RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Bromwich writes: "Benjamin Netanyahu is laying siege to the Congress of the United States, not for the first time. He has thrown his voice and channeled his influence into the arena of American legislative politics, to abort the P5+1 nuclear settlement with Iran."

Charles Schumer and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (photo: Getty Images)
Charles Schumer and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. (photo: Getty Images)


Netanyahu and His Marionettes

By David Bromwich, Reader Supported News

10 August 15

 

enjamin Netanyahu is laying siege to the Congress of the United States, not for the first time. He has thrown his voice and channeled his influence into the arena of American legislative politics, to abort the P5+1 nuclear settlement with Iran, which was signed on July 14 by the US, Britain, France, Germany, China, and Russia. The Israeli strong man's latest intervention is in keeping with the rest of his political career. Netanyahu owes all his importance and his success to actions that have been purely destructive.

He was first elected in 1996 on the wave of Israeli settler chauvinism that followed the signing of the Oslo Accords. His rise occurred in the wake of the assassination of his opponent, a courageous defender of the accords, Yitzhak Rabin. A public memorandum detailing the strategy for Netanyahu as leader of Israel was written by the neoconservative war propagandist Richard Perle, along with a small committee of others. The strategy document, "A Clean Break," called for Israel to free itself from the tedious demands of diplomacy once and for all, curtail its efforts to negotiate with Palestinians toward the creation of a state, and give up the idea of joining a neighborhood of nations in the Middle East. With American help, instead, Israel could stand alone as the dominant power, a position it should never compromise by bargaining for peace. To achieve this end, three countries had to be undermined, subdivided, or destroyed: Iraq, Syria, and Iran.

So far, things have gone roughly according to plan. Iraq and Syria are out of the picture -- the latter with considerable satisfaction to the people around Netanyahu. But Iran has continued to pose a stumbling block; and as early as 2008, Barack Obama's interest in lowering the terrorist threat to the US by calming the violence of the region was perceived by Netanyahu as a threat to his plan for dominance.

From their first meeting in 2009, Netanyahu made it plain that Obama was an obstacle to be overcome by any means necessary -- political assaults from the rear and flanks; concocted international incidents; speeches to Congress and the United Nations and AIPAC and Congress again. Obama was to be treated as an enemy in all but name. The story was to be circulated that Obama, possibly from motives of racial resentment, was profoundly unfriendly to the state of Israel. In the six years that followed their first meeting in May 2009, a continuous strand of Netanyahu's foreign policy has been devoted to weakening the Obama presidency.

Over the same period, the Republican party set itself as a primary goal the nullification of everything Obama proposed. It was natural therefore that its alliance with Netanyahu would grow increasingly public. Only self-respect in the Republicans and a sense of decency in Netanyahu could have prevented it. But one should not underrate the element of racism in Netanyahu's resolve. On the day of the last Israeli election, in March 2015, which ended by returning him to office with a far-right, settler-based coalition, Netanyahu sent a panic Facebook message to his followers. "The right-wing government is in danger," he wrote. "Arab voters are coming out in droves to the polls. Left-wing organizations are busing them out." His followers had a particular duty to vote in order to offset the droves of Arabs.

Now, "droves" is a word normally applied to cattle, just as "swarm" is applied to insects and "hordes" to murderous barbarians. The chairmen of White Citizens' Councils in the American South in the 1950s used to warn their faithful against the "hordes of n-----s" that would vote them out of office unless white people came out and voted. For Netanyahu, President Obama has always been one of the "droves." He has treated Obama with a degree of disrespect approaching and often crossing into contempt, without parallel in the previous relations of American leaders and our professed allies. The black caucus noticed this when they boycotted Netanyahu's speech to Congress in March; and among Jewish lawmakers, Dianne Feinstein has spoken with well-earned disgust of Netanyahu's "arrogant" presumption that he speaks for all Jews.

Reactions of this sort are likely to intensify among those (including the present writer) who feel the disgrace of a foreign leader singling us out in a speech carried in US media, which was addressed peculiarly to Jewish Americans and implicitly separated our interests from those of other Americans. The gesture embodied by such a speech bears a family resemblance to incitement to treason. Imagine a leader of India puffing himself up to deliver a special address to Americans of Indian descent, asking them to subvert the authority of the president who signed a trade deal the Indian prime minister judges to be disadvantageous. And yet, the relations today of Netanyahu to many of the biggest American Jewish donors, and of the same donors to the Republican Party -- these linkages are so extended and tangled that lesser actors can barely account for their actions. But they feel no responsibility to render an account. They only know that their arms and legs move obediently to execute a pilgrimage to Jerusalem or Las Vegas. And then they vote and then comes the money.

The defection to the Republican side by Chuck Schumer was predictable, but the terms in which he cast his decision tell us much about the man and the situation. It has been said that one can judge a politician's intent not only by the things he says but by the things he crucially omits. In Schumer's written defense of his vote with the war party, in a text of some 1,700 words apparently drafted by the senator himself, a word that never appears is "Israel." (The exception is the almost anonymous appearance of the country in a catalogue with five other countries said to have been direct or indirect victims of Iran). But depend on it, Israel was on Schumer's mind.

He has often said, with an artless self-love, that his name in Hebrew, "shomer," means "guardian"; and he takes pride in the fact because he thinks of himself as the appointed guardian of Israel's interests in the US. How bizarre and again how unprecedented this is! Think of any other nation in the world. Imagine an Italian-American named Frank Consiglieri assuring his listeners that his name means "advocate" in Italian and he is supremely vigilant for the interests of Italy as a lawmaker in the US.

Schumer voted for the Iraq war on a rationale similar to the one he now urges as the path of reason and good sense with Iran. He may or may not recognize that he is only assisting the Likud and the neoconservatives with part three of the Middle East "clean break" strategy: Iraq, Syria, Iran. Their calculation is simple. When the work of destruction is complete, one country in the region will stand upright and intact amid the surrounding rubble.

How many Americans know that the Iran deal is supported by the vast majority of Israel's defense and security establishment? The opinions of the security officials within Netanyahu's government are impossible to discern because they have been placed under gag order; but the suffrage of qualified judges in Israel, as also in Europe, Russia, China, and the IAEA, forms a strange contrast with the current alignments in America. "As unanimous as the politicians are in backing the prime minister," J.J. Goldberg recently wrote in Forward, "the generals and spymasters are nearly as unanimous in questioning him. Generals publicly backing Netanyahu can be counted on -- well -- one finger." Equally strange is the fact that security support for the deal is an open secret in the Israeli press, and in an American Jewish paper like Forward, but the evidence is subordinated to a point of near invisibility in the New York Times and other mainstream outlets.

In defending the deal, in the most sober, straightforward, unapologetically argumentative and honest speech of his career, President Obama spelled out the reasons why its acceptance would surrender no opportunity while rejection would squander a chance that will not return.

If, in a worst-case scenario, Iran violates the deal, the same options that are available to me today will be available to any U.S. president in the future. And I have no doubt that 10 or 15 years from now, the person who holds this office will be in a far stronger position with Iran further away from a weapon and with the inspections and transparency that allow us to monitor the Iranian program.

Politicians and propagandists who oppose the deal have spoken of fifteen years as if it were the blink of an eye; but fifteen years is a long time in the history of a nation; and Americans should know it. Fifteen years ago George W. Bush had not yet won the presidency and delivered to the world his vision of a new Middle East. Destruction makes faster work than rebuilding or reform, but much that is good can happen in fifteen years.

Obama delivered this speech at American University -- recalling President Kennedy's speech in support of the Test Ban Treaty at the same institution 52 years ago -- and with full awareness of the parallel he said: "Does anyone really doubt that the same voices now raised against this deal will be demanding that whoever is President bomb those nuclear facilities?" Kennedy at a press conference on August 20, 1963 faced a similar pretense of scientific skepticism founded on destructive intent, and had to answer questions about the opposition of Dr. Edward Teller, a fierce advocate of atmospheric nuclear testing. Asked whether he had curtailed a recent series of tests for political reasons, Kennedy replied:

Obviously, we don't like to test in the atmosphere unless the test is essential. Every test in the atmosphere produces fallout and we would, it seems to me, be remiss in not attempting to keep the number of tests to the minimum, consistent with our national security. ... So we kept a careful eye, and we in fact did more tests, several more tests than we had originally planned six months before. ... I think that they were an impressive series. But it would be very difficult, I think, to satisfy Dr. Teller in this field.

Schumer is following the Dr. Tellers of our age, but they have invented nothing, improved nothing, are good at nothing except starting wars. They are, however, trained and seasoned by experience in the art of spreading fear. By joining their ranks again in 2015, as he did in 2003, Chuck Schumer has made much harder the fight against the chief hope today for lowering the risk of nuclear proliferation. He has done it for reasons no more compelling than those that drove the feverish opposition to Kennedy in 1963.

Meanwhile, 58 members of the US Congress have landed in Jerusalem, on a visit set to last from August 4 to August 10. Their trip was bought and paid for by the charitable arm of AIPAC. The lawmakers obeyed the command of Prime Minister Netanyahu to visit him instead of their own constituents in early August if they want support in the future by prominent Jewish donors. A gesture of more abject servility cannot be imagined. By agreeing to take the trip at this time -- so easy to decline if only for the perception of the thing -- these captive representatives have in effect declared their confidence in Netanyahu and their dependence on his favor. He will come back for more.

Very likely we can expect to hear something from the same representatives concerning the "flaws" in the Iran deal which Schumer says prompted his early declaration of a negative vote. "Even more troubling [than the 24-day delay on inspections]," said Schumer," is the fact that the US cannot demand inspections unilaterally." The demand for immediate inspections, any time, any place, is not an initiative of Schumer's at all but a late-found and richly publicized Netanyahu obstruction, like his demand that Iran recognize Israel as "the Jewish state." It is tantamount to setting a precondition of total and round-the-clock American surveillance of Iranian sites. The only government that would submit to such a regimen is a client government; and the objection could only be satisfied in the aftermath of regime change.

The most puzzling detail in Schumer's defense of his negative vote is the reversal on which it closes. He admits that the heart of the nuclear deal works against the development of nuclear weapons quite effectively. "When it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within ten years, we might be slightly better off with it. However, when it comes to the nuclear aspects after ten years and the non-nuclear aspects, we would be better off without it." There, for all his elaborate show of scruple, he gives the game away. The "nuclear aspects" are the substance of the agreement. That is why they call it the nuclear deal. But no, for Netanyahu and Schumer what offends is the prospect of Iran's re-entry into the global community as a trading partner and a non-nuclear regional power of some resourcefulness. This emergence can only curb Israel's wish to dominate for another half century as it has done for the past half century. That, and not anything resembling an "existential threat," is the real transition at issue.

In conclusion, Schumer tells his Democratic listeners that he does not want a war with Iran; but this is a hollow pretense. The preponderance of influential persons who side with him, as they did on Iraq in 2003, do indeed want a war, and they say they do. They say that war is inevitable, and that the sooner we get over delusions of compromise, the better for Israel and America. Even if he were in earnest, what could the peaceable Senator Chuck Schumer do? A shomer, after all, a guardian and not a buccaneer -- how could he prevail against the many who are made of sterner stuff? The Republican candidate now ranked third in the polls, Scott Walker, has said he would bomb Iran on his first day as president.



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.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+74 # indian weaver 2015-08-10 15:34
In the best of worlds, Netanyahu will be removed from the world stage, one way or another, doesn't matter how. His puppets like Schumer could vanish too, one way or another, and the world will cheer hurrah. These are the evil which consciously prevent peace and quiet for the rest of us. That is the news I want to read.
 
 
-19 # Milarepa 2015-08-11 05:07
Quoting indian weaver:
In the best of worlds, Netanyahu will be removed from the world stage, one way or another, doesn't matter how. His puppets like Schumer could vanish too, one way or another, and the world will cheer hurrah. These are the evil which consciously prevent peace and quiet for the rest of us. That is the news I want to read.


Hi, iw - we all have a role to play and most of us have no idea what it should be. The world might be a better place without Netanyahu - then again it might not. Did the world get better after Hitler?
 
 
+19 # ericlipps 2015-08-11 14:59
Quoting Milarepa:
Quoting indian weaver:
In the best of worlds, Netanyahu will be removed from the world stage, one way or another, doesn't matter how. His puppets like Schumer could vanish too, one way or another, and the world will cheer hurrah. These are the evil which consciously prevent peace and quiet for the rest of us. That is the news I want to read.


Hi, iw - we all have a role to play and most of us have no idea what it should be. The world might be a better place without Netanyahu - then again it might not. Did the world get better after Hitler?

The question is not, "Did the world get better after Hitler," but "Would the world be better if Hitler had lived and remained in power?" I think most of us would agree on the answer to that query.
 
 
+52 # angryspittle 2015-08-10 17:03
Schumer's lips are securely affixed to Nuts N Yahoo's anus.
 
 
+17 # indian weaver 2015-08-11 13:02
I thought Schumer was getting ready to kneel before his God and provide succor to the Beast, from looking at this photo.
 
 
+78 # Dongi 2015-08-10 17:42
Schumer is such a disappointment. To think I voted for him.

Netanyahu is an arrogant bully who understands how the
American system works; lubricate it with money lots of it.

Scott Walker should be committed. He is far to dangerous to world peace to be allowed to roam.

The Republican Party and some Democrats are destructive to the general welfare of this nation. The voters should retire them once and for all.
 
