Has Iran Gone Nuclear Already?

Although the report comes originally from Maariv, an Israeli paper notorious for being far left and their reports have been far from the truth, I submit this to you, my truth seeker, so you can make an honest assessment.

Some Israeli government analysts believe Iran already has at least one nuclear bomb, an Israeli journalist wrote in an article published Friday.

Shalom Yerushalmi, writing in the national daily Maariv, said that “government security sources up to date on development in Iran,” told him recently that Tehran has crossed all points of no return and already has its first nuclear weapon, and maybe more.

The report marks the first time a government official has been quoted saying Iran already has a nuclear weapon. No sources in the piece were named.

The information, if true, would mark a major shift in international relations and would be a game changer in terms of a regional power balance.

“It’s too late for Israel [to prevent an Iranian bomb]. Iran has crossed all the borders and all the constraints, and it has a first nuclear bomb in its possession, and maybe more than that,” Yerushalmi writes, basing himself on what he says is the assessment he heard this week from state security sources. ”We are facing a historic change in the strategic balance of forces in the region.”

He then quotes a source who he says is deeply familiar with what he calls the relentless war against the Iranians. “This is no longer about how to prevent a bomb,” the source is quoted saying, “but about how to prevent its being launched, and what to do if and when.”

Yerushalmi, still basing himself on the anonymous security sources’ assessment, goes on to compare the current behavior of Iran’s Supreme leader Ali Khamenei, and new President Hasan Rouhani, in their interactions with the West, to a soccer coach at the end of a hard-fought match which he knows he has now won. The Iranian leadership is behaving with the air of “those who have achieved their target, and therefore can today afford to be more generous and to offer new (self-serving) messages.” The Iranian leadership can afford to be friendlier, he writes, “because victory has been secured.”

Maariv led its Friday paper with a photograph of a smiling Rouhani, alongside the headline, “What’s hiding behind the smile,” and a sub-headline quoting the security sources saying Iran now has “at least one bomb.” It then adds that most in the security establishment, however, still believe that this “nightmare scenario has not yet been realized.”

While most Western countries believe Iran’s nuclear program is intended for military purposes, officials in Israel, the US and elsewhere say Tehran has yet to “break out” toward a bomb, a process that could take over a year.

Iran, which on Thursday agreed to renewed talks with world powers on curbing its nuclear program, says its program is for peaceful purposes.

On Friday, Iranian and UN officials met to discuss whether to resume inspections meant to determine whether Tehran worked on atomic arms, in a test of pledges by Iran’s new president to reduce nuclear tensions.

Iranian envoy Reza Najafi said in Vienna that it would be unrealistic to expect that “in just one day of meeting we can solve our problems.”

Herman Nackaerts of the International Atomic Energy Agency said only that he hoped the meeting could “intensify the dialogue.”

The UN agency wants access to a site it suspects was used to test conventional explosive triggers meant to set off a nuclear blast.

A report released last month by the IAEA said that while Iran was testing new centrifuges, which could help it eventually create a nuclear weapon, its uranium stockpile was still below the amount needed for a bomb.

“It is unlikely, at this point, that Iran could dash toward further enrichment to weapons-grade without the IAEA detecting Tehran’s activities,” Reuters quoted the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based advocacy and research group.

Israel sees an Iranian nuclear weapon as an existential threat, and Jerusalem has campaigned vigorously around the world for heavy sanctions to be placed on Iran, with a threat of military action should those fail to stop the nuclear program.

Next week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is due to deliver a speech at the United Nations during which he is expected to press for maintaining pressure on Iran despite a recent easing of tensions between Tehran and the West. In comments Tuesday, Netanyahu urged the world not to be “fooled” by Iran’s newly moderate rhetoric, which he said was a “smokescreen” to obscure its continued drive toward nuclear weapons.

“Israel would welcome a genuine diplomatic solution that truly dismantles Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said. “But we will not be fooled by half-measures that merely provide a smokescreen for Iran’s continual pursuit of nuclear weapons. And the world should not be fooled either.”

SOURCE

If true this would explain why Iranian President Hasan Rouhani is talking about the UN stopping the sanctions.  After all they have already gotten nuclear weapons and sanctions did not stop them.  But President Barack Hussein Obama's appeasement not only is helping Iran, he is pleased with the progress they achieved.  Along with forcing Israel into the Auschwitz Borders, Obama is well underway to appease his Muslim masters and destroy the West in the process.  For after all  Obama has been in communications with Iran, capitulating to their demands, and accepting the fact that Iran not only has a nuclear weapon, but will attack Israel with the weapon while the world stands by as they finish the job Hitler started.

August 6

On this date in 1945, the Enola Gay

Dropped this Fat Boy

On this city

Turning it into this

And its people into this

Today the nation of Iran is working day and night to build this

To drop on this nation

And have its people turned into this

Right now it is not a question of if Iran will develop Nuclear Weapons, but when.  And Obama does NOT have the will or the inclination to stop Iran from developing them.

Only God and prayer will stop Iran.  And add a prayer for the survivors of August 6, too.

Obama Brokering Deal To Contain Nuclear Iran?

Stolen from Faultline USA

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Just a few days ago, we published a piece entitled: "Get Ready for a Nuclear Iran."  The thrust of the piece was that Obama will not make any attempt to stop Iran from developing an atomic bomb or a missile delivery system for nuclear warheads, but will, in fact, allow Iran to continue their endeavor for nuclear weapons.  We hypothesized in that commentary that Obama was developing a strategy of "containment" of a nuclear Iran -- because he knows he is not going to make an attempt to stop them and indeed, doesn't want Israel to stop them, either.

Here is just a snippet of what we said in that writing:  "...  it provides no comfort knowing that Iran is closing on its desire to have its very own nuclear bomb, which it intends to drop on Israel and the United States at the earliest opportunity.


It should come as no surprise when the Obama administration rolls out their plans for "containment of a nuclear Iran."  Many have felt for some time that was Obama's ultimate goal all the while. Understand: The Arab nations are scared witless of the Persian nation. If Iran is allowed to possess a nuclear bomb, expect all the Arab nations in the region to go nuclear almost overnight -- in self defense.  They won't waste time with developing their own nuclear programs, they will simply purchase nuclear bombs and missiles and be done with it.

Now -- allow me to ask you -- how much safer will YOU feel if and when the entire Middle East is armed to the teeth with nuclear bombs and missiles?" We encourage you to read the entire article at.

Today, Sunday May 5th, 2013, at Israelnationalnews.com there is an article by Gil Ronen  entitled:  "Israel'Opting to Contain' Nuclear Iran?" Report in Sunday Times says U.S. is brokering a deal between Israel, Saudis, Jordan, Turkey and UAE."

The opening paragraph of Mr. Ronen's pieces says the following:  "Israel is considering partnering with several Sunni-Muslim Arab states in a U.S.-brokered defense alliance that would be aimed at containing a nuclear Iran, the Sunday Times reported, citing an unnamed Israeli official." (Emphasis by underlining is mine.) SOURCE

If the Obama administration is seriously thinking they can be successful at containing a nuclear Iran, they are kidding themselves.  And it is a dangerous joke.

Look. The US has been attempting to "contain" Iran since the Carter administration and we see where that has gotten us.  Even today we have an iron wall of naval warships stationed just off shore of Iran.  We have forward deployed troops in neighboring countries on continuous alert. We have satellites, drones, recon aircraft of every kind, plus electronic surveillance 24-7, all aimed at containing a NON-nuclear Iran. Plus, all the sanctions on Iran by the UN.  It hasn't phased them, at all.

In an article at the Heritage Foundation website they plainly state the following:  "While the Obama Administration maintains that the military option is on the table, it has done little to convince Tehran that it is serious. If this trend continues, containment of a nuclear Iran will become the default option for the United States. Before this happens, the Administration should carefully weigh the costs, risks, benefits, and feasibility of such a policy."  (Emphasis by underlining is mine.)  SOURCE

The very same article goes on to say:  "The manifest failure of U.S. efforts to contain Iranian influence and deter attacks on Americans in the past 30 years should raise alarms about the much greater difficulty inherent in containing and deterring Tehran after it acquires nuclear weapons. To argue the merits of containment now that Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons is to argue for a policy that has been tried for decades— a policy that is now close to an enormous defeat because of the progress of Iran’s nuclear program."   SOURCE

Obama continues to promise, publicly anyway, that "all options are on the table."   That phrase is SUPPOSED to mean a military strike is an option.  The problem is -- nobody believes Obama anymore -- especially the mullahs in Iran.  Heck, I don't even believe him -- as you can plainly see from this commentary.

President Theodore Roosevelt is credited with saying:  "Walk softly -- and carry a BIG stick."  Mr. Obama would do well to heed Teddy's advice.  It is not helpful when the President publicly threatens to act when certain degrees of hostility have been reached by the offending force ... as in Obama's recent back-down when the Syrians boldly crossed the "red line" Obama, himself, imposed.

A Commander-in-Chief should never threaten unless he intends to act to back up his threat.  Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has now told the world that America's word cannot be trusted, that America issues empty threats, and Obama has underscored the belief by many nations around the globe today that America, today, is a nation of lions led by a sheep.

This bad, very bad.

*********************************************************************
Once Iran gets an nuke it is over. Does anyone really believe they will not use one (or more) on Israel at the first oppotunity.

Israel has few options left. But even a limited attack gives Israel (and the world) breathing room.

There Is Nothing You Can Do About It!

Is what President Barack Hussein Obama will demand of Israel when he visits on March 20th.  That is the word coming out from pre-visit meetings.

From Debka

President Barack Obama will visit Israel later this month, the 20th, even if Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu fails to put together a governing coalition beforehand. "We're going," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said at a briefing for reporters Friday, March 9. In answer to a question, he said, "The formation of the Israeli government is the responsibility of Prime Minister Netanyahu and other senior officials of the Israeli government..."

Secretary of state John Kerry thought otherwise when he skipped a visit to Israel as not worthwhile until a government is in place. (Netanyahu’s deadline for forming a government has been extended to March16.) debkafile reports from its Washington sources that President Obama’s calculations for making the trip are a lot more complicated than Kerry’s. According to some Israeli circles, none of them are good news for their country. He arrives less than a month after the last Six-Power (US, Russia, UK, France, China and Germany) nuclear discussions with Iran ended in Kazakhstan. After those talks, US and Western media trumpeted “an unusual sense of optimism” or more cautiously allowed “a faint and perhaps fleeting light at the end of one of the world’s most durable tunnels.”

Western sources predicted on the strength of these assessments that the follow-up to Kazakhstan in April, shortly after Obama’s talks in Jerusalem, would be devoted to “cementing that progress,” which translated into rewarding putative nuclear concessions by Iran with the easing of economic sanctions.

However, according to debkafile’s military and intelligence sources, this diplomatic fluff, while representing elation in Washington, London, Moscow, Paris and Berlin, caused serious disenchantment in Jerusalem, which viewed it as a smokescreen for concessions to, and not by, Iran.

They have found that the “fleeting light” appearing at the end of the Iranian nuclear tunnel obscures three dangerous US concessions to Tehran:

1. President Obama has given in to the Fordo uranium enrichment plant continuing to operate instead of shutting down, as demanded by Israel – even though its function is to turn out 20 percent pure (near-weapons grade) uranium;
2. He has even consented to the Iranians continuing to manufacture uranium to that level;
3. Washington has dropped its insistence on Iran sending out of the country its stocks of 3.5-5 percent enriched uranium.

With these gains, the Iranian negotiators must have been laughing all the way home from their talks with the six big powers on 26-27 of February and crowing over what one Israeli official called "Tehran’s huge success and Israel’s total defeat.”

Conscious of how these concessions to the Islamic Republic are received in Jerusalem, it is no wonder that President Obama brushed off the invitation to address the Israeli Knesset, where lawmakers would likely put him on the spot. He has chosen instead to deliver a speech at Jerusalem’s Convention Center, so as to deliver his message straight to the Israeli public.

By going over the heads of Israel’s government and parliament to face a less informed audience, he believes he can get away with sweet-talking his surrender to a nuclear Iran.

Former military intelligence chief, Amos Yadlin stepped in with a timely comment last week when he said that an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would be no more than a one-night operation.

So when Air Force One lands in Israel March 20 and Israeli dignitaries push forward to greet the US president, a small group of anonymous Air Force pilots will be watching from a distance, waiting for the order to fly out and carry out their mission in a single night.

After Jerusalem, President Obama continues to the Palestinian Authority and then Jordan.

It has long been suspected by many in Israel that President Obama's true agenda in the Middle East is the total destruction of Israel.  His behavior towards Netanyahu and the people of Israel has not been one of an close ally but of an lukewarm acquaintance.

President Barack Hussein Obama is more concerned with propping up the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, al-Quada in Libya, the rebels of Syria but not the democracy of Israel.  He is even in favor of allowing Iran to build an nuclear weapon or two.  Anything to appease the Muslims.

I wonder if Netanyahu will roll over and die this time or show the little tin-plated dictator the door.  I hope it will be the later, but know it will be the first one.

I Believe That The Little Dog Is Barking Too Much!

North Korea has no food for its people, no freedoms, no running water, electricity, or actual industry.  North Korea does have nuclear weapons and missiles.  2 commodities they sell all over the world to the world's nutcases and dictators.  (I know they are the same thing.)

Now North Korea is actually threatening to launch a nuclear attack on the United States.  Now normally this would be laughable at any other time.  North Korea has at the best 10 nuclear warheads while the United States has thousands of nuclear warheads.  But then again we have President Barack Hussein Obama.

North Korea is threatening the US with a nuclear attack, claiming it has long-range missiles with atomic warheads capable of reaching the American mainland.

The open threat appeared in an editorial posted this week on the country’s Uriminzokkiri state news and propaganda website, which recently posted a video depicting a North Korean dreaming of a nuclear attack on New York City and President Barack Obama in flames.

In the article written by a member of the “Korean National Peace Committee” the government claimed North Korea is a “fully independent rocket and nuclear weapons state.”

Moreover, “The United States should be acutely aware that the US mainland is now well within the range of our strategic rockets and nuclear weapons,” the editorial warned.

Although the threat is being taken seriously, analysts say Pyongyang still has far to go before it will be capable of carrying out such an attack.

Although North Korea successfully tested a small nuclear device last month, it must still be able to develop technology capable of protecting its equipment from being burned up upon re-entry into the atmosphere from space – “ an engineering challenge in itself,” according to the Russian RT news site.

