Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on September 28, 2012

Bookmark and Share

Netanyahu Demands ‘Red Line’ on Iran

Netanyahu Demands ‘Red Line’ on Iran thumbnail

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Iran was on track to build an atomic bomb by summer of 2013 and exhorted the U.S. and other global powers to set a strict limit on Tehran’s fuel production as the clear “red line” that would trigger military strikes.

The speech at the United Nations General Assembly on Thursday marked Mr. Netanyahu’s latest public challenge to President Barack Obama to more aggressively confront Tehran. But Mr. Netanyahu also implied that Israel wouldn’t consider attacking Iran at least until the spring, when he indicated Iran would have enough enriched uranium to develop a bomb.

At that point, he argued, Iran could convert that material into weapons-grade fuel in a matter of weeks or months.

Standing before world leaders, the Israeli leader held a drawing of a round bomb with a lighted fuse and, with a thick red marker, drew a line he said Iran shouldn’t be permitted to cross.

“I believe that, faced with a clear red line, Iran will back down,” he said. Iran denies it is trying to build nuclear weapons.

The Israeli leader’s comments damped fears among some Western and Arab officials that Israel might strike Iran’s nuclear facilities before the U.S. presidential elections in November. These officials said they now believed that any possible military action has been put off until at least next year.

“I don’t believe any longer that we will see an attack before November,” said a senior Arab official. “This wasn’t the case a few weeks ago.”

The comments were seen similarly by Israeli analysts. “The pressure was focused on the possibility that Israel might attack before the elections,” said Shlomo Brom, a fellow at Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies and a former brigadier general in the Israeli military. “Now it seems like it’s off the table.”

Mario Tama/Getty ImagesIsrael’s Benjamin Netanyahu illustrates at the U.N. Thursday what he sees as the threshold for attacking Iran.

Mr. Netanyahu in recent months has repeatedly threatened military strikes against Iran, while asking Mr. Obama to lay down his own red line, including during a phone conversation earlier this month, according to U.S. officials.

Mr. Obama and his aides have rebuffed the Israeli leader’s calls, saying such a pronouncement could constrict Washington’s ability to use diplomacy to contain Iran’s nuclear threat.

White House officials on Thursday played down any differences between Messrs. Obama and Netanyahu. “As the prime minister said, the United States and Israel share the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,” said U.S. National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor. “We will continue our close consultation and cooperation toward achieving that goal.”

Israel’s prime minister sought and failed to secure a meeting with Mr. Obama in New York this week. The White House cited scheduling differences and had no one-on-one meetings with world leaders at the U.N.

The two men plan to speak by telephone on Friday, White House officials said.

Video

See excerpts of Netanyahu’s speech to the U.N.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says a red line must be drawn on Iran’s nuclear program before it can finish the enrichment of Uranium. Netanyahu says Iran could near completion by “next summer at the latest.” Photo: Getty Images.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly today, stating that the only way to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon was to draw a clear red line. Photo: Getty Images.

The U.S. and Israel continue to follow different time lines for when they believe Iran might be able to develop a nuclear weapon. They also differ in their assessments of the impact of international sanctions on Tehran.

U.S. intelligence agencies believe Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei hasn’t made the political decision to build an atomic weapon. Should he make such a decision, according to U.S. intelligence, it still could take a year to 18 months for Iran to develop a crude nuclear bomb, a longer time line than that outlined by Mr. Netanyahu on Thursday.

The Obama administration also is confident that sanctions are significantly weakening Iran’s economy. Treasury officials say the sanctions are costing Tehran $15 billion a quarter in lost oil revenue and that Iran’s energy sales have dropped by a million barrels a day.

Mr. Netanyahu said on Thursday that sanctions are having an impact, but stressed that he didn’t believe sanctions alone would be enough to make Iran give up its nuclear program—implying the country’s rulers won’t make rational decisions.

Iran could produce enough of 20%-enriched uranium by next spring or early summer, Mr. Netanyahu estimated, adding it would be just “a few months, possibly a few weeks” before it could develop a crude nuclear device.

The U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, estimated last month that Iran had amassed 190 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20% purity. Of this, 71 kilograms have been converted into fuel rods for Iran’s research reactor in Tehran, according to the IAEA.

Nuclear experts believe Iran would need 250 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20% to make one crude bomb. Iran would need to reprocess the fuel to a 90% purity level in order to have the fissile material required for a nuclear bomb.

U.S. officials believe that any effort by Tehran to begin producing the most highly enriched uranium would be detected by IAEA monitors based at Iran’s nuclear facilities in the cities of Natanz and Qom.

Mr. Netanyahu, however, stressed Thursday that he didn’t believe Western intelligence was good enough to run the risk of allowing Iran to push forward with its uranium-enrichment efforts.

“No one appreciates our intelligence agencies more than the prime minister of Israel,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “But they are not foolproof.”

The debate between the U.S. and Israel over red lines has fed into the U.S. presidential election. Republican candidate Mitt Romney has repeatedly called Mr. Obama soft on Iran, though the former Massachusetts governor hasn’t set his own red lines concerning Iran.

On Thursday, Mr. Romney said he agreed with Mr. Netanyahu, although he didn’t specifically endorse the Israeli leader’s recommendation for a red line.

“I join in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s call for a Middle East of progress and peace. And I join his urgent call to prevent the gravest threat to that vision—a nuclear-armed Iran,” Mr. Romney said. “I, like the rest of the American people, applaud the bravery of the people of Israel and stand with them in these dangerous times. The designs of the Iranian regime are a threat to America, Israel, and our friends and allies around the world.”

The comments about Iran overshadowed discussions at the U.N. of Mideast peace talks. Mr. Netanyahu’s speech came after Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas addressed the U.N.

Mr. Abbas said he remained open to negotiations with Israel aimed at creating an independent Palestinian state. But he said that lower-level talks between the two sides in recent months have been fruitless. And the Palestinian leader charged that Israel was on the verge of making a two-state solution unviable by pursuing settlements in the disputed West Bank.

Mr. Netanyahu dedicated little of his speech to the Palestinian issue, but said his government remains open to negotiations.

“We won’t solve our conflict with libelous speeches at the U.N,” he said.

WSJ



26 Comments on "Netanyahu Demands ‘Red Line’ on Iran"

  1. Ian McPherson on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 12:57 am 

    Who’s wagging who here? Since when does Israel dictate policy to the US? The “bravery of the people of Israel”? Occupying Palestine is bravery? And people wonder why the US is so hated in the Middle East. It should be obvious…

  2. DMyers on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 1:56 am 

    McPherson, there are countless reasons we would be hated in the Middle East. A million deaths in Iraq as a beginning.

    Red line, green line, purple line, make it whatever color you want. It’s a phony sound bite.

    If Iran ever has a bomb, it will have been supplied by China, with the ultimate intention of wiping Israel off the map.

  3. Ian McPherson on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 3:06 am 

    As far as I’m aware, Iran has not attacked another state in this century, unlike the US. And the bomb, if it was supplied by anyone, would most likely be supplied by Russia, not China. My question was serious; who’s wagging who here? Does Israel control US foreign policy? And if so, to what end?

  4. Arthur on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 5:25 am 

    Ian indeed, this pic says it al:

    http://fromthetrenchesworldreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Iran-vs-USA.jpg

    And add WW2 to the list as well, where the war party around Churchill was paid by ‘certain circles’ in US politics to bring Britain into war with Germany, while Roosevelt was busy circumventing Congress, so he could engineer US war entry. He succeeded by provoking the PH attack.

    WW1 was masterminded by London and was imposed on Germany, like WW2. Germany had already beaten Russia, and was in a winning position against F and UK. From a position of strength Germany offered a magnimonous peace. Then the jews came along and offered the British war entry of their US serfs in return for Palestine. And thus Germany was pushed into the abyss.

