Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Mar 3, 2015 in Featured, Iran, Israel, Politics | 17 comments

Subtext: Don’t trust administration: Israel’s Netanyahu warns US against Iran nuclear deal


Israel’s Netanyahu warns US against Iran nuclear deal

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned the United States on Tuesday against agreeing to a nuclear deal with Iran and working with a country “deeply rooted in militant Islam”, saying Tehran “will always be an enemy of America”. “If the deal now being negotiated is accepted by Iran, that deal will not prevent Iran from developing…

  • rudi

    In the most anticipated speech to the US Congress by a foreign leader in years, Netanyahu said Iran’s regime was “as radical as ever,” could not be trusted and the deal being worked out with the United States would not block Iran’s way to a bomb “but paves its way to a bomb.”

    “We must all stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror,” he said.

    Anticipated ROFLMAO

    What does Meir Dagan have to say:

    Mossad contradicted Netanyahu’s warning to the UN General Assembly that Iran was nearing completion of building a nuclear bomb, in the classified document, which was revealed as part of The Spy Cables, a cache of hundreds of intelligence documents leaked to Al Jazeera’s Investigative Unit.

    Cynical move

    At home, Netanyahu is being accused of cynically turning the speech into a campaign stop ahead of March 17 elections, insisting on confronting US President Barack Obama to distract from scandals and domestic issues dogging his re-election bid.

    The uproar has even pushed aside debate over his key argument that Iran’s nuclear weapons-making capabilities will be left largely intact.

    The Israeli media and political opponents have lambasted the decision to flout the White House, and even some allies who support Netanyahu’s message have criticised the approach.

    Mossad says we can’t trust Netanyahu…

  • dduck12

    Yes, it was a campaign speech. Aside from his political bias and agenda, does he really think Iran will do harm to Israel, or is it a sham position.
    BTW, as I have stated before, I agree that it was the wrong time (before election) and both he and Boehner did the wrong thing.

    • rudi

      As noted above Mossad doesn’t believe his claims.
      18 months ago BN claimed Iran was 6 months away.

      It is worth remembering, however, that Netanyahu has said much of this before. Almost two decades ago, in 1996, Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress where he darkly warned, “If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, this could presage catastrophic consequences, not only for my country, and not only for the Middle East, but for all mankind,” adding that, “the deadline for attaining this goal is getting extremely close.”

      Almost 20 years later that deadline has apparently still not passed, but Netanyahu is still making dire predictions about an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon. Four years before that Congressional speech, in 1992, then-parliamentarian Netanyahu advised the Israeli Knesset that Iran was “three to five years” away from reaching nuclear weapons capability, and that this threat had to be “uprooted by an international front headed by the U.S.”

      In his 1995 book, “Fighting Terrorism,” Netanyahu once again asserted that Iran would have a nuclear weapon in “three to five years,” apparently forgetting about the expiration of his old deadline.

  • rudi
  • JSpencer

    “Many Israelis are wary of estrangement from a US ally that provides their country with wide-ranging military and diplomatic support.

    They would be the smart ones. Netanyahu can say he meant no disrespect to Obama, but actions speak louder than words. As for Boehner and crew, my expectations are appropriately low, meaning very low.

    • dduck12

      No, I don’t trust Net.:
      “Yet the other Israel has been gaining ground. It’s more nationalistic, more militaristic, more determined to push Palestinians off land in the West Bank, more eager to dispatch the United States to bomb Iranian nuclear sites.This is the Israel that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will
      represent in his address to Congress scheduled for this week”.

  • dduck12

    Okay, when Iran directly, or, more likely and more easily, through Hezbollah, delivers a nuclear punch to Israel, then that will be the clarifying moment. I hope you guys are right, BTW, and nothing happens. But, with these guys (Assad, Putin, Khamenei), you never know..

    • rudi

      Nuclear weapons need to be detonated above ground, not at the surface. A Hezbollah bomb would create a huge crater with limited damage compared to an air delivered bomb. Israelis nukes would rain from the sky and kill millions…

      As many know, the atomic bomb has been used only twice in warfare. The first was at Hiroshima. A uranium bomb nicknamed “Little Boy” (despite weighing in at over four and a half tons) was dropped on Hiroshima August 6, 1945. The Aioi Bridge, one of 81 bridges connecting the seven-branched delta of the Ota River, was the target; ground zero was set at 1,980 feet. At 0815 hours, the bomb was dropped from the Enola Gay. It missed by only 800 feet. At 0816 hours, in an instant, 66,000 people were killed and 69,000 injured by a 10-kiloton atomic explosion.

