Nuclear Easing

As reported by Al Jazeera, Israel's military chief has stated he does not believe Iran will produce an atomic bomb, and even went as far as to describe Iran's leadership as "very rational". Now, this begs the question: if the Israeli military chief and the Prime Minister have two completely opposing views of this situation, who do we believe? I'm going to choose the general, who's statement is backed by much more fact and rationality than that of Netenyahu's.

Really, the solution to this entire issue is close on the horizon, after Iran's Ambassador to Russia said Iran is considering Moscow's proposal of halting it's nuclear program in order to avoid further sanctions. Now seeing this, I would say that diplomacy has prevailed and the US can declare "mission accomplished" on stopping a potential nuclear weapons program. But instead, we get this response from the State Department:

In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland dismissed Sajjadi’s remarks, saying the Iranian is “not a central player” in international talks over Iran’s nuclear program. “Frankly, what’s most important is what Iran says and does at the negotiating table,” Nuland said at briefing with journalists.

Frankly, I believe it's the US that is stonewalling progress on this issue, which leads me to believe that their objective lies not with stopping the nuclear program, but with total regime change, which would effectively cut the cord on funding to Hezbollah and Hamas, reducing opposition to Israeli-US dominance in the Middle East. Although on that topic, we may have a new emerging figure, Egypt (see stories here, here and here)

I'm going to end this post with a little mentioned fact: Israel is one of four countries in the world that refuses to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The others are Pakistan, India (who just tested an ICBM and nobody cared), and North Korea, who had signed but withdrew.