Israel slams Iran deal and rightly so

Despite the dovish wittering of people like David Farrar I think the Iran deal is fraught with danger, particularly for Israel.

Barack Obama is hell bent on delivering nuclear weapons into the hands of a country that professes total eradication of Israel.

Unsurprisingly Israel is not wanting a bar of it.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will convene his security cabinet to discuss the framework deal reached between world powers and Iran, after telling US President Barack Obama in a phone call that he “vehemently opposed” the agreement.

Obama called Netanyahu within hours of the deal being struck, saying it represented significant progress toward a lasting solution that cuts off Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon.

But Netanyahu said in a statement after the conversation that a deal based on the framework announced in Lausanne, Switzerland “would threaten the survival of Israel”.

“This deal would legitimise Iran’s nuclear programme, bolster Iran’s economy and increase Iran’s aggression and terror throughout the Middle East and beyond,” Netanyahu said.

“It would increase the risks of nuclear proliferation in the region and the risks of a horrific war.”

Israel has said in the past that it would consider taking unilateral action to prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon, a warning taken to mean that it could launch air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

While that rhetoric has died down over the past year or more, the head of Israel’s military planning directorate, Major-General Nimrod Sheffer, said it was still a possibility.

“The military option has always been on the table, as we have said all along,” Sheffer told Israel Hayom newspaper on Friday. “If it has not been mentioned much in the media recently, that does not reflect a change in policy.”

Israel has sorted out the problem before, and will sort it out again. They simply cannot take the risk of a newly wealthy Iran continuing to supply Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah, along with having nuclear capability.

In a speech after the deal was announced, Obama said it was the best way of limiting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, saying other options – including bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities – would not go as far in preventing the development of a bomb.

Under the deal, Iran has agreed to give up two-thirds of its installed centrifuges used for enriching uranium, has agreed to much tighter inspections and will dismantle a reactor that could produce plutonium, among other commitments.

Netanyahu said rather than blocking Iran’s path to the bomb, the framework deal “would pave it”.

He cited comments by an Iranian official who said this week that “the destruction of Israel is non-negotiable” and said the evidence was that Iran was “accelerating the arming of its terror proxies to attack Israel” a reference to Hezbollah in Lebanon and militant groups in Gaza.

While much of the rest of the world appears inclined to support efforts to reach a negotiated solution with Iran – and there was cheering in the streets of Tehran after the deal was struck – Israel remains an outlier.

Israel already knows that they must go alone int eh world, let down by the UN, let down by their allies.

You can’t trust Iran.

Obama risks much and by the time it all falls apart he will be long retired raking in millions on the speaking circuit.


– Fairfax


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Rex

    Obama will go down in history as a weak, useless President who created major tension (or worse) in the Middle East and Europe!

    • The Accountant

      Actually, I believe he will be a wonderful example of how the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

  • Backdoor

    And can the world trust Israel? They also contribute to the instability of the Middle East.

    • symgardiner

      Or has Israel contributed to the stability of the world by providing a stopper to the raving nut jobs that seem to end up as leaders of that part of the world?

    • Rubbish, if the psycho Arab terrorists left Israel alone they’d leave everyone else alone too. Every neighbouring country of Israel save Jordan and Egypt want Israel to cease to exist…I just love how you victim blame.

      • Backdoor

        Very true, Israel do have a victim mentality.

    • Isherman

      “They (Israel) contribute to the instability of the Middle East”, oh you mean like when they pulled completely out of Gaza, and instead of getting Palestinians going about their lives, they got Hamas, because they are a real stabilising force in the region aren’t they. Thats probably the only sense in which your suggestion might be correct. Also, looking at the chaos across the region in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya and Yemen which is largely sectarian, I’d love you to explain to me how Israel has contributed to any of that.

    • BJ

      Please explain.

      • Backdoor

        With a hawk for a President there can be no peace negotiations. The question needs to be asked “what role does the unrest in the Middle East play in the ISIL saga?

  • AnonWgtn

    Couldn’t agree more with this comment.
    Trust the Mullahs – they have been shown time and time again to be duplicitous.
    Sad Obama has turned in to such a turd. Poor USA.

