Bibi’s Nonsensical Argument on the Iran Deal Should be Rejected


The Israeli Ambassador to the U.S.

Bibi Netanyahu is mad:

On Tuesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel told thousands of American Jews in a webcast that the agreement was fatally flawed and dangerous, charging that proponents were trying to muzzle criticism of it with deceitful claims. “As a result of this deal, there will be more terrorism, there will be more attacks, and more people will die,” Mr. Netanyahu said.

He also angrily rejected Mr. Obama’s claims about the accord, particularly his argument that its opponents have no alternative other than war for reining in Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions, calling it “utterly false.”

Sorry, but Netanyahu is either stupid or lying, you take your pick. His claim is that there could be a better deal. That’s false. He claims you could have an agreement where Iran would give up all of it’s nuclear power, not just it’s military nuclear power. The fact is that Iran is permitted to have a civilian nuclear program under international law, like any other country. So he’s wrong. He also claims the deal should not allow Iran to have frozen bank accounts under the sanctions for building nuclear capacity. There is no support for that position globally, and the only reason Iran was not allowed to access that money was because of wanting to build nuclear weapons. So again, he’s wrong. Finally, he claims the deal doesn’t have enough inspection capacity. Well, the IAEA and Energy Secretary Muniz, a nuclear scientist himself, disagree, so I’m taking their word on it.

Netanyahu either wants a war or doesn’t understand the issues at hand with Iran. You either negotiated a deal with Iran, let them build a nuclear bomb, or you go to war with them. Those are your three options. If you negotiate a deal with Iran, Iran has to get some things they want in order to agree to the deal. You can’t just impose the harshest terms possible under your desires, and say that’s the offer. No one would accept that. Netanyahu is arguing for an “agreement” that looks like the terms you’d impose after fighting a war. He knows better than that. His ridiculous argument should be rejected.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: