Israel Needs to Accept a Nuclear Iran (1 Viewer)

[SaintsInDome2006]

Report: Obama Has Cut Intelligence Cooperation with IsraelIsraeli report indicates a deep crisis as disagreement on Iran has stopped cooperation for IAEA reports on Iranian nuclear facilities.
In response to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's opposition to the nuclear deal he warns threatens Israel's very existence, US President Barack Obama's administration has reportedly cut American intelligence cooperation with Israel.

A report on Monday night by the Hebrew-language Channel 10, notes that the cooperation between Israeli and American intelligence agencies until now has aided the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in formulating reports on Iran's nuclear program, reports that advanced the sanctions against the Islamic regime.
At the moment, while Israel is cooperating with various countries in terms of intelligence on Iran's nuclear program, the cooperation with the United States has stopped according to the report.

In closed conversations senior sources in the White House have expressed concerns that Netanyahu will reveal details Obama has kept secret from the nuclear deal being sealed with Iran, according to the news channel.

While US Secretary of State John Kerry has claimed Israel isn't familiar with the details of the plan, that claim was undermined when Kerry on Monday asked Netanyahu not to reveal certain details in his Congress speech Tuesday.

According to senior Israeli sources cited in the report, Obama has not only made clear he will not meet with Netanyahu, but is even refusing to talk with the Israeli prime minister on the telephone during his visit.

The report is not the first indicating a harsh backlash by the Obama administration against Netanyahu's opposition to the nuclear deal.

On Monday the US denied Israeli reports that it plans to cut defense aid to Israel over the disagreement. Previously another report by a Kuwaiti paper claimed that Obama had threatened to shoot down an IAF strike on Iran's nuclear facilities; the US denied that report as well.

Israel warns that the Iranian deal will leave Iran with nuclear breakout capability, by which it will be able to continue enriching uranium and produce a nuclear weapon within a very short window of time at the moment of its choosing.

Likewise Netanyahu has pointed out that Iran has threatened Israel with annihilation on many occasions, even as it advances its nuclear program and continues to be the leading state sponsor of terrorism.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/192044#.VPXlneGOvW9

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Iran's Leaders Are Not SuicidalCritics of a nuclear deal claim the regime in Tehran is fanatical. Where's their evidence?

I often appreciate David Brooks’s columns, even when I disagree with them. I appreciate them because Brooks is more a conservative than a Republican. He roots his arguments in conservative virtues like tradition, order, and a belief in human fallibility, not in the GOP talking points of the day. And in creative ways, he spots the cultural divisions that lie beneath policy spats. On domestic policy, he carries the largely forgotten spirit of 1970s “neoconservatism,” embodied by men like Daniel Bell, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Nathan Glazer, who emphasized the limits of government planning without romanticizing unfettered capitalism.

But on foreign policy, which Brooks thankfully writes about less, his style changes. The generalizations expand and the evidence contracts. And he resembles less the empirically minded domestic-policy “neoconservatives” of the 1970s than the foreign-policy zealots who stole their good name.

His latest column, about the perils of striking a nuclear deal with the Iranian government, offers an example. Brooks starts by declaring that, “Over the past centuries, Western diplomats have continually projected pragmatism onto their ideological opponents.” That’s true. What’s also true—but Brooks doesn’t acknowledge—is that Western diplomats have erred in the opposite way: by overestimating ideology and underplaying national interest. Western diplomats who viewed Hitler and Stalin as ideologically antithetical were baffled when they joined forces in 1939 to carve up much of Eastern Europe. Western diplomats who assumed that a shared commitment to communism made Russia, China, and Vietnam permanent allies were astonished when Russia and China became bitter enemies and when Vietnam and China went to war.

The past several centuries are replete with diplomatic mistakes, but what makes learning from those mistakes so hard is that they don’t all teach the same lesson. Just as investors sometimes go bankrupt because they assume too much risk and sometimes go bankrupt because they assume too little risk, governments sometimes incur danger by underestimating the zealotry of their foes and sometimes incur danger by overestimating it. Contrary to Brooks’s implication, hundreds of years of “Western” foreign policy cannot be boiled down to: Always assume that your foes are ideological fanatics willing to risk everything to dominate the world.

...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/irans-leaders-are-not-suicidal-nuclear-deal/386507/

 

[Clifford]

Come on, cut that aid Barry! We give them something like 1.5 billion in military aid alone every year. Cut all foreign aid!! Do it. Where is the ####### ROI on these billions we just give away every year? Israel doesn't listen to us, Egypt sure as #### doesn't...why give them money? What are we buying?

 

[Bucky86]

Is Saints the new Jim11?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Israel and many observers say leaving this infrastructure around is a recipe for disaster because the centrifuges can easily be turned back on once the agreement expires. As Netanyahu told an audience at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) Monday, “Israel and the United States agree that Iran should not have nuclear weapons, but we disagree on the best way to prevent Iran from developing those weapons.”If Netanyahu decides to elaborate on this point, he will risk the wrath of the Obama administration. Indeed, it looks like top administration officials are already laying the groundwork for painting Netanyahu’s speech as a betrayal.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-03/netanyahu-can-slow-obama-s-rush-to-peace

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Is Saints the new Jim11?

Hey man, I'm being pretty even handed here don't you think? The Atlantic article is good for sure.

I just wanted to tee up a thread for people's comments when Bibi speaks. Apologies if too heavy handed, seriously.

I'll hang up and listen.

 

[jonessed]

Is Saints the new Jim11?

Hey man, I'm being pretty even handed here don't you think? The Atlantic article is good for sure.

I just wanted to tee up a thread for people's comments when Bibi speaks. Apologies if too heavy handed, seriously.

I'll hang up and listen.

If the Atlantic is too conservative for Bucky he's in no position to be criticizing partisanship.