WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES FOR IRAN?

By Mansur Rastani 3-7-15

Nuclear development in Iran has for three decades been an issue of international concern in the interests of regional and global security. About a decade of diplomatic initiatives by the EU3 and P5+1 to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue have led to the in-progress signing a comprehensive agreement, known as Joint Plan Of Action (JPOA) with two extensions, requiring Iran to suspend many aspects of its nuclear program in exchange for relief from some international sanctions, yet no prospective legally binding instrument that would ensure Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful has been attainable.

On February 19, 2015 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its report on the implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in Iran and the status of Iran’s compliance with United Nation Security Council resolutions. According to this report no progress has been achieved on resolving the IAEA’s concerns about the possible existence of undisclosed nuclear associated activities. The IAEA Agency asserts that it will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran unless and until Iran provides the necessary cooperation with the Agency, including implementation of its signed Additional Protocol to the NPT safeguards agreement. Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the IAEA Board of Governors and the seven resolutions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended all of its enrichment related activities in the declared facilities.

Despite having spent years in the country, the IAEA is still unable to verify the correctness and completeness of the information Tehran has provided. Iran, under JPOA, has been given ground on uranium enrichment, plutonium development and missile technology. Above all, its bankrupt economy has been helped up off its knees. A question P5+1 should ask themselves is that if the Iranian regime is genuine in its peaceful intentions, then why has it adopted a hardline stance toward taking measures to build confidence? And subsequently resort to rebuffing the underlying concepts of normal international laws and established diplomacy? The answer is multifaceted, and is entrenched in the regime's ideological vision of its policy that has forged its strategic interests.

The Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) has exclusively adopted Sharia as its foundation for political institutions and laws. Article 2 of the Iranian constitution describes that the Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting the laws. In other words, the legislations or laws on all matters have to be examined and compared to the word of God before their approval. Article 4 of the constitution asserts that all civil, penal, financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria. The Iranian regime is a theocracy that mixes religion and state, to the extent that Shiite Islam and politics are inseparable.

In 1984 the permanent representative of Iran at UN in response to criticism on the Iranian regime’s human rights violations gives the following statement, (Islamic fundamentalism -- Human rights controversy): “Iran recognized no authority (...) apart from Islamic law. (...) Conventions, declarations and resolutions or decisions of international organizations which were contradictory to Islam, had no validity in the Islamic Republic of Iran. (…)”.

The theocratic IRI’s view of international law is a notion that is used to reject and undermine the general applicability of international law because it cannot comply to civil development of law, but with an interpretation of will of God as set out in its Islamic scripture. Divine rules are rigid and independent of the will of man and cannot be used to measure the flexible civil laws, a main facet of the uncompromising regime’s policy.  

In January 2014 the president of the Iranian regime, Hassan Rouhani, made his debut at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, by persuading investors and reassuring political leaders of his determination to complete a comprehensive nuclear deal with the major powers. Rouhani's charm offensive is just a hypocritical gesture of the regime to mask its anti-democratic ideology and to present a new image of moderation towards the international community. He has no authority to negotiate a deal, he can sign any legislation, treaties, protocols, and agreements concluded by the Iranian government with other governments or international organizations only after obtaining the approval of first the Islamic Consultative Assembly and then the Council of Guardians for thorough examination and approval according to the Islamic values and the constitution. Rouhani’s more moderate guise is nothing but a tactic to fend off new sanctions in order to attract foreign investors to Iran, and buy some time for the regime to continue develop its nuclear program.

Another facet of the regime’s hardline policy is hidden under the word “democracy”. In the regime’s mind the success of the nuclear agreement can lead to the unlocking of its three-decades closed door to modern Western civilization, in particular the United States. The regime knows that in due course, other issues, such as human rights and sponsorship of terrorism, will be addressed in the context of the ongoing nuclear talks. That is why theocratic Iran’s foreign policy cannot allow the acceptance of the norms governing today’s international systems. However, once the regime becomes a nuclear power, as with North Korea, it can use it as leverage to confront any, to its view, possible threat of democratic change. The Iranian constitution’s preamble states that Iran must spread its Islamic revolution.  

Per the analysis made by the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at the Atlantic Council, regardless of the outcome of the nuclear talks, at present, assuming no external interferences, Iran could break out (become capable of producing weapons-grade uranium, WGU) in two to three months and possess a nuclear warhead in an additional one month to one year. In other words, Iran is already a latent nuclear power (i.e., capable of producing nuclear weapons on short order should it decide to do so).

Since 1984, Iran has remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Iran’s financial and logistic support for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East and Central Asia had a direct impact on international efforts to promote peace and democracy. A decision to permit enrichment, even if the latent-nuclear power Iran refrains from building nuclear weapons, could lead to Iranian transfers of uranium-enrichment technology or material to state or non-state actors, which would pose potential threats to international peace and security, the outcome would be nothing less than a disastrous nuclear proliferation. This is where I call it the blind spot of the comprehensive agreement; the requirement for an agreement to be considered legally binding is that parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to. How can signing a rogue state with ideological vision such as Iran, which has forged its strategic interests, into a contract on the basis of existing customary international law be justified? Subsequently, can such a signature provide the necessary assurance to make the regime abide by its terms?

The other concern about such a decision to permit enrichment in Iran would be raising alarms about setting a new standard for future regional peaceful nuclear energy programs, which will further obscure the prospect of the nuclear management in the region.

