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

[grumbler]

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.

I pretty much agree with this; Bibi has aligned himself with the Israeli equivalents of the Iranian nutcases (they are themselves nutcases like the Iranian nutcases, note; they are just the analogs of the Iranian nutbars) and so can't really speak honestly, any more than the Iranians who aren't slavering idiots can speak honestly.  Honesty is suicidal once you lie down with the dogs.

I don't really have a problem with this.  he is a politician doing what politicians do.  I do have a problem with the US Republicans inviting him to speak to them knowing that he will be trimming his sails to please an irrational wing of his own party, and applauding every bullshit remark that comes off his lips.  Not even the frothiest Hans believes that Obama wants to "pave the way for the Iranians to get the bomb," but the dumb saps on the Hill applauded the speech like it was the Second Sermon on the Mount.  The only thing funnier than watching them gobble Bibi's cock is the thought of how they would be howling if the Democrats had ever done such a thing when they were in the majority.

[alfred russel]

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

Israel has no reason to negotiate away anything. They are winning the long game. The number of jews in the West Bank is exploding, to the point it is unlikely much of the territory will ever go to Palestine. The pressure on Israel from terrorism has dramatically subsided, and it is probably less likely than ever that Israel's neighbors will invade. The US is standing behind Israel as strongly as ever, and any European bias against Israel has been nullified by islamophobia.

[Capetan Mihali]

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

Wow.

Relax.

[Capetan Mihali]

I find it really odd for a sitting head of government to visit another country, and deliver a formal address at the host country's legislature that slams the government of the host country.  Especially that the host country is his greatest benefactor. 

Welcome to the weirdness obscenity of US-Israel relations.

FYP.

[Capetan Mihali]

Why's nobody been making fun of his faggy name, huh?  Bibi. LOL

[viper37]

Israel thinks itself way too important. Iran has other cats to put down first whenever it gets a Nuclear deterent.

Disagree:  if there's one thing that a Sunni and Shi'ite can agree upon, it's the Jew has to go first.

ISIS has disproven that, since clearly they are targetting the ennemy within first.

[viper37]

Nethanyahu is not someone who will bring peace or good foreign relations. No wonder the Republicans love him.

actually, he's the one that got the closest to it in decades.

[derspiess]

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

Wow.

Relax.

Yeah, I know.  Euros are gonna Euro.

[CountDeMoney]

The Iranian Regime on Israel's Right to Exist
The foreign minister says his country is friendly to Jews. But his country seeks the elimination of the country in which nearly half the world's Jews live.

Jeffrey Goldberg (a Jew!)
Mar 9 2015, 8:32 AM ET


The Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, wants Jews to know that he, and the country he represents, are their friends. In an interview with Ann Curry, he accused the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, of intentionally misreading Jewish scripture in order to make the case that Iran is malevolently predisposed toward Jews: "If you read the Book of Esther, you will see that it was the Iranian king who saved the Jews," Zarif said. "If you read the Old Testament, you will see that it was an Iranian king who saved the Jews from Babylon. Esther has a town in Iran where our Jewish population, which is the largest in the Middle East, visits on a regular basis."

It is true that, at different times, and in different ways, Persia has been a friend of the Jews. Cyrus the Great (the Iranian king mentioned by Zarif in the interview) restored the Jews to their homeland in the Land of Israel after their Babylonian exile. President Harry Truman, who recognized the state of Israel in 1948, 11 minutes after it was reborn, later proclaimed proudly, "I am Cyrus." 

There is dark humor (or a lack of self-awareness) in Zarif's citation of Cyrus as proof of Iranian philo-Semitism, because today's Iranian leadership does not recognize Jewish sovereignty in Israel, as Cyrus once did, but instead seeks the annihilation of the Jewish state.

I am in favor of a negotiated agreement that will keep Iran at least a year away from a nuclear weapon in part because, in the post-Holocaust era, it is crucially important to keep such weapons out of the hands of those who promise to do Jews real harm. As I've written, it is not likely that Iran would launch a preemptive nuclear attack on Israel, but it would almost certainly redouble, under the protection of a nuclear umbrella, its work toward Israel's eradication, with disastrous consequences. (We'll have the argument over whether the agreement now taking shape is the best possible deal in another post. Suffice it to say that the parameters of the current, still-unfinished deal are cause for some worry.)

Netanyahu's deployment of the Holocaust to make his case against Iran (and against the current deal) is controversial. There are many aspects of Netanyahu's approach I find disagreeable and counterproductive (most, actually), but an Israeli prime minister who does not recognize that extinction-level threats directed at Jews have sometimes been more than aspirational is not fulfilling his responsibilities.

(For a recent example of an argument about the putative dangers of casting the Holocaust in political, cautionary terms, please see this post from my colleague James Fallows, who quotes an unnamed history professor at at a university in the Southwest arguing, in essence, that the Holocaust was so terrible and enormous that we should resist the urge to learn from it: "The constant reiteration of this particular event achieves little more than dumbing down the discourse: it's the historical equivalent of hollering." The professor goes on to write, "To paraphrase Levi-Strauss, the Holocaust is not particularly good to think with. Its extremity serves as a bludgeon." This argument is unwise and unfair; just imagine the same argument in a specifically American historical context: Slavery was so terrible, and so extreme, that we shouldn't talk about it in the context of politics, because someone is bound to use it as a bludgeon. An absurd argument, of course.)

I think it is possible to strike an appropriate balance in this debate, somewhere between, "The Jews should stop talking about the Holocaust so much," which is the subtext of this professor's complaint, and "The Nazis are coming" line of argument used periodically by Netanyahu and his allies.

The Iranian regime is not populated by Nazis, but it is led by people who do, in fact, seek the physical elimination of the Jewish state and its replacement by a Muslim state. It works toward this end, by sponsoring terrorist groups that regularly kill Jews, both in Israel and elsewhere.

So, as a reminder to those who argue that Jews should stop worrying so much about people who threaten to kill them, here is some (just some) of what Iran's leaders, and leaders of its proxy militia, Hezbollah, in Lebanon, have said about Israel:

Mohammad Khatami, the former president of Iran: "If we abide by real legal laws, we should mobilize the whole Islamic world for a sharp confrontation with the Zionist regime ... if we abide by the Koran, all of us should mobilize to kill." (2000)

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region." (2001)

Hassan Nasrallah, a leader of Hezbollah: "If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." (2002)

Nasrallah: "Israel is our enemy. This is an aggressive, illegal, and illegitimate entity, which has no future in our land. Its destiny is manifested in our motto: 'Death to Israel.'" (2005)

Yahya Rahim Safavi, the former commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps: "With God's help the time has come for the Zionist regime's death sentence." (2008)

Mohammad Hassan Rahimian, Khamenei's representative to the Moustazafan Foundation: "We have manufactured missiles that allow us, when necessary to replace [sic] Israel in its entirety with a big holocaust." (2010)

Mohammad Reza Naqdi, the commander of the Basij paramilitary force: "We recommend them [the Zionists] to pack their furniture and return to their countries. And if they insist on staying, they should know that a time while arrive when they will not even have time to pack their suitcases." (2011)

Khamenei: "The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor and it will be removed." (2012)

Ahmad Alamolhoda, a member of the Assembly of Experts: "The destruction of Israel is the idea of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and is one of the pillars of the Iranian Islamic regime. We cannot claim that we have no intention of going to war with Israel." (2013)

Nasrallah: "The elimination of Israel is not only a Palestinian interest. It is the interest of the entire Muslim world and the entire Arab world." (2013)

Hojateleslam Alireza Panahian, the advisor to Office of the Supreme Leader in Universities: "The day will come when the Islamic people in the region will destroy Israel and save the world from this Zionist base." (2013)

Hojatoleslam Ali Shirazi, Khamenei's representative in the Revolutionary Guard: "The Zionist regime will soon be destroyed, and this generation will be witness to its destruction." (2013)

Khamenei: "This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated." (2014)

Hossein Salami, the deputy head of the Revolutionary Guard: "We will chase you [Israelis] house to house and will take revenge for every drop of blood of our martyrs in Palestine, and this is the beginning point of Islamic nations awakening for your defeat." (2014)

Salami: "Today we are aware of how the Zionist regime is slowly being erased from the world, and indeed, soon, there will be no such thing as the Zionist regime on Planet Earth." (2014)

Hossein Sheikholeslam, the secretary-general of the Committee for Support for the Palestinian Intifada: "The issue of Israel's destruction is important, no matter the method. We will obviously implement the strategy of the Imam Khomeini and the Leader [Khamenei] on the issue of destroying the Zionists. The region will not be quiet so long as Israel exists in it ..." (2014)

Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guard: "The Revolutionary Guards will fight to the end of the Zionist regime ... We will not rest easy until this epitome of vice is totally deleted from the region's geopolitics." (2015)

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/Iranian-View-of-Israel/387085/

[CountDeMoney]

Because Bibipalooza wasn't enough: a strong letter to follow!  Let's do more stuff on our own and ignore the President!

Republican letter to Iran intensifies dispute with White House
Washington Post

An already heated battle between the White House and Republicans over negotiations to curtail Iran's nuclear program grew more tense Monday when 47 Republican senators sent a letter to Iran designed to kill any potential deal.

The White House responded by accusing the Republicans of conspiring with Iranian hard-liners, who oppose the delicate negotiations, and suggesting that their goal was to push the United States into a military conflict.

"I think it's somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran," President Obama said a few hours after the letter was made public. "It's an unusual coalition."

Vice President Biden blasted the letter as "beneath the dignity of an institution I revere."

"In 36 years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country — much less a longtime foreign adversary — that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them," Biden said in a statement.

The letter, written by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), suggests that any deal between Obama and the Iranian leadership would amount to only an "executive agreement" that could be undone by Congress or a future president. "The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time," states the letter which was first reported by Bloomberg View.

The Republican signatories dismissed Obama's assertion that they are cozying up to Iranian hard-liners.

"I think that's a laughable charge coming from this administration," said Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), who signed the letter. He said the administration's rush to secure a deal with Iran had led it to dismiss Congress's concerns.

Administration officials insisted that the president doesn't need congressional approval to make a deal with Iran and that Congress wouldn't be able to alter the terms of a deal. "There are several inaccuracies in the letter about how things work," said State ­Department spokeswoman Jen ­Psaki.

Iran's foreign minister, meanwhile, dismissed the letter as "mostly a propaganda ploy."

The Republican outreach to Tehran's leaders comes at a critical juncture in the negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. Obama has said that Iran must agree to the outline of an accord by the end of March or further talks would be pointless.

It also comes only a week after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu denounced the Obama administration's nuclear negotiations in a rousing speech before a joint meeting of Congress. Netanyahu spoke at the invitation of House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who didn't consult with the White House or Democrats in Congress before issuing the invitation.

The White House derided that invitation as a breach of protocol designed to undercut the president's ability to conduct foreign policy. On Monday, White House press secretary Josh Earnest described Cotton's letter as a "continuation" of a partisan strategy designed to push the United States into a military conflict with Iran that would, at best, delay the Iranian program for only a few years.

"The rush to war or at least the rush to the military option that many Republicans are advocating is not at all in the best interest of the United States," he said.

The deal being negotiated with Iran would limit its capacity to enrich uranium to the point that, if Iranian leaders decided to kick out inspectors, it would take the country at least a year to produce enough fuel for a bomb.

Iran would also have to commit to intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency over the course of the agreement. The United States initially asked Iran to agree to limitations on its nuclear program lasting 15 to 20 years, but Tehran has pressed for a shorter period.

Obama has suggested in recent days that a deal could be imminent. "I think it is fair to say that there is an urgency because we now have been negotiating for well over a year," he said in an interview with CBS News that aired Sunday.

If Iranians agree to the deal and abide by the inspections regime, the White House could start to ease economic sanctions, which have crippled Iran's economy, in the coming months and years. Lifting all American sanctions on Iran would require congressional action.

Cotton, an Iraq war veteran and national security hawk, characterized his letter as a remedial civics lesson designed to educate Iran's mullahs on the limits of presidential power. "Many Iran experts say that Iran's leaders don't understand our Constitution," Cotton said in an interview with Fox News Channel.

Cotton tweeted his letter at Iranian officials and encouraged Democrats, including presumptive presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton, to add their signatures.

"We already have four senators on the letter who were thinking about running for president," said Cotton, who later added: "I've spoken privately with other presidential candidates who might join us."

The letter drew widespread derision from Democrats, who blasted it as an amateurish attempt to torpedo the negotiations.

"This is not a time to undermine our commander in chief purely out of spite," Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) said Monday afternoon in an impassioned 10-minute speech attacking the Republican intervention. "We should always have robust debate about foreign policy, but it's unprecedented for one political party to directly intervene in an international negotiation with the sole goal of embarrassing the president of the United States."

Other Democrats agreed. "This letter only serves one purpose — to destroy an ongoing negotiation to reach a diplomatic agreement in its closing days," said Sen Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Rep. Adam B. Schiff (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a tweet that he was "beyond appalled" by the letter.

It's unclear what impact the letter will have on the delicate negotiations.

Some prominent Republicans, including Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, declined to sign Cotton's letter. An aide to the senator said he's focused on building support for a bipartisan bill that would require Congress to review any nuclear agreement with Iran. The president has said he would veto such a bill.

The refusal of the congressional Republicans to accept the legitimacy of this President is beyond pathological.

[grumbler]

Wow.  A new low.  Congressmen have done some stupid shit in the past, but this takes the cake.  Republicans really seem to want the US to fail so that they have yet more to blame the president for.  I can't even imagine the outrage they would be expressing had the shoe been on the other foot and this had been a Republican president and a democratic congress.

[Kleves]

Straight-up treason. That's new.

[Valmy]

Apparently the Iranians responsible for the negotiations have such bad intel on the US they lack even remedial knowledge of our Constitution according to these helpful Republicans.  Iranian leaders should really shake up their staffs.  Were they aware we speak English?  Maybe the Republicans can teach them that to.

[alfred russel]

It isn't without precedent. I remember for instance Republicans traveling to climate change conferences to try to undermine the chance of Obama making a deal and telling foreign representatives some of the same arguments here.

[Valmy]

It isn't without precedent. I remember for instance Republicans traveling to climate change conferences to try to undermine the chance of Obama making a deal and telling foreign representatives some of the same arguments here.

I am sure no foreigners who negotiate with the US have remedial knowledge of our Constitution.  They are just trying to be helpful and no trying to undermine diplomacy at all.  I am sure they will inform them what 'USA' stands for and give them a cheat sheet on all the state capitals.