Summary
We’re going to wrap our coverage of Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, in which he railed against a proposed deal with Iran over its nuclear ambitions.
- “This is a bad deal, a very bad deal. We’re better off without it,” Netanyahu said, calling for the US to overhaul its negotiations with Iran. He said that besides a military option the alternative is “a much better deal”.
- The proposed deal “doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, it paves Iran’s path to the bomb,” Netanyahu said, arguing that inspectors could not stop Iran from violating rules, that the agreement would leave much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact, and that it would lift restrictions on the program in a decade.
- President Barack Obama dismissed Netanyahu’s speech as “nothing new”, and the White House insisted the proposed deal represents “the best possible way to confront the threat from Iran’s nuclear program.”
- “Iran will become even more aggressive [when] unshackled,” Netanyahu said, accusing Tehran of “gobbling up four countries right now”. He warned that the US should not fixate on jihadi group Isis, saying “in this deadly game of thrones there is no place for America or for Israel.”
- Experts questioned many of Netanyahu’s claims, such as that Iran and Isis are competing for hegemony in the Middle East and that Iran will be able to muster nuclear arms in the close future. Many agreed that the speech may have been meant to have greater influence on Netanyahu’s bitter re-election campaign in Israel than on US policy abroad.
- The alliance between Israel and the US is above politics and “must always remain above politics,” Netanyahu said, alluding to partisan rifts widened by his controversial speech to Congress. He declared: “I know that America stands with Israel.”
- Most of Congress embraced Netanyahu with open arms, although many Democrats and the Obama administration have kept him at arm’s length. More than 50 Democratic lawmakers boycotted the speech, accusing Netanyahu of fearmongering and political theater.
Point and counterpoint: Netanyahu and Obama.
The Guardian’s diplomatic editor Julian Borger (@julianborger) offers one last assessment of Netanyahu’s remarks today, looking at just how quickly could Iran militarize a nuclear arsenal.
The claim: “[Virtually] all the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade … Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs … Iran’s supreme leader says that … Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges … enriching uranium. With this massive capacity, Iran could make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal and this in a matter of weeks, once it makes that decision.”
Julian’s comment: “Any deal agreed in Geneva would have an expiry date, after which quantitative restrictions would be lifted, but it would probably not be automatic. Iran would have to fulfil a list of conditions to make that transition, or trigger a return of international sanctions, similar to the situation it faces today.
“Even after the period of the agreement, it would remain (unlike Israel) a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and to a safeguards agreement with the IAEA, which involves constant monitoring aimed at insuring the nuclear programme is not used for military ends.
“Repurposing a huge number of centrifuges from making low enriched uranium to weapons-grade uranium, would be very complicated and would most likely take months to carry out effectively. The process of turning that material into usable warheads is also fraught with difficulty and requires nuclear tests to be confident weapons designs work.
“But in the context of the same kind of regime in Tehran and the same degree of volatility in the Middle East, it would mean a return to tension and uncertainty, once the agreement had lapsed.”
The bitter re-election campaign Netanyahu is waging in Israel may not be much affected by the theater of his speech in Washington, the Guardian’s Peter Beaumont (@petersbeaumont) reports Jerusalem.
Reflecting the criticism of Obama and senior US officials, Michael Oren, former Israeli ambassador to the US now running for office, conceded that while Netanyahu gave a “powerful” speech to he “did not offer any new ideas.”
The criticism is bound to be amplified in coming days in what has been a bitterly contested election campaign – that Netanyahu risked damaging US-Israeli relations for no obvious benefit on the Iran question.
Indeed, ahead of the speech an unnamed Israeli official traveling with Netanyahu had appeared to suggest that the Israeli prime minister would reveal damaging details of the US-led negotiations with Iran over it’s nuclear programme, prompting warnings from some US officials.
In the end, however, Netanyahu’s speech – while heavy on emotion and rhetorical devices – departed very little from the warnings he has delivered over the years.
Earnest now says that he thinks Congress tried to obviate the White House somewhat by inviting Netanyahu to speak.
“I think what’s clear is that Congress in arranging this speech tried to go around the executive branch. … There is a role for Congress to play in foreign policy,” Earnest says, but in this case members of Congress tried to “run around” the president.
“The president will be able to make a very persuasive case … that we can make a very good case that this is the best possible way to confront the threat from Iran’s nuclear program. That if we know what’s happening in Iran’s nuclear program on a daily basis … then we have resolved [the concerns of the international community]. Now we’re going to have to be vigilant … but if we do, we know that we’re going to be able to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.”
Earlier today Obama said he would take the terms of a deal to Congress should they be finalized.
Obama says he will make the case to Congress if he signs off on an Iran deal
— Julia Edwards (@jujedwards) March 3, 2015
Earnest says that Obama and Netanyahu are both thinking first of the security of their respective countries – not each other’s.
He adds that “the good news is … those interests almost always align.” Netanyahu is “looking at this from a slightly different perspective,” he says.
Obama is “not focused on the politics or the theater, he’s focused on ending the threat from Iran’s” nuclear ambitions, White House press secretary Josh Earnest tells reporters who ask whether the president “disrespected” Netanyahu by not watching his speech.
