As Predicted - Hillary Panders To AIPAC And Right Wing Warmonger Netanyahu

Hillary, our "quinoa and kale" candidate, bloviates and panders before AIPAC earlier today.

What is a panderer and can you trust him or her? A political panderer is one who will say anything to any specific audience in order to try to grab its support and votes. It helps mightily as well, if the particular pandering person believes the message being reeled off. In the case of her AIPAC speech, Hillary Clinton - an inveterate war hawk - meant every word. Strangely,  her groupies, especially blacks, seem unwilling to process this dimension, but will if she gets us into a new war (and has to do massive social budget cuts to pay for it). She unashamedly backs AIPAC's Israeli nationalist agenda and even supports the warmonger Bibi Netanyahu who has a thing about taking out Iran.

At least Bernie, kudos and props to him, nailed it by refusing to appear at this right wing Israeli ass kissing fest, despite being the only Jewish candidate. As he related to Chris Hayes, on his 'All In' show earlier tonight, he refuses to kowtow to Israeli nationalists (at the expense of Palestinians)  and the likes of Netanyahu who he described as a "right winger".

Recall that a year ago Netanyahu delivered an hysterical performance on Capitol Hill.  At the invitation of the Repukes, and with fire-breathing rhetoric, "Bibi" blasted any deal apart from total Iranian nuclear disarmament and - effectively -  demanded the only alternative had to be war.

Philip Stephens  in a Financial Times article on Mar. 5, 2015  ('The Answer for Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu Is War Against Iran')  highlighted the total awkward impropriety of it all, in the form of traducing Obama with the Republicans. Of course, the Repugs would lap it up as they're always looking for wars as a means to ramp up deficits to decrease social spending.

What was most puzzling was how this unhinged Irsraeli jackass - who more and more resembles the 'boy who cried 'Wolf!' -  has any creds left  when the EU and most European states "shut him out" (according to Stephens) long ago. His rants became so predictable and the over the top rhetoric so absurd that they basically tuned him out. But not the warmongering Neocons in the U.S.

And as far as trying to upstage Obama, all that really happened is that it backfired in the minds of most sensible citizens. Because no matter the excuse, nobody one- ups the President in terms of attending a speech that he never sanctioned, but which a troll Reepo congress did - just to get back at him for his executive orders on immigration.

Stephens also observed that Israel's own security and political establishment - including former generals and other officials- had been critical of the speech and believed its only effect to be "a clear and present danger to Israel".

While most rational people in the world of realpolitik understand that the only chance to curb Iran is the one now being followed by Obama, the irrational warmongers in Israel and the U.S. demand all out attacks a la Netanyahu. It seems two major conflicts in the last 14 years  aren't enough - they want the whole enchilada. One wonders where they will get the money to pay for such intervention, especially as none of them (including Hillary) want to raise taxes on the Middle class.

My fear is that neocon war hawk Hillary is also itching for a chance to show she's her own "boss" - and can run with the males - so she may well overturn the Iranian initiatives set in motion by Obama (who she professes to endorse and "follow") by helping Netanyahu launch a war against Iran as one of her first acts as President. I could be wrong, but her moves in Libya, and later the Ukraine (to help topple Viktor Yanukovich) are not designed to inspire confidence.

Predictably,  Clinton blasted her principled opponent Bernie, the only presidential candidate to turn down the invitation to speak at the AIPAC conference, for promising to be neutral on Israel-Palestine. Sanders's'  is the correct stance, when you subtract all the hysteria and the only chance for real peace in the Middle East.  Sanders said he would pursue a “level playing field” in negotiations, something Clinton insisted she would never imagine doing.  The question is why not?

Is she a paid representative of the AIPAC lobby? Or is she in Bibi's pocket as a fellow war monger? Do her delirious supporters pay attention to any of this? Or are their heads so far up their fantasy land asses - to try and protect against "the Donald" -  they don't even care?

Thankfully, I am not a lone voice in the wilderness. Numerous progressive organizations and Palestinian leaders publicly condemned Clinton for her profusely pro-Israel remarks. For her shameless pandering. According to one observer:

"The speech that Hillary Clinton gave to AIPAC took pandering to a new level,”

As he continued, quoted in a salon.com piece:

“Clinton promised to never be neutral and yet most Americans consistently express that they want the United States to be even-handed between Israel and the Palestinians. When one looks at public opinion among Democrats alone, this sentiment is even stronger and sympathy for Palestinians is even higher. This is especially true in the progressive base of the Democratic party — indeed the future of the party — made up of youth and minorities.”

Meanwhile, the social justice group Jewish Voice for Peace, or JVP, which is very critical of the Israeli government and its oppression of the Palestinians, blasted Clinton for her remarks. Rebecca Vilkomerson, the executive director of JVP, said in a statement that the discussion at AIPAC “relies on racist and Islamophobic tropes to justify unquestioning support for Israel.”

She went on to say:

"From Democrats to Republicans, the message is the same: more arms for Israel, a stronger relationship between Israel and the U.S., no mention of Palestinian rights, and no recognition of the impossible contradiction of being both democratic and Jewish when the state is predicated on maintaining systems of unequal rights and rule by military occupation,”

I am not certain, but I think Hillary may have just cremated her last chance to get Sanders's' supporters onto her bandwagon if and when she gets the Dem nomination. They have been enraged enough at the rigging of the primaries by the superdelegates but this AIPAC farce may be the last straw.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/john-grant/66533/hillary-clinton-backed-the-coup-shine-the-light-of-truth-on-poor-honduras

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/66577/the-clinton-trump-aipac-pander-off

D.C. Snowstorm A "Sign from God"? How About A Howler Alert Here?

Tian -Tian the Giant Panda at the D.C. Zoo enjoys rolling around in the latest "sign from God" - according to some evangelicals.

The latest bunkum polluting the web is that the mammoth D.C. snowstorm was a "sign from God" basically with the deity inflicting this white pain because of the way the capitol has treated Israel and "glorified Iran". Reading some of these screeds it's hard not to erupt in howling laughter at the sheer gullibility of people. Especially those on the Right, and especially given that at the same time they are targeting the gov't (mainly the Dems and Obama, of course) their own pet boy Cruz is making friends with a turd (Mike Bickle) who evidently has it in for Jews. According to Right Wing Watch, e.g.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ted-cruz-welcomes-endorsement-mike-bickle-who-believes-oprah-forerunner-antichrist

Excerpt:

"Back in 2004, Bickle declared that as the End Times approach, all Jews will be given a chance to accept Jesus, warning that if they do not accept "the grace" of Christ, God will then "raise up a hunter" who will kill two-thirds of them "and the most famous hunter in recent history is a man named Adolf Hitler":

Jeebus Crisp, with a "friend"  like this piety 'puke who the hell needs enemies?  The Jews of Israel (or anyplace else) surely don't! This asshole is so stupid he actually believes that Oprah Winfrey is a forerunner of the Antichrist:. This turkey is best known for starting "IHOP" - the International House of Prayer, which is really more a clearing house and platform for loads of right wing Christian bollocks - such as spreading the rot about Hitler being a "hunter of Jews" sent by God to get them on the right path. (Seems that didn't work out too well!)

So given this mutt just conferred his endorsement on Ted Cruz - the new banner carrier for the evangelical Right - it's kind of funny that another segment of this bunch is actually asserting the D.C. snowstorm is a "sign" from the deity about the maltreatment of his people - the Jews of Israel. Anyone else not see something wrong with this picture?

I mean, give me a break! Leaving out any Jewish references or issues (given the disparity of the Right's twisted treatment of them -from "victims" to rightfully "hunted"), have these people never ever heard of nor'easters? Have they not heard or learned that they tend to strike in the part of the country just clobbered? (Mid-Atlantic to NE) In this case a mass of frigid air that left our region (of the Rockies) about four days ago then met up with warmer, moist air off the Atlantic and created the biggest fuckin;' storm since Sandy in 2012. The reason this son of a bitch was so fierce (30" in Washington, D.C. up to Saturday afternoon) is precisely because the air was more moisture laden. In case the howlers of the Right don't get it - warmer air (as from global warming) always holds more moisture. Thus, as warming ramps up (2015 was the hotted year on record - see my blog post from yesterday) such major storms will become even more common.

In other words, when you boil all the factors down, there is no supernatural sign at work here, simply a natural phenomenon (nor'easter) on "steroids" because of much more moisture laden air resulting from protracted warming. This is a condition of our atmosphere that won't change anytime soon - so look for even bigger storms next time - maybe dumping 40" instead of 30".

In general,  the problem with invoking "divine signs" is that they are all subjective (apart from being uniformly negative) and say more about the psyche of the invokee than those against whom the signs are invoked. Thus, when the horrific tsunami struck Japan back in 2011, and thousands were killed, we heard off the wall Xtians professing it was a "sign" of God's anger that they had embraced Shintoism and Buddhism and not Christianity.  We heard the same type of bullshit after Haiti was struck by an earthquake in 2010 - in that case it was a "sign" of God's anger that too many still practiced voodoo and other pagan rituals. Then, after 9/11, we heard and saw other self-righteous assholes (like Pat Robertson) asserting the attack was a "sign" of God's displeasure with the fact the nation still had too many "homos" and carried out abortions.

And it's  interesting to me these "signs" are always invoked after the fact. We never get a sign prediction in advance, say like "God will send thirty inches of snow upon Washington, DC as punishment for the Obama administration's treatment of Israel and Netanyahu"  . Nope, it's always ex post facto,  citing the ambiguous words in scripture about "signs" such as for the "last days". Which, of course, can be read so many ways and with such interpretative latitude that anyone could drive a metaphorical Mack truck through them.

So please, spare me the signs B.S. Here's a bigger sign for all my Right Wing friends and family: The sign that Ted Cruz is NO friend of Jews or Israel is his acceptance of the endorsement of the Jewish hater Mike Bickle, who could actually believe in his heart of hearts that a God of love would create a murderous beast like Adolf Hitler to "hunt" the Jews for their refusal to kowtow to salvation dictates. Oh, and that he would also prophesy that unless the Jews convert then this God will vouchsafe to send another "hunter" after them.

As for the radical Right's howling about the Obama administration releasing $100b in Iranian assets over the weekend, that is also misplaced. Let's first clarify those assets belong to Iran, not the U.S.. It was also fair to repay Iran 1.3 percent interest on what was essentially a loan kept for over 35 years. Try to get that kind of lender interest from a bank, now or in the past!

As nuclear compliance specialist Joe Cirincione ('Ploughshares Fund' President) put it:

"This is a way to stop Iran from getting the bomb. without going to war. It has its risks, but those pale compared to the alternatives."

Indeed. He then elaborated on the parameters, to which most critics are oblivious when they yelp that Iranians are too "wily" and have "every incentive to cheat". (Implying the IAEA isn't up to the job of inspection).

"This is not based on trust, this is not based on good intentions. It's not based on the technologies we've used in Iraq, for example. This is 21st century technology, state of the art, fiber optics seals, cameras, sensors, audits, inventories allowing 24/7 inspections in all the declared facilities and the right to inspect suspect facilities including the military sites so much in dispute. One might possibly evade one layer of these inspections but the chances of evading all are quite remote . We can track every aspect of Iran's  production and with those inspections there's no expiration date."

This is critical because it means the harshest critics - namely the Repukes, the Wall Street Journal op-ed bunch  and Netanyahu-  are not aware of the modern in situ sensor inspection capacity, i.e. that allows the Iranian facilities to be electronically "spy"  monitored 24/7. And let me make the further point Iran earned those assets back by its nuclear compliance.  Those still skeptical may wish to consult this report from the American Institute of Physics:

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/68/12/10.1063/PT.3.3014

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/65657/five-reasons-ted-cruz-is-even-more-dangerous-than-donald-trump

Obama Right In Targeting Iran Deal Opponents As Warmongers

As I've written multiple times, I'm not afraid to deliver kudos to the Prez when he's right on an issue, and brickbats when he's wrong (as on the TPP). In this case, he was right yesterday to go after the Iran nuclear deal opponents and basically paint them as warmongering agitators. He was emphatically correct in asserting there is only "one alternative:" to the deal and that is war - of some form - at some stage.

The Reeptard warmongers can deny it all they want but they're either lying or insane.  In this regard, evidently both John McCain and Lindsey Graham took umbrage at Obama's strong remarks and said in a joint statement (WSJ, today, p. A4):

"It is particularly galling to hear the President try to defend his nuclear agreement with Iran by claiming its critics also supported  the war in Iraq".

Ironic, isn't it - that both McCain and Graham actually DID support the war in Iraq.  And Graham, to be sure, has stated clearly that if people vote him in as President (a classically stupid move that's comparable only barely to voting for Trump) he would make plans to go to war with Tehran. So there you have it. Two peas in a warmonger pod (recalling how two years ago, McCain was singing 'Bomb bomb Iran' to the sound of the Beach Boys' hit, 'Ba-Bar- Bra- Ann'. e.g.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRonG87eKw

Funny, but  war with Iran would not be a cakewalk like the Iraq conflict. Again, all these war mongers so het up to get it on really need to see the 1983 film 'Threads' - which makes 'The Day After' look like a walk in the park.

The other brilliant aspect of Obama's attack speech was in framing lawmaker's decisions on the Iran deal as potentially determining not only their own political fates but the future of a U.S. still recovering from more than a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq that has now cost more than $4 trillion. Enough to have not only funded a single payer health scheme, but a Mars trip and rebuilding our collapsing infrastructure.

Obama also delivered sound advice to the lawmakers, including on the Demo side, to "worry less about being labeled as weak, and more about getting it right." Sadly, over much of their palsied, poltroon history Dems have been much more concerned about their image and associated "optics" than getting a legislative position right.

Obama's jibes also made Bibi Netanyahu look like the warmonger he really is, itching to bomb Iran to pieces despite HE IS the one with over 200 nukes! And, of course, Bibi already dug himself into that hole with one of his earlier speeches, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/03/is-netanyahu-paranoid-warmonger-yes.html

But the part I loved the best, that had ol'  Mitch McConnell's panties in a twist, is when Obama pointed out the symmetry between the hardliners in both Iran and the U.S. Because just as the hardliners on the Right oppose the deal here, so do the hardliners on the Iranian Right oppose there. Moron Mitch then lost it and fulminated 'How dare the President compares us to those Iranians!" Well, dumb fuck, that 's because you ARE! But like the rest of his GOOPr ilk, he doesn't process the symmetry any more than he does the irony.

The main object for Obama, no matter how the Republicans pout, cry, stamp feet and play the victim, is to get the Dems on board. Once he has the Ds he doesn't have to worry about any votes against the deal by the 'pukes.  This is important, because it isn't just Iran and the U.S. in this deal, we have the UK, Russia, China, Germany and France too. So a defeat would have undesirable implications for all the parties.

Let us hope the Dem Senators pay close attention to Obama's nuclear physicist head of the DOE (Ernest Moniz) and don't stick their head up their asses like the Reepos have!

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/63346/which-u-s-senators-want-war-on-iran

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/63307/obama-s-pragmatic-appeal-for-iran-peace

Iran Deal Is The Best The World Could Get: So Critics Must Stop Bellyaching About It!

To hear the parade of warmongering Neocon repukes squawking, as well as Israel's deranged PM Benji Netanyahu, you'd think Obama had sold the Southern states to Iran along with Israel's  Gaza strip.  All you heard is bombastic bloviation such as out of bonehead Mitch McConnell's mouth that the ideal deal would be "one through which Iran gets no nuclear weapons" which is as full of hot air as when he claimed we needed a war in Syria 3 years ago to put Assad in his place.

Meanwhile,, perpetual Reeptard nincompoop Darrell Issa insisted the deal was "junior varsity foreign policy grounded in childlike optimism rather than clear-eyed realism".  Clearly unable to tell the difference between them, since this deal  - as I will show - is about as realistic as one can get, short of all out war which is really what most of these jabbering assholes want.

The editorial pages of newspapers split along typically Neocon v. non-belligerents' lines with The NY Times accurately calling the deal "one of the most consequential accords in recent diplomatic history" while the now neocon -contaminated WashPo claimed "it was a complex and costly deal that poses a major threat to the United States and its allies."

Meanwhile, the reactionary Wall Street Journal op ed pages featured almost end to end 'hair on fire' columns such as Patrick Kagan's  "Why The Iranians Are Cheering".   But what would you expect? Bear in mind the only viable alternative to this diplomatic solution would be war. That means millions of tons of weapons, including cruise missiles, obliterated which then have to be remanufactured - jacking up defense budgets and share values for contractors.


Then there is the low grade tabloid press, including the NY Post and  Daily News called the deal a joke, but what do you expect coming from media bottom feeders that are themselves jokes?

Anyone remotely familiar with cooperative game theory principles would understand this was the best deal we could obtain, i.e. that didn't totally shank one side. Indeed, the fact hardliners in both the U.S. and Iran are railing  against it shows it struck the exact right balance between hideous and effective.

As nuclear compliance specialist Joe Cirincione ('Ploughshares Fund' President) put it on Rachel Maddow two nights ago:

"This is a way to stop Iran from getting the bomb. without going to war. It has its risks, but those pale compared to the alternatives."

Indeed. He then elaborated on the parameters, to which most critics are oblivious when they yelp that Iranians are too "wily" and have "every incentive to cheat". (Implying the IAEA isn't up to the job of inspection).

"This is not based on trust, this is not based on good intentions. It's not based on the technologies we've used in Iraq, for example. This is 21st century technology, state of the art, fiber optics seals, cameras, sensors, audits, inventories allowing 24/7 inspections in all the declared facilities and the right to inspect suspect facilities including the military sites so much in dispute. One might possibly evade one layer of these inspections but the chances of evading all are quite remote . We can track every aspect of Iran's  production and with those inspections there's no expiration date."

This is critical because it means the harshest critics - namely the Repukes, the Wall Street Journal op-ed bunch  and Netanyahu-  are not aware of the modern in situ sensor inspection capacity, i.e. that allows the Iranian facilities to be electronically "spy"  monitored 24/7. Why hasn't more been published on this technology to reduce the widespread ignorance? Probably because the spooks like in the NSA - who use it in other venues - do not want the details known. Fair enough, but the problem is we are  then forced to listen to critics' complaints based on their antiquated perceptions from what they understood about the old time inspections using actual humans in Iraq.

Getting back to the game theory aspect let us recall again  a ‘game’ means any mutual interplay between one or more players- which could be individuals, corporations or nations – in which one stands to gain a larger payoff than the other.

 

In each such game, the respective players (in this case, the U.S. and Iran) make choices from respective  sets: S _i   (where in this case i= 1,…n). In addition we have n-real valued functions (in this case n = 2) described as:

P _i = S1 X  ………S _n ® R   (i= 1,…n)

Where R defines the Cartesian space.  The set S _i   is called Player i’s ‘strategy space; while P _i  is called the “payoff function”. We take S _i  to be the set of actions available to the character called Player i, and we insist each Player must choose some action – and even a “non-action” can be included in the set since it can provoke a response in the other Player.  Note there will also be some actions that have joint consequences,  and that  P _i basically measures Player i’s assessment of the consequence.

Other basics:

Cooperative Game: One for which some kind of binding agreement is possible

 Non-Cooperative Game: One for which no binding agreement is possible.

Strategy: involves a set of rules S _i which defines which action is taken at each point in the game.

A ‘strategy pair’ i.e. (a*, b*) is such that a* represents A’s best move when B plays b*, and b* represents B’s best move when A plays a*.

In a Nash Equilibrium, no player has an incentive to change strategy.

A “Dominant strategy” is optimal no matter what the other player does.

A sequential game is one which evolves in time and for which Payoffs P _i  are exchanged  based on sequential actions S _i, eventually leading to a denouement- or a stalemate.

From the above, we see this nuclear deal is predicated on a cooperative - sequential game. (As many have said, and I reiterate, this is not one 'done' deal but an unfolding process over YEARS.) The U.S. and its treaty collaborators (including from Europe and Russia) gain nuclear weapon neutralization while Iraq's payoffs include getting access to the global finance system and lessening of  sanctions.

In the case of the treaty template, each : S _i  denotes an in situ inspection (via 24/7 electronic sensors) which then determine whether and to what extent the set of payoffs sets: P _i  will be delivered.

The fact the deal is rigorously restricted to one objective  also aids in assuring its ultimate successful outcome, so there is no muddying the water with Iran's past history, whether it is a "good actor" on the Middle East stage or wants conventional weapons or whatever. It is strictly about preventing Iran gaining a nuclear weapon. As Obama put it yesterday, in an interview with Thomas Friedmann:

"We are not measuring this deal by whether it is changing the regime inside of Iran,” said the president. “We’re not measuring this deal by whether we are solving every problem that can be traced back to Iran, whether we are eliminating all their nefarious activities around the globe. We are measuring this deal — and that was the original premise of this conversation, including by Prime Minister Netanyahu — Iran could not get a nuclear weapon. That was always the discussion. And what I’m going to be able to say, and I think we will be able to prove, is that this by a wide margin is the most definitive path by which Iran will not get a nuclear weapon, and we will be able to achieve that with the full cooperation of the world community and without having to engage in another war in the Middle East.”

Let us finally acknowledge that it is primarily the reactionary Beltway bozos and poltroons  reacting negatively. Americans by significant majorities want this deal. Maddow cited a Quinnipiac poll, for example, that 73 percent favored it. And another poll showing 57 percent.

Will the politicos, especially on the Right, obey the will of the people, or go off half-cocked on their own as they have done with the efforts at gun control legislation, i.e. following the 2012 Aurora Theater then Newtown massacres? We will see!

 

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/63054/dont-count-out-the-gop-from-trying-to-sink-obamas-historic-iran-deal-theyve-done-it-before

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/63036/the-world-rebukes-Netanyahu

Also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/bob-burnett/63078/5-keys-to-the-iran-agreement

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) is a MORON! The Iran Nuclear Deal Is The Best Obama Could Achieve

Junior Sen. Tom Cotton, the goofball Arkansas wacko who would be better at being dog catcher.

I get sick and tired of right wing ideologues, whether they're congenital assholes like Sen. Jim Inhofe, from Oklahoma, who insists climate change is a "hoax" - or the birdbrains that formulated the original "religious freedom" law in Indiana - that since had to be amended thanks to a national firestorm. But I especially get irritated at grade A assholes like Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who - despite being junior Senators - believe they have some God-given right to stick their beaks where they don't belong.

For example, this fool was the prime author behind that ignorant letter to Iran - warning them any future deals would have to have the 'Good Housekeeping' seal of the repukes. It was totally out of line, and many decent citizens reacted to this POS with tweets bearing the hashtag:#TRAITORS. Well, if not, then pretty  close to it because it ran the risk of running the critical nuclear negotiations with Iran off the tracks.

The thing with these goddamned ideologues is that nothing is ever good enough.  In the case of religious liberty "laws", they want total ostracization of those they deem immoral or  "sinners"- whether LGBT citizens, atheists, pro-choice advocates or pagans seeking to celebrate the birth of Anubis in a restaurant. They can't live and let live so use the cover of "religious liberty" for their bigotry.

In the case of critical peace talks, they demand all or nothing. Despite the fact it ain't gonna happen in this universe, they want total nuclear disarmament from Iran. Having a diplomatic solution that at least allows Iran to retain some nuclear capacity - say for power plants - is off the table. It's their way or the highway.  Egged on by extremists in Israel - which nation has over 200 nukes, btw- they are content to be wrong and strong in their efforts to sabotage a real chance for peace.

It would be great to ignore them, but since they now have two majorities in congress (thanks to indolent Dems sitting on their asses for the last mid-term)and the power of lawmaking, we can't. Everything they do is pregnant with effect and consequence for us all.

Hence, it was with some trepidation that I greeted the news yesterday of an initial breakthrough in the Iran nuclear talks. They give a real hope of peace that accommodates all sides, as opposed to surrender by one side. For those who may not know, the following are cornerstones of the current agreement:

-Iran reduces its centrifuges from 19,000 to 6,000

- All their facilities would be open to UN inspection

- Upon UN certification world powers would roll back economic sanctions

All these are reasonable, though there is still much work to be done. But what we have is a start as opposed to  scuttled deal leading to Iran building who knows how many kiloton-range nukes - with many possibly mountable as warheads on missiles.

But the trepidation enters with the likely reaction of the war-mongering repukes who are always searching for ways to piss money away with new military adventures - so too little is left to meet domestic needs, whether repairing crumbling infrastructure or expanding Social Security. And indeed my fears were confirmed when I saw Cotton yammering  this morning - in answer to a reporter's question - that "the terms announced today were not as bad as I feared they were much worse".

No, jackass, it was actually the best that could be achieved, since everyone with a working brain knew Iran would not just roll over and blow up its facilities.  Despite that, Bibi  Nitwit-yahu tweeted: "This will not block Iran's path to the bomb it will pave it" -  which is bollocks. The close scrutiny,  including via distant electronic transmissions from in situ cameras - ensures Iran will not deviate, or else it will face much stiffer sanctions - which already have it reeling.

But the Republicans and their irrational, ideological comrades in Israel don't care. They will try and scuttle this deal because it isn't the "perfect" one they fantasize. And in so doing, will likely lead us into another long terrible war even more horrific than the misbegotten one in Iraq.

In the meantime, aware citizens need to disregard the idiots in the media - like John Bolton, opining in the WaPo- that this is anything like Neville Chamberlain's appeasement to Hitler, Nazi Germany. For one thing, Iran is not Nazi Germany as any student of WWII knows. They have no Luftwaffe for massive bombing attacks, no Wehrmacht to take over whole nations (like the German Reich did in WWII) and no Fuhrer with the power of Adolf Hitler. The use of the comparison is as stupid and ignorant as when Right wing nuts invoked Saddam as "Hitler" before the Iraq invasion - forgetting the REAL parallel was the 2003 U.S. invasion itself, comparable to the Nazis invasion of Poland in 1939.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/john-feffer/61622/iran-deal-or-no-deal

Is Netanyahu A Paranoid Warmonger? Yes, Which Is Why He Needs To Be Ignored

Let us accept as a proposition that in the world we inhabit the laws and exercise of principles may never match ideals. Look no further than the ACA or "Obamacare" which ideally would have been in the form of a single payer system. But the version finally on offer is the best that could be attained given the political climate.   In a similar vein "waging peace" often requires nuanced steps and trade-offs, especially with a nation like Iran - which let us admit is not a palsied military pretender like Iraq (when we invaded in 2003).  Thus, the step-by- step current negotiations are more likely to have success than a precipitous response.

But the  latter is what we got from Benjamin Netanyahu two days ago in the Israeili warmonger's hysterical performance on Capitol Hill. Again, with fire-breathing rhetoric, "Bibi" blasted any deal apart from total Iranian nuclear disarmament and - effectively -  demanded the only alternative had to be war. Which is total insanity, and ought to be sufficient to see this moron taking a one way hike out of the leadership of his Likud party- hopefully in the wake of the Israeli election.

The Financial Times, in an article by Philip Stephens yesterday  ('The Answer for Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu Is War Against Iran')  highlighted the total awkward impropriety of it all, in the form of traducing Obama with the Republicans. Of course, the Repugs would lap it up as they're always looking for wars as a means to ramp up deficits to decrease social spending. Call it their trademark. So we expected Boehner and his merry band of bellicose Teepees to certainly grovel and slaver as Netanyahu tried to give his best imitation of Winston Churchill. But most ''Murican historical numbnuts today forget Churchill gave his address at a time when the world faced a real threat in the Nazi Third Reich. As Stephens noted, it was bellicose hyperbole "indulged in by John Boehner" but on the good side (ibid.):

"At least he left out the crude diagram of the Iranian bomb he waved aloft at the UN in 2012."

What is most puzzling is how this unhinged Irsraeli jackass - who more and more resembles the 'boy who cried 'Wolf!' -  has any creds left  when the EU and most European states "shut him out" (according to Stephens) long ago. His rants became so predictable and the over the top rhetoric so absurd that they basically tuned him out. But not the warmongering Neocons in the U.S.

And as far as trying to upstage Obama, all that really happened is that it backfired in the minds of most sensible citizens. Because no matter the excuse, no one one- ups the President in terms of attending a speech that he never sanctioned, but which a troll Reepo congress did - just to get back at him for his executive orders on immigration.

Stephens also observed that Israel's own security and political establishment - including former generals and other officials- has been critical of the speech and believes its only effect is "a clear and present danger to Israel".  A take with which I agree.