  • symgardiner

    This negotiation will either result in a game change towards peace or the first use of nuclear weapons in anger since WW2.
    Iran does have the potential to westernise. It’s population is too well educated to be like Saudi Arabia and other middle east basket cases. However if they do make a bomb Israel will destroy their entire nuclear industrial complex. Unfortunately to do that they will have to use 1-2 nukes to get the hardened targets.

  • All_on_Red

    Question: What language was the deal written in?
    Answer: Farce-y
    HT Iowahawk

  • All_on_Red

    White House: Iran won’t cheat on this agreement.
    Sane person: how do you know?
    WH: because it lifts sanctions.
    SP: why were they on sanctions?

  • Greg M

    I’m firmly with Israel on this one. Any spare cash Iran has in the coffers, seems to go to funding terrorist groups to do their dirty work for them, so they look clean.
    Obama has completely mis read the whole situation.

  • Ben

    It’s “peace in our time”.

    • chrisgale

      No. It is Mussolini allying with Hitler.

      Bush is more like Chamberlain. Obama is functionally a fascist.

      • I think the polite term is ‘National Socialist’, which describes Obama well.

      • Bluey

        NB: Godwin’s Law

  • Many years ago when I was in the States a friend’s father told me that the US wasn’t allied with Israel for any of the usual PR or ‘principled’ nonsense. It was very simple why the US provided such vast diplomatic and economic/military aid: they needed to keep Israel on a tight lead. Israel is a wildcard which the Americans can’t let go, as their technology and willingness to fight (and sacrifice) isn’t in question. Even if they ‘drift apart’ without direct action against Iran, the Israelis can start selling weapons, space launch capabilities, and comms (both equipment and services) to anyone they want and the Yanks won’t be able to stop them. That presents serious risks to the ‘American order’ of things, which people like Obama really are just too short-sighted to see. When the Chinese end up with a full suite of Python-5s and Derby’s on their Flankers, someone in Washington is going to go, ‘Oh sh…’

  • Speedog

    The legacy of Obama and John Kerry will be one of betrayal of Israel and if they think Iran will magically now be a “friend” of US they are delusional. But wait…John Kerry’s son-in-law, an Iranian-American with many family still in Iran, I’m sure will welcome the easing of economic sanctions in Iran.

  • timemagazine

    There is no deal. Nothing was signed and nothing has changed.It is just a framework. Obama wants to be the first American president who has struck a deal with the crazy mullahs because he is also the first black president of the USA. It is nothing but ego. Gigantic ego from the Marxist in Chief.

    • intelligentes candida diva

      Egos at play here and power mongering ….and msm putting it out there is like testing the water to ascertain public reaction/response

  • Genevieve

    Meanwhile, Iran will continue to spread its tentacles of terrorism throughout the Middle East, the only difference now being that it will have greater cash reserves to do so with. Obama will never have the legacy of being a great peacemaker. He has chosen sides and that will be the lingering memory of the man.

  • williamabong

    The US should deliver Iran nuclear weapons, two or three dropped from a B1 at 50,000 ft should just about do the job, if that doesn’t work another half dozen should wipe the rat infested s$#@hole clear off the map.

  • Bluey


    “Iran is currently locked in what political scientists call a “security dilemma” with its Sunni neighbors — especially its great regional rival Saudi Arabia. In a security dilemmas, neither side can really trust the other’s intentions to be peaceful toward the other: Saudi Arabia and Iran have a decades-long history of enmity and ideological tension. So one side, fearing attack, ramps up defense spending or supports a regional proxy in order to guard against a perceived threat. The other side sees that as threatening — what if they’re planning to attack? — and feels compelled to respond in kind.

    This creates a self-sustaining cycle in which both countries take actions that are designed to make their country more secure, but end up scaring the other side and thus raising both the chances and the potential severity of conflict.”

    The Obama administration has at least seen that this situation would become unsustainable if there were nuclear weapons brought into the fray. Baby steps are better than backwards steps.

  • intelligentes candida diva

    Netanyahu’s comment ‘…would threaten the survival of Israel” ought to be a strong deterrent. If that is not enough to NOT go ahead then what is?

    It makes me shudder to think such powerful decision makers do little about face masked beheading destructive murderous heathens a foe to most Westerners yet willingly considering to go ahead with a dangerous framework. Of course it will have benefits to some but appears short sighted and only beneficial to a few and if it is not a necessity why embark on a concept that holds greater risks to a people….