9 aug 2015
|
|
US president says PM is wrong on 'substance' of nuclear deal with Iran; 'I think that the basic assumptions that he's made are incorrect,' he says.
US President Barack Obama told CNN he does not remember a time in which a foreign leader interfered in American politics the way Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been doing in his efforts to thwart the nuclear deal with Tehran. In an interview scheduled to air on Sunday, Fareed Zakaria asked the president whether it was "appropriate of a foreign head of government to inject himself into an American affair," to which the president responded he does not recall such an example. He asserted that "on the substance, the prime minister is wrong on this. I think that the basic assumptions that he's made are incorrect. If, in fact, my argument is right that this is the best way for Iran not to get a nuclear weapon, then that's not just good for the United States, that is very good for Israel." In another clip from the interview recorded on Thursday, Obama elaborated on his comment that "Iran's hardliners were making common cause with the Republicans," saying both share the same "ideological commitment not to get a deal done." Obama told Zakaria that a constructive relationship with Iran could be a byproduct of the deal, but it won't happen immediately. If at all. Iran's "nuclear problem" must be dealt with first, the president said. The agreement reached last month by the US and five other world powers to remove crippling economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear program achieves that goal "better than any alternative," he added. Obama asserted that resolving the Iranian nuclear issue makes it possible to open broader talks with Iran on other issues. He named Syria as an example. "Is there the possibility that having begun conversations around this narrow issue that you start getting some broader discussions about Syria, for example, and the ability of all the parties involved to try to arrive at a political transition that keeps the country intact and does not further fuel the growth of ISIS and other terrorist organizations. I think that's possible," Obama said, referring to the Islamic State group by one of its acronyms. "But I don't think it happens immediately." The interview was taped hours before Chuck Schumer, the Senate's leading Jewish Democrat, announced he would oppose the agreement. Congress is expected to vote in September on a measure disapproving the deal, which Obama has promised a swift veto. Lawmakers would then have to find enough votes to override the president. In the interview, Obama did not answer directly when asked whether he would have to use military force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon if the deal falls through. "I have a general policy on big issues like this not to anticipate failure," Obama said. "And I'm not going to anticipate failure now because I think we have the better argument." On Saturday, 29 American scientists sent a letter to President Obama praising the Iran deal and calling it "innovative" and "stringent," the New |
York Times reported. The two-page letter was signed by some of the world's top nuclear weapons and arms control, including Nobel laureates, nuclear scientists and former White House science advisers.
5 aug 2015
US president delivers speech at university defending nuclear agreement, saying that alternative to diplomacy is war.
President Barack Obama said Wednesday that every country that has commented on the Iran nuclear deal has supported it — except for Israel. Obama singled out Israel's government in a speech about the deal at American University. He described opponents of the deal as outliers and noted that the deal has support from non-proliferation experts and former ambassadors from both political parties.
"A nuclear armed Iran is far more dangerous to Israel, to America, and to the world than an Iran that benefits from sanctions relief," said the president. "I recognize that prime minister Netanyahu disagrees, disagrees strongly. I do not doubt his sincerity, but I believe he is wrong. I believe the facts support this deal."
Asserting that claims about dangers allegedly posed by the deal are overblown, Obama said that "there is no scenario where sanctions relief turns Iran into the region's dominant power. Iran's defense budget is eight times smaller than the combined budget of our Gulf allies. Their conventional capabilities will never compare to Israel's, and our commitment to Israel's qualitative military edge helps guarantee that."
The president also said the choice on the Iran nuclear deal is between diplomacy and some form of war. He said that if Iran fails to abide by the deal, it's possible the US would have no alternative to using military force against Iran. He said he hasn't shied away from using force when necessary, pointing out that he's ordered military action in seven countries and has sent thousands of American troops into battle.
But Obama added that the US can't justify war in good conscience before testing a diplomatic agreement that could meet its objectives.
Obama framed the deal as the nation's most consequential foreign policy debate since the authorization of the Iraq war, a now unpopular decision that still reverberates through American politics. He argued that the people who supported the Iraq war now oppose the diplomatic deal with Iran.
The president stated that the Iran nuclear accord builds on an American tradition of "strong, principled diplomacy" with adversaries, including the former Soviet Union.
The president launched a detailed explanation of how and why the US and international partners reached a landmark agreement that aims to curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in relief from sanctions. Walking through components of the lengthy agreement, he said all of Iran's pathways to a bomb would be cut off.
"This is the strongest nonproliferation ever negotiated," he declared.
Obama also said that a block of the Iran nuclear deal by US lawmakers would accelerate Iran's path to a nuclear weapon. He argued that Iran will be more capable of building a nuclear weapon if the deal is blocked and a military solution will only drive its nuclear development deeper underground.
"What's more likely to happen should Congress reject this deal," Obama said, "is that Iran would end up with some form of sanctions relief without having to accept any of the constraints or inspections required by this deal. So in that sense, the critics are right. Walk away from this agreement, and you will get a better deal – for Iran."