The regime of Iran does whatever it takes to become a nuclear-armed State, from act of terrorism abroad, to disdain human life at home, and meddling in the neighboring countries, to forge and fabricate the facts, but above all make use of Shiite doctrine of deceit called “Taqiyya”, which is the Shiite religious rationale for concealment or dissimulation in political affairs, another facet to the hardline position of the regime. “Befriend people on the surface, and keep your grudges and intentions hidden,” Shiite teaching advises. There are two different value systems at work here, the policies of the West and of the IAEA that are driven by the concept of transparency based on international norms and standards as a key doctrine of modernity and modern states, and the one from the mullahs’ perspective, “nuclear” taqiyya, which can easily undermine and discredit the results of the investigation by the West. The outcome wouldn’t be anything less than nuclear-armed mullahs.

The phase of assembling the enriched materials into a bomb and building the actual warhead can be done in a very small space, inside a single room at some clandestine location, and is almost impossible to detect. The preeminent question concerning Iranian compliance is, how much confidence can we have that the mullahs will not press ahead with their clandestine nuclear facilities, as they have done in the past with their undeclared enrichment sites? And if they do press ahead, how much confidence can we have that our intelligence agencies will catch them in due course?

For more than 20 years, the Iranian regime has violated IAEA safeguard agreements, developed covert nuclear facilities, and sought to mislead the West about the scope and pace of its activities. As the American people weigh the value of an agreement with a regime that has a consistent record of cheating on international accords -- not to mention lying, inciting hatred, terrorizing, and murdering -- they would do well to understand that if the agreement is violated, we may not find out until it is far too late to rectify our oversight, for at that point, Iran will already have achieved its terrible goal.

Nuclear development in Iran has for three decades been an issue of international concern in the interests of regional and global security. About a decade of diplomatic initiatives by the EU3 and P5+1 to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue have led to the in-progress signing a comprehensive agreement, known as Joint Plan Of Action (JPOA) with two extensions, requiring Iran to suspend many aspects of its nuclear program in exchange for relief from some international sanctions, yet no prospective legally binding instrument that would ensure Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful has been attainable.

On February 19, 2015 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released its report on the implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in Iran and the status of Iran’s compliance with United Nation Security Council resolutions. According to this report no progress has been achieved on resolving the IAEA’s concerns about the possible existence of undisclosed nuclear associated activities. The IAEA Agency asserts that it will not be in a position to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran unless and until Iran provides the necessary cooperation with the Agency, including implementation of its signed Additional Protocol to the NPT safeguards agreement. Contrary to the relevant resolutions of the IAEA Board of Governors and the seven resolutions of the Security Council, Iran has not suspended all of its enrichment related activities in the declared facilities.

Despite having spent years in the country, the IAEA is still unable to verify the correctness and completeness of the information Tehran has provided. Iran, under JPOA, has been given ground on uranium enrichment, plutonium development and missile technology. Above all, its bankrupt economy has been helped up off its knees. A question P5+1 should ask themselves is that if the Iranian regime is genuine in its peaceful intentions, then why has it adopted a hardline stance toward taking measures to build confidence? And subsequently resort to rebuffing the underlying concepts of normal international laws and established diplomacy? The answer is multifaceted, and is entrenched in the regime's ideological vision of its policy that has forged its strategic interests.

The Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) has exclusively adopted Sharia as its foundation for political institutions and laws. Article 2 of the Iranian constitution describes that the Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting the laws. In other words, the legislations or laws on all matters have to be examined and compared to the word of God before their approval. Article 4 of the constitution asserts that all civil, penal, financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria. The Iranian regime is a theocracy that mixes religion and state, to the extent that Shiite Islam and politics are inseparable.

In 1984 the permanent representative of Iran at UN in response to criticism on the Iranian regime’s human rights violations gives the following statement, (Islamic fundamentalism -- Human rights controversy): “Iran recognized no authority (...) apart from Islamic law. (...) Conventions, declarations and resolutions or decisions of international organizations which were contradictory to Islam, had no validity in the Islamic Republic of Iran. (…)”.

The theocratic IRI’s view of international law is a notion that is used to reject and undermine the general applicability of international law because it cannot comply to civil development of law, but with an interpretation of will of God as set out in its Islamic scripture. Divine rules are rigid and independent of the will of man and cannot be used to measure the flexible civil laws, a main facet of the uncompromising regime’s policy.  

In January 2014 the president of the Iranian regime, Hassan Rouhani, made his debut at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, by persuading investors and reassuring political leaders of his determination to complete a comprehensive nuclear deal with the major powers. Rouhani's charm offensive is just a hypocritical gesture of the regime to mask its anti-democratic ideology and to present a new image of moderation towards the international community. He has no authority to negotiate a deal, he can sign any legislation, treaties, protocols, and agreements concluded by the Iranian government with other governments or international organizations only after obtaining the approval of first the Islamic Consultative Assembly and then the Council of Guardians for thorough examination and approval according to the Islamic values and the constitution. Rouhani’s more moderate guise is nothing but a tactic to fend off new sanctions in order to attract foreign investors to Iran, and buy some time for the regime to continue develop its nuclear program.

