BICOM

Speaking ahead of his much anticipated address to Congress later today, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasised the danger that a nuclear Iran would pose as a sponsor of terror.

Although Netanyahu declined to touch upon the content of his Congressional address, he did “say a few words about the purpose of that speech.” He emphasised, “My speech is not intended to show any disrespect to President Obama” or “intended to inject Israel into the American partisan debate.” Instead, said Netanyahu, the purpose of his Congressional address is “to speak up about a potential deal with Iran that could threaten the survival of Israel.”

Netanyahu described Iran as “the foremost state sponsor of terrorism in the world.” Referring to a carefully prepared infographic, he said that Iran is “training, arming, dispatching terrorists on five continents. Iran envelopes the entire world with its tentacles of terror.” He explained that “this same Iran vows to annihilate Israel.  If it develops nuclear weapons, it would have the means to achieve that goal. We must not let that happen.”

Although “Israel and the United States agree that Iran should not have nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu acknowledged “we disagree on the best way to prevent Iran from developing those weapons.” However, he characterised the discord as a family disagreement, which he said “are always uncomfortable, but we must always remember that we are family.” As a result, said Netanyahu, the US-Israel “alliance is sound.  Our friendship is strong.”

US Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power also addressed AIPAC yesterday. She also underscored the strength of US-Israel relations, saying, “There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security,” before highlighting several examples of the Obama Administration’s defence of Israel in international settings.

President Obama himself said yesterday in an interview with Reuters, that Israel and the United States “share a goal, which is making sure Iran does not have a nuclear weapon.” However, he acknowledged differences in how best to achieve this.