That is hardly conducive to long terms relations between countries.
I assume that’s how things are going to be at the corporate level, too? So when a CEO steps down, all of their company’s contracts are cancelled and all of its debts are forgiven.
Seems legit.
Given the extent to which book covers typically reflect the publisher’s idea of what will sell copies rather than what the author’s trying to say, I don’t understand why you would think this.
My hypothesis is that Bibi, being American-educated, thinks not completely in terms of what is actually good for Israel, but more in terms of what the dominant power structure in the USA and UK want. And that has always been an Iran under the English thumb, where British Petroleum can take its oil for beans.
Alessan:
I’d say any pretense of objectivity ended when Bill Clinton sent his top advisors to help defeat Bibi in his campaign against Ehud Barak, but maybe that’s just my perspective as an American.
And, as much as anyone might wish for American support for Israel to not break down along party lines, it is something that has happened very much without having anything to do with Bibi. Support for the Palestinian position on matters has always been stronger among the American left than the right.
Oh, you mean places that don’t belong to Israel but in which Israel’s militants and expansionists expect to exert power? Those places?
I feel like Netanyahu has been in charge of Israel for like 25 years. It’s always kind of fucked up when someone is in a position of power for that long. It always suggests autocratic/corrupt tendencies to me.
He has not been in power that long. He had a first stint as Prime Minister from 1996 - 1999, and after a decade out of power, has been Prime Minister since 2009.
Yes, Israel has been carrying out attacks in Syria for some time now.
This wasn’t in the news in the west?
Iran vowed to retaliate and now they have.
So, if this does turn into a full scale war, let’s not forget who started it.
I believe the solution is: if one wants a lasting agreement with the US, make it a treaty, approved by the Senate, not some side deal with the current president.
Things got a little intense last night:
Israel strikes ‘nearly all’ Iranian infrastructure in Syria after Iran rocket attack, minister says
Are the various Free Trade Agreements that the US has with other countries treaties that have been approved by the Senate?
I don’t know about all of them. I believe NAFTA is actually a law, passed by Congress, and would require an amendment or repeal passed by Congress to actually change / withdraw from it.
For the record, Congress did vote (overwhelmingly, in fact) to give themselves the power to review the JCPOA:
They specifically put in the terms that would give Congress the power to overturn the act (e.g. to vote a “resolution of disapproval”), and in later votes, failed to muster enough votes to avoid a veto of this resolution of disapproval.
So Congress specifically acted with respect to the JCPOA, and specifically laid out the terms and processes under which President Obama was empowered to make the deal, and specifically laid out the terms and processes under which Congress could overturn it. And they failed to overturn it, by the processes Congress laid out.
And we can see now why finagling some setup where a filibustered resolution of disapproval isn’t as good as ratification of a treaty or passage of a law that would require Congressional action to undo.
It seems to me that the Act requires Congress to pass a law reinstating sanctions. Am I reading it right?
It’s interesting to me that a lot of #NeverTrump types have taken to defending Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran deal by saying that Obama should have made it a treaty. Evidently, they don’t want to try to defend the action on its merits (because it doesn’t have much in the way of merits).
Among other flaws in that process argument, there is the little problem that the Bush Administration successfully got the Supreme Court to recognize Article II power to abrogate non-self-executing treaties. So Trump could have done the same thing regardless of whether this was ratified as a treaty.
“unprovoked”. That’s rich. Israel attacked Iranian sites only the day before.
That should read “federal courts” not “Supreme Court.” The issue did not reach the Supreme Court.
That’s rich. Iran supports Hezbollah and sent a drone into Israel’s territory in February.
…We can do this all day.