While most rational people in the world of realpolitik understand that the only chance to curb Iran is the one now being followed by Obama, the irrational warmongers in Israel and the U.S. demand all out attacks a la Netanyahu. It seems two major conflicts in the last 14 years  aren't enough - they want the whole enchilada. Worse, they're prepared to even invoke the holocaust and in newspaper and mail ads - such as the one I got from AIPAC three days ago. But the hysterical rhetoric used is not designed to encourage thinking people of good will to side with them and so I tore up the AIPAC flyers and hurled them into the dustbin.

I've been a vocal and frequent critic of holocaust deniers and the Nazis (and neo-Nazis) but that doesn't mean I'm going to jump on a pro-war with Iran bandwagon when diplomacy is the only way we'll get a decent resolution.

Perhaps the most insightful and rational take on Iran was offered three years ago by U.S. intelligence specialist, Paul Pillar, in an essay in The Washington Monthly:

"More than three decades of history show that the Islamic Republic's rulers, like most rulers elsewhere, are overwhelmingly concerned with preserving their regime and their power....in this life and not some future one."

Israel, before it mounts its bombs to attack Iran might want to process that. They also might wish to look again at Principle VI under the Nuremberg laws, passed after the Nazis were brought to heel. Principle VI clearly states:

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: (a) Crimes against peace: (i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances; (ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i). "

The U.S. itself would commit total folly getting involved in another mid-East hornet's nest, given how it's already fucked up Iraq to a far-thee-well, destabilizing its secular government to the point the crazies like ISIS could enter and wreak havoc.  Leading to State Dept. spokesperson Marie Harf's observation (for which she's been pilloried by the Right):

"We cannot kill our way out of this war" 

Referring to the current conflict with ISIS.  Well, we certainly cannot if that means once more committing tens of thousands of ground troops - especially after we beheld how that worked out before. I mean, look,  as Einstein put it: "insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result."  So if we do follow Bibi's prescription for war, we have to be insane.

And yes, this is contrary to pseudo-Indy columnist Kathleen Parker's recent jibes: "It sounded silly" and  "it needed 12 pages of context to sound rational". In truth, it only needed a memory of recent history of how we totally fouled up Iraq by removing Saddam and ended up with over 4400 dead and  $4 trillion in debt - when all the medical costs are toted up. 

Do we want to go through all that shit again? 

As for making war on Iran, any nut or warmonger that entertains that fantasy needs to see the movie 'Threads' which concerns a U.S. and NATO strike force  invasion of Iran in response to a perceived Russian threat. Though the initial trigger may differ it is possible the rest may well materialize.

From the initial strikes on a nuke reactor at Isfahan, to the accidental sinking of the Russian ship Kirov in the Straits of Hormuz, to the deliberate exchange of two tactical nuclear weapons (with radiation blowing over Pakistan) and the escalation to a full scale nuclear war - with 3,000 megatons exchange (210 megatons on the UK alone) this movie will keep you on the edge of your seat and your ears tuned to the Siren sounds of would-be warmongers..

It should also give you nightmares and motivate you to scream down all the jingoist twits in this country with a boner to pick a fight. One might also include the Israelis in this as well, since any attacks by them could easily escalate and generate unintended consequences.

The last segment of the film - following the timeline after the missile exchange and when nuclear winter occurs, discloses there are some prices that are simply too much to pay. Most graphic are the scenes of the sorry victims of radiation sickness in Sheffield, UK and the final scene when a young woman that manages to survive gives birth to an infant with a frog-like face, scales and small scaled horns. As she screams in horror at her mutant, grunting offspring, the film pans to black and the credits roll.

DO we really want this future? Then by all means let's take Netanyahu's solution to the Iran nuclear problem! If not, we'd best ignore him and relegate him to the ranks of other crackpots in the past - like Barry Goldwater, and Gen. Curtis Lemay - the guy who demanded we nuclear bomb Russia after WWII, after they helped us to prevail.

Warmongering, paranoid crackpots will always be around. But that doesn't mean we have to pay them any serious attention.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/marjorie-cohn/61233/netanyahu-censored-voices-and-the-false-narrative-of-self-defense

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/61228/congress-cheers-netanyahus-hatred-of-iran

And:

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/05/americas_war_fever_is_rising_how_fear_bloodlust_are_bringing_americans_together/

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/06/lets_all_pity_netanyahu_and_the_gop_israel_iran_irrational_thinking_and_thomas_friedmans_usual_muddled_nonsense/