SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
As Bibi Marches on Congress, Obama Says If Iran Talks Fail 'Military Actions' Await
Obama says Iranians "have been serious negotiators," but called Israeli prime minister's speech to Congress a "distraction" of efforts aimed at finalizing a nuclear agreement
Mar 03, 2015
Though voicing no overall criticism of Israeli state policy when it comes various issues involving regional politics, its own nuclear weapons program, or its treatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the number of U.S. lawmakers who now say they will not attend the speech of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday has grown to nearly 60 members of Congress, with high-profile Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken among the most recent to register their objection to the address.
According to The Hill on Tuesday, nearly a quarter of House Democrats will not attend.
Meanwhile, President Obama sat down with the Reuters news agency and offered his most detailed comments yet about the so-called "rift" that has publicly percolated around the prime minister's decision to address the joint session just weeks ahead of Israeli elections. The speech also comes amid tense, high-level talks in Switzerland this week, where Iran and the P5+1 nations (the U.S., U.K., China, Russia, France, and Germany) are in the final stages of trying to reach a deal on monitoring for Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
Declaring her reasons for not attending the speech, Sen. Warren said, "It's unfortunate that Speaker Boehner's actions on the eve of a national election in Israel have made Tuesday's event more political and less helpful for addressing the critical issue of nuclear nonproliferation and the safety of our most important ally in the Middle East."
For his part, Sen. Franken said he would not attend Netanyahu's speech because it had devolved into a "partisan spectacle" he wants no part of. "I'd be uncomfortable being part of an event that I don't believe should be happening," Franken said. "I'm confident that, once this episode is over, we can reaffirm our strong tradition of bipartisan support for Israel."
In his remarks to Reuters, President Obama also affirmed the "depth of the U.S./Israeli relationship" - a bond, he said, that would never be broken.
"I don't think it's permanently destructive," Obama told Reuters in reference to Netanyahu's visit, "but I think it's a distraction from what should be our focus. And our focus should be: how do we stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?"
"Why not wait to see if there's actually going to be a deal - can Iran accept the terms that we're laying out. If, in fact, Iran can accept terns that would ensure a one-year breakout period, for ten years or longer--and during that period we know that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon; we have inspectors on the ground that give us assurances that they're not creating a covert program--why would we not take that deal when we know that the alternatives--whether through sanctions or military actions--will not result in as much assurance that Iran is [or is not] developing a nuclear weapon? There's no good reason not to let these negotiations play themselves out."
Obama added, "If, in fact, a deal is arrived at, that it's going to be a deal that is most likely to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon."
Obama said that in his mind it's "still more likely than not" that Tehran will back away from finalizing a deal, but added that "in fairness to them, they have been serious negotiators" and acknowledged that internal Iranian politics have their own potent dynamics. That said, Obama continued, "It is more likely we could get a deal now than it was three or five months ago."
On Monday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that if the U.S. could find the political will, he was sure "we can have an agreement this time."
Additional Common Dreams reading on the Iran nuclear deal and Netanyahu's visit:
- How US Diplomatic Strategy Gave Netanyahu Leverage - by Gareth Porter
- What Rift? When It Comes to Palestinians and Human Rights, US and Israel As Close As Ever - by Sarah Lazare
- Forget Bibi: Let's Hear More from Our NATO Allies - by Jim Lobe
- Netanyahu Admits Sabotage of Iran Talks His Primary Mission - by Sarah Lazare
- Get Over It: There's No Better Deal Coming on Iran's Nuclear Program - by Paul Pillar
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Though voicing no overall criticism of Israeli state policy when it comes various issues involving regional politics, its own nuclear weapons program, or its treatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the number of U.S. lawmakers who now say they will not attend the speech of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday has grown to nearly 60 members of Congress, with high-profile Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken among the most recent to register their objection to the address.
According to The Hill on Tuesday, nearly a quarter of House Democrats will not attend.
Meanwhile, President Obama sat down with the Reuters news agency and offered his most detailed comments yet about the so-called "rift" that has publicly percolated around the prime minister's decision to address the joint session just weeks ahead of Israeli elections. The speech also comes amid tense, high-level talks in Switzerland this week, where Iran and the P5+1 nations (the U.S., U.K., China, Russia, France, and Germany) are in the final stages of trying to reach a deal on monitoring for Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
Declaring her reasons for not attending the speech, Sen. Warren said, "It's unfortunate that Speaker Boehner's actions on the eve of a national election in Israel have made Tuesday's event more political and less helpful for addressing the critical issue of nuclear nonproliferation and the safety of our most important ally in the Middle East."
For his part, Sen. Franken said he would not attend Netanyahu's speech because it had devolved into a "partisan spectacle" he wants no part of. "I'd be uncomfortable being part of an event that I don't believe should be happening," Franken said. "I'm confident that, once this episode is over, we can reaffirm our strong tradition of bipartisan support for Israel."
In his remarks to Reuters, President Obama also affirmed the "depth of the U.S./Israeli relationship" - a bond, he said, that would never be broken.
