Netanyahu to set "clear red line" for Iran in U.N. speech

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will set out, in his speech at the United Nations on Thursday, an ultimatum for Iran to halt its disputed nuclear drive or risk coming under military attack, an Israeli official said.

news.yahoo.com...

I wonder what these "red-lines" will be? Anything about 20% enrichment? (How can they be sure)
One final offer to allow inspectors into all sites? Maybe a date, deadline?

(As my thread from yesterday stated, they are not going to surpass 20%)
www.abovetopsecret.com...

He gave Obama until the 26th, when he did his speech, to demand Iran halt their Nuclear Programme or military action will be taken. Not for him to say, once again, that "all options are on the table." So I think this will be a formal declaration of war, stating that talks have halted and time has run out.

Iran already has nukes.

Shall i say that slowly....

IRAN HAS HAD ITS OWN NUKES SINCE 2002.

www.cuttingedge.org...

NEWS BRIEF: "RUSSIAN GENERAL CONFIRMS IRAN HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS!", Stratfor Intelligence, Week of June 4, 2002.

"A Russian general's statement about Iran's nukes fails to register with media. Sometime a slip of the tongue is so incredible that no amount of doctoring can explain it. And sometimes a slip of the tongue is as intentional as could be.

"Then the Russian general takes a surprise turn: 'Now, as to whether or not Iran has tested something like that. Iran does have nuclear weapons,' Baluyevsky said. 'Of course, these are non-strategic nuclear weapons. I mean these are not ICBMs with a range of more than 5,500 kilometers and more."

This Russian general has just confirmed that Iran has nuclear warheads and theater missiles with which to deliver them

Isn't it blatently obvious why the west never attacks Iran ???????

No because tomorrow a zionist will say 'Iran will have nuke in 24 hours and must be attacked now'
What will ATS do? ATS will take it as the gospel truth, hook, line and sinker. Again and again.

how can we go in and steal the oil if iran is radiated?...the large oil companies will demand a conventional war....or they can hire severly poor southeast asians to work in radiated oil fields if nukes are used

Just curious, how long is this U.N. "general assembly" going on? Seems like it has been going for a few days now..

Well hopefully if there has to be war, Israel will be forced to go it alone. I'm sick of our soldiers getting killed in a war that has nothing to do with us. However, Cameron will no doubt want to jump on this one like he did Libya to get his approval ratings up.

Netanyahu to set "clear red line" for Iran in U.N. speech

This proves what I said and what Ahmadinejad knew. They tell US govt what to do.

“Is it the Zionists who must tell the United States government what to do, such as form a red line on Iran’s nuclear issues, and the United States government must make such vital decisions under the influence of the Zionists?” Ahmadinejad said.

wp

Ahmadinejad is right about those Zionists.

I have proven in this thread here how Zionists planned for velvet revolution in Iran.regarding which path to persia ?

And you know that they have succeeded partially.

It was a strategy told by Saban , a Zionist who is working in brookings institute.

They have talked about their red line strategy in their recent plans. You can check it in page 15 of this pdf and this page

MR. POLLACK: Let me, if I may, move back to this narrower question of use of force. You didn’t rule it out, you put it at the very end of the spectrum, but you didn’t rule it out, and you’ve made clear your views on red lines, I think that that makes imminent good sense. Anyone who’s been in these kind of positions knows that what looks very clear at one moment in time can look very blurry at another point, but I would like you to kind of help an American audience understand a bit better how an Israeli leadership might think about when you’ve reached that last, last, last, last, last resort.

I just wanted to prove how Zionist are telling US govt what to do and that Ahmadinejad is right about this.

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:

Ahmadinejad : Zionists who must tell the US govt what to do - right

NWO new hand in mideast - other than Soros

reply to post by Rapha

post by Rapha
IRAN HAS HAD ITS OWN NUKES SINCE 2002.

If your basing that statement on the fear porn source you posted then I would say no they haven't .

Persia (Iran) will march with Russia and some European nations against Israel in the Latter Days (Ezekiel 38-39).

post by Rapha
Isn't it blatently obvious why the west never attacks Iran ???????