“Without it, even a small nuclear device would not survive an intercontinental ballistic delivery system,” the website’s military writer observed, adding, “The Taepodong rocket is also far from perfect, as its only test in 2006 failed.”

The United Nations is currently discussing a resolution to impose additional sanctions on North Korea for its most recent nuclear test, the launch of a rocket into space that was more likely to have been a surreptitious test of a long-range ballistic missile.

Source

With any other President such an attack would result in a retaliatory strike that would level that nation to a glowing parking lot.  And China would do nothing to stop us.  But with Barack Hussein Obama we are assured that first he will talk to North Korea, then surrender to them.

Somebody must teach this upstart idiot Kim Jong-un a lesson in first manners than not to tempt a sleeping giant.  The Japanese learned that one the hard way.

Click here if the video will not load.

 I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.

--Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

It Is Official!

Sheik Barack Hussein Obama willingly allowed the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon.

How wonderful!  Instead of allowing the Israelis to destroy the program, Obama has facilitated the Iranian program.

From Debka:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told an Israeli TV interviewer Monday night, Jan. 14 that his government had spent billions of shekels to outfit Israel’s Defense Forces with offensive and defensive options which were hitherto lacking. He stressed Israel is obliged to be extremely strong – whether to stand up to the Iranian nuclear threat and the extremist Islamist wave lashing the Arab world – or to make peace.

Earlier Monday, Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz ceremonially installed Maj. Gen. Gady Eisenkott as deputy C.-of-S, after the state attorney had approved his taking up the post irregularly in the middle of an election campaign in view of Israel’s security situation. When the AG made that decision some days ago, a decision by Syrian President Bashar Assad to attack Israel with chemical weapons was taken into account as a possibility. Not that the danger is over, only that it was pushed into a quiet corner by the statements made last Friday, Jan. 11 by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint US Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey.

They explained at a joint news conference in Washington that if Assad chose to use his chemical stockpiles, it would be virtually impossible for US intelligence to detect it in advance or to stop him. “You would have to actually see it before it happened," said Dempsey.

However, not so longer ago, last August, the same Secretary Panetta and Defense Minister Ehud Barak said they were certain that if Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave the order to build a nuclear bomb, “…we will know it, we and you and some other intelligence services will know about it…”

However, the latest comment on the Syrian chemical threat also lets the cat out of the bag on another WMD menace lurking in wait for the region. Because, if US intelligence finds itself unable to detect an Assad order for a chemical attack, how can they be sure to know when Iran starts building a nuclear bomb? The answer is they can’t.

Anticipating this question, the Obama administration had its answer ready.

Monday, the Institute for Science and International Security’s president, David Albright, a proliferation expert who often represents thinking in US security and intelligence agencies, presented a 154-page report in Washington titled “Strategy for US Nonproliferation in the Changing Middle East” He was one of the co-chairs of this project which once again shifted all the way to mid-2014 the key timeline for Iran to be able “to produce enough weapon-grade uranium for one or bombs without detection by the West.”

President Barack Obama is obviously preparing for his second term in office a policy that lines up his Middle East unconventional weapons ducks - Syrian chemical and Iranian nuclear – under the same revised estimate. Contrary to previous official US statements, Albright now establishes that US intelligence is incapable of pinning down the moment when Iran starts assembling a nuclear bomb, any more than it can detect the Syrian order to embark on chemical warfare.

Therefore, a preemptive operation is out and people must get ready to wake up one morning to find Iran has carried out its first nuclear test, in the same way as they must expect to be surprised by Bashar Assad’s launch of a chemical attack. Only then, may Washington and Jerusalem begin wondering what to do.

But to stave off that moment, Obama still hopes the secret negotiations he initiated with Iran last month plus stiff sanctions (so for ineffective for slowing down Iran’s nuclear progress) will do the trick of holding Tehran back from building a bomb. Failing this result, the Albright report provides him – and Iran - with another eighteen months’ grace.

Debkafile’s military and intelligence sources affirm that this new estimate may be convenient for some but it is false: Iran already has enough enriched uranium – produced or procured - for building at least five nukes. This is no secret. Wednesday, Jan. 9, the Financial Times reported that a stock of 5 tonnes of un-enriched uranium, enough to produce weapons-grade fuel for five atomic devices, had gone missing in Syria and may have passed to Iran. The stock had been prepared for the nuclear reactor Bashar Assad was building at Al-Kibar in eastern Syria before it was destroyed by Israel in 2007. The information was based on British intelligence sources.

The nuances in Netanyahu’s current reference to the Iranian nuclear threat suggest that he too is aware of the new winds blowing in Washington. In his latest statement, he departed from his standard assertion that his government would not permit Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon and said instead: “The government which I head has invested billions to prepare the country for the Iranian threat.”

Sheik Obama has one policy for the Middle East. That is the total destruction of the State of Israel.  Now that the election is over and our glorious leader can dictate his desires to the world, it will be only a matter of time that not only Israel is destroyed, but the whole Jewish people will be destroyed to appease his Muslim masters.

Kept In The Dark To Let Iran Go Nuclear.

Once again Barack Hussein Obama is trying to throw Israel under the bus.  This time he is keeping Israel out of the loop and trying to have direct talks with Iran in order to stop Iran's nuclear program.

U.S. President Barack Obama plans to soon propose to Iran that it negotiate directly with the Americans about its nuclear program, Channel 10 News reported on Tuesday.

The report, which cited a senior American official, said that Obama's move was made without any coordination or consultation with Israel.

According to the report, the Americans probably will allow a period of four to five months for negotiations with Tehran. If the talks fail, they may then resort to the military option. As well, Obama is planning to set preconditions for contacts with the Islamic Republic, including that it halt its uranium enrichment and agree to allow external monitoring of its nuclear facilities.

This is not the first time that Israel and the United States do not see eye to eye on the issue of Iran arming itself with nuclear weapons, but this is the first time that action was taken at such a high level of importance without informing Israel, noted Channel 10.

According to Channel 10, the White House believes that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is personally responsible for the leaks to the media of the IAEA report on the Iranian nuclear program, as was reported by the British Guardian on Monday.

The Guardian report indicated that Israel is suspected of carrying out a series of leaks implicating Iran in nuclear weapons experiments, in an attempt to raise international pressure on Tehran and halt its nuclear program.

The report said that Western diplomats believe the leaks may have backfired, compromising a UN-sanctioned investigation into Iran's past nuclear activities and current aspirations.

The latest leak, published by the Associated Press (AP), purported to be an Iranian diagram showing the physics of a nuclear blast, but scientists quickly pointed out an elementary mistake that cast doubt on its significance and authenticity.

The IAEA has accused Iranian authorities of undermining its effort to probe suspected nuclear weapons research at the Parchin facility by carrying out possible clean-up operations.

The head of the UN agency, Yukiya Amano, said last week that despite the clean-up, inspections at the military complex near Tehran would be "very useful".

In October, weeks before the presidential election in the U.S., it was reported that the United States and Iran had agreed, for the first time, to hold one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program.

One senior administration official said that the Iranians have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.

The White House, however, quickly denied the report.

Source

Secret talks with Iran to be held for 4 to 5 months.  Just enough time for Iran to build a bomb.  Enough time to give Iran the time they need to complete their project.  This will not stop Iran from a nuclear weapon, but insures that Iran achieves their goal.  A goal Obama has had as his goal from Day 1.  Obama's true goal is the destruction of Israel.  It is a thorn in his side and Obama has been a Palestinian support since the 1980's.