“There was a lot of talk from prime minister Netanyahu criticizing and in some cases condemning a deal that hasn’t been struck … there will be ample opportunity for Congress and the American people to review [an agreement],” he says.
“At that point we can have a discussion and maybe even a debate about whether or not the president is making the right judgment when he says this is the best way.”
The Guardian’s diplomatic editor Julian Borger (@julianborger) continues to check through Netanyahu’s claims about Iran’s nuclear program and the attendant negotiations around it.
He checks here on the statement that Iran “refuses to come clean” about the military abilities of its program.
The claim: “[The] IAEA said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught – caught twice, not once, twice – operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn’t even know existed.”
Julian’s comment: “The IAEA has said consistently that Iran has not resolved all its questions about the ‘possible military dimensions’ of the Iranian nuclear programme, almost all dating back to 2003 and earlier.
“However, the IAEA questions do not represent certainty about that past weapons work. Some could be based on misleading intelligence. But Iran was indeed caught operating the Natanz enrichment plant in 2002-3, and the Qom underground site in 2009, without having told IAEA. Iran says it was not obliged to inform the agency. The IAEA disagrees.
The White House continues to describe Netanyahu’s statements as unhelpful, with press secretary Josh Earnest saying that the prime minister’s proposal of an alternative “better deal” is “not a plausible outcome”.
A reporter asks (paraphrasing): “Is Netanyahu imagining things by suggesting a world where this is possible?”
Earnest: “It certainly is not a plausible outcome in the minds of the United States. What is a plausible outcome is an outcome that has Iran voluntarily rolling back key aspects … that has Iran agreeing to a set of monitoring restrictions that would allow international experts routine and frequent access so they can confirm for themselves that Iran is living up to the agreement.”
Earnest says the US attitude is akin to that summaraized by national security advisor Susan Rice: “distrust and verify”. He agrees with Netanyahu that Iran has given many reasons to distrust its promises, and that the US commitment to Israel has in no way changed or diminished.
But he defends the proposed agreement with Iran, saying it would require “detailed verification that will includem, of course, as you would expect, the routine inspection of nuclear facilities in Iran, … regular inspection of uranium mines,” and inspection of attendant facilities.
“We’re talking about an in-depth, rigorous inspections regime that can verify through the international community that Iran is living up to their end of the deal.”
Earnest says that the negotiations are working toward the outcome that “we can count on to best resolve our concerns. … That’s the best possible way to resolve the international community’s concerns … The alternative supported by prime minister Netanyahu and others falls far short of that.”
“The only X factor is whether Iran’s going to sign onto an agreement that does all of those things.”
How does Netanyahu’s claim about North Korea’s nuclear violations stack up against his assertion that Iran has cheated similarly over the years? The view from the Guardian’s diplomatic editor Julian Borger (@julianborger).
The claim: “North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb. Now, we’re warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs. Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It’s done that on at least three separate occasions – 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.”
Julian’s comment: “North Korea did indeed stage a breakout, and could have a significant arsenal in five years. Iran did break the seals put in place by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2005 (at a uranium conversion plant in Isfahan) and 2006 (at a uranium enrichment plant in Natanz).
“In 2010, Iran took the IAEA by surprise by stepping up the level of enrichment from 3.5% to 20% without notice, though seals were not physically broken in the process. There are significant differences with the North Korea case, however. When Iran broke IAEA seals, it resumed activities which had civilian purposes, converting uranium to gas, and producing low-enriched and medium-enriched concentrations. It did not represent a breakout.
“In the case of North Korea, there was no credible military deterrent to breaking out. The immediate neighbour, South Korea had no stomach for fight with its capital within easy range of Pyongyang’s missiles.
“The strategic situation facing Iran is dramatically different. An Iranian breakout would almost certainly draw an rapid and devastating response from Israel, the US and the Gulf Arab states.”
Are Iran and ISIS competing for the crown of militant Islam, as Netanyahu said they are? The Guardian’s Middle East editor Ian Black casts some doubt on that assertion.
What Netanyahu said: “Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world.
“They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire. In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.”
The editor’s analysis: not convincing.
“The Israeli leader was on firmer ground with his description of the ambitions of Isis (aka the Islamic State) though he appeared to ignore evidence that it is becoming weaker in the face of shrinking revenues and a fightback by the US, Kurdish forces and four Arab states.
“Isis is an extremist Sunni jihadi group which treats Shia Muslims (most Iranians) as apostates who can be killed. Iran seeks political and strategic influence and allies and uses proxies, especially Hizbullah in Lebanon and militias in Iraq.
The theories floated by Netanyahu are “dated and wrong” in this case, he continues.
“But the idea that it is still ‘exporting’ the Islamic Revolution as it pledged to do after 1979, let alone seeking an ‘empire’, is dated and wrong. Iran’s political system is dominated by a theocratic “supreme leader” yet it also has a parliament and regular elections.
It is a repressive country and regularly uses the death penalty. It broadly respects the rights of religious minorities including Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians, though it persecutes the Bahai. Not a convincing argument.”
Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei has also tweeted his hot take apropos prime minister Netanyahu’s speech.
In the past 50 yrs, how much money and #reputation has it cost US to support #Israel’s crimes? Who other than its nation has paid for it?
— Khamenei.ir (@khamenei_ir) March 3, 2015
Updated
Netanyahu’s main opponents have offered their reaction to the prime minister’s speech – and they don’t think much of it, reports the Guardian’s Peter Beaumont (@petersbeaumont) in Jerusalem.
Netanyahu’s main challenger in the Israeli elections on 17 March, Zionist Union Yitzhak Herzog, was quick to play down the impact of the speech to Congress, arguing it would do nothing to interpose Israel in the negotiations.
Speaking at an Israeli community close to the Gaza border, Herzog – who is marginally leading Netnayahu in the polls – said: “There is no doubt that Netanyahu is a good speaker. Let’s be honest, the speech we heard today, as impressive as it was, did not stop the Iranian nuclear program.”
“The question is not if the emerging nuclear deal is bad. The question is how do we prevent a bad deal,” Herzog said.
“This speech is a very harsh wound to Israel-US relations,” he added. “It will not change the position of the administration and will only widen the rift with Israel’s greatest ally and strategic partner.”
Zehava Gal-On, leader of the left wing Meretz party, had similar thoughts about the speech and claimed Netanyahu had made himself irrelevant.
“It’s like David Cameron coming to the Knesset and telling Netanyahu that he is endangering the security of Israel,” she said.
BBC Middle East editor Paul Danahar also stresses the importance of the speech in Israel.
Reaction to Netanyahu’s speech in Israel is much more significant than reaction in US. It may decide if he remains PM & Obama’s bete noir
— Paul Danahar (@pdanahar) March 3, 2015
And another point of claim-checking of Netanyahu’s statements, again from the Guardian’s diplomatic editor Julian Borger (@julianborger).
The claim: “[I]f Iran’s work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.”
Julian’s comment: “This is not necessarily true. Any deal would frame Iran’s permitted enrichment capacity in terms of ‘separative work units’, rather than number of centrifuges.
“So the more efficient the centrifuges, the fewer that would be allowed. Abruptly installing lots of experimental centrifuges in a hurry as part of a breakout scenario would be fraught with mishaps and glitches, if past experience is anything to go by.
“Certainly, Iran could not be certain of achieving such a feat before the international community had time to respond militarily.”
Obama: nothing new in speech
President Obama has dismissed Netanyahu’s speech because “as far as I can tell there was nothing new,” Reuters quotes him as saying.
Obama said that a deal with Iran would cut off different pathways for the country to obtain weapons, the agency reports, and the deal would roll back parts of its program.
He also said that Netanyahu “did not offer any viable alternatives on preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” Obama said he did not watch the speech but read a transcript of it.
“Let’s wait until there is actually a deal on the table that Iran has agreed to at which point everybody can evaluate it,” he said.
Updated
Some more fact-checking of Netanyahu’s statements regarding the proposed nuclear deal between western nations and Iran, courtesy the Guardian’s diplomatic editor Julian Borger (@julianborger).
The claim: The agreement would leave Iran with a “vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb … [Not] a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed … Iran’s break-out time would be very short – about a year by US assessment, even shorter by Israel’s.”
Julian’s comment: “This is factually accurate but uses questionable adjectives. The most likely version of a deal would probably leave 4,000-10,000 centrifuges, and up to 15,000 left disconnected from a uranium gas supply.
“No facility would be destroyed, though the underground enrichment plant at Qom could be given a different purpose like research. The question of whether this represents a “vast” infrastructure is more debatable.
“As Netanyahu says, it gives Iran a breakout time (the period it would require to throw off international safeguards and monitoring and dash for a bomb) of a year. But supporters of the current diplomacy argue that is a significant length of time, more than enough to muster a coalition to inflict significant military damage on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.”
House minority leader Nancy Pelosi was “near tears” throughout the entirety of Netanyahu’s speech, she has said in a statement that awkwardly stretches between President Obama and the Israeli prime minister’s positions.
The statement reads in part:
As one who values the US–Israel relationship, and loves Israel, I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech – saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5+1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation.
“Today, Prime Minister Netanyahu reiterated something we all agree upon: a nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable to both our countries. We have all said that a bad deal is worse than no deal, and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is the bedrock of our foreign policy and national security. As President Obama has said consistently, all options are on the table for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran.”
Guardian diplomatic editor Julian Borger (@julianborger) is doing a bit of quick fact-checking of Netanyahu’s assertions regarding the proposed nuclear deal.
The claim: the deal currently on the table “will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.”
Julian’s comment: “The precise details of the deal being negotiated in Switzerland have not been made public, and key elements have yet to be agreed. However, it is true that the framework generally believed to be under discussion would not guarantee that Iran could never develop weapons, but no conceivable deal could deliver such a guarantee.
“Cheating is always a possibility. However, any agreement acceptable to the US and the five other major powers at the table would have to include significantly enhanced international monitoring of the Iranian nuclear programme, making it harder to cheat.
“Even after the expiry of the deal’s lifetime, strict monitoring would remain in place. So there is a stronger argument to say that an agreement would make it harder for Iran to build a covert bomb.”
“I thought it would be political theatre and it indeed it was worthy of an Oscar,” Representative Steve Cohen, Democrat of Tennessee, says of Netanyahu’s speech.
My colleague Dan Roberts (@robertsdan) is at the press conference being held by members of Congress who boycotted the speech. He characterizes their public remarks as “scathing” – and their private remarks as more than a little concerned:
Privately some Democrats are concerned that the rhetorical punch could complicate the political battle to reach a deal.
“I thought it was a very effective speech as far as appealing to American people and Israeli people and helping moving his position in Congress,” Cohen told the Guardian in an interview.
“But I don’t think it helps at all with the administration. I don’t think it will move the needle there and might move the needle in the other direction.”
Some of the members of Congress who skipped Netanyahu’s speech are holding a press conference to explain why they snubbed the prime minister.
Representative Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington state, accuses Netanyahu of scaremongering, in so many words.
"If you can make the people afraid you can make them do anything," Democrat boycotter of Netanyahu speech @RepJimMcDermott tells press conf.
— Dan Roberts (@RobertsDan) March 3, 2015
In contrast, Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California, felt stirred throughout, the BBC’s Julia Macfarlane tweets.
Pelosi: "As one who values the US - Israel relationship, and loves Israel, I was near tears throughout #Netanyahuspeech"- via @breaking
— Julia Macfarlane (@juliamacfarlane) March 3, 2015
Republican Senator Rand Paul, meanwhile, a possible presidential contender whose foreign policy views skew toward non-intervention abroad, says simply that the speech “pleased” him and he’ll continue to stand with Israel.
Netanyahu adopted “a stylised version of the facts” about the nuclear negotiations with Iran, the Guardian’s diplomatic editor, Julian Borger (@julianborger) writes.
Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech takes a stylised version of the facts underlying the nuclear negotiations currently underway with Iran, and casts them in a particularly menacing light.
Elements of a potential deal which US and other western negotiators present as selling points - like the year-long breakout time that would be imposed on Iran, and the ten-plus years of the deal’s lifetime – Netanyahu portrays as dangerously short. Some facts and inferences are skewed, but mostly the speech represents a radically different take on the same reality.
An alternative deal, as perceived by Netanyahu versus members of the Obama administration, has opposite consequences according to each side, Julian continues:
The most contentious passage does not involve the deal currently on the table, but its possible alternative. The Israeli prime minister envisages more favourable terms, from a western perspective if greater pressure is applied on Tehran.
Defenders of the current diplomacy argue that ripping up the deal now on the table and ratcheting up sanctions would have the opposite effect – triggering Iranian rejection of the significant constraints on its nuclear work, and an acceleration in the programme. That in turn could trigger an escalation in tensions leading to military action by Israel, the US or both.
Netanyahu likely exaggerated Iran’s malicious aims and recent victories, Ian Black (@ian_black), the Guardian’s Middle East editor, writes in a quick look at how much control Iran really exerts around the region:
Binyamin Netanyahu’s description of Iran’s “voracious appetite for aggression” and the claim that is “gobbling up four countries” were both to be expected in this context, but both are exaggerations that are designed to influence the course of the nuclear talks. The Israeli prime minister was on firmer ground with his attacks on Hizbullah, Tehran’s loyal Lebanese ally and proxy.
The heart of his speech was the statement that Iran is a “genocidal enemy” of Israel.
Iran’s position and influence in the Middle East have certainly improved in the last year. It plays an important role in fighting Isis on the ground in Iraq and is a key player in Baghdad. Its firm backing for Bashar al-Assad has been vital to his retention of control in Damascus and elsewhere in Syria, while continuing anti-government protests in Shia-majority Bahrain and the recent takeover by Houthi rebels in Yemen have all been to its advantage and discomfiting for the Saudis, Tehran’s great regional rival.
Nor has Iran been quiet about its spate of victories in the region, although they too may be guilty of embellishment. Ian continues:
Iran regularly boasts of these successes. General Qasim Suleimani, head of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, did just that in a recent speech on the anniversary of the Iranian revolution. But independent analysts say the Islamic Republic inflates its gains for propaganda purposes as well as for domestic consumption. Netanyahu appeared to be doing something similar.
Iran’s role in Bahrain, where the Shia majority remains locked in confrontation with the Saudi-backed Sunni monarchy, is more about scoring propaganda points than material support – despite claims in Manama about Iran’s sinister role.
And in the heartlands of Iranian influence, Iraq and Syria, there have been significant costs as well as benefits, including the recent deaths of two senior Revolutionary Guards commanders. Sanctions and low oil prices – seen in Tehran as a deliberate strategy by the Saudis – has also made it harder to shell out billions of dollars to subsidize the Assad regime.
Updated
Senator Dianne Feinstein wonders about Netanyahu’s pointed statement that Israel will “stand alone” if considers it necessary.
Dianne Feinstein tells CNN that what concerns her is what @netanyahu didn't say: Would Israel strike Iran?
— Jodi Rudoren (@rudoren) March 3, 2015
In Israel, supporters of Netanyahu are already spinning the prime minister’s heroic reception to be used for ongoing re-election campaign.
Netanyahu supporters pointing to #Bibispeech and asking voters if they could imagine electing anyone else w/that kind of welcome from DC.
— Sheera Frenkel (@sheeraf) March 3, 2015
And online, some believe Netanyahu has made an egregious error by adopting a rather shallow reading of Robert Frost’s 1920 poem “The Road Not Taken”.
