Netanyahu speech before joint session of Congress

So today at 11 am Eastern Time Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed a joint-session of Congress, being invited by Speaker John Boehner. 55 Dems from the House and Senate boycotted the speech because Netanyahu was invited without Boehner or Netanyahu consulting the White House, so basically they felt that Obama was snubbed.

Netanyahu's speech focused on the threat posed by Iran and Islamic extremism and made the case against the current deal being negotiated in Geneva between Iran and the West. Netanyahu also tied Iran into ISIS saying they are both competing for the "crown of militant Islam" and both threats to Israel, the United States, Christians, Jews, and moderate Muslims, saying that to see Iran as an ally against ISIS is folly, that in the struggle between the Islamic State and the Islamic Republic (of Iran) "the enemy of your enemy is... your enemy."

The speech can be viewed here.

What will the ramifications of this be?

Will it hope Netanyahu and his party in the upcoming Israeli elections?

Will Obama retaliate? would he hurt himself and his party more than he'd hurt Bibi if he did so?

Will Netanyahu's speech sabotage the deal Obama and Iran are working on?

I would say that the big winners of the speech are Netanyahu (he certainly got his point across and rallied much of Congress around him) and Boehner (he invited Netanyahu and the 55 Dems who boycotted are probably bad optics for their party, this gives Repubs more credence when they portray themselves as the pro-Israel party, and who knows maybe some Jewish voters will be more inclined to vote Republican. Currently the Jews are the only white ethnicity that mostly votes Democrat in presidential elections).

The big losers are Iran, Obama, Kerry, and Hillary Clinton and (it puts her in an awkward spot if she has to choose between backing Obama's position and backing Netanyahu),

What will the ramifications of this be? nothing

Will it hope Netanyahu and his party in the upcoming Israeli elections? i assume you meant help :) and probably. it was a smart campaign stop for him

Will Obama retaliate? would he hurt himself and his party more than he'd hurt Bibi if he did so? no, no

Will Netanyahu's speech sabotage the deal Obama and Iran are working on? no

edit. also. can the fucking congress let the man speak for 12 seconds without interrupting him with applause?

It was a joke. According to him Iran has been "a year away" from a nuclear weapon for like 20 years now. He was also one of the first who advocated going into Iraq so I'm mindfucked as to why Americans still entertains him and his shitty speeches. Bibi is nothing more than a war monger and this whole speech was just another farce. The Republicans clapping like idiots at this man's every word was also pretty embarrassing. He's obviously taking America for quite a ride and in some ways it's hysterical. Also, nothing will come out of this, it was just a way for Boehner to stick it to Obama for a bit.

Nice touch with the Game of Thrones name drop though.

LOL

None of them give a shit. Especially not Hillary.

war monger

Because going into countries on the other side of the earth is America's thing. I can't understand why that would mindfuck you. And it's not even an issue for anyone anymore in any case.

Hillary has bigger things to worry about, like why her e-mails while she was Secretary of State aren't on file.

NYTimes

Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

If the deal (with Iran) is weak Congress will go over Obama will veto proof majorities. Israel might go at it alone on this one.

So curious that the NYT decided to release this story the day before Netanyahu's speech since it is obvious it wouldn't get as much coverage. Good job NYT, good job.

Not going to matter. Bad press is bad press, especially for such a high-profile potential 2016 candidate.

lmao no one is gonna care about that just like no one cares about Jeb Bush releasing emails with other people's SSN and other personal info. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if Hillary's team leaked that out themselves so no one else can closer to the date. Also, if that's such a big deal why didn't no one in the state department bring it up sooner... like when she was still in office? Probably because it doesn't matter and just another drummed up "scandal" like Benghazi.

mhm, this story was going to come out either way, by the NYT or another, so the Times figures they might as well do it themselves since they can try to soften the blow as much as possible plus get credit (which is due) of "look!!! the NYT goes after Democrats too!!!".

The thing is that it is so stupid. Like really? Are you telling during all her years on the State Department no one ever noticed she was using a personal email account to conduct official business? GTFO. But she is a Clinton, mortal rules don't apply to them.

The article says it has been brought up before.

How is potentially breaking the law a "drummed up scandal"? No one is above the law. Either follow it, or get out of office.

Sure, it was brought up before but so what? If nothing happened then why would something happen now?

Because nothing will come out of it and the voting public (if they even understand the problem) will forget long before 2016. If she faces any kind of consequences for it then I'll agree it's a big deal. As of now it's just fluff for the news media.

Hasn't Iran been on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons for a millenia now?

Sigh... I really don't know how that plays out. Part of me thinks, "It should matter," but I really don't think it will unless it can be directly tied to something nefarious. For one, this exact same thing has been common of late among politicians. For another, Republican accusations have lost some credibility in most peoples' eyes due to their recent endeavors.

