Whom do you trust more to handle Iran – Netanyahu or Lapid?

Poll: Yesh Atid would crush Likud in new election

Is this for real? A possibility that Yair Lapid will be in charge of the country facing the undeterred nuclear armed Twelvers looking to bring the Mahdi out of “occultation”? Perhaps people who voted on “other issues”, including my wife and daughter, assuming that Netanyahu would take care of security, should wake up and realize Iran is our priority #1?

Let’s face it.  Most Israelis would pick Netanyahu over Lapid to handle Iran. This is not to say that Yair Lapid is an airhead, as many think. Yair Lapid wrote a book  titled  Memories After My Death  written as if he were his father.  Although the excerpt below may have been his father's opinion alone, on page 353, he wrote:

Political correctness prevents us from discussing that our biggest problem is Islam. Were we simply talking about the national aspirations of the Palestinian people we would have long ago reached a peace accord. God and Allah know that we offered the more than they once even dared to dream could be theirs. But for every secular Palestinian interested in finding a solution, two zealots who want us dead are born. Radical Islam has waged a war of destruction against everything that  the Western word represents: freedom, democracy , equality, science, technology, feminism, progress.

Of the fifty-seven Islamic nations in the world today, not one is a democracy. They are all mired in dictatorships - some more enlightened, some less - rife with corruption and poverty and hatred, and, primarily envy. Twice before, Islam has tried to conquer Europe, once when it conquered Spain and once when it reached the gates of Vienna, and each time it failed.

The excerpt above shows that Yair Lapid understands what is happening in the world. But when it comes to Iran Netanyahu is the man. He has been briefed by Bernard Lewis , he quoted Bernard Lewis in his speech to the UN General Assembly  and he can stand up to Obama.

Does Yair Lapid take seriously  Bernard Lewis's warning that "for people with this mindset, M.A.D. is not a constraint; it is an inducement..." ?

Israelis, wake up and get your priorities straight!

Update, March 3.
It seems Netanyahu got the message:

Geert Wilders’s interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Although this is completely outside the topic of my blog I could not resist to include it because of its significance

Transcript 
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3689995.htm
TONY JONES, PRESENTER: Now to our guest. 

Geert Wilders is the Dutch anti-immigration and anti-Islam MP. He's the founder of the right wing Party For Freedom. 

Next week, Geert Wilders arrives in Australia for a visit that's been a long time in the making. He planned to come here about a year ago and drew early support from Liberal Senator Cory Bernadi who later distanced himself from the idea. 

Now he's being sponsored by the anti-Islamic group The Q Society, on a road trip that's sure to fire debate over what constitutes free speech or hate speech. 

Geert Wilders joins us now live from The Hague. Thanks for being there.

GEERT WILDERS, LEADER, PARTY FOR FREEDOM: Well, thanks for having me on your show tonight.

TONY JONES: Are you on some sort of global jihad against Islam?

GEERT WILDERS: Indeed. I am more on a global jihad to preserve our freedom. I believe that even though I have nothing against the people or Muslims or anybody for that reason, I believe that Islam and freedom are incompatible. And I believe that the mistakes that we made in Europe in the last decades by allowing so much mass immigration from Islamic countries is a warning that if Australia is not vigilant enough to preserve the freedom, what has happened here might happen to Australia in the next decades as well.

TONY JONES: So very precisely you plan to warn Australian audiences of what you see as the danger of Islamic migration, is that correct?

GEERT WILDERS: Well, yes, I believe that once again, Islam and freedom are incompatible. Islam is according to me, my party, not so much a religion as well as it is a totalitarian ideology. In Islam there is not much room for anything else but Islam.

Look how in societies today where Islam is dominant and prominent, how any non-Islamic person, whether it's a Christian or an apostate or a woman or a critical journalist, how they are treated. This is in a very bad way, often with the death penalty or imprisonment or all those kind of terrible things. 

I believe that what with the mass immigration to our free societies, our societies will change, and it will change for the worse. And I'm proud to say you are not a racist or a bigot or anything like that if you say that the Netherlands, as Australia, is a culture based on Christianity, on Judaism, on humanism, and it should not, nor ever will become a society based on Islamic failures. We should fight it, we should stop it, we should be proud of who we are and define what we are not.

