Israel Rejects US Attempt To Reinterpret Obama’s Admission Of Nuke Deal’s Flaws

[Purveyor]

Source: Times of Israel

Israel on Wednesday flatly rejected Obama administration explanations and clarifications of the president’s remarks a day earlier, in which he appeared to acknowledge that Iran would be able to break out to the bomb almost immediately when key provisions of the new nuclear deal expire in 13-15 years.

A senior official in Jerusalem told The Times of Israel that “we share his assessment.”

And the director general of Israel’s Ministry of Intelligence praised the president for telling “the truth” about “a very bad deal.”

In an interview with NPR, Obama, whose top priority at the moment is to sell the framework deal to critics, was pushing back on the charge that the deal being negotiated by US-led world powers fails to eliminate the risk of Tehran breaking out to the bomb, because it allows Iran to keep enriching uranium. He told NPR that Iran will be capped for a decade at 300 kilograms of enriched uranium — not enough to convert to a stockpile of weapons-grade material. He then added: “What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”


Read more: http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-rejects-us-attempt-to-reinterpret-obamas-warning-of-nuke-deals-flaws/

[Iliyah]

1. The deal will go through.

[geek tragedy]

2. screw Israel. Enough of their "let's you and them have a fight" stuff.

If they think they have the magic solution to get the Iranians to capitulate, they should run with it.

[oberliner]

3. This is a very confusing headline

Israel is rejecting what exactly?

[karynnj]

5. They are rejecting American explanations and clarifications

Ironic -- as Netanyahu has redefined half of what he said in the last few days before the election and expects the world to just ignore all he said then.

By Netanyahu's own statements - before the interim agreement rolled back and froze the breakout period a year ago - Iran was 3 months from a bomb.

Here, he is arguing for rejecting a deal because IF Obama's statements were taken as said (ignoring clarifications) - Iran could breakout very soon after the 13 to 15 years of the agreement.

What is insane here is the interim agreement's freeze ends in June. If Netanyahu is correct, this means that LATER THIS YEAR Iran could breakout - using the same rate of progress made under the sanctions before any relief (Netanyahu - October 2013). In fact, if the deal falls through, it is more than likely that the INTERNATIONAL sanctions will be lifted by some countries and they have more impact that the US ones - even if Congress strengthens the US ones. They can't change the international ones.

So - which is better 13 to 15 years, where the world is not going to just go to sleep. If there are still threats, they will be dealt with a decade from now.

[George II]

6. Well, I just wonder how many Americans "reject" Israel's abject shitty attitude?

They have grown to be the most arrogant country on the face of the earth. The way they treat us is deplorable.

Where would they be in six months if tomorrow WE "reject" further bankrolling of their massive war machine?

[oberliner]

7. But what are the flaws that they are saying Obama is admitting to?

And what does it mean to say that the US is clarifying Obama's admissions?

Who is "the US" in that sentence?

[karynnj]

9. They are saying the flaw is that there are no further constraints after 13 to 15 years

In addition, they are saying that as they are allowed to research new centrifuges that the breakout time then could be less than the current 3 months!

My point - Isreal are arguing about 13 years from now ---- and simultaneously saying that without an agreement the breakout time is about three months!

This is absurd.

When Netanyahu has been more honest, the REAL concern is that he does not relations with Iran improved at this point - even if there were an iron clad international deal preventing them from getting a nuclear bomb. The LAST thing they want to hear is what some of us (not in the know or in the government) have said is that maybe if the deal succeeds, it could then lead to more change in the region.

Because I don't think Netanyahu stupid (immoral, dishonest and mean spirited - yes) I suspect that he knows that on the issue of Iran getting a nuclear bomb alone, we are better with the deal. However, on the overall geopolitical situation he sees this as good for Iran -- and if it is good for Iran, it is bad for Israel.

[geek tragedy]

10. That the agreement puts Iran 13-15 years away from a bomb instead of its current 2-3 months. nt

[karynnj]

4. Even if taken at face value, this seems not that much a problem

There is absolutely nothing that would prevent the world - if there was reason to do so - to dealing with this say, 10 years down the road.

Israel is beginning to be like talk radio - taking things far out of context and then attacking Democrats for them. Given that even Netanyahu says that Iran is now a few MONTHS from being able to make a bomb -- and has VOLUNTARILY stayed at this point for over a year after rolling back to it, in Netanyahu's own world - if the deal fails and Iran stops the voluntary stop they agreed to in the interim agreement which ends in June - wouldn't they have a bomb in 3 months.

So -- a bomb in 3 months OR a bomb a decade from now - which makes the world safer?


PS I am and American Jew, and Netanyahu does not speak for me!

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

8. "We have no opinion on your Israeli-Persian conflicts, such as your dispute with Iran."

- Daniel B. Shapiro, United States Ambassador to Israel.

[dolphinsandtuna]

11. Shut up, Israel. Join old South Africa in the dust bin of history.

[Mosby]

12. Open Confusion at State Department as Marie Harf Tries to Walk Back Obama’s Zero Breakout Time

“Open confusion” reigned today at the State Department after spokeswoman Marie Harf tried to withdraw a quote from President Barack Obama regarding Iran’s nuclear breakout time, advocacy group The Israel Project said.

In the interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep, the President acknowledged that, after year 13, the current deal being worked out with Iran would not provide the international community with the promised 1-year warning should Iran decide to violate the deal and go for a nuclear weapon.

The President said that, “in year 13, 14, 15? of the deal, “they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero,” and that the assurances of a 1-year warning time would be available to the international community for “at least well over a decade. And then in years 13 and 14, it is possible that those breakout times would have been much shorter.”

The Israel Project noted that “under that scenario there will be no way to physically prevent them from building a nuclear weapon, and they would be able to go nuclear at will.”

http://www.algemeiner.com/2015/04/07/open-confusion-at-state-department-as-marie-harf-tries-to-walk-back-obamas-zero-breakout-time-admission-video/

[Mosby]

13. Iran could build a bomb ‘anytime’ but won’t, Zarif reportedly says

Iranian lawmakers voiced their approval for the April 2 framework nuclear agreement with world powers in a closed-door parliamentary session Tuesday in Tehran, with one MP calling any concessions made by Iran to world powers “unimportant.”

Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Iranian atomic bureau officials briefed the plenum on the deal’s outline, and the moves the Islamic Republic will agree to adopt in exchange for easing economic sanctions.

During the meeting, Zarif told lawmakers that Iran is capable of producing an atomic bomb at any given moment, but will refrain from doing so due to religious Islamic injunctions against such a move, Israel Radio reported.

“We achieved major gains in the talks and made unimportant concessions,” Nozar Shafiei, a parliament member, told the Iranian Republic News Agency Tuesday.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-could-build-a-bomb-anytime-but-wont-zarif-reportedly-says/

[quadrature]

14. perhaps both leaders are correct .. the English and Farsi texts ...

are substantially different.

yes means no
up means down
war is peace

say anything you want!
everybody wins!

[The Stranger]

15. Is the Director General of Israel's Ministry of Intelligence an idiot?

Of course, were they ever to get it, the Iranians would not immediately load some crude pile of their uranium onto a missile and launch it. Only a fucking idiot would think they would do that.

The value to the Iranians is in having a regional deterrent to the only other nuclear power in the region, Israel. They would hold on to that shitty little pile of uranium and not let it out of their sight. Its value is in its never being used.

Someone Google the doctrine of mutually assured destruction, which saved the planet circa 1948-1990.