The only relevance of Netanyahu’s speech to the US Congress, and the melodrama surrounding it, is that it illustrates how the framework for debate is limited to the dichotomy of the hard-liners, on the one side, who think that Iran shouldn’t be allowed to use nuclear energy and that the country should be bombed if it doesn’t obey orders to give up its program, and the more dovish, on the other side, who think that Iran should be permitted to use nuclear energy, but must be made to surrender its “inalienable right” to enrich uranium for that purpose under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty; with the ultimate goal of both sides, of course, being to propagate the view that if Iran doesn’t agree to surrender its rights as the US is demanding, it will just prove that they are intent on acquiring nuclear weapons, and thus to engineer consent for government policy by framing right out of the discussion the seemingly relevant question of whether the collective punishment of the entire civilian population of Iran ought not be the policy of the government of the United States of America.
Reading Time: ( Word Count: )
The Relevance of Netanyahu’s Speech to the US Congress (in 1 Sentence)
Now you know. Others don’t. Share the knowledge.

About the Author
I am an independent researcher, journalist, and author dedicated to exposing mainstream propaganda that serves to manufacture consent for criminal government policies.
I write about critically important issues including US foreign policy, economic policy, and so-called "public health" policies.
My books include Obstacle to Peace: The US Role in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman: Austrian vs. Keynesian Economics in the Financial Crisis, and The War on Informed Consent.
To learn more about my mission and core values, visit my About page.
Share Your Thoughts
To leave a comment, log in or join with a free or premium membership.
(You can format comments using simple HTML — <b>bold</b>, <i>italics</i>, and <blockquote>quoted text</blockquote>)
