(Banner will apear here)

Beautiful Kabbalah Jewelry Judaicawebstore.com
Font Size:

Bush Proclamations and Obama's Apostasy

President Peres: 'Anyone Who Doubts President Bush's Declarations Should Listen To Them Through Arab Ears'

IDF Intelligence Chief Yadlin: 'Iran May Acquire Nuclear Weapons By Beginning Of Next Decade'

IsraCast: 'Bush Statements Negate Recent American National Intelligence Estimate That Iran May Have Halted Nuclear Weapons Program But Apparently Passes Responsibility For Action To Next Administration'

Presidents Bush and Peres

What is the implication of President Bush's Knesset statements on Iran? 'Permitting the world's greatest sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon!', 'America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions'. IsraCast presents an assessment of President Bush's proclamations on Iran's nuclear weapons program against the backdrop of the latest Israeli intelligence.

The Iranian Nuclear Reactor

With the looming threat of a nuclear armed Iran, U.S. President George W. Bush vibrant speech in the Knesset have aroused the most attention in Israel. Bush left no doubt that the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate about Iran halting its nuclear weapons program has gone by the board. He left no doubt that Iranian President Ahmadinejad is bent on building the bomb, even comparing the current situation with that of Hitler's Germany in 1939. But does his follow-up remark about 'an unforgivable betrayal of future generations' also allude to this being the responsibility of his successor in the White House who will take office in less than a year? Again 'America stands with you' sounds more like U.S. solidarity and cooperation but with Israel at the forefront in the event of a preemptive strike. It rings quite different from former declarations such as 'all options are on the table' and 'the U.S. is determined not to allow Iran to get the bomb'.

Now the U.S. leader was talking about 'the world' not allowing Iran to achieve its nuclear weapons goal. The stress was on U.N. diplomacy but Russia, China, Switzerland, Germany and Austria are queuing up to sign lucrative commercial deals with Tehran. Nonetheless, Israelis welcomed the Bush pledge that Israel was not alone or as Peres put it: 'Anyone who doubts its impact should try listening through Arab ears'.

But what was the chance that Iran could be curbed diplomatically and not by force. This was the question that Haaretz newspaper put to IDF intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin who replied: 'The prospect of diplomatic containment depends on someone being able to expose Iran. Iran is fooling the world, but so far it has not been exposed in a serious way. If Iran is exposed in the next year or two, and it is proved beyond a doubt that it deceived the world about its nuclear program, the diplomatic campaign against it might be revived'. And Yadlin added that such an intelligence breakthrough was 'our greatest challenge'.

The Iranian Missile Range

On the other hand, the Iranians were developing ballistic missiles capable of targeting Europe and crossing the Atlantic in the future. Therefore a nuclear Iran was an international problem and Israel should not lead the campaign. Although Iran was operating 3,000 centrifuges capable of producing enough enriched uranium for one atomic bomb annually, Yadlin rejected Ahmadinejad's claim that they were now running another 6,000. Iran was trying to reach an industrial level of tens of thousands of centrifuges but had encountered technological problems and had added only several hundred more centrifuges.

So when might Iran pass the point of no return and acquire nuclear weapons? The general felt possibly at the beginning of the next decade, although it was more realistic to consider the middle of the next decade. He also warned of nuclear proliferation noting that three other regional powers would immediately start a nuclear weapons program, if Iran got the bomb. Moreover, even if Iran did not use its bomb, and this could not be ruled out, there was no question Tehran would be more aggressive than it was today. And what if diplomacy doesn't work, the U.S. takes a back seat and Israel is left on its own? Maj. Gen. Yadlin, a fighter pilot who flew in the Israeli raid that destroyed Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, replied: 'We are a country that can cope with every threat in the Middle East, including the Iranian threat'.

Maj. Gen. Eliezer Shkedi

Incidentally, the Israel Air Force received a new commander this week. Maj. Gen. Ido Nechushtan replaced Maj. Gen. Eliezer Shkedi whose mission was to prepare for the possibility of Iran going nuclear. Shkedi, already had an extra year added to his three year stint. Would the IDF have 'changed horses in mid-stream', if Shkedi had not completed his mission, with all that entails?

In his Knesset speech, President Bush also took issue with those who would negotiate with 'terrorists and radicals' - a comment viewed in the U.S. as criticism of the Democrat's front- runner Barak Hussein Obama who has talked of a dialogue with Iran. Years ago this was a gambit tried unsuccessfully by Britain, France and Germany. Although Israeli leaders have steered clear of getting involved in the presidential race, the Middle East is becoming an issue in more ways than one.

Barack Obama (Credit: www.barackobama.com)

In an International Herald Tribune article entitled 'Apostate president', Dr. Edward Luttwak, a senior American strategist, analyzed the fact that Obama was born a Muslim but converted to Christianity. Luttwak noted the worst crime a Muslim could commit was to convert to another religion and that both 'the Sunni and Shiite schools prescribe execution for all adults who leave the faith, not under duress; 'the recommended punishment is beheading ....although in recent years there have been stonings and hangings'. Luttwak concludes that this would increase the security risk to a President Obama on visits to Muslim countries. And he adds: 'Of all the well-meaning desires projected on Obama, the hope that he would decisively improve relations with the world's Muslims is the least realistic' .

There is another aspect to this issue. Obviously the U.S. has crucial interests in the Middle East and preserving the flow of Gulf oil to the Western world. If Luttwak's assessment is correct, President Obama would have to try even harder to overcome Muslim animosity to his quitting Islam for Christianity. What could be the outcome of such a situation where Israel is concerned?

David Essing

Back To The Top