Israel won't accept less than total halt of Iran's nuclear enrichment

[iranigirl2]

Netanyahu: Israel won't accept less than total halt of Iran's nuclear enrichment


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that Israel will not accept Iranian uranium enrichment at any level.

"We cannot accept anything less than the total cessation of all enrichment of nuclear materials at all levels, removal from Iran of all enriched nuclear material, closure of Iran's illicit nuclear facilities," Netanyahu said during a meeting with Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird.

"Until Iran meets these demands, pressure must be stepped up and Iranian nuclear program must be stopped. Period."

Netanyahu warned against the new Iranian President Hasan Rowhani, saying that his strategy is to calm the international community while quietly advancing the nuclear program.

"He is the author of a document – you could call it talk and enrich - that is, talk and continue to enrich uranium. For nuclear weapons. He wrote this in the book. He said that by calming international community, Iran is able to steadily move forward in its nuclear weapons program. We cannot allow Iran to play this game. We cannot let Iran ride out the clock."

Netanyahu made the comments after several statements by the U.S. government and the European Union wishing to continue talks with Iran on its nuclear program. The talks between Iran and the six world powers stopped in April

Earlier Tuesday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavror said that Iran is willing to halt its 20 percent enrichment of uranium, which has been a key concession sought ininternational negotiations over Iran's nuclear program.

That is the highest level of enrichment acknowledged by Iran and one that experts say could be turned into warhead grade in a matter of months.

In an interview with the Kuwaiti news agency KUNA that was released by the Foreign Ministry on Tuesday, Lavrov said that "for the first time in many years" there are encouraging signs in international efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear dispute.

He said Iran has confirmed that it is ready to halt production of uranium-enriched to 20 percent. He did not give details, but said the sextet of international negotiators should make "substantial reciprocal steps."

Meanwhile, on Monday the UN nuclear agency chief said Iran is making "steady progress" in expanding its nuclear program and international sanctions do not seem to be slowing it down.

Yukiya Amano's comments underlined the difficult challenges facing world powers in seeking to persuade the Islamic state to scale back nuclear activities they suspect could be used to make atomic bombs, a charge Tehran denies.

The surprise victory of moderate cleric Hasan Rowhani in Iran's presidential election last Friday has raised hopes for an easing of tension in the decade-old nuclear dispute.

Rowhani pledged on Monday to be more transparent about Tehran's atomic work in order to see sanctions lifted but he also said Iran was not ready to suspend its enrichment of uranium. "


Netanyahu: Israel won't accept less than total halt of Iran's nuclear enrichment - Diplomacy & Defense - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

It concerns BiBi that Iran keeps enriching uranium, if that's so, then what if Iran complies by the INTL standards? Will BiBi stop yelling? Personally I don't think so.

 

[TruthSeeker]

How can Israel stop the Iranian program? I don't see any practical way. The reality of nuclear weapons is that mutual assured destruction (MAD) is the only strategy that works between antagonistic nuclear states. Therefore, Israel should declare that ANY nuclear attack on Israel will be answered by the total destruction of Iran. Israel should then develop and publicly demonstrate the survivability and quantity of nuclear weapons necessary to "assure" Iran's destruction.

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

@TruthSeeker

Can you live with a nuclear armed Iran?

 

[BDforever]

@TruthSeeker

Can you live with a nuclear armed Iran?

I can live

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

I can live

You surly can.

 

[Dillinger]

@Yzd Khalifa What is KSA's view on a nuclear Iran?

On topic..I don't see how Israel is going to stop Iran from going nuclear eventually unless somehow they can convince America to enter into the Pyrrhic was that attacking Iran will bring about.

 

[Solomon2]

How can Israel stop the Iranian program? I don't see any practical way. The reality of nuclear weapons is that mutual assured destruction (MAD) is the only strategy that works between antagonistic nuclear states. Therefore, Israel should declare that ANY nuclear attack on Israel will be answered by the total destruction of Iran. Israel should then develop and publicly demonstrate the survivability and quantity of nuclear weapons necessary to "assure" Iran's destruction.

Not sufficient here, as the mullahs' "Twelver" ideology envisions such destruction as a prelude to the "hidden imam's" return and Shi'a supremacy. Furthermore, the Iranians are sure to craft matters so that a nuclear attack upon Israel comes from someplace other than Iran. They will try to content the world by saying, "Oh, we didn't do it," and whispering, "if you attack us thinking we did we'll nuke you, too."

Hey, if you accept the recent "election" of Iran's new president you're going to make things up to excuse anything the mullahs might do against democratic countries, right?

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

@Yzd Khalifa What is KSA's view on a nuclear Iran?

On topic..I don't see how Israel is going to stop Iran from going nuclear eventually unless somehow they can convince America to enter into the Pyrrhic was that attacking Iran will bring about.

We most certainly can live with a nuclear armed Iran FOR NOW. But, KSA will introduce one as soon as Iran goes nuclear.

