Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham.
On Tuesday, Iran's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham called the speech a deceitful show and part of the hardliners' political propaganda in Tel Aviv.
Netanyahu (pictured below during the address) addressed the Congress earlier in the day, calling on the United States not to negotiate "a very bad deal" with Iran over its nuclear energy program. He said, "We've been told for over a year that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well this is a bad deal, a very bad deal. We're better off without it."
Afkham said the address reflected the abject weakness and isolation of radical groups even among the supporters of the Israeli regime and their attempt to impose radical and illogical agendas upon the international politics.
She said "there is no doubt that the international opinion does not consider any value or standing for a child-killing regime" like Israel.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman further called the Israeli premier's recurrent fabrication of lies about the intentions of Iran's peaceful nuclear energy program very platitudinous and tedious.
"With the continuation of [nuclear] talks and Iran's serious will to diffuse the fabricated crisis [over its nuclear energy program], Iranophobic policy has met with serious problems and the founders of such propaganda and the planners of the fake crisis have started struggling."
Iran and the P5+1 group - Russia, China, France, Britain, the US and Germany - are negotiating to narrow their differences over the Islamic Republic's nuclear energy program ahead of a July 1 deadline.
Netanyahu said that it is not true that "the only alternative to this deal is war."
"The alternative to this deal is a much better deal. A better deal that doesn't leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and such a short breakout point," he added.
He said that the ongoing nuclear negotiations would provide Iran "with a short breakout time for a bomb."
"According to the deal not a single nuclear facility would be demolished," he said.
"So this deal won't change Iran for the better, it will only change the Middle East for the worst," he noted.
Netanyahu had been invited by US House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner hours after President Barack Obama threatened to veto any sanctions legislation against Iran during his State of the Union address on January 20.
Some 60 House Democrats boycotted the event. The Obama administration is both angry at Netanyahu's accepting the Republican invitation to address Congress two weeks before the Israeli election without consulting the White House and excessive Israel Lobby interference in American foreign policy.
Unimpressed ObamaUS President Barack Obama said there was "nothing new" in the speech.
He told reporters that Netanyahu "did not offer any viable alternative."
"I am not focused in the politics of this, I am not focused on the theater," Obama said. "As far as I can tell, there was nothing new."
"We don't yet have a deal. But if we are successful, this will be the best deal possible with Iran," the US president said.
I don't think Obama or Bibi Netanyahnyah (that's a deliberate mis-spelling) have a great deal of personal appreciation for each other. I think that's been quite obvious since day one. Obama would never have invited Nyahnyah to address the US Congress just before an Israeli election, and the fact that GOP party-people have trampled upon foreign diplomacy that is thoroughly outside their domestic remit is nothing more spitting in the face of the executive body and allowing Nyahnyah to aggrandize himself, with clear intent to perturb the Israeli elections. Not for the first time. Dare I mention the first paragraph in the United Nation consitution?
It seems to me that Obama started out with ideals that have over time been worn down.
It was always inevitable. The simple fact is that politicians are just word-smiths, backed up by insane amounts of money (I prefer the term 'resources') to put their attitudes into as many mainstream information outlets as possible. Obama was clever in that he was the first to do it a relatively inexpensive (efficiently economically productive) way, by using new social media to energize supporters to promulgate his words. Using Facebook and Twitter, which has now become a norm, since it was such a successful gambit.
But popularity is just the game these political parties play to get into administrative power.
Being popular or a wordsmith is absolutley no qualification to run a country. None whatsoever. Bugger all. You need strength of purpose and a clear set of modern morals and principles that can sway governmental processes.
This is where Obama has failed, and failed badly. Like Jimmy Carter, the poor sod. And JFK (who, in my opinion, lost the Cuban missile crisis, gasp, shock, horror, in that he provided a guarantee never to invade Cuba, and withdrew the Jupiter nuclear missiles from Turkey, which caused the crisis in the first place and what the then USSR wanted in the first place, although Western history books won't say that).
Once in power, Obama has gone the way of the all the rest of the popular leaders. He is advised by all sorts of entrenched bureaucrats, many of which in the USA are neo-con's, most especially in those important areas: military, economic, and intelligence services. No politician these days has the brains or that 'strength of moral purpose' to think that they know more than all those expert advisors. Any one that does that will instantly be branded a dictator by the neo-con-led media, with all the negative connotations we have been programmed to associate with that term.
They just have to keep playing the Great Game, no matter how self-destructive it is. They cannot overcome the inertia of decades of propaganda, promoting western democratic ideals as the only proper way to have good governance. Which is clearly a sick joke, given Iraq, Syria, Libya, the former Yugoslavia, Panama, Guyana, etc. And current difficulties with China, Iran, the Russian Federation, Venezuala, etc, etc.
The Great Game has become nothing more than an excuse for the rich to get richer, the players behind the names to extend their financial empires, apparently just for the sheer hell of it, the power-mad lunatics. Seriously, if you're already a billionaire, how much more do you need? Are they simply addicted to the idea of accumulating more wealth then you can sensibly spend? At the least, Gill Bates belatedly learned a sense of morality. Only after he was stupidly rich enough though.
I no longer have any respect for democracy. The only true democracy is one in which the average citizen has the intelligence and education and information to fully understand what they are voting for. That doesn't exist, instead we have 'democracies' that are largely led and bled by their own attitudes and theoir own decades-long propaganda. Fool the people! Might is Right! Manifest Destiny! Make public government deals with business interests 'commercial-in-secret'! National Security is another wonderful excuse not to make plain to the people the machinations of government. More than ever, National Security is a cover-all term, there to prevent embarrasment of government infidelity, really, since if the genreal citizen knew how ther overlords really behaved behind the scenes, they wouldn't get many votes at all. Government (economic) stabilty, and all that majorly important stuff, and fuck silly ideas like respect for other countries sovereignity.
I'd (with extreme hesitation) almost suggest a Robert Heinlein-like attitude... you need to earn the privilege to vote, instead of automatically having one, no matter how uneducated, bigotted, or autistic you are. But Heinlein's tongue-in-cheek manifesto in the 'Starship Troopers' novel, like the campy movie, involved dedication to miltary service as a pre-requisite to voting (after retirement) , so you were subject to a set of 'right-thinking' attitudes before you could involve yourself in a 'democracy'. Otherwise you just a pleb, on the outside, nothing but a tick on the flanks of 'proper' society. Unearned suffrage.
Like Orwell, Heinlein seems to have predicted the future.
Oh, dear. Despair.