(Banner will apear here)

Beautiful Kabbalah Jewelry Judaicawebstore.com
Font Size:

Canada's Diplomatic Drubbing Of Iran

Canada Berates Iran For Supporting Syria's President Bashar Assad & Threatening To Annihilate Israel

Washington Post Joins New York Times In Urging President Barack Obama To Set 'Red Lines' For Iran's Nuclear Weapons Project

IsraCast Assessment: Canadian Diplomacy Serves As Fitting Response To 120 'Non-Aligned' Countries Who Attended Recent Conference In Tehran

Iranian Nuclear Reactor

 Is the world finally waking up to the danger posed by a nuclear armed Iran? Ottawa, which has always had troubled ties with the Islamist Republic of Iran, has acted decisively by suspending diplomatic relations with Tehran. Foreign Affairs Minister Douglas Baird pulled no punches in stating: "Canada views the government of Iran as the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today". However in Jerusalem, analyst David Essing is of the view that Israel deeply appreciates Canada's standing up to Iran but there is also a sense the West may have already missed the boat.

 Ottawa stands up to Tehran...

John Baird

While U.S. President Barack Obama may be contemplating some new 'red lines' for Iran, Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper has acted. What tipped the scales was Iran's massive support for his ally, Syrian President Bashar Assad's massacre of his own people and Iran's repeated threats of genocide against Israel. Iran is not only supplying weapons, Iranian troops are also fighting alongside Assad's forces; when some of them were captured they claimed to be 'tourists'. But might Canada have decided to move its remaining diplomats out of Tehran for fear of reprisals to a possible Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear sites? Might Ottawa, a close ally of Jerusalem, have been tipped off? Foreign Affairs Minister Douglas Baird categorically denied it: "Unequivocally, we have no information about a military strike on Iran".

If Mr. Obama really is determined...

The Washington Post has joined the New York Times in urging President Obama to set new 'red lines' for Iran's nuclear weapons program. The Post editorial noted the current bizarre situation - the U.S. was perceived as more concerned with blocking an Israeli strike against Iran than it was with halting Iran's nuclear program. It also alluded to the growing question marks about Obama's resolve to use military action against Iran in the future:

'If Mr Obama really is determined to take military action if Iran takes decisive steps toward producing a bomb, such as enriching uranium to bomb-grade levels or expelling inspectors, he should be willing to say so publicly. Doing so would improve relations with Mr Netanyahu and deter unilateral Israeli action - and it might well convince Iran the time has come to compromise'.

If Obama is pressing Netanyahu not to jeopardize his election prospects by attacking Iran before Nov.6th , the U.S. President should stop pussy-footing about 'all options being on the table' that actually includes the option of not using military force. Netanyahu and probably a majority of Israelis fear the state's very survival is at stake. Although there is a public debate in Israel, it is being waged about 'if and when' Israel should go it alone against Iran.

No imminent risk? ...

In the Toronto Globe and Mail, Canadian columnist caught my attention with his title: 'By cutting ties with Iran, we just shot ourself in the foot'. Saunders first argues that even if all the terrible things are true about Iran they are not a reason to sever diplomatic ties - in fact it would be a very good reason to maintain them. And Saunders concludes: 'Once you've pulled the plug, you're out of the game'. Really? Try telling that to the fifty-two American diplomats who were held hostage in their Tehran embassy for 444 days. Or better still, ask the relatives of Zahra Kazemi, the photographer with dual Iranian-Canadian citizenship, who was tortured to death by the Iranian security service in 2003. Well everyone is free to express his or her opinion but facts are subject to scrutiny. For example this statement by columnist Saunders: "There's no imminent risk'' and that's right if you live in Toronto. But if you live in Jerusalem, or anywhere else in Israel, there will be an imminent risk, if Iran succeeds in burying its nuclear weapons sites inside mountains that will make them impregnable to an Israeli preventative strike. In such a case, Israel would forego its right to self-defense and depend upon others to protect it from genocide. No country would agree to do this, unless it's a 'Czechoslovakia of 1938'.

Apparently drawing on his expertise in nuclear weapons Saunder then concludes with a snappy punchline: "The Iranian menace is all politics and potential". Hello! The US is deploying a formidable fleet in the Persian Gulf region, Obama is being urged to set red lines and the EU has imposed an embargo on oil purchases from Iran. Is this not designed to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program? I can already visualize Saunders vehemently protesting: "You jerk, I stressed imminent risk!" So the U.S., Canada and the EU have imposed the measures they have because they all believe it's only 'politics and potential'. Time is of the essence, clandestine Iranian nuclear weapons facilities have been discovered in recent years - who knows how many more are operating today.

The Israeli connection...

According to foreign sources, the Israel Air Force has been training for several years to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons sites. How does this jibe with the columnist quoting the IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz as saying he does not believe Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons! Gantz has never said any such thing! Saunders apparently confused the reported differences among the IDF, the Mossad intelligence service, the Shabak security service and Israel's political leadership over how to cope with the Iranian nuclear threat. However everyone now concurs, possibly with the exception of Mr. Saunders, that the Iranians are definitely pursuing the nuclear fuel, the weaponization of an A-bomb and a delivery system of ballistic missiles. Obviously this is not something that is developed overnight. The Iranian strategy is to string the world along until they have all the components in place and then 'break out' for the bomb. When this will happen is an open question. The Iranians, who are very smart in their own right, have also been aided by North Korea.

Britain also supports stiffer sanctions...

In another development, Britain's Foreign Secretary William Hague has also proposed stiffer sanctions against Iran. The reason for this sudden shift is linked to the latest IAEA report that, if anything, Iran has recently escalated its nuclear weapons program in spite of the EU oil embargo and other economic steps. Such big hitters as Russia, China and India are still doing business with Tehran. In fact, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Levrov has complained the sanctions are harming his country's economic interests. Be that as it may, Iran has shown no sign of backing down. On the contrary, the 120 non-aligned states have given Iran a moral and economic boost by recently showing up in Tehran.

Writing is on the wall!...

His name is not Daniel but former Likud cabinet minister Zachi Hanegbi, who is close to Prime Minister Netanyahu, has drawn what might turn out to be some prophetic conclusions. In an interview with Haaretz, Hanegbi said the PM has not divulged to him his position or any classified details of a possible Israeli strike on Iran. However Hanegbi made these points:

Next fifty days are fateful...

1. "The next fifty days will be the most fateful in Israel's history, comparable to the Egyptian and Syrian surprise attack on Yom Kippur in 1973. (The massive surprise attack took the state by surprise and inflicted heavy Israeli losses before the IDF beat back the advancing Egyptian and Syrian forces and subsequently defeated them).

Israel will soon have to decide...

2. Hanegbi: "I believe the day is not far off when we will have to decide whether we acquiesce in a nuclear armed Iran as have all the others (Obama & Romney) seem to be doing, or whether we will confront Iran on our own - alone. I hear that Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak saying that time is short. They estimate that from a specific point in time, that an Israeli strike will no longer be capable of influencing Iran's nuclear weapons project".

Netanyahu will act if he has to...

3. Hanegbi: "I have no idea what Netanyahu will do. I am not sure that even the PM knows yet what he will do. But I do know that if he draws the conclusion that it's in Israel's national interest to act and prevent Iran going nuclear, he will act'.

Perfectly clear sanctions will not work...

4. "No paralyzing sanctions have been imposed on Iran until this moment. With the aid of Russia, India and China the Iranians can cope with these non-paralyzing sanctions. This is a story of too little, too late. The Iranians are acting with a sophistication, worthy of admiration, and the West has failed to block them. It is perfectly clear the sanctions will not achieve their goal in time. In private conversations, some Western leaders now admit it".

David Essing

Back To The Top