Obama isn't interested in bombing Iran, if it was Romney then maybe. Aside from that, the Pentagon has the last word with the president, in other word, the Senate won't help it.

Not sufficient here, as the mullahs' "Twelver" ideology envisions such destruction as a prelude to the "hidden imam's" return and Shi'a supremacy. Furthermore, the Iranians are sure to craft matters so that a nuclear attack upon Israel comes from someplace other than Iran. They will try to content the world by saying, "Oh, we didn't do it," and whispering, "if you attack us thinking we did we'll nuke you, too."

Hey, if you accept the recent "election" of Iran's new president you're going to make things up to excuse anything the mullahs might do against democratic countries, right?

 

[Dillinger]

We most certainly can live with a nuclear armed Iran FOR NOW. But, KSA will introduce one as soon as Iran goes nuclear.

Obama isn't interested in bombing Iran, if it was Romney then maybe. Aside from that, the Pentagon has the last word with the president, in other word, the Senate won't help it.

Oh I think even Romney would have seen the sense in not engaging in open hostilities with Iran. Bombing them is not going to stop them. That's why I termed any such action as war that will in its best outcome for America lead to a Pyrrhic victory.

So then we should look forward to a nuclear ME?

 

[TruthSeeker]

@TruthSeeker

Can you live with a nuclear armed Iran?

Yes, I think that we have to accept that the Iranian regime believes that it must have nuclear weapons to protect itself, i.e. its theocratic revolution, from us (the USA). Now, of course if they finally have them, then the Sunni powers will have to match them. So, the unintended consequence of Iran getting nuclear weapons may be that a Shite-Sunni nuclear conflict occurs.

I think we should accept Iranian nuclear weapons and trust that the internal contradictions of their theocratic state will eventually lead to "regime" change within the next two generations.

 

[TruthSeeker]

N Furthermore, the Iranians are sure to craft matters so that a nuclear attack upon Israel comes from someplace other than Iran. They will try to content the world by saying, "Oh, we didn't do it," and whispering, "if you attack us thinking we did we'll nuke you, too."

That's why I said ANY attack would be answered to Iran. That is, the price to Iran of having nuclear weapons is that Israel will now consider Iran to be the guarantor against any strike on Israel. If Iran does not want to pay that price, it should not go nuclear.

 

[Solomon2]

I think we should accept Iranian nuclear weapons and trust that the internal contradictions of their theocratic state will eventually lead to "regime" change within the next two generations.

That means accepting a whole lot of death before that happens. Tens of millions of people - not just Israel's Jews, but Arabs and Iranians as well.

It's long since been accepted that France could have stopped Hitler's ambitions cold by invading Germany in response to the Nazi's takeover of the Saarland. The aging politicians of France might have died peacefully in their beds for four more years but after that France became a Nazi satellite. Who knows, if Iran goes nuclear, what will happen to Iran's neighbors five years later - Pakistan included?

 

[TruthSeeker]

That means accepting a whole lot of death before that happens. Tens of millions of people - not just Israel's Jews, but Arabs and Iranians as well.

There is no course of action in this matter that guarantees that "a whole lot of death" will NOT happen. Either way could result in nuclear terrorism (in New York or Washington) or a nuclear exchange (in the ME). My opinion is that relying on mutual assured destruction is the least bad option.

Another possibility is that the USA puts Israel firmly, and ostentatiously, under its nuclear umbrella by pledging massive retaliation against anyone who strikes Israel with a nuclear device. The politics of the USA, however, would demand that we know who struck. I think the politics of Israel would accept that Iran be stricken even if the first strike perpetrator was ambiguous. So we could at least make sure Israel's retaliation was totally credible by supplying Israel with submarines and missiles.

 

[Solomon2]

That's why I said ANY attack would be answered to Iran. That is, the price to Iran of having nuclear weapons is that Israel will now consider Iran to be the guarantor against any strike on Israel. If Iran does not want to pay that price, it should not go nuclear.

Not sufficient. Israel is too small and - due to its perennial "land for peace" policy and the whittling of the Brits - has no strategic depth. Nuclear attack would wipe out the country. The survivors would then face the agony of killing millions more in Iran. As I argue on my blog, it would be better to attack pre-emptively first, even if Israel itself had to employ nuclear weapons. The Jews don't deserve to face extinction in the face of evil once more.

And the Christians world is simply too ready to forgive criminals for crimes committed against third parties. This pops up over and over again as the fundamental ethical difference between Jews of all stripes and Christians: a Christian may forgive a criminal for a crime - even murder - committed against another, while the Jew won't: only the victim could do that; a Jew would at most consider a plea for mercy. Thus Christians are tempted to look forward to the destruction of Israel with equanimity - OK, the Jews will die, but we can continue to do business with the Jews' murderers.

Naturally, Netanyahu isn't about to let that happen. His responsibility is to ensure Israel's survival, not to sacrifice his country to let Westerners sleep in safety and comfort for two or three extra years. It is only acceptable, then, that Iran never attain the capability to produce nuclear weapons at all.