Posted on 03/03/2015 11:02:17 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
After weeks of hype and in the face of a concerted sabotage campaign by the White House and many of its allies in Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seized the moment and delivered a powerful message against the emerging nuclear deal with Iran.
With a mix of passion and steadfastness combined with a detailed prosecutor-like approach, Netanyahu exposed the deal being pushed by President Obama. In short, Netanyahu explained why the deal would guarantee that Iran would obtain a nuclear weapon — a possibility that would not only put Israel at risk of annihilation, but threaten global security.
Netanyahu struck a bipartisan tone, thanking Congress — as well as Obama — for supporting Israel. But he spared no punches when it came to the deal itself. "This is a bad deal," he said. "It's a very bad deal. We're better off without it."
The Israeli leader raised two fundamental problems with the deal. First, it allows Iran to maintain its nuclear architecture — not a single facility would be destroyed, thousands of centrifuges would continue to spin — and the deal also doesn't address Iran's missile program. Though the deal would impose inspections, Netanyahu noted that at best, all inspections can do is detect whether a nation is building a bomb. It cannot prevent Iran from building one. He noted that Iran has cheated in the past, and wouldn't hesitate to do so again — and noted how the inspections regime had failed to prevent North Korea from developing a nuclear arsenal.
Furthermore, the emerging deal, as confirmed by Obama in a Reuters interview, would remove restrictions after a decade, making it only a matter of time before the nation goes nuclear.
As Netanyahu outlined, Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and "Death To America," and has, over 36 years, been a leading state sponsor of terrorism. It is now expanding its influence due to the power vacuum in the Middle East. If Iran is rewarded for this behavior, Netanyahu argued persuasively, what reason is there to believe that it would modify its behavior over the next decade?
"Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger?" Netanyahu asked. "If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it's under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?"
He continued, "Why should Iran's radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both worlds: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?"
Netanyahu also dismissed the idea that there was no alternative to this bad deal.
"If Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff," he said. "They'll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do. And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more."
The speech was interrupted dozens of times for standing ovations and robust applause, though Republicans were far more enthusiastic in their support. This did not sit well with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. From my seat in the press gallery, Pelosi could be seen as noticeably frustrated throughout the speech by Netanyahu's reception and strong performance during each successive standing ovation.
She left immediately after the speech ended and offered a blistering statement, saying, "I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister's speech — saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation."
For years, Obama, administration officials and Democrats have insisted that they're serious about preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. But Obama's own description of the emerging deal sounds more like a policy for containing an inevitable nuclear Iran rather than preventing one in the first place. Meanwhile, his National Security Adviser Susan Susan Rice declared last night that stopping Iran from enriching uranium was "simply unattainable."
So the ball is now in the court of Congress. Will members do everything in their power to block a deal that would give Iran a nuclear weapon? Or will congressional Democrats put their partisan loyalty for Obama over American national security interests?
This is the speech an American President SHOULD have made.
But, since there is no entity worthy of the name “the United States of America” any longer, the head of one of the few representative republics remaining the world had to step in and say what the Current Occupant should have been saying, but will not.
I only wish Netanyahu had brought along an empty chair to set beside him, and that he spoke to the the president while looking at the empty chair
That would have been beautiful. Clint Eastwood could have been on hand to help if needed,altho I think Mr. Netanyahu could handle it.
Now the NeoCons and Likudniks say we have to go to war with Iran. Which we will.
I imagine that Iran will be a lot more difficult than Iraq and Afghanistan combined
[[I imagine that Iran will be a lot more difficult than Iraq and Afghanistan combined ]]
Not nearly as difficult as IF they get the nuke- or several nukes!
What we need is dire prophetic warning which is just what Netanyahu provided.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.