It's Bibipalooza! Live, from Congress! One show only!

[Malthus]

Obama is a lame duck.  Going after him just poisons the water for Israel if the Democrats win the 2016 election.  Does Bibi really want Israeli interests tied to the Republican party?

Bibi's facing re-election: polls on March 17. This speech was more about that fact, than any concern over Israeli-US relations.

[KRonn]

Does Bibi really want Israeli interests tied to the Republican party?

I think what Bibi really wants is there to be no confusion and for nobody to be surprised when, once everything is said and done, Israel finally decides to preemptively strike Iran.

Agreed on that. I think one of the resons for Bibi's speech was to tell how he feels about the threat of Iran as a precursor to a possible or likely attack on Iran. The Israelis have a very different viewpoint living in the region under constant threat, so are going to do whatever is in their interests to survive. They went through near annihilation once before in living memory and are determined not to face that again. Israel supposedly has the backing of some Arab nations, such as Saudi Arabia who may allow them to use their air space. Many Arab nations have a great fear of Iran getting the bomb and also what they've been up to in the region, such as the latest of having added Yemen to their sphere, having overthrown a US ally there. 

[grumbler]

Agreed on that. I think one of the resons for Bibi's speech was to tell how he feels about the threat of Iran as a precursor to a possible or likely attack on Iran. The Israelis have a very different viewpoint living in the region under constant threat, so are going to do whatever is in their interests to survive. They went through near annihilation once before in living memory and are determined not to face that again. Israel supposedly has the backing of some Arab nations, such as Saudi Arabia who may allow them to use their air space. Many Arab nations have a great fear of Iran getting the bomb and also what they've been up to in the region, such as the latest of having added Yemen to their sphere, having overthrown a US ally there. 

I don't think that we learned anything new from this speech, other than that Bibi is willing to try ro make US foreign policy a partisan issue.  Only the venue for the speech was new; every word he said he has said before.

And the non-existant Yemeni government hasn't been overthrown by Iran.  It died of self-inflicted wounds.

[garbon]

Obama is a lame duck.  Going after him just poisons the water for Israel if the Democrats win the 2016 election.  Does Bibi really want Israeli interests tied to the Republican party?

Bibi's facing re-election: polls on March 17. This speech was more about that fact, than any concern over Israeli-US relations.

[KRonn]

Agreed on that. I think one of the resons for Bibi's speech was to tell how he feels about the threat of Iran as a precursor to a possible or likely attack on Iran. The Israelis have a very different viewpoint living in the region under constant threat, so are going to do whatever is in their interests to survive. They went through near annihilation once before in living memory and are determined not to face that again. Israel supposedly has the backing of some Arab nations, such as Saudi Arabia who may allow them to use their air space. Many Arab nations have a great fear of Iran getting the bomb and also what they've been up to in the region, such as the latest of having added Yemen to their sphere, having overthrown a US ally there. 

I don't think that we learned anything new from this speech, other than that Bibi is willing to try ro make US foreign policy a partisan issue.  Only the venue for the speech was new; every word he said he has said before.

And the non-existant Yemeni government hasn't been overthrown by Iran.  It died of self-inflicted wounds.

No, we may not have learned all that much but I think we saw Bibi emphasize how many Israelis see the issue, which is very different from the rest of us. He was probably laying out the framework publicly to justify an Israeli strike, if they feel the need to do so. He also spelled out a few things, like how Israel could perhaps live with the agreements if they didn't end in ten years, which is also a sticking point for some Dems like Diane Feinstein.

I think one point Bibi made though was that ISIS and Iran are pretty much the same in their goals, but they do it differently. Iran has its hand in Lebanon with Hezbollah which is probably stronger than the government; Hamas, Syria as an ally, now Yemen, and is a huge sponsor of terrorism. This all has to have the Saudis and Gulf States pretty worried. The fact that Iran is fighting ISIS is the two ideologies at war, Sunni vs Shia, not that Iran is somehow ok for "helping" out with ISIS. They don't want Sunni competition for their plans of dominance. It's kind of a stark point to see how the removal of Saddam enabled Iran in some ways as one of their chief antagonists is gone.

Yemen was a US ally, weak as it was, had large demonstrations which overthrew the previous government and brought in a new one cooperating with the US/West against AQ. It had US bases targeting AQ and other extremists. Just last September Pres Obama was pointing that all out as a success for the US strategy so the US had some investment there. But the larger point is that Iran has taken down the government and Iranian supported "rebels" have taken over the country. Seems a page taken out of Putin's playbook.

[CountDeMoney]

I think one point Bibi made though was that ISIS and Iran are pretty much the same in their goals, but they do it differently. Iran has its hand in Lebanon with Hezbollah which is probably stronger than the government; Hamas, Syria as an ally, now Yemen, and is a huge sponsor of terrorism. This all has to have the Saudis and Gulf States pretty worried. The fact that Iran is fighting ISIS is the two ideologies at war, Sunni vs Shia, not that Iran is somehow ok for "helping" out with ISIS. They don't want Sunni competition for their plans of dominance. It's kind of a stark point to see how the removal of Saddam enabled Iran in some ways as one of their chief antagonists is gone.

