Netanyahu, Rouhani, and Obama Speeches at U.N. General Assembly

[sambino510]

As someone deeply interested in international relations, the U.N. General Assembly is one of the highlights of the year for me. Particularly interesting are the speeches by the leaders of Iran, Israel, and the United States, since the issues surrounding this three nations is one of the most important obstacles the world faces today. Thus, I'd like to talk a bit about which leader, Iran or Israel, made a better, more diplomatic speech, and what it means for future diplomatic efforts.

Note: These are simply my opinions, though I try to base them on fact, or at the very least logic.

First, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech. I didn't think he could get much more bombastic than last year, when he held up a literal picture of a bomb in reference to Iran's nuclear program. However, his speech seemed to me to be completely focused on his permanent distrust of the Iranian government, and his complete lack of confidence in the diplomatic system. In other words, given the go-ahead, Netanyahu seemed completely ready to bomb the Iranian nuclear sites off the map. This seemed to me to be completely counter-productive, as the General Assembly is not meant to be a platform to bash other countries. Rather, it's an area where we can all say, "Well, the world is pretty messed up right now, but I have confidence with the right amount of cooperation that we can fix it." Netanyahu displayed no such optimism.

Then, there is newly-elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Though many would classify him as a wolf in sheep's clothing, due to his close ties to Ayatollah Khamenei and the clergy in general, he came across as the most level-headed of the speakers. He simply asked for Iran to be respected by the international community as a sovereign nation, particularly in regards to their nuclear program. He also stated that he believes a diplomatic solution can be reached that will alleviate the unprecedented sanctions his nation faces. He also hinted at his disapproval of the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, though said nothing more controversial than anything Secretary of State Kerry or President Obama have said about the issue. Overall, though Rouhani might not meet all his words with actions, he at least came across as a friendly, acceptable world leader, unlike some of his predecessors. Though I seldom disagreed with much of former President Ahmadinejad's speeches, he certainly has made many bombastic remarks that often portrayed him as a leader bent on world destruction.

Finally, there's President Barack Obama's speech. From the outset, he made it very clear that he was going to focus the rest of his presidency, foreign policy-wise, on the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Iranian nuclear program. He assured that he too felt a diplomatic solution was possible to settle the dispute with Iran, and that he was feeling optimistic about relations in the future. However, he continuously stated that the Iranian leader's promises must be met with action, and proof that the Iran nuclear program is peaceful in nature.

In the end, Benjamin Netanyahu certainly came across as the greatest "war-monger" out of three. He seemed to devote pretty much his entire speech to bashing Rouhani, and belittling the Iranian's speech as meaningless deception. Not only that, but PM Netanyahu stated plainly that his new mantra for dealing with Iran was "distrust, dismantle, and verify"; a mantra which I feel greatly harms the trust-building process that is necessary for diplomacy to succeed.

I personally feel Iran has done little wrong regarding its nuclear program. There can perhaps be improvements in the IAEA inspections they are forced to undergo, but other than that no supplementary safeguards should be added. Why should one country be forced into an unprecedented amount of inspections of their nuclear program simply because a few other countries don't like them? Iran, as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has a right to peaceful nuclear energy to aid to their largely oil-based economy, a right that Netanyahu wants to take away. Is it not logical that they would want nuclear power plants to improve their infrastructure?

It's difficult to address the whole issue in just a few paragraphs, so I'll leave any further discussion to the replies, if I get any.

 

[irosie91]

As someone deeply interested in international relations, the U.N. General Assembly is one of the highlights of the year for me. Particularly interesting are the speeches by the leaders of Iran, Israel, and the United States, since the issues surrounding this three nations is one of the most important obstacles the world faces today. Thus, I'd like to talk a bit about which leader, Iran or Israel, made a better, more diplomatic speech, and what it means for future diplomatic efforts.

Note: These are simply my opinions, though I try to base them on fact, or at the very least logic.

First, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech. I didn't think he could get much more bombastic than last year, when he held up a literal picture of a bomb in reference to Iran's nuclear program. However, his speech seemed to me to be completely focused on his permanent distrust of the Iranian government, and his complete lack of confidence in the diplomatic system. In other words, given the go-ahead, Netanyahu seemed completely ready to bomb the Iranian nuclear sites off the map. This seemed to me to be completely counter-productive, as the General Assembly is not meant to be a platform to bash other countries. Rather, it's an area where we can all say, "Well, the world is pretty messed up right now, but I have confidence with the right amount of cooperation that we can fix it." Netanyahu displayed no such optimism.

Then, there is newly-elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Though many would classify him as a wolf in sheep's clothing, due to his close ties to Ayatollah Khamenei and the clergy in general, he came across as the most level-headed of the speakers. He simply asked for Iran to be respected by the international community as a sovereign nation, particularly in regards to their nuclear program. He also stated that he believes a diplomatic solution can be reached that will alleviate the unprecedented sanctions his nation faces. He also hinted at his disapproval of the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, though said nothing more controversial than anything Secretary of State Kerry or President Obama have said about the issue. Overall, though Rouhani might not meet all his words with actions, he at least came across as a friendly, acceptable world leader, unlike some of his predecessors. Though I seldom disagreed with much of former President Ahmadinejad's speeches, he certainly has made many bombastic remarks that often portrayed him as a leader bent on world destruction.

Finally, there's President Barack Obama's speech. From the outset, he made it very clear that he was going to focus the rest of his presidency, foreign policy-wise, on the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Iranian nuclear program. He assured that he too felt a diplomatic solution was possible to settle the dispute with Iran, and that he was feeling optimistic about relations in the future. However, he continuously stated that the Iranian leader's promises must be met with action, and proof that the Iran nuclear program is peaceful in nature.

In the end, Benjamin Netanyahu certainly came across as the greatest "war-monger" out of three. He seemed to devote pretty much his entire speech to bashing Rouhani, and belittling the Iranian's speech as meaningless deception. Not only that, but PM Netanyahu stated plainly that his new mantra for dealing with Iran was "distrust, dismantle, and verify"; a mantra which I feel greatly harms the trust-building process that is necessary for diplomacy to succeed.

I personally feel Iran has done little wrong regarding its nuclear program. There can perhaps be improvements in the IAEA inspections they are forced to undergo, but other than that no supplementary safeguards should be added. Why should one country be forced into an unprecedented amount of inspections of their nuclear program simply because a few other countries don't like them? Iran, as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has a right to peaceful nuclear energy to aid to their largely oil-based economy, a right that Netanyahu wants to take away. Is it not logical that they would want nuclear power plants to improve their infrastructure?

It's difficult to address the whole issue in just a few paragraphs, so I'll leave any further discussion to the replies, if I get any.

Rouhanis speech was far more significant for that which he did not say---
than it was significant for its meaningless platitudes.---- Specifically he did NOT
come close to repudiating the fascist genocidal filth expressed by his forebears and
his masters. --- A single example of that which he should have repudiated----at least---
"sideways" is the fascist filth statement expressed IN THE UN----by Achmadinejad---
which was "ISLAM IS THE RELIGION FOR ALL THE WORLD" ------Achmadinejad's
statement was tantamount to a DECLARATION OF WAR UPON THE CIVILIZED
WORLD ----until it is repudiated by some responsible Iranian leader----the civilized
world can LOGICALLY consider itself UNDER ATTACK by Iran

 

[sambino510]

As someone deeply interested in international relations, the U.N. General Assembly is one of the highlights of the year for me. Particularly interesting are the speeches by the leaders of Iran, Israel, and the United States, since the issues surrounding this three nations is one of the most important obstacles the world faces today. Thus, I'd like to talk a bit about which leader, Iran or Israel, made a better, more diplomatic speech, and what it means for future diplomatic efforts.

Note: These are simply my opinions, though I try to base them on fact, or at the very least logic.

First, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech. I didn't think he could get much more bombastic than last year, when he held up a literal picture of a bomb in reference to Iran's nuclear program. However, his speech seemed to me to be completely focused on his permanent distrust of the Iranian government, and his complete lack of confidence in the diplomatic system. In other words, given the go-ahead, Netanyahu seemed completely ready to bomb the Iranian nuclear sites off the map. This seemed to me to be completely counter-productive, as the General Assembly is not meant to be a platform to bash other countries. Rather, it's an area where we can all say, "Well, the world is pretty messed up right now, but I have confidence with the right amount of cooperation that we can fix it." Netanyahu displayed no such optimism.

