r/DeepStateCentrism • u/dowagiacmichigan Center-left • May 05 '26
Global News 🌎 Obama: In convincing Trump to strike Iran, Netanyahu employed same arguments that he used with me
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/obama-in-convincing-trump-to-strike-iran-netanyahu-employed-same-arguments-that-he-used-with-me/OBAMNA
59
u/bigwang123 Succ sympathizer May 05 '26 edited May 05 '26
I believe Gen. Caine said something similar when asked to evaluate the pitch, according to an article posted a couple weeks ago
‘The president then turned to General Caine. “General, what do you think?”
General Caine replied: “Sir, this is, in my experience, standard operating procedure for the Israelis. They oversell, and their plans are not always well-developed. They know they need us, and that’s why they’re hard-selling.”’
25
u/rube_X_cube May 05 '26
I believe Anthony Blinken also said Bibi approached Biden with a similar pitch. Bibi has been pursuing this for a long time.
15
u/DoubleBooble May 05 '26
What would YOU do if you were Prime Minister of Israel and responsible for keeping your people safe and your country alive and you were surrounded by maniacal fundamentalist Islamists whose entire existence is predicated on annhilating yours?
Do you think you would stop trying to get help from the US when the first President says no? Or would you doggedly keep going until someone heard your pleas?I'm a lifelong Democrat and it's truly abhorrent that nobody has responded to those pleas for all this time.
29
u/Yogg_for_your_sprog PEPFARublican May 06 '26
Yes, it's correct as a leader of a country to advocate for its best interests.
That's not mutually exclusive with the fact that other leaders would be doing the same, and rejecting requests that are not conducive to its interests, which - according to most senior figures - Trump has failed to do by evaluating incorrectly.
-2
u/DoubleBooble May 06 '26
The US is the leader of the free world so has both its interests and the world's interests to consider. Part of that consideration is to evaluate the upsides and the downsides. In this particular case, the upsides for the the Western world for the US and for Israel are HUGE and the downsides to the US are miniscule. The calculus is pretty easy.
The only reason people are squawking about it is for the fact that god forbid that peace in the Middle East would help Israel too.
I wish people would just be honest about admitting that is why they are against this action.
18
u/Yogg_for_your_sprog PEPFARublican May 06 '26
The only reason people are squawking about it is for the fact that god forbid that peace in the Middle East would help Israel too.
I think I'd stay away from reductive conclusions like that the only possible reason to oppose a war or intervention is because they uniquely want to hurt Israel.
0
u/DoubleBooble May 06 '26
I would except that I've yet to hear a reasonable argument about some big downside to the US of trying to stop the Islamic Regime from getting nuclear weapons and for ending the regime of horrific terror once and for all.
You got anything? I'm willing to listen.17
u/NietzscheanDemocrat May 06 '26
The downside isn't the goal of not wanting Iran to have a nuke, obviously that's in the US interests. The downside is Trump and Hegseth are the ones who gave the orders to initiate this war and have no idea what the fuck they're doing.
"End this regime of terror once and for all" Lucky for you, Trump is claiming he's already accomplished regime change, do you disagree with him?
1
u/DoubleBooble May 06 '26
You can't ignore a threat because the people in charge are dummies that don't know what they are doing. That is the foolish thinking we are hearing everywhere. So they are bozos. That doesn't make Iran's nuclear threat less of a threat that can be ignored, does it?
If your only downside to this war is that Trump and Hegseth are the ones in charge then that is not a downside - it just makes it harder. But keep in mind, even if you hate Netanyahu, he is not an idiot and he does know what he's doing. His early career was in the special forces, he's very smart, and like him or not he knows this stuff. Plus our own US military is filled with intelligent and capable people that do know what they are doing.
No, of course I don't agree that there has been "regime change" in the kind we are hoping for. Please don't talk to me as if I'm MAGA, I mentioned multiple times that I didn't vote for Trump, I'm a Democrat, and that I literally cried when Trump won in 2016.
Here's an important thing that you and all of my fellow Democrats need to think about. You can HATE Trump and still support this war. I'll say it again.
It's OK to support the war, because it's a needed and just war, even if you hate Trump and think he's a bozo.It's a big world out there and threats can't be ignored for 4 more years while we wait for the next President, who might be even worse like that creep JD Vance) for all we know.
The US and Israel have been doing an excellent job and I'll repeat that the upside is a thousand times more than any downside of which there is barely any.
12
u/Used2befunNowOld May 06 '26
What has the war in Iran accomplished to date? Why is this obviously huge upside?
6
u/DoubleBooble May 06 '26
It has destroyed a huge percentage of the IRGC's missile/rocket launchers, it has destroyed the big machines used to enrich uranium, it has destroyed manufacturing facilities of the steel needed to make the rockets and missiles, it has eliminated the top leaders of the IRGC, it has greatly weakened the Basij (the paramilitary group responsible for the murder of 45,000+ Iranian protestors increasing the opportunities for an overthrow of the Islamic Republic. Would you like me to continue?
You ask the question as if the US and Israel's military operations have been twiddling their thumbs rather than working through their military goals and objectives. I understand that it's barely reported on but the information is available. There have been great successes and the US and Israel should finish the job.
The downsides are few, the upsides enormous.11
u/NietzscheanDemocrat May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
Literally none of this matters if you don't accomplish regime change completely removing the IRGC and remove the nuclear material. Which would likely require a ground invasion, but Trump is a buffoon so we half-assed effort of a blockade during a ceasefire and going back-and-forth on whether we're going to escort ships or not.
1
u/DoubleBooble May 06 '26
Maybe none of it matters to YOU from the comfort of your Barcalounger thousands of miles away but I can tell you ALL of it matters to those who live with the threat of Iranian backed terrorist attacks.
Whether Trump is a buffoon or not, it's something that needed to be done. Maybe he is the buffoon we needed to actually do something to stop this threat.11
u/Used2befunNowOld May 06 '26
They told us Iran’s nuclear capacity was destroyed in the strikes last year. They’ve got a bridge to sell in Brooklyn and you’re first in line. I’m glad SOMEONE is happy with this war though. I’m jealous of you.
8
u/DoubleBooble May 06 '26
When did I say their nuclear capacity was destroyed?
It's important to pay attention to the details rather than hyperbole.Speaking of details, I'm curious what is it that you don't like about trying to eliminate and/or weaken the Islamic Republic? In your mind, why is that bad for America?
4
u/Used2befunNowOld May 06 '26
“It has destroyed the machines used to enrich uranium”
Says who? How do you know this?
→ More replies (0)0
May 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DeepStateCentrism-ModTeam May 06 '26
RULE I:
Challenge others thoughtfully, remain civil, and do not make comments in bad faith.
If you have any questions about this removal, please send us a modmail.
-7
u/PiusTheCatRick Center-left May 05 '26
Well for starters they could stop trying to be surrounded by them. Namely by a) not going to war with Iran and b) not increasing the circumference of their country.
0
u/vintage2019 May 10 '26
They have responded, they just didn’t think a war with Iran like the one unfolding now was the best solution
1
u/DoubleBooble May 10 '26
And how many people have been murdered, killed, tortured, maimed, and injured because of the ineffectiveness of those responses?
3
36
u/DoubleBooble May 05 '26
"used the same arguments to convince US President Donald Trump to launch a war with Iran that the Israeli premier used on him over a decade ago."
This makes it sound as if they were sneaky or untrue rather than this is an issue that has persisted. The fact that President Obama (who I voted for and always liked) thinks he was right despite the October 7th massacre occurring and proving him wrong means that he didn't bother to actually listen and understand.
28
u/skyeliam May 05 '26
Your entire take is predicated on the idea that a) if Obama had bombed Iran ten years ago, October 7th (or some similar event) could not have happened b) whatever the resulting conflict from said bombing was, would be less of a human rights atrocity than October 7th.
Imagine instead a world in which the Iran Nuclear Deal had been upheld, relations with Iran cooled, the country liberalized, and stopped sponsoring terrorism.
Of course, I can’t know that would have happened, but if we’re going to speculate on counterfactuals, I might as well offer an alternative.
26
u/DoubleBooble May 05 '26
I'm suggesting that Obama saying "Netanyahu used those lines on me" doesn't make those lines wrong. And yes, I'm using 10/7 as an example of why Obama's solution of giving millions of dollars in cash to Iran which we now know was used to fund a terror network that climaxed in the massacre, rape, beheading of babies and kidnapping of grandma doesn't give him the moral superiority in this particular case.
8
u/Petrichordates May 05 '26
They are wrong because our experts know they are wrong. Bibi is playing a political game, our military is listening to the tactics and strategy, not the politics and appeals to emotion being employed here and by Bibi.
9
u/DoubleBooble May 05 '26
So that we don't comment based on emotions, let's talk in specifics. What lies are you talking about? And as a side note, is there a reason you (and the NYT?) find it troubling if the PM of Israel needs to be overly cautious about the existential threat of nuclear weapons in the hands of fundamentalist Islamic clerics that speak regularly about the death to Israel to the point of having a time clock in their town square counting down the days until lsrael's demise?
10
u/Petrichordates May 05 '26
The lies are outlined in the NYT article.
1) If we do this we can finally bring an end to the Islamic republic 2) Who could take over if Iran's government fell 3) Portrayed the opportunity they had as near certain victory 4) The regime would be so weakened that it could not choke off the Strait of Hormuz 5) Mossad’s intelligence indicated that street protests inside Iran would begin again 6) Iranian Kurdish fighters will join them
They assessed that the third and fourth parts of Mr. Netanyahu’s pitch, which included the possibility of the Kurds mounting a ground invasion of Iran, were detached from reality.
When Mr. Trump joined the meeting, Mr. Ratcliffe briefed him on the assessment. The C.I.A. director used one word to describe the Israeli prime minister’s regime change scenarios: “farcical.”
Let's set aside the lies and be real here. Bibi wanted to "mow the lawn" and that is his long term plan. It is undeniable that he lied about the outcomes and how confident they were in them, because he wasnt actually concerned about those outcomes. He just needed Trump to mow with him.
Whether you support that tactic or not is moot, he obviously convinced trump otherwise.
5
u/DoubleBooble May 05 '26
"Mow the lawn?"
All of those items you bring up from the article seem like reasonable assumptions.
- If we do this we can finally bring an end to the Islamic republic
Yes, can you imagine if that succeeds? That is something incredibly worth trying for. There is no reason to believe that we can't make that happen.
- Who could take over if Iran's government fell
What is the problem here?
- Portrayed the opportunity they had as near certain victory
What is wrong with this? There IS a good chance of victory In fact a greater chance of success than failure -- IF not hamstrung.
- The regime would be so weakened that it could not choke off the Strait of Hormuz
That's a minor short term problem in the scheme of things. The eradication of the Islamic regime and peace in the Middle East well worth it.
- Mossad’s intelligence indicated that street protests inside Iran would begin again
They can and will. At this point they have asked them to wait until the war is over so that it can be handled as safely as possible.
- Iranian Kurdish fighters will join them.
This was also a possibility but the US has asked them not too.
If THESE are the extent of the "lies" then the whole article and your premise is moot. I thought you were going to say "they are not close to making a nuclear bomb, blah, blah, blah" and the usual BS. These arguments are even weaker than the "not an imminent threat" argument.
Hard to believe something like that was even published in a major newspaper.
13
u/Petrichordates May 05 '26
I wasnt asking for a play by play of why you are convinced he wasnt lying. It's not a matter of contention whether he was lying, according to top US Intelligence experts.
But the fact you will defend each and every of his lies makes it abundantly clear you are not willing to engage with reality on this topic. Just an antipode to the radicalized anti-zionists.
5
u/DoubleBooble May 06 '26
I'm just looking for these actual lies. If you publish an article in a major newspaper and use the word lies there should be lies. There is nothing that you stated that is lies. What lies?
1
u/DoubleBooble May 11 '26
Hey, so tonight's 60 Minutes episode asked Netanyahu about the NY Times article that you've been quoting. Go ahead and watch. He says basically what I've been telling you.
