In an Iran vs. Israeli war does anyone really doubt that Obama would be helping Iran? Even so, Israel will not let Iran have nukes, no matter how much Obama wants them to have them and helps them get them.





“I met Secretary Kerry right before he leaves to Geneva,” said Netanyhau. “I reminded him that he said that no deal is better than a bad deal. That the deal that is being discussed in Geneva right now is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. Iran is not required to take apart even one centrifuge. But the international community is relieving sanctions on Iran for the first time after many years. Iran gets everything that it wanted at this stage and it pays nothing. And this is when Iran is under severe pressure. I urge Secretary Kerry not to rush to sign, to wait, to reconsider, to get a good deal. But this is a bad deal–a very, very bad deal. It’s the deal of a century for Iran; it’s a very dangerous and bad deal for peace and the international community.”

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/netany...66449.html

I understand Netty's stance. He is right to not trust the Iranians. I do however feel we have an opportunity here. It just must come with conditions attached to assure that they are abiding by their word...Verification must be unconditional. They must submit to inspection.

BTW...Netty has a horrible comb over. Maybe one of the worst.

If you like your allies, you can keep your allies.

This was a bit interesting. I'm glad to see Obama's foreign diplomacy working so well.

"Nuclear rights in the international framework, including uranium enrichment, on its soil" are not negotiable, Rouhani was quoted as saying by the semiofficial ISNA news agency. "For us, red lines are not crossable."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/...uke-talks/

Bibi isn't operating in US strategic interests.

1) Simply talking with Iran isn't necessarily a bad thing. Relaxing a piece of the sanctions in order to see what the new Iranian gov't is willing to do in response isn't a bad plan. There ARE people in Iran, even in the government, who want Iran to move away from its current stance. The only question is do those people have any real power in Iran's government? Obama isn't giving away the store.

2) Bibi keeps doing things that aren't in US strategic interest, such as expanding settlements on the West Bank and continuing to seize land from the Palestinians. This doesn't advance peace. I'd argue that it doesn't advance Israel's position either.

3) If Bibi wants to attack Iran, go right ahead. Just don't ask us to assist them in any significant way. We should be moving out of the Middle East, not into it.

4) Bibi hates Obama and is willing to damage US strategic interests in the region to attempt to damage Obama. A majority of American Jews support Obama over Bibi, as well as a large number of Jewish Israelis as well.

5) Obama has done more to isolate and harm Iran than any other US President, including Bush. That's the reason the Iranians are talking now.

must see ... Simon Henderson, Baker Institute at the Washington Institute for Near East Peace



Sobriety may induce reasonable comments at a later time...

(11-10-2013 11:20 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Bibi isn't operating in US strategic interests.

1) Simply talking with Iran isn't necessarily a bad thing. Relaxing a piece of the sanctions in order to see what the new Iranian gov't is willing to do in response isn't a bad plan. There ARE people in Iran, even in the government, who want Iran to move away from its current stance. The only question is do those people have any real power in Iran's government? Obama isn't giving away the store.

2) Bibi keeps doing things that aren't in US strategic interest, such as expanding settlements on the West Bank and continuing to seize land from the Palestinians. This doesn't advance peace. I'd argue that it doesn't advance Israel's position either.

3) If Bibi wants to attack Iran, go right ahead. Just don't ask us to assist them in any significant way. We should be moving out of the Middle East, not into it.

4) Bibi hates Obama and is willing to damage US strategic interests in the region to attempt to damage Obama. A majority of American Jews support Obama over Bibi, as well as a large number of Jewish Israelis as well.

5) Obama has done more to isolate and harm Iran than any other US President, including Bush. That's the reason the Iranians are talking now.

Point number 5 is specious. Iran has played both Bush and Obama, and it is simply embarrassing.

Point number 4 is about five points in one.

4a. Bibi hates Obama. That is hard to understate, but it is a gross understatement.
4b. Bibi willing to damage US strategic interests in the region to damage Obama
4c. A majority of American Jews support Obama ... perplexing, but probably true.
4d. A majority of American Jews support Obama over Bibi ... a complete different question
4e. A majority of Israeli Jews support Obama over Bibi

With regards to 4b, methinks Bibi is attempting to advance the strategic interests (in his perception) of the state of Israel, and doesn't genuinely give a **** about Obama. Given that the primary strategic interest of Israel is existence (important to Israel moreso than any other nation because of the tangible existential threats that all of its neighbors pose to it, none moreso than Iran at this point in time). So, this is an egotistical expression of American liberals more than anything else.

With regards to 4d... this is complex, and even those that are all in with Obama, I think are highly ambivalent about holocaust deniers with nukes. At least, I'd hope they're not that naive.

4e. seems highly doubtful, but I don't have any objective or subjective basis to tell. It's certain that O is highly unpopular with some segment of the population. It seems highly doubtful to me that this could possibly be true, especially in light of Kerry's recent comments, but I'll await your attempt to substantiate this claim. And, by substantiate, I mean provide something of substance, just so we're clear.

Bump. Now that firmbizzle has sobered from self-medication, I'd be interested to see Tom's response to the above.

Saved by the French.

Never thought I'd ever be saying that.

(11-12-2013 01:02 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(11-10-2013 11:20 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Bibi isn't operating in US strategic interests.

1) Simply talking with Iran isn't necessarily a bad thing. Relaxing a piece of the sanctions in order to see what the new Iranian gov't is willing to do in response isn't a bad plan. There ARE people in Iran, even in the government, who want Iran to move away from its current stance. The only question is do those people have any real power in Iran's government? Obama isn't giving away the store.

2) Bibi keeps doing things that aren't in US strategic interest, such as expanding settlements on the West Bank and continuing to seize land from the Palestinians. This doesn't advance peace. I'd argue that it doesn't advance Israel's position either.


3) If Bibi wants to attack Iran, go right ahead. Just don't ask us to assist them in any significant way. We should be moving out of the Middle East, not into it.

4) Bibi hates Obama and is willing to damage US strategic interests in the region to attempt to damage Obama. A majority of American Jews support Obama over Bibi, as well as a large number of Jewish Israelis as well.

5) Obama has done more to isolate and harm Iran than any other US President, including Bush. That's the reason the Iranians are talking now.

Point number 5 is specious. Iran has played both Bush and Obama, and it is simply embarrassing.

Point number 4 is about five points in one.

4a. Bibi hates Obama. That is hard to understate, but it is a gross understatement.
4b. Bibi willing to damage US strategic interests in the region to damage Obama
4c. A majority of American Jews support Obama ... perplexing, but probably true.
4d. A majority of American Jews support Obama over Bibi ... a complete different question
4e. A majority of Israeli Jews support Obama over Bibi

With regards to 4b, methinks Bibi is attempting to advance the strategic interests (in his perception) of the state of Israel, and doesn't genuinely give a **** about Obama. Given that the primary strategic interest of Israel is existence (important to Israel moreso than any other nation because of the tangible existential threats that all of its neighbors pose to it, none moreso than Iran at this point in time). So, this is an egotistical expression of American liberals more than anything else.

With regards to 4d... this is complex, and even those that are all in with Obama, I think are highly ambivalent about holocaust deniers with nukes. At least, I'd hope they're not that naive.

4e. seems highly doubtful, but I don't have any objective or subjective basis to tell. It's certain that O is highly unpopular with some segment of the population. It seems highly doubtful to me that this could possibly be true, especially in light of Kerry's recent comments, but I'll await your attempt to substantiate this claim. And, by substantiate, I mean provide something of substance, just so we're clear.

Bibi doesn't care about Obama. Or the US's policy goals in the region. Or the views of the millions of Israeli's that live in the Coastal Strip. I've been to Israel btw.

Obama is unpopular with the undemocratic settler movement and their supporters in Israel. He's not unpopular with the people in Tel Aviv or Haifa or the Kinnaret.
We don't owe Bibi squat.

Obama, not Bush, got the sanctions passed and implemented that have brought Iran's economy to its knees. Iran is starting to look for a way out. Obama is going to talk. As he should.

Let's be honest, it isn't in Israel's interests for us to even be civil with Iran.

(11-13-2013 02:01 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Let's be honest, it isn't in Israel's interests for us to even be civil with Iran.

But it just MIGHT be in the US's strategic interest to be talking to them. We don't believe them yet, nor should we give away the farm, but putting together a package that just MIGHT get us f out of the Middle East is, IMHO, in US strategic interests.

We will be an oil EXPORTER in 3 years. We don't need Gulf Oil. Its Europe's, and Asia's problem to play policeman there.

(11-13-2013 02:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 02:01 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Let's be honest, it isn't in Israel's interests for us to even be civil with Iran.