 
+68 # Radscal 2015-08-10 18:21
Thank you Mr. Bromwich and RSN for clearly stating that Netanyahu is merely executing the "Clean Break" strategy for "Securing the Realm." (and everyone should read the link to that provided here).

In the face of increasing international horror after last summer's most brutal yet "mowing the lawn" in Gaza, Israelis chose to elect an even more right-wing, fascistic and genocidal government.

Please, everyone who cares about human rights and seeks a more peaceful world, write to your Congress Persons and demand that we cut all funding and support for Israel until they abide by International Law and the UN Resolutions requiring them to abandon their colonial "settlements" and recognize a sovereign State of Palestine along the pre-1967 armistice lines.
 
 
+36 # btbees 2015-08-11 04:16
Great advice Radscal, but writing to our Congress Persons is a waste of time – they are the problem! March 3, 2015 was an embarrassing day in US History when Netanyahu addressed a Joint Meeting of Congress. The entire world saw that the Members were totally obedient to their leader, with standing ovations! Every member of Congress has signed an AIPAC pledge card. Israel receives about $8.4 million dollars per day from the United States. American support of the Israeli government makes us an accomplice to their war crimes and an accessory to oppression. Israel is a lawless, criminal, Apartheid state.
 
 
+21 # tclose 2015-08-11 09:57
Well, it may be a waste of time to write our Congress Persons, but we should do it anyway. Anything progressives can do to highlight the immoral unconditional support that the US Congress gives to an out-of-control Israeli regime is worth doing.
 
 
+20 # Radscal 2015-08-11 12:30
For decades now, the pro-Israeli lobby has held sway over Congress.

With little resistance from USians, Congress has no reason to change US/Israeli policies.

So again, I encourage you to flood your Representatives with demands to encourage Israel to abide by the law, with the promise to withhold your vote if they refuse.
 
 
+3 # geraldom 2015-08-11 16:24
Radscal, I’ve no idea what you mean when you say Putin is playing the "Grand Chessboard," and that he doesn’t give a hoot about anyone anymore than most other powerful rulers. Are you saying that Putin only gives a damn about himself and no one else. He has to at least give a damn about the Russian Federation, and its national security. Are you saying that Putin is willing to give the U.S. anything it wants, that he’s willing to allow the U.S. to do anything that it wants and Russia will do nothing to stop it?

The point that I was attempting to drive home is that the U.S. will leave no doubt in anyone’s mind that it will defend militarily any of its puppet allies if they’re attacked. It’s similar to JFK’s threat to the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis, that any attack by Cuba on another Latin American country would be considered a direct attack on the U.S. itself. So, please explain to me why Putin and Lavrov have to play this stupid lukewarm game of brinkmanship when the U.S. is openly ready and willing to overthrow Russia’s few allies it has left in the middle east, critical allies such as Syria and Iran, knowing full well, if they have any brains at all, that the U.S. and it’s proxy puppet military army, Israel, will completely ignore the lamentations expressed by them, and that only a strong and direct threat of defensive measures and retaliation by Russian forces is the only thing that might deter attacks on Syria and Iran.

(Continued)
 
 
+2 # geraldom 2015-08-11 16:24
(Continued)

Here’s another point I would like to make. I can understand Russia’s reticence in possibly sending Russian forces to Syria to protect Assad from attacks by the U.S. and/or Israel. With the situation as it is in Eastern Ukraine with Kiev forces so close by to the pro-Russian forces, any Russian soldier in eastern Ukraine would be extremely vulnerable to capture by the Kiev forces as seems to have happened a few times already. The same situation now appears to exist in Syria to some degree, but Russia could still send its latest ground-to-air anti-aircraft missile system to Assad to protect Syria from illegal air attacks by the U.S. and/or Israel and also by Turkey or even Saudi Arabia. As far as Iran is concerned, Russia, in addition to supplying Iran with its latest ground-to-air anti-aircraft missile system, could very safely send in Russian military forces into Iran, by invitation of course from Iran’s government, to defend Iran, again, from any illegal air or ground attacks by the U.S. and/or Israel.

Listen to “Going Underground’s” Afshin Rattansi’s interview with Sir William Patey, former Ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, on why the U.S. claims that it’s legal for it to attack Syrian forces who are fighting these U.S. trained Syrian rebels. Reference the following URL:

http://www.rt.com/shows/going-underground/311922-us-syria-assad-isis/

(Continued)
 
 
+4 # geraldom 2015-08-11 16:25
(Continued)

Then read the following article that came out yesterday. Reference the following URL:

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-makes-veiled-threats-against-iranian-nuclear-scientists-203014893.html

Remember the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists not so long ago. This might as well be a confession, an admission of guilt, by Israel that it was behind these assassinations and that Iran should expect more whether or not this latest agreement gets ratified. How much more shit should Iran have to take before telling everyone to go F-themselves?