So, in short, it probably should matter, but I don't think it will. Or, at least not much.

Dumb. Very, very dumb.

I support Israel as much as I support any democratic government out there (**** it, even if it is illegitimate, I would still support it over Palestine) but this has gone too far. Not only is this disrespectful to the president, it's also politicizing the whole issue of supporting Israel. There was already strong bipartisan support but this could change the entire dynamic causing a weaker alliance.

Also, Iran doesn't have the means to make a nuclear bomb as of now. It just doesn't. It didn't have the means in the 90s or early 2000, and our sanctions made it worse in which somehow they managed to acquire greater nuclear capability. The talks should continue and as for Iran obtaining the bomb, it would be a major powershift that would change the dynamic of the Middle East but nothing apocalyptic.

This is what I have trouble understanding from Netanyahu's perspective. They rely on our alliance for a great deal, and they leverage our support substantially.

Why risk that by making it a partisan issue? Why subject that support to the ebb and flow of political cycles?

In my opinion, it's much bigger than that. Israel enjoys a monopoly of power in the region. It's the only state in the Middle East with nuclear weaponry. If Iran does create nuclear weaponry (it's already established they have nuclear capability for peaceful means, at least according to their leaders), it would cause a drastic powershift making Iran a more legitimate player and perhaps a counter to Israeli interests in the region. Basically it's changing the entire game from shuffleboard to WWE out of fucking nowhere. Basically it's the Cold War but in the Middle East.

The other issue is Iran nuking Israel which is not likely. Iran doesn't like Israel but they're not going to commit suicide by attacking Israel. It's a nation that wants to survive, not make a deathwish.

That's my two cents.

Yeah, I understand where you're coming from. I guess I just don't see this speech as something that is going to prevent Iran's nuclear ambitions.

It was Netanyahu playing to his base to try to win an election and Beohner sticking his thumb in Obama's eye for spite. The only real winner in this was Iran which can sit back and watch relations between the US and Israel sink to their lowest point ever without ever having to do or say anything.

So it was brought up by the state department before, that's what. I'm answering your question.

@Aljosa23: Drummed up scandal? Four Americans died. Where was Obama and Hillary? Blaming it on a movie no one saw. As usual they were asleep at the switch. Every time this administration gets caught with their hand in the cookie jar it a drummed up scandal.

' Iran will have the bomb by 1997 ' -Benjamin Netanyahu, 1992

this guy has been lying about iran nukes claiming Iran is a threat to the world for decades now, even though Iran has a confirmed 0 nukes and Israel has 100s of them and also they have the 'Samson Option' on the table, which is the real nuclear threat to the world.

Typical fear mongering

evidently powell did the same thing. there was no official policy beyond "common sense" not to until recently.

The real nuclear threat is 'murica. They already nuclear bombed hundreds of thousands for fun, not to mention their little hobby of invading poor muslim countries. That's what happens when your country consists mostly of hillbillies.

And India, Pakistan, China and NK of course. But they're just Illuminati CIA proxy false flags.

they bombed Japan because more people would of died from an invasion so you're stupid. you always seem to get salty when people criticize israel.

This might be the stupidest thing I have ever read on a message board...ever.

I hope you're not serious but considering the retardation see on this board (especially this topic) nothing should surprise me.

yea man.. the guy is a nut just like Netanyahoo

Obvious cover is obvious. Nothing can still 'murican thirst for blood. First they create ISIS to kill civilians, then they kill more civilians "fighting" ISIS. The only reason they're not invading poor Iran is because they provide them with a few annual stoning videos as sacrifice. All covered up bu the NWO CIA of course. Russia is obviously a CIA false flag to send in 'murican ukraine auxiliary troops.

yea, confirmed stupid.. it always seems to be Netanyahoo and israel beating the war drums for invading iran

The post I was responding to was factually more stupid by any reasonable definition. So whether or not I am serious you're statement is outright false.

Really? Wow! seriously I am applauding out loud in my house right now. So it seems to be an unusually hawkish leader of a country whose existence has been threatened by Iran and who is constantly attacked Iranian proxies that is beating the war drums for invading Iran. What did you expect? Kiribati?

@themajormayor

like i said hes a bat shit crazy warmonger

1992 via the Christian Science Monitor:

Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had to be “uprooted by an international front headed by the US.”

1995 via Benjamin Netanyahu’s book Fighting Terrorism:

The best estimates at this time place Iran between three and fve years away from possessing the prerequisites required for the independent production of nuclear weapons. After this time, the Iranian Islamic republic will have the ability to construct atomic weapons without the importation of materials or technology from abroad.

1995 via Jerusalem Post:

Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb, without having to import either the technology or the material. [The nuclear threat] must be uprooted by an international front headed by the US. It necessitates economic sanctions on Iran.

1996 in his speech to the United States Congress:

The most dangerous of these regimes is Iran, that has wed a cruel despotism to a fanatic militancy. If this regime, or its despotic neighbor Iraq, were to acquire nuclear weapons, this could presage catastrophic consequences, not only for my country, and not only for the Middle East, but for all mankind.

Only the United States can lead this vital international effort to stop the nuclearization of terrorist states. But the deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close.

1997 in his interview with David Frost at the BBC:

Iran is unseen, unperturbed and undisturbed … building a formidable arsenal of ballistic missiles, actually inter-continental ballistic missiles” that initially will reach the rest of the Middle East …. Stage two it would reach Britain and stage three, believe it or not, they actually plan to reach the eastern seaboard of the United States, Manhattan … Now this sounds fantastic, but Iran is, wants to be a world power with the world ideology of fundamentalist domination, seeing the West as its great enemy and it seeks to have the weapons to back up that ideology.’

1998 Netanyahu quoted via the NY Daily News:

You have to ask yourself what will happen in the Middle East if Iran detonates a nuclear weapon. The whole face of the Middle East will change at once … efforts must be redoubled to prevent Iran from acquiring missile and nuclear technology that could destabilize the world.

September 24th, 2001 – thirteen days after the September 11th terrorist attacks – Netanyahu spoke to the U.S. House Government Reform Committee where he compared Iran, Iraq, Syria and Palestine to Osama Bin Laden; he also stated:

The US must do everything in its power to prevent regimes like Iran and Iraq from developing nuclear weapons, and disarm them of their weapons of mass destruction.

2009 via Wikileaks:

Netanyahu said he did not know for certain how close Iran was to developing a nuclear weapons capability, but that “our experts” say Iran was probably only one or two years away and that was why they wanted open ended negotiations.

2009 via Wikileaks:

Netanyahu responded that Iran has the capability now to make one bomb or they could wait and make several bombs in a year or two.

2009 via an interview with the Atlantic:

You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the world should start worrying, and that’s what is happening in Iran.

2010 via Fox News:

I can tell you one thing, Iran is closer to developing nuclear weapons today than it was a week ago, or a month ago or a year ago. It’s just moving on with its efforts. And I think there is a great danger to the world, not only to my country but to the United States, to the Middle East, to peace, to all of humanity, from the prospect that such a regime that brutalizes its own people, that sponsors terrorism more than any other regime in the world — that this regime acquires atomic bombs is very, very dangerous.

2012 via the Jerusalem Post:

[An Iranian nuclear bomb] was a lot further away 15 years ago when I started talking about it. It was a lot further away 10 years ago. It was a lot further away five years. It was a lot further away five months ago. They are getting there, and they are getting very, very close.

September 28th, 2012 at the United Nations:

By next spring, at most by next summer at current enrichment rates, [Iran] will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage. From there, it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel addresses the General Assembly. UN Photo/J Carrier

2013 during his interview with Charlie Rose:

Iran, Charlie, would not be interested in having one bomb or two bombs. They’re gearing up with their infrastructure for 200 bombs. And they’re not developing those ICBMs for us. They can reach us with what they have. It’s for you.

2014 on Fox News responding to Iran’s statement they are not building nuclear weapons:

It’s a joke. Of course, they’re developing nuclear weapons. They’ve invested, if not billions, you can start counting it in maybe in hundreds of billions of dollars — for what, for creating medical isotopes for Iranian patients circling the Earth? What are they developing ICBMs for if not for nuclear warheads? What are they developing these — building these enormous underground nuclear facilities if not for nuclear weapons?

So, this is a sham. I mean, I don’t think anybody could take this seriously.

Scary times when I'm agreeing with flubbbs.

Not really. Far left loonies are closer to white supremacist than you think. It's not uncommon to see leftists together with extreme Islamists and neo-nazis demonstrating against "Israel".

@Flubbbs: I don't understand your point here. Your whole argument so far has been; "he is not very good at estimating!!!", "he is more concerned than Kiribati's prime minister!!!". Hahah we all know you could care less about Iran and its people. We know that what concerns you, in this case, is the PM's ethnicity, bat shit crazy or not.

This I agree with.

I was not serious before with my post. But flubbs is a nutty conspiracy nut. It's the only way he will understand.

ROFLMAO at this paranoid, compulsively obsessive dude Netanyahu.

I really fail to see why everyone is so obsessed about preventing Iran from reaching nukes. First of, as the agency has confirmed more than once, Iran's nuclear program is peaceful, having no aberration. Secondly, thanks to the extreme sanctions imposed on it, Iran is definitely the underdog in the negotiations. West undoubtedly have the momentum. And thirdly, despite all this, even if Iran produces nukes, they never dare to use it against the West or their allies, including Israel, 'cause launching a nuke against the west is equivalent to launching a nuke against themselves, given that the severe retaliation is certain.