Dear Mr. Netanyahu, "The Road Not Taken" is about the perils of misinterpreting your own history. Just FYI. http://t.co/s7RrJ9XgKf
— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) March 3, 2015
Summary
Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu delivered what he said would be a “historic” speech to Congress today, railing against a proposed deal between the US, Iran and western nations over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
- “This is a bad deal, a very bad deal. We’re better off without it,” Netanyahu said, calling for the US to overhaul its negotiations with Iran with many entirely new terms. He said that besides a military option the alternative is “a much better deal”.
- The proposed deal “doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb, it paves Iran’s path to the bomb,” Netanyahu said, arguing that inspectors could not stop Iran from violating rules, that the agreement would leave much of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact, and that it would lift restrictions on the program in a decade.
- “Iran will become even more aggressive [when] unshackled,” Netanyahu said, accusing Tehran of funding terrorism, sowing chaos in the Middle East and “gobbling up four countries right now”. He said that Iran must change its behavior before the west allows concessions or lifts any sanctions.
- Netanyahu warned the US not to fixate on the jihadi group Isis, saying “in this deadly game of thrones there is no place for America or for Israel. … To defeat Isis and let Iran get a nuclear weapon would be to win a battle and lose the war.” Iran represents a threat to the entire world, he said.
- The alliance between Israel and the US is above politics and “must always remain above politics,” Netanyahu said, alluding to partisan rifts created by his controversial speech to Congress. He thanked Barack Obama profusely for coming to Israel’s aid and concluded by saying: “I know that America stands with Israel.”
- Most of Congress embraced Netanyahu with open arms, although many Democrats and the Obama administration have kept him at arm’s length, underscoring tensions between the president and prime minister.
Updated
“Not a plan,” is the simple take from David Axelrod, a former advisor to President Obama and a man with extraordinarily close ties to the administration.
Speech broke no new ground nor offered realistic path short of war. But apocalyptic language & GOP cheerleading tailor-made for his base.
— David Axelrod (@davidaxelrod) March 3, 2015
A few more quick takes, starting with ABC’s foreign correspondent Alexander Marquardt:
#Netanyahu So much hype, what substance? Iran bad, no proposals for deal. Solid delivery. #NetanyahuSpeech
— Alexander Marquardt (@MarquardtA) March 3, 2015
Haaretz’ Anshel Pfeffer:
Shorter #NetanyahuSpeech - Obama's heart is in the right place but he's stuck in a genocidal Persian bazaar about to sign a very bad deal.
— Anshel Pfeffer (@AnshelPfeffer) March 3, 2015
Israelis, by way of Buzzfeed foreign correspondent Sheera Frenkel:
Israelis watching Netanyahu speech tell me, "He's much more popular in DC than he is in Jerusalem these days."
— Sheera Frenkel (@sheeraf) March 3, 2015
The quickest of takes are already coming in, but few seem to agree about whether Netanyahu’s speech was a boom or a bust for President Obama and talks with Iran.
Most simply agree that it sure was noisy. From Richard Haass, president of the Council of Foreign Relations.
Obama administration ought to be relatively pleased w #Netanyahu speech; only fundamental disagreement over whether #Iran pact time-limited
— Richard N. Haass (@RichardHaass) March 3, 2015
From the Guardian’s correspondent in Jerusalem, Peter Beaumont:
#Bibispeech Big takeout - having threatened to reveal details of the bad deal on Iran. Nothing new, nothing concrete. He bottled it
— peter beaumont (@petersbeaumont) March 3, 2015
Jeremy Bowen, the BBC’s Middle East editor:
speech was classic Netanyahu. politics of fear & politics of bravery in adversity. Way more emotional than Obama's argument for deal.
— Jeremy Bowen (@BowenBBC) March 3, 2015
The Guardian’s DC bureau chief Dan Roberts:
If the aim of this speech was to split enough of Congress from the White House, it feels like it is well aimed. Obama is in for a bumpy ride
— Dan Roberts (@RobertsDan) March 3, 2015
Washington Post Israel correspondent William Booth:
Snap analysis: Rousing speech. Netanyahu alternative: no deal. Keep sanctions. Iran will walk. Iran will come back. Keep oil prices low.
— William Booth (@BoothWilliam) March 3, 2015
“We are no longer scattered among the nations unable to defend ourselves … and the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. … For the first time in generations, we the Jewish people can defend ourselves.”
“This is why as prime minister of Israel I can promise you one more thing. Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.”
“But I know that Israel does not stand alone, I know that America stands with Israel” – and here the cheers of the crowd rising to its feet drown out Netanyahu’s voice.
“You stand with Israel because you know that the story of Israel is not only the story of the Jewish people but of the human spirit that refuses again and again to succumb to history’s horrors.”
“Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years” – and here he ends by quoting Moses in Hebrew and English: “Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread.”
“My friends, may Israel and the United States be strong and resolute, may we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead, may we face the future with confidence and hope. May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America.”
The chamber gets to its feet for one last voluminous round of applause, lasting well over a minute.
Updated
Netanyahu: alternative is 'better deal'
It’s just not true, he says, that “the only alternative to this deal is war.”
