of dog shit, much less radioactive material until they string together 30 years or so of reasoned existence...that they've gotten as far as they have is simply our own stupidity.

 

[GoIrish41]

Here is mine...

Western nations apply and enforce sanctions with a countdown to bombs flying against known enrichment sites in Iran. Iran will identify sites, and allow free and open inspections to prove compliance. Enrichment sites will be turned down. In cases where the deadline passes and a site is identified it will be bombed. In return for compliance, we will help them establish power plants and WE will supply and manage the material, but Iran should not have any enrichment capability....at least for the foreseeable future. Throw some trade shit in there...whatever. To the degree we are forced to instigate military operations, oil fields will be seized, and proceeds will be used to pay for our involvement. At such a time as we are break even, the oil fields will be turned back. And yea, stare down the Soviets and China, and anyone else who'd be miffed. Seriously, what are they going to do? About as much as we've done in the Ukraine?

There is just no room for Iran to enrich a pile of dog shit, much less radioactive material until they string together 30 years or so of reasoned existence...that they've gotten as far as they have is simply our own stupidity.

Sounds like a recipe for WWIII. You cannot expect them to be reasonable by behaving unreasonably.

 

[IrishLax]

This grossly overstates the importance of what regimes publicly say they will do, versus how they actually conduct themselves. Regimes like Iran and N. Korea spout all sorts of absurd bullsh!t which would have started WWIII long ago if it was even remotely plausible. But they instead act in rational, predictable ways, which is what allows us (along with the intelligence generated by our spies and allies) to base our foreign policy on those countries' actual interests instead of their propaganda.

The Cold War would not have had a happy ending if we were required to take everything the Soviets stated at face value.

If nukes didn't exist do you think Iran would've tried to wipe out Israel/Jews by now?

 

[IRISHDODGER]

I am a liberal democrat who is tired of the stupid tactics of the right wing of the GOP that diminish the office of the presidency. Have all the disagreements you want about the man, but don't tarnish the office. This was a tactic meant to, in your words, make the leader of this country look "weak and inexperienced" on the world stage. How is that good for this country? How is that helping with ongoing sensitive negotiations with Iran to ensure they don't build nuclear weapons? He is a guest speaker who was invited by the Speaker to try to embarass the president, and to try to blow up said negotiations. It was a typical GOP stunt that will inevitably blow up in their face. I forget the exact number, but something like 70% of the country feels like he was out of line in inviting Bibi to speak in Congress. And, as IrishinSyria's post alludes to far better than any of mine, he violated US law.

I'm sure you had zero problem when Pelosi visited our enemies despite W. Bush's objections. It's all politics from both sides. Nothing more, nothing less.

. Pelosi's Syrian Trip vs. Boehner's Bibi Invite
By Debra Saunders - January 25, 2015



Email Print 82Comments
“I don’t believe I’m poking anyone in the eye,” House Speaker John Boehner asserted Wednesday. That was after his speakership told the media that he had invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before a joint session of Congress about “the grave threats radical Islam and Iran pose to our security and way of life.”

Of course it was a poke in the eye. Boehner admitted he did not consult with the White House before inviting Bibi.


Netanyahu wants Congress to threaten tougher sanctions against Tehran. During his State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama warned Congress he would veto any such legislation.

Boehner’s gambit stunned the White House. Press Secretary Josh Earnest called the move a breach of protocol. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said the invitation was “out of order.” When she was speaker, Pelosi argued, she coordinated with GOP leaders before inviting heads of state. Netanyahu’s speech was moved to Mar. 3, so Pelosi criticized Boehner for inviting a head of state within two weeks of Israel’s March 17 elections. “It’s hubris,” Pelosi charged.

Is it hubris? Or is it payback? The president has no problem doing an end-run around Congress as he unilaterally undermines laws that lawmakers duly enacted. Two can play at that game.

“I find it hard to believe the Israel invitation would have been extended if the president hadn’t been so nasty,” opined Hoover Institution foreign policy fellow Kori Schake. Rather than threaten Congress in the State of the Union address with a veto if lawmakers pass sanctions legislation, Schake argued, Obama should have thanked Congress for not passing said legislation while Secretary of State John Kerry was negotiating.

The irony here is that Pelosi was in a similar position in 2007 when she met with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. “We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace,” Pelosi told reporters.

Given that insurgents were crossing from Syria into Iraq to fight U.S. troops, President George W. Bush considered Pelosi’s adventure in diplomacy “counterproductive.” But with public approval of the Iraq war in the toilet, the San Francisco Democrat’s visit was popular with the liberal base. Pelosi’s Damascus sit-down was good politics, if dubious policy.

Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill finds any analogy between Boehner’s Bibi invite and Pelosi’s Syria trip to be nonsense. Pelosi didn’t blindside Bush. Foggy Bottom helped plan the trip. Besides, the White House failed to criticize three Republicans who went to Damascus a week earlier, which in Hammill’ view makes Pelosi’s detractors “hypocrites.”

Former East Bay congresswoman and Obama Undersecretary of State Ellen Tauscher agrees with Pelosi’s “hubris” assessment. Kerry is involved in negotiating a “six-handed deal” among world leaders and Iran, Tauscher noted. If there is no deal for the Iran Nuclear Talks by June 30, then tougher sanctions will return. Instead of applying pressure and engaging in “mischief making,” Tauscher believes Boehner should be quiet and give diplomacy a few more months. It is in America’s national-security interest to coax Iran toward the light.

“My criticism of Speaker Boehner is that this smacks of partisan politics and trying to embarrass the White House,” quoth Tauscher. (Sounds like Pelosi’s Syrian trip to me.)

Fly in the ointment: This isn’t right versus left. Some Democrats do not trust Tehran. At a recent hearing, Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., scolded Obamaland for spewing out “talking points” that sound like they “come straight out of Tehran.”

Now the politics favor Boehner. Schake believes that a Netanyahu speech could increase the number of senators who, like Menendez, would support a bill to pressure Tehran to stop stalling. If you’re a D.C. pol, do you want to be on the side that believes in the honest intentions of Tehran or on the side that advocates for tough measures à la Bibi? And what are Democrats going to do — flip off pro-Israel constituents by boycotting Netanyahu’s speech? Hammill tells me Pelosi plans to attend.

If a majority in Congress is ready to buck the president on a foreign policy initiative, Schake told me, it’s a sign the administration is pushing a bad policy or has failed to lay the groundwork to sell it.

One more thing: In 2007, Syria was abetting Sunni insurgents. Israel is our ally.

 

[Grahambo]

Time to think outside the box my friends and put nukes aside. Think about the region. Think about what Iran is currently doing. What is more valuable to them then nukes?

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm sure you had zero problem when Pelosi visited our enemies despite W. Bush's objections. It's all politics from both sides. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually I did not much care for it at all. That happened prePolitcs thread so you will just have to trust me on that.
Respect the office even if you hate the person holding it.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I'm sure you had zero problem when Pelosi visited our enemies despite W. Bush's objections. It's all politics from both sides. Nothing more, nothing less.

Pelosi didn’t blindside Bush. Foggy Bottom helped plan the trip. Besides, the White House failed to criticize three Republicans who went to Damascus a week earlier, which in Hammill’ view makes Pelosi’s detractors “hypocrites.”

Foggy Bottom= The State Department. Which is the whole point. We have the State Department for one reason: diplomacy. If politicians want to conduct diplomacy (and as kmoose pointed out, it would be negligent for congress to ignore international affairs) it's no problem for them to give State a heads up.

 

[IrishinSyria]

If nukes didn't exist do you think Iran would've tried to wipe out Israel/Jews by now?

Iran unveils a memorial honoring Jewish heroes - The Washington Post

Probably not?

 

[IRISHDODGER]

Actually I did not much care for it at all. That happened prePolitcs thread so you will just have to trust me on that

Ok. My point is this is nothing more than a bunch of bickering children & that's one thing that all Americans should agree has passed the point of being tiresome & unproductive for the nation that these politicians were voted in to govern/legislate.

So the POTUS does this...

The president has no problem doing an end-run around Congress as he unilaterally undermines laws that lawmakers duly enacted. Two can play at that game

...and the Left applaud him by citing Executive privilege, etc while the Right goes nuts

Then Boehner does the Bibi invite & the Right applauds him while the Left goes nuts.

And then it plays out in the media & on message boards where people who are either "experts" or pseudo-intellectuals split hairs and cite history to claim their side was right.

 

[Irish YJ]

Ok. My point is this is nothing more than a bunch of bickering children & that's one thing that all Americans should agree has passed the point of being tiresome & unproductive for the nation that these politicians were voted in to govern/legislate.

So the POTUS does this...



...and the Left applaud him by citing Executive privilege, etc while the Right goes nuts

Then Boehner does the Bibi invite & the Right applauds him while the Left goes nuts.

And then it plays out in the media & on message boards where people who are either "experts" or pseudo-intellectuals split hairs and cite history to claim their side was right.

yep, and yep.
politics in general is disgusting today. Including the ultra right, ultra left, and anyone who looks at holding office as anything but serving. Career politicians, special interests, media,,,, have all made a joke out of the great US of A.

 

[GoIrish41]

Ok. My point is this is nothing more than a bunch of bickering children & that's one thing that all Americans should agree has passed the point of being tiresome & unproductive for the nation that these politicians were voted in to govern/legislate.

So the POTUS does this...



...and the Left applaud him by citing Executive privilege, etc while the Right goes nuts

Then Boehner does the Bibi invite & the Right applauds him while the Left goes nuts.

And then it plays out in the media & on message boards where people who are either "experts" or pseudo-intellectuals split hairs and cite history to claim their side was right.

Great post and I agree with everything you said ... But would I just prove your point if I took exception to the equivalence of exercising executive privilege and purposely trying to embarrass the president? 😀

 

[kmoose]

Great post and I agree with everything you said ... But would I just prove your point if I took exception to the equivalence of exercising executive privilege and purposely trying to embarrass the president? ��

But, again........... BOTH sides are guilty of excess, in this arena. Remember when all of the liberals made fun of Bush II for his use of the word "nucular"? Remember when refusing to provide a list of attendees at an energy policy meeting led the ultra-left to the conclusion that Bush was basically letting oil executives write energy policy?

None of that excuses what the ultra-right is doing, but it's not like Republicans invented the concept, and Democrats have been innocent victims...

 

[IrishinSyria]

But, again........... BOTH sides are guilty of excess, in this arena. Remember when all of the liberals made fun of Bush II for his use of the word "nucular"? Remember when refusing to provide a list of attendees at an energy policy meeting led the ultra-left to the conclusion that Bush was basically letting oil executives write energy policy?

None of that excuses what the ultra-right is doing, but it's not like Republicans invented the concept, and Democrats have been innocent victims...

Completely agree with this, and the political circus is out of control. I mean, I think that's been the case for a while. But the optics of our entire fracking Congress (Dems AND Repubs) kowtowing to a foreign head of state like they were the Red Sea and he was freaking Moses was a bridge too far for me.

 

[EddytoNow]

Give it a rest Lep. According to you, he was supposed to fix immigration, close GITMO, end two wars, stop global warming, cure cancer, smooth over centuries of sour race relations ... everything except try to fix healthcare, which was the worst thing any president has ever done in the history of the world, even though 10 million more people have healthcare today than they did prior to ACA. How much shit do you think can get done in a two year span when you have a bunch of assholes on the other side continuously throwing up roadblocks because "Our number one priority is to ensure the president does not get a second term." Anything he would have gotten done in those two years you would have said were the beginning of the end of our civilization, and you would be condemning him for it.

GoIrish41,

I've been away from the computer since earlier today coaching a basketball game, but it looks like you've already said pretty much everything I would have said had I been here. Thanks for providing some balance to this discussion.

 

[IrishLax]

Iran unveils a memorial honoring Jewish heroes - The Washington Post

Probably not?

Yeah, and Donald Sterling won a fucking NAACP award.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

If nukes didn't exist do you think Iran would've tried to wipe out Israel/Jews by now?

No, because Israel has been allied with an ascendant West since its founding. It has never faced a credible existential threat.

Few things are as amoral in practice as international relations. The Chinese were our bitter enemies for decades... until we realized that there was a lot of daylight between them and Moscow. Then Nixon visited in 1972, and today they're our largest trading partner.

There are no "good guys" or "bad guys" at this level; just state actors pursuing their own interests in a complex and ever-changing landscape. Trying to analyze IR through such a binary is a fool's errand; you're guaranteed to end up making inaccurate predictions.

Put another way, today's enemies can be tomorrow's allies. Israel's alliance with its secular Sunni neighbors was completely contrived by us; there's no reason that they couldn't strike a different balance in the near future if the US wakes up the fact that pouring huge amounts of blood and treasure into that sandy backwater isn't in our national interest.

Time to think outside the box my friends and put nukes aside. Think about the region. Think about what Iran is currently doing. What is more valuable to them then nukes?

Credible American assurances not to invade and ruin their country like we've recently done to many of their neighbors?

 

[ND NYC]

just curious, other than Winston Churchill...and Bibi, what other heads of state have addressed our Congress?

 

[Wild Bill]

just curious, other than Winston Churchill...and Bibi, what other heads of state have addressed our Congress?

Joint Meeting & Joint Sessions Addresses Before Congress by Foreign Leaders & Dignitaries | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

.

 

[phgreek]

Sounds like a recipe for WWIII. You cannot expect them to be reasonable by behaving unreasonably.

I have ZERO confidence that mere" good faith" negotiating with Iran will do much of anything....and certainly won't slow their acquisition/development of weaponized material and capable delivery systems. First, Ayatollah Khamenei makes all of the decisions. I find it hard to believe he would negotiate with America in good faith. I see nothing that tells me they are going to abide by any restrictions and everything to tell me they'll say whatever we want to hear through President Rouhani, and do what they want per Ayatollah Khamenei ...I think Iran has questionable performance with the truth regarding their nuclear program, as every couple of years dissidents tell us about places like "Lavizan-3", an underground facility allegedly built to hide enrichment activities from inspectors. As well there is an ongoing issue where Iran refuses to explain why in the hell they were screwing around with a neutron initiator...they just aren't forthcoming, and someone running a peaceful program has no need to do so in secret bunkers, and they sure as fuck don't need an initiator. Is that reasonable behavior? Now look at others like India and Pakistan. They are cautionary regarding verification. ...or our inability to independently verify that someone is capable. ...hint, no one knew if and where they had a device until they detonated them, and people were watching Pakistan like a hawk. Iran has been less than honest, they do not surrender to inspections, and we have no ability to determine independently what they are doing...this is just not a reliable approach.

Iran is not all that stable...Iran has a government lead by a complete mad man in Khamenei, which makes me nervous regarding radioactive materials...and much more so regarding enriched materials. But power seems reasonably centralized, and as crazy as that prick is, he actually has some nationalistic sense about him that MAY temper his desire to die for the cause. What have we in the wake of a collapse in Iran? Iran stands a reasonable chance of spiraling into fractured interests...how long before the materials or weapons end up in hands like ISIS. Confident they won't use them are ya?

As you look at options, negotiating requires Iran keep agreements, and someone to inspect them, and independent intel to verify...I see this as a deal that looks nice internationally, but has no prayer of working. Long term sanctions alone serve to destabilize the leadership...a potentially worse situation than the first when there are weapons or materials around.

So I'm here...Immediate short term tough sanctions with the threat of getting your ass kicked if you do not comply combined with some cool economic shit to stabilize the country, and some free infrastructure that does the same...seems like they'd opt for the carrot...but they are bat shit crazy, so who knows.

If you think anyone of consequence cares enough about Iran becoming nuclear capable that they'd start WWIII to help that along, well I think that'd be wrong. The world is safer w/o Iran enriching anything, much less having weapons, and everyone knows it. China used to supply these activities to balance power, but no way they ever get sucked into war to help Iran.

Yea being that aggressive is a calculated risk, but so is all of this shit. You gott remember Iran was supposed to be out of the weapons business since like 2003...and indications are they've never stopped.

 

[ND NYC]

Joint Meeting & Joint Sessions Addresses Before Congress by Foreign Leaders & Dignitaries | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

.

thx!

interesting list...no idea there were that many.

looks like Winston and bibi top the list at 3x each

 

[phgreek]

Keep in mind, as well............ any treaty that the President negotiates with a foreign government is not worth the paper it is printed on, unless Congress approves it. I'm not sure of the legal definition of treaty, and if any agreement with Iran would fall under it, but it would be an even stronger argument for Congress to say, "This was background for us to make an informed decision on any agreement that the Executive Branch is likely to put forth for our approval."

This is correct. Need super majority.

 

[phgreek]

Time to think outside the box my friends and put nukes aside. Think about the region. Think about what Iran is currently doing. What is more valuable to them then nukes?

a stable economy...

There is instability based on the economy and based on younger folks not being real keen on the theocracy in practice government. I believe a stable economy seriously helps all ills. So while the young folks will eventually drive political/government change, a good economy stems that for a time.

 

[alohagoirish]

Its worth noting that North Korea has nukes , they may not threaten Israel but they threaten 30000 Americans , the entire island of Japan ,and could unleash an apocalypse on the Korean peninsula that would send the world reeling. The North Koreans are profoundly more erratic , more unstable , and less predictable, then the Persians, yet the world seems to go on.

India & Pakistan hate each other with more passion then Iran & Israel , they sit with two mature nuclear arsenals in a constant state of tension, yet the world goes on.

The USSR and now Putin's Russia with their doomsday arsenal sharing the big nuclear stage with us.

All over the world nuclear weapons shadow nation state competition and dispute
.... yet the world seems to continue.

Sometimes the fear of an Iranian nuclear weapon is simply overblown , the Persians are likely not a culture that would cotton to self immolation. MAD is the working model around the world and seems to be reasonably successful . Only North Korea with its isolated ,weird, personality cult society, may put MAD in some question.

A nuclear Iran , if it does come to pass , is just not the end of the world scenario many seem to think.

 

[IrishinSyria]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/w...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Meanwhile in Iraq, US interests continue to align with Iranian interests.

 

[kmoose]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/06/w...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Meanwhile in Iraq, US interests continue to align with Iranian interests.

Your enemy's enemy is not always your friend...

 

[IrishinSyria]

Your enemy's enemy is not always your friend...

No doubt. But if you were to draw a Venn diagram showing Iranian interests and American interests, it would show more overlap than it did a few years ago.