One last point, Radscal. If the U.S. can claim that it can legally attack a sovereign nation like Syria if Syria were to attack the United States’ puppet military in Syria, the so-called free Syrian army, then Russia would now have the perfect legal right to attack Kiev’s military stationed in eastern Ukraine if it were to attack the people of eastern Ukraine and/or the pro-Russian rebels, but that would make too much sense to a criminal nation like the U.S. who believes in hypocrisy and double-standard s.
 
 
+6 # Radscal 2015-08-11 18:34
"The Grand Chessboard" was the book written by Brzezenski back in 1998 or so. I've mentioned and recommended it to you before. It laid out the plan for the US/IMF to take control of EurAsian natural resources. The US has been following that plan.

Putin no doubt is quite aware of that, and I see him as playing his own chess game against them. He has clearly not been willing to fully invest Russian military in Ukraine, so my assumption is that he is using other methods to keep NATO from establishing bases there.

As I've noted before, I do not know or understand Putin's strategies. I'm just observing his actions and interpreting them.

I see him as primarily interested in saving and prospering Russia, and therefore willing to sacrifice other people to achieve those goals. That is, typical powerful leader stuff.

I would assume he does not want Syria and Iran to fall into the US/IMF arms. He had arranged to sell new Surface to Air missiles to Assad, but backed down under pressure from the US.

I hope Syria doesn't fall to the CIA/Mossad ISIL thugs, but Putin has obviously become rather lukewarm in his support. Iran seems to be dealing well with the international community, so I'm more optimistic for their future.
 
 
+3 # geraldom 2015-08-11 21:12
I'm curious, Radscal. You state that and I quote, "He (that is Putin) had arranged to sell new Surface to Air missiles to Assad, but backed down under pressure from the US."

Russia is powerful enough to stand on its own. Unlike the puppet nations under U.S. control that make up the EU and NATO, Russia has the power to tell the United States to F**k itself if the U.S. attempted to put any pressure on Russia not to do something like arm one of its few allies in the middle east with defensive weapons like an effective surface-to-air anti-aircraft missile system, especially if the U.S. was still threatening to attack Iran or if Israel was planning on attacking Iran. And, please tell me what kind of threat that the U.S. could use against Russia to pressure it to do anything.

Again, maybe I'm making way too much common sense here, but if the United States and/or Israel weren't planning on attacking Iran with drones or military aircraft, then the U.S. or Israel wouldn't care whether Iran had an effective surface-to-air anti-aircraft missile system, would it?
 
 
+5 # Radscal 2015-08-11 23:36
It was Syria that Russia halted their plan to sell anti-aircraft missiles. They had sold Syria some as recently as 2013, but backed off on another deal several months ago.

Russia is planning to sell new anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. Possibly new jet fighters, too.

Meanwhile, France is returning Russia's deposit for those naval ships they were building.

Syria is largely being marginalized by Europe, while Iran is being cautiously brought back in from the cold. Russia is clearly being cautious themselves in terms of which country they're supporting more openly.

The articles I've read simply refer to "pressure" from the US not to sell the missiles to Syria. They did cite Israel's fear that the missiles would be used against Israeli jets, and considering that Israeli jets have attacked Syria multiple times recently under the pretext of "protecting moderate rebels," I'd say their fear could be at least explicable.

Of course, Syria has yet to fight back against Israeli incursions, even when they shot down a Syrian jet over Syria, so it looks like typical Israeli false victimhood claims.

And Obama came very close to saying he'd start bombing Syrian forces last week, so things don't look good for Syria.
 
 
+4 # Activista 2015-08-12 00:00
Obama came very close to saying he'd start bombing Syrian forces last week, so things don't look good for Syria....
read/agree with your (Radscal) analysis - but Syria (Assad) had the support of Syria people - the so call US-trained rebels (mostly outsiders) are basically gone - Obama is again pathetic -
 
 
+3 # geraldom 2015-08-12 08:29
Radscal, why shouldn't Putin sell Syria an effective surface-to-air anti-aircraft missile system? What is Putin afraid of? Why is he protecting illegal Israeli overflights into Syria?

Bashar Assad has every legal right to shoot down Israeli planes flying over his country, not to mention U.S. and Turkish planes.

I agree with Activista that the majority of the Syrian people are supporting Assad and would suffer greatly if extremist rebels or ISIS were to replace him.

It's the United States that purposely ignited this civil war in Syria, to overthrow the Assad government as the U.S. did in Ukraine last year, an act of war and a war crime, and it's the United States that continues to fuel the fire of this civil war.

The United States is as guilty of the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Syria as a result of this war as it claims Assad is, as guilty as the rebels are, as it is guilty of the millions of innocent deaths throughout the middle east as a result of its covert interventions to overthrow governments to put in place puppet leaders willing to jump though U.S. hoops.

Iran will eventually be next on the U.S. hit list as will be Russia. Putin has become a damn fool.
 
 
+4 # Radscal 2015-08-12 13:52
"why shouldn't Putin sell Syria an effective surface-to-air anti-aircraft missile system? What is Putin afraid of? Why is he protecting illegal Israeli overflights into Syria?"

I haven't a clue. But he did back down on the most recent missile sale.

"It's the United States that purposely ignited this civil war in Syria"

Yep. And there can be no doubt that Putin knows that, too.

"Iran will eventually be next on the U.S. hit list as will be Russia."

Yep. As I've mentioned, that is all spelled out quite clearly in Brzezinski's nearly 2 decade old book. The US/IMF would prefer to bribe Iran so as to control its resources, but keeps "all options on the table."

And again, there can be no doubt that Putin knows that, too.

So, whatever is his strategy, I do not know. But it does appear clear to me, that he is playing that "chess game" and is choosing his moves carefully.

Perhaps poker would be the better analogy. Because Putin is holding his cards close to his vest.

I do see Putin as the more "rational actor." I see him as trying to avoid full-scale nuclear war, while elements in the US are not only willing to go there, but perhaps even anxious to annihilate a good portion of the human species.
 
 
-1 # geraldom 2015-08-12 22:39
I will respond only to your last paragraph. Back before WWII began, Neville Chamberlain, when he was Prime Minister of the UK, was very much like Putin as you describe Putin in your last paragraph, a rational actor as Nazi Germany invaded one nation after another. He, Neville Chamberlain, was extremely reluctant to engage Nazi Germany militarily in order to avoid WWII. Did his actions, or lack thereof, prevent WWII. The resounding answer was "No!"

Neville Chamberlain lack of action only emboldened Hitler to be more aggressive, and the very same thing will happen in this current so-called poker game you mentioned. Putin's lack of action to stop the march eastward by the United States will only embolden the U.S. to become even more aggressive than it is now.

Eventually, Russia will have to, as that old saying goes, shit or get off the pot.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2015-08-13 12:15
Could be. Since elements of the US government are more than happy to escalate any direct military confrontation with Russia into a nuclear war, things will get very ugly, mostly for humans in the Northern Hemisphere.

Good time to invest in South American real estate.... like the Bush Crime Family. 1 million acres in Paraguay? The nazis already there will surely welcome their financial providers.
 
 
+2 # geraldom 2015-08-13 15:21
Maybe you should watch that old 1959 film entitled "On the Beach" starring Gregory Peck and Ava Gardner.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2015-08-13 17:29
Yeah, a great novel that was actually made into a damned good film.
 
 
+3 # ericlipps 2015-08-11 15:02
What link? Where?
 
 
+39 # dimenson 2015-08-10 20:51
Scott Walker, Schumer and those that look, sound and smell like them are symptoms; the disease can be found in those that consistently elevate them to power.

It's so much easier to vote for scumbags
in anonymity than to advocate toxic ideas in public for all to see.
 
 
+18 # keenon the truth 2015-08-10 21:16
A semantic quibble, although perhaps in American English it is different, but the word 'droves' is often used to describe large groups of people acting in a similar way, and I have never felt it was perjorative. (I am of course familiar with its use in 'droves of cattle')I found lots of examples as in the Huffington Post below, and lots of dictionary definitions to this end.

'Abbey Road' Anniversary Brings Droves Of Beatles Fans To Iconic London Street

Huffington Post

I am in no way trying to support that mephistophelean creature Netanyahu.
 
 
+37 # CenTexDem 2015-08-10 21:53
Netanyahu chose the sword over the plow. Scripture says that he who lives by the sword often dies by the sword and some day the Israelis will have to reap what he sowed.
 
 
+42 # m s 57 2015-08-10 22:50
It's noteworthy that Boehner, after he took a trip "to the region" back sometime around January this year, came back and declared -- his actual words -- "the world is on fire". he and the rest of the know-nothings in the reactionary right are not even slightly qualified to judge the terms of this agreement: "I'm no scientist". The world they live in, their ideas, are a mile wide and an inch deep.

