Israel's Netanyahu Says Iran Nuclear Deal a 'Historic Mistake'

[mystery-ak]

http://www.newsmaxworld.com/PrintTemplate?nodeid=538311


NewsmaxWorld
Israel's Netanyahu Says Iran Nuclear Deal a 'Historic Mistake'
Sunday, November 24, 2013 06:31 AM

By: Calev Ben-David

JERUSALEM — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu condemned the agreement between world powers and Iran as a ‘historic mistake’ that doesn’t bind his country.

Israel has “the right and obligation” to defend itself and won’t allow Iran to develop the capability to build atomic weapons, Netanyahu said today at a cabinet meeting in Jerusalem.

“What was achieved last night in Geneva is not historic; it is a historic mistake. Today, the world has become a much more dangerous place,” he said in comments broadcast on Israel Radio. “Israel is not bound by this agreement.”

Diplomats said they had a deal early today, the fifth day of meetings in Geneva. The first accord since the Iranian nuclear program came under international scrutiny in 2003 eases sanctions on Iran in exchange for concessions on its atomic work.

Israel’s rejection of the agreement puts it at odds with its closest ally, the U.S., which led the efforts to reach a deal with Iran. An administration official said President Barack Obama would call Netanyahu today to discuss the accord.

Israel wanted world powers to oblige Iran to stop enriching uranium and dismantle an unfinished heavy water reactor at Arak that could eventually produce plutonium, materials that could be used to produce weapons. The Geneva agreement limits uranium enrichment under close monitoring and halts any further development of the Arak reactor.

“This deal will create a new arms race that includes the Middle East,” Foreign Minister Avigdor Liberman said. Finance Minister Yair Lapid said he was concerned that the accord means “the world is no longer listening to Israel.”

Israeli officials have described Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat, saying all options are on the table to stop it, including a military strike.

“The Iranian regime is committed to Israel’s destruction, and Israel has the right to defend itself, by itself,” Netanyahu said to his cabinet. “Israel won’t let Iran develop military nuclear capability.”

Iran says its program is intended for peaceful purposes.

Israeli Economy Minister Naftali Bennett said yesterday that any deal Israel perceived as bad would increase the chances it would consider military force against Iran.

“A bad deal definitely increases the need for action,” Bennett said on Channel Two television. “If the deal gives Iran the ability to achieve a bomb within six weeks, we won’t be able to sit idly by.”

Alex Zabezhinsky, chief economist at Tel Aviv-based Meitav DS Investment House Ltd., said the agreement reduced risks.

“The deal reduces the risk of military action on Iran by the West or Israel,” he said by phone. “As a result, we are likely to see Israel’s country risk decline.”

Eldad Pardo, a lecturer on Iranian affairs at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said Israel opposes the agreement because its interim nature recalls the 1993 Oslo Accords with the Palestinians, which never ripened into a final peace deal.

“If you reach very quick agreements on what is easy and leave the difficult issues to some future, it may take years,” he said.

Now with Iran, “there is a kind of temporary agreement that will lead to another temporary agreement,” he said. “This isn’t a first step within an agreed-upon structure of where we are heading.”

[Right_in_Virginia]

Israel has “the right and obligation” to defend itself and won’t allow Iran to develop the capability to build atomic weapons, Netanyahu said today at a cabinet meeting in Jerusalem.

I want to believe him .... but he's got to do something.  If a military attack is off the table, then Mr. Netanyahu should find another mantra.  His and his nation's international credibility are now on the line.

[pjohns]

Let us be candid here:  Whether this deal was wise or unwise is entirely predicated upon this one, simple question:  Should our foremost concern be (a) the prevention of war with Iran; or (b) our ensuring that it will be impossible for Iran to ever acquire nuclear weapons, regardless of what might be required to achieve that goal?

If one responds that the correct answer is (a), then it stands to reason that one must believe that any deal--including the one eventually agreed to--beats no deal at all.

If one responds that (b) is the correct answer, on the other hand, any deal that allows Iran to enrich uranium at all--and therefore, to have a "breakout" capability within a very short time--is ill-advised.

I will go with (b)...

[Fishrrman]

[[ I want to believe him .... but he's got to do something.  If a military attack is off the table, then Mr. Netanyahu should find another mantra.  His and his nation's international credibility are now on the line. ]]

Mr. Netanyahu's heart and mind is in the right place, but that may be of little help to him now, nor of little help to his nation.

If Israel was "to do something", it's about five years too late. They should have acted immediately after the 2008 election, when Bush II was still president.

Mr. Bush would certainly have protested, but ultimately he would have acceded and done the right thing, and provided at least a modicum of support, covert or otherwise. And there would have been nothing the incoming Obammunists could have done about it.

But now, too late, too late. Not only will Obama _not do_ "the right thing", he is an enemy of Israel, and a supporter of Iran (certainly Ms. Jarrett is as well, and she is pullin' the strings in many cases).

The obligatory comparisons of Obama vis-a-vis Neville Chamberlain are presented (including some nice Photoshop montages), but Obama's behavior is worse. Chamberlain was merely the gullible fool, but Obama knows full well what he is doing, and that is aiding Iran in its quest for the bomb -- which it will now have.

Perhaps Israel may still attempt a last-ditch effort. But even with covert aid from the Saudis, the best the Israelis can hope to do is delay Iran's progress somewhat. Iran has had too long -- five additional years -- to "dig in" and spread out its capabilities. I don't believe conventional weapons alone are enough to the job any more. We shall see.

For several years now, on other forums as well as this one, I've been predicting that the Israelis will shy away from what it takes to knock out Iran. "Jewish guilt" has held them back (for lack of a better term) -- the fear and unwillingness to strike against what will be civilian populations in a proactive and pre-emptive attack (not a "defensive" one to defend Jewish soil within Jewish borders). Again, we shall see.

But if they're going to try, they'd better not wait much longer....

[EC]

Poor Neville Chamberlain. I do wish you guys would stop using him as an example.

At the time he did the only thing he could do. We'd have lasted all of about a week against Germany if he didn't have that peace (pun intended) of paper. The instant he got back home, he ramped up war production. The reason he could do that? A certain Minister had spent several years increasing our production capacity and planning for the war he saw coming, including planning for the call up and the inevitable rationing. The name of that Minister? N. Chamberlain.

He bought us time to build up. Bit shitty for Poland, but them's the breaks.