Home | About | Donate

Netanyahu Slips, Reveals Reason for Opposition to Iran Deal


Netanyahu Slips, Reveals Reason for Opposition to Iran Deal

Juan Cole

US television news isn’t very good and it has clearly gotten worse over the past 20 years. In the aftermath of the Kerry-Zarif initial framework deal on nuclear energy in Iran, it seems obvious that an interview with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif would be newsworthy. But to my knowledge none of the networks or major cable news shows had him on.

Or you could have talked to the British, French, German, Russian or Chinese foreign ministers, all of whom were principals and all of whom would have had interesting insights.


Yup, you nailed it.


That remark had to do with the current regime, ie Netanyahu, not the people of Israel.


"During his presidency, Bill Clinton presided over the most devestating regime of economic sanctions in history that the UN estimated took the lives of as many as a million Iraqis, the vast majority of them children. In May of 1996, 60 Minutes aired an interview with Madeline Albright, who at the time was Clinton"s UN Ambassador. Correspondent Leslie Stahl said to Albright, “We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that"s more children than died in Hiroshima. And — and you know, is the price worth it?”

Madeline Albright replied “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it.”"

Sanctions harm people, not regimes.


Cole turns his scathing analysis on Netanyahu and rightly shows how his opposition to the Iran deal is wrong and based on things we ought to disagree with.

He does this because his side in the political debate, the Democratic establishment and Obama, its leader, are on the side of the Iran deal.

But would Cole turn his scathing analysis on something that is even worse than warmonger threats but actual warmongering that is killing innocents, driving a nation into chaos and creating a new refugee crisis if those doing it are on the same side of the political divide as the Democratic establishment and Obama? Of course not.

So we get no lambasting from Cole of Saudi Arabia as the arm of the USA’s policy of destroying Yemen. Why that might make Obama look like the hypocritical sociopath he really is.


“That remark had to do with the current regime, ie Netanyahu, not the people of Israel.”

USA leaders and right wing pundits all the time talk about regime change. No one accuses them of wanting to destroy a people. Everyone knows it means changing the system of government.

But when those who oppose the idea of Israel as a Jewish State created out of Arab land speak of regime change, then they are accused of wanting to destroy a people in a Nazi like style.

It is like when people called for change in South Africa they had been accused of wanting to destroy the Afrikaner people. Well, regime change came and as far as I know the Afrikaner people are doing fine and well there.


Besides being disconnected from reality, the toxic prejudices of America’s liberal bourgeoisie (as seen in much of the media marketed to libs) against whatever they imagine Israel to be shows how corrupted much of this media have become.This article is a clear example of this anti-Israel propaganda, misleading the public. It is false to say that Netanyahu opposes enabling Iran to develop their nuclear capacities because he wants Iranian children to go hungry. Every oil rich nation in the Mideast also has significant poverty, as a result if their policy choices. He opposes it for the same reasons that the US opposes allowing hostile nations such as Cuba to develop their nuclear capacities. What is missing from the discussion: President Obama did finally allude to some sort of requirement for oversight of Iran’s nuclear power industry, but opposition will remain strong unless there is reasonable assurance of international oversight. The modern history of Iran shows why this oversight is necessary.


Most of the conversations I’ve had with progressives and conservatives whole-hardheartedly support the PEOPLE of Israel and their right to live in peace.

And we agree that Mr. Netanyahu, a political leader, and other Israeli government politicians have been promoting an all-out war with Iran for years - even when both senior Israeli military and intelligence officers say that it would be a disaster for Israel, Iran, the US and at least the Middle East.

The Israeli government and Palestine government needs to sit down with the goal of starting to allow both of their peoples to live in peace and then move on to doing the same with the government in Tehran.

Killing one person, be it man, woman or child, in war creates ten more new enemies. Virtually all wars end with the two (or more) sides sitting down to finalize an agreement that both sides can live with. The sides don’t have to love each other - they just need to care about their own people more than their political manipulations.


The fact that Israel is surrounded by Arab nations that want to annihilate the Jews keeps Israel in a “fight or die” emergency mode. Much like the US in the aftermath of 9/11. Solutions aren’t apparent. Peace treaties are signed, and easily dismissed/violated by the Arab states, directly or indirectly. Americans overall seem unaware of their own hypocrisy when they condemn Israel, forgetting that we have engaged in the longest war in our history in response to 9/11. At the heart of US Mideast involvement is our need for abundant supplies of oil.


Of course, Mr. Netanyahu is within his rights to object to making Iran a more successful state,
but considering that Israel has a meager eight million people, and Iran has 77.2 million people,
the United States and her allies have every right to bring Iran into legitimate world statehood.
Israel can in no way say that she has more rights and privilege than Iran. Nor does she have
the right to threaten her militarily. Israel must accede to the nuclear treaty with Iran, or suffer
the consequences.


Fact, Israel is not “surrounded by Arab nations that want to annihilate the Jews” although the mainstream media tries to maintain this lie. Fact, there was no need for the US to assume a “fight or die” emergency mode after 9/11, unless you think a few guys with box cutters could kill the US. Fact, the Arab states do not easily dismiss or violate peace treaties. Fact, the Israeli war against the Palestinian people has been far longer that the US response to 9/11 but both the US and Israel feel that killing innocent people will solve the problems that they created.
I suggest you try and find some accurate information, it is out there.


Iran has a modern history of not attacking another State going on for around 200 years.


Sure. And many would say Jews in Palestine (and perhaps worldwide too) will be much more secure when the Jewish state is dismantled in favor of state where people of all races and religions will have equal status, rights,and access to resources. But the accepted narrative is that a state in which Jews are privileged, is necessary to ensure the safety of Jews and, until that narrative changes, I don’t see much hope for change for Palestinians.

With regard to the demise of apartheid in South Africa, the narrative in the US and the UK that allowed that regime to last as long as it did was that, whatever its faults, it must be supported or Western civilization in Africa would be endangered (why Western civilization in an alien continent should be protected is open to debate) and communism would establish a firm foothold in South Africa and spread to the rest of the continent. A further piece of the narrative was that, unlike English-speaking South African whites, most of whom could legally live and work in the UK, Afrikanners, having migrated 100s of years ago, had no residency in the Netherlands or elsewhere and they’d be victims of a retributational genocide if black South Africans were to live in country of majority rule.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu has often said that apartheid fell because of the western disinvestment and economic boycotting. The fact there is the beginning of such a movement with regard to Israel offers some hope of a change in narrative.