Netanyahu: The Iranian state and Islamic State are equivalent in almost every way but one

So on the one side you have a president saying, in essence: "Republicans & Israel can't be trusted, but let's totes have faith in Iran to do the right thing."

And on the other you have a Prime Minister pointing out to the US Congressthings that the Iranian state and Islamic State are equivalent in almost every way but one—in that the former is much more dangerous than the latter.

ISIS might dominate part of Iraq and Syria, but “Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.”

[T]he ideology of Iran’s revolutionary regime is deeply rooted in militant Islam, and that’s why this regime will always be an enemy …
Don’t be fooled. The battle between Iran and ISIS doesn’t turn Iran into a friend …
    Iran and ISIS are competing for the crown of militant Islam. One calls itself the Islamic Republic. The other calls itself the Islamic State. Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.
    In this deadly game of thrones, there’s no place for America or for Israel, no peace for Christians, Jews or Muslims [or atheists – Ed.] who don’t share the Islamist medieval creed, no rights for women, no freedom for anyone.
    So when it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.
    (APPLAUSE)
    The difference is that ISIS is armed with butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube, whereas Iran could soon be armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear bombs. We must always remember — I’ll say it one more time — the greatest dangers facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons. To defeat ISIS and let Iran get nuclear weapons would be to win the battle, but lose the war. We can’t let that happen.
    But that, my friends, is exactly what could happen, if the deal now being negotiated is accepted…

There’s no deal like a bad deal, and that bad deal was the reason the US president didn’t even bother watching the speech.  Because the reason the US president and his cheerleaders didn’t want Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to US Congressthings was simple: it might upset Iran.

It should.

Equally, it might have enlightened the Congressthings, and maybe many others around the world in favour of action against ISIS to think further afield.

Netanyahu’s message to Congress ... was straightforward, analytic, and difficult to dispute on almost all fronts. First, Iran is the implacable enemy of both Israel and the U.S. Second, Iran is on the march. Instead of trying to join the community of nations, the regime is gobbling up nations, as Netanyahu put it.
    Third, the nuclear deal that, according to publicly available information, is likely to emerge would “all but guarantee that Iran gets nuclear weapons” for two reasons. One, it would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and therefore with the ability to breakout to a nuclear weapon in a year or less. It could break out even more quickly if it cheated on inspections, as it has consistently done in the past.
    Two, because the deal reportedly will expire in ten years or so, it would leave Iran with the ability to obtain nukes without violating a single provision of the deal. When the deal expires, Iran could have as many as 190,000 centrifuges (the number the regime says it aspires to), plus the missiles needed to deliver nuclear warheads anywhere in the world. Thus, Iran would be weeks away from being a major nuclear power.

Does anyone outside the Iranian state want that to happen?

[Hat tip Gena Davidovich]