And what action did Netanyahu advocate? What policy actions did he suggest the US take, other than not pursuing a deal?

3. They are doing everything they can to build nuclear weapons.

Except that the Mossad disagrees with him. And if the Mossad disagrees with him....

It wrote that “Iran continues to improve its enrichment abilities and is even liable to advance them significantly” once the then-new centrifuges were put into service. It assessed that Iran is “making efforts” to put the IR40 reactor in Arak into operation, which is “expected to produce enough military-grade plutonium for one bomb per year” – although it would need a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in order to be converted to fuel for weapons.

“In the area of nuclear of weapons,” the report stated, “there is continued R&D activity at SPND, under the Iranian Defense Ministry, which we understand is intended for accumulating know-how and creating an organizational framework [which] it will be able to make use of to produce nuclear fuel, when the order is given.”

And finally, the full passage from which the quote was cherry picked: “Bottom line: Though Iran at this stage is not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons, it is working to close gaps in areas that appear legitimate such as enrichment, reactors, which will reduce the time required to produce weapons from the time the instruction is actually given.”

In other words, Netanyahu and the Mossad agree that Iran is in pursuit of a bomb and is continually closing in on that objective; that it has advanced on two tracks, uranium and plutonium; and that it has amassed enough five-percent-enriched uranium for several bombs, some of which has been further enriched to 20%. The only disunity between the two assessments regards the rate of enrichment.

Really? That contradicts every news source that I've read over the last several years. Iran - Syria - Hezbollah are all allies

If you have something more up to date, please share

Other members of Israel’s security establishment were riled by Netanyahu’s rhetoric on the Iranian nuclear threat and his advocacy of military confrontation. In April 2012, a former head of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency, accused Netanyahu of “messianic” political leadership for pressing for military action, saying he and the then defence minister, Ehud Barak, were misleading the public on the Iran issue. Benny Gantz, the Israeli military chief of staff, said decisions on tackling Iran “must be made carefully, out of historic responsibility but without hysteria”.

ray

If you have something more up to date, please share

i
Your sharing the spin. The response after the cable leaked.
The story is really about the pattern of exaggeration and hyperbole coming from Netanyahu. Which is why his "advice" on the invasion of Iraq is important. Its just part of a pattern.

And its why he is not influencing the negotiations or US policy anymore.

Of course, visiting a country and meeting the head of state is not the same thing as inviting a PM to speak to Congres.

What is the sanction that Bibi wants the US to apply?

Frankly, though, ISIS are a more immediate concern, and seem to have disrupted the Middle East more than Iran has for the past 10 years.

The theory that Iran would buckle under continued pressure ignores certain basic facts. Iran is a proud, nationalistic country. It has survived 36 years of Western sanctions through low oil prices and high oil prices. It endured an eight-year war with Iraq in which it lost an estimated half a million fighters. The nuclear program is popular, even with leaders of the pro-democratic Green Movement.

As Allison points out, Iran already has the capacity to build a nuclear weapons program and got it in 2008 when it mastered the ability to produce centrifuges and enrich uranium. And yet, Iran has not done it. For almost 25 years now, Netanyahu has argued that Iran is on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon. In 1996 — 19 years ago — he addressed the Congress and made pretty much the same argument he made this week. Over the last 10 years he has argued repeatedly that Iran is one year away from a bomb.

So why have Bibi’s predictions been wrong for 25 years? A small part of it has been Western and Israeli sabotage that impeded Iran’s progress. But even the most exaggerated claims by intelligence agencies would not account for a delay of more than a few years. The larger part is probably that Iran has always recognized that were it to build a bomb, it would face huge international consequences. In other words, the mullahs have calculated — correctly — that the benefits of breakout are not worth the costs. The key to any agreement with Iran is to keep the costs of breakout high and the benefits low. This is the most realistic path to keeping Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state — not Peter Pan dreams.

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

What is the sanction that Bibi wants the US to apply?

He wants the US to retain the existing sanctions.

Danivon:

Frankly, though, ISIS are a more immediate concern, and seem to have disrupted the Middle East more than Iran has for the past 10 years.

Are you saying that because ISIS is despicable it is ok for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons?

Iran has kept the Syrian regime in power, emboldened Hezbollah, enabled the overthrow of Yemen. Yes, they are fighting ISIS, and that's a positive, but that shouldn't give them an all clear on the rest of their activities and their potential for more mischief with nukes.

I don't like any nuclear proliferation. I don't like the UK having them, let alone another country.

But no. I am talking about priorities, not binary choices.

The question is really whether we demand Iran not have any domestic nuclear power, or allow them to with controls.

The key to any agreement with Iran is to keep the costs of breakout high and the benefits low.

I'm not "outraged" now, but I was responding to your gripe about the President not consulting Congress on dealing with Iran.

There is nothing in the Constitution that precludes the Speaker of the House from inviting a foreign PM to speak before Congress.

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

I don't like any nuclear proliferation. I don't like the UK having them, let alone another country.

I'm ok with the UK having them. I don't see parity between the behavior of the UK and the behavior of Iran.

Danivon:

But no. I am talking about priorities, not binary choices.

I am also talking about priorities and not binary choices. The West can take a strong stand against ISIS and a strong stand against Iran.

Danivon:

The question is really whether we demand Iran not have any domestic nuclear power, or allow them to with controls.

really ... you believe that Iran is focused on domestic power?

I think all nations should be, and Iran wants to export oil and gas rather than be reliant on it for domestic use. They heavily subsidise energy, which means that if they can find a better way to do it than to burn the stuff they want to export, they should look at that - ending the subsidies may be preferable by is not a political option in the short-medium term.