The president also argued that many of the criticisms, which are made widely by Republicans in Congress, can be attributed to "knee-jerk partisanship" and spread false fears about the deal, which lawmakers are set to vote on next month.
Obama's address was part of an intense summer lobbying campaign by both supporters and opponents of the nuclear deal. Members of Congress will vote next month on a resolution either approving or disapproving the pact.
The backdrop for Obama's speech was meant to link the nuclear accord to a long tradition of American diplomacy, often conducted with unfriendly nations. He spoke at the same university where President John F. Kennedy made a famous call for Cold War diplomacy and nuclear disarmament.
President Barack Obama said Wednesday that every country that has commented on the Iran nuclear deal has supported it — except for Israel. Obama singled out Israel's government in a speech about the deal at American University. He described opponents of the deal as outliers and noted that the deal has support from non-proliferation experts and former ambassadors from both political parties.
"A nuclear armed Iran is far more dangerous to Israel, to America, and to the world than an Iran that benefits from sanctions relief," said the president. "I recognize that prime minister Netanyahu disagrees, disagrees strongly. I do not doubt his sincerity, but I believe he is wrong. I believe the facts support this deal."
Asserting that claims about dangers allegedly posed by the deal are overblown, Obama said that "there is no scenario where sanctions relief turns Iran into the region's dominant power. Iran's defense budget is eight times smaller than the combined budget of our Gulf allies. Their conventional capabilities will never compare to Israel's, and our commitment to Israel's qualitative military edge helps guarantee that."
The president also said the choice on the Iran nuclear deal is between diplomacy and some form of war. He said that if Iran fails to abide by the deal, it's possible the US would have no alternative to using military force against Iran. He said he hasn't shied away from using force when necessary, pointing out that he's ordered military action in seven countries and has sent thousands of American troops into battle.
But Obama added that the US can't justify war in good conscience before testing a diplomatic agreement that could meet its objectives.
Obama framed the deal as the nation's most consequential foreign policy debate since the authorization of the Iraq war, a now unpopular decision that still reverberates through American politics. He argued that the people who supported the Iraq war now oppose the diplomatic deal with Iran.
The president stated that the Iran nuclear accord builds on an American tradition of "strong, principled diplomacy" with adversaries, including the former Soviet Union.
The president launched a detailed explanation of how and why the US and international partners reached a landmark agreement that aims to curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in relief from sanctions. Walking through components of the lengthy agreement, he said all of Iran's pathways to a bomb would be cut off.
"This is the strongest nonproliferation ever negotiated," he declared.
Obama also said that a block of the Iran nuclear deal by US lawmakers would accelerate Iran's path to a nuclear weapon. He argued that Iran will be more capable of building a nuclear weapon if the deal is blocked and a military solution will only drive its nuclear development deeper underground.
"What's more likely to happen should Congress reject this deal," Obama said, "is that Iran would end up with some form of sanctions relief without having to accept any of the constraints or inspections required by this deal. So in that sense, the critics are right. Walk away from this agreement, and you will get a better deal – for Iran."
The president also argued that many of the criticisms, which are made widely by Republicans in Congress, can be attributed to "knee-jerk partisanship" and spread false fears about the deal, which lawmakers are set to vote on next month.
Obama's address was part of an intense summer lobbying campaign by both supporters and opponents of the nuclear deal. Members of Congress will vote next month on a resolution either approving or disapproving the pact.
The backdrop for Obama's speech was meant to link the nuclear accord to a long tradition of American diplomacy, often conducted with unfriendly nations. He spoke at the same university where President John F. Kennedy made a famous call for Cold War diplomacy and nuclear disarmament.
29 july 2015
An Israeli youth holds a picture of Jonathan Pollard, during a demonstration for his release in Jerusalem on July 13, 2010.
Jonathan Pollard, a former US Navy analyst convicted of spying for Israel, will be released on parole November 21, after serving 30 years in prison, his lawyers said Tuesday.
"The decision to grant parole was made unanimously by the three members of the (US) Parole Commission, who make their decisions independently of any other US government agency," the lawyers said in a statement. "The decision is not connected to recent developments in the Middle East."
According to AFP, the statement comes amid allegations that Pollard's release is tied to attempts by the US to make reparations to Israel following the recent nuclear deal with Iran.
Israel vehemently opposed the deal that was sealed earlier this month under which Iran promised major world powers to dismantle or mothball much of its nuclear industry in return for an easing and eventual lifting of international sanctions against the Islamic republic.
Israeli lawmaker Nahman Shai, chairman of parliament's lobby for Jonathan Pollard, said on Sunday that he believed a decision to release Pollard could be linked to the storm over Iran.
"I wouldn't rule it out," he said.
"The Americans are looking for ways to placate Israel, there's no doubt about that," Shai, of the opposition Zionist Union party, told public radio.
"They are aware of the anger and bitterness in Israel, both in political circles and among the general public. "Pollard in their eyes is a kind of candy which could sweeten somewhat the bitterness over the Iran agreement."