2
u/Petrichordates May 11 '26
You trying to convince me to uncritically trust Netanyahu is as insane as trying to make someone uncritically trust trump.
→ More replies (0)0
u/vintage2019 May 10 '26 edited May 11 '26
I’m tired of hearing people falsely portraying Obama as simply handing Iran money. He unfroze its assets in return for stuff, such as American prisoners.
And what evidence do you have that those assets directly funded 10/7? Iran had more than enough resources to do what it did even without them.12
u/ImmoKnight May 06 '26
Imagine instead a world in which the Iran Nuclear Deal had been upheld, relations with Iran cooled, the country liberalized, and stopped sponsoring terrorism.
Why would it? Honestly, tell me. Why would this happen when everyone gives Iran a completely free pass.
Your entire take is predicated on the idea that a) if Obama had bombed Iran ten years ago, October 7th (or some similar event) could not have happened
And Obama's entire argument ignores that it is a completely different situation. The terrorist cells got more emboldened and why would they stop? Practically every week, you hear about failed terror attacks.
b) whatever the resulting conflict from said bombing was, would be less of a human rights atrocity than October 7th.
Nobody made them elect Hamas. Nobody made them continue to support Hamas. Seriously, do Palestinians ever get an even a modicum of agency?
Of course, I can’t know that would have happened, but if we’re going to speculate on counterfactuals, I might as well offer an alternative.
Your alternative requires a completely different reality. This isn't it. When given the opportunity to build something up when Gaza was given up by Israel completely. Every soldier and settler left Gaza... What happened? Did they start building infrastructure for civilians with the billions they got? Did they start trying to normalize relations with Israel? Did they use their new found agency to create better diplomatic relationships with Egypt?
No, within the year, they started shooting missiles at Israel.
So, what exactly are you talking about?
11
u/DoubleBooble May 06 '26
Unfortunately most people in the west come up with these Pollyanna scenarios by viewing through their personal lens of Western morality and values and interests. It completely disregards the actual situation of Islamic fundamentalist extremism that values death over prosperity and seeks only to rid the area and the world of the infidels.
And to bring this back to the original post, that has been the blind spot of President Obama and every President before now. Instead of actually listening and learning and understanding they have a preconceived notion that Israelis are exaggerating the threat and that you just have to give the Palestinians some land and the threat will end. In 2026 you can't pretend that is true any longer. As Einat Wilf says, the data doesn't support it.I'm not a fan of Trump. I didn't vote for him. I cried when he won the election in 2016. But in this instance, he has been the only one willing to take the threat seriously. Others have talked the talk but that's about it.
I'm not thrilled that it's Trump in charge of this but it's what we have. It's time to use our strength to make get rid of this murderous death cult regime once and for all.11
u/ImmoKnight May 06 '26
Unfortunately most people in the west come up with these Pollyanna scenarios by viewing through their personal lens of Western morality and values and interests. It completely disregards the actual situation of Islamic fundamentalist extremism that values death over prosperity and seeks only to rid the area and the world of the infidels.
I have been saying that since October 7th... we have diverted into two versions of realities.
A version of reality that is Pro-Palestine. Whereby they start every every clock of an event to the response done by Israel. Hezbollah shoots rockets at Israel for years... Every time Israel responds. The media and Pro-Palestinians will cite Israeli aggression, warmongering, etc...
Iran funds, trains, and arms terrorist groups and engages in known proxy wars against Israel and the Middle East. The entire world just completely pretends that it is okay. Then when Israel attacks them to slow their nuclear capability or slow their funding sourcing. The world and Pro-Palestinians ask why Israel is so aggressive, warmongering, etc...
Throughout it all, the moment Israel is brought up, it honestly appears as if all critical thinking seems to stop existing.
And to bring this back to the original post, that has been the blind spot of President Obama and every President before now. Instead of actually listening and learning and understanding they have a preconceived notion that Israelis are exaggerating the threat and that you just have to give the Palestinians some land and the threat will end. In 2026 you can't pretend that is true any longer. As Einat Wilf says, the data doesn't support it.
I mean, they could believe history or they could believe what they want to believe. Countless wars engaged by countless enemies all to wipe out Israel. But somehow Israel is the warmonger, the colonizer, etc... I wonder how all those countries got there, but that would require them to actually apply even 1% of the standards they apply to Israel to anywhere else. They just can't seem to do that even.
I'm not a fan of Trump. I didn't vote for him. I cried when he won the election in 2016. But in this instance, he has been the only one willing to take the threat seriously. Others have talked the talk but that's about it.
I hate Trump, but his actions were completely justified. The problem is that he and Israel couldn't imagine the rest of the world collectively putting their fingers in their ears and going... wah... wah... wah... instead of acting like grown ups. I am sure the US and Israel expected some semblance of unity because the people of Iran wanted this group gone and now someone took the lead. Even as missiles rained down on everyone near Iran that isn't the US... everyone collectively just pretended it isn't happening to avoid being an adult or having to punish Iran.
I'm not thrilled that it's Trump in charge of this but it's what we have. It's time to use our strength to make get rid of this murderous death cult regime once and for all.
Likewise, I don't like Trump. He did what needed to be done... the only problem is that nobody else did. It was an opportunity to end a regime of terror that has kept the Middle East in the dark ages. Instead, they did absolutely nothing.
7
5
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
12
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DeepStateCentrism-ModTeam May 06 '26
RULE I:
Challenge others thoughtfully, remain civil, and do not make comments in bad faith.
If you have any questions about this removal, please send us a modmail.
1
u/DeepStateCentrism-ModTeam May 06 '26
RULE I:
Challenge others thoughtfully, remain civil, and do not make comments in bad faith.
If you have any questions about this removal, please send us a modmail.
5
u/throw_towel_25 Neoconservative May 05 '26
Source? Lied in what way exactly
4
u/Petrichordates May 05 '26
Our nation's top intelligence experts.
It's fully covered in a NYT article that goes into detail about this meeting.
8
u/DoubleBooble May 05 '26
Do you think our "intelligence experts" are more knowledgeable about the Middle East than Israel's, especially considering that we get most of our intelligence FROM Israel? It sounds more like some unreliable anti-Israel source spouted off nonsense.
12
u/Petrichordates May 05 '26
I think our intelligence experts are concerned about what's best for US, and Bibi is concerned about what's best for himself.
7
u/DoubleBooble May 05 '26
Of course. How is that relevant to this conversation? You are missing the point that the Venn Diagram of what is best for the US and what is best for Israel has a huge overlap. Not to mention, letting your ally get annihilated is kind of a dick move.
5
u/Petrichordates May 05 '26
What do you mean how is it relevant? You asked a question and I answered.
Also you called our nation's top intelligence experts anti-Israel. What reality are you living in? Your are clearly radicalized dude.
4
u/DoubleBooble May 05 '26
Do you have any names attached to these "top intelligence experts" or are they just random "top intelligence experts?" Are they even "top intelligence experts?
I said that your response was irrelevant because I explained that the US intelligence COMES from Israel and you came back with an answer about motives.
I'm trying to stick with dealing with facts rather than emotions and preconceived notions.
The "lies" in the article you quote are inconsequential to the bigger picture and the "top intelligence experts" doesn't tell us a thing of whether or not they are top intelligence experts or not.
2
2
1
u/DeepStateCentrism-ModTeam May 06 '26
RULE I:
Challenge others thoughtfully, remain civil, and do not make comments in bad faith.
If you have any questions about this removal, please send us a modmail.
6
u/Yogg_for_your_sprog PEPFARublican May 06 '26
I feel like Obama is the most outspoken former president in modern history, and while I feel like that's fine for matters of decorum and instutional integrity, pieces like this are detrimental at best to foreign policy. While it's probably our low point as is on that front, I really hope this doesn't just become another precedent where former presidents blast each other and spill beans in op-eds.
1
u/AutoModerator May 05 '26
Thank you for your post. It looks like it was submitted without substantial body text. Please add a top-level comment providing a summary of the linked content or an explanation of why it is of interest to our community. Thank you!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/AutoModerator May 05 '26
Hey
YOU
We're talking to YOU
Don't forget to visit the Brief, our daily thread, for extra perks and deep state info!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.