ShopDreamUp AI ArtDreamUp
Deviation Actions
President Obama on Monday downplayed speculation that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s appearance before Congress on Tuesday would have a lasting negative impact on U.S.-Israeli relations.
At the same time, other U.S. officials openly expressed concerns that Israel is so eager to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons that it may be spreading misinformation about America’s negotiated talks with Iran in an effort to scuttle them.
President Obama called the kerfuffle surrounding congressional Republicans’ invitation to Netanyahu to deliver an Iran-threats speech “a distraction” that won’t be “permanently destructive” to relations between the United States and Israel.
In an interview with Reuters, the president said the dust-up between the two leaders was not personal, nor was it evidence of a chasm between two nations. Seated in the White House library, Obama said his focus is on diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon -- a U.S. objective shared with Israel -- not debating how Netanyahu, facing re-election in a few weeks, secured an invitation to address the Republican-led House and Senate.
Netanyahu, speaking across town to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, argued his much-debated speech “is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama or the esteemed office that he holds. I have great respect for both.”
Obama did not watch Netanyahu’s remarks Monday and was unlikely to view his speech Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. And, Obama and Netanyahu, who have clashed in public before, have no plans to meet this week.
The administration seeks to propel nuclear talks with Iran toward deadlines in March and June, despite headwinds in Congress, in Israel, and in Tehran.
U.S. officials said Monday they worried Israel was so anxious to scuttle progress in the talks with Iran that it may have selectively leaked information, some of it inaccurate or misleading, to back its arguments that the United States will cut a bad deal in its impatience to sign any deal.
The president’s team feared Netanyahu planned to share disclosures and make predictions during his Tuesday speech to lawmakers that could slow or derail Obama’s “most important foreign policy objective”-- the description offered by his national security adviser.
“Sensitive details” of negotiations should not be revealed in public, White House National Security Council Chairwoman Susan Rice told AIPAC, the influential pro-Israel lobbying organization.
Anticipating Netanyahu’s Capitol Hill appearance, Obama and Rice described in some detail how negotiators envisioned a verifiable pact that would allow Tehran some domestic uranium enrichment capacity, while keeping the Tehran government tethered to long-term requirements that would bar activities aimed at building or obtaining a nuclear weapon. Constraining and verifying Iran’s capabilities would involve keeping Iran at least 12 months from any capabilities that would seem too fast-moving to halt.
Imposing more economic sanctions as punishment, or using military strikes against Iran, are unlikely to halt its ambitions to build centrifuges and create a lethal weapon, officials argued.
“We can always bring consequences to bear,” Rice said, “but we must weigh the different options before us and choose the best one. Sound bites won’t prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Strong diplomacy backed by pressure can.”
Obama said politics in Iran presented challenges that remain tough to overcome. “I think in fairness to them, they have been serious negotiators. And they've got their own politics inside of Iran,” he said, referring to jockeying for power in Tehran. Nonetheless, as negotiations continue, “It is more likely that we could get a deal now than perhaps three or five months ago,” he added.
The president dismissed some of Netanyahu’s dire forecasts and suggested the prime minister had overlooked positive results during the negotiations.
“When we signed up for this interim deal [to] essentially freeze Iran’s program, roll back its highly enriched uranium … [to] reduce the possibility that Iran might break out while we were engaged in these negotiations,” Obama explained, “Prime Minister Netanyahu made all sorts of claims. This was going to be a terrible deal. This was going to result in Iran getting $50 billion worth of [sanctions] relief. Iran would not abide by the agreement,” the president continued. “None of that has come true.”
The negotiations and interim agreement froze Iran’s nuclear program, he said, and rolled back some elements. The negotiators learned more about the program thanks to “more vigorous” inspections, he added.
Despite disagreements about how to achieve the desired ends, Rice appeared at AIPAC to declare the U.S.-Israel relationship “stronger than it’s ever been.”
Offering a twist on President Reagan’s famous statement about the Soviet Union, Rice added: “Our approach is distrust, but verify.”
Judging by moments of modest applause as Rice spoke Monday, the AIPAC audience had similar thoughts -- about the Obama administration.
Alexis Simendinger covers the White House for RealClearPolitics. She can be reached at asimendinger@realclearpolitics.com. Follow her on Twitter @ASimendinger.
Read more: www.realclearpolitics.com/arti…
At the same time, other U.S. officials openly expressed concerns that Israel is so eager to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons that it may be spreading misinformation about America’s negotiated talks with Iran in an effort to scuttle them.
President Obama called the kerfuffle surrounding congressional Republicans’ invitation to Netanyahu to deliver an Iran-threats speech “a distraction” that won’t be “permanently destructive” to relations between the United States and Israel.
In an interview with Reuters, the president said the dust-up between the two leaders was not personal, nor was it evidence of a chasm between two nations. Seated in the White House library, Obama said his focus is on diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon -- a U.S. objective shared with Israel -- not debating how Netanyahu, facing re-election in a few weeks, secured an invitation to address the Republican-led House and Senate.
Netanyahu, speaking across town to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, argued his much-debated speech “is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama or the esteemed office that he holds. I have great respect for both.”
Obama did not watch Netanyahu’s remarks Monday and was unlikely to view his speech Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. And, Obama and Netanyahu, who have clashed in public before, have no plans to meet this week.
The administration seeks to propel nuclear talks with Iran toward deadlines in March and June, despite headwinds in Congress, in Israel, and in Tehran.
U.S. officials said Monday they worried Israel was so anxious to scuttle progress in the talks with Iran that it may have selectively leaked information, some of it inaccurate or misleading, to back its arguments that the United States will cut a bad deal in its impatience to sign any deal.
The president’s team feared Netanyahu planned to share disclosures and make predictions during his Tuesday speech to lawmakers that could slow or derail Obama’s “most important foreign policy objective”-- the description offered by his national security adviser.
“Sensitive details” of negotiations should not be revealed in public, White House National Security Council Chairwoman Susan Rice told AIPAC, the influential pro-Israel lobbying organization.
Anticipating Netanyahu’s Capitol Hill appearance, Obama and Rice described in some detail how negotiators envisioned a verifiable pact that would allow Tehran some domestic uranium enrichment capacity, while keeping the Tehran government tethered to long-term requirements that would bar activities aimed at building or obtaining a nuclear weapon. Constraining and verifying Iran’s capabilities would involve keeping Iran at least 12 months from any capabilities that would seem too fast-moving to halt.
Imposing more economic sanctions as punishment, or using military strikes against Iran, are unlikely to halt its ambitions to build centrifuges and create a lethal weapon, officials argued.
“We can always bring consequences to bear,” Rice said, “but we must weigh the different options before us and choose the best one. Sound bites won’t prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Strong diplomacy backed by pressure can.”
Obama said politics in Iran presented challenges that remain tough to overcome. “I think in fairness to them, they have been serious negotiators. And they've got their own politics inside of Iran,” he said, referring to jockeying for power in Tehran. Nonetheless, as negotiations continue, “It is more likely that we could get a deal now than perhaps three or five months ago,” he added.
The president dismissed some of Netanyahu’s dire forecasts and suggested the prime minister had overlooked positive results during the negotiations.
“When we signed up for this interim deal [to] essentially freeze Iran’s program, roll back its highly enriched uranium … [to] reduce the possibility that Iran might break out while we were engaged in these negotiations,” Obama explained, “Prime Minister Netanyahu made all sorts of claims. This was going to be a terrible deal. This was going to result in Iran getting $50 billion worth of [sanctions] relief. Iran would not abide by the agreement,” the president continued. “None of that has come true.”
The negotiations and interim agreement froze Iran’s nuclear program, he said, and rolled back some elements. The negotiators learned more about the program thanks to “more vigorous” inspections, he added.
Despite disagreements about how to achieve the desired ends, Rice appeared at AIPAC to declare the U.S.-Israel relationship “stronger than it’s ever been.”
Offering a twist on President Reagan’s famous statement about the Soviet Union, Rice added: “Our approach is distrust, but verify.”
Judging by moments of modest applause as Rice spoke Monday, the AIPAC audience had similar thoughts -- about the Obama administration.
Alexis Simendinger covers the White House for RealClearPolitics. She can be reached at asimendinger@realclearpolitics.com. Follow her on Twitter @ASimendinger.
Read more: www.realclearpolitics.com/arti…
No, Trump DID NOT call the coronavirus a 'hoax.'
What's True
During a Feb. 28, 2020, campaign rally in South Carolina, President Donald Trump likened the Democrats' criticism of his administration's response to the new coronavirus outbreak to their efforts to impeach him, saying "this is their new hoax." During the speech he also seemed to downplay the severity of the outbreak, comparing it to the common flu.
What's False
Despite creating some confusion with his remarks, Trump did not call the coronavirus itself a hoax.
Even the liars at Snopes could not bring themselves to agree with certain people here on DA https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-coronavirus-rally-remark/
And what w
Simple question for leftists
How many more people need to die in England, France, Sweden, Germany- and very likely, an increasingly long list of other nations- before you figure out that ISLAM is the problem?
WattsUpWithThat recognized among top science blogs
WattsUpWithThat- the top climate skeptic blog on the internet- has been chosen as one of the top 100 science blogs!
Anthony Watts' article plus comments https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/28/wuwt-awarded-top-science-blog-status-beats-realclimate-nyt-guardian-huffpo/comment-page-1/#comment-2308295
The science site itself http://blog.feedspot.com/science_blogs/
Pro-AGW type admits a truth about his side.
'The great oddity of the climate science debate
“Ad hominem attacks aren’t a final line of defense, they’re argument #1. …It’s about an attitude, the sense that righteousness excuses you from the need for hard thinking and that any questioning of the righteous is treason.” {By Paul Krugman. Quite true, as any skeptic quickly learns when discussing climate with an activist.}
Activists consider forecasts of models as like the Word of God.' ~ paul krugman
You KNOW something is right with the world when pro-'all-catastrophic, all-the-time and all-YOUR-fault climate change' activist (and supposedly economist)
Featured in Groups
© 2015 - 2024 PoliticalDebateClub
Comments0
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In