  5. Arthur on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 5:29 am 

    Watch this video posted yesterday on lewrockwell.com to get a glimpse into the criminal thinking in the corridors of power in Washington:

    http://tinyurl.com/cwyadq7

  6. Arthur on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 5:45 am 

    Think about it, this warmonger, together with convicted criminal Olmert ordered the Mossad to organize 9/11, in close cooperation with his buddy Silverstein. It had been PNAC co-signatory Dov Zakheim who had come up with the idea of engineering a new Pearl Harbor, after he had served as the CEO of a company specilized in remote control of airplanes (SPC) in the four years before 9/11. It had been the same Dov Zakheim who had stolen these famous two trillion $ (announced by Rumsfeld the day before 9/11) decades earlier and it was DZ who masterminded blowing up the comptrollers working on that case in the wing of the Pentagon where alledgedly F77 struck.

    But remember folks, upon entry in Anglosphere, don’t mention the ruling jews!

  7. ken Nohe on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 9:56 am 

    Beyond the arguments, the ridiculousness of Netanyahu with his “bomb” drawing is stunning.

    The fact that Israel is ready to precipitate a world conflagration just to eliminate a potential risk seems reckless at the very least.

    Fortunately, there are still cooler heads in Israel who understand that a war would probably not be in the best interest of the country. Likewise, the US is not yet on-board for such an “adventure”.

    But that is now. Eventually, as economic conditions become tighter around the world, more and more governments will look forward to a conflict, any conflict, as a way out. This is the real risk we are facing. It is true in the Gulf, but also in the China sea were Japan and China keep escalating tensions for internal reasons. It is hard to avoid this feeling of “Déjà vu”!

  8. Anthony on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 12:01 pm 

    What about Israels undeclared nuclear weapons? They actually exist and are a far greater threat to the world than Irans non-existant ones.

    Remember Tony Blairs “weapons of mass destruction” fool me once etc. etc.

  9. Arthur on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 12:21 pm 

    Ken, if Israel would decide to carry out an attack by itself, then sooner or later the US would be forced to join.

  10. Arthur on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 12:24 pm 

    Anthony, Israel has declared that if it goes down, it will take Europe with it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

    In 2003, Martin van Creveld thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel’s existence.[21] Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst’s “The Gun and the Olive Branch” (2003) as saying:

    “We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: ‘Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.’ I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.

  11. Alan Cecil on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 12:55 pm 

    I had no idea that this site was such a haven for neo-Nazis.

  12. DMyers on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 1:23 pm 

    Interesting comments on this slightly off the peak oil subject. In my previous comment about Iran wiping Israel off the map, I was actually thinking of this as a defensive strike, i.e., “weren’t expecting that, were you!?” A nuclear weapon for Iran could originate from either Russia or China. On McPherson’s original question at the top of this string, I knew this was Arthur’s expertise, and It turns out I was correct, at least about that.

    The video clip Arthur links in his 5:29 a.m. comment is a must see. Not to overstate the case, but this seems to be an unsolicited confession of what so-called “conspiracy theorists” have been saying for a long time.

  13. Welch on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 3:22 pm 

    Wow some of you conspiracy freaks need to take your medication.

  14. Rick on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 3:22 pm 

    @ Arthur, great video. It says a lot.

    These bastards like the ass in the video, should be sent to prison. They are scum, and 9/11 was an inside job. Remember, there’s no profit in peace, and these a-holes will do anything to keep feeding the war machine, until it kills us all. Stupid humans.

  15. Arthur on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 3:23 pm 

    Alan pushes the tired old natzi button again, if somebody opposes WW3 or denies the government lies around 911. But thanks to the internet, the info lights have been switched on, on a global level. The colossal blunder was to carry out 911 a few months before blogosphere exploded worldwide. Now the genie is out of the bottle.

    What are you going to do about it Alan?

