Even though attack on Iranian nuke sites can’t completely destroy Them,
It Is Now Or Never For Israeli Prime Minister To Attack Iranian Nuke Sites,
And it is Possible This is Only Saber Rattling by Prime Minister Netanyahu,
But I do believe Iran will have several deliverable nuclear missiles in 2014,
Unless Israelis Attack Iranian Uranium Enrichment Sites IN 2012 OR 2013!
Iran wants Nukes as Deterrents but Israel isn’t likely to take that Gamble,
Because of their Closeness to the Iranian Satanic government East of Iraq,
Neither would America If Cubans had Missiles and were Enriching Uranium!
August 15, 2012
http://www.tribulationperiod.com/
Begin Quote from DEBKAfile DEBKA-Net-Weekly
Obama’s personal feud with Netanyahu over Iran
DEBKAfile DEBKA-Net-Weekly
August 14, 2012, 5:44 PM (GMT+02:00)
Barack Obama’s quarrel with Binyamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak is becoming more intense and personal the closer Israel comes to attacking Iran’s nuclear program before the US Nov. 6 vote.
Begin Excerpt 1 from DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
Iran can build an N-bomb by Oct. 1. Cairo coup hampers Israeli action
DEBKAfile Exclusive Report
August 13, 2012, 9:53 AM (GMT+02:00)
At its present rate of enrichment, Iran will have 250 kilograms of 20-percent grade uranium, exactly enough to build its first nuclear bomb, in roughly six weeks, and two-to- four bombs by early 2013, DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report.
Hence the leak by an unnamed Israeli security source Sunday, Aug. 12, disclosing Iran’s progress in developing the detonator and fuses for a nuclear warhead which can be fitted onto Shehab-3 ballistic missiles capable of reaching Israel.
Since 20 percent refined uranium is a short jump to weapons grade fuel, Iran will have the capability and materials for building an operational nuclear bomb by approximately October 1.
This knowledge is not news to US President Barack Obama, Saudi King Abdullah, Syrian ruler Bashar Assad, or Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu – and certainly not to Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Netanyahu’s comment at the opening of the weekly cabinet meeting Sunday: “All threats against the home front are dwarfed by one – Iran must not be allowed to have nuclear arms!” – was prompted by that deadline.
Ex-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert did not have that information when he “assured” Tel Aviv students Sunday, “Iran’s nuclear program has not reached the threshold necessitating Israeli action now or in the near future.” He further claimed that Israel’s “defense leaders” don’t subscribe to the view that “action now is unavoidable.” Olmert, who stepped down under a cloud of suspected corruption in 2009, has not since then had access to regular intelligence briefings on Iran. So either he spoke out of ignorance or willfully joined an opposition chorus of voices speaking out against Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak.
The fact is that when Olmert approved the Israeli strike for destroying a nuclear reactor under construction by Iran and North Korea in northern Syria in September 2007, Iran was years away from accumulating enough enriched uranium and the capability to build nuclear warheads.
Both are now within Tehran’s grasp in weeks.
Leading an opposition campaign to bring down the incumbent government is legitimate. Discrediting belated Israeli action to pre-empt a nuclear Iran as fodder for that campaign is not. If what Olmert and Barack (the same defense minister as today) did in 2007 was necessary then, action now for delaying Iran’s imminent “breakout” to a bomb is many times more necessary and far more urgent.
However Netanyahu and Barak have put themselves in a straitjacket by two lapses:*
* By foot-dragging on their decision for two years, they have led their opponents at home and in Washington – and Khamenei’s office too – to believe that, by turning on the heat, they can hold Israel back from military action against Iran’s nuclear program until it is too late. The time has been used not just for Iranian nuclear progress, but to enlist ex-politicians and retired generals at home and add them to the voices, especially in the White House, which believe Israel can learn to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.
* Netanyahu and Barak have behaved as though a decision on Iran is in their exclusive province, insulated from the turmoil and change swirling through Israel’s Arab neighbors in the past two years. But the Middle East has a way of catching up with and rushing past slow-moving politicians:
Sunday, at 10:00 a.m. Netanyahu warned his ministers that no threat was worse than a nuclear Iran. At 17:55 p.m., Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi dropped a bombshell in Cairo. In one fell swoop, he smashed the Egyptian military clique ruling the country for decades, sacked the Supreme Military Council running Egypt since March 2011 and cut the generals off from their business empire by appropriating the defense ministry and military industry.
That fateful eight hours-less-five-minutes have forced Israel’s leaders to take a second look at their plans for Iran.
Morsi’s lightning decisions were the finishing touches that proved the Islamist Bedouin terror attacks in Sinai of Aug. 5 fitted neatly into a secret master plan hatched by Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood to seize full control of rule in Cairo – a plan DEBKAfile first revealed exclusively last Friday, Aug. 10.
Netanyahu now faces one of the hardest dilemmas of his political career – whether to go forward with the Iran operation, which calls for mustering all Israel’s military and defense capabilities – especially for the repercussions, after being suddenly confronted with unforeseen security challenges on its southwestern border, for thirty years a frontier of peace.
The exceptional talents of Netanyahu and Barak to put off strategic decisions until they are overtaken by events has landed Israel in an especially perilous plight, surrounded now by a soon-to-be nuclear-armed Iran from the east; threatened Syrian chemical warfare from the north and the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt to its south.
Begin Excerpt 2 from YNet News
US: Israel can’t destroy Iran’s nuclear program
Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff says strike on Tehran’s atom facilities will only slow nuclear program down. Panetta says he ‘doesn’t believe’ Israel made a final decision on strike
Yitzhak Benhorin
August 14, 2012
WASHINGTON – A possible Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities may be able to hinder the Islamic Republic’s atom ambitions but it will not destroy its nuclear program, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday.
In a press briefing held in the pentagon, Dempsey and US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta were asked for their opinion of a recent media report suggesting Israel was closer than ever to undertaking a unilateral strike against Iran, and whether they believed such military action would be effective.
Related articles:
• Iran: If war breaks out, we’ll annihilate IDF
• Iran: Israel won’t launch ‘stupid’ attack
• Op-ed: A war that can’t be lost
Dempsey told reporters that “Militarily, my assessment hasn’t changed. And I want to make clear, I’m not privy to their planning. So what I’m telling you is based on what I know of their capabilities. And I may not know about all of their capabilities. But I think that it’s a fair characterization to say that they could delay but not destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities.”
Panetta, on his part, said that Israel has not informed the US of any immediate plans to that effect. “I’ve said this before, I’ll say it now – I don’t believe (Israel has) made a decision as to whether or not they will, they will go in and attack Iran at this time,” he said.
“Obviously, they’re an independent, sovereign country. They’ll ultimately make decisions based on what they think is in their national security interest. But I don’t believe they made that decision at this time.”
Panetta added that the US believes “there is room to continue to negotiate… The additional sanctions are beginning to have an additional impact on top of the other sanctions that have been placed there.
“The international community is strongly unified in opposition to Iran developing any kind of nuclear weapon,” he said.
“We are working together, both on the diplomatic side as well as on the economic side… The United States and the international community are going to continue to press because, as I said and I’ll continue to repeat – the prime minister of Israel said the same thing – that any kind of military action ought to be the last alternative, not the first.”
Washington, Panetta stressed, still believes that “the window is still open to try to work towards a diplomatic solution.”
“No one wants War”
As the debate over a possible strike on Iran grows heated, a top political source told Ynet Tuesday that “No one really wants a war. No one wants to strike. All this talk about a military strike has gotten too loud.”
A Jerusalem source ventured that the public debate vis-à-vis the United States is meant to lead to an unequivocal statement by Washington that will have a clear effect on Tehran.
“President Obama must present a new position on Iran in a very public and clear way – in a way that would convince the Iranians that he is serious about the military option,” a top political source said.
“He doesn’t need to convince Israel that he’s serious – he needs to convince Iran. The Iranians have to understand that they conduct will carry a price.”
The international community, he added “Must also exacerbate the sanctions further. The economic situation in Iran is dire, but it has yet to convince the regime to stop enriching uranium. A clear statement by Obama could change that.”
Attila Somfalvi contributed to this report
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more detailed information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
You may use material originated by this site. However, if you wish to use any quoted copyrighted material from this site, which did not originate at this site, for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner from which we extracted it.