One or two blokes who used to work on the campaign going out to help vs an unwelcome visit by a foriegn head of state to directly and publically oppose the foriegn policy of the US is not really something that will ever produce equal offence, is it?
Besides, the problem Obama has is that the two biggest and best funded foriegn lobbies in US politics are actively seeking to oppose any deal with Iran; personally I think that anything the two of them agree on is almost certainly bad.
Let's be clear, here. Netanyahu's visit was only unwelcome by Obama. Obama clearly doesn't like Netanyahu, but Obama isn't king and his royal feelings don't matter for *expletive deleted*it. Netanyahu was warmly welcomed by Congress and the people.
The opposition you speak of is not against making
any deal with Iran, it's against making a
bad deal with Iran. And there's no doubt that the current deal is bad.
I read yesterday that they maybe won't even write down and sign the terms of the deal. How on earth are we supposed to judge the merits of the agreement if we don't know what was agreed? How are we supposed to hold participants accountable if there's no record of what they committed to? We can't, obviously, and I think that's their goal.
Obama doesn't want to limit Iran's nuclear ambitions, he just wants to claim credit for securing a deal. I think the outrage over Netanyahu's speech is because it blew a huge gaping hole in Obama's plans to do nothing of substance.