Netanyahu said Iran can have all the reactors it wants, he doesn't want them having enrichment or reprocessing facilities. And that was an offer made to Iran several years ago, and Iran rejected it. If Iran just wanted "peaceful nuclear energy" they would have accepted.

Who the hell is Netanyahu to say what Iran can and can't have?

Israel has shown time and time again that tthey are a racist, warmongering apartheid state.

So many Israelis and conservative Americans talk about bombing Iran. Hell, McCain was singing a song about bombing Iran.

Is it any wonder Iranians might feel threatened?

The ultimate solution is for Israel to give up their nukes. A nuclear-free Middle East is needed.

Until then, they have no leg to stand on and should just sit down and shut the fuck up.

Spot-on.

themselves with their neighbors because of their own actions, actions that I would also agree amount to war crimes like the shelling of civilians they were engaged in but I would point out that Israel has not once used its nukes and it could have but it hasnt though I would love it if they would get rid of them but they probably wont since they clearly believe its all thats holding back their neighbors over the shit they have done.
Adding more nukes in the region though no matter who it is probably be a bad idea because it just spreads the potential for someone to actually start using them but you know what? The reactors themselves even the ones not meant to produce the material for bombs are maybe even an worse idea for any of the countries in the region because of the risk of an accident not to mention long term storage problems with the spent fuel and any items that are contaminated with radiation.
I mean hell look at the Hanford site here in the US *shudder* that is going to be a nightmare to clean up if they can even do it properly.

Yes, a nuclear free Middle East is needed, but Iran having a one-year break-out isn't going to convince Israel to get rid of its nukes. Instead, it's turning the Middle East into a nuclear tinderbox - Saudi Arabia is now creating its own nuclear weapons infrastructure.

The "Accountant of Auschwitz" was sentenced today, complicit in the murders of 300,000 Jews. There was a global campaign of genocide against them, there is still widespread anti-Semitism, and the previous President of Iran was a holocaust denier. Is it any wonder Israel feels threatened?

Israel absolutely has two legs to stand on, telling them to "just sit down and shut the fuck up" is just going to convince them that their nuclear arsenal is still needed.

The Iran might start a "regional arms race" with the Saudis is about as empty an argument as any I've ever heard. A pure canard.

The personal expressions of former President Ahmadinijad are about as relevant to present policies as are PM Ehud Barak's.

Israel is not about to give up its nukes - it allows them to blackmail the US that they might actually use them. In fact, it is Israel's nuclear capability that most sane governments really fear.

And actually everyone should give up their nukes and be done with it. No one is going to use nukes on a country that is near them. Would we idea nuke Mexico one Canada? There are more nukes floating around this world to prove multiple worlds insane.
If I was Iran, I would feel threatened. Nut case like Netanyahu and old man McCain carrying on like little children. I'd rather see Iran trying to do solar and wind for power, but why not nuclear like all the rest of the countries in the world who don't need nuclear for power.
And Israel has shown them selves to be a brutal anti every one except Israeli country. They have smashed the Palestinians into the ground. They supported South Africa in their apartheid treatment of the Africans who rightfully belonged there. They treat the rest of the Middle East like shit. And I still have not forgotten the U.S. Liberty, which was deliberately attacked by Israel. And then compensated the young men who were killed and maimed with money we gave Israel as aid. What an asshole act that was.
I don't under stand how Netanyahu gets elected. But of course we had a our Bush and our Bush and amour Reagan and our Nixon.

has done some good things. Their medical field is just second to none and the research is magnificent. Israel has also produced some excellent musicians. But these aren't things that Israel has produced, these are things that have been produced in Israel. Israel has also done a lot of bad things. The intended attack on the USS Liberty is one and the spying which goes on all the time is another, (I find that abhorrent on the US's part,also). I think Israel has threatened to use nuclear weapons by mistake one time except they maintain they don't have any which I find humorous if not so ominous. And for either Netanyahu or one of his negotiators to say they don't want an agreement with Iran is much the same as saying they don't want Iran to exist. I would say that Iran has also created some good things, have a very modern country, and are a country that needs to be dealt with, with negotiations. And I find Netanyahu's rhetoric to be theocratic as is that of Ali Khamenei (who I am sure you meant).

There is no sure way to stop proliferation but the NPT is a pretty good stopgap measure.

Real peace with a bit of prosperity thrown in is even better.

and killing women and children by the score, then some of us might give a listen to his constant whining. At which time we will dismiss him for the mass murderer that he is.

I heard him say yesterday that Iran has killed more Americans than anyone else, or some such stupid, hysterical shit. He's jumped the shark. The whole nation of Israel is lining up its shark jump next.

Too bad, so sad that Israel doesn't get to dictate terms to the great powers of the world, or Iran.

Should the rest of the world refuse to deal with the US stating policies of the GWB Presidency?

It is not a question of what Netanyahu wants, it is a choice between the deal that the 6 countries negotiated versus no deal. Netanyahu's "better deal" has never been precisely defined, but the spoken provisions grow over time and go far beyond things dealing with a nuclear bomb.

Consider looking at the WORST case for the deal.

1) The world rolls back the sanctions

2) the 24/7 monitoring of the known parts of the entire nuclear process - from uranium mines to centers with centrifuges and and process that allows the UN to investigate any additional suspicious places - begin. (Critics ignore the former and act as if ONLY the latter process exists)

Now assume Iran, which agreed in this agreement - in the first portion - to NEVER build a nuclear bomb, breaks their agreement and attempts to set up a COMPLETE hidden parallel process (because if any known part were used, it would be seen as suspicious pretty quickly). Let's say they succeed in this daunting task. Now, how long will it take them to get to where they were when the negotiations started and Netanyahu said they were three months from a bomb? The worlds nuclear experts, who do not include Netanyahu, say there is at least a year breakout time. It seems clear to me that this pathway to the bomb (Netanyahu referred to it as cheating) is MUCH harder than returning to where we were before the negotiations.

Now, Lets look at the other path, Netanyahu spoke of. He said that Iran might well comply 100% and then after 10 years restart their program. For a moment, assume this is Iran's intent and that none of the measures that go beyond 10 years are in place. Ten years from now, they are still about 9 months FURTHER away from a bomb than they are right now if the deal just went away. At that point, every option we now have is still available. So, at WORSE, this deal would have simply delayed a decision to go to war by 10 years.

In fact, even at the end of 10 years, there is far more monitoring than there was before the deal. We KNOW that with no deal and heavy sanctions, Iran was STILL able to increase their production of enriched uranium. If there is no deal, they will not reduce their stockpiles.

The interim agreement froze Iran's progression, but if the US can destroy the deal -- it is no longer in place. We are back to the time when Netanyahu incorrectly explained nuclear physics at the UN with his hair on fire -- arguing that in a few months Iran will have a bomb. Do you really want to be back there again? How do you miss that that was in reality a call to war? (Note that the first day every Republican spokesperson from Romney's guy to Nicole Wallace were on TV stating it was bad form to argue that being against the deal was being willing to start a war.

In fact, this deal is a rare chance to turn from a path that was leading directly to a war with a bigger, more homogeneous country than Iraq. Wendy Sherman in a speech a day after the agreement spoke of a final get together of the people who made this deal. She spoke of the emotional last minutes where each of them spoke of what this meant to them personally. What is clear is that they know how - fragile as this is - it might be something they did to avoid the horrors of a terrible war.

The fact is that stopping this deal IS more of a vote for war than the IWR was. With Iraq, it is clear in hindsight, that whatever the resolution or no resolution at all, Bush would invade. This vote would be against a diplomatic solution leaving as the only alternative a military solution. The people who say that there is an option of increased sanctions ignore that the most important sanctions are the UN ones - not the US ones. It is almost certain that the process to lift the UN sanctions - as the conditions of Iranian compliance is met - is likely to start next week It is also likely to pass with near unanimous approval. Obviously no one will veto it as every country with a veto negotiated it.

The problem with Netanyahu and others is that they are in a paranoid mindset, just as Americans were in late 2001. Just as Bush ignored that Saddam DID let the inspectors in and wasn't building nuclear weapons, Netanyahu is ignoring what Iran agreed to. The reason in both cases is that their stated reason - WMD or soon to be WMD - is NOT their real reason. In the US, Bush lied about his reason ... until he proclaimed it in his "spreading democracy" inaugural address. Iraq was attacked because it was start that doing so could lead to different Middle East ... which it did, but not the haven they hypothesized. With Netanyahu, the reason might be more realistic - he wants to keep Iran as as much a pariah state, held down as much as possible for geopolitical reasons. (The US has made it clear that they still think Iran sponsors terrorism and included Iran in the June human rights and terrorism reports. This deal simply keeps them from a nuclear weapon.)

One warning - if you followed the Israeli media before their elections, you will find that Netanyahu lies often and easily and has no problem with any lie if it suits his agenda.

and that lack of credibility, and penchant for offending even Israel's allies, even delight in doing so, might play well inside Israel and help him hang on to power there, but it does isolate Israel diplomatically.

regardless of any nuke deal.

HRC actually said regardless of the nuclear talks, she would lead a new coalition against Iran: vid

http://www.politico.com/multimedia/video/2015/07/hillary-clintons-full-remarks-on-iran-deal.html?ml=tl_8_b

PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT:

That is how Netanyahu stays in power.

The nuclear agreement with Iran will actually make Israel safer. But it will not keep Netanyahu in power. When he doesn't have a nuclear Iran to wave in front of a frightened people, then he will be finished as a "leader". Call congress folks, and don't let this nasty little man
be in charge of our foreign policy.

the tension level.

That didn't stop us from doing the right thing and negotiating.

There is no fairness issue.

say, "Aw, they don't mean it, they're just acting for domestic purposes." Except they may, in fact, mean it. We will know in a decade.

We don't have to say "they don't mean it". They very well might. What matters is what we can negotiate to keep the peace and control their harmful activities.

And in a decade a lot of things can changed. They usually do. They may mean it now, but by then having sanctions removed and prosperity returned, they might not be so sure.

In Israel, there was also belligerent speech against Iran.

and their expressed wish to annihilate Israel. Not even getting into terror sponsorship and support of awful regimes. That can't be glossed over, although "bomb bomb Iran" and "axis of eeeeevil" aren't constructive. I'm not a big champion of Israel, but they are an ally and I can see why they're going to be pretty wary of Iran regardless of how the deal is enforced.

Netanyahu acts like he controls our policy--and because of a lot of stooges in the US, he's not so far off on that.

Our so-called alliance is a one way street. We give them money, arms, and diplomatic cover and they give us NADA, except disrespect. And we get the blowback from their barbaric actions as a reward.

that it was actually created by Iranians. As I recall, a fatwa was issued against building nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't have any.

This is trust but verify.