A US-born Israeli, Pollard was arrested in 1985 and two years later was sentenced to life in prison for passing American intelligence on Arab and Pakistani weapons to Israel.
Pollard becomes eligible for parole in November, and the US Justice Department indicated on Thursday that it would not oppose his release.
"The Department of Justice has always and continues to maintain that Jonathan Pollard should serve his full sentence for the serious crimes he committed, which in this case is a 30-year sentence as mandated by statute," its spokesman Marc Raimondi said.
Jonathan Pollard, a former US Navy analyst convicted of spying for Israel, will be released on parole November 21, after serving 30 years in prison, his lawyers said Tuesday.
"The decision to grant parole was made unanimously by the three members of the (US) Parole Commission, who make their decisions independently of any other US government agency," the lawyers said in a statement. "The decision is not connected to recent developments in the Middle East."
According to AFP, the statement comes amid allegations that Pollard's release is tied to attempts by the US to make reparations to Israel following the recent nuclear deal with Iran.
Israel vehemently opposed the deal that was sealed earlier this month under which Iran promised major world powers to dismantle or mothball much of its nuclear industry in return for an easing and eventual lifting of international sanctions against the Islamic republic.
Israeli lawmaker Nahman Shai, chairman of parliament's lobby for Jonathan Pollard, said on Sunday that he believed a decision to release Pollard could be linked to the storm over Iran.
"I wouldn't rule it out," he said.
"The Americans are looking for ways to placate Israel, there's no doubt about that," Shai, of the opposition Zionist Union party, told public radio.
"They are aware of the anger and bitterness in Israel, both in political circles and among the general public. "Pollard in their eyes is a kind of candy which could sweeten somewhat the bitterness over the Iran agreement."
A US-born Israeli, Pollard was arrested in 1985 and two years later was sentenced to life in prison for passing American intelligence on Arab and Pakistani weapons to Israel.
Pollard becomes eligible for parole in November, and the US Justice Department indicated on Thursday that it would not oppose his release.
"The Department of Justice has always and continues to maintain that Jonathan Pollard should serve his full sentence for the serious crimes he committed, which in this case is a 30-year sentence as mandated by statute," its spokesman Marc Raimondi said.
25 july 2015
The Israeli Air Force has previously carried out airstrikes on Iraqi nuclear sites, to deter its neighbouring countries from acquiring the same technology as itself
US Secretary of State John Kerry told NBC's Today show on Friday that an Israeli attack on Iran over its nuclear programme would be a "huge mistake."
According to Quds Press, Kerry made his comment when asked if Iran's nuclear agreement would make Israel likely to launch an attack. "That would be an enormous mistake," said Kerry, "a huge mistake with grave consequences for Israel and for the region, and I do not think it is necessary." If such a strike took place, he added, Iran would then have a reason to say, 'Well, this is why we need the bomb.'
The former head of the Israeli army's Planning Directorate, Major General Nimrod Shefer, has been reported as saying that the government in Tel Aviv retains the military option to deal with the Iranian issue. "The military option over the Iranian nuclear program could achieve a lot if the political leadership gives the go ahead," he said.
US Secretary of State John Kerry told NBC's Today show on Friday that an Israeli attack on Iran over its nuclear programme would be a "huge mistake."
According to Quds Press, Kerry made his comment when asked if Iran's nuclear agreement would make Israel likely to launch an attack. "That would be an enormous mistake," said Kerry, "a huge mistake with grave consequences for Israel and for the region, and I do not think it is necessary." If such a strike took place, he added, Iran would then have a reason to say, 'Well, this is why we need the bomb.'
The former head of the Israeli army's Planning Directorate, Major General Nimrod Shefer, has been reported as saying that the government in Tel Aviv retains the military option to deal with the Iranian issue. "The military option over the Iranian nuclear program could achieve a lot if the political leadership gives the go ahead," he said.
Avigdor Lieberman, who until recently was a foreign minister in Netanyahu's government, doesn't mince words when talking about his former ally now; 'to handle the Iranian issue, you need to be creative, determined, and know how to make difficult decisions, Netanyahu has none of this.'
"We don't need to form an committee of inquiry; we need to replace the prime minister," says MK Avigdor Lieberman, who until recently was the foreign minister in Netanyahu's government and the man that for years was the prime minister's close confidant and ally.
Lieberman, was answering the question whether he too, like Lapid, thinks there should be a committee of inquiry that would examine the agreement with Iran, responding in the same monotone, slightly drowsy voice with which he answers questions like; "how are you?" or "how do you feel sitting in the opposition?"
"Netanyahu cannot handle the Iranian issue," he says. "And I say this in the clearest way. It's too big for him, this entire issue. I could use all the clichés: 'If you want to shoot, shoot, don't talk' or 'a barking dog doesn't bite.' But the bottom line is that we talked about all of the options so much, that no one is taking us seriously anymore. And now when we start talking about this again, they just laugh at us."
Don't be fooled: Lieberman thinks the deal with Iran is bad. Not just bad, terrible. Not just in the practical sense, but also in the moral sense. In his point of view, the agreement is like the Munich Agreement and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact put together.
