I bet Israel was DELIGHTED by this news from our strictly impartial National Broadcaster….Honest Reporting has the details
“With the announcement of the Iranian nuclear deal, there’s plenty of media coverage including Israel’s reaction. BBC Newshour on BBC World Service radio interviewed Israel’s Minister of Science, Technology and Space, Danny Danon. Danon stated that Israel was “keeping all options on the table.”
The presenter asked Danon to explain. Her reaction is both shocking and disturbing (click on the image below to listen):
But you’re not under threat by Iran. Nobody in Iran has threatened you for a very long time. You’re harking back to a time when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened Israel directly.
I wonder did Danon manage to miss Iran’s “Death to Israel” joyous celebrations from….er….last week?
The BBC has made it quite clear that opposing the ‘deal’ makes you into either an Obama foe or a US conservative. It’s a way of positioning opposition to the agreement as partisan rather than principled. The matter will come before Congress. How many Democrats will oppose it? Will they all be labelled by the BBC as anti Obama?
From the BBC News homepage
I saw that yesterday – a quite ridiculous headline, even for the BBC
What’s so ridiculous about a deliberate distortion for the purpose of propaganda? In my book it is sheer evil.
Israeli PM’s response to the nuclear deal. I understand that King Obama will veto any attempts to change the deal
There were high hopes that the outcome of such a favourable deal for Iran would involve the release of the four American prisoners. Not so and Trump is on the warpath.
http://therightscoop.com/video-trump-responds-to-iran-deal-asks-where-are-the-four-american-prisoners/
I have watched this sobering speech twice, and can find nothing in Netanyahu’s statements and comments to disagree with. In my opinion, he is entirely correct in his view that this is a bad deal, and one which gives Iran all the money and ‘political permission’ it needs to continue its chosen course of one of the world’s leading supporters of islamic terrorism.
Today Iran s Supremo, is photographed trampling on the Israeli flag!
and vowing that the ” Zionist Regime is Condemned to Vanish”?
“vanish”, what happens to people who erm, “vanish” in Iran
any ideas?
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/irans-supreme-leader-posts-photo-himself-trampling-israeli-flag
Soooo … denying the last holocaust, and obviously vowing to erm reign over the next … that part of his strategic erm “talks”?
Meanwhile, Obama, Kerry, the mainstream media are saying that the deal is advantageous to all … that include Israel?
The term ‘Obama Foe’ is a strange one. Aren’t these democratically elected representatives of US citizens? Has it become an offence now to differ with the BBC’s Messiah, (most ineffective president in living memory)?
Why exactly does Iran need nuclear power? Wikipedia must be near the mark with this:
“According to the Iranian government, Iran has enough reserves to produce oil for the next 100 years while oil reserves of other Middle Eastern countries will be depleted in the next 60 years and most other oil-rich countries will lose their reserves within the next 30 years”
Is it doing it so it can generously export all of its oil when the rest runs out or because it believes that climate change is driven by burning oil.. or is it doing it to wipe the Jew off the face of the earth? Care to ask the question BBC?
Definition of appeasement: belief in the Exceptionalism of your opponents.
Example:
Propagating with tacit approval the ‘right’ of Iran to develop nuclear power, and at the same time freely exporting as much fossil fuel as it can;
Simultaneously endorsing domestic ‘anti-fracking’ mobs, and those who would banish nuclear energy from the UK in favour of a mediaeval, ration-based policy on energy, the equivalent of the Soviet retail policies which forced its citizens to queue for days in order to buy inferior products at inflated prices, being the direct cause of much suffering and death within its population.
The degraded British media/university classes have invested so much in the demonisation of Israel that it is now inconceivable that Israel will ever get a fair hearing. This is not based on anything rational but an emotional spasm of insanity that seems at times to afflict the otherwise intelligent.
As Europe descends into darkness of the spirit and begins to undo the achievements of the last 600 years the little state of Israel is an intolerable reminder to the degraded liberal classes of what can be achieved if the will is there to build instead of to destroy.
Israel will survive I am sure. The young people will make it thrive and will fight to keep it in being.
As for the BBC stop listening to it.. It is no friend of Israel and no friend any more of a free people.
Thank you Dave. There is hope in what you say, though at the moment I have to make a special effort to see it.
I have seen the Henry Jackson society’s comments on this and they are spot on.
