Ash begins: "Will Benjamin Netanyahu arrive in Washington this week and attempt to dictate terms of war to a US presidential administration and the United States military? It is by no means certain that he will do so, but there's no shortage of clues that he would like to."
File photo: President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, 08/20/10. (photo: Reuters)
How Stupid Is Benjamin Netanyahu?
03 March 12
Reader Supported News | Perspective
�
ill Benjamin Netanyahu arrive in Washington this week and attempt to dictate terms of war to a US presidential administration and the United States military? It is by no means certain that he will do so, but there's no shortage of clues that he would like to.
In reality, Netanyahu has been just as open about his desire to use military force to derail Iran's nuclear development program as he has been about his displeasure that Obama isn't following his lead. Far from guarded in his words and actions, Netanyahu is making a bit of a spectacle of his displeasure. One tack has been a not too subtle campaign of lobbying the administration's opponents in both houses of Congress.
To be sure, Netanyahu has found some support on Capitol Hill - largely but not entirely from Obama administration opponents. At the core of Netanyahu's Congressional support are some familiar names: Joe Lieberman, his good friend, John McCain, and Mitch McConnell, to name a few. Worthy of note is a poorly defined but popular Senate resolution, "S.Res. 386, A resolution calling for free and fair elections in Iran," which is backed by dozens of senators and which holds as one of its values "support for the Iranian people." It also apparently seeks to discourage the White House from pursuing a "strategy of containment" (carrot) in favor of military intervention (stick).
While Joe Lieberman has pointed out that "this resolution is not an authorization to use military force," he also emphasized that it is intended "to say clearly and resolutely to Iran: You have only two choices - peacefully negotiate to end your nuclear program or expect a military strike to end that program."
For the Obama administration, there may be some wisdom in avoiding a policy of containment. It hasn't worked on Lieberman; why would it work on Iran?
Obama conversely has checked in with a rather grownup statement:
"One of our long-term goals in that region is to make sure that the sacrosanct commitment that we make to Israel's security is not only a matter of providing to them the military capabilities that they need, not only providing the sort of quality military edge that they need in a very tough neighborhood, but also that we are a partner to them to try to bring about a peace in the region that can be lasting. And that is a challenge."
That's open to interpretation of course, but if he can achieve those goals he may well have earned the Nobel Prize he received in Oslo at the beginning of his presidential journey.
Obama's comments do in fact seem to go directly to the heart of the condition that places Israel in long-term conflict with other nations and factions in the region - lack of a viable blueprint for peace.
Clearly Netanyahu and his Likud Party supporters want a greater sense of self determination, particularly on issues of Israeli national defense. Their problem is their dependence on US economic and military aid.
It would probably be in Israel's best long-term interest for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to envision a sustainable defense policy not underwritten in bewildering measure by the world's last remaining super-power. Nothing lasts forever but the Earth and sky.
Marc Ash is the founder and former Executive Director of Truthout, and is now founder and Editor of Reader Supported News.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
If Spier really wants to do something, how about NOT voting for trillions of $$$$ for the American kleptocrat's muscle, aka the US military? Or actually getting a Constitutional Amendment pass invalidating Citizens United? Or taking back Congress' Constitutionall y mandated war powers?
One could go on and on. But I am nauseated by the pretence that only Trump or the Russians or Putin are morally corrupt when Jackie knows perfectly well that ALL OF OUR LEADERS ARE CONTROLLED BY THE KLEPTOCRACY.
And she and the rest of the neolib Demos do absolutely nothing about it. Because they are part of the problem, not the solution.
This absurd Russian bashing, withdrawing from treaties is RISKING NUCLEAR WAR AND OMNICIDE FROM NUCLEAR WINTER.
And all these $174K/year + perks politicos can do is whine about some real estate deals. Jesus F Christ.
We just hardly pay any attention any more when Obama or Hillary (or Bill) gives a speech to some bankers for a half million or more. I read not long ago that Obama has made about $20 million on speeches since leaving the white house. These are "retroactive bribes." Maybe we should call it the "whore house." The people who live there sure will do a lot for some money.
A. He likes the flavor of leather, especially with the order of corruption and money
B. trump loves putin's money and will do and say anything for a buck
C. trump is so compromised that his only alternatives are to lick putin boots or go to jail and lose everything
D. trump wants to be caught, get fitted for his new pin stripes, live behind bars (iron, not gold) and he's looking for his next "girlfriends" in the new trump tower - the one with barbed wire and large men with AR 15s up in the tower.
Time to pul back the curtains on the wizard of ooze n' slime
Would there be equal outrage? After all, while the evidence of Russian "hacking" of the 2016 election has never been forthcoming, and seems likely not to exist in any reliable form, the evidence of Israeli political influence, and Saudi economic, is not only overwhelming, but right out in the open, even bragged about publicly by a former Israeli Prime Minister.
Oh, wait. Trump *is* kompromatted by Israel and Saudi Arabia, both of which seem to have _de facto_ control over U.S. foreign policy. So why is there no outrage? Maybe because most of the folks who are most vocal about "Russiagate" are essentially on the tab for Israel and the KSA. The neo-cons are notoriously close to Israel, with some of them holding dual citizenship; they are the most droolingly eager for "regime change" in Russia, or, in the alternative, to carry out a nuclear sneak attack on Moscow. And the Clintons, and by extension their "base," are in debt to, if not in cahoots with, Saudi Arabia.
Given Russia's diplomatically close relations to Israel, perhaps the truth is that both Trump and Putin have been bought by Netanyahu, as well as by Mr. Bone Saw.
If these agencies had anything significant, it would have leaked. They leak everything.
But there is huge evidence of the whole scandal having been fabricated by the CIA and MI6. Now that explanation has real legs to stand on. The Trump - Russia conspiracy theory goes back to the CIA and MI6. No one is talking about the illegality of these two agencies meddling in the 2016 election and in the presidency of Trump.
Selling real estate to Russians is not proof of anything other than rich Russians are taking their money out of Russia and making that country poorer. This is something the US government has encouraged for a very long time.