& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Iran war not inevitable

Says Netanyahu, warns only military threat will stop Tehran's nuke programme

The Guardian Online
Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has said an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is no t inevitable.
He however claimed it is the threat of military action, not sanctions, that will deter Tehran from developing an atomic bomb.
Following his White House meeting with US President Barack
Obama this week, Netanyahu differed with the president over the value of diplomacy and was sceptical about a fresh round of talks between Tehran and the major powers, telling Fox News that Iran has "bamboozled the west."
The Israeli premier said, like Churchill, he is sounding the "jarring gong of danger" to wake democracies from their slumber to the com-
ing danger. Asked if "war is inevitable," Netanyahu replied: "I don't think so."
But he brushed off Obama's demand for an end to the "loose talk of war" and "blustering" over Iran — criticisms evidently aimed at months of threats from within Israel — to argue that Tehran is more likely to respond to fearofattackthansanctions.
The only time Iran backed away from its nuclear programme was in 2003, when they thought there would be a credible military threat against them, he said. "So in fact, the paradox is that if they actually believe that they're going to face the military option, you probably won't need the military option."
US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta reiterated the military threat on Iran by saying that Washington has been preparing the plans for an attack "for a long time".
But in an interview with the National Journal, he marked out the sharp difference with Israel over the timing of any assault by effectively saying that if an attack becomes necessary it would be better to wait and let the US carry it out
"If [Israel] decided to do it there's no question that it would have an impact, but I think it's also clear that if the United States did it we would have a hell of a bigger impact," he said.
At their White House meeting this week, Obama sought to persuade Netanyahu to
hold off on any attack against Iran with a promise that even if Tehran was able to move its nuclear programme to fortified underground facilities beyond the reach of Israel's military, the US would still be able to destroy them.
But that requires Netanyahu to place the decision on whether to attack Iran in Washington's hands, something he has said he will not do.
The Israeli premier declined to discuss a possible timeline for Israeli military action but said the Iranians are getting "very, very close".
He said increasingly stringent sanctions are taking their toll on Iran, but not where it matters. "It's hurt their economy. But it has not stopped their [nuclear] programme by one wit."
While Obama has said the US assessment is that Iran has not yet made the decision to develop a nuclear bomb, Netanyahu repeated his asser-tionthathehasnodoubtthatis what Tehran intends to do.
Netanyahu was sceptical a new round of talks agreed between Iran and the five permanent members of the
UN Security Council plus Germany will change very much.
The group appealed in a statement on Thursday for Iran to enter into a "serious dialogue" on its nuclear programme and said it was "concerned that, despite efforts made so far, no agreement was reached, including on the access to relevant sites in Iran, requested by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency]."
NetanyahusaidTehranhas previously used negotiations to "deceive and delay" and could do so again.
Asked whether the intelligence on Iran might prove to be as flawed as the false reports of weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Netanyahu said there was "no comparison."
" In the case of Iraq, I was on the Israeli cabinet when we discussed this issue. We didn't know. We couldn't say that they didn't have a nuclear weapons programme, we couldn't say if they did. In the case of Iran there is absolutely no question.... I don't think that's comparable."