Israel will attack Iran if she thinks Iran is getting close to achieving their goal of a nuclear weapon.  They will attack whether Obama approves or not.  Netanyahu will do what is necessary to protect the land and people of Israel.  It is his duty as Prime Minister to do that.

Obama will awaken one morning to either Iran testing a nuke or Israel attacking Iran.  I pray it is the latter and not the former.

The Final Betrayal!

If the reports are correct then President Barack Hussein Obama has finally been able to throw Israel under the bus and is going to allow Iran to acquire a Nuclear Weapon.  A weapon that Iran WILL use to destroy Israel entirely.

WASHINGTON — The United States and Iran have agreed for the first time to one-on-one negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program, according to Obama administration officials, setting the stage for what could be a last-ditch diplomatic effort to avert a military strike on Iran.

Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election, a senior administration official said, telling their American counterparts that they want to know with whom they would be negotiating.

News of the agreement — a result of intense, secret exchanges between American and Iranian officials that date almost to the beginning of President Obama’s term — comes at a critical moment in the presidential contest, just two weeks before Election Day and the weekend before the final debate, which is to focus on national security and foreign policy.

It has the potential to help Mr. Obama make the case that he is nearing a diplomatic breakthrough in the decade-long effort by the world’s major powers to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, but it could pose a risk if Iran is seen as using the prospect of the direct talks to buy time.

It is also far from clear that Mr. Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, would go through with the negotiation should he win election. Mr. Romney has repeatedly criticized the president as showing weakness on Iran and failing to stand firmly with Israel against the Iranian nuclear threat.

Reports of the agreement have circulated among a small group of diplomats involved with Iran.

There is still a chance the initiative could fall through, even if Mr. Obama is re-elected. Iran has a long history of using the promise of diplomacy to ease international pressure on it. In this case, American officials said they were uncertain whether Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had signed off on the effort. The American understandings have been reached with senior Iranian officials who report to him, an administration official said.

Even if the two sides sit down, American officials worry that Iran could prolong the negotiations to try to forestall military action and enable it to complete critical elements of its nuclear program, particularly at underground sites. Some American officials would like to limit the talks to Iran’s nuclear program, one official said, while Iran has indicated that it wants to broaden the agenda to include Syria, Bahrain and other issues that have bedeviled relations between Iran and the United States since the American hostage crisis in 1979.

“We’ve always seen the nuclear issue as independent,” the administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter. “We’re not going to allow them to draw a linkage.”

The question of how best to deal with Iran has political ramifications for Mr. Romney as well. While he has accused Mr. Obama of weakness, he has given few specifics about what he would do differently.

Moreover, the prospect of one-on-one negotiations could put Mr. Romney in an awkward spot, since he has opposed allowing Iran to enrich uranium to any level — a concession that experts say will probably figure in any deal on the nuclear program.

Beyond that, how Mr. Romney responds could signal how he would act if he becomes commander in chief. The danger of opposing such a diplomatic initiative is that it could make him look as if he is willing to risk another American war in the Middle East without exhausting alternatives.

“It would be unconscionable to go to war if we haven’t had such discussions,” said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with Iran as under secretary of state in the George W. Bush administration.

Iran’s nuclear program “is the most difficult national security issue facing the United States,” Mr. Burns said, adding: “While we should preserve the use of force as a last resort, negotiating first with Iran makes sense. What are we going to do instead? Drive straight into a brick wall called war in 2013, and not try to talk to them?”

The administration, officials said, has begun an internal review at the State Department, the White House and the Pentagon to determine what the United States’ negotiating stance should be, and what it would put in any offer. One option under consideration is “more for more” — more restrictions on Iran’s enrichment activities in return for more easing of sanctions.

Israeli officials initially expressed an awareness of, and openness to, a diplomatic initiative. But when asked for a response on Saturday, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael B. Oren, said the administration had not informed Israel, and that the Israeli government feared Iran would use new talks to “advance their nuclear weapons program.”

“We do not think Iran should be rewarded with direct talks,” Mr. Oren said, “rather that sanctions and all other possible pressures on Iran must be increased.”

Direct talks would also have implications for an existing series of negotiations involving a coalition of major powers, including the United States. These countries have imposed sanctions to pressure Iran over its nuclear program, which Tehran insists is for peaceful purposes but which Israel and many in the West believe is aimed at producing a weapon.

Dennis B. Ross, who oversaw Iran policy for the White House until early 2012, says one reason direct talks would make sense after the election is that the current major-power negotiations are bogged down in incremental efforts, which may not achieve a solution in time to prevent a military strike.

Mr. Ross said the United States could make Iran an “endgame proposal,” under which Tehran would be allowed to maintain a civil nuclear power industry. Such a deal would resolve, in one stroke, issues like Iran’s enrichment of uranium and the monitoring of its nuclear facilities.

Within the administration, there is debate over just how much uranium the United States would allow Iran to enrich inside the country. Among those involved in the deliberations, an official said, are Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, two of her deputies — William J. Burns and Wendy Sherman — and key White House officials, including the national security adviser, Thomas E. Donilon, and two of his lieutenants, Denis R. McDonough and Gary Samore.

Iran’s capacity to enrich uranium bears on another key difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney: whether to tolerate Iran’s enrichment program short of producing a nuclear weapon, as long as inspectors can keep a close eye on it, versus prohibiting Iran from enriching uranium at all. Obama administration officials say they could imagine some circumstances under which low-level enrichment might be permitted; Mr. Romney has said that would be too risky.

But Mr. Romney’s position has shifted back and forth. In September, he told ABC News that his “red line” on Iran was the same as Mr. Obama’s — that Iran may not have a nuclear weapon. But his campaign later edited its Web site to include the line, “Mitt Romney believes that it is unacceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons capability.” He repeated that in a speech at Virginia Military Institute this month.

For years, Iran has rejected one-on-one talks with the United States, reflecting what experts say are internal power struggles. A key tug of war is between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Larijani, Iran’s former nuclear negotiator and now the chairman of the Parliament.

Iran, which views its nuclear program as a vital national interest, has also shied away from direct negotiations because the ruling mullahs did not want to appear as if they were sitting down with a country they have long demonized as the Great Satan.

But economic pressure may be forcing their hand. In June, when the major powers met in Moscow, American officials say that Iran was desperate to stave off a crippling European oil embargo. After that failed, these officials now say, Iranian officials delivered a message to their American counterparts that Tehran would be willing to sit down for one-on-one talks.

At the United Nations in September, Mr. Ahmadinejad hinted as much, describing the reasoning to American journalists. “Experience has shown that important and key decisions are not made in the U.S. leading up to the national elections,” he said.

A senior American official said that the prospect of direct talks is why there has not been another meeting of the major-powers group on Iran.

In the meantime, pain from the sanctions has deepened. Iran’s currency, the rial, plummeted 40 percent in early October.

Even with possible negotiations in the offing, there is no evidence Iran has slowed its fuel production. It continues to make nuclear fuel and has refused to allow international inspectors into key sites. Any negotiation with Iran, American officials say, would have to include highly intrusive inspection regimes.

Source

For Obama it would be a "justification" of his Nobel Peace Prize and the winning move in the election.  For Iran it is an end to the sanctions without having to stop enriching uranium.  Obama is their perfect patsy.  And the people of Israel will not only be shoved under the bus, but irradiated to oblivion.

