Israel won't allow a nuclear Iran'


Mehdi Mazloom
by Mehdi Mazloom


Israel will not allow Iran to attain nuclear capability and if time begins to run out, Jerusalem will not hesitate to take whatever means necessary to prevent Iran from achieving its nuclear goals, the government has recently decided in a special discussion.

According to the Israeli daily Ma'ariv, whether the United States and Western countries succeed in thwarting the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions diplomatically, through sanctions, or whether a US strike on Iran is eventually decided upon, Jerusalem has begun preparing for a separate, independent military strike.

So far, Israel has not received American authorization to use US-controlled Iraqi airspace, nor has the defense establishment been successful in securing the purchase of advanced US-made warplanes which could facilitate an Israeli strike.

The Americans have offered Israel permission to use a global early warning radar system, implying that the US is pushing Israel to settle for defensive measures only.

Because of Israel's lack of strategic depth, Jerusalem has consistently warned in recent years that it will not settle for a 'wait and see' approach, merely retaliating to an attack, but will rather use preemption to prevent any risk of being hit in the first place.

Ephraim Sneh a veteran Labor MK who has recently left the party, has reportedly sent a document to both US presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama. The eight-point document states that "there is no government in Jerusalem that would ever reconcile itself to a nuclear Iran. When it is clear Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, an Israeli military strike to prevent this will be seriously considered."

According to Ma'ariv, Sneh offered the two candidates the "sane, cheap and the only option that does not necessitate bloodshed." To prevent Iran's nuclear aspirations, Sneh wrote, "real" sanctions applied by the US and Europe were necessary. A total embargo in spare parts for the oil industry and a total boycott of Iranian banks would promptly put an end to the regime, which is already pressured by a sloping economy and would be toppled by the Iranian people if they have outside assistance, he said.

The window of opportunity Sneh suggests is a year and a half to two years, until 2010.

Sneh also visited Switzerland and Austria last week in an attempt to lobby them against the Iranian threat. Both countries have announced massive long-term investments in Iranian gas and oil fields for the next decade.

"Talk of the Jewish Holocaust and Israel's security doesn't impress these guys," Sneh said wryly.

Hearing his hosts speak of their future investments, Sneh replied quietly "it's a shame, because Ido will light all this up." He was referring to Maj. Gen. Ido Nehushtan, the recently appointed IAF commander and the man most likely to be the one to orchestrate Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, should this become a necessity.

"Investing in Iran in 2008," Sneh told his Austrian hosts, "is like investing in the Krupp steelworks in 1938, it's a high risk investment." The Austrians, according to Sneh, turned pale.

In related news, Israel Radio reported that Iran had finished installing an additional 4,000 centrifuges in the Natanz uranium enrichment facility. The Islamic Republic also announced it would install an additional 3,000 centrifuges in coming months.

The pan-Arabic Al Kuds al Arabi reported Friday that Iran had equipped Hizbullah with longer range missiles than those it possessed before the Second Lebanon War and had also improved the guerrilla group's targeting capabilities.

According to the report, which The Jerusalem Post could not verify independently, Hizbullah was planning a massive rocket onslaught on targets reaching deep into Israel's civilian underbelly in case Israel launches an attack on Iran.



Recently by Mehdi MazloomCommentsDate
Obama: "The World is watching"
Jun 19, 2009
Is that the begining of the end?
Jun 16, 2009
Davidka - Israeli secrets are revealed
Feb 05, 2009
more from Mehdi Mazloom
Mehdi Mazloom


by Mehdi Mazloom on

Iran won't allow Israel

Just don't bet your farm on it. 


Iran won't allow Israel

by XerXes (not verified) on


Mehdi Mazloom


by Mehdi Mazloom on

I do agree with the distinction between IRI and Iran.

You are correct, Israel knew about the Shah nuclear plans, and agreed to it for simple reason. There was a de facto peace between Iran, and Israel . For political reason, the Shah never acknowledged it in public. Up and until he was deposed. Israel had sent many agricultural experts to Iran to help farmers there to be more productive (such as drip irrigation, fertilizers, etc), in return Iran supplied Israel with oil. (I am aware of Israel help with the shah's despicable Savak).

The situation here with the Mullahs is different.Rright after they took over, Khomeini had canceled many Irani-Israeli contracts to develop projects in Iran. Outright declared his objective to remove Israel from the scene and transform it into another failed fundamentalist Islamic regime where Jews there will live as minorities under (yet again) Muslims.

As I have said it before. Iranian people deserve to have the same rights to develop and posses nuclear technology, But NOT bunch of lunatic  Mullahs who tell the rest of the world of their intent to remove Israel from the map.

My hunch is, the thrust of western involvment in Iran will focuse on regime change, rather then destroy nuclear facilities. This is a best and easiest soultion. After which the new democratic and secular govenment will immerge in Tehtran.   


Well said Jamshid!

by samsam1111 on

Thank You!

AmirAshkan Pishroo

The Persian Gulf versus the American Gulf

by AmirAshkan Pishroo on

There are much talks in media about the threat posed to Israel by an Iranian nuclear capability. They discuss whether Iran is a "serious threat" or an "immediate threat." To my mind Iran is is in fact neither.

Iran is not a "threat" to Israel, but a serious "challenge" to Pax Americana in the Persian Gulf. Today the Gulf is neither the Persian Gulf nor the Arabian Gulf. It is an American Gulf.

Nuclear-armed Iran is a short-cut to transform the phrase “Persian Gulf” from a description of geography to a reality of power politics.

Thanks for sharing, Mr. Mazloom.


You meant to say Israel

by jamshid on

You meant to say Israel won't allow a nuclear IRI? Correct?

Israel did not have any problems with Iran becoming nuclear when the Shah was in power. Again, am I correct?

Be careful where and how you use the words Iran and IRI, unless you want to insult Iran. They are two different things with different meanings.

Israel has every right to be concerned about a nuclear IRI, but Iran (not IRI) has every right to become nuclear too.