      The area of total vaporization from the atomic bomb blast measured one half mile in diameter; total destruction one mile in diameter; severe blast damage as much as two miles in diameter. Within a diameter of two and a half miles, everything flammable burned. The remaining area of the blast zone was riddled with serious blazes that stretched out to the final edge at a little over three miles in diameter.

      The Ayatollahs are corrupt, not crazy.

      • dduck12

        Sorry, but a suitcase dirty bomb would cause immeasurable damage from radiation. And the Gazans have missiles that might reach Tel Aviv. They have been pushed into a cormer and suicide may be preferred by some as opposed to living in the open air prison that is Gaza.

        • rudi

          suitcase dirty bomb
          This is mostly a fallacy and only two countries ever developed the tactical nukes.

          LOL Iran went from capabilities to MiniNukies…

          Jack Bauer may lose 24 hours of sleep worrying about suitcase nukes, but should his viewers?

          Probably not, nuclear weapons experts say.

          Nuclear bombs cleverly concealed in suitcases don’t exist in real life. Even so, they have long been a popular Hollywood plot point.

          The lethal luggage — or what non-proliferation experts prefer to call portable nuclear devices — have been featured in action thrillers, including 1997’s The Peacemaker with George Clooney and Nicole Kidman and 2002’s Bad Company with Anthony Hopkins and Chris Rock.

          Now, 24 (Fox, Monday, 9 p.m. ET/PT) has had Kiefer Sutherland and the gang hunting for three bombs packed into suitcases.

          But how concerned should we really be that suitcase nukes will one day be fact rather than fiction?

          ‘Approaching fantasy’

          Arms control expert Charles Thornton of the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland calls the scenario “so highly unlikely as to be approaching fantasy.”

          • dduck12

            Sorry, I disagree.

  • jdledell

    The USSR hated the U.S. and was jousting with us around the globe for influence yet they never once gave a nuclear bomb to one of their friendly countries to lob at us. They could have stashed one in a South America country during the revolutionary period easily. Even when they put missiles on Cuban soil, they were totally under Russian control. Remember when Khrushchev pounded on the podium at the UN threatening to “bury” the US. It’s rhetoric -same as Iran. No leader is that insane to actually go ahead and use the bomb because they would no longer have a country to lead.

    The mullahs of Iran are no more crazy than George Bush who thought G-d told him to invade Iraq. Yet even George did not think of using nuclear weapons, although Cheney wondered if nuclear artillary shells could be used. Iran has been blown up as a Boogeyman far out of proportion to it’s real threat. Yes, it uses proxies to spread it’s influence, same as most other countries including the US and Israel do. Remember, Hezballah was created for only one purpose to defend Lebanon and kick the Israelis out of Lebanon and end the occupation when Lebanon’s army was incapable of doing so.

    • dduck12

      How’s that Russia/Ukraine thing working out?
      Glad they control their nukes.
      So what is the purpose of Iran having nukes, is it just because Israel .has them?
      Please tell me you know that Khamanie can be trusted.

      If not, it is your friends and relatives that will be hit first, possibly by a radical cell in Gaza

      • jdledell

        dd – Yes, Iran would like to have nukes to protect itself from Israel. However, I don’t think Iran wants to pay the economic price of the sanctions and diplomatic isolation that pursuit of nukes would result.

        While I have not seen any polls on this issue, my guess is that 50-60% of Israelis would advocate destroying all of Iran’s nuclear facilities and military capabilities with Israeli nukes now. As I think you are aware, in the 1973 war, Israel activated all their nuclear weapons and were ready to nuke Cairo and Damascas before Kissinger persuaded them not to by promising an immediate U.S. weapons resupply.

        Do I trust Iran? no – but what press reports are available indicates the Obama proposed deal has plenty of inspection capabilities. Do you trust Israel?

        • dduck12

          I don’t trust Israel or Iran. Israel has had nukes for a long time, so why does Iran now need to “protect itself” from Israel.
          BTW, I believe the inspectors don’t think they can monitor everything.

  • JSpencer

    Btw, the larger backdrop to all this fear of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is that the cold war isn’t really over. There are still thousands of city killing nuclear weapons (that make the Hiroshima and Nagasaki weapons look small) ready to be lobbed, and the threat of nuclear war being started by accident is still very real.

    Apologies for being such a ray of sunshine, but the danger of doing something unbelievably stupid and catastrophic should explain why diplomatic and intelligent approaches to foreign policy matter so much. The sabre rattlers, for all their patriotic fervor and conviction, are NOT working in anyone’s better interest.

    • dduck12

      They have a different opinion. That’s allowed, right.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :