≡ Menu

Netanyahu Tells Iranians “Nukes Will Enslave You Forever!”

Richard Nixon said infamously, “I am not a crook,” and you knew instinctively that he was.  Now Bibi has told Iranians (in Farsi!) in a BBC Persian interview that Israelis are not “suckers.”  Israelis may not be suckers (or they may be!), but Bibi sure takes Iranians for suckers based on the claims he put forward in the interview.  Among them (this is from a FoxNews interview in which his statements were virtually the same):

The people of Iran don’t want to see nuclear weapons in the hands of the “tyranny” of their government, he said, “because it will become immortal, like North Korea. You’ll never regain your freedom. You’ll be slaves to this tyranny forever.”

Netanyahu said there is no freedom in Iran, only “a dark dictatorship that seeks to develop nuclear weapons with mad designs on the United States.”

Interesting that only Iranians will be enslaved by nuclear weapons while citizens of other nuclear states like the U.S. and Israel are quite liberated by theirs.  This opens an entirely different can of worms Bibi can’t have wanted opened: to what extent do nuclear weapons force those nations which have them to pay a price?  To become constrained in their actions, by the fact that either they could use such weapons or enemy states might want to use them against them?

Among other specious claims Bibi made was that the Israeli and Iranian peoples lived together in peace and harmony in an idyllic past only to be spoiled by the big bad Ayatollahs.  In truth, Iran and Israel did enjoy good relations during the reign of the dictatorial Shah.  One of his foremost backers was the Mossad, which helped train some of his best SAVAK torturers.  Those Iranians tortured or worse by the SAVAK under Israeli tutelage don’t have as fond memories of those past paradaisal days as Bibi does.

This too surely went over well with his Iranian listeners:

He added that he believed the Jewish and Iranian peoples can be friends if the Iranian regime was toppled.

Imagine Ayatollah Khamenei going on CNN or another network aired inside Israel only to tell Israelis we could renew our friendly relations as in the days of old if only you’d get rid of that nasty little bigot you elected to run your country.   The Supreme Leader would rightly be universally condemned.  Instead, people just roll their eyeballs and say: “Oh that’s just Bibi being Bibi.”

iran imaginary icbms

Aipac’s “scare-map” indicating IF Iran had nukes and IF it had ICBMs (it has neither so far) what it could threaten

It’s gone far beyond that with such a demented media performance during his U.S. visit.  Bibi is no longer Israel’s leader (in the eyes of the world).  He’s a punchline, a cartoon figure.  He makes himself and Israel into a laughingstock.  I suppose Israelis don’t much care as long as the makes the proverbial economic trains run on time.  Hey, if that historical echo pains you–so be it.  Bibi is a ridiculous jack-booted racist thug.  He doesn’t deserve to run a dog pound let alone a country.  And that, in a nutshell, is the tragedy that is contemporary Israel.

In an interview with Charlie Rose, Bibi also looked into his crystal ball and saw not one Iranian nuke, but 200!

Iran, Charlie, would not be interested in having one bomb or two bombs. They’re gearing up with their infrastructure for 200 bombs. And they’re not developing those ICBMs for us. They can reach us with what they have. It’s for you.”

That number ‘200’ is interesting of course because the most commonly accepted estimate of Israel’s nuclear arsenal is 200 warheads.  This is an example of taking the offensive by charging that your opponent does something offensive that you  yourself are doing.  By asking if he’s stopped beating his wife yet, he won’t dig up the dirty secrets on your own case of spousal abuse.

No mention above of course of Israel’s nuclear-tipped Jericho ICBMs pointed not at the U.S. presumably, but right at the heart of Tehran.  The idea that Iran is “developing ICBMs” that can hit U.S. territory is yet another one of those preposterous smears dreamed up by those scaremongers in the Israeli government and Israel lobby offices.  In fact, way back in 2009 I featured an Aipac map that showed the supposed target range of those missiles: they’d land right smack dab in the middle of Lafayette Park and even on the Washington Monument!!  At least Bibi, liar/scaremonger that he is, would have you believe it!

Bufferfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail
youtubeyoutube
{ 26 comments… add one }
  • bar_kochba132 October 4, 2013, 1:58 AM

    Obviously Israelis don’t view Netanyahu the way you do, he has been elected to 3 terms and is the longest serving
    Prime Minister after Ben-Gurion.

    Regarding the Iranians-you say “Imagine Ayatollah Khamenei going on CNN or another network aired inside Israel only to tell Israelis we could renew our friendly relations as in the days of old if only you’d get rid of that nasty little bigot you elected to run your country”
    Well, don’t they say things like this all the time? Don’t they curse Israel all the time and say it is going to disappear (yes, I know you claim they have never said they are going to wipe Israel out, but even a benevolent interpretation of the ambiguous statements they make are not very friendly)”. Also, I really wonder how Iranians who are old enough to remember would answer the question of which regime was more repressive: The Shah’s or the Ayatollah’s?

    • Richard Silverstein October 4, 2013, 9:06 PM

      @ bar kochba: Part of the tragedy of Israel is that its voters have endorsed him as often as they have. A nation with such a leader is in deep, deep trouble.

      Saying Israel will disappear from the pages of history or whatever is not a curse. Something that is “not very friendly” is not the same as a curse. Plus no Iranian leader ever said that directly to Israelis as Bibi did to Iranians. What Bibi did is the ultimate insult. Despicable really. And deserving of condemnation.

      If Iranians were fond of the Shah the monarchists would be far more powerful & popular than they are. In reality, they are little more than a blip & only exist among the narrow elite that amassed enormous wealth from his rule, much like Assad has his own fat-cat toadies.

    • Jeff Siddiqui October 5, 2013, 1:06 AM

      Let’s not trot out the “oppressiveness” of the Iranian regimes lest someone point out the oppressiveness of the Israelis over the Palestinians; Iran can still learn a LOT of lessons on oppression and slaughters from the Israelis.

  • Yonatan October 4, 2013, 2:09 AM

    Typical distraction. Israel actually has nukes. It has actual aircraft, missiles and submarines capable of delivering them. What’s the equivalent map showing the area threatened by Israel? With the submarines, I guess a significant part of the whole world.

  • habib October 4, 2013, 4:14 AM

    Netanyahu has very cunningly started avoiding issue of palesine recently and instead talking only about Iran which gives a feeling that he is no more interested in resolving a conflict at home or may be he resolved it to his advantage. http://lets-find-truth.blogspot.com/2013/10/netanyahu-un-and-question-of-palestine.html

  • roofus October 4, 2013, 8:30 AM

    Based on everything that’s been said it worries me that some of what he’s saying is just exaggerated truths, meaning the nukes will materialize in Iran at some point. And isn’t it well known that there are concepts in Islam allowing for the deception of others, so the weaponizing path seems likely. If you don’t think the Iranians will weaponize nukes based on what’s been said, why wouldnt they? And if they do will the world be better off? I hope Richard will know the answer to this

    • Kyle October 4, 2013, 2:02 PM

      “Based on everything that’s been said it worries me that some of what he’s saying is just exaggerated truths, meaning the nukes will materialize in Iran at some point.”

      Based off of what that cretin has said because he wants his war? I wasn’t aware that there was consistent evidence, despite the ravings of Israel, as to the “true nature” of the Iranian program.

      ” And isn’t it well known that there are concepts in Islam allowing for the deception of others”

      It’s well known that certain groups of people will read about this concept– that Muslims are allowed to deny being Muslim if they’re in a situation wherein their being Muslim would lead to their persecution or deaths– and take the “lying”/deception aspect, and then apply it to anything someone they don’t like politically or otherwise who is Muslim and say “well he’s lying about X because they’re allowed to lie about anything”.

      It’s really quite funny, considering these people can just accuse– in this case the Iranians– of lying in the usual sense, and it would suit their agenda perfectly. But no, it always has to be based around some distortion based off of this obscure concept.

      “so the weaponizing path seems likely”

      Based off of your erroneous view that the Iranians are have some sort of religiously-sanctioned superlie?
      With all due respect, I think this is the usual rambling that slants in favour of the bibi narrative. Just polished up a little bit.

      • Donald October 5, 2013, 11:07 AM

        “It’s really quite funny, considering these people can just accuse– in this case the Iranians– of lying in the usual sense, and it would suit their agenda perfectly. But no, it always has to be based around some distortion based off of this obscure concept.”

        Good point. I think the reason for it is that they get to add in an extra slice of good old-fashioned Islamophobia. Rather than simply say “An Iranian religious or political leader is lying”, which is quite possible (religious and political leaders all over the world have been known to lie before–I’ve read about it in books–and people have even been known to rationalize their lies as being for the greater good), one invokes Scary Islamic Dogma that makes it seem especially sneaky.

        • Kyle October 6, 2013, 6:21 AM

          I just find it frustrating when people idiotically bring up the taqiyah (sic) concept and say, without context “see told you their religion says they’re allowed to lie all the time about everything” when the concept is, as I said, and as anyone can deduce from reading something as simple as the Wikipedia article on it, centred around possibly saving your life if someone’s going to kill you for your being Muslim. Idiots just turn it into “those evil deceptive MUSLIMS” and it’s on the same level of stupid as conspiracy theories with no merit such as “Eurabia”.

          And as I said, this particular line is completely unnecessary. As you said, people can lie all the time, and for various reasons. I believe that Rouhani is genuine, and that if you look at Iran, there has been a lot of change and there is a consistent desire for reform, as well as a large reformist movement, the most famous of which are the Greens– but anyone who wants to call Rouhani a liar can just say “he’s lying because he’s a liar” or something like that.

          • Jeff Siddiqui October 6, 2013, 12:11 PM

            I don’t even care if Rouhani is lying and if people say he is a liar, that is entirely their prerogative. I just don’t like it when they aim at someone like Rouhani or some other leader who happens to be Muslim and then use it to cover their own bigotry against Islam or Muslims.

    • Richard Silverstein October 4, 2013, 7:03 PM

      Whoa Nelly! Where did you read this junk? In the Protocols of the Elders of Mecca? Racism or religious hate, even if spewed ignorantly/innocently is prohibited here.

      If you do this again you’re gone.

  • roofus October 4, 2013, 3:34 PM

    So why not then appease a large proportion of the world by proving their intent. If there is no will to have nuclear weapons, they should allow for inspections of all nuclear related activity. They could still continue to advance their traditional defenses and they would have significantly less sanctions to deal with. The logic just isn’t there for them. There must be some other motivation for Iran’s nuclear activities that we’re not privy to, or they’re just lying to our faces

    • Davey October 4, 2013, 7:43 PM

      Does Israel allow inspections and, if not, what does this say about its “intent.”

      I think it is abundantly clear that Bibi and the Likud fear mongers, that is, the average Israeli, project their own thinking onto others. As Richard implies, Bibi has gone far enough out into the ozone that he has disqualified himself from even minimal perfunctory courtesies. Nobody need be tactful with this guy or his party. Nor with Israel and Israelis, frankly. It is just way too much, too far gone. These are not healthy people. The more they kill, the more insecure they feel, the more they kill. They build walls to keep others out and then claim that THEY are discriminated against! Israel is to the wider world now as the Jewish ghetto was to a medieval European city. Israel has a huge Jewish identity problem not its Jewish. The trains will run on time shuttling these moral cripples around.

    • SimoHurtta October 5, 2013, 3:20 AM

      Roofus have you stopped beating your wife? Equal as that question is the situation for Iran with its nuclear situation. No answer or no proofs is good enough for Israel and for its client state USA. The goal of denying for Iran (or all Arab states) the civilian nuclear “side” is aimed to void raising their industrial and technological development to “western” levels. Everybody understands, that a country which masters the nuclear civilian “cycle” is able to create in rather short time frame nuclear weapons if needed. Even if Iran would end all nuclear research (civilian) and nuclear energy production it would not be enough. Israel and USA would be claiming about “secret programs” and there is no way for Iran to prove these allegations wrong because no exact claims are presented. So Roofus have you stopped, that affair which you have had with your neighbors wife? You can not answer YES or NO without making yourself “guilty”. Not even saying Roofus has had no such affairs is not enough. We only answer, that all guilty say so and are lying to our faces.

      Iran is monitored very closely by IAEA with their nuclear activities. Nobody has been monitoring Israel. As the recent stories told Moshe Dyan was ready to use nuclear weapons in 1973, but Golda Meir denied it, shows that the threshold to use nukes and other WMDs among Israeli leadership was and is very, very low. And Moshe Dyan was obviously a quite “sensible” character compared to this present ideological, religious freak show leading Israel. Those “guys” are the most dangerous on the planet. Not those in Teheran. Who as minister has publicly suggested destroying to Aswan dam? For example. The Israeli promise of “not using nukes as the first in Middle East” is as trustworthy as ….

  • Jeff Siddiqui October 4, 2013, 7:32 PM

    Hey Roofus,

    You are talking like a doofus when you make ignorant, biased statements like, “…And isn’t it well known that there are concepts in Islam allowing for the deception of others…”. It would appear you have been indulging yourself with Daniel Pipes, Robert Spencer and a host of other hate-mongers.

    Actually, “there are concepts” in every religion to lie in order to save your life and limb. The First Pope Peter, lied about knowing Jesus…THREE times, but nobody says “there are concepts in Christianity”, probably because the Christians would toss you to the lions. But when it comes to Muslims, lots of people feel quite free to suggest with wide-eyed innocence, “Isn’t it true that there are concepts in Islam…”
    Have the guts to speak clearly and please, have the intelligence to learn facts before you give wings to “concepts”.

    As for Iran, I don’t know whether they are or are not, working on developing a nuclear bomb, but I WISH they would because possessing THE bomb, is the only thing that would cool Israel down to a level where they will actually start to talk about a lasting solution to their Apartheid problem instead of talking about talking about it ad nauseum. A nuclear neighbor is the only thing that would bring Israel to a military parity and would get them off the role of being the M-E Pit Bull.

    • Davey October 5, 2013, 1:07 PM

      I can’t agree more: A nuclear Iran will create a balance of power, a cold war in the region and this is good. It is the unfettered power of little Israel that destabilizes and threatens the peace. And so with the US. If you want stability in the oil producing region, give Iran nukes and the means to deliver. Therein is peace or much lower intensity conflict.

      Israel will not comment on its nuclear weapons. Why doesn’t Iran adopt the same strategy. Or, better yet, let it be rumored that Iran has had the bomb and the delivery systems for some time. That alone might reduce conflict in the ME.

  • Kevin Herbert October 4, 2013, 9:04 PM

    One can only imagine the turmoil at AIPAC right now as the Iranians clearly outsmart Bibi & his far right Zionist colleagues.

    Maybe I’m going to have to apologise for all the criticism I’ve directed at Obama for his Zionist/MIC stooge like behaviour since being elected. I hope so.

    Obama must be taking heart from the results of recent Pew research findings into US Jewry’s attitudes to Israel.

    • Davey October 4, 2013, 10:44 PM

      On the one hand, you can say that Obama is just going with the flow. On the other hand, he may have started the flow. It’s hard to know. I, too, may have to apologize at some point. But not today, not yet.

  • dickerson3870 October 5, 2013, 12:12 AM

    RE: Now Bibi has told Iranians (in Farsi!) in a BBC Persian interview that Israelis are not “suckers.” Israelis may not be suckers (or they may be!), but Bibi sure takes Iranians for suckers based on the claims he put forward in the interview. ~ R.S.

    MY COMMENT: No matter how good of an agreement the U.S. manages to negotiate with Iran, Likudnik Israel will ALWAYS feel like it is being “suckered” (being made a frayer*) by Iran. It is virtually impossible for Likudnik Israel to see anything as a “win-win”.

    * FROM quora.com [frayer]:

    [EXCERPTS] There is one correct definition of the term frayer. It means “sucker” or “mark,” in the sense that somebody is a sucker if he goes along with the rules when nobody else is following them, or a mark if he’s a naive target for thieves. . .
    . . . In Israeli life and society, the worst thing anybody can ever be is a frayer, and most people will do anything and everything they can at all times to avoid being a frayer. The only way to be certain at any given moment that you are not a frayer is to make somebody else a frayer.

    SOURCE – http://www.quora.com/Word-Definitions-Terminology-and-Jargon/How-do-you-define-the-Israeli-term-Frayer-or-friar-or-fryer#

    • dickerson3870 October 5, 2013, 12:19 AM

      P.S. ALSO SEE: James’ Journey to Jerusalem (Massa’ot James Be’eretz Hakodesh), 2004, NR, 87 minutes
      In the imaginary village of Entshongweni [probably somewhere in Africa], far from western civilization, young James is chosen to undertake a mission — a pilgrimage to holy Jerusalem. But Israel is no longer the Holy Land that James and his people imagined. When he’s suspected of trying to infiltrate the country to work illegally, James’s journey takes him through the cruel heart of our [i.e., Israel’s] economic system, as he learns the tricks of the game [how to avoid becoming a “frayer”] and plays it toward an inevitable end.
      Director: Ra’anan Alexandrowicz
      Language: Hebrew (with English subtitles)
      Netflix format: DVD
      Netflix listing – http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/James-Journey-to-Jerusalem/60037222
      Massa’ot James Be’eretz Hakodesh (2003) – movie trailer [VIDEO, 01:38] – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRM4XlFPea

  • Elisabeth October 5, 2013, 6:12 AM

    He said something in Farsi and he chose to say “We are not suckers”?!! I bet that went over really well. This guy is unbelievable.

    • Kyle October 6, 2013, 6:24 AM

      He has a very punch-able face as well and his comb-over is unbelievable.

      Also, DAT SMIRK whenever he screws around regarding taking more land in the Palestinian West Bank. Infuriating.

  • William Burns October 6, 2013, 1:59 PM

    And yet, somehow the possession of a nuclear arsenal failed to ensure the immortality of the Soviet Union.

    • Jeff Siddiqui October 6, 2013, 4:34 PM

      Nuclear arsenal is no guarantee of survival, but in this case, it will definitely de-fang Israel and that may bring up REAL discussions and a lasting solution to their apartheid. Once Israel is among the civilised nations, then perhaps everyone can start to talk about nuclear disarmament.

      The nuclear issue is pretty much a non-issue now that we have massively destructive “conventional” bombs that also spread DNA-changing Depleted Uranium which has a half-life of over 4.5 BILLION years. The US has been carpeting the stuff all over Central and Middle-East and Kosovo, Israel has the bombs, thanks to Santa America. One has to wonder what is so horrible about nuclear bombs any more.

      • Davey October 6, 2013, 4:46 PM

        @Jeff “One has to wonder what is so horrible about nuclear bombs any more.” Especially the nice “clean” bombs that were once touted! Also, I recall that Israel has, in fact, used depleted uranium arms, but you say it “has the bombs” not that they have been used.

Leave a Comment