Washington Post even more blunt about the speech than NYT

Paul Waldman, writing for the Washington Post, was even more blunt than the New York Times editorial board.   Here's how he described Netanyahu's speech:

"Today’s speech to Congress by Benjamin Netanyahu may have been about theater (it isn’t like there was some confusion about his position on Iran that he had to come here to clarify), but it did put before the American public a forceful statement of the Likud-Republican position on the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

"And in doing so, it may well have done Netanyahu and his American supporters far more harm than good. . . .

 "[W]hen he argued that Iran and ISIS are heads of the same beast, it began to sound awfully familiar, much like when George W. Bush argued that al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein must be working together (and let’s not forget that Netanyahu was an enthusiastic supporter of the Iraq War, which dramatically increased Iran’s power and influence in the Middle East).

"This is the Republican foreign policy perspective, as much now as it ever was: there is only black and white, no complexity, no compromise, and all enemies are the same. Iran is literally fighting ISIS in Iraq right now, but Netanyahu wants everyone to believe that they’re going to join together to take over the world. . . . 

"The real problem came, however, when Netanyahu began to address the current negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. . . .  and argued that America and the other nations involved in the negotiations should just walk away. . . . 

"So where would that leave things? Netanyahu argues that if the U.S. walked away, Iran would eventually capitulate on everything . . . . That’s his alternative: Do nothing, and instead of just going ahead and developing nuclear weapons, Iran will see the light and completely reverse everything it’s been doing.

"To call that position 'absurd' is too kind. You don’t have to be some kind of foreign policy whiz to grasp that there’s something weird about arguing that 1) Iran is a nation run by genocidal maniacs; 2) they want nuclear weapons so they can annihilate Israel; and 3) the best way to stop this is to abandon negotiations to limit their nuclear program and just wait to see what they do. But that’s the position Netanyahu and his supporters in the Republican Party are now committed to.

"If there is ultimately an agreement, the fact that Netanyahu has cast such a sharp light on the ridiculousness of the opposition to the negotiations will make the Obama administration’s job in selling it easier. Republicans will of course say that it’s too soft on Iran, no matter what it actually contains. And everyone will ask the next question: what’s your alternative? Short of an invasion, they have no real answer, and they won’t be able to convince anyone otherwise."

 *  *  *  *

I agree completely.    But Netyanyahu and his hawkish supporters would of course point out that he is not exactly saying "do nothing."   He wants to squeeze all the life out of Iran and destroy their economy.   That's what he thinks will bring them to their knees.   

And behind that scenario, of course, lies Netanyahu's real desire:   to bomb the hell out of Iran.  All his exaggerations (some of which have even been contradicted by his own Israeli spy agency, Mossad) are aimed at arousing the fervor, hoping Republicans and hawkish Democrats will force greater sanctions and thus result in Iran walking out of the negotiations.

The Iraq war didn't work out too well, did it?   And he lobbied hard for that.   But bombing them didn't do it there;   then we had to send in ground troops for a decade.   It left Iraq a shattered country, and only boosted Iran as a force and influence in the Middle East.   So now he has to destroy that.   Where does it stop, Bibi?

Ralph