Another facet of the regime’s hardline policy is hidden under the word “democracy”. In the regime’s mind the success of the nuclear agreement can lead to the unlocking of its three-decades closed door to modern Western civilization, in particular the United States. The regime knows that in due course, other issues, such as human rights and sponsorship of terrorism, will be addressed in the context of the ongoing nuclear talks. That is why theocratic Iran’s foreign policy cannot allow the acceptance of the norms governing today’s international systems. However, once the regime becomes a nuclear power, as with North Korea, it can use it as leverage to confront any, to its view, possible threat of democratic change. The Iranian constitution’s preamble states that Iran must spread its Islamic revolution.  

Per the analysis made by the Brent Scowcroft Center on International Security at the Atlantic Council, regardless of the outcome of the nuclear talks, at present, assuming no external interferences, Iran could break out (become capable of producing weapons-grade uranium, WGU) in two to three months and possess a nuclear warhead in an additional one month to one year. In other words, Iran is already a latent nuclear power (i.e., capable of producing nuclear weapons on short order should it decide to do so).

Since 1984, Iran has remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Iran’s financial and logistic support for terrorist and militant groups throughout the Middle East and Central Asia had a direct impact on international efforts to promote peace and democracy. A decision to permit enrichment, even if the latent-nuclear power Iran refrains from building nuclear weapons, could lead to Iranian transfers of uranium-enrichment technology or material to state or non-state actors, which would pose potential threats to international peace and security, the outcome would be nothing less than a disastrous nuclear proliferation. This is where I call it the blind spot of the comprehensive agreement; the requirement for an agreement to be considered legally binding is that parties must knowingly understand what they are agreeing to. How can signing a rogue state with ideological vision such as Iran, which has forged its strategic interests, into a contract on the basis of existing customary international law be justified? Subsequently, can such a signature provide the necessary assurance to make the regime abide by its terms?

The other concern about such a decision to permit enrichment in Iran would be raising alarms about setting a new standard for future regional peaceful nuclear energy programs, which will further obscure the prospect of the nuclear management in the region.

The regime of Iran does whatever it takes to become a nuclear-armed State, from act of terrorism abroad, to disdain human life at home, and meddling in the neighboring countries, to forge and fabricate the facts, but above all make use of Shiite doctrine of deceit called “Taqiyya”, which is the Shiite religious rationale for concealment or dissimulation in political affairs, another facet to the hardline position of the regime. “Befriend people on the surface, and keep your grudges and intentions hidden,” Shiite teaching advises. There are two different value systems at work here, the policies of the West and of the IAEA that are driven by the concept of transparency based on international norms and standards as a key doctrine of modernity and modern states, and the one from the mullahs’ perspective, “nuclear” taqiyya, which can easily undermine and discredit the results of the investigation by the West. The outcome wouldn’t be anything less than nuclear-armed mullahs.

The phase of assembling the enriched materials into a bomb and building the actual warhead can be done in a very small space, inside a single room at some clandestine location, and is almost impossible to detect. The preeminent question concerning Iranian compliance is, how much confidence can we have that the mullahs will not press ahead with their clandestine nuclear facilities, as they have done in the past with their undeclared enrichment sites? And if they do press ahead, how much confidence can we have that our intelligence agencies will catch them in due course?

For more than 20 years, the Iranian regime has violated IAEA safeguard agreements, developed covert nuclear facilities, and sought to mislead the West about the scope and pace of its activities. As the American people weigh the value of an agreement with a regime that has a consistent record of cheating on international accords -- not to mention lying, inciting hatred, terrorizing, and murdering -- they would do well to understand that if the agreement is violated, we may not find out until it is far too late to rectify our oversight, for at that point, Iran will already have achieved its terrible goal.

ADMIRAL JAMES G. STAVRIDIS' TALK ON ISRAEL… 11-7-11 Admiral James G. Stavridis is the NATO Supreme Allied Commander and Commander of U.S. European Command. His keynote address is presented here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_-J9rzrwYk&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

Netanyahu: ‘Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.’

March 4, 2015 by Daniel Greenfield 

In 1967, Benjamin Netanyahu skipped his high school graduation in Pennsylvania to head off to Israel to help in the Six Day War. That same year Obama moved with his mother to Indonesia.

When Obama suggested that Israel return to the pre-1967 borders, described by Ambassador Eban, no right-winger, as “Auschwitz borders,” it was personal for Netanyahu. Like many Israeli teens, he had put his life on hold and risked it protecting those borders.

In the seventies, Obama was part of the Choom Gang and Netanyahu was sneaking up on Sabena Flight 571 dressed as an airline technician. Inside were four terrorists who had already separated Jewish passengers and taken them hostage. Two hijackers were killed. Netanyahu took a bullet in the arm.

The Prime Minister of Israel defended the operation in plain language. “When blackmail like this succeeds, it only leads to more blackmail,” she said.

Netanyahu’s speech in Congress was part of that same clash of worldviews. His high school teacher remembered him saying that his fellow students were living superficially and that there was “more to life than adolescent issues.” He came to Congress to cut through the issues of an administration that has never learned to get beyond its adolescence.

Obama’s people had taunted him with by calling him “chickens__t.” They had encouraged a boycott of his speech and accused him of insulting Obama. They had thrown out every possible distraction to the argument he came to make. Unable to argue with his facts, they played Mean Girls politics instead.

Benjamin Netanyahu had left high school behind to go to war. Now he was up against overgrown boys and girls who had never grown beyond high school. But even back then he had been, as a fellow student had described him, “The lone voice in the wilderness in support of the conservative line.”

“We were all against the war in Vietnam because we were kids,” she said. The kids are still against the war. Against all the wars; unless it’s their own wars. Netanyahu grew up fast. They never did.

Netanyahu could have played their game, but instead he began by thanking Obama. His message was not about personal attacks, but about the real threat that Iran poses to his country, to the region and to the world. He made that case decisively and effectively as few other leaders could.

He did it using plain language and obvious facts.

Netanyahu reminded Congress that the attempt to stop North Korea from going nuclear using inspectors failed. The deal would not mean a denuclearized Iran. “Not a single nuclear facility would be demolished,” he warned. And secret facilities would continue working outside the inspections regime.

He quoted the former head of IAEA’s inspections as saying, “If there’s no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn’t have one.”

And Netanyahu reminded everyone that Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear program would be backed by ongoing development of its intercontinental ballistic missile program that would not be touched under the deal.

He warned that the deal would leave Iran with a clear path to a nuclear endgame that would allow it to “make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal” in “a matter of weeks”.

Iran’s mission is to export Jihad around the world, he cautioned. It’s a terrorist state that has murdered Americans. While Obama claims to have Iran under control, it has seized control of an American ally in Yemen and is expanding its influence from Iraq to Syria.

Its newly moderate government “hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists.” It’s just as bad as ISIS, except that ISIS isn’t close to getting a nuclear bomb.

“America’s founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad,” he said. It was the type of clarity that he had brought to the difficult questions of life as a teenager. It is a clarity that still evades Obama today.

A measure of how thoroughly Netanyahu exposed Obama’s unseriousness can be found in Obama’s reply that before taking a position on a nuclear deal “it is very important not to be distracted by the nature of the Iranian regimes’ ambitions when it comes to territory or terrorism.”

For Netanyahu and for many in Congress, Iran’s terrorism is not a distraction; it is the main issue.

Obama insists in that same interview that “sanctions are not sufficient to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions.” And yet the entire premise of the deal he’s pushing is that the sanctions forced Iran to come to the negotiating table and agree to give up its race for the bomb. Sanctions can’t stop Iran from going nuclear, but negotiations using the sanctions as leverage can.

And to believe all this, we have to avoid being distracted by Iran’s invasions of other countries and support for terrorists.

It’s self-contradictory nonsense that wouldn’t pass muster in a high school paper in 1967. And yet it’s the unchallenged argument dominating the political class, foreign policy experts and the media today.

Netanyahu came to challenge the argument that Iran could be appeased out of getting the bomb. He had to do it because Obama and his media allies had ignored or shut up everyone who had made it before him. By making Netanyahu’s very appearance into the issue, they hoped to shut him down the way they had senators from their own party. They succeeded in making his appearance controversial, but that just meant that more people were listening when he finally broke through and spoke.

“Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it’s under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?” he asked.

It’s a question that the administration and its defenders do not want to answer because it strikes at the heart of their logic of appeasement.

The appeasers claim that the negotiations will stabilize the region. Instead Netanyahu demonstrated that they will lead to a region in which every major Muslim country has nukes and is ready to use them.

The appeasers insist that we need to ally with Iran to stop ISIS. Netanyahu brought clarity to that as well.

“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,” he warned. “They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire,”

Netanyahu offered an alternative to another worthless nuclear agreement by focusing not only on Iran’s nuclear capability, but on its intentions. He asked the world to turn its attention to stopping Iran from attacking its neighbors and engaging in terrorism.

The things that Obama calls a distraction are for Benjamin Netanyahu the main point.

The former high school student who had been described as a “lone voice in the wilderness” closed his speech by saying, “Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.”

Netanyahu knows something about standing alone. No Israeli politician has faced the continuing level of hate by the left that he has. The mockery and sneers directed at him by Obama’s media allies in these past weeks have been nothing. The teenager who had learned to stand by his values in a high school in the sixties and as Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations in the eighties has let it all roll off him.

In war, Netanyahu had nearly drowned in the Suez Canal. In politics, he has kept his head above water. In Congress, he concluded by quoting Moses. “Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.”

It can refer to Iran or to the political mobs of the left who thought that smearing him would silence him.

Netanyahu understood what was at stake when Israel was fighting for its life in 1967. He did not let the comforts of suburbia blind him to the personal sacrifices that he had to make by going to Israel.

That is why he came to America now.

Netanyahu: ‘Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.’

March 4, 2015 by Daniel Greenfield 267 Comments

 Print This Post

In 1967, Benjamin Netanyahu skipped his high school graduation in Pennsylvania to head off to Israel to help in the Six Day War. That same year Obama moved with his mother to Indonesia.

When Obama suggested that Israel return to the pre-1967 borders, described by Ambassador Eban, no right-winger, as “Auschwitz borders,” it was personal for Netanyahu. Like many Israeli teens, he had put his life on hold and risked it protecting those borders.

In the seventies, Obama was part of the Choom Gang and Netanyahu was sneaking up on Sabena Flight 571 dressed as an airline technician. Inside were four terrorists who had already separated Jewish passengers and taken them hostage. Two hijackers were killed. Netanyahu took a bullet in the arm.

The Prime Minister of Israel defended the operation in plain language. “When blackmail like this succeeds, it only leads to more blackmail,” she said.

Netanyahu’s speech in Congress was part of that same clash of worldviews. His high school teacher remembered him saying that his fellow students were living superficially and that there was “more to life than adolescent issues.” He came to Congress to cut through the issues of an administration that has never learned to get beyond its adolescence.

Obama’s people had taunted him with by calling him “chickens__t.” They had encouraged a boycott of his speech and accused him of insulting Obama. They had thrown out every possible distraction to the argument he came to make. Unable to argue with his facts, they played Mean Girls politics instead.

Benjamin Netanyahu had left high school behind to go to war. Now he was up against overgrown boys and girls who had never grown beyond high school. But even back then he had been, as a fellow student had described him, “The lone voice in the wilderness in support of the conservative line.”

“We were all against the war in Vietnam because we were kids,” she said. The kids are still against the war. Against all the wars; unless it’s their own wars. Netanyahu grew up fast. They never did.

Netanyahu could have played their game, but instead he began by thanking Obama. His message was not about personal attacks, but about the real threat that Iran poses to his country, to the region and to the world. He made that case decisively and effectively as few other leaders could.

He did it using plain language and obvious facts.

Netanyahu reminded Congress that the attempt to stop North Korea from going nuclear using inspectors failed. The deal would not mean a denuclearized Iran. “Not a single nuclear facility would be demolished,” he warned. And secret facilities would continue working outside the inspections regime.

He quoted the former head of IAEA’s inspections as saying, “If there’s no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn’t have one.”

And Netanyahu reminded everyone that Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear program would be backed by ongoing development of its intercontinental ballistic missile program that would not be touched under the deal.

He warned that the deal would leave Iran with a clear path to a nuclear endgame that would allow it to “make the fuel for an entire nuclear arsenal” in “a matter of weeks”.

Iran’s mission is to export Jihad around the world, he cautioned. It’s a terrorist state that has murdered Americans. While Obama claims to have Iran under control, it has seized control of an American ally in Yemen and is expanding its influence from Iraq to Syria.

Its newly moderate government “hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists.” It’s just as bad as ISIS, except that ISIS isn’t close to getting a nuclear bomb.

“America’s founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad,” he said. It was the type of clarity that he had brought to the difficult questions of life as a teenager. It is a clarity that still evades Obama today.

A measure of how thoroughly Netanyahu exposed Obama’s unseriousness can be found in Obama’s reply that before taking a position on a nuclear deal “it is very important not to be distracted by the nature of the Iranian regimes’ ambitions when it comes to territory or terrorism.”

For Netanyahu and for many in Congress, Iran’s terrorism is not a distraction; it is the main issue.

Obama insists in that same interview that “sanctions are not sufficient to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions.” And yet the entire premise of the deal he’s pushing is that the sanctions forced Iran to come to the negotiating table and agree to give up its race for the bomb. Sanctions can’t stop Iran from going nuclear, but negotiations using the sanctions as leverage can.

And to believe all this, we have to avoid being distracted by Iran’s invasions of other countries and support for terrorists.

It’s self-contradictory nonsense that wouldn’t pass muster in a high school paper in 1967. And yet it’s the unchallenged argument dominating the political class, foreign policy experts and the media today.

Netanyahu came to challenge the argument that Iran could be appeased out of getting the bomb. He had to do it because Obama and his media allies had ignored or shut up everyone who had made it before him. By making Netanyahu’s very appearance into the issue, they hoped to shut him down the way they had senators from their own party. They succeeded in making his appearance controversial, but that just meant that more people were listening when he finally broke through and spoke.

“Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it’s under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?” he asked.

It’s a question that the administration and its defenders do not want to answer because it strikes at the heart of their logic of appeasement.

The appeasers claim that the negotiations will stabilize the region. Instead Netanyahu demonstrated that they will lead to a region in which every major Muslim country has nukes and is ready to use them.

The appeasers insist that we need to ally with Iran to stop ISIS. Netanyahu brought clarity to that as well.

“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,” he warned. “They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire,”

Netanyahu offered an alternative to another worthless nuclear agreement by focusing not only on Iran’s nuclear capability, but on its intentions. He asked the world to turn its attention to stopping Iran from attacking its neighbors and engaging in terrorism.

The things that Obama calls a distraction are for Benjamin Netanyahu the main point.

The former high school student who had been described as a “lone voice in the wilderness” closed his speech by saying, “Even if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand.”

Netanyahu knows something about standing alone. No Israeli politician has faced the continuing level of hate by the left that he has. The mockery and sneers directed at him by Obama’s media allies in these past weeks have been nothing. The teenager who had learned to stand by his values in a high school in the sixties and as Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations in the eighties has let it all roll off him.

In war, Netanyahu had nearly drowned in the Suez Canal. In politics, he has kept his head above water. In Congress, he concluded by quoting Moses. “Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them.”

It can refer to Iran or to the political mobs of the left who thought that smearing him would silence him.

Netanyahu understood what was at stake when Israel was fighting for its life in 1967. He did not let the comforts of suburbia blind him to the personal sacrifices that he had to make by going to Israel.

That is why he came to America now.

Full Transcript

of Prime Minister Netanyahu's Speech

to Joint Session of Congress..

March 3, 2015

NETANYAHU: Thank you.

Thank you...

... Speaker of the House John Boehner, President Pro Tem Senator Orrin Hatch, Senator Minority -- Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.
I also want to acknowledge Senator, Democratic Leader Harry Reid. Harry, it's good to see you back on your feet.

I guess it's true what they say, you can't keep a good man down.
(LAUGHTER)
My friends, I'm deeply humbled by the opportunity to speak for a third time before the most important legislative body in the world, the U.S. 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 perceive my being here as political. That was never my intention.

I want to thank you, Democrats and Republicans, for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.

I know that no matter on which side of the aisle you sit, you stand with Israel.

The remarkable alliance between Israel and the United States has always been above politics. It must always remain above politics.

Because America and Israel, we share a common destiny, the destiny of promised lands that cherish freedom and offer hope. Israel is grateful for the support of American -- of America's people and of America's presidents, from Harry Truman to Barack Obama.

We appreciate all that President Obama has done for Israel.
Now, some of that is widely known.

Some of that is widely known, like strengthening security cooperation and intelligence sharing, opposing anti-Israel resolutions at the U.N.
Some of what the president has done for Israel is less well- known.

I called him in 2010 when we had the Carmel forest fire, and he immediately agreed to respond to my request for urgent aid.

In 2011, we had our embassy in Cairo under siege, and again, he provided vital assistance at the crucial moment.

Or his support for more missile interceptors during our operation last summer when we took on Hamas terrorists.

In each of those moments, I called the president, and he was there.
And some of what the president has done for Israel might never be known, because it touches on some of the most sensitive and strategic issues that arise between an American president and an Israeli prime minister.
But I know it, and I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support.

And Israel is grateful to you, the American Congress, for your support, for supporting us in so many ways, especially in generous military assistance and missile defense, including Iron Dome.

Last summer, millions of Israelis were protected from thousands of Hamas rockets because this capital dome helped build our Iron Dome.

Thank you, America. Thank you for everything you've done for Israel.

My friends, I've come here today because, as prime minister of Israel, I feel a profound obligation to speak to you about an issue that could well threaten the survival of my country and the future of my people: Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

We're an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we'll read the Book of Esther. We'll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.

The plot was foiled. Our people were saved.

Today the Jewish people face another attempt by yet another Persian potentate to destroy us. Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei spews the oldest hatred, the oldest hatred of anti-Semitism with the newest technology. He tweets that Israel must be annihilated -- he tweets. You know, in Iran, there isn't exactly free Internet. But he tweets in English that Israel must be destroyed.

For those who believe that Iran threatens the Jewish state, but not the Jewish people, listen to Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, Iran's chief terrorist proxy. He said: 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 merely a Jewish problem. The 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis were but a fraction of the 60 million people killed in World War II. So, too, Iran's regime poses a grave threat, not only to Israel, but also 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 very talented people. They're heirs to one of the world's great civilizations. But in 1979, they were hijacked by religious zealots -- religious zealots who imposed on them immediately a dark and brutal dictatorship.

That year, the zealots drafted a constitution, a new one for Iran. It directed the revolutionary guards not only to protect Iran's borders, but also to fulfill the ideological mission of jihad. The regime's founder, Ayatollah Khomeini, exhorted his followers to "export the revolution throughout the world."

I'm standing here in Washington, D.C. and the difference is so stark. America's founding document promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Iran's founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad. And as states are collapsing across the Middle East, Iran is charging into the void to do just that.

Iran's goons in Gaza, its lackeys in Lebanon, its revolutionary guards on the Golan Heights are clutching Israel with three tentacles of terror. Backed by Iran, Assad is slaughtering Syrians. Back by Iran, Shiite militias are rampaging through Iraq. Back by Iran, Houthis are seizing control of Yemen, threatening the strategic straits at the mouth of the Red Sea. Along with the Straits of Hormuz, that would give Iran a second choke-point on the world's oil supply.

Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That's just last week, while they're having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran's attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real.

Iran took dozens of Americans hostage in Tehran, murdered hundreds of American soldiers, Marines, in Beirut, and was responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C.

In the Middle East, Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran's aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.

So, at a time when many hope that Iran will join the community of nations, Iran is busy gobbling up the nations.

We must all stand together to stop Iran's march of conquest, subjugation and terror.

Now, two years ago, we were told to give President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif a chance to bring change and moderation to Iran. Some change! Some moderation!
Rouhani's government hangs gays, persecutes Christians, jails journalists and executes even more prisoners than before.

Last year, the same Zarif who charms Western diplomats laid a wreath at the grave of Imad Mughniyeh. Imad Mughniyeh is the terrorist mastermind who spilled more American blood than any other terrorist besides Osama bin Laden. I'd like to see someone ask him a question about that.

Iran's regime is as radical as ever, its cries of "Death to America," that same America that it calls the "Great Satan," as loud as ever.

Now, this shouldn't be surprising, because the ideology of Iran's revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that's why this regime will always be an enemy of America.
Don't be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn't turn Iran into a friend of America.

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.
So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.

The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember -- I'll say it one more time -- the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can't let that happen.

But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.

Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don't need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.

Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.

The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.

According to the deal, 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.

Because Iran's nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran's break-out time would be very short -- about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel's.

And if -- if Iran's work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter.

True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran's nuclear program and Iran's adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here's the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don't stop them.

Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn't stop anything. 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.
Now, I know this is not gonna come a shock -- as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.

The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, 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.

Right now, Iran could be hiding nuclear facilities that we don't know about, the U.S. and Israel. As the former head of inspections for the IAEA said in 2013, he said, "If there's no undeclared installation today in Iran, it will be the first time in 20 years that it doesn't have one." Iran has proven time and again that it cannot be trusted. And that's why the first major concession is a source of great concern. It leaves Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and relies on inspectors to prevent a breakout. That concession creates a real danger that Iran could get to the bomb by violating the deal.

But the second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal. Because virtually all the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade.

Now, a decade may seem like a long time in political life, but it's the blink of an eye in the life of a nation. It's a blink of an eye in the life of our children. We all have a responsibility to consider what will happen when Iran's nuclear capabilities are virtually unrestricted and all the sanctions will have been lifted. Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could product many, many nuclear bombs.

Iran's Supreme Leader says that openly. He says, Iran plans to have 190,000 centrifuges, not 6,000 or even the 19,000 that Iran has today, but 10 times that amount -- 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.

My long-time friend, John Kerry, Secretary of State, confirmed last week that Iran could legitimately possess that massive centrifuge capacity when the deal expires.

Now I want you to think about that. The foremost sponsor of global terrorism could be weeks away from having enough enriched uranium for an entire arsenal of nuclear weapons and this with full international legitimacy.

And by the way, if Iran's Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the earth, including to every part of the United States.

So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that 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 hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?

Well, I disagree. I don't believe that Iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite -- would only wet Iran's appetite for more.

Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it's under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?

Why should Iran's radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world's: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?

This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel's neighbors -- Iran's neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it's been given a clear path to the bomb.

And many of these neighbors say they'll respond by racing to get nuclear weapons of their own. So this deal won't change Iran for the better; it will only change the Middle East for the worse. A deal that's supposed to prevent nuclear proliferation would instead spark a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous part of the planet.

This deal won't be a farewell to arms. It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.

If anyone thinks -- if anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again. When we get down that road, we'll face a much more dangerous Iran, a Middle East littered with nuclear bombs and a countdown to a potential nuclear nightmare.

Ladies and gentlemen, I've come here today to tell you we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don't have to gamble with our future and with our children's future.

We can insist that restrictions on Iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.

Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second...

Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.

And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.

Thank you.
If the world powers are not prepared to insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal is signed, at the very least they should insist that Iran change its behavior before a deal expires.

If Iran changes its behavior, the restrictions would be lifted. If Iran doesn't change its behavior, the restrictions should not be 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's no alternative to this deal, that Iran's nuclear know-how cannot be erased, that its nuclear program is so advanced that the best we can do is delay the inevitable, which is essentially what the proposed deal seeks to do?

Well, nuclear know-how without nuclear infrastructure doesn't get you very much. A racecar driver without a car can't drive. A pilot without a plan can't fly. Without thousands of centrifuges, tons of enriched uranium or heavy water facilities, Iran can't make nuclear weapons.

Iran's nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.

Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table -- and this often happens in a Persian bazaar -- call their bluff. They'll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.

And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran, you have the power to make them need it even more.

My friends, for over a year, we've been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It's a very bad deal. We're better off without it.

Now we're being told that the only alternative to this bad deal is war. That's just not true.

The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal.

A better deal that doesn't leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short break-out time. A better deal that keeps the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program in place until Iran's aggression ends.

A better deal that won't give Iran an easy path to the bomb. A better deal that Israel and its neighbors may not like, but with which we could live, literally. And no country...

... no country has a greater stake -- no country has a greater stake than Israel in a good deal that peacefully removes this threat.

Ladies and gentlemen, history has placed us at a fateful crossroads. We must now choose between two paths. One path leads to a bad deal that will at best curtail Iran's nuclear ambitions for a while, but it will inexorably lead to a nuclear-armed Iran whose unbridled aggression will inevitably lead to war.

The second path, however difficult, could lead to a much better deal, that would prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, a nuclearized Middle East and the horrific consequences of both to all of humanity.

You don't have to read Robert Frost to know. You have to live life to know that the difficult path is usually the one less traveled, but it will make all the difference for the future of my country, the security of the Middle East and the peace of the world, the peace, we all desire.

My friend, standing up to Iran is not easy. Standing up to dark and murderous regimes never is. With us today is Holocaust survivor and Nobel Prize winner Elie Wiesel.

Elie, your life and work inspires to give meaning to the words, "never again."

And I wish I could promise you, Elie, that the lessons of history have been learned. I can only urge the leaders of the world not to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Not to sacrifice the future for the present; not to ignore aggression in the hopes of gaining an illusory peace.

But I can guarantee you this, the days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of genocidal enemies, those days are over.

We are no longer scattered among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the Jewish people, can defend ourselves.

This is why -- this is why, as a 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.

I know that you stand with Israel.

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.

Facing me right up there in the gallery, overlooking all of us in this (inaudible) chamber is the image of Moses. Moses led our people from slavery to the gates of the Promised Land.

And before the people of Israel entered the land of Israel, Moses gave us a message that has steeled our resolve for thousands of years. I leave you with his message today, (SPEAKING IN HEBREW), "Be strong and resolute, neither fear nor dread them."

My friends, may Israel and America always stand together, strong and resolute. May we neither fear nor dread the challenges ahead. May we face the future with confidence, strength and hope.
May God bless the state of Israel and may God bless the United States of America.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all.

You're wonderful.

Thank you, America. Thank you.

Thank you.

Obama-Netanyahu relations never promised happily-ever-after

By NANCY BENAC Associated Press March 2, 2015

WASHINGTON (AP) — This was never happily-ever-after waiting to happen.

When President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took office early in 2009, there were plenty of reasons to expect their relationship would be difficult.

The cerebral president and the brash prime minister have stark differences in personality, politics and world view.

Still, few could have predicted the downward spiral of backbiting, lecturing and outright name-calling that has occurred.

Start with the differences between Obama and Netanyahu, add in disagreements over Iran's nuclear program, a Republican-led Congress trying to assert itself and the coming Israeli elections, and it becomes "the perfect storm of potential broken crockery in the U.S.-Israeli relationship," says the Wilson Center's Aaron Miller, who was a Mideast adviser and negotiator for Republican and Democratic administrations.

A look at how the dynamic between Obama and Netanyahu has played out over the years.

A WARY START, March 2009

Netanyahu takes office just months after Obama, and a clash of ideas and chemistry is immediately evident. The hawkish prime minister aims to expand Israeli settlements in the West Bank and says a peace agreement with Palestinians is impossible in the current environment. Obama pledges to "aggressively" seek a Mideast peace deal and sends an envoy critical of Israeli settlement-building. Netanyahu also takes a hard line on ensuring that Iran, Israel's enemy, does not obtain nuclear weapons; Obama favors talking with Tehran. Still, both sides put up a show of trying to make this forced marriage work. When Obama is asked how Netanyahu's ascension affects prospects for establishing separate Israeli and Palestinian states, he says, "It's not easier than it was, but I think it's just as necessary."

___

SETTLEMENT STRAINS, June 2009

It doesn't take long for frictions to increase. During a visit to Cairo, Obama delivers a much-anticipated speech about U.S. relations with the Muslim world in which he calls for the creation of an independent Palestinian state and says the U.S. "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. ... It is time for these settlements to stop." This is a nonstarter for Israel, which puts out a carefully worded response leaving out any reference to settlements or other issues where the two countries are at odds. "Obama came out very strong, very fast, very hard, talking about a freeze," says Miller. "There was no way that any American president was going to be able to impose a freeze, nor was any Israeli prime minister going to accept one."

___

THE LECTURE, May 2011

Netanyahu takes none too kindly to Obama's suggestion of using Israel's 1967 boundaries as the basis for restarting stalled peace talks. Seated next to Obama in the Oval Office, with journalists listening in, Netanyahu delivers a long dissertation on why this won't happen, calling the idea "indefensible." The strain is evident as Obama sits by, his chin cupped in his hand. But the president tries to minimize the rift, saying, "Obviously there are some differences between us in the precise formulations and language. That's going to happen between friends."

___

CONFIDENCES EXPOSED, November 2011

There's no papering over blunt private remarks accidentally captured on a live mic. During a meeting of world leaders in southern France, French President Nicolas Sarkozy is overheard telling Obama, "Netanyahu, I can't stand him. He's a liar." Far from disagreeing, Obama replies: "You are sick of him, but I have to work with him every day."

___

A NEW SUITOR, July 2012

Just months out from the U.S. presidential election, Obama's Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, visits Israel and is warmly welcomed by Netanyahu, who says he's staying neutral in the presidential race. Still, Netanyahu says he welcomes Romney's tougher approach to the Iran nuclear threat, and says that sanctions and diplomacy, pushed by Obama, "so far have not set back the Iranian program by one iota."

___

NO TIME, September 2012

Obama turns down a request to meet with Netanyahu when the Israeli leader visits the U.S. to attend the U.N. General Assembly. The White House cites a tight schedule for the president.

___

MAKING NICE, March 2013

The re-elected Obama visits Israel for talks with Netanyahu aimed at laying the groundwork for a new Mideast peace push. Obama and Netanyahu together examine the ancient texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls as the president tries to erase perceptions that he sees the Holocaust, not historical ties to the region, as the rationale for the existence of the Jewish state. Obama becomes the first sitting U.S. president to receive Israel's highest civilian honor when he is awarded the Medal of Distinction during a lavish dinner. The two leaders work at pulling off the easy banter of friends — just Bibi and Barack.

___

A CHILL IN THE AIR, March 2014

The mood is cooler when Netanyahu visits Obama in the Oval Office on a snowy day a year later. With the peace process flagging, Obama tells Netanyahu that "tough decisions" are needed to move forward on talks with the Palestinians. Netanyahu begs to differ. "Israel has been doing its part," he says, "And, I regret to say, the Palestinians have not."

___

ESCALATING TENSIONS, October 2014

Both sides hurl increasingly tough words, with Netanyahu complaining that recent White House criticism of Israeli settlement construction goes "against American values." The divide over how to counter Iran's nuclear program widens into a chasm. When an unidentified U.S. official is quoted using barnyard terms to deride Netanyahu as cowardly and recalcitrant, the report reverberates across Israel. The State Department calls the anonymous remarks inappropriate, but there are growing concerns of a crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations. Netanyahu says he's been attacked by the U.S. simply for defending Israel.

___

GOING NUCLEAR, January-March 2015

Tensions come to a head when House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, arranges — without notifying the White House — for Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress in March to speak out against the potential nuclear deal. The White House complains of a breach of protocol and says Obama won't meet Netanyahu while he's in town. A number of congressional Democrats plan to sit out the speech. An unrepentant Netanyahu, just weeks away from Israeli elections, says he'll come anyway. Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, in unusually harsh words, says Tuesday's planned speech has "injected a degree of partisanship, which is not only unfortunate. I think it's destructive of the fabric of the relationship."

___