“The alternative to this deal is a much better deal. A better deal that doesn’t leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short breakout point.” A deal, he says, that “won’t give Iran an easy pass to the bomb. A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we can live, literally. No country has a better stake than Israel in the [path] that peacefully removes this stuff.”
We are on a “fateful crossroads,” he continues: “We must now choose between two paths, one path leads to a bad deal, that will at best [delay] Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a while, but will eventually lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unabated aggression will lead to a war.”
“You don’t have to read Robert Frost,” Netanyahu says, to know about the importance of the path less taken – an allusion to a poem by the New England poet.
Netanyahu now points out a Holocaust survivor to the chamber, saying that his presence gives special “meaning to the words ‘never again’”.
Netanyahu says he does know one thing for sure: “The days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of [enemies] – those days are over.”
Updated
“If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions shuld be lifted. If Iran does not change its behavior, the restrictions should not lifted. If Iran wants to be treated like a normal country, let it act like a normal country!
“My friends, what about the argument that there is no alternative to this deal? That Iran’s nuclear know-how cannot be erased … that the best you can do is delay the inevitable. Well that nuclear know-how without infrastructure doesn’t get you very far.
“A race car driver without a car can’t go very far.” He argues that destroying the infrastructure is a necessary step.
“My friends, we’ve been told for over a year that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well this is a bad deal, a very bad deal. We’re better off without it.”
Updated
Netanyahu keeps going, periodically interrupted by applause: “Israel’s neighbors, Iran’s neighbors, know that Iran will become even more aggressive when [it is] unshackled.”
“So this deal won’t change Iran for the better, it will only change the Middle East for the worst. … It will then spark a nuclear arms race … It won’t be a farewell to arms, it will be a farewell to arms control! And the middle east will soon be crisscrossed with nuclear tripwire.”
“First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world. And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country Israel!”
Netanyau says that Iran’s ballistic missile systems would make it able to target “every part of the United States.”
He says that the proposed deal leaves two major concessions: “one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program; and two, lifting the restrictions on the program in about a decade.”
“That’s why this deal is so bad. It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb. it paves Iran’s path to the bomb. So why would anyone make this deal? Because they believe Iran will change in the coming years? Because they [don’t see a better choice]?”
“I don’t believe that Iran’s radical regime will change fro the better after this deal.”
“If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now, how many more countries would Iran devour with its sanctions lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism?”
“Why should it change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both worlds, aggression abroad and prosperity at home? This is a question that everyone asks.”
Netanyahu is now criticizing the nuclear negotiations, saying that the agreement would provide Iran “with a short breakout time for a bomb.”
“According to the deal not a single [facility] would be demolished” he says, and “because Iran’s [facilities] would be left largely intact, Iran’s breakout time would be very short.”
“True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran’s nuclear program, and Iran’s adherence to those restrictions would be [monitored by international inspectors].”
“Inspectors document those restrictions, they don’t stop them.”
Netanyahu then uses North Korea as an example of the failure of inspectors to stop a rogue state from developing nuclear weapons. “Like North Korea, Iran shot off the locks, turned off the cameras. … It also plays a pretty good game of hide and cheat.”
“The UN’s nuclear watchdog agency … said again yesterday that Irn still refuses to come clean with its nuclear program. Iran was also caught twice, not once but twice, with … facilities the inspectors didn’t even know existed.”
“Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspections to lead to breakup. … That to me leaves a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by breaking the deal.”
“A second greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal,” he says, and mentions the 10-year deadline for the proposed deal.”
“A decade my seem like a long time in a political life, but it’s the blink of an eye in the life of a nation, and it’s the blink of an eye in the lives of our children.”
Netanyahu: US must not fixate on Isis
Netanyahu now lists some of the crimes of the Iranian regime, such as persecuting journalists, funding terrorism. executing prisoners.
“Iran’s regime is as radical as ever. It [proclaims] death to America, … now that shouldn’t be surprising, because the ideology of the Iranian regime is rooted in militant Islam … and that’s why … Iran will always be an enemy of America.”
“Don’t be fooled” about Isis, he continues.
“Iran and Isis are competing for the crown of militant Islam … both want to impose a militant Islamic empire, first on the region and then on the entire world. They may disagree on who will rule,” but that’s not what the US should be concerned with, he says.
“In this deadly game of thrones there is no place for America or for Israel. No place for Christians, Jews or Muslisms who don’t [share their beliefs]. So when it comes to Iran or Isis the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.”
‘The marriage of militant Islam and a nuclear weapon. To defeat Isis and let Iran get a nuclear weapon would be to win a battle and lose the war.”
Updated
In the Middle East Iran now dominates four Arab capitals … and if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.
Netanyahu says the hope of bringing Iran into the league of nations has faded, and that “Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.”
“We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror.”
“Israel is grateful to you … for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome.
He says that Israelis were saved last summer “because this capitol dome helped build our iron dome.”
“I have the profound obligation that could … well threaten the survival of my country and the survival of my people: Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.”
“We’re an ancient people, and in our nearly 4,000 years of history many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people.”
“Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday,” he says, Jewish people will read a book and recall the story of a courageous woman who helped save them from an enemy.
“Today the Jewish people face another threat by yet another Persian … to destroy us. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollay Khomenei [merges old ideology with new technology]. he tweets that Israel must be annihilated. He tweets. … He tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.”
“Those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state but not the Jewish people” are wrong, Netanyahu continues.
“If all the Jews gather in Israel it will save us the trouble of chasing them down around the world. But Iran’s regime is not merely a Jewish problem, any more than the Nazi regime was simply a Jewish problem.”
He says the 6 million Jews killed in world war two were only a fraction of the 60 million killed.
He says that Iran represents a threat “also to the peace of the entire world. To understand just how dangerous Iran would be with nuclear weapons we must fully understand the nature of the regime.”
“The people of Iran are a very talented people and the heirs of a great civilization, but in 1979 they were hijacked by religious zealots.”
“Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syria. … Backed by Iran Houthis are seizing [power] in Yemen.”
“I know that no matter which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.”
“A remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics and it must always remain above politics. Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny. The destiny of promised lands…”
“Israel is grateful for the support of American people and of American presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.”
“We appreciate all that president Obama has done for Israel, now some of that is widely known” – and here he’s interrupted by applause
“Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well known. I called him in 2010 … and he immediately responded to my request for emergency aid.” He adds that in 2011 the president helped with the Cairo embassy, and again helped in later years.
“I called the president and he was there. And some of what the president has done for Israel may never be known … But I know, and I will always be grateful to president Obama for that support.”
Netanyahu begins
Netanyahu begins by acknowledging the leaders of Congress, Boehner, Pelosi, etc.
“I also want to acknowledge senator and Democratic leader, Harry Reid. Senator it’s good to see you back on your feet,” he says, to more applause.
“I guess it’s true what they say you can’t keep a good man down. My friends I’m deeply humbled for the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the US Congress.”
“I want to thank you all for being here today, I know that my speech has been the subject of much controversy. I deeply regret that some perceived my being here as political, that was never my intention.”
“I want to thank you for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.”
Another round of applause.
Updated
“I have the distinct honor of presenting to you the prime minister of Israel, his excellency, Benjamin Netanyahu,” Boehner says, setting off yet another round of enthusiastic applause and cheering.
Netanyahu enters to raucous applause at the introduction of “the prime minister of Israel!” Everyone stands and there’s a fair amount of hollering.
He come walking slowly up the aisle, shaking hands with members of Congress as he approaches the dais.
Speaker of the House John Boehner has just introduced Netanyahu and Congress is getting ready to begin any minute now.
Updated
Some anti-deal Iranians are echoing Netanyahu, my colleague Saeed Kamali Dehghan reports, quoting a senior Iranian politician who says that the greatest challenge to a nuclear agreement is not Netanyahu in DC but opponents to a deal in Tehran.
Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, may be trying his best to sabotage a proposed Iranian nuclear deal with his speech at the US Congress but a greater challenge is coming from inside Iran, according to a senior Iranian politician.
Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of Iran’s great political survivors, who is seen as President Hassan Rouhani’s patron, said on Tuesday that internal opponents of Tehran’s nuclear negotiating team were echoing Netanyahu, and putting even more pressure on Iran.
“We are facing all sorts of pressure from outside but inside the country there’s even a greater challenge,” Rafsanjani said on Tuesday ahead of Netanyahu’s hotly anticipated speech before a joint session of US Congress.
“Netanyahu is threatening Obama there [in Washington] and here [in Tehran] a group of people are threatening to reveal secrets,” he said. “They [the internal opponents] are echoing Netanyahu.”
Rafsanjani was referring to a large number of conservative Iranian lawmakers who have attacked Rouhani’s nuclear diplomacy as well as his negotiating team in recent months. Many Iranian hardliners are opposed to a nuclear deal with the west, saying Tehran is giving away too much for too little.
Some elements of the Iranian press are also pushing this hardline stance against a deal – even to the point of suggesting conspiracy.
The ultra-conservative newspaper, Kayhan, took a conspiratorial view of Netanyahu’s speech and published a front page article on Tuesday which said the Israeli prime minister is in favour of a nuclear deal but is instead showing opposition in order to trick Tehran to accept it. “Netanyahu’s mission: supporting the Geneva deal under the cover of opposition,” read Kayhan’s headline.
Many in Iran are closely watching Netanyahu’s movements in Washington. Those with access to illegal satellite dishes could watch his speech live but many were following it on social media such as Twitter and Facebook.
“We don’t have satellite. The state TV is not showing his speech? It would have been fun to watch,” tweeted one user. Another said: “Netanyahu is mirroring [former president] Ahmadinejad with his radical and illogical views.” Many Iranian users were using hashtag #ShutUpNetanyahu in order to show their opposition to his comments.
Boehner crashes the gavel down and calls the House to order, and the chamber rises to applaud politely as Mitch McConnell, Chuck Schumber, Dianne Feinstein and other senators enter.
Then everyone goes back to smalltalk and handshakes.
We’re in the gallery as members of Congress filter in – there are decidedly more Republicans than Democrats in attendance.
Up here in the press gallery it’s standing room only.
Meanwhile, in Montreux…
A pic from the first day of #NuclearTalks between #Iran & #US in #Montreux, #Switzerland. #NuclearTalks #IranTalks pic.twitter.com/OSmAucJxia
— Nuclear Talks (@NuclearTalks) March 3, 2015
Fifty-six Democratic lawmakers are expected to boycott Netanyahu’s address to Congress, according to an estimate by the Hill. My colleague Dan Roberts (@robertsdan), DC bureau chief for the Guardian, has more on the otherwise crowded (and partisan) state of affairs:
Demand for attendance elsewhere in Washington remains high, and an overspill room has been set up to accommodate visitors not able to watch the Israeli prime minister from the gallery of the House of Representatives.
Bob Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat who has been sponsoring legislation supportive of Netanyahu’s concerns over Iranian nuclear talks, will escort him to the House chamber – despite holding some misgivings:
“I may agree with some Democrats that the political timing of Netanyahu’s invitation may have been unfortunate, and that we must work fervently to keep the US-Israel relationship a strong bipartisan endeavor,” Menendez told a conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee on Monday.
Squeezing dozens of senators into the already full House chamber should guarantee few empty seats despite the threatened boycott, but Democrats opposing the speech plan a press conference afterwards to underline their symbolic absence.
The White House has meanwhile tried to forestall Netanyahu’s campaign to win over Congress, Dan writes:
On the eve of Netanyahu’s speech, Barack Obama revealed key details of an emerging deal that is designed to prevent Tehran developing nuclear weapons for “a decade or more”.
Obama said the chances of a successful deal remained difficult, but his interview appeared to contradict recent denials by his press secretary that a 10-year option was under consideration. Officials later told the Guardian there was “no discrepancy” because the president also said it could be longer.
You can read the full piece here.
Security is tight here at the Capitol and the Israeli press corp have set up shop at one of the main tables of the House gallery press offices. Everybody’s desperate for a plug, especially the Americans who’ve just arrived.
Dan Roberts, Guardian DC bureau chief, sees some protesters on the Hill.
“Netanyahu offers spine-chilling rhetoric but no answers,” says Daniel Levy, director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations, criticizing the prime minister’s “incoherent” speechifying on Iran.
Netanyahu’s olive branch to Democrats and to the Obama administration will only take him so far. Israel’s most American and most Republican of prime ministers crossed the Rubicon on inappropriate political partisanship long ago. What’s more, Netanyahu’s attempt to reassert the US-Israel relationship based on Israel being a beacon of humanity, hope and shared values will ring hollow to anyone paying attention to Netanyahu’s own brand of narrow chauvinist nationalism, to the democratic recession he is leading in Israel or indeed to anyone who has heard of the Palestinians.
But those are long-term trends, more immediately President Obama is demonstrating his commitment to Israel irrespective, or even in spite, of the shenanigans of its Prime Minister.
Netanyahu’s portrayal of Iran as an existential threat to Israel, who’s tentacles are devouring the entire region bumps up against a reality in which Iran is part of the pushback against ISIS, in which most Israeli security chiefs reject the existential threat narrative as shallow scaremongering. …
Netanyahu is weak when opposing the substance of the deal taking shape, on how it could be worse for Israel than the status quo and he has failed to offer a better alternative. Does Netanyahu prefer an Iran freed from limitations on its enrichment program, stockpiles and facilities, without an unprecedentedly intrusive inspection regime? Does he prefer military action – a game of bluff he has been playing for over a decade?
Netanyahu might even be cast into the role of “accidental peacemaker” – convincing Americans not to risk war at the behest of a foreign leader, even an allied one, convincing hardliners in Tehran that a tough deal to swallow can’t be so bad if Israel is so against it, while allowing Israelis to blame Netanyahu, move on and make the best of a post-deal reality.
Good morning and welcome to our coverage of Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress, which aims to galvanize popular opinion against nuclear negotiations with Iran but has been described by Democrats as an attempted “sabotage” of American policy, helping widen the largest rift between the allies in decades.
Netanyahu is expected to say that negotiations with Iran endanger Israel’s existence, an argument that flies in the face of President Obama’s renewed efforts to find compromise over its nuclear program. Republicans have embraced Netanyahu’s hardline rhetoric and Democrats have recoiled from it, saying Netanyahu’s criticism of US policy is a “dangerous mistake” and designed to embarrass the president.
The speech, following years of periodic spats between the Obama administration and Netanyahu’s government, has exposed divisions in the US and between the allies about Iran and respective security priorities.
Obama will not meet Netanyahu during his visit, an administration spokesperson said, “because of the proximity to the Israeli election, which is just two weeks after his planned address to the US Congress.” More than 50 Democrat lawmakers, including senators Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken, have elected not to attend, snubbing the Israeli PM.
Speaking on Monday before Aipac, the vociferous pro-Israel lobbying group, Netanyahu tried to soothe concerns of a growing rift between Washington and Tel Aviv. “Reports of the demise of US-Israeli relations are not only premature, they’re just wrong,” he said, adding that “my speech isn’t intended to show any disrespect to President Obama or the esteemed office that he holds. I have great respect for both.”
“The last thing that I would want is for Israel to become a partisan issue,” he said.
But Netanyahu hinted that he would condemn negotiations in the strongest possible terms: “I have a moral obligation to speak up in the face of these dangers while there is still time to avert them.”
“American leaders worry about the security of their country, Israeli leaders worry about the survival of their country,” Netanyahu said.
He also joked about the hype around his speech: “Never has so much been written about a speech that hasn’t been given.”
