Netanyahu address to Congress

[Rip]

Pretty substantial event today, and no comments here yet?

Kudos to him

How anti-American of you.

-because it's fun to paint the right wing with the anti-american colors they are so fond of splashing about every once in awhile (not picking on you in particular here, just a general statement directed at Guiliani, etc - those who hate Obama more than they love America.

On a more serious note - here's the best write-up I've seen of this foo-foo-raw:

Why is Benjamin Netanyahu going ahead with his speech to Congress in a few hours' time, despite complaints from all quarters about the damage it is causing? It's a trickier question than it seems...

...Maybe I am giving Netanyahu too much credit. Maybe he genuinely believes everything listed above—that he's been right all along, that we need to hear his message, that Obama and his administration will take no offense, and that this is a life-or-death existential issue because of a suicidal Iranian leadership.

Maybe. But I think he is smarter than any of that. And thus the explanation that rings truest to me is one offered in The National Interest by Paul Pillar, a veteran of the CIA...

...The prime objective that Netanyahu is pursuing, and that is quite consistent with his lobbying and other behavior, is not the prevention of an Iranian nuclear weapon but instead the prevention of any agreement with Iran. It is not the specific terms of an agreement that are most important to him, but instead whether there is to be any agreement at all...

...This is the heart of Israel's problem. ... Israel does not want to be considered by the United States as one power among many. It is focused on the issue of a nuclear Iran, but it knows that there is no certainty that Iran's nuclear facilities can be destroyed or that sanctions will cause the Iranians to abandon the nuclear program. What Israel fears is an entente between the United States and Iran and a system of relations in which U.S. support will not be automatic.

Which is at least thought provoking (though the idea that we'd ever have closer relationships with Iran than Israel is rather ludicrous to me), rather than the jingoistic flag-waving going on.

So you don't think Iran will develop a bomb before a dozen years has passed?

[Isgrimnur]

So about the "boycotters" today.....did they do it because they're anti-Israel-pro-Iran, or did they do it to support the President? Which would then make Obama anti-Israel-pro-Iran?

Price said in a statement that his decision has nothing to do with policy. ... His reason, he said, is that "Speaker Boehner should never have extended the invitation, given the proximity of the speech to Israel's national elections and the fact that delicate international negotiations, which the Prime Minister wishes to upend, are hanging in the balance," a reference to negotiations involving the United States and other countries to limit parts of Iran's nuclear program in exchange for relief from sanctions.

Price also said that Netanyahu shouldn't have accepted the invitation because it was "extended without the usual consultation of bipartisan leadership and the normal notification of and consultation with the president."

"I remain a strong and steadfast supporter of the US-Israeli security relationship, and of a negotiated two-state agreement that allows Israel and the Palestinians to live side-by-side in peace," Price added in his statement, noting he has met with "dozens of Israeli leaders."

[Rip]

So that is why the WH doesn't want him speaking. Because they are worried about the Israeli elections?

[Pyperkub]

So about the "boycotters" today.....did they do it because they're anti-Israel-pro-Iran, or did they do it to support the President? Which would then make Obama anti-Israel-pro-Iran?

Actually, just anti-Netanyahu. His public face has been extremely disrespectful to this American Administration and this is another example. It is in some respect ok for the GOP to be so disrespectful, but not for an Ally who depends upon us. Given that he is fighting to win an election in Israel, he is to a certain degree using this opportunity to boost himself in Israel for this election, and Speaker Boehner is tacitly endorsing that use of Congressional time.

Of course, his Congress isn't doing much else, so it may not be a complete waste of time...

[El Guapo]

Fallows' argument doesn't really make much sense. If what Netanyahu really fears is "entente between the United States and Iran and a system of relations in which U.S. support will not be automatic", then this speech under these circumstances is the absolutely last thing that he would do. The major downside to the speech is exactly that it is a clear snub of the Obama administration, a political hot potato that threatens to turn the U.S.-Israeli relationship into a partisan football as opposed to a traditional point of bipartisan consensus.

It makes all the sense in the world for Netanyahu to make this speech (notwithstanding the downside) if he genuinely believes, as he says he does, that the Iranian nuclear program threatens Israel's existence and that the agreement taking shape would do little to stop that program. It makes exactly zero sense for him to give this speech if he's really worried about the state of U.S.-Israeli relations.

[Zekester]

The major downside to the speech is exactly that it is a clear snub of the Obama administration,.

but it's ok for the OA to snub Congress with the many executive actions?

[Zekester]

What I learned the most from the speech was the Iran vs Isis dynamic.

Have to admit...I missed those previous conversations on this topic anywhere in the media.

[El Guapo]

The major downside to the speech is exactly that it is a clear snub of the Obama administration,.

but it's ok for the OA to snub Congress with the many executive actions?

That is both totally on point and irrefutable. You nailed it.

[GreenGoo]

Lol. This whole thread is full of win. Including Netanyahu addressing congress directly.

Good luck everyone.

[SlapBone]

Obama himself just said it's important to not make this a political issue......so stick that in your pipe and suck on it, hep

As a pipe SMOKER, I find this highly offensive. Are you being intentionally pipophobic?

So you don't think Iran will develop a bomb before a dozen years has passed?

Is this an intelligent design question?

[Rip]

http://www.c-span.org/video/?324609-2/i ... s-congress

[NickAragua]

What kind of an inconsiderate asshole makes a major speech like that in the middle of a workday? I would have had to interrupt my post-lunch youtube watching session to listen to it!

[SlapBone]

What kind of an inconsiderate asshole makes a major speech like that in the middle of a workday? I would have had to interrupt my post-lunch youtube watching session to listen to it!

Why? It will be there eventually... with lyrics.

[Zekester]

/looks up pipophobic...finds nothing

[Pyperkub]

So that is why the WH doesn't want him speaking. Because they are worried about the Israeli elections?

Uh, yeah... that's what they've said.

It's not 100% of the reasons, but it is a reason.

I think the bigger problem is that Speaker Boehner and the GOP think this is a good idea. How did we get here, and where does it take us? What does it portend for our Constitutional Democracy?

It's bad news all around, no matter who you're rooting for.

[Rip]

“Greatest danger to the world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons.”

“Don’t be fooled,” he warned. “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.

Truer words have never been spoken.

[AWS260]

Here's a critique of Netanyahu's speech by Frank Kaplan. A good read. (Kaplan is usually a good read -- pragmatic and well-informed.)

“The alternative to this very bad deal,” he told the assembled American lawmakers, “is a much better deal.”

He defines “a much better deal” as a deal that doesn’t merely freeze and inspect Iran’s nuclear infrastructure but dismantles it—completely. Furthermore, the deal should be written so that, at the end of the 10-year period, the restrictions shouldn’t be lifted unless Iran stops all aggression against its neighbors, stops supporting terrorist groups, and stops its rhetorical threats to annihilate Israel—in short unless Iran changes its behavior or (here’s the real upshot) changes its regime.

This is a nice world that Netanyahu envisions, but it just isn’t going to happen, and he knows it. During the decades of Soviet-American arms control talks, many conservatives similarly argued that the president shouldn’t sign a deal unless the Kremlin stopped supporting Communist insurgents, dropped its Marxist-Leninist views, and joined the international economic system. Thankfully, Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan thought it was in U.S. interests to control, then reduce the nuclear arsenals, even in the absence of a change in the political, economic, or ideological spheres.

[GreenGoo]

Lol.

"I'm a foreign leader but I'mma gonna come onto your soil and tell ya how things should be. First, you suck at making deals. If I were making this deal, I'd make it so that I get everything and Iran gets nothing. That's a better deal. Also, it couldn't hurt to up our foreign aid payments. Just sayin'"

Look, I'm fairly pro-Israel, but even I can see a problem a foreign leader bypassing an administration and talking directly to another branch of government. Not only bypassing the executive branch, but explaining what a shitty job it is doing. And Congress welcomed him with open arms. That's insane.

So America is going to base it's foreign policy on whatever speechifying a foreign dignitary makes?

Honestly, what is the freakin' deal, America?

[Kraken]

There is in fact zero precedent for Congress inviting a foreign leader to speak without even notifying the White House first. The fact that Netanyahu is there to speak against a foreign policy agreement that the White House is currently in the process of negotiating compounds the foreign policy issues involved.

It is a dick move and I'm glad my representatives are among the walk-outs. Congress is openly trying to sabotage the negotiations and foster a conservative regime in Israel, extending partisanship into a world where it has not gone boldly before.

So about the "boycotters" today.....did they do it because they're anti-Israel-pro-Iran, or did they do it to support the President? Which would then make Obama anti-Israel-pro-Iran?

Because addressing Congress without the President's consent was a breach of protocol, because it interferes in domestic US policy, and because it is a blatant campaign move by Netanyahu.

If Obama went to Israel to address the Knesset over Netanyahu's objections during a US presidential campaign, your head would explode.

[Rip]

Lol.

"I'm a foreign leader but I'mma gonna come onto your soil and tell ya how things should be. First, you suck at making deals. If I were making this deal, I'd make it so that I get everything and Iran gets nothing. That's a better deal. Also, it couldn't hurt to up our foreign aid payments. Just sayin'"

Look, I'm fairly pro-Israel, but even I can see a problem a foreign leader bypassing an administration and talking directly to another branch of government. Not only bypassing the executive branch, but explaining what a shitty job it is doing. And Congress welcomed him with open arms. That's insane.

So America is going to base it's foreign policy on whatever speechifying a foreign dignitary makes?

Honestly, what is the freakin' deal, America?

If you think he went in there to tell them what a shitty job they are doing you obviously didn't watch the speech.

At least the Iranians are making sensible speeches and proclamations, right?

[Rip]

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. . . . 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.

Is he wrong? Lineup and say yes now so I have a spot to point back to when he turns out to be right.

It was masterful in many ways. But ultimately, Israel won’t be hobbled or restrained if Netanyahu’s message falls on deaf ears. He wrapped up with a reminder, as he pointed to Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel in the gallery: “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.”

Unfortunately I think they may have to. Hopefully we won't have to witness millions of Jews murdered before we act again this time.

[gbasden]

“Greatest danger to the world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons.”

“Don’t be fooled,” he warned. “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.

Truer words have never been spoken.

Other Islamic states already have nuclear weapons. Don't you think if Iran really wanted a warhead they couldn't have already gotten their hands on one by now?

[Rip]

“Greatest danger to the world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons.”

“Don’t be fooled,” he warned. “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.

Truer words have never been spoken.

Other Islamic states already have nuclear weapons. Don't you think if Iran really wanted a warhead they couldn't have already gotten their hands on one by now?

But those Muslims aren't militant radicals, remember? I could of swore you guys were keen on keeping the two separate and not lumping them together.

[El Guapo]

So here's the deal with Iran and the bomb:

(1) If Iran is determined to develop nuclear weapons, it will do so eventually. The only semi-plausible way to keep Iran from doing so in the long run is to invade it and either occupy it on a semi-permanent basis or to set up a puppet regime. No one seriously thinks that the U.S. is going to do either.

(2) In addition, the international community is not likely to support crippling sanctions on Iran indefinitely. Absent some type of agreement on the horizon, international support (and accordingly the sanctions) will crumble eventually.

(3) The good news (!) is that the core problem is not Iran the country getting nuclear weapons, but the current theocratic regime getting nuclear weapons. Obviously it's better to have fewer countries with nuclear weapons than more, but the world can live with a nuclear armed Pakistan, and could also live with a nuclear armed (but stable and democratic) Iran.

(4) The further good news is that the current theocratic regime in Iran is deeply unpopular and will not endure indefinitely. (fun fact: Iran has one of the oldest popular democratic movements in the Middle East, dating back to the late 19th century)

(5) If you're not willing to support an invasion and long-term occupation of Iran, the most realistic U.S. goal is to delay Iran getting nuclear weapons for as long as possible, banking mainly that before they succeed in doing so the current regime falls.

(6) The main question then becomes whether an agreement with Iran (if reached) offers a better chance of delaying Iran's nuclear program as compared to a combination of air strikes and sabotage.

[Holman]

(4) The further good news is that the current theocratic regime in Iran is deeply unpopular and will not endure indefinitely. (fun fact: Iran has one of the oldest popular democratic movements in the Middle East, dating back to the late 19th century)

This is why Iran is definitely not ISIS, despite Netanyahu's claim.

There's a highly aspirational, highly educated class in Iran that is actually attracted to the West. Those are more of the hearts and minds we need to win.

[SlapBone]

There's a highly aspirational, highly educated class in Iran that is actually attracted to the West. Those are more of the hearts and minds we need to win.

This is the home of the effin Persians. The center of the world at more than one point in history.

[Rip]

(4) The further good news is that the current theocratic regime in Iran is deeply unpopular and will not endure indefinitely. (fun fact: Iran has one of the oldest popular democratic movements in the Middle East, dating back to the late 19th century)

This is why Iran is definitely not ISIS, despite Netanyahu's claim.

There's a highly aspirational, highly educated class in Iran that is actually attracted to the West. Those are more of the hearts and minds we need to win.

You mean like the ones we watched them slaughter during the Iraq war? Yea, we have made some serious strides earning the trust of would be rebels in Iran.

[El Guapo]

(4) The further good news is that the current theocratic regime in Iran is deeply unpopular and will not endure indefinitely. (fun fact: Iran has one of the oldest popular democratic movements in the Middle East, dating back to the late 19th century)

This is why Iran is definitely not ISIS, despite Netanyahu's claim.

There's a highly aspirational, highly educated class in Iran that is actually attracted to the West. Those are more of the hearts and minds we need to win.

That's the other good news - America is probably more popular in Iran than anywhere else in the Middle East (except perhaps Israel). That's what happens when you spend decades opposing the government that is oppressing the people, as opposed to supporting it (it's not exactly an accident that the U.S. came out of the Cold War being wildly popular in Eastern Europe and wildly unpopular in Latin America).

Which means that the next regime to replace the current one is likely to be far more inclined to align itself with the United States.

[Rip]

(4) The further good news is that the current theocratic regime in Iran is deeply unpopular and will not endure indefinitely. (fun fact: Iran has one of the oldest popular democratic movements in the Middle East, dating back to the late 19th century)

This is why Iran is definitely not ISIS, despite Netanyahu's claim.

There's a highly aspirational, highly educated class in Iran that is actually attracted to the West. Those are more of the hearts and minds we need to win.

That's the other good news - America is probably more popular in Iran than anywhere else in the Middle East (except perhaps Israel). That's what happens when you spend decades opposing the government that is oppressing the people, as opposed to supporting it (it's not exactly an accident that the U.S. came out of the Cold War being wildly popular in Eastern Europe and wildly unpopular in Latin America).

Which means that the next regime to replace the current one is likely to be far more inclined to align itself with the United States.

There won't be a next regime.

Anyone who thinks the US is at all popular in Iran has been drinking the kool-aid somewhere. Next you are going to tell me we are popular in Russia or Crimea. Pretty sure those are in Eastern Europe.

[GreenGoo]

If you think he went in there to tell them what a shitty job they are doing you obviously didn't watch the speech.

No I haven't had a chance to watch the speech yet. No streaming video at work.

That said, I'm talking about him explaining what a "bad deal" the current administration is fostering. Talking smack about the executive branch. Why else would congress allow him to speak? Does Netanyahu not know how to write an email?

It's grandstanding, on both sides.

[El Guapo]

A New Day in Iran?

Perhaps the most striking thing about anti-Americanism in Iran today is how little of it actually exists. After the September 11 attacks, a large, spontaneous candlelight vigil took place in Tehran, where the thousands gathered shouted “Down with terrorists.” Nearly three-fourths of the Iranians polled in a 2002 survey said they would like their government to restore dialogue with the United States. (The pollsters— one a 1970s firebrand and participant in the hostage-taking who now advocates reform—were arrested and convicted in January 2003 of “making propaganda against the Islamic regime,” and they remain imprisoned.) Though hard-line officials urge “Death to America” during Friday prayers, most Iranians seem to ignore the propaganda. “The paradox of Iran is that it just might be the most pro-American—or, perhaps, least anti-American—populace in the Muslim world,” says Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst in Tehran for the International Crisis Group, an advocacy organization for conflict resolution based in Brussels.

The image that Iranians (the people, not the government) hate America comes from the Iranian government and from the Iranian revolution - back when Iranians did hate America, because we'd spent the prior few decades supporting the government that oppressed them. We have spent the past few decades since opposing the government that oppresses them.

Sometimes international relations is not rocket science.

[El Guapo]

[side note: while pulling up that article I discovered that Yu Darvish is half Iranian, on his father's side, and has a big following in Iran. I suppose "Darvish" is not a terribly Japanese name.

Anyway, fun fact.]

[Zekester]

Iran is trying to produce a nuclear weapon and has openly stated their desire to obliterate Israel. Claims of grandstanding on Bibis part today undermines his desire to keep his people safe.

In my eyes, the man is desperately trying to keep his people safe. Unfortunately what I see here with some of you is just a flat out dislike of him and his people.

[hepcat]

When you say "his people" do you mean Israelis or do you mean anti-Semites?

[Rip]

A New Day in Iran?

Perhaps the most striking thing about anti-Americanism in Iran today is how little of it actually exists. After the September 11 attacks, a large, spontaneous candlelight vigil took place in Tehran, where the thousands gathered shouted “Down with terrorists.” Nearly three-fourths of the Iranians polled in a 2002 survey said they would like their government to restore dialogue with the United States. (The pollsters— one a 1970s firebrand and participant in the hostage-taking who now advocates reform—were arrested and convicted in January 2003 of “making propaganda against the Islamic regime,” and they remain imprisoned.) Though hard-line officials urge “Death to America” during Friday prayers, most Iranians seem to ignore the propaganda. “The paradox of Iran is that it just might be the most pro-American—or, perhaps, least anti-American—populace in the Muslim world,” says Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst in Tehran for the International Crisis Group, an advocacy organization for conflict resolution based in Brussels.

The image that Iranians (the people, not the government) hate America comes from the Iranian government and from the Iranian revolution - back when Iranians did hate America, because we'd spent the prior few decades supporting the government that oppressed them. We have spent the past few decades since opposing the government that oppresses them.

Sometimes international relations is not rocket science.

None of that convinces me of any of that. Of course they are a group dedicated to peaceful resolution so what else would they write. Has she ever written anything where she said these people hate us and we need to take stronger action? Of course not she lives in a fabricated world where everything can be resolved peacefully and we will all sing around the campfire.

The International Crisis Group is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organisation committed to preventing and resolving deadly conflict.

Very committed I would say, to the point of being rubes.

[Smoove_B]

Unfortunately what I see here with some of you is just a flat out dislike of him and his people.

Really? Where?

You're talking to a guy that owns like three different print copies of Robert's Rules and tried taking on a local terrorist organization by leading a death charge behind the flag of quorum. While a bit out of scope for Brigadier General Robert, I'm pretty sure even he would be raising an eyebrow over what is clearly a breach of international communication protocol.

[GreenGoo]

Iran is trying to produce a nuclear weapon and has openly stated their desire to obliterate Israel. Claims of grandstanding on Bibis part today undermines his desire to keep his people safe.

In my eyes, the man is desperately trying to keep his people safe. Unfortunately what I see here with some of you is just a flat out dislike of him and his people.

No it doesn't. I've actually been paying attention even when the current administration wasn't the boogeyman.

I supported Israel's insurgency into Palestine. It was awful and lots of people and property who were not guilty of anything but existing got hurt. I still supported it because I felt it was necessary for Israel to remind people of how tough they are and how they will not keep taking the abuse indefinitely.

I do dislike Netanyahu. He is a wanker. My dislike for Bush didn't mean I hated Americans, and my dislike for Netanyahu doesn't mean I hate Israelites. I believe he thinks he's doing what is necessary. I don't feel the same, nor do lots of Israelites. That's politics. That he is so shamelessly manipulating (at least attempting to) the American people and their government (this has been going on for years. It certainly didn't start with today's speechifying) into doing what (he thinks) is best for his country with no regard for what is best for America is unpleasant. That people are willing to implement foreign policy that is in the best interests of Israel and not in the best interest of the US is weird and unpleasant too.

He wants unilateral, automatic support for anything he decides to do. That's not how foreign policy works, nor should it. Obama didn't get on board right away when he took office and suddenly their not friends. Well no shit. Your president is looking out for the US's best interests, not Netanyahu's just because Netanyahu said "jump".

I support Israel. They are well and truly in a brutal situation. That said, they have defeated the entire middle east several times without the US's direct aid (i.e. no fighting forces) and they continue to dominate the region.

As for Iran, I don't see how to stop a country from doing "science-y" things, including nukes. They'll get there eventually. I'd want to keep nukes out of North Korea more than the middle east, but that cat's out of the bag already (probably). NK is fucking batshit crazy. Iran just uses mean words.

[GreenGoo]

Very committed I would say, to the point of being rubes.

I love this stuff. Conspiracy theorists use this logic all the time. When presented with evidence to the contrary, said evidence gets labeled false flag, coverup, stupidity or naivete.

But I'm confident you see clearly from your chair in Louisiana whereas they only embedded with actual Iranians.

I don't claim to know what the average Iranian thinks. I'm not willing to dismiss a report out of hand because it doesn't support my narrative, however.

[El Guapo]

A New Day in Iran?

Perhaps the most striking thing about anti-Americanism in Iran today is how little of it actually exists. After the September 11 attacks, a large, spontaneous candlelight vigil took place in Tehran, where the thousands gathered shouted “Down with terrorists.” Nearly three-fourths of the Iranians polled in a 2002 survey said they would like their government to restore dialogue with the United States. (The pollsters— one a 1970s firebrand and participant in the hostage-taking who now advocates reform—were arrested and convicted in January 2003 of “making propaganda against the Islamic regime,” and they remain imprisoned.) Though hard-line officials urge “Death to America” during Friday prayers, most Iranians seem to ignore the propaganda. “The paradox of Iran is that it just might be the most pro-American—or, perhaps, least anti-American—populace in the Muslim world,” says Karim Sadjadpour, an analyst in Tehran for the International Crisis Group, an advocacy organization for conflict resolution based in Brussels.

The image that Iranians (the people, not the government) hate America comes from the Iranian government and from the Iranian revolution - back when Iranians did hate America, because we'd spent the prior few decades supporting the government that oppressed them. We have spent the past few decades since opposing the government that oppresses them.

Sometimes international relations is not rocket science.

None of that convinces me of any of that. Of course they are a group dedicated to peaceful resolution so what else would they write. Has she ever written anything where she said these people hate us and we need to take stronger action? Of course not she lives in a fabricated world where everything can be resolved peacefully and we will all sing around the campfire.

The International Crisis Group is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organisation committed to preventing and resolving deadly conflict.

Very committed I would say, to the point of being rubes.

You're reading a lot into their mission statement. That they're for peaceful resolution of conflict doesn't mean they're wrong. If a neoconservative supports aggressive U.S. military action that doesn't mean that he or she is wrong either.

Regardless, what evidence do you have that the Iranian people hate America? Do not cite official government statements, because we know that the government (which has been rocked by massive popular anti-government demonstrations twice in the past decade) hates America, the question is whether the people do.

[Fireball]

Some members of Congress didn't attend the speech because they don't like the flouting of diplomatic protocol orchestrated by Boehner and Netanyahu's ambassador to the United States, who is a former Republican political operative, in inviting a foreign head of government to speak to Congress without first informing the White House. Should that protocol no longer apply because Netanyahu is from Israel, because Obama is president, or for some other reason?

The President did not meet with Netanyahu because of decades-long policy of not meeting with foreign leaders in the weeks prior to their elections. Should that policy no longer apply because Netanyahu is from Israel, because Obama is president, or for some other reason?

In the past, Netanyahu has used video footage of him speaking before Congress in his campaign ads. Which, were he an American candidate, would be illegal. Because he is not, that's not the case. But is it really unreasonable for members of Congress not to want to take part in what will eventually be part of a political ad for a candidate in a closely-fought election in another country?

Both the United States and Israel want to stop Iran from achieving nuclear weapons. The US wants to stop Iran from actually building weapons, but is okay with some level of nuclear technology being present in Iran — if only because we recognize that totally dismantling Iran's nuclear ambitions would require a massive air invasion, and perhaps even ground troops and a prolonged occupation. Israel wants Iran from being able to even develop the technology that would put them within reach of building weapons someday. It's a question of whether one thinks that by delaying nuclear progress you eventually reach a point where the unpopular Iranian regime falls from the massive internal pressures the country is facing. American policy, from across multiple Administrations, believes that this is the case. Previous Israeli governments agreed. Netanyahu's government does not.

In a few weeks, there's a chance that Netanyahu is no longer prime minister of Israel. We'll see how far apart the US and Israel are if that occurs. Of course, between now and the election, Bibi's going to be running a lot of ads that feature him speaking in front of Congress. We'll see if that pushes his party back up to a position where he can keep his job. Right now, he's narrowly trailing, with the election looking inconclusive.