Then, there is newly-elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Though many would classify him as a wolf in sheep's clothing, due to his close ties to Ayatollah Khamenei and the clergy in general, he came across as the most level-headed of the speakers. He simply asked for Iran to be respected by the international community as a sovereign nation, particularly in regards to their nuclear program. He also stated that he believes a diplomatic solution can be reached that will alleviate the unprecedented sanctions his nation faces. He also hinted at his disapproval of the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, though said nothing more controversial than anything Secretary of State Kerry or President Obama have said about the issue. Overall, though Rouhani might not meet all his words with actions, he at least came across as a friendly, acceptable world leader, unlike some of his predecessors. Though I seldom disagreed with much of former President Ahmadinejad's speeches, he certainly has made many bombastic remarks that often portrayed him as a leader bent on world destruction.

Finally, there's President Barack Obama's speech. From the outset, he made it very clear that he was going to focus the rest of his presidency, foreign policy-wise, on the Israel-Palestine conflict and the Iranian nuclear program. He assured that he too felt a diplomatic solution was possible to settle the dispute with Iran, and that he was feeling optimistic about relations in the future. However, he continuously stated that the Iranian leader's promises must be met with action, and proof that the Iran nuclear program is peaceful in nature.

In the end, Benjamin Netanyahu certainly came across as the greatest "war-monger" out of three. He seemed to devote pretty much his entire speech to bashing Rouhani, and belittling the Iranian's speech as meaningless deception. Not only that, but PM Netanyahu stated plainly that his new mantra for dealing with Iran was "distrust, dismantle, and verify"; a mantra which I feel greatly harms the trust-building process that is necessary for diplomacy to succeed.

I personally feel Iran has done little wrong regarding its nuclear program. There can perhaps be improvements in the IAEA inspections they are forced to undergo, but other than that no supplementary safeguards should be added. Why should one country be forced into an unprecedented amount of inspections of their nuclear program simply because a few other countries don't like them? Iran, as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, has a right to peaceful nuclear energy to aid to their largely oil-based economy, a right that Netanyahu wants to take away. Is it not logical that they would want nuclear power plants to improve their infrastructure?

It's difficult to address the whole issue in just a few paragraphs, so I'll leave any further discussion to the replies, if I get any.

Rouhanis speech was far more significant for that which he did not say---
than it was significant for its meaningless platitudes.---- Specifically he did NOT
come close to repudiating the fascist genocidal filth expressed by his forebears and
his masters. --- A single example of that which he should have repudiated----at least---
"sideways" is the fascist filth statement expressed IN THE UN----by Achmadinejad---
which was "ISLAM IS THE RELIGION FOR ALL THE WORLD" ------Achmadinejad's
statement was tantamount to a DECLARATION OF WAR UPON THE CIVILIZED
WORLD ----until it is repudiated by some responsible Iranian leader----the civilized
world can LOGICALLY consider itself UNDER ATTACK by Iran

I honestly dont think that Ahmadinejad saying Islam is the religion for all the world is that controversial. As a devout Muslim, of course he would wish that all would follow his spiritual guidelines. I'm not saying that's a healthy way to think, but Jews and Christians, in their numerous attempts to convert people in places all over the world to their religion, obviously think the same thing. It's not so unusual, and I don't think it's a declaration of war. In their minds, they're helping people. Either way, Rouhani could perhaps have done more in his speech to renounce the statements of his predecessor, but I think his tone alone was a huge departure from Ahmadinejad.

Also, though Iran does have a number of backwards practices, I would not consider that country "uncivilized", and I think their citizens would be offended for being thought of as such. They're of course a theocracy, but still enjoy many Western products and practices, with a number of obvious restrictions. One can't, for instance, put Iran in the same category as Afghanistan, Yemen, or Pakistan, in terms of being "uncivilized".

Rouhani did have an interview with Christiane Amanpour on CNN where he admitted both that the Holocaust occured and that it was a horrific event. He also stated that even though it was a terrible time for the Jewish people, they were not the only ones who suffered and that their suffering is not an excuse for them to get what they want, when they want, which seems to be the case for the past seventy years, more-or-less. Specifically, in their conflict with the Palestinians. Though that's just his opinion, one I happen to share with him.