No wonder Obama didn't want to meet with Bibi Netanyahu.  And will Netanyahu go along with this betrayal or will he attack Iran on his own.

Either way, if true this just might give Obama the election.

Last Warnings From Israel

Yesterday Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu came to New York and spoke for over 30 minutes to the General Assembly of the United Nations.  In that talk he reminded the world that Jews have lived in the Land of Israel for over 3000 years, that Israel is known for its humanitarian works and that Iran IS building a nuclear weapon.  A weapon they won't hesitate to use on Israel, the US, and/or Europe.





Here is the transcript:

Thank you very much Mr. President. It's a pleasure to see the General Assembly presided by the Ambassador from Israel, and it's good to see all of you, distinguished delegates. Ladies and Gentlemen,

Three thousand years ago, King David reigned over the Jewish state in our eternal capital, Jerusalem. I say that to all those who proclaim that the Jewish state has no roots in our region and that it will soon disappear.

Throughout our history, the Jewish people have overcome all the tyrants who have sought our destruction. It's their ideologies that have been discarded by history.

The people of Israel live on. We say in Hebrew Am Yisrael Chai, and the Jewish state will live forever.

The Jewish people have lived in the land of Israel for thousands of years. Even after most of our people were exiled from it, Jews continued to live in the land of Israel throughout the ages. The masses of our people never gave up the dreamed of returning to our ancient homeland.

Defying the laws of history, we did just that. We ingathered the exiles, restored our independence and rebuilt our national life. The Jewish people have come home. We will never be uprooted again.

Yesterday was Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year. Every year, for over three millennia, we have come together on this day of reflection and atonement. We take stock of our past. We pray for our future. We remember the sorrows of our persecution; we remember the great travails of our dispersion; we mourn the extermination of a third of our people, six million, in the Holocaust. But at the end of Yom Kippur, we celebrate.

We celebrate the rebirth of Israel. We celebrate the heroism of our young men and women who have defended our people with the indomitable courage of Joshua, David, and the Maccabees of old. We celebrate the marvel of the flourishing modern Jewish state.

In Israel, we walk the same paths tread by our patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. But we blaze new trails in science, technology, medicine, agriculture. In Israel, the past and the future find common ground.

Unfortunately, that is not the case in many other countries. For today, a great battle is being waged between the modern and the medieval.

The forces of modernity seek a bright future in which the rights of all are protected, in which an ever-expanding digital library is available in the palm of every child, in which every life is sacred.

The forces of medievalism seek a world in which women and minorities are subjugated, in which knowledge is suppressed, in which not life but death is glorified. These forces clash around the globe, but nowhere more starkly than in the Middle East.

Israel stands proudly with the forces of modernity. We protect the rights of all our citizens: men and women, Jews and Arabs, Muslims and Christians – all are equal before the law.

Israel is also making the world a better place: our scientists win Nobel Prizes. Our know-how is in every cell-phone and computer that you're using. We prevent hunger by irrigating arid lands in Africa and Asia.

Recently, I was deeply moved when I visited Technion, one of our technological institutes in Haifa, and I saw a man paralyzed from the waist down climb up a flight of stairs, quite easily, with the aid of an Israeli invention.

And Israel's exceptional creativity is matched by our people's remarkable compassion. When disaster strikes anywhere in the world – in Haiti, Japan, India, Turkey Indonesia and elsewhere – Israeli doctors are among the first on the scene, performing life-saving surgeries.

In the past year, I lost both my father and my father-in-law. In the same hospital wards where they were treated, Israeli doctors were treating Palestinian Arabs. In fact, every year, thousands of Arabs from the Palestinian territories and Arabs from throughout the Middle East come to Israel to be treated in Israeli hospitals by Israeli doctors.

I know you're not going to hear that from speakers around this podium, but that's the truth. It's important that you are aware of this truth. It’s because Israel cherishes life, that Israel cherishes peace and seeks peace.

We seek to preserve our historic ties and our historic peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. We seek to forge a durable peace with the Palestinians.

President Abbas just spoke here. I say to him and I say to you:

We won't solve our conflict with libelous speeches at the UN. That's not the way to solve it. We won't solve our conflict with unilateral declarations of statehood.

We have to sit together, negotiate together, and reach a mutual compromise, in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the one and only Jewish State.

Israel wants to see a Middle East of progress and peace. We want to see the three great religions that sprang forth from our region – Judaism, Christianity and Islam – coexist in peace and in mutual respect.

Yet the medieval forces of radical Islam, whom you just saw storming the American embassies throughout the Middle East, they oppose this.

They seek supremacy over all Muslims. They are bent on world conquest. They want to destroy Israel, Europe, America. They want to extinguish freedom. They want to end the modern world.

Militant Islam has many branches – from the rulers of Iran with their Revolutionary Guards to Al Qaeda terrorists to the radical cells lurking in every part of the globe. But despite their differences, they are all rooted in the same bitter soil of intolerance. That intolerance is directed first at their fellow Muslims, and then to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, secular people, anyone who doesn't submit to their unforgiving creed.

They want to drag humanity back to an age of unquestioning dogma and unrelenting conflict. I am sure of one thing. Ultimately they will fail. Ultimately, light will penetrate the darkness. We've seen that happen before.

Some five hundred years ago, the printing press helped pry a cloistered Europe out of a dark age. Eventually, ignorance gave way to enlightenment.

So too, a cloistered Middle East will eventually yield to the irresistible power of freedom and technology. When this happens, our region will be guided not by fanaticism and conspiracy, but by reason and curiosity.

I think the relevant question is this: it's not whether this fanaticism will be defeated. It's how many lives will be lost before it's defeated. We've seen that happen before too.

Some 70 years ago, the world saw another fanatic ideology bent on world conquest. It went down in flames. But not before it took millions of people with it. Those who opposed that fanaticism waited too long to act. In the end they triumphed, but at an horrific cost.

My friends, we cannot let that happen again.

At stake is not merely the future of my own country. At stake is the future of the world. Nothing could imperil our common future more than the arming of Iran with nuclear weapons.

To understand what the world would be like with a nuclear-armed Iran, just imagine the world with a nuclear-armed Al-Qaeda.

It makes no difference whether these lethal weapons are in the hands of the world's most dangerous terrorist regime or the world's most dangerous terrorist organization. They're both fired by the same hatred; they're both driven by the same lust for violence.

Just look at what the Iranian regime has done up till now, without nuclear weapons. In 2009, they brutally put down mass protests for democracy in their own country. Today, their henchmen are participating in the slaughter of tens of thousands of Syrian civilians, including thousands of children, directly participating in this murder.

They abetted the killing of American soldiers in Iraq and continue to do so in Afghanistan. Before that, Iranian proxies killed hundreds of American troops in Beirut and in Saudi Arabia. They've turned Lebanon and Gaza into terror strongholds, embedding nearly 100,000 missiles and rockets in civilian areas. Thousands of these rockets and missiles have already been fired at Israeli communities by their terrorist proxies.

In the last year, they've spread their international terror networks to two dozen countries across five continents – from India and Thailand to Kenya and Bulgaria. They've even plotted to blow up a restaurant a few blocks from the White House in order to kill a diplomat.