Yes it is and it has nothing to do with Iran having the bomb .
Its because 1.. They (Iran) have the ability to fight back with conventional arms and 2.. because it would be like lighting the blue touch paper on the whole of the Middle East and throw the world into turmoil because of the disruption to oil supplies that would follow .

The biggest threat to peace in the region is Israel as has been shown many times over the last fifty or so years , is there a neighbor they haven't attacked in one way or another ?

It will be interesting to hear what he will say....

Any idea what time it will be on?

Originally posted by Wookiep
Just curious, how long is this U.N. "general assembly" going on? Seems like it has been going for a few days now..

It's a week.

Canada doesn't even speak until Monday.

PALESTINE TALKING NOW.

Israel is next:
webtv.un.org...

reply to post by CALGARIAN


Man you are on the ball.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention..

watching now..

How long do these things last.. I can maybe see why people walk out..

reply to post by Rapha


I am a bit confused on your post.. Are you supporting Israel or Iran?

The reason I ask is the information you provided, stating Iran has nukes, does nothing but confirm the Israel position.

I also back tracked part of your article and came across this -
Joel Epstein - Question of the Day - Iran full ticket

Question:

On July 26, 2002, Russia announced that it was building six nuclear reactors for the Islamic Republic of Iran, four at Bushehr and two at Akhvaz. This project includes a uranium-conversion plant that can be used for, among other things, uranium enrichment.


Is the purpose of this multi-billion dollar enterprise:

a) to provide Iran with additional megawatts of electrical energy for its power grid, or

b) to provide Iran with a "full ticket" nuclear threat (or deterrent)?


Answer:

Nuclear reactors have dual-purposes: providing electric energy and providing nuclear technology. Iran does not have any immediate need for the 1,000 megawatts of electricity that the Bushehr reactor would provide, as is demonstrated by its destroying gas from its oil fields that would produce otherwise 3,600 megawatts. It is therefore safe to assume that the purpose of these nuclear reactors is to provide Iran with the technology it needs to transform itself into a nuclear power.

To build nuclear warheads, Iran needs a supply of fissile material, which is either enriched uranium or weapon-grade plutonium. Its initial deal with Russia in 1995 included a centrifuge plant which would have provided Iran with this fissile material. But the plant was then canceled under American pressure. But it could still get the fissile material from the spent nuclear fuel (SNF), which, when reprocessed, yields plutonium.

Russia claimed that the agreement called for all the spent nuclear fuel to be sent back to Russia. However, leaked government documents (released by Greenpeace) reveal that Russia, despite these public assurances, had no contract for repatriating this spent nuclear fuel from Iran. A Russian government official said "The only reason we knew there was no plan for the SNF from the original Bushehr reactor is because internal documents were leaked to the press." He added, "The ‘protocol of intent' means nothing in terms of repatriating the fuel." So Iran may well have the expectation that one way or another it will gain access to fissile material after Bushehr is operational in 2003.

In explaining Russia's rationale, General Yuri Baluyevsky, the Russian Deputy Chief of Staff said at a press conference in June 2002, "Iran does have nuclear weapons. These are non-strategic nuclear weapons. I mean these are not ICBMs with a range of more than 5,500 kilometers... As for the danger of Iran's attack on the United States, the danger is zero." General Baluyevsky's extraordinary briefing implied that Iran had acquired its fissile material from another source so there was no reason for Russia not to complete the nuclear reactor at Bushehr. He concluded"This co-operation will continue." (The cooperation, aside from nuclear reactors, included the delivery of Russian Kilo-class diesel- powered submarines, Mig-29 fighters, Sukhoy bombers a global navigation system and satellite-launching assistance .)

General Baluyevsky's assurances did not take into account, however, Iran's program for developing missiles.

Click link for remainder of article.

^ Thanks

Rather Slovenia's president is talking now and Bibi next!

reply to post by Xcathdra


If that article Is true I may have to change my spots...

I'm no leopard..

But also if it is true, then it means Iran isn't using nukes even possessing them..

does this not lend credibility to a fact that all they are doing is making their resources too costly to come after, and their country to pointy to bite into?

edited ....

reply to post by Dustytoad


It's on NOW!!

webtv.un.org...

He said "redlines don't make war, they prevent it". Then cited off sources from our past.

Good lord here comes the diagrams

^ Yup.