What do Netanyahu's friends in Congress think of his now opposing a Palestinian State?
After hailing him as their go to guy on security issues in the Middle East, Netanyahu is now two for two in opting for permanent wars. Are Congressional Republicans and their Democratic Israel hawk partners prepared now to abandon a two state solution for Palestine and Israel, once again following Netanyahu's lead? What do Boehner, McConnell McCain, Cruz, Paul, Rubio, Menendez and Schumer have to say now? If a path to official statehood for Palestine is blocked, is there anyone who doubts that endless war and terrorism in that region would follow? Does the U.S. Congress still believe that Netanyahu better represents U.S. Security interests than the American President? It's not enough that Netanyhu was itching for one armed conflict, now he is courting two.
No one who actually has followed the multi-national negotiations about Iran's nuclear program seriously believe that the U.S. can back away from a pending negotiated settlement, follow that up with imposing harsher economic sanctions, and have the international community (including Russia and China) continue to honor ANY economic sanctions against Iran. It's a strategy that REMOVES whatever incentives there are for Iran NOT to develop nuclear weapons. To the contrary, it gives them all the more incentive to do exactly that because they will start bracing for inevitable war.
All the experts say that bombing can not stop Iran's nuclear program, just set it back a couple of years. Iran is an advanced technological state with the full capacity to reconstruct their nuclear program, if we bomb it, in sites impervious to American bombs. Why wouldn't they? Virtually the entire Iranian population will be furious at the West if we bomb them, they will want revenge. And there is nothing like actually having nukes to deter any aggressor from continually attacking you.
So what of it, all you American political leaders - Republicans included, who have at the very least given previous lip service to a two state solution, is Bibi still your guy? Or are you too chicken shit to speak up about America's own foreign policy until after Israel forms its next government?
= new reply since forum marked as read
I still feel that way based on his persistence and despite those who he depends on
offering him poor advice on the break out theory..over blown, and without merit.
One serious problem for Netanyahu was when Pardo stated that even a nuclear
Iran would not pose an existential threat to Israel even if they did end up
with nuclear weapons. The irony has been for years that it is Netanyahu who has
created the hostilities and created a boogey man when there was no such thing.
I believe the documentation is solid on that, indicating that Bibi, once briefed as far
back as the late 90's had actually dropped his claim they were a threat. Then began again,
but not due to any legitimate reasons.
Decades of failed foreign policies and now a change that has been long overdue.
I am kind of shocked more people are not excited..but maybe they are and you're
just one I have noticed feels the same way as I.
snip* What induced Netanyahu to start selling the snake oil of Iran as menace to Israel was not any new evidence of Iranian interest in nuclear weapons or hostility toward Israel. It was the fear of a rapprochement between the Clinton administration and the newly elected Khatami government and the hope of depriving Iran of what was assumed to be Russian assistance for building missiles that could reach Israel.
Netanyahu was alarmed by the signals from both Tehran and Washington in the summer of 1997 indicating interest in reducing tensions between the two countries. That would have represented a real threat to Israel’s political and strategic interests, and he was determined to cut it short. Netanyahu’s response was to start to begin sending messages to Iran through other governments that Israel would carry out pre-emptive strikes against Iranian missile development sites unless it stopped its ballistic missile program.
It was a reckless tactic that would not cause Iran to stop working on missiles, but could well provoke a much tougher Iranian public posture toward Israel. That, in turn, would allow Netanyahu to put pressure on the Clinton administration to steer clear of any warming relations with Iran.
Netanyahu’s indirect threats did cause Iran to focus much more on the potential threat from Israel in its missile program, making Iran and Israel strategic adversaries for the first time. Netanyahu bears personal responsibility for having created a conflict with Iran that had never existed before. But it is not the conflict that he has been alleging all these years.
Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. [This story first appeared at Middle East Eye.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/06/behind-israels-hostility-toward-iran/