TONY JONES: I'm going to pick you up on some of those points in a little while. But what do you actually know in the Islamic community in Australia. What you have heard about what is happening here, and Australian multiculturalism - which it seems to me could be quite different to multiculturalism in Holland?

GEERT WILDERS: Of course that's the case. I'm not saying that it's exactly the same. I know and I also spoke in the United States of America and in Canada and other countries already have good results with immigration, that it cannot be compared everything to Europe. 

But I know where we today in Europe have enormous influx of... in the last decades of people from Islamic countries, that our society has changed. That it has worsened for that reason. That unfortunately non-Western immigrants, often Muslims, are over-represented in statistics of crime, of dependency on social benefits, that we have honour killings, that we have genital mutilation, that we have streets where women with headscarves and burqas are not the exception any more. And that it's getting worse. 

What I'm trying to do when I visit your beautiful country, Australia, is warn Australians that even though it might not be the case today, learn from the mistakes that we made in Europe: be vigilant and look at Islam for what it really is. Islam is not a religion of peace. Islam is a totalitarian ideology. 

The best example is that if any person, any Muslim wants to leave Islam, then the penalty is death. It is not even allowed to leave it. That's why I believe Islam should not be compared with other religions like Christianity or Judaism, but Islam should be compared to other totalitarian ideologies like Communism or Fascism.

TONY JONES: I can tell you for sure there are plenty of Islamic people in Australia who've left the religion without being killed. So what you're saying can't be everywhere. Indeed I suspect what you're talking about is Islamic fundamentalism. Why not restrict your arguments to Islamic fundamentalism or radical Islam - Islamism - why do you include in this broad brush moderate Islam?

GEERT WILDERS: (adjusts earpiece) Sorry, I lose you here for a minute, but I think you asked me why...

TONY JONES: I said why don't you exclude from your annoyance, your anger, moderate Islam, which is very different to what you seem to be describing?

GEERT WILDERS: Yes. Well, it's not annoyance or anger. It's just the truth. What you're saying about radical Islam, with all respect to you sir, is complete nonsense. There is no radical or moderate Islam. There is only one Islam and that is the Islam from the Koran, the holy book. That is the Islam from Mohammed. There are no two sorts of Islam. 

However, there are moderate and non-moderate Muslims, I acknowledge that. As a matter of fact the majority of the Muslims living in our society are moderate people. But don't make the mistake that even though there are moderate and radical Muslims that there is a moderate or a radical Islam. 

There is only one Islam, and that is a totalitarian ideology that has no room for anything but Islam. You see it once again in any country in the world where Islam is dominant. How come that we, for instance...

TONY JONES: Can I just interrupt you there? It happens we live very close to the largest Islamic country in the world, Indonesia, which has 250 million people and has recently transitioned to democracy. According to you that's impossible for an Islamic country to do. 

Yes they have a problem with radical Islam. It is a small problem relative to the whole population. How do you think we should deal with Indonesia? Do you think we should treat them as if they are somehow insane?

GEERT WILDERS: Once again you misunderstand my point entirely. I'm not talking about the people. I have nothing against the people. I have nothing against the Indonesian people or the Arab people or the Muslim people. I'm talking about the ideology. And indeed, as long as a country has a culture a religion an ideology where Islam is dominant it will never be a democracy. It's also happening in Indonesia. Look at how they treat Christians in Indonesia or how they treat Christians in any other country where Islam is dominant. 

Why is it not possible to build a church in Saudi Arabia where as we in the Netherlands have almost 500 mosques being built; why is it not possible to buy or sell a Bible in any Muslim or most of the Muslim countries, whereas we can buy a Koran here on every street corner? This is the exact example of the fact that Islam is an intolerant society. I believe that...

TONY JONES: Can I just... I will have to interrupt you on that point as well, because in fact, one of your own ideas is to ban the Koran in the Netherlands. So apparently you're as intolerant as you believe the other side to be?

GEERT WILDERS: No, I made a point in the Dutch Parliament - unfortunately you are wrong here as well - I made a point in the Dutch Parliament that we're in Holland - you have to see the Dutch context. Mein Kampf, this terrible book of Adolph Hitler is outlawed. I made a point in the Dutch parliament that I say to all these liberal politicians and socialist politicians in my own parliament that, "Hey you are very happy here, you applauded the fact that Mein Kampf was outlawed in the Netherlands. If you are really consistent, you should, for the same arguments that you use as liberal politicians to outlaw Mein Kampf, outlaw the Koran as well.”

Of course it was very silent; they were not consistent and they shoved the problem under the carpet. Which is exactly the point again - that we should be able to see Islam for what it is, make a distinction between the people and the ideology, and stop with being politically correct, and address the problems, as many people, also in Australia, see it when it comes to the Islamisation of their country.

TONY JONES: Let's talk to you about what you've said. You've called Islam the "greatest sickness we've had during the last century". I take it that probably includes Nazism. You also say it has to be "tackled and driven back". What do you mean by that exactly? How would you drive it back if you had the power?

GEERT WILDERS: You know, it's very simple. I believe that we should stop the immigration, the mass immigration from Islamic countries. I believe that Muslims that are in our society today are of course equal as anybody else, as long as they adhere to our laws, to our constitution, to our values. And as long as they cross this red line - if they commit crimes, if they start beating up women, if they start the genital mutilation, if they start to commit other crimes and honour killings as they unfortunately do in Western Europe many times - if they do that, I believe we should expel them, the same day if possible, from our country. 

So to stop the immigration to our societies - because we have had more than enough Islam in our societies - and people who are here and who are behaving according to our laws and our constitutions are happy to stay, are equal to anybody else, or even want to help them with the better education, but if they cross the line of crime, start acting according to Sharia law, there will be no place for them in our free societies...

TONY JONES: Wait, wait... it's not so simple, because the vast majority of crime committed, for example, by young Moroccans - and do you have a problem there, there's no doubting that - are committed by people who've been born in Holland. Are you suggesting stripping them of their citizenship?

GEERT WILDERS: It doesn't matter.

TONY JONES: Say that again.

GEERT WILDERS: Well, you know, in Holland, Moroccans automatically also have the Moroccan nationality even if they're born in the Netherlands, because the Moroccan law says that if one of the parents is Moroccan the children wherever they are born in the world are Moroccan as well. So any of those youth... and let me tell you, the Moroccan youth in the Netherlands between the age of 14 and 23, two-thirds of them have been arrested by the police at least once in their life. Two-thirds of the young...

TONY JONES: Actually, I did look at your department, your department... it is a big problem, but you are exaggerating it. The Department of Interior Statistics say 40 per cent in that age group, not two thirds, which is 60 per cent.

GEERT WILDERS: Yes, that was two years ago. And if you would've looked at the latest report you would see that it's more than 60 per cent today. But the point is that since they are Moroccan and Dutch, if they commit crimes, if they commit serious crime - I'm not talking about driving through a red light, but if they commit serious crimes - I believe we should strip them indeed of the Dutch nationality and send them back to Morocco as Morocco does. 

If you are a Morocco citizen with a dual nationality, if you commit a crime in Morocco you are stripped Moroccan nationality and send to our own country. We can learn from them in that respect.

TONY JONES: Does this mean you would only strip Islamic criminals of their passports and their citizenship or all criminals who crime from another country? For example if you came from Australia and committed a crime, you were Dutch, but you had an Australian origin, you would be sent back to Australia, would you? Is it all criminals or are you singling out Islamic criminals?

GEERT WILDERS: No that would be ridiculous even for you to suggest. I'm not a racist. It would had also go for Swedish people, for Australian people - but let me tell you we have no problem in the Netherlands with Australian criminals or with Swedish criminals. We have a problem with, amongst others, Moroccan criminals. 

Of course that would apply with anybody for any dual nationality, but the mere fact would be the reality because we have overrepresentation of often Moroccan people and other people from Islamic background in a crime that they would be stripped of the Dutch nationality and sent away. I don't know what's wrong with it: if you commit a crime, you've overstayed our welcome. If I have guests in my house and if they start messing up my kitchen or start getting a fire in any sleeping room I would send them away...

TONY JONES: They're not guests in your house! They are citizens in your country. That's a very different thing. They're not guest workers who just happen to be there. They are people who are Dutch citizens who've been born in your country?

GEERT WILDERS: Well, yes, if you talk about Moroccans, indeed they are also, besides...

TONY JONES: All right, okay, you've made that point. Okay.

GEERT WILDERS: But we also have a lot of people who are not Dutch, and who are in Holland as a guest, whether they are asylum seekers or others. I believe if you commit a crime you overstay your welcome, if we could extradite you.

TONY JONES: Let's go through some of your other potential policies were you to gain more power than you currently have. You've got a five year moratorium, was what you originally said, on migration from foreign countries. You're now, I believe saying that should be from Islamic countries; Islamic migration should be banned. Isn't that against European rules?

GEERT WILDERS: I'm a politician. I believe that we can change any rule that is there. Once again, we have an enormous support within the Dutch public. One million people voted for my party. We are number three, and in the polls today even number two party the second biggest party of Holland. So, we are not as you said in your introduction a far-right party. If we would've been extreme, we would've got 0.01 per cent of the vote. We got more than 10 per cent of the vote. 

Why? Because we address the problems of so many Dutch citizens that are afraid to go out in their neighbourhoods after 10pm, who are afraid to send their children to school because of all the harassment they get from this parallel Islamic society. And people are not extreme in Holland. We are one of the most tolerant societies in the world, and in order to stay tolerant, my party believes that we should stop being tolerant to the people who are intolerant to us. We should start being intolerant to those who are intolerant to us. This is not modern logic, this is not extreme, this is common sense.

TONY JONES: Can I ask why it is the values the solidarity of Dutch society is not strong enough to cope with the Islamic population of 6 per cent? How can 6 per cent overturn the values of your society?

GEERT WILDERS: Like I said, it's not just a Dutch problem. I don't know if you've lately visited Europe, if you've been to the city of Malmo in Sweden, or to Berlin or to Hamburg or to London or to Paris in the suburbs, or Rotterdam in my own country. You see many cities where there is a city within a city - where even today in the United Kingdom - I don't know if you're aware of that - there are even sharia courts active, whether it's rulings that the worth of a woman is half of that of a man. 

You see crime and you see all the things happening, unfortunately all over Europe, because of (a) the mass immigration, but (b) also because of we politicians are not able to deal with it. We are politically correct, we are afraid to address the problem. Because if you address the problem like I do, people like you call us evil extreme, or you're being taken to court or you will get death threats in your life. There is a big disincentive to talk about the truth. I will speak the truth...

TONY JONES: Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you, but we are sort of running out of time, and I want to get to a couple of other things. I mean, when you got the balance of power, the government under your influence basically got rid of multiculturalism in Holland. Ended the concept of multiculturalism in Holland. 

We're to have an election this year in Australia. There are senior figures in the Coalition, that is the conservative party, who are seriously questioning multiculturalism in Australia. Will you be encouraging that debate when you come here?

GEERT WILDERS: I don't want to get involved in Australian politics. That's up to you. You are a democracy, and Australian people should decide who they will vote for and I'm not mingling or interfering in that all. I just want to say that the multiculturalism - and especially the cultural relativism which is even worse than multiculturalism, the concept that all cultures are equal - is the worst recipe for any society. 

So yes, I believe that we should like I said before define who we are and in order to do that you have to know what you are not. And I'm proud to be a member of a society that is based, whose values are based on Christiany, Judaism and humanism. I never would like to be a country that is that multicultural that, for instance, the Islamic values become more dominant. We should not do that. We should stop that. 

I'm not against other cultures, but I believe what the Germans call a "leitkultur", a dominant culture that we should have, even in our constitution state, what our dominant culture is and that our laws should apply to that culture and to no other one.

TONY JONES: Finally, it's been reported that you are coming with your own personal protection team of Dutch Secret Service. I don't know if that's true. But if it is I'm wondering what sort of reception you are expecting in Australia, and are you worried - because there have been many threats to your life in Holland - whether that could happen here?

GEERT WILDERS: I hope you understand that I'm always advised and I follow that advice never to talk about security issues, so I cannot tell you who will be accompanying me and why, because that would only make myself more vulnerable. So I will not talk about that. 

But yes indeed, I hope - I'm a democrat. I'm a democratically elected politician from the Netherlands representing one of the major parties in Holland - I hope that I will be able to talk and to discuss with people. Not only people I agree with - it's very easy to talk to people you agree with - but also people you disagree with, maybe even Australian politicians. 

Don't be afraid of me. I'm a law maker I'm not a law breaker, and I'm just telling the truth. And I want Australia, a country and a people that I respect very much - any Dutchman knows the young Australians that fought for our freedom in the First and Second World War - I hope I can tell you what happened in Europe and support you in your fight to preserve freedom for your children and your grandchildren, and tell them what I believe the Islamic threat is, and to discuss it with anybody - also people who don't agree with me. This is democracy. This is civil society. We should cherish that.

TONY JONES: Very briefly before we go, you mentioned politicians there. Of course you have had contact with Senator Cory Bernardi of the Liberal Party. Do you intend to see him or other politicians when you're in the country?

GEERT WILDERS: Well, I met Mr Bernardi in Holland. I believe you are in an election now. I believe it might be more difficult for him to meet me now. I think he doesn't intend to do that. I understand that this is politics. The friend from yesterday can have an argument not to see you tomorrow. It's sad but true. 

But I'm open to meet any politician in Australia, to meet any person; I think we can learn from one another. I believe I have an important message and we are fighting the same fight, which is the fight for freedom in Australia, in Holland and in Europe.

TONY JONES: Geert Wilders, it's a long discussion that needs to be had with you. We've had a, I think, small portion of it here tonight. We thank you very much for taking the time to come and talk to us.

GEERT WILDERS: It's my pleasure. I'm looking forward to meeting your country next week.

It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

This is not about the 1963 film. It is not even about the mutually assured destruction per se. The intended meaning this time is that we are crazy, insane.  

Why?

Because 9 days ago Ahmadinejad in Cairo proclaimed that Iran already has nuclear capabilities but is not planning to attack Israel, because Tehran’s capabilities are “defensive-oriented.”

And the world’s reaction?   None!

OK, I can understand that politicians could be reluctant to say a word. Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the US, in his piece in the Wall Street Journal said nothing.  US Secretary of State  John Kerry said US will not accept Iranian delays and the onus was on it to make progress at negotiations, which are set to resume later in the month.  President Obama, in his State of the Union, said:

Likewise, the leaders of Iran must recognize that now is the time for a diplomatic solution, because a coalition stands united in demanding that they meet their obligations. And we will do what is necessary to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.

"Progress at negotiations"?, “Prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon”?  But Ahmadinejad already declared he has it!

The politicians can be somewhat excused, since hopefully  they ( i.e. Israel) are doing something behind the scenes,  but where is the media?  The journalists are just not doing their job. I believe that this the most absurd silence in history, and the most dangerous. 

Consequences of a nuclear Iran

Two days later,the world finally reacts!

KUHNER: Consequences of a nuclear Iran

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner  The Washington Times

According to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it’s official: Iran has become a nuclear power. The respected Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that the Persian strongman this week at an Islamic conference in Cairo told an Egyptian daily Iran is a “nuclear country.” If true — and I stress if — then this is the most important geopolitical development of our time. It means World War III has become a very real possibility.

Mr. Ahmadinejad warned the West in a long interview published in Al-Ahram that Iran’s nuclear program was too advanced, and could no longer be rolled back. “They want Iran to go back to what it was in the past, but they won’t succeed,” he said. “They assume we’ll give in to pressure; such thoughts are misguided.”

The Iranian tyrant may be bluffing. Fearing possible U.S. or Israeli military strikes, Tehran’s mullahs could be wagering that pretending to be a nuclear state will prevent a crippling attack. If so, Mr. Ahmadinejad is playing with fire — literally. Instead, his inflammatory comments could spark Israel to launch a massive bombing campaign.

Mr. Ahmadinejad is a virulent anti-Semite and Shiite revolutionary. He has called for the Jewish state to be “wiped off the the face of the earth.” He denies the Holocaust took place. He claims there is a Jewish world conspiracy, whereby “Zionists” and their “allies” run the international economy. He also fervently preaches that his mission is to aid the coming of the “Twelfth Imam” — the Shiite version of the Messiah — to Earth, ushering in Armageddon. Mr. Ahmadinejad believes this will erect a world Muslim empire. He is not only an Islamic fascist. He is a fanatical religious zealot bent upon changing the course of history. For him to say that Iran now possesses the technology and capacity to be a nuclear power is something the world should take very seriously.

What if Mr. Ahmadinejad is not lying? Then the West — and especially the United States — faces a major crisis. It means the West’s policies of sanctions and diplomatic engagement have failed. It means the Persian despot has outmaneuvered President Obama and the United Nations. Moreover, Mr. Obama has vowed Iran will not be allowed to acquire the bomb. Should he back away from his promise, American credibility will be shattered. Our allies will never trust us again. If Mr. Obama makes good on his pledge, then there is only one option left: a military campaign to smash Iran’s nuclear facilities.

An attack would trigger disastrous consequences. Iran is not Iraq. It is a much larger and more populous nation. It has proxies across the region — including Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria’s besieged regime. A U.S. military strike would likely spark a regional war, dragging in Israel and other Arab nations. The Iranian navy would mine the Strait of Hormuz, choking off a large percentage of the world’s oil supply. Prices would skyrocket to $200 or even $300 for a barrel of oil. This would send shock waves throughout the global economy, throwing most industrial countries — especially the United States — into a depression. Mr. Obama’s anti-war liberal base would revolt. The Democratic Party would be torn asunder. A war-weary America may not have the stomach for a protracted campaign.

Hence, Iran going nuclear paves the way for possible World War III. For all of his pathology, however, Mr. Ahmadinejad is not Adolf Hitler. The Islamic Republic is not Nazi Germany. Hitler oversaw the most powerful military and economic state in Europe. He was adored and supported not just by tens of millions of Germans, but countless other quislings who shared his vision of an Aryan master race. His formidable armies nearly conquered Europe. In contrast, Iran is a Third World basket case. Its economy is in shambles. Its military — although large — is plagued with internal divisions and poor equipment. Most importantly, Tehran’s mullahs are despised by an overwhelming majority of Iranians. Rather than being loved, Mr. Ahmadinejad is hated by his own people. The theocratic regime is weak and crumbling.

x`

This begs the question: Why did Mr. Obama and the West not support Iran’s green revolution in 2009, when hundreds of thousands of anti-regime protesters poured onto the streets demanding that the mullahs step down? Instead, Mr. Obama turned a blind eye, publicly telling Tehran that Washington will not meddle in Iran’s internal affairs. President Ronald Reagan used Poland’s Solidarity protest movement to help bring down the Soviet empire — and without a shot being fired. Mr. Obama could have followed a similar model. He didn’t. Now the world may have to suffer the tragic consequences of his naive and reckless policies.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a radio commentator in Boston.

Ahmadinejad: I Lied

Ahmadinejad: Iran already has nuclear capabilities but is not planning to attack Israel, because Tehran’s capabilities are “defensive-oriented,”

The non-reaction with which this news has been met in the world is mind-boggling. Here is the President of Iran admitting that he has been lying all these years about Iran acquiring the nuclear know-how for peaceful  purposes only. So either he lied then, or he is lying now or he lied both then and is lying now. So by simple logic he is a mathematically proven liar. (Thank you,George Boole)  

Since most of us were quite aware that he has been lying for years, I sincerely hope that he is lying now since the alternative would be horrendous. As Douglas Murray wrote in the Wall Street Journal yesterday:

 But the even more pressing reason to prevent an Iranian bomb, at all available and necessary costs, was illustrated by one of our guests on Wednesday. In his remarks, Rafael Bardaji, a former national security advisor to the Spanish prime minister, relayed his tale of meeting with Khamenei some years back. Summoned to breakfast while on a visit to Iran, the Spanish guests decided to ask an ice-breaking question: Within the apparently complex power structure of contemporary Iran, what was the Supreme Leader's job?

"My job," Khamenei replied, "is to set Israel on fire.

What happened?  Why such an admission from Ahmadinejad  all of a sudden?  I hope it is the effect of Fordo. Reza Kahlili, who had been a CIA spy among the Revolutionary Guards for ten years in the 1980s,  wrote a number of articles saying that there had been a huge explosion in Fordo which crippled the plant    

  SABOTAGE! KEY IRANIAN NUCLEAR FACILITY HIT?

  New details surface on Iran nuclear explosion
  U.N. won't deny explosions at Iran nuke plant

  NORTH KOREANS AMONG 40 DEAD AT IRAN NUKE PLANT

The IAEA originally supported Iranian claim that there was no explosion.

However, in a follow-up inquiry by WND to verify if the IAEA had inspected the site since the report of the explosions, Tudor refused to answer.

“I’m very sorry but I can’t go into any further details on ongoing safeguards work, which is conducted with a high level of confidentiality,” she replied.

The world media had been skeptical of the report. Best Illustrated by Ha'aretz. Please take note of the words far-right, right and right wing in one sentence, which to Ha'aretz is sufficient  proof that the report was bogus.

He published the report on the explosion, which apparently took place on Monday, the eve of the Israeli elections, on World News Daily, a veteran website with close contacts to the far-right in the United States. Kahlili himself is a frequent speaker at events organized by right-wing  organizations and those that support the right in Israel. It's not hard to realize why. In an interview he gave Haaretz two years ago, upon the publication of his book "A Time To Betray", Kalili set out a worldview on Iran that was surprisingly similar to that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He also compared the regime in Tehran to that of the Nazis, and called upon Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear installations.

I believe the Fordo explosion happened. I think that the Iranians are in a daze after Fordo. If not, the alternative would be very bad news indeed. 

Amos Yadlin, how about factoring in what scholars of Islam say?

The 8 F-16 pilots who bombed Osirak

Yadlin, first row on the left

What can I say to the former F-16 fighter pilot who in June 1981 was one of the 8 pilots who bombed the Iraqi Osirak nuclear reactor ? What can I say to the former head of Aman, the Israeli Military Intelligence?  

I can say the same as to anyone else who in his reasoning skips over the most important facts about Iran. I suggest he read what scholars of Islam have to say else his analysis will be incomplete.

Yadlin: Israel's threat to strike Iran  'unhelpful'

By YAAKOV LAPPIN

02/04/2013 13:50

Ex-Intelligence chief says diplomatic solution better than military, adds Syria's weakened state benefits Israel's strategic standing.        

                      Of course a diplomatic solution would be better than military action, but how do you find a diplomatic solution with the Twelvers? From an article by Israel Kasnett  in the Jerusalem Post " Deterrence is Irrelevant"

                        Iran is led by a group of irrational men who believe they can hurry the arrival of the Mahdi – the 12th Imam who, according to Shi’ite Islamic tradition, went missing in 874 CE and will return under conditions ofglobal chaos. The Iranian leadership appears willing to sacrifice the population of its own country to achieve this goal. In his book The Rise of Nuclear Iran, former Israeli ambassador to the UN Dore Gold writes, “Mahdi Khaliji, an Iranian Shi’ite scholar… has noted that there are apocalyptic hadiths [received Shi’ite traditions] that the Mahdi will not return unless one-third of the world population is killed and another third die.

                      There is even less chance of find a diplomatic solution today than there was in June 1981 when Amos Yadlin was in the cockpit of his F-16 bombing Osirak

Israeli threats to strike Iran's nuclear program and send shock waves throughout the world are "unhelpful," and Jerusalem should lower its profile on the issue, director of the Institute for National Security Studies, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin, said Monday.

Yadlin, a former Military Intelligence chief, spoke at the unveiling of the INSS's strategic assessment for 2012-2013.

Yadlin stressed that a nuclear-armed Iran is more dangerous than an attack on the Islamic Republic.

    .                      Could not agree more

He called on the government to "return to the international community,"

                 Why should we "return to the international community"  when they are completely  in the dark about the Iranian motives?

and to better coordinate its position with the White House over Iran.