I did like his line, when talking about Iran and ISIS, that "the enemy of your enemy is your enemy."   

But yeah, I am growing increasingly concerned that between Osama, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, salafism, exportation of wahhabism, A-Q of Iraq, ISIS, and all the other bullshit we've been dealing with from Islam's Sunni-Side-Up breakfast buffet since 9/11 that Iran gets the "White Hat" treatment and falls into the "Least Worst" category by some parties, a mistake we always seem to make in our need to pick a side in all this millennia-old tribal bullshit. 
I think there's a danger in losing sight of the fact that, as far as Israel and US interests are concerned, Iran has been the bigger Bad Guy for the longer time with the most damage under its belt.  This is still the same '79 Iran, the same Iran whose Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah has vaporized US embassies; kidnapped, tortured and murdered US citizens; blown up US Marines; funds and arms Hamas, fighting an ongoing proxy war with Israel...and let's not even talk about their influence in Iraq, courtesy of the United States, who's given them more geopolitical heft than anything they could've possibly dreamed of.  Oh, and they're building the fucking bomb.

[Jacob]

I did like his line, when talking about Iran and ISIS, that "the enemy of your enemy is your enemy."   

Iran is the enemy of Israel. Iran is also the enemy of the US.

Thus the the US and Israel are both "the enemy of your enemy" to one another, so by Bibi's logic Israel and the US are apparently enemies.

It doesn't seem like he thought that one through...

[Norgy]

They kill Rabin and can't even get a shot in at this guy? Useless.

Wow.

Do you remember the circumstances surrounding Rabin's murder? Well, you see, he was at a peace celebration and got murdered by some settler. You know, one of those armed angry ones that tend to vote for people like Nethanyahu. Nethanyahu is not someone who will bring peace or good foreign relations. No wonder the Republicans love him.

[alfred russel]

Do you remember the circumstances surrounding Rabin's murder? Well, you see, he was at a peace celebration and got murdered by some settler. You know, one of those armed angry ones that tend to vote for people like Nethanyahu. Nethanyahu is not someone who will bring peace or good foreign relations. No wonder the Republicans love him.

My take on Israeli politics isn't very well informed, but isn't Nethanyahu sort of like the moderate/rightish guy? The nutters go for Lieberman or similar.

[grumbler]

No, we may not have learned all that much but I think we saw Bibi emphasize how many Israelis see the issue, which is very different from the rest of us. He was probably laying out the framework publicly to justify an Israeli strike, if they feel the need to do so. He also spelled out a few things, like how Israel could perhaps live with the agreements if they didn't end in ten years, which is also a sticking point for some Dems like Diane Feinstein. 

And in ten years the US will be in the same position to pressure Iran as it is today.  Iran doesn't gain anything by freezing its nuclear program for ten years.  I think that Bibi will attack Iran (if he does attack Iran) for domestic Israeli political reasons, not because he thinks a ten-year freeze is too little.   He needs an Operation urgent manhood op.

I think one point Bibi made though was that ISIS and Iran are pretty much the same in their goals, but they do it differently. Iran has its hand in Lebanon with Hezbollah which is probably stronger than the government; Hamas, Syria as an ally, now Yemen, and is a huge sponsor of terrorism. This all has to have the Saudis and Gulf States pretty worried. The fact that Iran is fighting ISIS is the two ideologies at war, Sunni vs Shia, not that Iran is somehow ok for "helping" out with ISIS. They don't want Sunni competition for their plans of dominance. It's kind of a stark point to see how the removal of Saddam enabled Iran in some ways as one of their chief antagonists is gone.

Yemen was a US ally, weak as it was, had large demonstrations which overthrew the previous government and brought in a new one cooperating with the US/West against AQ. It had US bases targeting AQ and other extremists. Just last September Pres Obama was pointing that all out as a success for the US strategy so the US had some investment there. But the larger point is that Iran has taken down the government and Iranian supported "rebels" have taken over the country. Seems a page taken out of Putin's playbook.

I think you give Iran far more credit for secret ops than it possesses, and simplify several complex situations far more than is prudent.  Iran is not battling with ISIS for "baddest Muslim" titles, it is battling ISIS because ISIS is encroaching on Shiite territory.  And the Houthi movement isn't entirely Shi'ite, nor was the coalition that forced out the pro-US government of Ali Abdullah Saleh a Shi'ite dominated one.  Both of the recent "coups" were broadly-based and only "Iranian" in that they contained Shia, in that Iran backs Shi'ite groups across the Middle East.  You are over-egging your beer with your claims of Iran's "plans of dominance," though.  I don't think Iran's leaders (barring the handfl of nut cases you always end up with in a dictatorship) delude themselves into believing that they can dominate the world or even the Middle East.  They do believe they can be major players, though.  Thus, the nuclear program.  But the nuclear program is a means to an end, not an end.  Bibi doesn't seem to want to acknowledge this.

[grumbler]

My take on Israeli politics isn't very well informed, but isn't Nethanyahu sort of like the moderate/rightish guy? The nutters go for Lieberman or similar.

I think that you are correct.  I think that Bibi veers to the far right when it is politically expedient to do so, but I don't think he has a lot of the convictions of the right wing (though I think he lives and breathes Israeli exceptionalism in much the same way Churchill did British exceptionalism). 

[Malthus]

  I don't think Iran's leaders (barring the handfl of nut cases you always end up with in a dictatorship) delude themselves into believing that they can dominate the world or even the Middle East.  They do believe they can be major players, though.  Thus, the nuclear program.  But the nuclear program is a means to an end, not an end.  Bibi doesn't seem to want to acknowledge this.

Way I see it is this: most of the world sees Iran's nuke program as the same as any other middle-ranking regional power's nuke program: basically, an insurance to deter aggression at the state-to-state level (though as Israel's own nuke program demonstrates, it doesn't deter modern forms of aggression, which utilize sub-state actors as proxies - Israel has nuked hardly anyone for supporting Hamas or Hezbollah  ).

Some Israelis, however, have a tendency to see it as a true existential threat; there is a tendency to take remarks from Arab or Iranian leaders about destroying Israel quite literally. Bibi himself probably knows this is most unlikely, and that Iranian leaders care more about things in their own immediate neighbourhood than about destroying Israel (and thus probably themselves) - and that words about destroying Israel are simply puffery designed to play well to the Persian plebes. However, given his political situation, it is essentially impossible for him to admit this. He's a relative 'moderate' on the right, facing challenges from the hard-right; if he showed any weakness vs. Iran on the nuke issue, they would eat him alive.

[The Brain]

Bibi Andersson >>>>>>>>>>> Jew Bibi

[alfred russel]

Some Israelis, however, have a tendency to see it as a true existential threat; there is a tendency to take remarks from Arab or Iranian leaders about destroying Israel quite literally. Bibi himself probably knows this is most unlikely, and that Iranian leaders care more about things in their own immediate neighbourhood than about destroying Israel (and thus probably themselves) - and that words about destroying Israel are simply puffery designed to play well to the Persian plebes.

The thing about the risk of getting nuked out of existence is that even an unlikely threat may be worth a significant reaction.

[Sheilbh]

And in ten years the US will be in the same position to pressure Iran as it is today.  Iran doesn't gain anything by freezing its nuclear program for ten years.  I think that Bibi will attack Iran (if he does attack Iran) for domestic Israeli political reasons, not because he thinks a ten-year freeze is too little.   He needs an Operation urgent manhood op.

Well hence a speech at 11am US time - but prime time for Israeli TV. The reason that he gave that speech at all was that polls show more Israelis are worried about housing prices than Iran.

I think that you are correct.  I think that Bibi veers to the far right when it is politically expedient to do so, but I don't think he has a lot of the convictions of the right wing (though I think he lives and breathes Israeli exceptionalism in much the same way Churchill did British exceptionalism).

I think he's a tactician.

I would qualify though in that Lieberman has moderated a lot recently and is now, I'd say, more centrist (especially on the Palestinian issue) than Bibi. Bibi is competing with Naftali now - which is kind of terrifying.

He's a relative 'moderate' on the right, facing challenges from the hard-right; if he showed any weakness vs. Iran on the nuke issue, they would eat him alive.

I think he believes it as well. I think he thinks this is his sole job as Israeli PM whereas, as is often the case, I agree with Jeffrey Goldberg and think it's probably the second most important job of an Israeli PM after keeping the Americans onside whoever's in the White House. I also think he believes he's the only man who can do the job.

But ultimately there's very little that can be done to stop a country that has the technical skills and the will and can get the material from making a bomb. The problems with Bibi's position are:
1- What were sanctions for if not to coerce and improve negotiations? They can't be an end in themselves.
2- If the US/West signs a deal that keeps Iran, say, permanently a year from obtaining nukes, then what leverage does Israel have in the White House over the implementation of this deal? It'll be the White House not Congress that does it and while Israel and the US share a huge amount of national security interests I think Israel would be better placed to shape that policy if it was working with the White House rather than publicly against them in cahoots with the President's domestic opponents.
3- Ultimately if Israel opposes negotiations and wants a permanent military 'solution' to the Iranian program then only the US can deliver that. What influence can it have in dissuading the White House from continuing with negotiations and delivering?

I still don't know if this speech matters a lot or is utterly unimportant but I think it's extraordinary that there have been Jewish members of Congress who've stayed away from a speech to Congress by the PM of Israel. That can't be a good thing for Israel.

And the problem with Bibi is he's burning through genuine friends and won't even show any willingness on issues other countries and the White House care about - like settlements. As Sir Richard Ottaway put it when abstaining on the recognition of Palestine vote 'I have to say to the government of Israel that if they are losing people like me, they will be losing a lot of people.' And they are and now Bibi's even making an enemy of the party the overwhelming majority of American Jews support