So, could a wise man please tell me what the hell all the fuss is about ?

I don't know....the country's leader said Israel should be "eradicated off the face of the Earth" if I remember correctly.

I would have to say that, that could be a little alarming for people in the area.

@BSC14: Yeah, but Khamenei also issued a fatwa (if you know what that is) stating that the production of nukes is haram (taboo, that is, illegal, by both the religion and the law).

I'm trying to figure out how this helps anyone beyond the realm of politics. I mean I get that politics is why a lot of shit happens, but usually you can point to something in the situation being potentially helpful to citizens and this you just can't as far as I can tell. This doesn't help the people of Israel or more importantly America so why do it?

I have nothing against Israel, I'm not sure what gave you that impression. Netanyahu is just an idiot.

Netanyahu is a crazy bitch. He called Persians Nazis even though those same Persians were responsible for the massacre of Christians in the holy lands because they wanted to "help" the Jewish community. Deh irony.

Netanyahu, maybe next time study your lessons first because farts are supposed to come out of ass not mouth.

Also does he really believe that the members of the American congress are dumbfucks or what? Is he really trying to link Iran to ISIS? Doesn't he know who the real founders of ISIS are?

Israel, why don't you break ties with Turkey and Saudis if you truly seek peace in the region, ha?

lol i didnt think you would have anything else to say. have a good day

He didn't really "risk" making the alliance into a partisan issue. He made numerous statements during the speech to this effect: saying that the Israel-America alliance has always remained above politics and must always remain above politics, mentioning Republicans and Democrats and thanking leaders from both parties who were present by name including Boehner, Pelosi, McConnell, Hatch, and Reid (specifically saying that he's glad to see Harry Reid back on his feet and then saying "I guess it really is hard to keep a good man down") and thanking Obama for all the things he has done for Israel. If anything the speech to me sounded like Netanyahu speaking to the American people and Obama friend-to-friend, bluntly saying that the current deal being pursued is bad for both Israel and the U.S. and that Iran cannot be trusted.

I think Netanyahu gave this speech because he feels very strongly that this nuclear deal will not stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons capabilities.

I think Netanyahu and Boehner do think this helps the American and Israeli peoples. It draws criticism against the deal that the West and Iran are negotiating, and I would say that Netanyahu believes that the deal is harmful and should not be made because it will lead to Iran eventually acquiring nuclear weapons and the sanctions being lifted.

Also from what I hear Israel isn't the only country concerned about this deal, Kerry is meeting with Saudi Arabia's new king today and seeking to reassure the Saudi's about the deal. From what I understand many of the Arab countries are also worried about Iran (and the Sunnis in Iraq are worried too, I think), especially given what's going on in Yemen.

That's a very simplistic viewpoint. Let me tell you what all this really is about. It's all about power struggle in the ME. Say Iran acquires nuclear bombs what will it do with those bombs? Do you honestly think Iran will drop a nuclear bomb on the same lands it considers holy? How will Iran manage to wipe out the Jews using nuclear bombs without wiping out Palestinians as well? Say Iran is crazy enough to to all this then what? Won't Israel and U.S drop their nukes on Iran too? It should be fairly easy to understand that should Iran acquire nuclear bombs it will never use them.

Now let's assume that Iran acquires those bombs but does not plan on using them. What will happen then? Then Turkey wants nuclear bombs. Then Saudis want nuclear bombs. In fact Saudis are making their move right now. Link. What Netanyahu and others are trying to do is to limit Iran's control over the region. I honestly don't know why they keep supporting the Saudis. Maybe because they have a bigger influence on the Muslims. But I think this is a strategic mistake by the Israeli government. It should be transparent that Iran is the more moderate country in the ME. Iran is the one fighting the ISIS whereas Saudis are the reason ISIS came into existence. Khamenei issued a fatwa that banned the production of nuclear weapons. Imagine the backfire should it become known that Iran is indeed making atomic bombs. He'll lose support in a matter of days. I don't think one would be willing to put himself in such a spot unless he truly has given up on building the bomb. On the other hand we have the Saudis. These are the same people who do suicide bombings. To them nothing matters. They have not issued any fatwa against building atomic bombs. These people are way more dangerous than Iran and yet Israel has full support for them. Iran isn't seeking to destroy Israel rather this "let's destroy Israel" is a propaganda tool used by Iran to attract Muslims to its alleged cause. Given the fact that Iran is Shia dominant while most of the ME are Sunnis, it was indeed a wise move back then but now Iran is willing to give up on that without even blinking an eye I can assure you.

That's why I say it's all about power struggle. Iran, Israel, US, Saudis etc. they are all trying to figure out who is an ally and who is an enemy. For now Iran is left alone but we should wait and see what's about to come.