Last week dozens of Israeli former Generals and senior officers -- including two former heads of the Shin Bet internal security agency, a former deputy director of the Mossad, and the ex-chief of the Atomic Energy Commission -- wrote a letter to Netanyahu telling him to accept the deal -- and shut his mouth. For them the agreement is a secondary priority; their first priority is the deteriorating relations between Obama and Netanyahu. They wrote urging Netanyahu to pursue a policy that would "restore trust and reinforce security and diplomatic cooperation with the American administration".

Netanyahu and the reactionary right deserve each other.
 
 
+9 # sfintersect 2015-08-11 15:36
Boehner & Netanyahu are perfectly matched. They do not seem to be capable o knowing what will serve their countries. Do Bibi and the Speaker actually think that an unregulated, insulted, non-partner Iran will not pose much more of a danger to Israel? Though it's so clear that Bibi needs to keep the threat up to appeal to his right and Boehner likes sucking up to the lunatic violent fringe that make me cringe when I hear him and his fellow war mongers speak. As for our relations with Israel, it may have outlived its usefulness to America if they are going to drag us into another war, and President Obama is not interested in war. He's not in the business of filling deep pockets with the spoils of arming a war like a lot of the Right wing who profit from it as surely as Bibi keeps getting re-elected by keeping the threat of war hot.
 
 
+46 # Thomas Martin 2015-08-10 22:55
My eyes were opened by reading that Netanyahu’s own security establishment supports signing the treaty. I myself have been conflicted in identifying with Israel, given their current government’s actions. Over history the Jewish people have made brilliant contributions to the social betterment of our world – and they have done this while surviving persecution that has stood in the way of their doing even more. And certainly there’s no adequate compensation or amends that can be made for the Holocaust. But even recognizing this, the taking of Palestine should not be justified by the Holocaust – and neither should dominating the Middle East, or America through our politics for that matter. Can’t we work for a peaceful Middle East? Aren’t the opinions of Netanyahu’s own security team significant, and, I’d say, more significant than what Chuck Schumer thinks about the views of his Jewish constituents in New York?
 
 
+22 # PABLO DIABLO 2015-08-10 23:24
Let Netanyahu speak before THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT.
On another matter, isn't it fun watching the Republicans freak out over THE DONALD. Won't be long before they start eating their young.
 
 
+23 # grandone@charter.net 2015-08-10 23:43
Maybe Chuck the schmuck just wants a nice place to retire in an Israeli settlement. Who knows?
 
 
+21 # Activista 2015-08-11 00:02
"Schumer voted for the Iraq war on a rationale similar to the one he now urges as the path of reason and good sense with Iran."
and we know that all of the Iraq war rationale was false/lie - most of it made in Tel Aviv.
But propaganda in USA works: during the 2003 Iraq war, the U.S. broadcasting network provided a conduit for Bush administration and Pentagon propaganda...
 
 
+18 # Art947 2015-08-11 05:57
As a constituent, my major comment is: "F--- Chuck!"

It is amazing that all the chicken-hawks keep coming home to roost in a pro-war setting. It would be fitting if their children and grandchildren were the first victims of the war seeds that they continue to sow, however, because they are not in the military (and probably never will be) they are safe from harm while others die for their sins.
 
 
+7 # sfintersect 2015-08-11 15:38
Maybe we should form a committee to call back the draft & then see how our war mongers would feel about a war. Even if they don;t have draft age kids their constituents will.
 
 
+16 # RCW 2015-08-11 06:10
I look at the picture above and see Mussolini. There is a sad danger, I believe, that when enough Americans weary of Israel directing our politics, there may be a fierce anti-Jewish backlash even against those Jews who see through and do not approve his thuggery.
 
 
+10 # elizabethblock 2015-08-11 06:15
David Bromwich is a biographer of Edmund Burke, someone (at least nominally) dear to the hearts of true conservatives. (Not, of course the present "leaders" of the Republican party.) His opinion should therefore carry weight beyond the readers of RSN, and I hope it will.
You might enjoy his "Moral Imagination," a collection of essays.
 
 
+12 # Activista 2015-08-11 10:53
David Bromwich Iran deal analysis is excellent - this one sentence tells it all:
"Schumer voted for the Iraq war on a rationale similar to the one he now urges as the path of reason and good sense with Iran."
translated from diplomatic language:
.. Schumer voted for the Iraq war on a propaganda similar to the one created by Israel against Iran.
 