"A country that clearly states that its ultimate goal is the annihilation of Israel, while Europe supports this - sitting with the Iranians for dinner, shaking their hands and knowing this is their official policy - that is unacceptable. And it signals all the players in the Middle East that it pays off to be aggressive and extremist, because then everyone wants to appease you. I predict a crazy arms race will start now, including the Egyptians, the Saudis and the Turks. And have no delusions: This will lead to the next conflict. Iran feels on top of the world. The agreement recognizes its special status as a regional power and its appetite and audacity will only increase."
What should we have done that we haven't?
"What should have been done? The cabinet should have made clear decisions. But everything here is blurred, undefined, unfocused. And I had quite a few rifts, some are known and some less so. I remember a conversation I had with Bibi in 2009, before he formed the previous government. I told him: ‘I know what you could do by talking compared to what you could do in practice.’
He is excellent in talking, less so in actions. "What happened when the agreement between Iran and the West was signed was beyond a failure. Netanyahu is incapable and unequipped to deal with it. Period. He knows how to survive. He knows how to talk. He's a great performer. He's a great campaigner. He knows how to make promises he has no intention of keeping. He's a great marketer, perhaps the best we have here.
But all of that is not enough to lead a country, and cannot solve the acute problems we need to deal with.” "The problem is not whether to attack or not," Lieberman says. "A national strategy cannot come down to just this. The problem is the lack of clear strategy both on the Iranian and Palestinian issues. In all of my years in the government, I could not get the cabinet to adopt a clear strategy.
"Even now Netanyahu is not acting right. It's clear there is no chance to thwart the agreement in Congress. It's all one big mistake, his entire feud with President Obama. There are arguments and disagreements, but you don't need to turn it into a public dispute and have the whole world in on it. You are only proving how isolated we are compared to the Iranians.
The United States has a right to think differently. This must not turn into a personal argument, certainly not as a prime minister. You can't keep blaming other people. The Americans are wrong, but from here on out this is our responsibility. The question is, what are we doing. But to throw the blame on them once again is a mistake."
Is Netanyahu doing the right thing by refusing to discuss a generous compensation package and security cooperation with the Americans?
"I wouldn't reject any proposal from the Americans regardless of anything," he says. "And we should already start talking about this. There are circumstances and regional developments that, even without the agreement with Iran, necessitate a reevaluation of the cooperation and military aid. What good is tying this to the attempt to thwart the agreement with Iran? Instead of getting the most cooperation and aid, after the vote in the Senate we will get the minimal amount of aid. This is the wrong attitude.
"Netanyahu wanted to succeed. He was obsessed with the nuclear issue. But it's too much for him. To handle this issue you have to be creative. Determined. To know how to make hard decisions." "And Netanyahu," Lieberman says, "has none of those things."
Severe blow to deterrence
This isn't the only critical mistake Netanyahu has made, according to Lieberman. He has harsh criticism regarding the prime minister's conduct during Operation Protective Edge as well. "How can someone who can't handle Hamas deal with Iran? No one is taking him seriously."
"I don't have delusions of grandeur," he says. "But if I were tasked with handling this issue, I'd know how to do it better than anyone in the State of Israel."
You? How? Like you wanted to deal with the Tehran-Aswan government? (In 2001, while talking to ambassadors from the former Soviet Union, Lieberman suggested blowing up the Aswan Dam and, while at it, bomb Tehran as well)
"I didn't mean to bomb the Aswan Dam," he clarifies. "When I said it, I believed Egyptian president Mubarak would not last and that the regime there would collapse, and that we needed to create deterrence. Today we are in a situation in which we lost deterrence completely. If we can't deal with Hamas, which is at a spitting distance from us, how are we going to deal with Iran?
Everyone immediately interpreted it as if I really meant to bomb Aswan and Tehran. But I was talking about issues that were developing. In 2001, I saw where Iran was heading and what was developing in Egypt and I thought we needed to be ready for it. "When Netanyahu stood in front of the residents of Ashkelon in 2009 and said that if he were elected prime minister, he would bring down the Hamas regime, and when he could have he didn't - that was a fatal blow to deterrence.
I told Bibi before Protective Edge: 'Either you don’t start this at all, or you go all the way.' But this is one of his biggest problems: He says one thing, and does the opposite. Before the elections he said: 'No Palestinian state on my watch.' After the elections, he ran to foreign media to say he didn't mean it. During the elections he was talking about Arabs going in droves to the polls, and after the elections he invited (head of the Joint Arab List) Ayman Odeh to his office."
And why do you think that you could deal with the Iranian issue better than him?
"I know the issue well. I've been dealing with it for many years. But it's not just about being familiar with the issue and understanding it. It's also a matter of personality. You need a person here that has the ability to make decisions with determination and creativity."
And you are the only person who has this?
"There are in Israel other people with quite the potential to lead the country. Good and talented people who are much better than Netanyahu and some of them are better than me in other things. But on the Iranian issue, I'm the most knowledgeable and know best how to deal with it."
How?
"Of course I don't mean to talk about it in public. But I assure you, I have a detailed plan of what needs to be done. I talked about it in the appropriate forums and will continue talking about it at the Subcommittee for Intelligence and Secret Services, which I am a member of."
Needless to say that you agree with Meir Dagan about Netanyahu's personality, but not on the way he thinks Israel needs to deal with Iran?
"Netanyahu is wrong on everything that has to do with handling Iran, but I don't agree with what Dagan said." I reminded him that until recently, he was sitting in Netanyahu's government.
That he participated in cabinet meetings. And furthermore, that he almost joined the current government. "I have a commitment to my voters. My responsibility is first of all to them. And we need to think about what is best for this country, and what's best for Israel is that there is a stable government.
But it's clear to me that we're on a flight going nowhere, that Netanyahu is leading us nowhere. I mean, I was on the inside for six years. I know what's going on in there. I tried to fight from within. It reached a new high during Protective Edge, when I said what I thought during the war. Then we went to elections. What happened, happened. I'm not perfect.
It’s possible I should have left long before that. But the fact of the matter is that I made a difficult decision and in the choice between my principles and a seat in the government, I chose to stay out." When I asked how come he was not able to influence from the inside, Lieberman says Netanyahu excluded everyone from these issues and chose to deal with them on his own.
"I tried to influence. I spoke my mind. But Bibi wouldn't let anyone come near. He made it his exclusive business. Even when he let Livni deal with the Palestinian issue, he paired her up with a Commissar named Yitzhak Molho. That is why I place the responsibility for the failure squarely on his shoulders."
"We don't need to form an committee of inquiry; we need to replace the prime minister," says MK Avigdor Lieberman, who until recently was the foreign minister in Netanyahu's government and the man that for years was the prime minister's close confidant and ally.
Lieberman, was answering the question whether he too, like Lapid, thinks there should be a committee of inquiry that would examine the agreement with Iran, responding in the same monotone, slightly drowsy voice with which he answers questions like; "how are you?" or "how do you feel sitting in the opposition?"
"Netanyahu cannot handle the Iranian issue," he says. "And I say this in the clearest way. It's too big for him, this entire issue. I could use all the clichés: 'If you want to shoot, shoot, don't talk' or 'a barking dog doesn't bite.' But the bottom line is that we talked about all of the options so much, that no one is taking us seriously anymore. And now when we start talking about this again, they just laugh at us."
Don't be fooled: Lieberman thinks the deal with Iran is bad. Not just bad, terrible. Not just in the practical sense, but also in the moral sense. In his point of view, the agreement is like the Munich Agreement and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact put together.
"A country that clearly states that its ultimate goal is the annihilation of Israel, while Europe supports this - sitting with the Iranians for dinner, shaking their hands and knowing this is their official policy - that is unacceptable. And it signals all the players in the Middle East that it pays off to be aggressive and extremist, because then everyone wants to appease you. I predict a crazy arms race will start now, including the Egyptians, the Saudis and the Turks. And have no delusions: This will lead to the next conflict. Iran feels on top of the world. The agreement recognizes its special status as a regional power and its appetite and audacity will only increase."
What should we have done that we haven't?
"What should have been done? The cabinet should have made clear decisions. But everything here is blurred, undefined, unfocused. And I had quite a few rifts, some are known and some less so. I remember a conversation I had with Bibi in 2009, before he formed the previous government. I told him: ‘I know what you could do by talking compared to what you could do in practice.’
He is excellent in talking, less so in actions. "What happened when the agreement between Iran and the West was signed was beyond a failure. Netanyahu is incapable and unequipped to deal with it. Period. He knows how to survive. He knows how to talk. He's a great performer. He's a great campaigner. He knows how to make promises he has no intention of keeping. He's a great marketer, perhaps the best we have here.
But all of that is not enough to lead a country, and cannot solve the acute problems we need to deal with.” "The problem is not whether to attack or not," Lieberman says. "A national strategy cannot come down to just this. The problem is the lack of clear strategy both on the Iranian and Palestinian issues. In all of my years in the government, I could not get the cabinet to adopt a clear strategy.
"Even now Netanyahu is not acting right. It's clear there is no chance to thwart the agreement in Congress. It's all one big mistake, his entire feud with President Obama. There are arguments and disagreements, but you don't need to turn it into a public dispute and have the whole world in on it. You are only proving how isolated we are compared to the Iranians.
The United States has a right to think differently. This must not turn into a personal argument, certainly not as a prime minister. You can't keep blaming other people. The Americans are wrong, but from here on out this is our responsibility. The question is, what are we doing. But to throw the blame on them once again is a mistake."
Is Netanyahu doing the right thing by refusing to discuss a generous compensation package and security cooperation with the Americans?
"I wouldn't reject any proposal from the Americans regardless of anything," he says. "And we should already start talking about this. There are circumstances and regional developments that, even without the agreement with Iran, necessitate a reevaluation of the cooperation and military aid. What good is tying this to the attempt to thwart the agreement with Iran? Instead of getting the most cooperation and aid, after the vote in the Senate we will get the minimal amount of aid. This is the wrong attitude.
"Netanyahu wanted to succeed. He was obsessed with the nuclear issue. But it's too much for him. To handle this issue you have to be creative. Determined. To know how to make hard decisions." "And Netanyahu," Lieberman says, "has none of those things."
Severe blow to deterrence
This isn't the only critical mistake Netanyahu has made, according to Lieberman. He has harsh criticism regarding the prime minister's conduct during Operation Protective Edge as well. "How can someone who can't handle Hamas deal with Iran? No one is taking him seriously."
"I don't have delusions of grandeur," he says. "But if I were tasked with handling this issue, I'd know how to do it better than anyone in the State of Israel."
You? How? Like you wanted to deal with the Tehran-Aswan government? (In 2001, while talking to ambassadors from the former Soviet Union, Lieberman suggested blowing up the Aswan Dam and, while at it, bomb Tehran as well)
"I didn't mean to bomb the Aswan Dam," he clarifies. "When I said it, I believed Egyptian president Mubarak would not last and that the regime there would collapse, and that we needed to create deterrence. Today we are in a situation in which we lost deterrence completely. If we can't deal with Hamas, which is at a spitting distance from us, how are we going to deal with Iran?
Everyone immediately interpreted it as if I really meant to bomb Aswan and Tehran. But I was talking about issues that were developing. In 2001, I saw where Iran was heading and what was developing in Egypt and I thought we needed to be ready for it. "When Netanyahu stood in front of the residents of Ashkelon in 2009 and said that if he were elected prime minister, he would bring down the Hamas regime, and when he could have he didn't - that was a fatal blow to deterrence.
I told Bibi before Protective Edge: 'Either you don’t start this at all, or you go all the way.' But this is one of his biggest problems: He says one thing, and does the opposite. Before the elections he said: 'No Palestinian state on my watch.' After the elections, he ran to foreign media to say he didn't mean it. During the elections he was talking about Arabs going in droves to the polls, and after the elections he invited (head of the Joint Arab List) Ayman Odeh to his office."
And why do you think that you could deal with the Iranian issue better than him?
"I know the issue well. I've been dealing with it for many years. But it's not just about being familiar with the issue and understanding it. It's also a matter of personality. You need a person here that has the ability to make decisions with determination and creativity."
And you are the only person who has this?
"There are in Israel other people with quite the potential to lead the country. Good and talented people who are much better than Netanyahu and some of them are better than me in other things. But on the Iranian issue, I'm the most knowledgeable and know best how to deal with it."
How?
"Of course I don't mean to talk about it in public. But I assure you, I have a detailed plan of what needs to be done. I talked about it in the appropriate forums and will continue talking about it at the Subcommittee for Intelligence and Secret Services, which I am a member of."
Needless to say that you agree with Meir Dagan about Netanyahu's personality, but not on the way he thinks Israel needs to deal with Iran?
"Netanyahu is wrong on everything that has to do with handling Iran, but I don't agree with what Dagan said." I reminded him that until recently, he was sitting in Netanyahu's government.
That he participated in cabinet meetings. And furthermore, that he almost joined the current government. "I have a commitment to my voters. My responsibility is first of all to them. And we need to think about what is best for this country, and what's best for Israel is that there is a stable government.
But it's clear to me that we're on a flight going nowhere, that Netanyahu is leading us nowhere. I mean, I was on the inside for six years. I know what's going on in there. I tried to fight from within. It reached a new high during Protective Edge, when I said what I thought during the war. Then we went to elections. What happened, happened. I'm not perfect.
It’s possible I should have left long before that. But the fact of the matter is that I made a difficult decision and in the choice between my principles and a seat in the government, I chose to stay out." When I asked how come he was not able to influence from the inside, Lieberman says Netanyahu excluded everyone from these issues and chose to deal with them on his own.
"I tried to influence. I spoke my mind. But Bibi wouldn't let anyone come near. He made it his exclusive business. Even when he let Livni deal with the Palestinian issue, he paired her up with a Commissar named Yitzhak Molho. That is why I place the responsibility for the failure squarely on his shoulders."
After 30 years in American prison, Wall Street Journal report suggests that Pollard's release is imminent in an attempt to calm rocky US-Israel relations.
The administration of US President Barack Obama is currently preparing to release Jonathan Pollard, an Israeli convicted of spying on the United States, according to a report Friday night in the Wall Street Journal. However, another official subsequently denied the report.
The report cited US officials who said they hoped that Pollard's release would help smooth US-Israeli relations, which have been rocky since six world powers recently signed a deal with Iran to limit its nuclear program in return for sanctions relief.
Some US officials are pushing for Pollard's release in a matter of weeks, while others expect it could take months, possibly until his parole consideration date in November, the Journal reported.
A US official said she was not aware that he would be released before he is eligible for parole in November.