And of course, Iran's rulers repeatedly deny the Holocaust and call for Israel's destruction almost on a daily basis, as they did again this week from the United Nations.

So I ask you, given this record of Iranian aggression without nuclear weapons, just imagine Iranian aggression with nuclear weapons. Imagine their long range missiles tipped with nuclear warheads, their terror networks armed with atomic bombs. Who among you would feel safe in the Middle East? Who would be safe in Europe? Who would be safe in America? Who would be safe anywhere?

There are those who believe that a nuclear-armed Iran can be deterred like the Soviet Union. That's a very dangerous assumption. Militant Jihadists behave very differently from secular Marxists. There were no Soviet suicide bombers. Yet Iran produces hordes of them.

Deterrence worked with the Soviets, because every time the Soviets faced a choice between their ideology and their survival, they chose their survival. But deterrence may not work with the Iranians once they get nuclear weapons.

There's a great scholar of the Middle East, Prof. Bernard Lewis, who put it best. He said that for the Ayatollahs of Iran, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent, it's an inducement. Iran's apocalyptic leaders believe that a medieval holy man will reappear in the wake of a devastating Holy War, thereby ensuring that their brand of radical Islam will rule the earth. That's not just what they believe. That's what is actually guiding their policies and their actions.

Just listen to Ayatollah Rafsanjani who said, I quote:

"The use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything, however it would only harm the Islamic world."

Rafsanjani said: "It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality."

Not irrational… And that's coming from one of the so-called moderates of Iran.

Shockingly, some people have begun to peddle the absurd notion that a nuclear-armed Iran would actually stabilize the Middle East.

Yeah, right…That's like saying a nuclear-armed Al-Qaeda would usher in an era of universal peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I've been speaking about the need to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons for over 15 years. I spoke about it in my first term in office as Prime Minister, and then I spoke about it when I left office. I spoke about it when it was fashionable, and I spoke about it when it wasn't fashionable.

I speak about it now because the hour is getting late, very late. I speak about it now because the Iranian nuclear calendar doesn't take time out for anyone or for anything. I speak about it now because when it comes to the survival of my country, it's not only my right to speak; it's my duty to speak. And I believe that this is the duty of every responsible leader who wants to preserve world peace.

For nearly a decade, the international community has tried to stop the Iranian nuclear program with diplomacy.

That hasn't worked.

Iran uses diplomatic negotiations as a means to buy time to advance its nuclear program.

For over seven years, the international community has tried sanctions with Iran. Under the leadership of President Obama, the international community has passed some of the strongest sanctions to date.

I want to thank the governments represented here that have joined in this effort. It's had an effect. Oil exports have been curbed and the Iranian economy has been hit hard. It's had an effect on the economy, but we must face the truth. Sanctions have not stopped Iran's nuclear program either.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, during the last year alone, Iran has doubled the number of centrifuges in its underground nuclear facility in Qom.

At this late hour, there is only one way to peacefully prevent Iran from getting atomic bombs. That's by placing a clear red line on Iran's nuclear weapons program. Red lines don't lead to war; red lines prevent war.

Look at NATO's charter: it made clear that an attack on one member country would be considered an attack on all. NATO's red line helped keep the peace in Europe for nearly half a century.

President Kennedy set a red line during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That red line also prevented war and helped preserve the peace for decades.

In fact, it's the failure to place red lines that has often invited aggression.

If the Western powers had drawn clear red lines during the 1930s, I believe they would have stopped Nazi aggression and World War II might have been avoided. In 1990, if Saddam Hussein had been clearly told that his conquest of Kuwait would cross a red line, the first Gulf War might have been avoided.

Clear red lines have also worked with Iran.

Earlier this year, Iran threatened to close the Straits of Hormouz. The United States drew a clear red line and Iran backed off. Red lines could be drawn in different parts of Iran's nuclear weapons program. But to be credible, a red line must be drawn first and foremost in one vital part of their program: on Iran's efforts to enrich uranium. Now let me explain why:

Basically, any bomb consists of explosive material and a mechanism to ignite it. The simplest example is gunpowder and a fuse. That is, you light the fuse and set off the gunpowder.

In the case of Iran's plans to build a nuclear weapon, the gunpowder is enriched uranium. The fuse is a nuclear detonator.

For Iran, amassing enough enriched uranium is far more difficult than producing the nuclear fuse.

For a country like Iran, it takes many, many years to enrich uranium for a bomb. That requires thousands of centrifuges spinning in tandem in very big industrial plants. Those Iranian plants are visible and they're still vulnerable. In contrast, Iran could produce the nuclear detonator – the fuse – in a lot less time, maybe under a year, maybe only a few months. The detonator can be made in a small workshop the size of a classroom. It may be very difficult to find and target that workshop, especially in Iran. That's a country that's bigger than France, Germany, Italy and Britain combined. The same is true for the small facility in which they could assemble a warhead or a nuclear device that could be placed in a container ship. Chances are you won't find that facility either.

So in fact the only way that you can credibly prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, is to prevent Iran from amassing enough enriched uranium for a bomb. So, how much enriched uranium do you need for a bomb? And how close is Iran to getting it?

Let me show you. I brought a diagram for you. Here's the diagram.

**************

This is a bomb; this is a fuse.

In the case of Iran's nuclear plans to build a bomb, this bomb has to be filled with enough enriched uranium. And Iran has to go through three stages.

The first stage: they have to enrich enough of low enriched uranium.

The second stage: they have to enrich enough medium enriched uranium.

And the third stage and final stage: they have to enrich enough high enriched uranium for the first bomb.

Where's Iran? Iran's completed the first stage. It took them many years, but they completed it and they're 70% of the way there.

Now they are well into the second stage. By next spring, at most by next summer at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment and move on to the final stage.

From there, it's only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.

*****************

Ladies and Gentlemen,

What I told you now is not based on secret information. It's not based on military intelligence. It's based on public reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Anybody can read them. They're online.

So if these are the facts, and they are, where should the red line be drawn?

The red line should be drawn right here …………..

Before Iran completes the second stage of nuclear enrichment necessary to make a bomb. Before Iran gets to a point where it's a few months away or a few weeks away from amassing enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon. Each day, that point is getting closer. That's why I speak today with such a sense of urgency. And that's why everyone should have a sense of urgency.

Some who claim that even if Iran completes the enrichment process, even if it crosses that red line that I just drew, our intelligence agencies will know when and where Iran will make the fuse, assemble the bomb, and prepare the warhead. Look, no one appreciates our intelligence agencies more than the Prime Minister of Israel. All these leading intelligence agencies are superb, including ours. They've foiled many attacks. They've saved many lives. But they are not foolproof.

For over two years, our intelligence agencies didn't know that Iran was building a huge nuclear enrichment plant under a mountain.

Do we want to risk the security of the world on the assumption that we would find in time a small workshop in a country half the size of Europe?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The relevant question is not when Iran will get the bomb. The relevant question is at what stage can we no longer stop Iran from getting the bomb.

The red line must be drawn on Iran's nuclear enrichment program because these enrichment facilities are the only nuclear installations that we can definitely see and credibly target. I believe that faced with a clear red line, Iran will back down. This will give more time for sanctions and diplomacy to convince Iran to dismantle its nuclear weapons program altogether. Two days ago, from this podium, President Obama reiterated that the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran cannot be contained. I very much appreciate the President's position as does everyone in my country. We share the goal of stopping Iran's nuclear weapons program. This goal unites the people of Israel. It unites Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike and it is shared by important leaders throughout the world.

What I have said today will help ensure that this common goal is achieved. Israel is in discussions with the United States over this issue, and I am confident that we can chart a path forward together.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The clash between modernity and medievalism need not be a clash between progress and tradition. The traditions of the Jewish people go back thousands of years. They are the source of our collective values and the foundation of our national strength. At the same time, the Jewish people have always looked towards the future. Throughout history, we have been at the forefront of efforts to expand liberty, promote equality, and advance human rights. We champion these principles not despite of our traditions but because of them. We heed the words of the Jewish prophets Isaiah, Amos, and Jeremiah to treat all with dignity and compassion, to pursue justice and cherish life and to pray and strive for peace. These are the timeless values of my people and these are the Jewish people's greatest gift to mankind.

Let us commit ourselves today to defend these values so that we can defend our freedom and protect our common civilization.

Thank you.

Binyamin Netanyahu spoke the truth very well when he said this was a war between the forces of modernity vs. the forces of the medieval.  In other words, the forces of civilization vs barbarity.

We need to pray that civilization wins over barbarity or the world we should have, the world of freedom will be gone, possibly forever.

I am mystified why Obama won't meet with Netanyahu face to face, but pray that we remove Obama from office on November 6th and replace him with one who understands what is actually at stake.

It's Just Noise

Thus speaks President Barack Hussein Obama about the warnings Bibi Netanyahu has been giving the world about the speed of the Iranian nuclear program.

U.S. President Barack Obama on Sunday likened Israeli pressure on him to draw a clear “red line” over Iran's nuclear ambitions to "noise" he tries to ignore, AFP reports.

Interviewed for Sunday's edition of "60 Minutes" on broadcaster CBS, Obama said he understands and agrees with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's insistence that Iran not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons as this would threaten both countries, the world in general, and kick off an arms race.

At the same time, however, he added, “When it comes to our national security decisions – any pressure that I feel is simply to do what's right for the American people. And I am going to block out -- any noise that's out there.”

Obama then said, “Now I feel an obligation, not pressure but obligation, to make sure that we're in close consultation with the Israelis—on these issues. Because it affects them deeply. They're one of our closest allies in the region. And we’ve got an Iranian regime that has said horrible things that directly threaten Israel’s existence.”

The comments come after a rise in tensions between Obama and Netanyahu over Iran. Netanyahu has demanded that the U.S. set clear “red lines” that Iran cannot cross in its campaign to obtain nuclear weapons.

Obama rejected the idea of placing “red lines” for Iran during a phone conversation with Netanyahu two weeks ago, and received backing from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who said that red lines “are kind of political arguments that are used to try to put people in a corner.”

On Thursday, the United States sternly warned Iran that “time is running out” for its unsupervised nuclear program, in what may have been thinly-veiled support for Netanyahu’s “red line” demands.

"We will not engage in an endless process of negotiations that fail to produce any results. We must therefore remain clear and united in seeking resolution of the international community's concerns regarding Iran's nuclear program. Time is wasting," Ambassador Rice said told a United Nations Security Council meeting on nuclear sanctions against Iran.

She added, "Iran's approach remains to deny, to deceive and distract.”

Meanwhile, Obama's contender for the presidency, Republican Mitt Romney, said Obama’s behavior was no way to treat an ally.

The decision not to meet with Netanyahu on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, he said, also in an interview with "60 minutes", "is a mistake and sends a message throughout the Middle East that somehow we distance ourselves from our friends and I think the exact opposite approach is what's necessary."

A spokeswoman for Romney's campaign, Andrea Saul, argued that Obama's reference to Israel as "one of our closest allies in the region" was unacceptable. "This is just the latest evidence of his chronic disregard for the security of our closest ally in the Middle East," Saul said, according to AFP. "Romney strongly believes that Israel is our most important ally in the Middle East and ...as president, Governor Romney will restore and protect the close alliance between our nation and the state of Israel."

Source

Barack Hussein Obama has time to be on Letterman, Visit with a doped up Pimp, visit with Whoopie Goldberg, but not to speak with Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Don't count Israel out.  But do count Obama out, especially after Israel destroys the Iranian nuclear sites.

Shut Up And Do What You Are Told And Arab Winter: Kill The Americans

Is what has been told to Prime Minister Netanyahu by Barack Hussein Obama and the members of his regime.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is making it clear that Israel will not wait to take out Iranian nuclear facilities.

In heated comments toward the United States, the Israeli prime minister said that it’s becoming clear that diplomacy will not work with Iran.

“The world tells Israel, `Wait. There’s still time,’” Netanyahu said Tuesday, according to The Associated Press. “And I say: `Wait for what? Wait until when?’ Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”

The Obama administration has consistently stated that they don’t want to go the military route against Iran and give more time for the sanctions to force Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Netanyahu worries Iran will continue developing nuclear technology without giving the Islamic nation a firm timeline to stop.

“If Iran knows that there is no deadline, what will it do? Exactly what it’s doing. It’s continuing, without any interference, towards obtaining nuclear weapons capability and from there, nuclear bombs,” he said, according to Haaertz.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak tried to downplay the harsh rhetoric, saying in a statement to Haaertz that the tension between the U.S. and Israel should be ironed out “behind closed doors.”

Source

I am waiting on the day Iran tests a nuclear bomb and Obama goes "Oops!"  What "fun" that will be.  When asked to meet with President Obama, Netanyahu was told that President Obama is too busy, but he will be appearing on Letterman that day.

The White House has turned down an offer by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to meet with President Obama later this month, U.S. and Israeli officials confirmed to Fox News.

Though the White House is citing scheduling conflicts, the chilly reception is sure to be seen as a snub among Israel’s biggest defenders – and it comes amid a state of heightened alert over Iran’s nuclear program and the possibility of Israeli action.

Sources said Netanyahu, though he plans to be in New York City during his brief stay, was offering to travel to D.C. to make the meeting happen. However, the White House apparently said Obama’s tight schedule – the president is in the middle of a feverish campaign run -- would make a meeting difficult.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor later confirmed to Fox News that Obama is not expected to meet with Netanyahu, though insisted it was just a scheduling problem. He said Obama will be at the United Nations on Sept. 24 and leave the following day, while Netanyahu won’t be in the city until later in the week.

“They're simply not in the city at the same time,” Vietor said.

He also said Netanyahu and Obama are in “frequent contact,” and that Netanyahu has instead been offered meetings with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other top officials.

In addition, a senior administration official told Fox News that the president will be addressing the U.N. General Assembly and the Clinton Global Initiative when in New York. But he will not be having one-on-one meetings with world leaders so this should not be seen as a snub of Netanyahu.

But the turn-down comes amid increasing international anxiety about Iran’s nuclear program. The U.N. reportedly has found new intelligence showing Iran is moving toward nuclear weapon capability.

And the exchange between the White House and the prime minister’s office is the most recent in what is seen as a cool, if not strained, relationship between Obama and Netanyahu, despite Israel being considered one of the United State’s closest allies.

“I’m astounded that (Obama) cannot find the time,” former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said. “I don’t see it so much as a snub as a horrible, substantive mistake in American foreign policy.”

