White House officials refute Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned speech to the US Congress, arguing he has failed to offer any feasible alternative to nuclear talks with Iran.
“The
alternative to not having a deal is losing inspections” of Iran’s nuclear
facilities, a senior administration official said in a briefing for reporters
Friday,The New York Times reports.
“We have made a substantial amount of
progress,” the senior official said. “Ultimately, Iran has to make a very
significant political decision to allow the flexibility to close this deal.”
Last
month, hours after President Barack Obama threatened to veto any Iran sanctions
bill during his State of the Union address, US House of Representatives Speaker
John Boehner invited Netanyahu to deliver a speech to a joint session of
Congress on March 3. The Israeli premier is expected to argue that the nuclear
accord taking shape now would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure,
posing an existential threat to Israel.
Netanyahu
is also scheduled to speak before the annual conference of the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobbying group. Obama, Vice President Joe
Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry have boycotted the next week’s
conference. However, US ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, and
National Security Adviser Susan Rice will speak at the annual event.
Earlier
this week, Netanyahu said the US was "accepting that Iran will gradually,
within a few years, develop capabilities to produce material for many nuclear
weapons." "I respect the White House and the president of the United
States but on such a fateful matter, that can determine whether or not we
survive, I must do everything to prevent such a great danger for Israel,"
he said in a speech in Israel.
Secretary
Kerry amplified the White House’s criticism of Netanyahu during congressional
testimony Wednesday, saying the Israeli prime minster would object to any deal
with Iran. Kerry suggested that Netanyahu was wrong in his judgment on Iran
just like he was wrong in his support for the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq.
No comments:
Post a Comment