Pollard has been in American prison for 30 years after being accused of spying for Israel on the Jewish nation's ally.
Recent reports in the Jewish-American publication Algemeiner also cited sources who claimed that Pollard's release was imminent upon the completion of his 30-year sentence in November.
The administration of US President Barack Obama is currently preparing to release Jonathan Pollard, an Israeli convicted of spying on the United States, according to a report Friday night in the Wall Street Journal. However, another official subsequently denied the report.
The report cited US officials who said they hoped that Pollard's release would help smooth US-Israeli relations, which have been rocky since six world powers recently signed a deal with Iran to limit its nuclear program in return for sanctions relief.
Some US officials are pushing for Pollard's release in a matter of weeks, while others expect it could take months, possibly until his parole consideration date in November, the Journal reported.
A US official said she was not aware that he would be released before he is eligible for parole in November.
Pollard has been in American prison for 30 years after being accused of spying for Israel on the Jewish nation's ally.
Recent reports in the Jewish-American publication Algemeiner also cited sources who claimed that Pollard's release was imminent upon the completion of his 30-year sentence in November.
23 july 2015
Poll shows increase in both Republican and Democratic opposition to Iran deal as thousands take to Times Square to protest it; Obama administration to defend agreement at Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
Top Republicans vowed Wednesday to do their utmost to scrap President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran as the biggest pro-Israel lobby prepared for an all-out campaign to pressure wary lawmakers into rejecting the agreement.
A bigger push against last week's historic accord in Vienna was being met with a counteroffensive by senior Obama administration officials, who have already spent hours on in-person and telephone briefings with members of Congress. Secretary of State John Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew briefed the entire House of Representatives and Senate in separate closed-door sessions on Wednesday and will defend the deal at a public Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Thursday.
As Congress opened a 60-day review of the deal, Republican US House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner told reporters: "Because a bad deal threatens the security of the American people, we're going to do everything possible to stop it." Obama insists that the Iran deal is the only alternative to more war in the Middle East.
Israel pressed lawmakers on Wednesday to block the deal, with Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer meeting privately with a group of about 40 House conservatives. The most influential pro-Israel group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), will deploy about 300 lobbyists on Capitol Hill next week to try to convince lawmakers, especially undecided Democrats, to vote against the deal, according to officials in the pro-Israel camp.
AIPAC's plans are being coordinated with allied groups such as Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran that are sponsoring a national television advertising campaign, the pro-Israel sources said. They are expected to spend upwards of $20 million, one source said.
In Manhattan, thousands of protesters packed into Times Square on Wednesday evening to demand that Congress vote down the proposed deal.
As the crowd loomed behind police barricades, chants of "Kill the deal!" could be heard for blocks. The event, billed as the "Stop Iran Rally" consisted mainly of pro-Israel supporters, though organizers said it represents Americans of all faiths and political convictions.
At the rally, Alan Dershowitz, a prominent Jewish attorney, said he was "opposing the deal as a liberal Democrat." He said he believed democracy was "ignored" because the Obama administration negotiated the deal without congressional input.
"That is not the way democracy should operate," he told the crowd.
A Reuters poll taken in the days after the July 14 announcement of the Iran deal, showed 44 percent of respondents who said they were Republicans opposed the agreement, up sharply from about 30 percent in April.
Democratic support for the deal held steady at 50 percent, though opposition among Democrats grew to 16 percent from nearly 10 percent in April, according to the poll.
Republican support for a deal fell during that same period from 31 percent to nearly 27 percent. The number of Republicans who responded was 471, compared with 1,117 in April when the major powers and Iran signed a framework agreement.
Under a bill reluctantly signed into law by Obama in May, Congress has until September 17 to decide whether to approve or reject the agreement between Iran and world powers to rein in Iran's nuclear program in return for sanctions relief. Republicans control majorities in both houses of Congress. Many have come out strongly against the pact, which they say will empower Iran and threaten US ally Israel.
Some said they wanted to know more. Republican Representative Dennis Ross said he was predisposed against the agreement but, after the briefing, "I am probably inclined now to dig further and verify for myself."
Partisanship But if Congress passes a resolution disapproving of the deal, dozens of Democrats would have to vote with them to override the Democratic president's threatened veto, which is not likely in the fiercely partisan Congress. "It's a steep climb but not an impossible climb," the pro-Israel group official said of the coming campaign.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has come out strongly in favor of it. Among the senior Democrats whom pro-Israel lobbyists hope to win over is Senator Chuck Schumer, a strong advocate for Israel's security who has yet to state his position. Schumer told reporters as he left the hearing that he was still deciding. "It's a serious issue and I'm studying it carefully, giving it what it deserves," he said.
Several Republicans said the Cabinet secretaries had not eased their concerns about several issues, particularly the ability to "snap back" sanctions if Iran violates the deal and the system for inspecting Iranian nuclear facilities. Senator Ted Cruz, a 2016 Republican presidential candidate, said the agreement would provide Iran with billions of dollars that would be used to murder Americans and their allies. "If this deal goes through, it will transform the Obama administration into the world's leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism," he said.
