We're almost ready to see the issue between Iran and Israel reach the final conclusion. Either Iran will develop a nuclear weapon or Israel will have the capability destroyed or interrupted by launching action against Iran's facilities. There aren't really any other scenarios in play. We know from biblical prophecy that Israel is not destroyed, as they would be from a nuclear weapon, therefore one could conclude that Israel will indeed take some action against Iran. In the aftermath of such action, the safe bet would be that the radical Islamic regions surrounding Israel will become highly inflamed, leading to the prophetic fulfillment of Ezekiel 38-39, also known as the battle of Gog-MaGog. Of course Isaiah 17 would come into play as well, most likely preceding Gog-MaGog. It also seems obvious that once Israel takes out Iran's nuclear facilities, Russia will also become involved as they not only have mutual defense agreements with Iran, but they also have many workers at these nuclear facilities.
We are most definitely approaching this tipping point very rapidly:
Despite a softening tone from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on the regime’s illicit nuclear program, the Islamic Republic is hardening its position on the right to enrich uranium.
An analysis by Fars News Agency, the Revolutionary Guards’ media outlet, said that Iran not only has the right to continue its nuclear program but to expand it dramatically to fulfill its needs.
The regime’s supreme leader said on Sunday that he is not optimistic about those negotiations and called America the most hated power in the world.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also restated the regime’s view of Israel: “We have said since the very first day (of the Islamic Revolution), and we do say it now and we will say it in the future as well, that we believe the Zionist regime is an illegitimate and bastard regime.”
The Fars analysis, titled “What we want from the 5+1,” laid out the regime’s plans for its nuclear program and demanded:
- A recognition of its right to nuclear energy and its need to expand the program.
- All rights of Iran under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons must be recognized, including uranium enrichment.
- Iran must have the right to expand its nuclear power plants and have the right to build anywhere in the country.
- To fulfill the needs of these power plants, Iran must have the right to build further facilities for uranium enrichment anywhere in the country whether in a huge desert or under soaring mountains and increase the number of centrifuges.
- Iran must have the right to export nuclear fuel and not be required to import such
Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator signaled progress at talks with six powers Thursday on a deal to cap some of his country’s atomic programs in exchange for limited relief from sanctions stifling Iran’s economy, saying the six had accepted Tehran’s proposals on how to proceed.
According to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran and the P5+1 will begin drafting a nuclear agreement in Geneva on Friday. US officials said Secretary of State John Kerry will fly to Geneva on Friday to participate in the nuclear negotiations — a last minute decision that suggests a deal could be imminent.
According to the Telegraph, the deal’s four main points were that Iran would stop enriching uranium to 20 percent and convert its existing stockpile into harmless uranium oxide. Iran would be able to continue enrichment to 3.5% purity necessary for nuclear power plants — but would agree to limit the number of centrifuges running for this purpose. The inactive centrifuges would be able to remain intact. Iran would also agree not to activate its plutonium reactor at Arak, which could provide an alternative route to a nuclear weapon, during the six-month period. Lastly, Iran would agree not to use the advanced IR-2 centrifuges, which enrich uranium three to five times faster than the older model.
In return, the British paper reported, the US “would ease economic sanctions, possibly by releasing some Iranian foreign exchange reserves currently held in frozen accounts” and ease “some restrictions on Iran’s petrochemical, motor and precious metals industries.”
As talks in Geneva moved ahead, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu cautioned against any deal that kept Iran’s nuclear program intact, saying “I believe adopting the proposals is a mistake of historic proportions. They must be rejected outright.”
Tehran’s chief nuclear negotiator, Abbas Araqchi, told Iranian state TV that the six — the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — “clearly said that they accept the proposed framework by Iran.” He later told CNN that he thinks negotiators at the table are now “ready to start drafting” an accord that outlines specific steps to be taken.
Warily watching from the sidelines, Israel warned against a partial agreement that foresees lifting sanctions now instead of waiting for a rigorous final accord that eliminates any possibility of Iran making nuclear weapons.
At a meeting with US legislators in Jerusalem, Netanyahu spoke of “the deal of the century for Iran.” While divulging no details, he said the proposed first step at Geneva “will relieve all the (sanctions) pressure inside Iran.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged US Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday “not to rush to sign” a deal with Iran over its controversial nuclear program.
“I met Secretary Kerry right before he [left] to Geneva. I reminded him that he said that no deal is better than a bad deal. And the deal that is being discussed in Geneva right now is a bad deal. Iran is not required to take apart even one centrifuge. But the international community is relieving sanctions on Iran for the first time after many years,” he said.
“Iran gets everything that it wanted at this stage and pays nothing. And this is when Iran is under severe pressure. I urge Secretary Kerry not to rush to sign, to wait, to reconsider, to get a good deal. But this is a bad deal, a very, very bad deal. It’s the deal of a century for Iran; it’s a very dangerous and bad deal for peace and the international community,” Netanyahu added.
Earlier Friday, Netanyahu told Kerry that Israel was not bound by any nuclear deal the West makes with Iran on its controversial nuclear program.
“This is a very bad deal. Israel utterly rejects it and what I am saying is shared by many, many in the region, whether or not they express it publicly. Israel is not obliged by this agreement and Israel will do everything it needs to defend itself, to defend the security of its people,” he affirmed.
Turning to seemingly address Kerry’s scathing critique Thursday night on Channel 2 of Israel’s West Bank policies, Netanyahu said: “I will never compromise on Israel’s security and our vital interests, not in the face of any international pressure. I think the pressure has to be put where it belongs, that is, on the Palestinians who refuse to budge. But I think in any case, no amount of pressure will make me or the government of Israel compromise on the basic security and national interests of the State of Israel. The people of Israel know this and they support it, as they should.”
Secretary of State John Kerry appears to have shed the last vestige of a U.S. honest broker role in pursuing an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord.
While conducting shuttle diplomacy with stops in Israel, the West Bank and Jordan, Kerry unleashed a torrent of sharply critical remarks about Israel and its government.
If current peace negotiations fall apart, Kerry warned Israelis that the result would be a third intifada of terrorist attacks against Israel.
But that was just for starters.
In addition, Kerry said, Israel would be more internationally isolated, there would be increased calls for boycotts and divestment from Israel, and the advent of a Palestinian leadership committed to violence.
For good measure, Kerry also denounced Jewish settlements in the West Bankas "illegitimate" and called for an end of the presence of "IDF soldiers perpetually in the West Bank."
Kerry's remarks fit perfectly with the Palestinian playbook. His anti-Israel outbursts were bound to play well in Ramallah and Amman. But in Israel, they left a bitter impression of an Obama administration determined to score points with Palestinians and Arab regimes at Israel's existential expense.
In response to Kerry, Israeli officials said they won't bow to his "intimidation tactics." They also warned that Kerry's remarks will harm the peace process by encouraging the Palestinians not to compromise. With Kerry on their side, why should they?
Obama's successful visit to Israel earlier this year was just torpedoed by his secretary of state, who presumably wasn't just speaking for himself, but also for his boss.
Also see:
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar