Speaking today at the United Nations, Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shalev declared that Iran was “racing toward” becoming a nuclear power and that “it’s not a matter of years” anymore. She added that the decision to use military force against Iran was coming closer.
Though Israel has repeatedly accused Iran of speculative work toward a nuclear weapon, it has generally been with the understanding that Iran’s extremely limited civilian program would take years several years to be militarized and produce even a single weapon. The official position, it seems, has changed.
The change does not appear to be as a result of anything reality-based, however, as Shalev provided no evidence for the claim and the IAEA is continuing to verify that none of Iran’s civilian uranium is being diverted to any military purpose.
The comments come as the Obama Administration is seen as increasingly concerned that Israel is going to launch a unilateral attack against Iran, an attack which officials say will almost certainly be seen as American backed and do serious harm to the US position abroad.
At the same time, alarmist rhetoric about Iran is hardly new from Israel. In 2005 it was claimed by former Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom that Iran was six months from having the technology for a nuclear weapon. Four and a half years later, the speculation continues, but the real question is not if Iran is building a nuclear weapon, as the overwhelming evidence suggests that they are not, but if (possibly when) Israel will transition from threats to action.
How come its "okay" for Israel to have nuclear weapons?
You'd think some western leader, by now, would take the Israelis to one side and say… "hey… look, all this wingeing about Iran is getting on our tits….. jeesus! give it a rest before you give us all hemorrhoids."
And which western "leader" would you have in mind for this task? They're all bought long before they ever get to be "leaders" of any stature.
It was a French politician who once remarked how "such a little s—t country like Israel can cause so much trouble for the worl" – and – many years ago it was a U.S. politician who remarked that "before Israel became our friend the U.S. had no enemies in the Middle East".
With a "friend" like Israel, America doesn't need any enemies.
Again?
Israel will not strike Iran because very simply they don't have the military capacity to do it, period. The rest is just a fear warmongering tactic via the driven news media, it's what we call a show of force ending with a big bluff.
So what if Israel stops Irans nuclear chance of becoming more powerfull . why not ? they stoped Iran and Syria . who cares if they destroy Irans urainiam enrichment program . They hurt Iraq and Syria very little , but they did stop their nucuclear ambitions , with only a couple of days of chastizement .
"The change does not appear to be as a result of anything reality-based, however, as Shalev provided no evidence for the claim and the IAEA is continuing to verify that none of Iran’s civilian uranium is being diverted to any military purpose."
Nothing that "shitty little country" does has any basis in reality. It's entire existence is founded on lies, brutality, murder and theft, and the fact that it exists without suffering the just consequences of its crimes is a testament to the moral failure of the world to have suffered it for over six decades.
Boy, they broke the mold after Gabriela Shalev got hatched. They don't make 'em like that anymore. Last time I say anything as near beautiful was the Belle of Brewtown herself, Golda "Freakshow" Meir. Any body really have to wonder why the Israeli Jews can't reproduce fast enough to keep up with the Arabs?