But it just MIGHT be in the US's strategic interest to be talking to them. We don't believe them yet, nor should we give away the farm, but putting together a package that just MIGHT get us f out of the Middle East is, IMHO, in US strategic interests.

We will be an oil EXPORTER in 3 years. We don't need Gulf Oil. Its Europe's, and Asia's problem to play policeman there.

Notice how I made no mention of our interests.

(11-13-2013 02:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 02:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 02:01 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Let's be honest, it isn't in Israel's interests for us to even be civil with Iran.

But it just MIGHT be in the US's strategic interest to be talking to them. We don't believe them yet, nor should we give away the farm, but putting together a package that just MIGHT get us f out of the Middle East is, IMHO, in US strategic interests.

We will be an oil EXPORTER in 3 years. We don't need Gulf Oil. Its Europe's, and Asia's problem to play policeman there.

Notice how I made no mention of our interests.

Wasn't disagreeing with you.

(11-13-2013 02:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 02:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 02:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 02:01 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Let's be honest, it isn't in Israel's interests for us to even be civil with Iran.

But it just MIGHT be in the US's strategic interest to be talking to them. We don't believe them yet, nor should we give away the farm, but putting together a package that just MIGHT get us f out of the Middle East is, IMHO, in US strategic interests.

We will be an oil EXPORTER in 3 years. We don't need Gulf Oil. Its Europe's, and Asia's problem to play policeman there.

Notice how I made no mention of our interests.

Wasn't disagreeing with you.

Getting along with folks is always in our long term interests. The Israelis have always done a wonderful job of trying to make our interest and theirs appear the same when in reality they couldn't be more divergent.

(11-13-2013 02:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 02:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 02:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 02:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 02:01 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Let's be honest, it isn't in Israel's interests for us to even be civil with Iran.

But it just MIGHT be in the US's strategic interest to be talking to them. We don't believe them yet, nor should we give away the farm, but putting together a package that just MIGHT get us f out of the Middle East is, IMHO, in US strategic interests.

We will be an oil EXPORTER in 3 years. We don't need Gulf Oil. Its Europe's, and Asia's problem to play policeman there.

Notice how I made no mention of our interests.

Wasn't disagreeing with you.

Getting along with folks is always in our long term interests. The Israelis have always done a wonderful job of trying to make our interest and theirs appear the same when in reality they couldn't be more divergent.

Agreed. I loathe Iran's government (for very good reason). But it looks like there are people, within Iran, that might be willing to try to change things. This should be encouraged.

I support Tel Aviv, Haifa, and the Kinnaret and think that those portions of Israel deserve our support. The West Bank settlements are a problem IMHO.

(11-13-2013 02:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 02:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 02:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 02:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 02:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  But it just MIGHT be in the US's strategic interest to be talking to them. We don't believe them yet, nor should we give away the farm, but putting together a package that just MIGHT get us f out of the Middle East is, IMHO, in US strategic interests.

We will be an oil EXPORTER in 3 years. We don't need Gulf Oil. Its Europe's, and Asia's problem to play policeman there.

Notice how I made no mention of our interests.

Wasn't disagreeing with you.

Getting along with folks is always in our long term interests. The Israelis have always done a wonderful job of trying to make our interest and theirs appear the same when in reality they couldn't be more divergent.

Agreed. I loathe Iran's government (for very good reason). But it looks like there are people, within Iran, that might be willing to try to change things. This should be encouraged.

I'd imagine this is our long range plan. However, we have a sh!tty way of showing it given the people tried to rise up a couple of years ago and we did nothing.

(11-13-2013 02:45 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 02:43 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 02:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 02:19 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(11-13-2013 02:17 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Notice how I made no mention of our interests.

Wasn't disagreeing with you.

Getting along with folks is always in our long term interests. The Israelis have always done a wonderful job of trying to make our interest and theirs appear the same when in reality they couldn't be more divergent.

Agreed. I loathe Iran's government (for very good reason). But it looks like there are people, within Iran, that might be willing to try to change things. This should be encouraged.

I'd imagine this is our long range plan. However, we have a sh!tty way of showing it given the people tried to rise up a couple of years ago and we did nothing.

What would you have expected the USA to do? We're not invading.

The natural political evolution of any other sovereign state shouldn't be our business period. By making it so we create the problem that we must then react to.