One well-placed Jewish-American leader told Fox News that the White House has not yet fully ruled out moving things around on the schedule to accommodate Netanyahu. But as of now, Obama is scheduled to be on the campaign trail during the window of time when Netanyahu can make it to Washington.

“Discussions are ongoing,” the source emphasized.

Asked about relations between the two men, the source acknowledged they “are not warm and fuzzy” and that there is “a lot of tension” between the two governments, given the gravity of the issues under consideration. But overall, the source said the alliance remains strong, particularly in terms of military-to-military cooperation, and even in day-to-day interactions “up to and including the prime minister.”

Republicans were quick, though, to pounce on the news.

“We are surprised and disappointed by reports that the White House has denied a request from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to meet with President Obama while he is visiting the United States,” said Republican Sens. John McCain, Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, S.C. “If these reports are true, the White House's decision sends a troubling signal to our ally Israel about America's commitment at this dangerous and challenging time, especially as Iran continues to work actively toward developing a nuclear weapons capability.”

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, tweeted: “How ironic that the #POTUS has time for high dollar $40K-a-head fundraiser with @JayZ and @Beyonce but not for the PM of Israel.”

The prime minister’s office told the White House that Netanyahu’s official visit will be short, starting on a Thursday and ending at sundown Friday because of the Sabbath.

He is staying in the U.S. through Sunday. One Israeli source said he “wouldn’t be surprised if things changed” regarding a meeting by the time Netanyahu arrives.

Netanyahu will still travel to speak at the United Nations headquarters.

Earlier on Tuesday, Netanyahu launched an unprecedented critique of the U.S. government and others over their stance on the Iranian nuclear program, according to the English-language news site Haaretz.

"The world tells Israel 'wait, there's still time,’” the site quotes Netanyahu as saying. “And I say, 'Wait for what? Wait until when?' Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel."

Obama has increased economic sanctions on Iran but has yet to define the so-called “red line” -- which, should Iran cross it, would theoretically result in military action.

"Now if Iran knows that there is no red line … what will it do?” Netanyahu asked Tuesday. “Exactly what it's doing. It's continuing, without any interference, towards obtaining nuclear weapons capability and from there, nuclear bombs."

Democrats upset Israel supporters last week when they removed language in the party platform that acknowledged Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

The president, though, had the words re-inserted and said in his acceptance speech that the country’s commitment to Israel's security “must not waver.”

“And neither must our pursuit of peace,” he continued.

Source

Clueless In DC

I cannot believe that President Barack Hussein Obama can be this naive.  In fact I cannot believe that any US President would be this naive.  But according to an interview with NBC news, President Obama said:  "I don't think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do. I think they, like us, believe that Iran has to stand down on its nuclear weapons program,"

WASHINGTON - US President Barack Obama said on Sunday that Israel has not yet decided how to respond to concerns about Iran's nuclear program and said there was no evidence that Iran has the "intentions or capabilities" to wage attacks on US soil.

Asked in an NBC interview whether Israel was set to attack Iran, Obama said: "I don't think that Israel has made a decision on what they need to do. I think they, like us, believe that Iran has to stand down on its nuclear weapons program," adding Israel and the United States would work "in lockstep" on Iran.

Obama, who is up for re-election in November, has ended the US war in Iraq and is seeking to wind down combat in Afghanistan amid growing public discontent about American war spending at a time when the economy remains weak.

The Democrat made clear on Sunday that he would not like to see more fighting in the oil-producing Persian Gulf region.

"Any kind of additional military activity inside the Gulf is disruptive and has a big effect on us. It could have a big effect on oil prices, we've still got troops in Afghanistan, which borders Iran, and so our preferred solution here is diplomatic," he said.

In the NBC interview, Obama stressed he was not taking any options off the table to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. "We're going to do everything we can to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and creating an arms race - a nuclear arms race - in a volatile region," he said.

Source

Obama cannot be this naive.  The window of oppotunity for Israel is closing fast and the Washington DC is NOT sitting under an Iranian Nuclear Bomb, Tel Aviv is.  A thing for all of us to remember in the weeks and months ahead.

The Last Day

Hat Tip to Israel Matzav

February 2013. An Iranian nuclear bomb hits Israel.



There are no words that can describe this short film, but given the policy of the Obama Regime and the UN it WILL happen!

Obama's Love Letter To Iran

No wonder the Obama regime is coming down hard on Israel and Netanyahu.  It seems that Barack Hussein Obama in an effort to justify his Nobel Peace Prize, has written his letter of appeasement to the Government of Iran.

The New York Times, citing U.S. government officials, wrote on January 12 that the Obama administration had sent a message to Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei warning that closing the Strait of Hormuz is a “red line” that would provoke a response by the United States.

Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Ramin Mehmanparast said on January 15 that U.S. officials had sent a message on the Strait of Hormuz to the Islamic Republic through three officials, noting, “Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, delivered a letter to Mohammad Khazaii, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s ambassador (to the UN). The Swiss ambassador to Tehran (Livia Leu Agosti) also conveyed the message, and Jalal Talabani, the Iraqi president, conveyed the message to officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran as well.”

Obama has called for negotiations

MP Ali Motahhari said on Wednesday, “In the letter, it has been stated that ‘closing the Strait of Hormuz is our red line’ and they have requested direct negotiations.”

“In the letter, Obama has announced readiness for negotiation and the resolution of mutual disagreements,” he added.

He went on to say that Obama uttered threats in the first part of the letter and talked about friendship and negotiation in the second part.

Obama says U.S. will not take hostile action against Iran

MP Hojjatoleslam Hossein Ebrahimi said on Wednesday, “Obama’s letter has several parts. Part of it is about this, (namely) that using international waterways is the right of all countries and all should benefit from them. And in this letter, he has described it as the United States’ red line.”

“In the letter, Obama has mentioned cooperation and negotiation based on the interests of the two countries,” Ebrahimi, who is the deputy chairman of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, told the Nasimonline news website.

“He has stated in the letter that they will not take any hostile action against the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he added.

Ebrahimi also said, “This is not the first time that Obama has sent a message and letter to the Islamic Republic of Iran. He has repeatedly spoken in a soft tone about the Islamic Republic of Iran, but, in practice, he has not acted accordingly.”

“Obama’s letter indicates that the United States has become afraid of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s might and has realized the point that an arrogant spirit is of no use, and therefore, he has softened his tone when speaking about the Islamic Republic of Iran,” he stated.

He added, “The important issue is that without the Islamic Republic of Iran’s permission, no country can benefit from the Persian Gulf.”

Iran responsible for maintaining security of Persian Gulf

Expediency Council Secretary Mohsen Rezaii also commented on the letter on Wednesday, saying, “Mr. Obama has written a cunning letter and intended to claim that the U.S. is responsible for maintaining the security of the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, while Iran itself is responsible for maintaining the security of this region.”

“We maintain the security of the region with the help of regional countries,” he said, adding, “There is no need for the presence of extra-regional forces to maintain the security of this region, and we believe that the presence of the United States and Britain mostly creates insecurity.”

If they “feel compassion” for regional countries and want to help them enhance security in the region, “I advise them to leave the region,” Rezaii stated.

Source

In this letter Obama calls for negotiations, never to attack Iran and remove all sanctions, finally gives the Persian Gulf to the Iranians.

We will not be told by the regime that the letter is a fraud.  But don't count on it.  This is just another part of Obama's foreign policy.  A policy that destroys our allies and awards our enemies.