"Just last week, near Hormuz, Iran carried out a military exercise blowing up a mock U.S. aircraft carrier. That's just last week, while they're having nuclear talks with the United States. But unfortunately, for the last 36 years, Iran's attacks against the United States have been anything but mock. And the targets have been all too real. "
"Beyond the Middle East, Iran attacks America and its allies through its global terror network. It blew up the Jewish community center and the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires. It helped Al Qaida bomb U.S. embassies in Africa. It even attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, right here in Washington, D.C."
"Now, this shouldn't be surprising, because the ideology of Iran's revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that's why this regime will always be an enemy of America."
"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. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.
In this deadly game of thrones, there's no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don't share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.
So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy."
"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. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.
In this deadly game of thrones, there's no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims who don't share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.
So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy."
After Netanyahu's Speech, A Reality Check
March 03, 2015 2:38 PM ET
Greg Myre
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks before a joint meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington on Tuesday. Netanyahu said the world must unite to "stop Iran's march of conquest, subjugation and terror." House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio (left) and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, listen.
Andrew Harnik/AP
Since first becoming prime minister in 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu has hammered away at Iran's nuclear program, calling it the greatest threat to Israel. Yet Tuesday's speech to Congress, like many before it, sharply criticized the international response to Iran while offering relatively little as an alternative.
As a skilled politician, Netanyahu managed to put himself on center stage and forcefully make his case at a key moment in the nuclear negotiations, which are taking place in Switzerland between Iran and six world powers, including the U.S.
"That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, it will all but guarantee that they will get nuclear weapons," the prime minister told both houses of Congress.
"This deal will not be a farewell to arms. It will be a farewell to arms control," Netanyahu said in his speech that was repeatedly interrupted by standing ovations.
Netanyahu has delivered similar versions of this speech for two decades and used it to maximum effect Tuesday, tapping into several other hot-button issues as well: the looming Israeli election, U.S. partisan politics and the U.S.-Israeli relationship.
So after all the controversy, has he moved the needle in his favor on any of these key issues? Here's a look:
Israel's Election: Netanyahu is locked in a tough election fight on March 17 with his job and his political future on the line. This campaign, like previous ones, has featured Iran's nuclear ambitions as an overriding issue.
In a neck-and-neck race, it's not clear what effect the speech might have on the outcome. But he delivered a strong, polished address and presented himself as the leader best equipped to deal with Israel's toughest security question.
Netanyahu's emphasis on hawkish security positions has proved a winning formula in the past — he has captured three elections and been prime minister for nine of the past 19 years.
If he wins a fourth term, Netanyahu, 65, will have triumphed while pushing hard on his signature issue. If he loses, his political career could be in serious jeopardy.
The Nuclear Talks: It's crunch time for the nuclear talks. Unless, of course, they get extended, as has often happened. Iran and the six world powers are trying to reach a political agreement by the end of March and a comprehensive deal by the end of June.
There are countless reasons to be skeptical about deadlines, to question Iran's claim that it doesn't want nuclear weapons and to doubt that an agreement will be reached no matter how long the negotiations drag on.
"This is a bad deal. A very bad deal. We're better off without it," Netanyahu said.
Iran's heavy water production plant in Arak, Iran, in 2013. This is one of the country's many nuclear facilities, which are spread throughout the country. Iran says it will never abandon its nuclear program despite international pressure.
Still, a deal does seem possible. President Obama clearly wants it and has less than two years left in office. Iran's President Hassan Rouhani favors it as well, though he faces a wall of opposition from Iranian hardliners. Iran's economy is hurting from sanctions and low oil prices, and a deal may be Iran's only way out of its current economic predicament.
Netanyahu argued that Iran cannot be trusted and would receive far too many concessions. Much of its nuclear infrastructure would remain in place. Key restrictions are expected to remain in place for just a decade, but would then fall away.
So what does the Israeli leader want?
Israel's Options: Iran's nuclear program has been on Israel's radar for a generation, yet Israel has limited options and has largely looked to the United States to contain or roll back the Iranians.
Netanyahu has often taken the maximalist position that Iran should completely abandon its nuclear program, which dates to the 1970s and includes multiple facilities scattered throughout the country.
The Obama administration and its negotiating partners view this stance as unrealistic. Iran says it will never abandon its program, arguing it has the right to peaceful nuclear development as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The Israeli leader called Tuesday for a deal that would impose much tighter restrictions on Iran.
"The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal. A better deal that won't give Iran an easy path to the bomb," said Netanyahu, though he did not go into specifics.
The Israeli leader also wants tougher sanctions. In recent years, the U.S. and Europe have imposed stringent measures that have greatly reduced its oil exports. This has inflicted real pain, but has not forced Iran to give up its nuclear program.
Netanyahu's critics say his proposals won't work and leave military force as the only real alternative. Israel has floated this possibility, but there's a widespread belief that an Israeli strike could impose only limited, short-term damage.
"A military attack could set back Iran's nuclear program. But such a setback would probably only be temporary, and the use of force could trigger an Iranian decision to go for nuclear weapons as soon as possible," writes Robert Einhorn, a former State Department official who worked on nuclear issues and is now at the Brookings Institution.
Relations With The U.S.: For the first time in years, Israel became a partisan issue in Washington. Netanyahu has always been a polarizing figure at home, and he assumed that role in Washington. He won repeated standing ovations from Republicans — and some Democrats — in Congress, while about 50 Democrats boycotted the speech.
Netanyahu seems to relish his role as a combative figure and says the gravity of the Iranian nuclear issues makes it necessary for him to speak out. And for all the current controversy, the tight U.S.-Israeli relationship has endured occasional policy differences and personality clashes.
The larger question is whether this episode hints at broader disagreements.
What if Israel carries out a military strike against Iran, with all the potential consequences, and the U.S. refuses to join in or back such an Israeli action?
When Israel battled Hamas in the Gaza Strip last summer, the U.S. supported Israel but was unusually blunt in its criticism of Israel's bombing campaign that killed hundreds of civilians.
Netanyahu's actions also drew criticism in Israel, where some feel he has harmed Israel's most important relationship.
Last week, some 180 former Israeli military officers, called the Commanders for Israel's Security, denounced Netanyahu's decision to go through with the Washington speech, including one of his former commanders, Maj. Gen. Amiran Levin.
"I taught Bibi (Netanyahu) how to navigate and to reach the target, and this time I'm sorry to say: 'Bibi, you're making a navigation error. The target is in Tehran, not in Washington,'" Levin said. "[Instead] of working hand-in-hand with the president ... you go there and poke a finger in his eyes."
March 03, 2015 2:38 PM ET
Greg Myre
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks before a joint meeting of Congress on Capitol Hill in Washington on Tuesday. Netanyahu said the world must unite to "stop Iran's march of conquest, subjugation and terror." House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio (left) and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, listen.
Andrew Harnik/AP
Since first becoming prime minister in 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu has hammered away at Iran's nuclear program, calling it the greatest threat to Israel. Yet Tuesday's speech to Congress, like many before it, sharply criticized the international response to Iran while offering relatively little as an alternative.
As a skilled politician, Netanyahu managed to put himself on center stage and forcefully make his case at a key moment in the nuclear negotiations, which are taking place in Switzerland between Iran and six world powers, including the U.S.
"That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, it will all but guarantee that they will get nuclear weapons," the prime minister told both houses of Congress.
"This deal will not be a farewell to arms. It will be a farewell to arms control," Netanyahu said in his speech that was repeatedly interrupted by standing ovations.
Netanyahu has delivered similar versions of this speech for two decades and used it to maximum effect Tuesday, tapping into several other hot-button issues as well: the looming Israeli election, U.S. partisan politics and the U.S.-Israeli relationship.
So after all the controversy, has he moved the needle in his favor on any of these key issues? Here's a look:
Israel's Election: Netanyahu is locked in a tough election fight on March 17 with his job and his political future on the line. This campaign, like previous ones, has featured Iran's nuclear ambitions as an overriding issue.
In a neck-and-neck race, it's not clear what effect the speech might have on the outcome. But he delivered a strong, polished address and presented himself as the leader best equipped to deal with Israel's toughest security question.
Netanyahu's emphasis on hawkish security positions has proved a winning formula in the past — he has captured three elections and been prime minister for nine of the past 19 years.
If he wins a fourth term, Netanyahu, 65, will have triumphed while pushing hard on his signature issue. If he loses, his political career could be in serious jeopardy.
The Nuclear Talks: It's crunch time for the nuclear talks. Unless, of course, they get extended, as has often happened. Iran and the six world powers are trying to reach a political agreement by the end of March and a comprehensive deal by the end of June.
There are countless reasons to be skeptical about deadlines, to question Iran's claim that it doesn't want nuclear weapons and to doubt that an agreement will be reached no matter how long the negotiations drag on.
"This is a bad deal. A very bad deal. We're better off without it," Netanyahu said.
Iran's heavy water production plant in Arak, Iran, in 2013. This is one of the country's many nuclear facilities, which are spread throughout the country. Iran says it will never abandon its nuclear program despite international pressure.
Still, a deal does seem possible. President Obama clearly wants it and has less than two years left in office. Iran's President Hassan Rouhani favors it as well, though he faces a wall of opposition from Iranian hardliners. Iran's economy is hurting from sanctions and low oil prices, and a deal may be Iran's only way out of its current economic predicament.
Netanyahu argued that Iran cannot be trusted and would receive far too many concessions. Much of its nuclear infrastructure would remain in place. Key restrictions are expected to remain in place for just a decade, but would then fall away.
So what does the Israeli leader want?
Israel's Options: Iran's nuclear program has been on Israel's radar for a generation, yet Israel has limited options and has largely looked to the United States to contain or roll back the Iranians.
Netanyahu has often taken the maximalist position that Iran should completely abandon its nuclear program, which dates to the 1970s and includes multiple facilities scattered throughout the country.
The Obama administration and its negotiating partners view this stance as unrealistic. Iran says it will never abandon its program, arguing it has the right to peaceful nuclear development as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The Israeli leader called Tuesday for a deal that would impose much tighter restrictions on Iran.
"The alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal. A better deal that won't give Iran an easy path to the bomb," said Netanyahu, though he did not go into specifics.
The Israeli leader also wants tougher sanctions. In recent years, the U.S. and Europe have imposed stringent measures that have greatly reduced its oil exports. This has inflicted real pain, but has not forced Iran to give up its nuclear program.
Netanyahu's critics say his proposals won't work and leave military force as the only real alternative. Israel has floated this possibility, but there's a widespread belief that an Israeli strike could impose only limited, short-term damage.
"A military attack could set back Iran's nuclear program. But such a setback would probably only be temporary, and the use of force could trigger an Iranian decision to go for nuclear weapons as soon as possible," writes Robert Einhorn, a former State Department official who worked on nuclear issues and is now at the Brookings Institution.
Relations With The U.S.: For the first time in years, Israel became a partisan issue in Washington. Netanyahu has always been a polarizing figure at home, and he assumed that role in Washington. He won repeated standing ovations from Republicans — and some Democrats — in Congress, while about 50 Democrats boycotted the speech.
Netanyahu seems to relish his role as a combative figure and says the gravity of the Iranian nuclear issues makes it necessary for him to speak out. And for all the current controversy, the tight U.S.-Israeli relationship has endured occasional policy differences and personality clashes.
The larger question is whether this episode hints at broader disagreements.
What if Israel carries out a military strike against Iran, with all the potential consequences, and the U.S. refuses to join in or back such an Israeli action?
When Israel battled Hamas in the Gaza Strip last summer, the U.S. supported Israel but was unusually blunt in its criticism of Israel's bombing campaign that killed hundreds of civilians.
Netanyahu's actions also drew criticism in Israel, where some feel he has harmed Israel's most important relationship.
Last week, some 180 former Israeli military officers, called the Commanders for Israel's Security, denounced Netanyahu's decision to go through with the Washington speech, including one of his former commanders, Maj. Gen. Amiran Levin.
"I taught Bibi (Netanyahu) how to navigate and to reach the target, and this time I'm sorry to say: 'Bibi, you're making a navigation error. The target is in Tehran, not in Washington,'" Levin said. "[Instead] of working hand-in-hand with the president ... you go there and poke a finger in his eyes."
"The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember -- I'll say it one more time -- the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can't let that happen."
" if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.
Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don't need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.
Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.
The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.
According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.
Because Iran's nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran's break-out time would be very short -- about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel's.
And if -- if Iran's work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter."
" if the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran. That deal will not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. It would all but guarantee that Iran gets those weapons, lots of them.
Let me explain why. While the final deal has not yet been signed, certain elements of any potential deal are now a matter of public record. You don't need intelligence agencies and secret information to know this. You can Google it.
Absent a dramatic change, we know for sure that any deal with Iran will include two major concessions to Iran.
The first major concession would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure, providing it with a short break-out time to the bomb. Break-out time is the time it takes to amass enough weapons-grade uranium or plutonium for a nuclear bomb.
According to the deal, not a single nuclear facility would be demolished. Thousands of centrifuges used to enrich uranium would be left spinning. Thousands more would be temporarily disconnected, but not destroyed.
Because Iran's nuclear program would be left largely intact, Iran's break-out time would be very short -- about a year by U.S. assessment, even shorter by Israel's.
And if -- if Iran's work on advanced centrifuges, faster and faster centrifuges, is not stopped, that break-out time could still be shorter, a lot shorter."
"True, certain restrictions would be imposed on Iran's nuclear program and Iran's adherence to those restrictions would be supervised by international inspectors. But here's the problem. You see, inspectors document violations; they don't stop them.
Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn't stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.
Now, we're warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.
Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It's done that on at least three separate occasions -- 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.
Now, I know this is not gonna come a shock -- as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.
The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught -- caught twice, not once, twice -- operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn't even know existed.
Inspectors knew when North Korea broke to the bomb, but that didn't stop anything. North Korea turned off the cameras, kicked out the inspectors. Within a few years, it got the bomb.
Now, we're warned that within five years North Korea could have an arsenal of 100 nuclear bombs.
Like North Korea, Iran, too, has defied international inspectors. It's done that on at least three separate occasions -- 2005, 2006, 2010. Like North Korea, Iran broke the locks, shut off the cameras.
Now, I know this is not gonna come a shock -- as a shock to any of you, but Iran not only defies inspectors, it also plays a pretty good game of hide-and-cheat with them.
The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said again yesterday that Iran still refuses to come clean about its military nuclear program. Iran was also caught -- caught twice, not once, twice -- operating secret nuclear facilities in Natanz and Qom, facilities that inspectors didn't even know existed.
"And by the way, if Iran's Intercontinental Ballistic Missile program is not part of the deal, and so far, Iran refuses to even put it on the negotiating table. Well, Iran could have the means to deliver that nuclear arsenal to the far-reach corners of the earth, including to every part of the United States.
So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That's why this deal is so bad. It doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb."
So you see, my friends, this deal has two major concessions: one, leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and two, lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. That's why this deal is so bad. It doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb."
"So why would anyone make this deal? Because they hope that Iran will change for the better in the coming years, or they believe that the alternative to this deal is worse?
Well, I disagree. I don't believe that Iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite -- would only wet Iran's appetite for more.
Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it's under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?
Why should Iran's radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world's: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?
This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel's neighbors -- Iran's neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it's been given a clear path to the bomb."
Well, I disagree. I don't believe that Iran's radical regime will change for the better after this deal. This regime has been in power for 36 years, and its voracious appetite for aggression grows with each passing year. This deal would wet appetite -- would only wet Iran's appetite for more.
Would Iran be less aggressive when sanctions are removed and its economy is stronger? If Iran is gobbling up four countries right now while it's under sanctions, how many more countries will Iran devour when sanctions are lifted? Would Iran fund less terrorism when it has mountains of cash with which to fund more terrorism?
Why should Iran's radical regime change for the better when it can enjoy the best of both world's: aggression abroad, prosperity at home?
This is a question that everyone asks in our region. Israel's neighbors -- Iran's neighbors know that Iran will become even more aggressive and sponsor even more terrorism when its economy is unshackled and it's been given a clear path to the bomb."
Even the Saudis wanted Netanyahu to address Congress:
“I am very glad of Netanyahu’s firm stance and [his decision] to speak against the nuclear agreement at the American Congress, despite the Obama administration’s anger and fury,” wrote the Saudi. “I believe that Netanyahu’s conduct will serve our interests, the people of the Gulf, much more than the foolish behavior of one of the worst American presidents.” -- Dr. Al-Faraj - Saudi daily newspaper Al-Jazirah on Monday
"The foolish behavior of one of the worst American presidents"
“I am very glad of Netanyahu’s firm stance and [his decision] to speak against the nuclear agreement at the American Congress, despite the Obama administration’s anger and fury,” wrote the Saudi. “I believe that Netanyahu’s conduct will serve our interests, the people of the Gulf, much more than the foolish behavior of one of the worst American presidents.” -- Dr. Al-Faraj - Saudi daily newspaper Al-Jazirah on Monday
"The foolish behavior of one of the worst American presidents"
Even the Saudis wanted Netanyahu to address Congress:
“I am very glad of Netanyahu’s firm stance and [his decision] to speak against the nuclear agreement at the American Congress, despite the Obama administration’s anger and fury,” wrote the Saudi. “I believe that Netanyahu’s conduct will serve our interests, the people of the Gulf, much more than the foolish behavior of one of the worst American presidents.” -- Dr. Al-Faraj - Saudi daily newspaper Al-Jazirah on Monday
"The foolish behavior of one of the worst American presidents"
Ladies and gentlemen, I've come here today to tell you we don't have to bet the security of the world on the hope that Iran will change for the better. We don't have to gamble with our future and with our children's future.
We can insist that restrictions on Iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.
(APPLAUSE)
Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second...
(APPLAUSE)
Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.
(APPLAUSE)
And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
We can insist that restrictions on Iran's nuclear program not be lifted for as long as Iran continues its aggression in the region and in the world.
(APPLAUSE)
Before lifting those restrictions, the world should demand that Iran do three things. First, stop its aggression against its neighbors in the Middle East. Second...
(APPLAUSE)
Second, stop supporting terrorism around the world.
(APPLAUSE)
And third, stop threatening to annihilate my country, Israel, the one and only Jewish state.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you.
