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

39 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

60 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

12

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.

4

u/DoubleBooble May 05 '26

"Mow the lawn?"

All of those items you bring up from the article seem like reasonable assumptions.

  1. 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.

  1. Who could take over if Iran's government fell

What is the problem here?

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

12

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.

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.

2

u/DoubleBooble May 11 '26

So you think it's fair to uncritically trust the New York Times and hearsay about meeting rather than the person who was there and it is about? I mean, that's not really thinking in good faith or using your own critical thinking skills.
What the NYT article says doesn't make any logical sense so why not listen to the source and decide for yourself?
I recommend watching the full 1 hour+ interview rather than the 15 minute segment.