 
+1 # RCW 2015-08-13 19:19
Thanks for the reference. I shall look for it.
 
 
+16 # ericlane 2015-08-11 07:32
The word is 'insanity.' Only insane people could oppose the Iran deal. I've always thought Netanyahu was insane but now he is proving it. War at all costs. Look at what is happening in the Middle East today. You don't think it will come back to bite Israel in the ass? Throw Iran into the mix and watch what happens. Idiocy is doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome. Israeli's just re-elected Netanyahu. What do you think will happen?
 
 
-32 # moafu@yahoo.com 2015-08-11 07:56
Shameful how Bibi interferes with US politics and the US administration never gets involved in Israeli politics.....we ll, except for the millions of tax payers $$ spent to send the goon of PUTZUS to try to stop Bibi from being elected ! HUH?

Sanctions almost broke the resolve of Iran on the nukes. Guided by the Iranian, Valerie Jarrett, PUTZUS gave everything up to Iran.
 
 
+15 # RnR 2015-08-11 08:57
What needs to be derailed are the long term plans to get Rahm Emmanuel elected president of the us of a.
 
 
-18 # samiam 2015-08-11 10:02
The word "droves" was not used by Netanyahu this is a lie used by the author of this piece to give it a racist flavor.
 
 
+8 # mdj777 2015-08-11 12:49
What Constitution did they take an oath to uphold?

http://www.marvinjones.blogspot.com/2015/06/forty-seven-shades-of-nay.html
 
 
+6 # Activista 2015-08-11 14:54
Retired generals and admirals back Iran nuclear deal ...
www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/retired-generals-and-admirals-back-iran-nuclear-deal/2015/08/11/bd26f6ae-4045-11e5-bfe3-ff1d8549bfd2_story.html
American Israel Public Affairs Committee has been in the forefront of a campaign to build public opposition in this country....
How much power has AIPAC over USA foreign policy in the Middle East?
 
 
+8 # indian weaver 2015-08-11 15:18
Send a copy of this article along with your "candid" comments to Schumer at: Chuck Schumer, 322 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510. I did. This is just another hateful fascist greed war criminal that populates the Congress and Administration. This government sucks, it's dangerous and evil at this point, fostering / supporting / enabling / funding / arming / committing Crimes Against Humanity worldwide.
 
 
+5 # hectormaria 2015-08-11 20:48
Please tell Schumer he is a member of the Senate not the Knesset. He is supporting the person that disrespected our president and did everything in his power to try and defeat the President in 2012: He is not a shomer he is a schnook........ ..Hector
 
 
+7 # RMDC 2015-08-12 07:08
Schumer shows where his real allegiance lies. It is with Israel. Did he really think this through? Netanyahoo wants a war against Iran and he wants the US to fight that war for Israel. Schumer seems either not to know this or he supports it. That means he will give up the lives of 1000s of Americans and waste a trillion dollars just to support Netanyahoo's evil vision in the Clean Break.

The "Clean Break" documents are important because they show the link between Netanyahoo and the American neo-cons. This was a group spawned by Cheney's term at Sec. of Defense in the first Bush Admin. They wanted to capitalize on demise of the USSR and make the unipolar world into a world or all war all of the time. They would not negotiate with anyone. They would just bomb them. These neo-cons are psychopaths -- but they are true followers of the Nazis and Hitler.
 
 
+2 # Radscal 2015-08-12 21:35
Yeah, the last poll I saw showed Assad had about 2/3 support. More than half of the "rebels" listed as killed are not Syrians.

I hadn't read anywhere that these foreign Jihadists had left. They move between Iraq and Syria, but do you think they've left the battlefield generally, and if so do you have any citation I can read?
 
 
+1 # Activista 2015-08-13 13:14
"The U.S. military launched its program in May to train up to 5,400 fighters a year in what was seen as a test of Obama's strategy of getting local partners to combat extremists and keep U.S. troops off the front lines.

The training program has been challenged from the start, with many candidates being declared ineligible and some even dropping out. Obama's requirement that they target militants from Islamic State has sidelined huge segments of the Syrian opposition, which is focusing instead on battling Syrian government forces.
Only around 60 have been deployed to the battlefield so far."
www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/03/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-idUSKCN0Q803Y20150803
very pathetic result for $500 000 000 ....
 
 
+1 # Radscal 2015-08-13 17:42
Ah. You're referring to the US "trained" "rebels."

I thought you meant that the non-Syrian "rebels" in general were leaving the "battlefield." Near as I can tell, their recruitment is down, but most of the "rebels" are still foreigners.
 

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.

RSNRSN