October 1992: “Warning the international community that Iran would be armed with a nuclear bomb by 1999, Peres told France 3 television in October 1992 that ‘Iran is the greatest threat [to peace] and greatest problem in the Middle East … because it seeks the nuclear option while holding a highly dangerous stance of extreme religious militantism.’”
Source: Then-Foreign Minister Shimon Peres in an interview with French TV, as described in the book “ Treacherous Alliance .”
November 1992: “But the Israelis caution that a bigger threat to Middle East serenity — not to mention their own country’s security — lies in Teheran, whose regime they say is sure to become a nuclear power in a few years unless stopped.”
Source: New York Times, “Israel Focuses on the Threat Beyond the Arabs — in Iran” ...
1995: “The best estimates at this time place Iran between three and five years away from possessing the prerequisites required for the independent production of nuclear weapons.”
Source: Benjamin Netanyahu, in his book “Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat the International Terrorist Network” ...
November 1999: “Unless the United States pressures Russia to end its military assistance to Iran, the Islamic republic will possess a nuclear capability within five years, a senior Israeli military official said Sunday.”
Source: Associated Press, “Israeli official: U.S. must pressure Russia to end military cooperation with Iran” (via Nexis)
August 2003: “Iran will have the materials needed to make a nuclear bomb by 2004 and will have an operative nuclear weapons program by 2005, a high-ranking military officer told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Monday.”
Source: Jerusalem Post, “Iran can produce nuclear bomb by 2005 – IDF” …
I don't think Ramberg believes his own argument. If he actually believed that Israel, a nation that has shown past restraint with its nuclear weapons when faced with an actual land invasion, has joined the ranks of nations with "insane" leaders who can't be trusted with nuclear weapons, he should be advocating for the west to join Iran's proposal for a completely nuclear-free Middle East, backed up with thorough inspections of both Iran and Israel to ensure compliance. The most charitable explanation I can offer is that he's tossing this scenario out either as one more reason the west "has to" invade Iran and remove its leadership, or in the hope that over-the-top rhetoric about "crazy Israel" will somehow lead to a cowed and pliant Iran, and thus doesn't care that his argument is detached from reality.
Barak went on: “The moment Iran goes nuclear, other countries in the region will feel compelled to do the same. The Saudi Arabians have told the Americans as much, and one can think of both Turkey and Egypt in this context, not to mention the danger that weapons-grade materials will leak out to terror groups.
It is, of course, important for Ya’alon to argue that this is not just an Israeli-Iranian dispute, but a threat to America’s well-being. “The Iranian regime will be several times more dangerous if it has a nuclear device in its hands,” he went on. “One that it could bring into the United States. It is not for nothing that it is establishing bases for itself in Latin America and creating links with drug dealers on the U.S.-Mexican border. This is happening in order to smuggle ordnance into the United States for the carrying out of terror attacks. Imagine this regime getting nuclear weapons to the U.S.-Mexico border and managing to smuggle it into Texas, for example. This is not a far-fetched scenario.”
Jon Stewart: Won't the extremists just find another excuse? Isn't there always another excuse? Won't they then say, "Well, actually, we were talking about Kashmir; that was the problem"?
King Abdullah II: But it no longer becomes global. What happens is that, if you have a settlement between Israelis and the Palestinians, Al Qaeda, which is an international organization, becomes a domestic issue, because what is their rallying cry? Just as Iran, the plight of the Palestinians and the future of Jerusalem. If they make peace, which allows 57 Arab and Muslim countries to have normal relations with Israel — that's a third of the world — then they have no longer a soapbox to stand on. What happens then is Al Qaeda will be an extremist organization in your country, trying to take over your nation. It becomes a domestic issue, and not an international issue. And that's the big difference. Iran, also: how could Iran — you know, where is Iran now? It has its influence in Iraq, it has an influence in Afghanistan, through Hezbollah they're involved in the Mediterranean, they have good relationships with Hamas, so they're sitting on the Mediterranean because of the Israeli-Palestinian cause. If we solve that problem, they no longer become the big —
Jon Stewart: And that's the largest foundation that we can pull out from underneath them? That's the largest rug we can pull out?
King Abdullah II: You then put them back in their box, you put Al Qaeda back in their box, and all the other boxes. Evil will still persist.
Jon Stewart: It has a way of popping up every now and then, it does.
King Abdullah II: Unfortunately, yes, but it becomes then a localized issue, which then governments, I think, will have to address, and that is reform and restructuring the way the Middle East deals with its people.
The Israel Land Administration, which administers 93% of the land in Israel (including the land owned by the Jewish National Fund), refuses to lease land to non-Jewish foreign nationals, which includes Palestinian residents of Jerusalem who have identity cards but are not citizens of Israel.
79.5% [of land in Israel] is owned by the government (this land is leased on a non-discriminatory basis), and the rest, around 6.5%, is evenly divided between private Arab and Jewish owners.
In 2000, the High Court ruled that the State may not allocate land to its citizens on the basis of religion or nationality .... In January 2005, the Attorney General ruled that the Government cannot discriminate against Israeli Arabs in the marketing and allocation of lands it manages ...
The yearly drive to encourage British Jews to emigrate to Israel culminated last weekend in the Israel Property Exhibition in a north London synagogue. "Make your dream come true with your own home or investment in Israel," it urged. Although most of the property for sale is in Israel itself, some is in the occupied Palestinian territories.
3. Hizbullah would likely launch rockets, causing at least severe inconvenience to some 1/4 of the Israeli public, which might well have to move house again, and possibly much worse if Hizbullah is able, as they claim, to target toxic gas storage in Haifa or even reactor at Dimona with modified Chinese silkworms.
AMANO: Iran was implementing [Code 3.1, the agreement between the IAEA and Iran] in the past. Now, it is not implementing. I believe it is in the interest of Iran to implement it. Iran can enhance the confidence of the international community. Iran states that all activities are for peaceful purposes and in order to have confidence in that nature, the implementation of Code 3.1 is in the advantage of Iran. This is how I see it. This is not something we negotiate and find a middle ground.
In the case of Iran, we have the United Nations Security Council resolution, which is mandatory. It requests Iran to implement the Additional Protocol. So, in general terms the Additional Protocol is not a legal obligation to bring it into force. But in the case of Iran, on which there is a specific UNSC resolution, that is mandatory.
During their stay in Pattaya, from Feb 8 to 13 according to their hotel's registration, Ms Nan and her friends hung out with the three men. In one group gathering, shown in a photo, they were winding down in a bar in a hotel. Ms Nan said they had drinks and played snooker together.
Pol Lt Gen Winai said police had been put on alert, particularly in areas frequented heavily by Middle Eastern tourists including the Nana area on Sukhumvit Road and Khao San Road.
Iranian warships have entered the Mediterranean Sea after crossing through the Suez Canal to show Tehran's "might" to regional states, the country's navy commander has said. ... Israel said it will be watching the ship's movements closely to ensure they do not approach its coast.
Israel is supposedly the mortal enemy of the Arabs. Right? So how come no Arab state bothered getting nuclear weapons after Israel acquired the bomb? Either the Arab war against Israel is less serious than the conventional wisdom would have it, the Arab-Persian conflict is more serious than the conventional wisdom would have it, or both.
Should Israel decide to launch a strike on Iran, its pilots would have to fly more than 1,000 miles across unfriendly airspace, refuel in the air en route, fight off Iran’s air defenses, attack multiple underground sites simultaneously — and use at least 100 planes.
« Older What happens when a Southern paleontologist falls ... | Alex Gross converts antique ca... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt