Minggu, 17 November 2013

MOSSAD WORKING WITH SAUDIS SECRET SERVICE..??>> ... WHAT THE DEALS..??.... AND WHAT ACTUALLY PROGRESS IN IRAN TALKS WITH WESTERN POLITICAL POWER..?? >> WHY USA LOOK SO COOL .... ??>> ... HOW ABOUT RUSSIA AND OTHERS OF THE 5+1.....??? >>>.. IS IT A TRAP FOR ANOTHER.... STEP WILL BE TAKEN OVER ....BY OTHER WESTERN COUNTRY COMMAND..??>> FRANCE AND UK... AS THE NEW COMANDER AGAINT IRAN ..??? >> .. THE QUESTION...: IS IT NEEDED TO IRAN FOR WEST APPROVAL IN THE MATTER OF URANIUM ENRICHMENT...??>> ... IS IT MORE POSSIBLE ..... IN THE FUTURE.. THAT NUKE POWER... AND THE INSTALLATION OF THE NUKE REACTOR... MUST BE FREE... FOR ANY COUNTRY.. WITHOUT.. THE APPROVAL OF ANY OTHER COUNTRY..???>>> WHY...??? IT BECAUSE... THE NUKE POWER IS ONE OF SO IMPORTTANT ENERGY...THAT CAN IMPROVE.. THE POWER PLANT AND DEVELOPING SUPER HIGH LEVEL TECHNOLOGY AND GIANT INDUSTRIES...??>> ANY COUNTRY HAVE THE RIGHT TO IM PROVE THEIR OWN NATION AND PEOPLES AND COUNTRY AS THE FREE COUNTRY AND HAVE THE SOUVERINITY... >>> MAY BE ISRAEL AND SAUDIS DID NOT RECOGNIZE THAT IRAN AND OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS FOR NUKE POWER...?? >>> > Iran interim nuclear deal 'quite possible' next week ...>>> ..The talks will seek to finalize an interim deal to allow time to negotiate a comprehensive, permanent agreement that would end a 10-year deadlock and provide assurances to the six powers that Iran's atomic program will not produce bombs...>> ..The Mossad is working with Saudi officials on contingency plans for a potential attack on Iran in the event that Tehran's nuclear program is not sufficiently curbed in the deal that may be concluded between Iran and world powers in Geneva this week, The Sunday Times reported....>>>...Major powers and Iran are getting closer to an initial agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program, a senior US official said on Friday, adding it is "quite possible" a deal could be reached when negotiators meet Nov. 20-22 in Geneva...>>> ..The paper quoted a diplomatic source as saying the Saudis were willing to assist an Israeli attack by cooperating on the use of drones, rescue helicopters and tanker planes.......>>> According to the Times, Riyadh has already given its consent for Israel to use Saudi airspace for a potential attack on Iran......

Is the "P6" Now Ready for Prime Time in Geneva?

Posted: 11/17/2013 9:47 pm
November 10 will not go down as a stellar day for U.S. diplomacy. The premature faux hoopla over the scuttled first-stage nuclear agreement with Iran yielded little more than a legacy of miscues and a dozen eggs on Uncle Sam's face. Inadequate consultation with its allies, and overly eager to bring home the bacon, the U.S. received a failing grade for not doing its homework before showing up for its crucial Iran test. Rule 1 in foreign policy: never have your secretary of state hightail to a negotiation unless the diplomatic soufflĂ© is ready to come out of the oven so he/she can take credit for the diplomatic delicacy. 

"Geneva 1" was poorly stage-managed by senior American diplomats. Just as well. Had the U.S. had its way it would have resulted in an indefensible interim agreement wotj Iran. Secretary Kerry neglected to abide by his own edict that he would rather not have a deal at all than enter into a bad deal. The French, merci, held Mr. Kerry to his admonition. 

What, then, was objectionable in the "Geneva 1" framework that doomed this so-called interim "bad deal?" After all, Iran apparently was prepared to accept the following conditions:

 A six month freeze on its uranium enrichment and a pledge not to enrich its existing uranium stockpile beyond 3.5% which is all that is needed to fuel civilian nuclear reactors.
 Iran's stockpile of its 20% enriched uranium would be placed under an unspecified monitoring regime pending its reconversion into harmless oxide.
 Iran promised not to load its partially-built plutonium reactor at Arak with heavy water fuel and advanced centrifuges.
In return, the P6 agreed to grant Iran partial sanctions relief including the unfreezing of foreign exchange reserves, and lifting some sanctions on Iran's oil exports. 

Was this such a "bad deal?" Depends who you ask?

Israel considers any partial lifting of sanctions an irreversible mistake and a victory for the mullahs without any requirement for Iran to verifiably end once and for all its illegal nuclear enrichment program. 

More importantly, France -- the "canary in the coal mine" earned for having endured the most extensive and painful negotiation with Iran during the failed 2003-2004 talks on its nuclear program -- objected to "Geneva 1" since it:

1. Accorded Iran de facto right to enrich more unverifiable uranium and plutonium.
2. Did not compel Iran to ship any of its stockpile of 20% enriched uranium -- one easy percentage step away from bomb-making capacity and absolutely illegal under its NPT obligations -- to another country for neutralization.
3. Permitted Iran to continue its construction of the super-secret, and largely IAEA inaccessible, Arak heavy water plutonium reactor.
4. Ignored Iran's refusal to sign on to the NPT "Additional Protocols" which would open Iran's nuclear program to intrusive IAEA inspections.

Had France's reasonable objections been incorporated into a P6 proposal, would Iran have signed on? No one knows for sure. But the fact that there was no deal when the French tabled their proposals is a bad omen for a "good" Geneva 2" accord because Iran seemed prepared to sign on to the "pre-French" draft agreement, but not a deal that incorporated France's recommendations. 

John Kerry had better have his ducks better lined up this time to prevent a fatal car wreck.

Notwithstanding objections of America's Middle East allies, I believe it is better to have a "good" interim deal than no deal at all with Iran. But for a "Geneva 2" accord to represent a reasonable deal on its merits it will need to include the following additional terms: 

1. Iran will need to sign onto the "Additional Protocol" to the Non-Proliferation Treaty which permits the IAEA to undertake "short notice" inspections and imposes additional reporting requirements. For example, IAEA inspectors have been barred by Iran from inspecting the Arak reactor site since August, 2011.
2. All of Iran's uranium that it has enriched to 20% must be immediately neutralized under international supervision OUTSIDE of Iran.
3. Construction on the Arak plutonium reactor must immediately cease and mothballed under IAEA verification before any fuel is load into it since IAEA experts predict that if it became operational it could produce up to 10KG of weapons-grade plutonium every year - enough for 2 bombs.
But Iran will likely object to these essential amendments to "Geneva 1." Why? Because it continues to peddle the same old snake oil that its nuclear program is purely peaceful in nature.
If it were as peaceful as Tehran claims Iran would not need any enriched uranium beyond 3.5%, it would agree to the "Additional Protocol," and it would not be barring IAEA inspectors unfettered access to the Arak plutonium enrichment plant.

So how is the P6 squaring this circle so that "Geneva 2" could, perhaps yield a "good" interim agreement?
 On Iran's demand that it have the "right" to enrich uranium (not so under the NPT), the P6 is going to fudge it by camouflaging a non-existent right into diplomatic mumbo-jumbo that Tehran can take home.

 On the NPT "Additional Protocol" the P6 may extract a "pledge" from Iran to sign on to it if and when a permanent agreement is negotiated.

 On Arak, the P6 may extract from Iran a partially verifiable commitment to "freeze" all construction work for six months pending negotiation of a comprehensive agreement.

 On converting Iran's stockpile of 20% enriched uranium, the P6 may cook up a bi-monthly trade whereby specific percentages of this highly enriched uranium are placed under IAEA control in some neutral country in exchange for more sanctions reductions as each package of enriched uranium is exported.

Is that enough to pass the "good deal" smell test? The devil will be in the details. But let there be no mistake about it. If "Geneva 2" fails to improve upon "Geneva 1" by addressing France's objections, then we really are on a fool's errand. 

This week, while diplomats scrambled, Iran agreed to grant the IAEA more regular inspection rights to significant parts of Iran's nuclear infrastructure. BUT Iran refused to grant the IAEA access to a large military site known as Parchin where Iran is suspected by the IAEA of high explosive testing (pre-cursor to a nuclear test), and regular access to the Arak reactor. And given Arak's importance to any "Geneva 2" agreement, what does this portend?

In a few days we shall learn whether the P6 countries returned to Geneva more united than 10 days ago by requiring Iran to accept more IAEA verification, neutralization of its stockpile of 3.5% uranium and unfettered access to Arak, Parchin, Fodor and other secret nuclear sites that Iran has barred the IAEA from completely inspecting. 

The U.S. has committed to turning a new page with Iran and it has offered Iran what it desperately needs: relief from sanctions in exchange for reversing a nuclear weapons program that Iran asserts is a figment of our imagination despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. If Iran balks at a "good" Geneva 2 deal, well, then don't blame Congress, Israel, France or the Persian Gulf states. Rather, blame the Supreme Leader for unfairly wanting his yellow cake and eating it, too. 

If Iran balks and walks from a "good" agreement the U.S. worked hard into extra innings to construct it's time to face the cold and cruel reality that Iran's nuclear program is anything but peaceful.

World News

Stay the Dogs of War on Iran

In the new bargaining round with Tehran this week, there’s a chance of something monumental. Don’t let hawks, without a decent argument, stop it.
No honest person can know whether the nuclear negotiations with Iran will produce a sound agreement, least of all the know-it-alls who are fighting to prevent it. Maybe, the West will have to further strengthen economic sanctions. Perhaps, Iran will make threatening moves that justify a Western military strike. But the arguments against a full and serious drive to try staying the dogs of war are sheer, dangerous nonsense.
The upside is a short-term deal that would lead to the Mideast equivalent of ending the Cold War with the Soviet Union. The deal could reduce, even sharply, the biggest threat to regional peace, an Iranian nuclear bomb, and open paths to taming dangerous conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. And under the proposed deal, reportedly the only price to be paid for this would be giving Tehran a few billion dollars of its own money. No sanctions would be lifted that could not be quickly reimposed. Almost all of the U.S. sanctions regime would be totally unaffected. Those are the facts that opponents of a deal simply either ignore or lie about.
The downside, failure, is that Iran, Israel, and the United States resume their march toward a terrible war in the Mideast and to the prospect of worldwide terrorist attacks. What a great alternative. And don’t think for a moment that toughening the sanctions would cause the collapse of the Ayatollahs’ regime in Iran. The U.S. has economically squeezed the guts out of North Korea and Cuba, for example. And the last anyone looked, those regimes are still around, thumbing their noses at Washington. Would the naysayers like to go to war against these countries? Ask any of America’s friends and allies if they would join such a venture. Not a chance. Even Israeli military and intelligence officials think such a course makes little sense.
What, then, do the naysayers believe they can practically accomplish by increasing the sanctions and the military threats against Iran? Sure, they’ll insist that the regime in Tehran will either cave to Western pressures or even fall. But those naysayers have neither history nor current reality on their side. Iran is nowhere near the economic hardships of Cuba, North Korea, or the tottering Soviet Union of the 1990’s. Iran is nowhere near surrender. The naysayers can’t be that self-delusional. Most likely, they simply want to please right-wing Israelis, Saudi autocrats, and make President Obama look weak. Why do you think France (yes, France) has gotten so tough in the nuclear talks? Is there any chance whatsoever of Paris actually standing up to the consequences of a war with Iran? Not on your life. More plausibly, Paris is simply interested in pleasing those very same Saudi autocrats who have now become sanctified by buying shiploads of French arms. Ah, money does inspire toughness.
Of course, the pact under discussion with Tehran won’t solve every nuclear problem to our satisfaction. But what negotiation can the naysayers cite, in modern times, that has ever been an outright capitulation? Is there any chance Tehran will abandon its “right” to enrich uranium? Not a chance. And everyone knows that; everyone. While I don’t like the clerical dictators in Tehran one bit, I can understand how they might feel threatened by Israel and the West. (And yes, I think they brought this on themselves, but here we all are.)
President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry deserve lots of praise—and support—for plowing on with the talks in Geneva in the face of the baloney typhoon.
The Obama administration has brought much of the political grief about these negotiations upon itself, as usual. They pretty much destroyed their foreign policy credibility with their Syria policy blunders. With Iran, they have failed to plainly and simply explain how the pact they’re pursuing will benefit the West. It’s not enough, not nearly enough, to assert that the U.S. would rather have “no agreement than a bad agreement.” What’s good or bad? Explain it, for heaven’s sake. While the temporary agreement under discussion now is far from perfect, it reportedly does do two critical things: first, by attempting to freeze most of Iran’s nuclear activities, it would lengthen the time for Tehran to “break out” with a nuclear weapon; second, it would increase the time for the U.S. and its allies to react to trouble. And the U.S. gives up only trifling sanctions in return. What on earth is wrong with that?

Most of Iran’s nuclear weapons related programs would be on hold. And of equal importance, international inspectors—already on the scene and reporting—would have wide and better access to programs the U.S. needs to know about. And during the proposed six month freeze on Iran’s nuclear weapons-related programs, the West can seriously explore a more comprehensive and permanent agreement. Again, what on earth is wrong with that?
President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry deserve lots of praise—and support—for plowing on with the talks in Geneva in the face of the baloney typhoon. And the media, as usual, hasn’t helped. They rarely explain how very little the U.S. and its partners would be giving away in return for the chance to revolutionize the diplomatic alignment in the Mideast. It should be clear to all, save the ideologically and politically impaired, that President Rouhani and Foreign Minister Zarif are as close as the West is going to come to genuine negotiating partners. It should be equally apparent that they’re on a short leash as well—and that they need something of value to appease their hawks.
Courage Messrs Obama, Kerry, Rouhani, and Zarif. Make this agreement and defy the hawks’ fight to kill it, and its possibilities.
Follow Amb. Marc Ginsberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@ambmcg

Report: Mossad working with Saudis on contingency plans for potential attack on Iran

By JPOST.COM STAFF. 11/17/2013 03:57

'Sunday Times' quotes diplomatic source as saying Saudis are furious over Iran deal and are willing to give Israel "all the help it needs."

An Israel Air Force jet
An Israel Air Force jet Photo: REUTERS

The Mossad is working with Saudi officials on contingency plans for a potential attack on Iran in the event that Tehran's nuclear program is not sufficiently curbed in the deal that may be concluded between Iran and world powers in Geneva this week, The Sunday Times reported.

Both Jerusalem and Riyadh have expressed displeasure at the deal being formulated between Iran and the P5+1 group of world powers that they see as doing little to stop Tehran's progress toward a nuclear weapon.

According to the Times, Riyadh has already given its consent for Israel to use Saudi airspace for a potential attack on Iran.

The paper quoted a diplomatic source as saying the Saudis were willing to assist an Israeli attack by cooperating on the use of drones, rescue helicopters and tanker planes.

“Once the Geneva agreement is signed, the military option will be back on the table. The Saudis are furious and are willing to give Israel all the help it needs,” the Times quoted the source as saying. 

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said in an interview with French daily Le Figaro on Saturday that there is a “meeting of the minds” between Israel and the “leading states in the Arab world” on the Iran issue – “one of the few cases in memory, if not the first case in modern times.

“We all think that Iran should not be allowed to have the capacities to make nuclear weapons,” he said. “We all think that a tougher stance should be taken by the international community. We all believe that if Iran were to have nuclear weapons, this could lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, making the Middle East a nuclear tinderbox.”

Saying that an Iran with nuclear arms would be the most dangerous development for the world since the mid-20th century, and stressing that the “stakes are amazing,” Netanyahu urged the world’s leaders to pay attention “when Israel and the Arabs see eye-to-eye.”

“We live here,” he said. “We know something about this region. We know a great deal about Iran and its plans. It’s worthwhile to pay attention to what we say.”

Netanyahu made the comments as French President Francois Hollande was set to arrive in Israel for talks on Iran on Sunday. 

French objections are widely viewed as having held up an agreement with Iran last Saturday night in Geneva. The nuclear talks are set to resume in Geneva on Wednesday, and US officials have suggested that a deal may likely be signed.

Diplomatic officials said one reason for France’s tough position on Iran – the toughest position among the P5+1 states that also include the US, Russia, China, Britain and Germany – has something to do with its close ties to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which are as adamantly opposed to Iran getting nuclear weapons as is Israel.

Herb Keinon contributed to this report.

Netanyahu Kecam Sikap Barat Ringankan Sanksi Iran

Senin, 18 November 2013, 11:08 WIB

Benjamin Netanyahu
Benjamin Netanyahu


Perdana Menteri Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ahad (17/11) menyampaikan penentangannya terhadap sebagian kesepakatan dengan Iran mengenai program nuklir kontroversialnya. Netanyahu menyatakannya beberapa hari sebelum negara besar melanjutkan pembicaraan dengan Teheran.

"Saya kira masalah dengan sebagian kesepakatan ialah kalian mengurangi sanksi," kata Netanyahu dalam satu wawancara televisi di program CNN, State of the Union, yang ditayangkan pada Ahad.

Netanyahu dengan tegas telah menentang gagasan diredakannya sanksi sebagai imbalan bagi pembatasan kegiatan nuklir Iran. Peredaan sanksi ini sebagaimana diajukan oleh apa yang disebut kelompok P5+1 --Amerika Serikat, Inggris, Prancis, Cina, Rusia ditambah Jerman.

"Dalam kasus ini, kalian mengurangi sanksi, mengendurkan banyak tekanan dan Iran praktis tak memberi apa-apa," kata Perdana Menteri Israel itu sebagaimana dilaporkan Xinhua yang dipantau Antara di Jakarta, Senin pagi.

Ia mengumandankan perasaan banyak orang di Capitol Hill, tempat sebagian senator bergabung dengan rekan mereka di Majelis Rendah dalam meneriakkan sanksi lebih keras atas Iran guna meningkatkan tekanan.

Redaktur : Didi Purwadi
Sumber : Antara/Xinhua-OANA

US official says Iran interim nuclear deal 'quite possible' next week

By REUTERS. 11/16/2013 12:34

"For the first time in nearly a decade we are getting close to a first-step that would stop the Iranian nuclear program from advancing."

US Secretary of State John Kerry on Capitol Hill
US Secretary of State John Kerry on Capitol Hill Photo: REUTERS

Major powers and Iran are getting closer to an initial agreement to curb Iran's nuclear program, a senior US official said on Friday, adding it is "quite possible" a deal could be reached when negotiators meet Nov. 20-22 in Geneva.

But the official and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi both said they expected next week's talks to be "tough", and Araqchi said that there would be no deal unless the Iranian people's "rights" were guaranteed.
"For the first time in nearly a decade we are getting close to a first-step ... that would stop the Iranian nuclear program from advancing and roll it back in key areas," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity.

"I don't know if we will reach an agreement. I think it is quite possible that we can, but there are still tough issues to negotiate," the official said.

The official said EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif were to meet on Nov. 20 in Geneva. They will be joined later the same day by a wider group known as the P5+1 comprising Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States. The talks are likely to last through Nov. 22, the official said.

Araqchi, a senior member of Iran's negotiation team, was quoted as saying by Mehr News Agency, "The expectation is that we will have tough talks, and unless the rights of the Iranian people are guaranteed, an agreement will not be reached."

The talks will seek to finalize an interim deal to allow time to negotiate a comprehensive, permanent agreement that would end a 10-year deadlock and provide assurances to the six powers that Iran's atomic program will not produce bombs.

Iran has denied that it wants to develop atomic weapons capability and insists its nuclear ambitions are limited to the peaceful generation of electricity and other civilian uses.

Negotiations last week in Geneva ended without an agreement, although the sides appeared to be close to a deal.

US President Barack Obama has urged skeptical US lawmakers not to impose new sanctions on Iran while talks continue and called for a pause in US sanctions to see if diplomacy can work.

In addition to lobbying lawmakers, the White House this week also contacted progressive groups supportive of diplomacy with Iran to make sure they stay aligned with the Obama administration's approach, a source close to the matter said.

Senior administration officials told supporters that they are guardedly optimistic about reaching an interim deal with Iran in Geneva and that the P5+1, including the French, are ready to present a unified position there, the source said.

The senior US official who met with reporters on Friday said that published estimates of direct sanctions relief being offered under a preliminary deal - which have ranged from $15 billion to $50 billion - were "wildly exaggerated.”

"It is way south of all of that and quite frankly it will be dwarfed by the restrictions that are still in place," the official said, saying to impose more sanctions threatened the negotiations not only with Iran but also among the six powers.

"The P5+1 believes these are serious negotiations. They have a chance to be successful," the official said. "For us to slap on sanctions in the middle of it, they see as bad faith."

A senior administration official said that Iran has about $100 billion in reserves, the vast majority of which is held in overseas bank accounts, which it has limited or no access to.

US-imposed sanctions have hit Iran's economy hard. US officials estimate that it contracted by more than 5 percent last year and its currency has lost about 60 percent of its value against the US dollar since 2011.

Global oil prices slipped lower on Friday on the reports that Western powers may reach a deal but then rose slightly as markets weighed Libyan supply outages.

Commenting on a UN inspection report released on Nov. 14 that said Iran had stopped expanding its uranium enrichment capacity, the official said the development was "a good thing" but did not resolve fundamental questions and concerns.

"We appreciate the step but the reason for our negotiation is to get at certainty that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon and we are a long way from that," the official said.

Western diplomats said one of the sticking points during talks was Iran's argument that it retains the "right" to enrich uranium. The United States argues Iran does not intrinsically have that right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The official dismissed suggestions that the issue could be a deal breaker. "I think there is a way to navigate that," the official said. "We each understand where each other is and what is possible, and what is not."

4 Things Happen Just Before a Heart Attack (Newsmax Health)
From Around the WebWarren Buffett’s Secret to Wealth — the Bible? (Moneynews) 

Minister: Israel doesn't recognize Iran's right to enrich uranium

By JPOST.COM STAFF 11/16/2013 14:48

Erdan warns against 'very bad' interim deal between P5+1, Iran.

IDF chief Gantz, PM Netanyahu, and Homeland Def. Min. Erdan
IDF chief Gantz, PM Netanyahu, and Homeland Def. Min. Erdan Photo: REUTERS

The fallout from last week's public spat between Israel and the United States over strategy toward Iran was the main topic of conversation among Israel's political elite on Saturday, with government representatives and opposition lawmakers offering different views of what it all means.

Homeland Defense Minister Gilad Erdan told Israel Radio that Jerusalem doesn’t recognize Iran’s right to enrich uranium.
In an interview with Israel Rado, Erdan (Likud) said that the Israeli government was well-versed in the details of the interim agreement that is being mulled by the P5+1 powers and Iran, a deal that Israel views as “very bad” for the security of the Western world.

“Iran is a serial violator of UN Security Council resolutions, and it cannot be trusted,” Erdan said. “It mustn’t be allowed to keep a nuclear weapons-making capability on its soil.”

Once an interim agreement is signed, it is liable to turn into a permanent agreement that would entail the removal of economic sanctions against Iran, Erdan told Israel Radio.

Israel must closely monitor the situation and make a decision as to how to act in order to prevent Iran from becoming an existential threat that would touch off a nuclear arms race in the region, according to Erdan. From Israel’s standpoint, all options remained on the table, the minister said. 

Meretz MK Zehava Gal-On on Saturday accused Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of trying to sabotage American diplomatic efforts to roll back the Iranian nuclear program.

“The prime minister isn’t opposed, as he wrote on his Facebook page, to ‘a bad agreement with Iran’,” Gal-On said. “He’s against any agreement that will be reached with Iran in the direct negotiations between Iran and the US.”

“It is in Israel’s interest to support the American goal of preventing Iran from attaining nuclear weapons through diplomatic means that will include supervision and strict enforcement [of measures] that will prevent it from attaining nuclear weapons,” she said. “It cannot be done by means of warmongering.” 

Science, Technology, and Space Minister Yaakov Peri insisted that the Israeli government was in favor of a diplomatic solution to end the dispute with Iran, though he warned of the consequences of allowing the row with Washington to deteriorate further.

“We have differences [with the US], but it’s not a serious crisis,” Peri told a town hall meeting in Tel Aviv. “Nonetheless, one cannot discount the possibility that we’ll reach that point.”

“The sanctions imposed on Iran were what pressured its leadership to come to the negotiating table with the West,” Peri, a former head of the Israel Security Service (Shin Bet), said. “The prime minister says, I don’t support him on this count, that we need to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and that sanctions should be kept in place until that goal is achieved.”

“Still, we have no bigger friend than the US, and we must be careful not to exacerbate the crisis because it will have consequences on other issues that are fateful to the country’s future.”
Peri said that he would “probably vote in favor” of a military strike against Iran if it came before the cabinet for a vote and it became apparent that all other possibilities had been exhausted. 

Meanwhile, Labor Party chairwoman and opposition chief Shelly Yacimovich criticized Netanyahu on Saturday over the lack of progress in peace talks with the Palestinians.

“In the last two weeks, we have watched with great disappointment at the manner in which the talks have been handled,” Yacimovich said. “It’s a slap in the face to the Americans. It’s complete insanity [for this to happen] at the same time that [the government] is igniting the diplomatic front as it relates to the Iranian issue.”

The Labor chief said that the party would not join the Netanyahu government, but it would support the coalition if tangible progress was made in the peace process.

“Crawling to the Netanyahu government now would put an immediate end to any chance of the talks succeeding,” she said during an appearance at a town hall meeting in Holon. “Netanyahu would have the benefit of a nice, big fig leaf, and he won’t have to do anything else. This would be a huge mistake, similar to the one made by Labor under the leadership of [Ehud] Barak.”

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar