Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Bibi Netanyahu at UN: Israel ready to act alone against Iran

As expected no big surprises in the speech Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu gave on Tuesday to the General Assembly of the UN. Israel is ready to act alone to stop Iran making a nuclear bomb, he said, and he warned against rushing into deals with Tehran.
"Israel will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. If Israel is forced to stand alone, Israel will stand alone," Netanyahu told a UN summit, in an attack on overtures made by Iran's President Hassan Rohani.
Netanyahu linked Rohani, who held a landmark conversation by telephone with US President Barack Obama while in New York last week, to past attacks blamed on Iran.
"He fooled the world once. Now he thinks he can fool it again. You see, Rohani thinks he can have his yellow cake and eat it too," Netanyahu said. demanding sanctions pressure be maintained.

''Now I know: Rohani doesn't sound like Ahmadinejad. But when it comes to Iran's nuclear weapons program, the only difference between them is this: Ahmadinejad was a wolf in wolf's clothing. Rohani is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a wolf who thinks he can pull the eyes -- the wool over the eyes of the international community. " Netanyahu said. ''Well, like everyone else, I wish we could believe Rohani's words, but we must focus on Iran's actions. And it's the brazen contrast, this extraordinary contradiction, between Rohani's words and Iran's actions that is so startling. Rohani stood at this very podium last week and praised Iranian democracy -- Iranian democracies. But the regime that he represents executes political dissidents by the hundreds and jails them by the thousands.''

Last year Netanyahu appeared before the UN pointing at a 'red line' in a drawing of a bomb. According to him Iran was to reach the point that it could enrich uranium to 90% in June of this year. Already in 1992 Netanyahu started crying Woolf. In that year he declared that Iran would have its atomic bomb in three to five years. (Photo AFP)

"Don't let up the pressure (on Iran)," Netanyahu told the UN General Assembly, adding that the only deal that could be made with Iran's Rohani was one that "fully dismantles Iran's nuclear weapons program. 'To be meaningful, a diplomatic solution would require Iran to do four things. First, cease all uranium enrichment. This is called for by several Security Council resolutions. Second, remove from Iran's territory the stockpiles of enriched uranium. Third, dismantle the infrastructure for nuclear breakout capability, including the underground facility at Qom and the advanced centrifuges in Natanz.And, four, stop all work at the heavy water reactor in Iraq aimed at the production of plutonium. These steps would put an end to Iran's nuclear weapons program and eliminate its breakout capability.

It's worth to remember, like Jim Lobe did on his Lobelog, Bibi Netanyahu's appearance 11 years ago before the UN Assembly. Then he urged to attack Iraq, as Saddam Hussein supposedly  possessed nuclear arms:.
There is not question whatsoever that Saddam is seeking and is working and is advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons — no question whatsoever. And there is no question that once he acquires it, history shifts immediately.

And he assured the world that: 
…If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.

..... it is possible to take out this regime with military action and the reverberations of what happens with the collapse of Saddam’s regime could very well create an implosion in a neighbor regime like Iran for the simple reason that Iran has, I don’t want to say a middle class, but it has a very large population that might bring down the regime, just as has [sic] brought down the shah’s regime. So I think that the choice of going after Iraq is like removing a brick that holds a lot of other bricks and might cause this structure to crumble. It is not guaranteed. The assumption of regime removal in Iraq, an implosion in Iran, an implosion in Libya is an assumption. It is not guaranteed. But if I have to choose should there be military action first against Iraq or first against Iran, I would choose exactly what the president had chosen, to after Iraq.

No comments: