Netanyahu’s Rational Argument and Obama Rejection


Netanyahu’s Rational Argument


It would be a mistake to view Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech before Congress yesterday as merely a speech. Joel Rosenberg’s book, Israel at War, reveals that Netanyahu views confrontation of the apocalyptic threat of a nuclear Iran as the ultimate purpose for his very existence. Therefore, the thoughts presented yesterday comprised the outflow of his life.


And a lifetime committed to analyzing these issues resulted in a very logical presentation, the essence being the following (which includes some added commentary on my part).


  • Iran’s stated goal is the destruction of Israel and the United States and the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate that will impose Islam on all.

  • Iran’s opposition to ISIS, being an enemy of our enemy, does not make Iran our friend. It is nonetheless our enemy. ISIS calls itself the Islamic State and Iran calls itself the Islamic Republic. The goal of both is to establish an Islamic caliphate. They are fighting to determine which one will dominate it. Perhaps the major issue dividing them is the Sunni orientation of ISIS and the Shiite commitment of Iran. Both are bent on the destruction of Israel and the United States.

  • Iran is already expanding its territory, exerting influence in nations such as Yemen and Syria. They have aspirations much as the Nazis did. Netanyahu pointed out that though 6 million Jews were killed at the hands of the Nazis, 10 times that many people died as a result of World War II. Therefore, the Jews were not the only ones who suffered. Likewise, if Iran gains nuclear capability, Israel will not be the only nation to be affected by the consequences.

  • The deal being brokered predominantly between the United States (but also the other four members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany) and Iran is a bad deal for two reasons.

    • If Iran decids to break the treaty it will allow them to have nuclear capability in a very short time. This is because the agreement allows Iran to keep all of its nuclear processing equipment, and also because having inspectors checking on them is unreliable.

    • But even if Iran keeps the treaty, it allows for them to develop a nuclear capability after 10 years. That is, even the provisions of the treaty result in Israel and the world being confronted with a nuclear Iran 10 years from now.

  • Iran already has rockets that could deliver a nuclear weapon to Israel, and they are working on the capability of reaching the United States, which could be in place soon.

  • Beyond that, because of the distrust of Iran by a neighboring Islamic nations, such an agreement would lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that would make the world far less safe than it is now.


This means that even following the treaty Iran potentially could at almost any time destroy Israel and the United States, but is almost certain to have that capability within 10 years. Consequently, Netanyahu emphasized that this is a very bad deal.


Why Pres. Obama Is Rejecting Netanyahu’s Conclusions


Immediately after Netanyahu spoke, the Democratic PR machine gravitated toward the microphones eagerly extended to them by the news media to deliver their condemnation of the speech. Because their outpouring of propaganda was so profuse, I was not able to listen to it all of it, nor did I want to.


The one striking characteristic of all the responses I listened to was that none of them challenged Netanyahu’s content. They sought to denigrate the speech because of its tone or contentious spirit, neither accusation being at all true. However, none of the responses that I heard tried to contest his facts or the logic. Even Obama’s response, which seemed disingenuous, did not seek to assault his facts or logic but only to level the criticism that it didn’t contain anything new or helpful.

This being the case, it presents us with the question of why Pres. Obama would be pursuing a deal that would ensure Iran nuclear capability within 10 years and would leave open the prospect of their achieving that capacity even earlier. With Iran’s threat of destroying Israel and our own nation, why would he broker a deal leading to that result? I plan to answer that question in my next post.

Netanyahu’s Rational Argument and Obama Rejection

Have a comment?