Deal opponents in the pro-Israel camp believe more lawmakers can be swayed by detailed arguments about what they see as loopholes that Iran could use to skirt the agreement. Pressure from AIPAC, whose members' support is widely coveted, could also worry lawmakers up for re-election. AIPAC boasts 100,000 members.
At the same time, J Street, a smaller liberal pro-Israel group, is urging supporters to lobby Congress to support the Iran deal.
Kerry told reporters before the House meeting that the deal "will make the region, our friends and allies, safer. It will make the world safer ... in the absence of any viable alternative."
Top Republicans vowed Wednesday to do their utmost to scrap President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran as the biggest pro-Israel lobby prepared for an all-out campaign to pressure wary lawmakers into rejecting the agreement.
A bigger push against last week's historic accord in Vienna was being met with a counteroffensive by senior Obama administration officials, who have already spent hours on in-person and telephone briefings with members of Congress. Secretary of State John Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew briefed the entire House of Representatives and Senate in separate closed-door sessions on Wednesday and will defend the deal at a public Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Thursday.
As Congress opened a 60-day review of the deal, Republican US House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner told reporters: "Because a bad deal threatens the security of the American people, we're going to do everything possible to stop it." Obama insists that the Iran deal is the only alternative to more war in the Middle East.
Israel pressed lawmakers on Wednesday to block the deal, with Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer meeting privately with a group of about 40 House conservatives. The most influential pro-Israel group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), will deploy about 300 lobbyists on Capitol Hill next week to try to convince lawmakers, especially undecided Democrats, to vote against the deal, according to officials in the pro-Israel camp.
AIPAC's plans are being coordinated with allied groups such as Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran that are sponsoring a national television advertising campaign, the pro-Israel sources said. They are expected to spend upwards of $20 million, one source said.
In Manhattan, thousands of protesters packed into Times Square on Wednesday evening to demand that Congress vote down the proposed deal.
As the crowd loomed behind police barricades, chants of "Kill the deal!" could be heard for blocks. The event, billed as the "Stop Iran Rally" consisted mainly of pro-Israel supporters, though organizers said it represents Americans of all faiths and political convictions.
At the rally, Alan Dershowitz, a prominent Jewish attorney, said he was "opposing the deal as a liberal Democrat." He said he believed democracy was "ignored" because the Obama administration negotiated the deal without congressional input.
"That is not the way democracy should operate," he told the crowd.
A Reuters poll taken in the days after the July 14 announcement of the Iran deal, showed 44 percent of respondents who said they were Republicans opposed the agreement, up sharply from about 30 percent in April.
Democratic support for the deal held steady at 50 percent, though opposition among Democrats grew to 16 percent from nearly 10 percent in April, according to the poll.
Republican support for a deal fell during that same period from 31 percent to nearly 27 percent. The number of Republicans who responded was 471, compared with 1,117 in April when the major powers and Iran signed a framework agreement.
Under a bill reluctantly signed into law by Obama in May, Congress has until September 17 to decide whether to approve or reject the agreement between Iran and world powers to rein in Iran's nuclear program in return for sanctions relief. Republicans control majorities in both houses of Congress. Many have come out strongly against the pact, which they say will empower Iran and threaten US ally Israel.
Some said they wanted to know more. Republican Representative Dennis Ross said he was predisposed against the agreement but, after the briefing, "I am probably inclined now to dig further and verify for myself."
Partisanship But if Congress passes a resolution disapproving of the deal, dozens of Democrats would have to vote with them to override the Democratic president's threatened veto, which is not likely in the fiercely partisan Congress. "It's a steep climb but not an impossible climb," the pro-Israel group official said of the coming campaign.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has come out strongly in favor of it. Among the senior Democrats whom pro-Israel lobbyists hope to win over is Senator Chuck Schumer, a strong advocate for Israel's security who has yet to state his position. Schumer told reporters as he left the hearing that he was still deciding. "It's a serious issue and I'm studying it carefully, giving it what it deserves," he said.
Several Republicans said the Cabinet secretaries had not eased their concerns about several issues, particularly the ability to "snap back" sanctions if Iran violates the deal and the system for inspecting Iranian nuclear facilities. Senator Ted Cruz, a 2016 Republican presidential candidate, said the agreement would provide Iran with billions of dollars that would be used to murder Americans and their allies. "If this deal goes through, it will transform the Obama administration into the world's leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism," he said.
Deal opponents in the pro-Israel camp believe more lawmakers can be swayed by detailed arguments about what they see as loopholes that Iran could use to skirt the agreement. Pressure from AIPAC, whose members' support is widely coveted, could also worry lawmakers up for re-election. AIPAC boasts 100,000 members.
At the same time, J Street, a smaller liberal pro-Israel group, is urging supporters to lobby Congress to support the Iran deal.
Kerry told reporters before the House meeting that the deal "will make the region, our friends and allies, safer. It will make the world safer ... in the absence of any viable alternative."
