This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/world/middleeast/netanyahu-congress-iran-israel-speech.html

The article has changed 16 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 12 Version 13
Netanyahu, in Speech to Congress, Criticizes ‘Bad Deal’ on Iran Nuclear Program Netanyahu, in Speech to Congress, Criticizes ‘Bad Deal’ on Iran Nuclear Program
(about 4 hours later)
WASHINGTON — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel used one of the most prominent platforms in the world on Tuesday to warn against what he called a “bad deal” being negotiated with Iran to freeze its nuclear program, bringing to a culmination a drama that has roiled Israeli-American relations for weeks. WASHINGTON — With dark warnings and a call to action, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel used one of the world’s most prominent venues on Tuesday to denounce what he called a “bad deal” being negotiated with Iran and mount a challenge to President Obama.
In an implicit challenge to President Obama, Mr. Netanyahu told a joint meeting of Congress that Iran’s “tentacles of terror” were already clutching Israel and that failing to stop Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons “could well threaten the survival of my country.” The deal Mr. Obama seeks will not prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, he said, but “will all but guarantee” it. In an extraordinary spectacle pitting the leaders of two close allies against each other, Mr. Netanyahu took the rostrum in the historic chamber of the House of Representatives to tell a joint meeting of Congress that instead of stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, Mr. Obama’s diplomatic initiative “would all but guarantee” that it does, in turn setting off a regional arms race.
“We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror,” Mr. Netanyahu told the lawmakers, who responded with repeated standing ovations. “This deal won’t be a farewell to arms,” Mr. Netanyahu told the American lawmakers, who responded to him with a succession of standing ovations. “It would be a farewell to arms control. And the Middle East would soon be crisscrossed by nuclear tripwires. A region where small skirmishes can trigger big wars would turn into a nuclear tinderbox.”
Less than two hours later, Mr. Obama sharply rebutted Mr. Netanyahu’s speech before he attended a meeting with the new defense secretary, Ashton B. Carter. Mr. Obama offered a vigorous defense of the deal he has proposed to Iran and argued that the Israeli leader’s speech was “nothing new” and offered no other credible approach. Such dire predictions could make it much harder for Mr. Obama to sell an agreement to a Republican-led Congress even if his negotiators reach one in Geneva. The president quickly tried to counter the prime minister by dismissing the speech as “theater” and “nothing new.” Mr. Netanyahu, the president told reporters, had no better ideas than the status quo or, in theory, military strikes against Iranian facilities.
“The prime minister didn’t offer any viable alternative,” Mr. Obama said. He added: “The alternative the prime minister offers is no deal, in which case Iran will immediately begin once again to pursue a nuclear program, accelerate its nuclear program, without us having any insight into what they’re doing and without constraints.” “The prime minister didn’t offer any viable alternatives,” Mr. Obama said after the speech at the start of a meeting with his new defense secretary, Ashton B. Carter. He added: “The alternative that the prime minister offers is no deal, in which case Iran will immediately begin once again pursuing its nuclear program, accelerate its nuclear program, without us having any insight into what they’re doing, and without constraint.”
Mr. Netanyahu’s address, by far the most anticipated speech to Congress by a foreign leader in many years, has generated resentment and support from different quarters while driving a wedge between Democrats and Republicans. While the Israeli leader was escorted to the rostrum by a bipartisan delegation of lawmakers and greeted with raucous enthusiasm, especially by Republicans, more than 50 Democrats skipped the event. Mr. Netanyahu’s address, by far the most anticipated speech to Congress by a foreign leader in many years, drove a wedge between Democrats and Republicans. While he was escorted into the chamber by a bipartisan delegation of lawmakers and greeted with raucous enthusiasm, especially by Republicans, more than 50 Democrats skipped the event. Representative Nancy Pelosi, the party’s House leader, called his speech an “insult” to the United States.
Mr. Netanyahu tried to defuse some of the political tension that preceded his arrival by praising Mr. Obama for all he has done to support Israel. Mr. Netanyahu cited several instances when he had called the president for help, such as seeking more missile interceptors during Israel’s military operations against Hamas. “I will always be grateful to President Obama for that support,” Mr. Netanyahu told lawmakers. Longtime congressional veterans could recall few if any precedents for such a confrontation by a foreign leader on Capitol Hill, or for such a partisan response. Most foreign dignitaries invited to speak to Congress are celebrated figures, like Nelson Mandela or Vaclav Havel, or leaders of American allies delivering unifying messages. Perhaps the closest parallel involved not a foreign leader but Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who was invited to address Congress a week after President Harry S. Truman fired him in 1951.
And he repeated a comment he made elsewhere on Monday lamenting the furor that had surrounded his visit. “I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political,” he said. “That was never my intention. I want to thank you Democrats and Republicans for your common support for Israel, year after year, decade after decade.” Democrats blamed Mr. Netanyahu and Speaker John A. Boehner for arranging the event without consulting the White House in an effort to undercut the president, while Republicans faulted Mr. Obama for reacting with such hostility to the genuine concerns of an endangered ally.
But he did not succeed in mollifying all Democrats. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the party’s House leader, appeared agitated on the floor during the speech and later issued a statement saying she “was near tears” because she was “saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States” and “the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran.” Either way, for nearly an hour, Mr. Netanyahu seemed in command of the chamber, with his baritone voice and bracing message generating a passionate response. Glancing down occasionally at a written text, he quoted Moses and Robert Frost, introduced the Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel in the gallery and displayed the colloquial English and almost American political mannerisms that have served him through three terms in office.
Mr. Netanyahu argued that Iran remained as radical and untrustworthy as ever, even though it and the United States were effectively on the same side in battling the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. “This regime will always be an enemy of America,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “Don’t be fooled. 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.” Mr. Netanyahu argued that Iran’s “tentacles of terror” were clutching Israel and that failing to stop it from obtaining nuclear weapons “could well threaten the survival of my country.” Tehran already dominates the capitals of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, he said, and the United States should demand that it stop aggression against its neighbors and threats to annihilate Israel before agreeing to any deal.
Sitting in the packed gallery of the House chamber were Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner; Sheldon G. Adelson, the Republican casino magnate and one of Mr. Netanyahu’s main backers; and Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. was out of the country, so standing next to Speaker John A. Boehner behind the Israeli prime minister was Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the Utah Republican who serves as president pro tempore of the Senate. “We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror,” he said.
For Mr. Netanyahu, the stakes could hardly be higher. Coming just two weeks before Israeli elections, the speech offered an opportunity to build support at home for another term while rallying opposition abroad to a diplomatic accord that he sees as a threat to his country’s security. The prime minister dissected Mr. Obama’s proposed deal, complaining that it would allow Iran to keep some nuclear enrichment facilities and leave it capable of producing enough fuel for a bomb within a year if it broke the deal. The agreement would last only 10 years or so and would not address Iran’s ballistic missile program. “That’s why this deal is so bad,” he said. “It doesn’t block Iran’s path to the bomb. It paves Iran’s path to the bomb.”
Before the address, Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, predicted that it would be “the most important speech of his political life.” Mr. Netanyahu tried to defuse some of the tension surrounding his visit by praising Mr. Obama for all he has done to support Israel and by embracing lawmakers of both parties. “I deeply regret that some perceive my being here as political,” he said. “That was never my intention.”
For Mr. Obama, however, it was an extra complication as he seeks to draw Iran into a pact by late March, a complication he worries may embolden lawmakers into intervening. But he did not succeed in mollifying all Democrats, who recalled a history of what they deemed doomsday messages by him. Ms. Pelosi appeared agitated on the floor during the speech and later issued a statement saying she “was near tears” because she was “saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States” and “the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran.”
“I’m less concerned, frankly, with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s commentary than I am with Congress taking actions that might undermine the talks before they’re complete,” he told Reuters on Monday. Mr. Obama did not watch the speech and at the last minute announced he would be holding a video conference at the same time with European leaders about Ukraine and other security issues. But he said he later looked over a transcript of the prime minister’s remarks and defended his proposed deal to reporters, saying a 10-year freeze with intrusive international inspections would be better than none at all.
In a bit of counterprogramming, the White House announced on Tuesday morning that at 11:30 a.m., while Mr. Netanyahu would be speaking, Mr. Obama planned to hold a conference call with European leaders to discuss Ukraine and other security issues. “If we’re successful in negotiating, then, in fact, this will be the best deal possible to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” Mr. Obama said. “Nothing else comes close. Sanctions won’t do it. Even military action would not be as successful as the deal that we have put forward.”
At the heart of the dispute between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu is a debate over the best way to curb Iran’s nuclear program. The United States, along with European allies, Russia and China, has been negotiating a potential deal in which Iran would agree to restrict the number of centrifuges it has for enriching uranium for at least 10 years and to open its program to international inspection. While the president could implement an agreement without immediate concurrence of Congress by using his power under law to suspend some sanctions against Iran and lift others entirely, he would eventually need lawmakers to agree to permanently terminate all of the penalties as Iran wants. But Republican leaders indicated that they would not wait, and the issue could come to a head even before the next deadline in the negotiations on March 24.
The goal would be to limit Iran’s capacity so that it would take at least a year to build a nuclear weapon should it choose to violate or break the agreement. In theory, that would give the West enough time to respond. In exchange, international sanctions on Iran’s economy would be eased. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, moved on Tuesday to allow procedural votes as early as Monday to advance legislation requiring the president to submit any agreement to Congress and restricting his authority to waive sanctions for 60 days to give Congress time to weigh in. The bill had sponsors from both parties, but one of them, Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey, grew angry that Mr. McConnell was acting ahead of the deadline and said he would oppose the move.
Mr. Netanyahu argued that Iran could not be trusted, saying it had a history of cheating and hostile statements about Israel. The deal being contemplated would give away far too much, he contended. Instead, Mr. Netanyahu advocated demanding that Iran give up all uranium enrichment. The speech came even as Secretary of State John Kerry and Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, continued their talks in Switzerland. In comments published Tuesday in the Iranian news media, Mr. Zarif rejected the conditions Mr. Obama outlined for Iran’s nuclear program, which officials have insisted is only for civilian uses.
The speech came even as Secretary of State John Kerry and Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, continued their talks in Switzerland. In comments published on Tuesday in the Iranian news media, Mr. Zarif bluntly rejected the conditions Mr. Obama outlined for Iran’s nuclear program, which officials have insisted is only for civilian uses. “Iran will not accept excessive and illogical demands,” Mr. Zarif was quoted saying. “It is clear that Obama’s comments are meant to win the U.S. public opinion and counter the propaganda campaign by the Israeli prime minister.”
“Iran will not accept excessive and illogical demands,” Mr. Zarif was quoted as saying. “It is clear that Obama’s comments are meant to win the U.S. public opinion and counter the propaganda campaign by the Israeli prime minister.”
But in separate if sparse public comments in Montreux, Switzerland, Mr. Zarif was more conciliatory. “We’re trying, we’re trying,” he responded to a shouted question about how the negotiations were going.But in separate if sparse public comments in Montreux, Switzerland, Mr. Zarif was more conciliatory. “We’re trying, we’re trying,” he responded to a shouted question about how the negotiations were going.
In Israel, where Mr. Netanyahu’s speech to Congress has proved no less contentious than in America, political analysts praised his rhetorical skills. But they said it was unclear whether the speech would have any impact on the future of Iran’s nuclear program, or whether it would help or hinder Mr. Netanyahu’s chances of being re-elected to a third consecutive term in the March 17 elections. In Israel, where Mr. Netanyahu’s speech has proved no less contentious, political analysts praised his rhetorical skills. But they said it was unclear whether the speech would have any effect on the future of Iran’s nuclear program, or whether it would help or hinder Mr. Netanyahu’s chances of being re-elected on March 17.
“There was nothing really new here for Israelis,” said Gadi Wolfsfeld, a professor of political communications at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel. “On the one hand you have people getting up and cheering in Congress, and on the other people here are asking whether it was worth causing such damage” to Israel’s relations with the Obama administration. “There was nothing really new here for Israelis,” said Gadi Wolfsfeld, a professor of political communications at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel. “On the one hand, you have people getting up and cheering in Congress, and on the other, people here are asking whether it was worth causing such damage” to Israel’s relations with the Obama administration.
All of Israel’s major television channels broadcast the speech, but with a five-minute delay mandated by the Israeli Central Elections Committee to give local news editors time to block out any sections that could be construed as violating Israel’s strict election propaganda laws. Nothing was censored.All of Israel’s major television channels broadcast the speech, but with a five-minute delay mandated by the Israeli Central Elections Committee to give local news editors time to block out any sections that could be construed as violating Israel’s strict election propaganda laws. Nothing was censored.
Shelly Yacimovich of the Zionist Union said that Mr. Netanyahu had spoken to Congress in more subdued tones than usual, a sign, she said, that he was aware of the need to minimize the diplomatic damage he had caused. Isaac Herzog, the Zionist Union leader who is challenging for the premiership, said that “there is no doubt that Netanyahu knows how to give speeches,” but that the speech in Congress “will not stop Iran going nuclear.”
Isaac Herzog, the Zionist Union leader who is challenging Mr. Netanyahu for the premiership, gave a speech that was timed to air after Mr. Netanyahu’s address, and that he delivered, symbolically, in an Israeli community in southern Israel near the troubled border with Gaza. Mr. Herzog said the prime minister’s trip had delivered “a harsh blow to American-Israeli relations.”
“There is no doubt that Netanyahu knows how to give speeches,” Mr. Herzog said. But the speech in Congress, he said, “will not stop Iran going nuclear.” He added, “Only through cooperation with the United States can we stop the Iranian nuclear program.”
Mr. Herzog said the speech had delivered “a harsh blow to American-Israeli relations,” adding, “Only through cooperation with the United States can we stop the Iranian nuclear program.”
Mr. Obama and his team said they shared Mr. Netanyahu’s concerns, but considered his approach unrealistic.
Simply insisting that Iran forgo enrichment altogether “is not a viable negotiating position,” said Susan E. Rice, the president’s national security adviser, at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference on Monday evening. And military strikes, often favored by hawks, would only temporarily set back Iran’s program, she said.
“We cannot let a totally unachievable ideal stand in the way of a good deal,” she said.
Ms. Rice vowed to hold out for a verifiable pact. “Our approach is distrust and verify,” she said, in a twist on a phrase made famous by President Ronald Reagan during negotiations with the Soviet Union. And she reassured Israel of Mr. Obama’s support. “We have Israel’s back, come hell or high water,” she said.
Mr. Netanyahu’s speech divided American lawmakers. Mr. Boehner had invited the Israeli leader without consulting the White House, seeing Mr. Netanyahu as a forceful voice challenging Mr. Obama’s foreign policy.
“This is an important message at an important time, and the prime minister is the perfect person to deliver it,” Mr. Boehner said in a video released on Tuesday morning.
Democrats bristled at what they saw as a partisan maneuver, and at least 55 House and Senate Democrats planned to skip the address, according to the newspaper The Hill.
Few congressional appearances by foreign leaders have generated such controversy. Mr. Netanyahu had addressed Congress twice before, in 1996 and 2011, without such a ruckus, and his speech on Tuesday was the eighth time an Israeli leader has spoken to the House and Senate together.
The only other foreign leader to have spoken to Congress three times was Winston Churchill, the British prime minister during and after World War II. In honor of that, Mr. Boehner planned to present Mr. Netanyahu with a bust of Churchill.
The flap has raised Mr. Netanyahu’s profile in the United States, but he remains a polarizing figure. Early last month, Gallup, the survey firm, found that 45 percent of Americans had a positive view of him, a 10-point jump since a similar poll in 2012, compared with 24 percent who viewed him unfavorably. But the views broke down sharply along party lines, with Republicans favoring Mr. Netanyahu three to one and Democrats evenly split.
In a separate poll by The Wall Street Journal and NBC News late last month, 48 percent of voters disapproved of inviting Mr. Netanyahu to address Congress without checking with the White House first, compared with 30 percent who approved.
The speech became a hot ticket. Mr. Boehner’s office reported that demand for gallery seats were the highest since he became speaker in 2011. Interest was so overwhelming that both the House and Senate set up alternative viewing locations.
One person not clamoring to see the address, either in person or on television, was Mr. Obama. Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said on Monday, “I doubt that he will spend his whole time watching the speech.”