A peaceful Shabbat and I was not
expecting to post again until after Prime Minister Netanyahu speaks tomorrow
night. But I logged on to my computer tonight and took a look at the
news -- which is what motivated me to do this posting, which I hope will be
brief.
"Unreal!" is a term used
metaphorically to ask "How can this be??" That's what I'm asking. But the rub is
that what I'm reading is not fiction, it's real -- no matter how incredible it
may seem.
Decide for yourselves if you can
reconcile these various news items, or if they seem "unreal!" to you, as well,
even as they are happening:
Netanyahu gave an NBC an interview
on Wednesday, in which he said that:
"Iran is developing
intercontinental ballistic missiles that could reach the U.S., whose 'purpose is
to arm them with a nuclear payload.'
"Netanyahu stressed that Iran is not
governed by Rouhani, but by its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. During the
interview he said Khamenei head[ed] a 'messianic, apocalyptic, radical regime'
and therefore cannot be trusted.'"
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.550303
Good deal, and nothing "unreal" here. (See more on Khamenei below.)
~~~~~~~~~~
But wait. In his first statement on the subject since Netanyahu spoke at the UN, on Thursday, Secretary of State Kerry, speaking in Tokyo, said it would be "diplomatic malpractice" not to test Iran's sincerity with regard to negotiations on its nuclear development. (same source cited above)
But what happens if - while Kerry is "testing" Iran's sincerity so as to avoid "diplomatic malpractice" - Iran develops the bomb?
There is the possibility that the real "diplomatic malpractice" here was appointing Kerry to his current position, but never mind...
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.550303
Good deal, and nothing "unreal" here. (See more on Khamenei below.)
~~~~~~~~~~
But wait. In his first statement on the subject since Netanyahu spoke at the UN, on Thursday, Secretary of State Kerry, speaking in Tokyo, said it would be "diplomatic malpractice" not to test Iran's sincerity with regard to negotiations on its nuclear development. (same source cited above)
But what happens if - while Kerry is "testing" Iran's sincerity so as to avoid "diplomatic malpractice" - Iran develops the bomb?
There is the possibility that the real "diplomatic malpractice" here was appointing Kerry to his current position, but never mind...
Credit:
AP
~~~~~~~~~~
Then we have President Obama --
who's as "unreal" as you can get. He gave an interview to AP, released
today, in which he indicated that:
"Our assessment [about the length
of time until Iran can build a bomb] continues to be a year or more away. And in
fact, actually, our estimate is probably more conservative than the estimates of
Israeli intelligence services."
There's no "probably" about it, my
friends, and the president undoubtedly knows it. This is what Netanyahu said in
his UN speech (emphasis added):
"Last year when I spoke here
at the UN I drew a red line. Now, Iran has been very careful not to cross that
line but Iran is positioning itself to race across that line in the
future at a time of its choosing. Iran wants to be in a position to rush forward
to build nuclear bombs before the international community can detect it and much
less prevent it."
http://www.timesofisrael.com/full-text-netanyahus-2013-speech-to-the-un-general-assembly/
There has been a running disagreement between the US and Israel regarding whether it would be possible to determine when Iran was actually constructing a bomb, with Israel maintaining that it would not, and that Iran had to be stopped prior to that point.
Yet Obama would have us believe that he can sail on for another year or more without putting the world at risk in this matter.
~~~~~~~~~~
There has been a running disagreement between the US and Israel regarding whether it would be possible to determine when Iran was actually constructing a bomb, with Israel maintaining that it would not, and that Iran had to be stopped prior to that point.
Yet Obama would have us believe that he can sail on for another year or more without putting the world at risk in this matter.
~~~~~~~~~~
But we're not done yet. YNet
tonight cited an unnamed diplomat involved in the negotiations with Iran, who
said:
"Israel will not be in the room if
and when a deal is done. We take Israeli concerns very seriously. But I have a
feeling that Netanyahu is slightly out of step with other nations at the
moment."
Israel didn't have "veto" power, he indicated. And were Israel in the room when negotiations were done, it would be unlikely to get everything Netanyahu was demanding.
While Gary Samore - until recently the top nuclear proliferation expert on Obama's national security staff - explained to YNet that (emphasis added):
"Negotiating means there will have to be some give on both sides.
"I think it's unlikely that we are in a position to dictate to the Iranians that they have to meet all of our demands."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4436755,00.html
I've used many adjectives as I've written these posts,describing this situation: deplorable, despicable, dangerous. None suffice here. This statement so totally, willfully misses the point Netanyahu was making that it's impossible not to read malice of intent - that is, ultimately a gleeful willingness to allow Iran to go nuclear.
We all knew it, that Obama's "the military option has not been taken off the table" was not sincere. After the Syrian fiasco it was a farce. But this statement boldly puts the lie to it.
The whole point of having a military option on the table is so that Iran CAN be dictated to. This is not a question of two equal parties sitting down to give a little and take a little.
You sit across from the representatives of the state that is the biggest promoter of terrorism in the world today, and which has a history of deception and which has said it wants to take Israel off the face of the earth, and which terrifies Saudis and other Sunni Arab states, and which is aiming to send nuclear missiles to the eastern coast of the US, and you say, "Look guys, either do what we say, or we're going to hit you so hard that your heads will spin off of your necks. We don't advise you to test us on this."
Say it diplomatically, if you will, but say it.
The world has not learned...
~~~~~~~~~~
Israel didn't have "veto" power, he indicated. And were Israel in the room when negotiations were done, it would be unlikely to get everything Netanyahu was demanding.
While Gary Samore - until recently the top nuclear proliferation expert on Obama's national security staff - explained to YNet that (emphasis added):
"Negotiating means there will have to be some give on both sides.
"I think it's unlikely that we are in a position to dictate to the Iranians that they have to meet all of our demands."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4436755,00.html
I've used many adjectives as I've written these posts,describing this situation: deplorable, despicable, dangerous. None suffice here. This statement so totally, willfully misses the point Netanyahu was making that it's impossible not to read malice of intent - that is, ultimately a gleeful willingness to allow Iran to go nuclear.
We all knew it, that Obama's "the military option has not been taken off the table" was not sincere. After the Syrian fiasco it was a farce. But this statement boldly puts the lie to it.
The whole point of having a military option on the table is so that Iran CAN be dictated to. This is not a question of two equal parties sitting down to give a little and take a little.
You sit across from the representatives of the state that is the biggest promoter of terrorism in the world today, and which has a history of deception and which has said it wants to take Israel off the face of the earth, and which terrifies Saudis and other Sunni Arab states, and which is aiming to send nuclear missiles to the eastern coast of the US, and you say, "Look guys, either do what we say, or we're going to hit you so hard that your heads will spin off of your necks. We don't advise you to test us on this."
Say it diplomatically, if you will, but say it.
The world has not learned...
~~~~~~~~~~
Keep communicating to your elected
representatives in Congress the need for a tough stance on Iran. They get
it and Congress is looking to increase sanctions.
But the State Department is saying
it would be "helpful" if the Senate held off on this:
On Thursday, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy
Sherman told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, "We will be looking for
specific steps by Iran that address core issues....
"The Iranians in return will
doubtless be seeking some relief from comprehensive international sanctions that
are now in place."
http://freebeacon.com/state-dept-to-congress-dont-sanction-iran/
http://freebeacon.com/state-dept-to-congress-dont-sanction-iran/
~~~~~~~~~~
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei said today that 'some" aspects of President Hassan Rouhani’s
trip to the United Nations General Assembly in New York last month were “not
proper." It was believed he was referring to Rouhani's phone conversation
with Obama.
"We are pessimistic towards the
Americans and do not put any trust in them. The American government is
untrustworthy, supercilious and unreasonable, and breaks its
promises."
Will Obama work overtime now to
show the Iranians how much they can trust him? The answer is
self-evident.
~~~~~~~~~~
I end with an
exceedingly real by statement by Avigdor Lieberman, head of Yisrael
Beitenu, and chair of the Knesset Foreign Relations and Defense Committee
(emphasis added):
There is not even "a quarter" of a
sign that Iran is slowing its nuclear development, he said. "All international
intelligence agencies are aware that nothing has changed.
"Israel is prepared to deal with
the Iranian problem. Even if we stand alone. It’s better to be alone and
stay alive rather than toe the line and go up in
flames."
Amen on this!
Lieberman recalled the world
opposition to our bombing the Iraqi reactor in 1981. Now, he said, the
world recognizes that "we were right… The whole world would have paid the price"
if Israel had not intervened.
Credit:
theguardian
~~~~~~~~~~
An October 2 Israel Hayom-New Wave
Research poll shows that 65.6% Israeli Jews would support a unilateral Israeli
strike even without international support, with only 21.8% opposed.
We get it.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
No comments:
Post a Comment