"I don't think it's permanently destructive," Obama told Reuters in reference to Netanyahu's visit, "but I think it's a distraction from what should be our focus. And our focus should be: how do we stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?"
"Why not wait to see if there's actually going to be a deal - can Iran accept the terms that we're laying out. If, in fact, Iran can accept terns that would ensure a one-year breakout period, for ten years or longer--and during that period we know that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon; we have inspectors on the ground that give us assurances that they're not creating a covert program--why would we not take that deal when we know that the alternatives--whether through sanctions or military actions--will not result in as much assurance that Iran is [or is not] developing a nuclear weapon? There's no good reason not to let these negotiations play themselves out."
Obama added, "If, in fact, a deal is arrived at, that it's going to be a deal that is most likely to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon."
Obama said that in his mind it's "still more likely than not" that Tehran will back away from finalizing a deal, but added that "in fairness to them, they have been serious negotiators" and acknowledged that internal Iranian politics have their own potent dynamics. That said, Obama continued, "It is more likely we could get a deal now than it was three or five months ago."
On Monday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that if the U.S. could find the political will, he was sure "we can have an agreement this time."
Additional Common Dreams reading on the Iran nuclear deal and Netanyahu's visit:
- How US Diplomatic Strategy Gave Netanyahu Leverage - by Gareth Porter
- What Rift? When It Comes to Palestinians and Human Rights, US and Israel As Close As Ever - by Sarah Lazare
- Forget Bibi: Let's Hear More from Our NATO Allies - by Jim Lobe
- Netanyahu Admits Sabotage of Iran Talks His Primary Mission - by Sarah Lazare
- Get Over It: There's No Better Deal Coming on Iran's Nuclear Program - by Paul Pillar
Though voicing no overall criticism of Israeli state policy when it comes various issues involving regional politics, its own nuclear weapons program, or its treatment of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the number of U.S. lawmakers who now say they will not attend the speech of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday has grown to nearly 60 members of Congress, with high-profile Democratic Senators Elizabeth Warren and Al Franken among the most recent to register their objection to the address.
According to The Hill on Tuesday, nearly a quarter of House Democrats will not attend.
Meanwhile, President Obama sat down with the Reuters news agency and offered his most detailed comments yet about the so-called "rift" that has publicly percolated around the prime minister's decision to address the joint session just weeks ahead of Israeli elections. The speech also comes amid tense, high-level talks in Switzerland this week, where Iran and the P5+1 nations (the U.S., U.K., China, Russia, France, and Germany) are in the final stages of trying to reach a deal on monitoring for Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief.
Declaring her reasons for not attending the speech, Sen. Warren said, "It's unfortunate that Speaker Boehner's actions on the eve of a national election in Israel have made Tuesday's event more political and less helpful for addressing the critical issue of nuclear nonproliferation and the safety of our most important ally in the Middle East."
For his part, Sen. Franken said he would not attend Netanyahu's speech because it had devolved into a "partisan spectacle" he wants no part of. "I'd be uncomfortable being part of an event that I don't believe should be happening," Franken said. "I'm confident that, once this episode is over, we can reaffirm our strong tradition of bipartisan support for Israel."
In his remarks to Reuters, President Obama also affirmed the "depth of the U.S./Israeli relationship" - a bond, he said, that would never be broken.
"I don't think it's permanently destructive," Obama told Reuters in reference to Netanyahu's visit, "but I think it's a distraction from what should be our focus. And our focus should be: how do we stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?"
"Why not wait to see if there's actually going to be a deal - can Iran accept the terms that we're laying out. If, in fact, Iran can accept terns that would ensure a one-year breakout period, for ten years or longer--and during that period we know that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon; we have inspectors on the ground that give us assurances that they're not creating a covert program--why would we not take that deal when we know that the alternatives--whether through sanctions or military actions--will not result in as much assurance that Iran is [or is not] developing a nuclear weapon? There's no good reason not to let these negotiations play themselves out."
Obama added, "If, in fact, a deal is arrived at, that it's going to be a deal that is most likely to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon."
Obama said that in his mind it's "still more likely than not" that Tehran will back away from finalizing a deal, but added that "in fairness to them, they have been serious negotiators" and acknowledged that internal Iranian politics have their own potent dynamics. That said, Obama continued, "It is more likely we could get a deal now than it was three or five months ago."
On Monday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said that if the U.S. could find the political will, he was sure "we can have an agreement this time."
Additional Common Dreams reading on the Iran nuclear deal and Netanyahu's visit:
- How US Diplomatic Strategy Gave Netanyahu Leverage - by Gareth Porter
- What Rift? When It Comes to Palestinians and Human Rights, US and Israel As Close As Ever - by Sarah Lazare
- Forget Bibi: Let's Hear More from Our NATO Allies - by Jim Lobe
- Netanyahu Admits Sabotage of Iran Talks His Primary Mission - by Sarah Lazare
- Get Over It: There's No Better Deal Coming on Iran's Nuclear Program - by Paul Pillar
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.