However,  the White House had refused to support the Green revolution in Iran and had done initially everything to stop economic sanctions against Iran. How do you coordinate our position with an administration whose approach to Iran is so different  and  dangerous for us?

An understanding should be reached over the "required steps to stop Iran, and who will take them," Yadlin said. "Israel does not need to object to a diplomatic solution, if it stops the [nuclear] clock."

Stops the nuclear clock? Why should we assume that the people who believe in this   ideology would ever stop a nuclear clock, except to deceive ?

 The key question, Yadlin argued, was how long it will take Iran to reach a nuclear breakout phase from the time it would violate a diplomatic agreement. If a couple of years separate Iran from nuclear breakout, that would be a better solution than a military attack, he said.

Iran is currently four to six months away from nuclear breakout stage, if an order is given to reach that phase now, Yadlin said. He envisaged a diplomatic solution that would allow Iran to possess 1,200 centrifuges.

If Israel did end up striking Iran's nuclear program, a surgical attack that would carefully eliminate nuclear sites could enable Iran to respond in a limited manner, thereby avoiding a regional war, he argued.

Jerusalem should also better coordinate its position with Washington over the Palestinian issue, Yadlin said, adding that it was time for Israel to put forward a new diplomatic initiative.

Yadlin proposed a "fair offer, along the Clinton parameters, or the offer made by the Israeli government in 2008. We estimate that the Palestinians will reject our offer," he said. "If that happens, Israel will be able to shape its own borders," he added, referring to a unilateral step, but one which is based on lessons learned from errors committed in the 2005 Gaza disengagement.

We estimate that the Palestinians will reject our offer".  Wow! So we know it is all a  farce!   Is this all one big game of moves we are supposed to make to show our "good will" while we know it leads nowhere?. Wouldn't  it better to explain why there can never be a  resolution,  since it is contrary to Palestinians' key religious beliefs?

That means maintaining an IDF presence in the Jordan Valley, to cut off weapons transfer points, unlike the abandonment of the Gaza-Egypt border, which allowed Hamas and Islamic Jihad to import large quantities of rockets after Israel left the Strip.

"We are facing an American administration that is maintaining a very good security-intelligence dialogue with us," Yadlin said. "Better than ever before," he added.

 A very good security dialog with the US so that we can we can counter the threats by the Islamist  government  whom  the American administration helped come to power in the first place!

Israel should also seek to forge relationships with new Sunni powers, and work with them to isolate "the big enemy, which is Iran," Yadlin said.

Israel's deterrence is strong, and "the IDF is the strongest military in the Middle East," he added.

Syria will be busy with rebuilding itself in the coming years, he assessed. The fact that Syria - a major component of the Iranian-led regional axis - has been badly damaged has resulted in a benefit for Israel's strategic standing, Yadlin said.

"All of this is conditioned on renewing the diplomatic process with the Palestinians," he stressed.

But a diplomatic process with the Palestinians is just that, a process that does not lead anywhere. It does not lead anywhere because it cannot lead anywhere since it s contrary to the core Muslim tenet of Jihad.  So we need to find a solution which fits both sides.  Does it exist?  Yes.  Muslims are permitted not to wage jihad if the infidel side is perceived as too strong, in which case 10 years of hudna or cease-fire is permitted, after which the conditions for jihad are reevaluated.

The best we can therefore hope for, until these concepts are rendered obsolete by Muslims themselves, is a perpetual state of back-to-back, 10-year-long hudnas. Clearly, amid such a reality, Israel's strength would not be perceived as an obstacle to peace, but as the only viable solution.

So does Yadlin  suggests that we should just engage in an effort which has no solution just to placate the international community?

Yadlin said Israel should seek to contain small incidents along the borders, and "not let small organizations drag us into war."

"If there will be a war-type development in 2013... it will be in our hands," Yadlin said. He called on the government to be "more active" in pursuing these goals.

Turning his attention to the reported air strikes in Syria, Yadlin said that if Syria admitted it had attempted to transfer SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles to Hezbollah, it would be admitting to breaking a pledge made to Russia to refrain from such proliferation.