THE HEART OF THE MATTER – AT 9:52 A.M. ET:  With all the controversy over Bibi's speech yesterday, it took the editorial page of the Washington Post finally to get to the heart of the matter, and make a reasonable demand of the administration: 

THE CONCERNS about a prospective nuclear agreement with Iran raised by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a speech to Congress on Tuesday are not — as the White House was quick to point out — new. They had, for example, been spelled out in Senate hearings, as an editorial we published last month recounted. Mr. Netanyahu’s decision to repeat this case before a joint meeting of Congress in defiance of the White House and leading Democrats risked turning what should be a substantive debate into a partisan scrimmage.

Nevertheless, Mr. Netanyahu’s arguments deserve a serious response from the Obama administration — one it has yet to provide. The White House has sought to dismiss the Israeli leader as a politician seeking reelection; has said that he was wrong in his support for the Iraq war and in his opposition to an interim agreement with Iran; and has claimed that he offers no alternative to President Obama’s policy. Such rhetoric will not satisfy those in and out of Congress who share Mr. Netanyahu’s legitimate questions.

Excellent point.  Obama told us that Netanyahu's speech distracted us from the substance of the Iran negotiations, but then tells us almost nothing about the things being negotiated.

In discussing Netanyahu's argument, the Post says: 

In essence, this was an argument that Iran must be sanctioned and contained while its clerical regime remains in power. That has been the explicit or de facto U.S. policy since 1979, but Mr. Obama appears to be betting that detente can better control Iran’s nuclear ambitions and, perhaps, produce better behavior over time. Yet he has shied from explicitly making that case; instead, his aides argue that the only alternative to his approach is war.

Mr. Netanyahu strongly disputed that point. “Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime,” he said. Is that wrong? For that matter, is it acceptable to free Iran from sanctions within a decade and allow it unlimited nuclear capacity? Rather than continuing its political attacks on Mr. Netanyahu, the administration ought to explain why the deal it is contemplating is justified — or reconsider it.

COMMENT:  The Washington Post is a liberal paper, but its editorial page is fiercely independent, and proves it once again.  I'm surprised that Post editors are still invited to Washington parties. 

The president owes us more than glib little comments.  The Iranian nuclear program is a direct threat to tens of millions of people.  Some seriousness please.

March 4, 2015