“As someone who has served Israel in various security capacities for 45 years, including during the country’s most difficult hours, I feel that we are now at a critical point regarding our existence and our security.

“Our standing in the world is not brilliant right now. The question of Israel’s legitimacy is up for debate. We should not erode our relations with our most important friend. Certainly not in public, certainly not by becoming involved in its domestic politics. This is not proper behaviour for a prime minister.”

...

“An Israeli prime minister who clashes with the US administration has to ask himself what the risks are. On the matter of settlements, there is no difference between the two [US] parties. And even so, they provide us with a veto umbrella. In a situation of a confrontation, this umbrella is liable to vanish, and within a short time, Israel could find itself facing international sanctions.

“The risks of such a clash are intolerable. We are already today paying a high price. Some of them I know and cannot elaborate.

“I would not have confronted the United States and its president. Netanyahu may get applause in Congress, but all the power is in the White House. What will Netanyahu gain by addressing Congress? I just don’t understand it. Is his goal to get a standing ovation? This trip to Washington is doomed to failure.”

I think Netanyahu did Obama a big favor because he enables Obama to take a harder line. Any negotiator is benefited by having a brick wall or bad cop, which in this case is Netanyahu / Republican Congress

But do his facts actually reflect reaity? And aren't the six nations negotiating with Iran relying on their own set of facts rather than Netanyahu's "facts".

[even though Iran is a leading sponsor of the Shiite militias fighting ISIS in Iraq. Even though Hezbollah is now in Syria fighting Assad.

Part of this is in large part to the vacuum created by the US adventure in Iraq. An adventure that Netanyahui was a major cheerleader for, and who predicted would lead to stability in the Middle East.

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

Because its so stable now, after the Iraq adventure.

Okay. Although his Mossad do not share the view that Irans' regime is a suicidal regime. Just that some of them are big talkers.

No one other than Israel actually has pursued nuclear weapons. Everyone else has played by the non-proliferation rules... Even, so far, Iran. And according to Netanhayu Iran has been a year away from nuclear weapons for 25 years now.

Because his real goal is to drive irans economy into the ground?

They've worked elsewhere. Say Russia. On the other hand not having inspections would do what? And with no deal thats what you've got

The goal of the negotiations is a nuclear weapons free Iran. Not regime change.

And no deal would push them to move immediately

Ray Jay wrote:You guys are seeing it through a political lens, which is the nature of things when you disagree with someone's politics. Of course you should look at anything a politician does through that lens to an extent.

But you can also look at it through a policy lens, and he laid out the facts as he sees them:

1. The Iranian regime is the world's leading sponsor of terrorism.
2. They have extended their influence to Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria.
3. They are doing everything they can to build nuclear weapons.
4. If they do build nuclear weapons, they will destabilize the Middle East.
5. They have expressed the desire to annihilate Israel.
6. Other Middle Eastern powers will try to build nukes including SA, Turkey, etc.
7. If Obama cuts a deal then their economy will improve.
8. Inspections are insufficient.
9. If their economy improves the chances of regime change go down, not up.
10 The deal Obama is negotiating will enable them to break out sooner, rather than later.

Yes, the timing with the Israeli election is unfortunate, but the driver of the timing is that Obama is trying to cut a deal with Iran and exclude Congress from the process. Netanyahu who openly said very positive things about Obama is trying to prevent the end run.

No, we mature democracies realised that unifying HoG with HoS is what makes a monarchy. We keep the royals because their power has been largely neutralised.

Under the 1994 Agreed Framework, the U.S. government agreed to facilitate the supply of two light water reactors to North Korea in exchange for North Korean disarmament.[24][25] Such reactors are considered "more proliferation-resistant than North Korea's graphite-moderated reactors",[26] but not "proliferation proof".[27] Implementation of the Agreed Framework floundered, and in 2002 the Agreed Framework fell apart, with each side blaming the other for its failure. By 2002, Pakistan had admitted that North Korea had gained access to Pakistan's nuclear technology in the late 1990s.[28] Based on evidence from Pakistan, Libya, and multiple confessions from North Korea itself, the United States accused North Korea of non-compliance and halted oil shipments; North Korea later claimed its public confession of guilt had been deliberately misconstrued. By the end of 2002, the Agreed Framework was officially dead.

In 2003, North Korea again announced its withdrawal from the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.[23] In 2005, It admitted to having nuclear weapons but vowed to close the nuclear program.[29][30]

On March 17, 2007, North Korea told delegates at international nuclear talks that it is preparing to shut down its main nuclear facility. The agreement was reached following a series of six-party talks, involving North Korea, South Korea, China, Russia, Japan, and the United States begun in 2003. According to the agreement, a list of its nuclear programs will be submitted and the nuclear facility will be disabled in exchange for fuel aid and normalization talks with the United States and Japan.[31] This was delayed from April due to a dispute with the United States over Banco Delta Asia, but on July 14, International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors confirmed the shutdown of North Korea's Yongbyon nuclear reactor and consequently North Korea began to receive aid.[32] This agreement fell apart in 2009, following a North Korean missile test.

In February 2012, North Korea announced that it would suspend uranium enrichment at the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center and not conduct any further tests of nuclear weapons while productive negotiations involving the United States continue. This agreement included a moratorium on long-range missiles tests. Additionally, North Korea agreed to allow IAEA inspectors to monitor operations at Yongbyon. The United States reaffirmed that it had no hostile intent toward the DPRK and was prepared to improve bilateral relationships, and agreed to ship humanitarian food aid to North Korea.[33][34][35] The United States called the move "important, if limited", but said it would proceed cautiously and that talks would resume only after North Korea made steps toward fulfilling its promise.[33] However, after North Korea conducted a long-range missile test in April 2012, the United States decided not to proceed with the food aid.[

Even though Hezbollah is now in Syria fighting Assad.

2. They have extended their influence to Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Yemen, and Syria.

Part of this is in large part to the vacuum created by the US adventure in Iraq. An adventure that Netanyahui was a major cheerleader for, and who predicted would lead to stability in the Middle East.

8. Inspections are insufficient.

They've worked elsewhere. Say Russia. On the other hand not having inspections would do what? And with no deal thats what you've got

Congress do not "make" foreign policy. They have to ratify deals, but are not there to negotiate them.

Syria's international relations improved for a period. Diplomatic relations with Iraq were restored in 2006, after nearly a quarter century. In March 2007, dialogue between Syria and the European Union was relaunched. The following month saw US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi meet President Assad in Damascus, although President Bush objected.