The deal is not a good thing for world peace, Iran is still a threat, and by allowing them free finance, this allows them to further finance their imperialist Islamic ambitions.
Looking forward to Douglas Murrays comments on this too.
Just why exactly should the UK put the interests of a foreign nation (Israel) higher than any other, including its own?
The truth here is that while Israel has had a certain degree of influence over UK politicians in the past, it simply does not have anything like the financial clout of those oil rich Sunnis nearby, for whom bribery and corruption is a way of life.
America would not have agreed this deal without the permission of Saudi Arabia, who many commentators are trying to put in the same bed as Israel.
Saudi has been very quiet over this deal – Israel has not. That’s because behind the scenes one knows the ins and outs, and the other is pretty much in the dark.
It’s very doubtful if when the greed ridden Republicans come to power anything will change. Money is far too powerful a mistress for all those old friendships and prejudices to have much influence.
Thoughtful,
The idea that that the deal is putting anyone but Iran’s interests ahead of the the US or even Britain’s is nonsense. Israel has been loudest in opposing it but perhaps that is a function of the Western media’s obsession with it. All of Iran’s traditional Sunni enemies are no less opposed.
If you have any evidence at all that Saudi Arabia has given permission please provide it. The idea that the kingdom has bribed anyone to produce an agreement that may threaten its existence and at the very least could give Iran the power to direct the Arab’s oil policies is simply la-la land.
There are many reasons why the United Kingdom should have opposed the agreement in it’s own interests.
1) It may (IMHO probably will) lead to a nuclear arms race,
2) It removes the sanctions weapon from Iran’s conventional involvement particularly Syrian President Bashar Assad’s government, Yemen’s Houthi rebels, the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and other forces opposing America’s Mideast allies such as Saudi Arabia and Israel, and those where arguably it may feel obliged to intervene such as Jordan,
3) It provides no incentive for Iran not to become a nuclear power, even if it keeps to its side of the bargain, in ten years,
4) It permits Iran to supply conventional weapons to whoever it pleases, even if it keeps to its side of the bargain, in five years,
And 5) It threatens Israel which is not only a major trading partner but effectively controls the Eastern Mediterranean in case of a conflict. Britain has an pragmatic interest in the continued survival of Israel.
Sorry but I do not agree with you.
We KNOW Iran is attempting to produce a nuclear bomb because of the involvement of Pakistan’s A Q Khan, possibly one of the most dangerous men on the planet, and allegedly at one time supported by the American CIA.
We KNOW that Iran has the old technology of gas centrifuges used to separate Uranium 235 from 238 .
We do not know how many their have, nor what their exact capabilities are.
We do not know where they all are, although we have a good idea.
We do know that they are all in heavily protected sites underground which will be difficult if not impossible to bomb, and that there are dummy sites which probably contain nothing related to the project.
We do not know exactly how far along the path of construction Iran is to completion of a nuclear device.
We do know that the reason Israel has not taken military action against nuclear sites is because it either doesn’t know where they are, or is not convinced it can destroy them, or that destroying them would only cause a temporary delay in production.
We do know that US ‘intelligence’ is woefully unprepared for the threat of Islamic Jihad, and has still not managed to re-orientate itself since the cold war. Remember the weapons of mass destruction?
The only hope the world has of verifying its own suspicions is eyes on the ground, which has now been agreed to.
As for Saudi Arabia not being capable of bribing Western politicians well that really is la la land!
My point is not that they bribed them to make the agreement, but that they simply would not have allowed any agreement which they thought threatened their existence.
There might also be a degree of pragmatism there for the reasons above.
Left alone Iran WILL in time develop a nuclear bomb, albeit a small one, and world might not even know it has done it.
At least with inspectors in there, at least we now stand a ghost of a chance at seeing what really is going on. Even if as a result sanctions being lifted is the price, it will not assist the Iran development of an atomic bomb.
As we have seen with North Korea, another of the foul A Q Khans projects, having a bomb is one thing, developing the capability to deliver it is another.
Most of what you write has nothing to do with what I wrote. However on one of the rare occassions our paths intersect you wrote. “As for Saudi Arabia not being capable of bribing Western politicians well that really is la la land!” No one doubts the Saudis are capable of bribes but the idea they approve of the current agreement and let the Americans know is nonsense — and bribery has nothing to do with it.
The more counter intuitive the claim the more evidence is needed to ‘prove’ it. You have provided none.
Iran’s nuclear deal puts Saudis on edge
Sorry, but exactly which position within the US foreign office do you hold?
You seriously believe that the people at this level are not aware that bribery is illegal, and that proof will be next to impossible to provide?
Saudi have said nothing about this agreement, and commentators in the press have been left guessing and assuming what their position might be. Including the piece you have linked to.
My own guess if that their position is that it’s the best of a bad job.
You say that the idea they approved it is nonsense, yet you have no proof of that either.
Simply dismissing the accusation of bribery and influence buying because it isn’t screaming in your face only allows those doing it to carry on doing it, and that cannot be in anyone’s interest.
Some knowledge people think they have a nuclear bomb already watch from 17mins
Unfortunately what he says makes little sense. If Iran already has the bomb as he believes then it’s all too late, and sanctions, (as Margaret Thatcher told us) don’t work.
Iran fought back ISIS in Iraq which was good for us.
I hear voices here that Iran wants to destroy Israel, well so does every other Muslim country in the Middle East, and every individual Muslim the world over !
At least now the inspectors can go in and the truth be revealed what ever it might be.
It makes a great deal of sense for Iranians ,they get to keep their bomb ( the means of destroying Israel )
And still have sanctions lifted . The verification process is a joke even if they don’t have the bomb
Where will they store those centrifuges, that they wont now have to destroy, in a big air conditioned room with 3 phase power supply?
Their next step ,free from sanctions, is develop a delivery system – the cheap option is some sought of flying bomb, it doesn’t have to be as sophisticate as a Tomahawk – they can probably find some nut case to fly it
P.S. if you watch Obamas speech it turns out that Iran already has enough weapons grade uranium to make ten bombs a fact that has been denied up until now
Not a sheep points out this:
That went well, didn’t it?
Death to Iran! Death to Hezbollah!
The expression “peace in our time” comes to mind.
Let’s not forget. Iran hates the West in general as much as it hates Israel and America specifically.
BBC bitch interviews Israeli minister, widely condemned on Facebook.
See comments to this vid.
Bias???
It might have been assumed by a reasonable person that in return for lifting sanctions the allies would have agreed an inspection regime, in the silence of details of that deal from the media, that was exactly what I had assumed. I never realised that there is no real inspection regime, and that it would seem almost unbelievably that the Americans have agreed to take the Iranians word that they are not developing Nuclear weapons.
But why isn’t the media including the BBC screaming this out from the rooftops ? Probably because they want to make the Israelis appear unreasonable in objecting to what they want to portray as a ‘peace’ deal
Agreed. I thought that the deal was going to be along the lines of “….we’ll lift sanctions gradually as you prove your word regarding your nuclear capabilities and intents through untrammeled, instantaneous access by our inspectors to anywhere in Iran that they want to go…. no questions asked of them…no barriers put in their way, every facilitation provided…”
Are we seriously saying we settled for any less than that ? Well, surprise, surprise.
A deal ‘hard-fought and ‘hard-won’ by the US negotiators, of course – I did note that Mr Obama on TV last night was claiming it to be a US ‘victory’…. no mention of anyone else on the negotiating team. It’s obviously getting close to the time when Mr Obama’s ‘legacy’, and that of his cohorts, has to start to be ‘solidified’ in the minds of the people, lest ‘the emperor’s new clothes’ are discovered for what they are.
This isn’t going to start falling apart, like so many other things promulgated by him, until after the end of the President Obama reign, and the ‘proud retirement of the faithful servant of the US’, John Kerry. I bet Hillary is just salivating at the potential prospect….. of blaming someone else.
Neither Egypt not Saudi will accept an Iranian nuclear capability without having their own counter to it. Obama;s successor is going to have some interesting negotiations with the leaders of those two countries.
Vance,
“I bet Israel was DELIGHTED by this news from our strictly impartial National Broadcaster…”
Two scenarios:
1)
Interviewer; “Israel isn’t under threat from Iran…”
Interviewee; “Wrong, Israel is under threat from Iran”
2)
Interviewer; “Israel is under threat from Iran…”
Interviewee; “Correct, Israel is under threat from Iran”
Disregarding you own personal opinion, please explain which is the most impartial interview (1) or (2)?
The second one is more impartial because the first involves a lie from the interviewer intended to put Israel in the wrong as is normal for the BBC..