  16. SOS on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 3:33 pm 

    This article ties to peak oil = peak politics because peak politics, or the politics of shortage, have caused the US to look outside its borders for its energy even though we have ample supplies for generations. As a result we have come to rely on the Mideast for energy and our armed forces are there to protect these interests.

    The turmoil of the US and middle east is a direct result of peak oil politics and shortage and the responsibility lies with those supporting the politics of shortage.

  17. Arthur on Fri, 28th Sep 2012 7:34 pm 

    Maybe the proponents for the war against Iran do have a point. See this very graphic video where Ahmadinejad wipes jews off the table:

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/horrifying-graphic-video-of-iranian-leader-savagely-abusing-jews/

    Very disturbing, maybe this is worth WW3 after all.

  18. Ian McPherson on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 12:29 am 

    WW3 is a worthwhile idea? Are you nuts? There are words and there are actions. The US sells more arms to the Middle East than any other country in the world. They arm both Saudi Arabia, home of the 9/11 attackers and Israel, home of the Arab- and Iran-haters. Talk about playing both sides against each other. You’re in it for the oil, and you’re in it for God and the Bible. And you want to be believed in as a force for good. Good luck with that…

  19. DMyers on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 1:35 am 

    McPherson, Arthur was being satirical, but you’re taking this matter very seriously. No one can fault you for that, because it is a serious matter. This play you’ve made on oil, God and Bible is a very good point. The interaction of those three factors is difficult to calibrate, deduce, or understand. It results in what I can only describe as a meta-motive, which justifies any and every action desired.

  20. Ian McPherson on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 2:01 am 

    Thanks DMyers. The Middle East is a mess, sure, but more often that not, that is due to outside forces. Inventing Israel, and plonking it right in the middle of the region did not help. These guys (the Israelis) have been getting a free ride for a long time, and when I see them trying to dictate US foreign policy, it gets me annoyed, especially in the run up to a US election. Ditch them I say, and let them be seen for the fanatics they are.

  21. Arthur on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 9:13 am 

    LOL, I really have to watch my words. Thanks, DMyers.

  22. Ian McPherson on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 9:41 am 

    Word are words, actions are actions. The US has made itself responsible for most of what happens in the Middle East, due to the Carter doctrine. As long as the supply of oil from the region is a “matter of national security”, good luck with being accepted as either a fair negotiator, a disinterested party, or some sort of reasonable voice in the region. What do you guys think this hatred about the stupid anti-Muslim movie is all about? The movie itself, or the actions of the US in the region?

  23. Arthur on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 10:47 am 

    The solution for the US is soooo simple… Kick out AIPAC after 911 truth coming out, make types like Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts or if necessary Jesse Ventura or Jim Traficant interim president, restore the Constitution and revoke patriot act and homeland security, call the troops home, scuttle 12 of your 14 carriers, guard your own borders for a change, and dismantle the military-industrial complex, admit Russia to NATO after renaming the organisation with the aim of containing China and sit around the table with China to negotiate a minimal defense configuration for all parties involved. China and Russia will cooperate. Compared with China and Europa, the US has relatively good conditions to create a post-carbon society worth living in, albeit with considerably lower wealth, just like everybody else.

  24. Ian McPherson on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 10:59 am 

    More cynicism, from a person who obviously does not live in Iraq or Palestine. I wish you and Hillary all the best solving the world’s problems…

  25. Arthur on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 11:57 am 

    Wonder if DMyers wil be available again for another exegesis, now that Ian insists on missing the point? After all he is not paid to do this. I could of course consider to phrase my posts in Donald Duck prose, but then I loose the ironical and other rethorical/dialectical tools to counter the likes of Alan Cecil, who represents the interests of the 1%, of whom 99% is… ehm.. like Alan.

    I think I prefer to stay on course.

  26. Ian McPherson on Sat, 29th Sep 2012 12:08 pm 

    Arthur, honestly, I do not understand what you are saying. Maybe we disagree, maybe we don’t, and even if we do disagree I respect your right to your opinion. But please, can you post something that we can debate?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *