Prime Minister Netanyahu Interview with CNN

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered a robust defense Tuesday of a dramatic presentation in which he accused Iran of "brazenly lying" over its nuclear ambitions, after claims that he had revealed nothing new.

Netanyahu told CNN's "New Day" that a trove of documents, which he revealed in a TV address on Monday night, showed Iran had no intention of sticking to its commitments in the 2015 deal brokered with the international community.

"They don't want the world to know what I showed the world yesterday," Netanyahu said.
In his interview, Netanyahu repeatedly refused to be drawn on whether Israel had its own nuclear weapons capability, and insisted that he did not seek a military confrontation with Iran. "Nobody is seeking that kind of development," he said.

Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News: Iranian video threatens to nuke Israel

From Algemeiner:

A short animated film being aired across Iran, shows the nuclear destruction of Israel and opens with the word ‘Holocaust’ appearing on the screen, underneath which a Star of David is shown, Israel’s Channel 2 reported on Tuesday.

The film, which started to appear Monday on Iranian websites depicts how the Islamic Republic might respond to an American or Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities.

In the movie, Western nations realize that the Islamic Republic has no intention to cease its nuclear development. To prevent Iran from building a bomb, the United States and its allies decide to take military action to destroy Tehran’s nuclear sites.

In the simulated war that follows, hundreds of Israeli and American fighter planes are seen jetting towards Iran. Ultimately, the jets are beaten back by Iran’s military.

With Iran having successfully defended itself, the simulation then shows Iranian forces going on the offensive. The video cuts to a scene showing Iranian Revolutionary Guard fighter planes flying over Israel, passing through Jerusalem and over the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

The final frame of the film leaves little room for doubt as to how this military campaign ends: a nuclear explosion is seen spreading across the screen.

Keep in mind that Iranian websites are controlled by the government; if this video is being placed on websites it is with the approval of Iranian leaders.

PM Netanyahu at Conf. of Presidents 2014

What Obama and Kerry wanted and FRANCE STOPPED

PM Netanyahu to Secretary Kerry - Get your head out of your ass.... No - that is not what he said, but it is what he meant. PM Benjamin Netanyahu's statement following his meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry

The nuclear threat from Iran's rogue regime has not abated

HOW YOU CAN TAKE ACTION TODAY

The nuclear threat from Iran's rogue regime has not abated.

In fact, despite a vigorous 'charm offensive' by their new president - and the Obama administration's insistence that diplomatic discussions are going well - the threat has only been growing.

Last week, USA Today reported that Iran's nuclear program has shortened its 'break-out window' - the amount of time needed to produce enough weapons-grade uranium to build a nuclear weapon - to less than a month.

Yesterday, the former deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency offered a similar assessment, warning that Iran's nuclear program has passed the "point of no return" and suggesting the break-out window may be as little as two weeks.

And just today, the Times of Israel reports that a top Iranian lawmaker vowed that the Tehran regime will not suspend uranium enrichment - nor will it stop the custom of chanting 'death to America' at public gatherings!

Yet in the face of this escalation, leading members of President Obama's team have repeatedly signaled a lack of resolve.

On Sunday, the New York Times reported that National Security Advisor Susan Rice's new Middle East policy envisions a nuclear deal with Iran and includes no demands that Iran suspend nuclear enrichment.

Secretary of State Kerry, in comments widely understood as a rebuke of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, belittled concerns about a nuclear Iran.

And members of the Obama administration have pressured the Democrats who dictate the agenda of the U.S. Senate to stall action on the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act, a vital economic sanctions bill that has already passed the GOP-controlled House of Representatives with broad bipartisan support and is currently awaiting further action by the Senate Banking Committee.

TAKE ACTION

  

Call your U.S. Senators and urge that they ask Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-SD) to allow action on the Senate's version of the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act.

Information about how to contact your U.S. Senators can be found HERE or by calling 202-224-3121.  

Senators are more responsive to their own constituents, so we encourage you to alert friends and family members in other states and ask them to contact their Senators as well.

Iran & Hezbollah: Axis of Terror

http://www.idfblog.com/hezbollah/
The Hezbollah terrorist organization never ceases in its efforts to plan and execute deadly attacks against civilians around the world. It is sponsored, armed and funded by Iran - a state who uses the organization to spread terror in the hearts of the civilians of the West.

How Not to Negotiate With Iran The threat of force will do far more than gifts and sweet talk. By BRET STEPHENS

We know that deception is part of [Iran's] DNA." So said Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman last week, testifying to Congress about the next round of negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programs. So why is Ms. Sherman pleading with Congress to delay imposing additional sanctions for the sake of what she called "confidence building"?

How depressingly predictable: Iran lies and prevaricates—about the breadth of its nuclear programs; about their purpose; about the quality of its cooperation with U.N. nuclear watchdogs; about its record of sponsoring terrorism from Argentina to Bulgaria to Washington, D.C.; about its efforts to topple Arab governments (Bahrain) or colonize them (Lebanon); about its role in the butchery of Syria; about its official attitude toward the Holocaust—and the administration thinks priority No. 1 is proving its own good faith.

Last month, the administration returned to Iran a 2,700-year-old silver cup shaped like a mythological griffin, which had been stolen from a cave in Iran a decade ago before it was seized by U.S. customs. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei must have been moved to tears.

At least the griffin beat the key-shaped cake National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane brought with him in the 1980s in what would become the Iran-Contra debacle. That episode provides a useful lesson in how not to negotiate with Iran, and from the most unexpected source: Hasan Rouhani, now Iran's president, then deputy chairman of the Majlis, the Islamic Republic's parliament.

Enlarge Image

Jason DeCrow/Associated Press

Secretary of State John Kerry meets with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif (far right) at the United Nations, Sept. 26.

In August 1986, an Israeli agent named Amiram Nir, posing as a U.S. official, met Mr. Rouhani in Paris at a meeting orchestrated by an Iranian-born arms dealer named Manucher Ghorbanifar. Nir wore a recording device, and details of the talk eventually came into the possession of Israeli military reporter Ron Ben-Yishai. The episode has since been reprised in the Israeli press, most recently by reporter Mitch Ginsburg for the Times of Israel.

Iran was then trying to obtain missiles from the U.S. (with Israel acting as an intermediary) in exchange for the release of Americans held hostage by Iranian-backed proxies in Lebanon.

The missiles were provided but the hostages were not—a victim, by some accounts, of hard-line opposition within Iran to the more pliable course advocated by Mr. Rouhani. So it goes with Western outreach to Iranian moderates: It always fails, though whether it's on account of the moderates being duplicitous or powerless is a matter of debate. Maybe Mr. Rouhani isn't "a wolf in sheep's clothing," as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says. Maybe he's a sheep among wolves.

If so, he's a very canny sheep. "If you don't bare sharp teeth before [Ayatollah] Khomeini," he advised Nir, "you're going to have troubles all over the world. If you threaten him with military force, he'll kiss your hand and run."

Elsewhere in the conversation, Mr. Rouhani suggested a strategy for getting the hostages released. "If for instance, you said to [Khomeini], 'You must release all of the hostages in Lebanon within five days. If not—we'll deal you a military blow and you will be responsible for the results,' do it, show that you are strong, and you will see results."

And there was this: "If we analyze Khomeini's character, we will see that if someone strong stands opposite him, he will retreat 100 steps; and if he is strong and someone weak faces him, he will advance 100 steps. Unfortunately, you have taken a mistaken approach. You have been soft to him. Had you been tougher, your hand would be on top."

Mr. Rouhani's analysis of Khomeini's mind-set would soon find tragic confirmation. On July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes mistook an Iranian jetliner for a fighter jet and shot it down, killing nearly 300 people. Khomeini, who was sure the incident was no accident, thought Washington intended to enter the Iran-Iraq war on Saddam Hussein's side. Just 17 days later, on July 20, Khomeini accepted a humiliating cease-fire with Iraq: "Unhappy am I that I still survive and have drunk the poisoned chalice," he said in a radio address.

Khomeini is long dead, but the regime's mentality of yielding only to intense pressure and credible threats of force remains the same. So how should the U.S. negotiate? Mark Dubowitz, who helped design some of the most effective sanctions against Iran from his perch at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, offered this:

"Effective on October 16, any financial institution providing Iran with access to, or use of, its overseas financial reserves for any purpose with the exception of permissible humanitarian trade will be cut off from the U.S. financial system." The idea is to push forward what Mr. Dubowitz calls Iran's "economic cripple date"—the moment when it runs out of foreign reserves—ahead of its "undetectable breakout date"—the moment when the regime can build a bomb in secret before the West can stop it.

I have my doubts about the use of sanctions as the main tool to change Iran's behavior. But if the administration means to use them as the weapon of choice, they should at least use them aggressively. Negotiations with Iran resume Oct. 15. Mr. Dubowitz's Oct. 16 deadline will do more to get their attention than griffins, cakes or other pathetic diplomatic sweeteners.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com

Nuclear Iran is Like 30 Nuclear North Koreas The world must not ignore the warnings about Iran as it did 80 years ago with the Nazis, says Minister Yuval Steinitz.

International Relations Minister Yuval Steinitz warned on Sunday that Iran having a nuclear weapon would be equal to “thirty nuclear North Koreas”.

“We have the right and the ability to defend ourselves,” he said in a speech at theJerusalem Post Conference in New York. “The cooperation with the United States is very important but ultimately each country will make its own decisions on maintaining its security,” said Steinitz, stressing that “Israel can deal with any threat.”

80 years ago, said Steinitz, “only one person identified on time and warned the world against the rearmament of Nazi Germany. This was Winston Churchill, but people refused to listen. Some people even mocked him.”
“We shouldn’t repeat the same mistake again,” he added, referring to Iran. “The Nazis spoke about the final solution of the Jews in Europe, and the Iranians are talking about destroying the Jewish State in the Middle East. We have to learn from history, even if it doesn’t repeat itself exactly, and if there’s a lesson to learn from history, it is not to repeat the same mistake again and not to allow, come what may, the nuclearization of Iran.”
Referring to Syria, Steinitz rejected allegations that Israel asked the United States to take military action in the war torn country..
“We never asked and never encouraged the U.S. to take military action in Syria,” Steinitz told the conference, referring to reports that Israel has been pressuring the Obama administration to get involved in Syria, in the wake of the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.
“It is up to the U.S. to decide its policy on Syria,” said Steinitz. “Of course, we exchange views with the U.S. about the situation; it’s a very complex and difficult issue."
He emphasized that Israel will “do its utmost to prevent delivery” of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles to terrorist groups such as Hizbullah.

Obama-Iran more than a year from nuclear weapon

President Obama has told Israelis that Iran is still more than year away from developing a nuclear weapon and sought to reassure them that military force remains a US option if sanctions and diplomacy fail to thwart its nuclear ambitions.

In an interview with Israeli television broadcast on Thursday, just six days before his visit to the country, Obama appeared to send a message to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the need for patience with Washington's Iran strategy while also showing US resolve to confront Tehran if necessary.

Iran battles plague of 'genetically mutated' giant rats

(Photo:agencies)

Tehran, the capital of Iran, is battling an invasion of "genetically mutated" giant rats.

Iran has sent in sniper teams to clear Tehran's streets from the massive rodents weighting up to five kilos plaguing 26 district of the Iranian capital, the city's environmental agency said.

"They seem to have had a genetic mutation, probably as a result of radiations and the chemical used on them," Ismail Kahram, Teheran city council environment adviser and university professor Ismail Kahram told Qudsonline.ir.

"They are now bigger and look different. These are changes that normally take millions of years of evolution. They have jumped from 60 grams to five kilos, and cats are now smaller than them."

The "mutated rats" have been running rampant in the capital, as cats are scared off by their giant size and traditional poison appear to have no effect on them.

To stop them storming of restaurants' backyards and scavenging public waste containers, the council has deployed ten snipers teams armed with infra-red sighted rifles.

"We use chemical poisons to kill the rats during the day and the snipers at night, so it has become a 24/7 war," the head of the environment agency, Mohammad Hadi Heydarzadeh, said.

Rats' carcasses are burnt or buried in lime.

So far 2,205 rats have been shot dead, but the war is far to be won and the council is planning to bring the snipers team up to 40.

WSJ: If Iran Gets the Bomb How would U.S. and Israeli strategists deal with a much riskier Middle East?

You don't have to fire a nuclear weapon to gain a strategic advantage from it. This is perhaps the most important lesson from the decades of the Cold War. Yet many commentators on the possibility of a nuclear Iran overlook this truth and argue that we could handle this radically new situation.

A nuclear Iran is usually discussed at a cosmic level of abstraction, in terms of deterrence and containment. But it needs to be examined from the bottom up, in concrete detail. War games, which have a long history in U.S. defense planning, are one way to do this. These simulations bring out insights that never show up in academic theories. Over the past five years, games featuring an Iran that possesses a small, crude nuclear arsenal have been played repeatedly by government officials, the military and outside strategic experts in the U.S. and Israel—games in which participants are assigned roles as decision makers in different countries—and I have been involved in several of them.

The insights that have emerged from these exercises are not necessarily true, of course. They have to stand on their own merits. But I have not been encouraged by what I have seen.

The game might begin with a seemingly familiar train of events, not unlike what has unfolded this week in the Middle East: The Shiite militant group Hezbollah kidnaps Israeli soldiers. Israel hits back with airstrikes on villages in Lebanon believed to be Hezbollah ammunition dumps. The West Bank and Gaza flare up, and Hezbollah begins firing long-range missiles into Haifa and Tel Aviv. The weapons come from Iran, and there are even Iranian "advisers" with them.

But then the tempo of the game slows down. Everyone notices caution, even hesitation, in the Israel team. The Israelis refrain from airstrikes on Syria (Hezbollah's other key patron), and the Israeli navy backs off from the Lebanon-Syria coast for fear of losing a ship. If a ship were lost, Israel would have to escalate, and that is the heart of the matter: Escalation in a nuclear context isn't like escalation in earlier conflicts without the bomb.

Israel knows how to escalate in a conventional war or against an intifada or insurgency. But this is different. The conflict is no longer about how much pain to inflict before the other side gives up. It is about risk. An unwanted spiral of escalation might drive the game in a very bad direction.

The Israel team considers firing a demonstration nuclear shot, a missile warhead that would explode 100,000 feet over Tehran. Israeli plans since the 1970s have called for doing this as a last-ditch alternative to firing all-out atomic attacks. The blast would shatter windows in downtown Tehran, but it wouldn't kill anyone, or hardly anyone. Surely it would shock Iran into a cease-fire.

But before that can happen, Iran ups the ante by declaring a full nuclear alert. Rockets on truck launchers are flushed from their peacetime storage bases, along with hundreds of conventionally armed rockets and shorter-range missiles that can hit U.S. bases throughout the Middle East.

The Iran side in this game has given a great deal of thought to the political uses of its primitive nuclear arsenal. A few of its nuclear missiles are in hardened, underground silos. These are for quick-reaction firing, ready to launch on short notice. Mobile missiles can take hours to move and set up. Iran also understands the psychology of its enemies. The West does not want to kill millions of innocent people, so the Iran team places some mobile missiles in city parks in Tehran, Esfahan and Mashhad. Camouflage nets are placed over many parts of these cities to conceal the missiles and to mislead American satellites.

To bring attention to their dire situation, the Israel team orders two Jericho missiles to go on alert. They are timed to move to their launch positions just as the U.S. satellites are passing overhead. The intent, obviously, is to shock the White House. "We hope it leaks to the media, too, maybe we should make sure it does," one member of the Israel team says.

Israel's move forces a U.S. decision. Washington wants to restrain Israel, defend Israel and scare the living daylights out of Iran. So the U.S. publicly gives Israel a guarantee: If one atomic missile hits Israel, the U.S. announces, that would be it for Iran. The guarantee is cleverly worded. Maybe too cleverly. It doesn't specify which weapons America would use. The term nuclear refers only to Iran's attack on Israel.

The U.S. hasn't fired an atomic bomb in anger since 1945. It hasn't conducted a realistic nuclear exercise since the end of the Cold War, and in this war game, the person playing the U.S. president says that he doesn't want to go down in history as the first leader to kill five million people in an afternoon.

Some on the U.S. team call instead for a massive conventional strike, one that would destroy Iran's military power for decades. The person playing the president asks if Iran might simply sit back and watch such an attack unfold over several weeks. And he is angry: Why haven't better options and intelligence been developed over the years? Iran's bomb program isn't exactly a surprise, after all. It is the most closely watched in history. Why hadn't anybody thought about this before?

The Iran team's next move jacks up the tensions to a fever pitch. Without saying anything, Iran evacuates its big cities. The urban population packs into buses, cars and trucks and rides out to distant suburbs and beyond. In a day, Iran's big cities are at 25% of their normal population. Iran is now poised to absorb a nuclear attack. Its missiles are on a hair trigger, and most of the country's population will survive an Israeli counterstrike.

Israel, by contrast, is in chaos. There is nowhere for the Israelis to go. Ben Gurion Airport has been closed by rocket fire. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis are mobbing the coastal marinas, desperately trying to escape to Cyprus in small boats. TV shows the panic. Deterrence, and the myth of Israeli invincibility, the bedrock of Israeli security, is disappearing.

Suddenly, Iran declares that, in the interest of world peace, it will step back from the brink, having exposed the true nature of "the Zionist nuclear entity." So the game ends. Nuclear war has been avoided. Deterrence worked. But who in Israel, the U.S. or Iran will claim that this was the real lesson? Iran had used a small nuclear force to undermine long-standing perceptions of Israeli military strength and to rupture the Middle East order.

Among the U.S. and its allies, there is widespread agreement that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Some favor sanctions, some favor pre-emptive strikes, some favor espionage and sabotage. All agree, however, that a nuclear Iran would be a danger to the world.

But despite everyone's best efforts, Iran may still get the bomb. Then what? American strategic planning has avoided this uncomfortable question, but we can no longer afford to keep our heads in the sand.

Netanyahu on Iran: 'We don't beg; we prepare' Asked in a news interview whether, if re-elected, he could promise that by the end of his term Iran would not have a nuclear weapon, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu answers with a resounding "Yes."

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that he is not eager to go to war with Iran, but is willing and able to do so if necessary, according to an interview with the prime minister aired on Monday.

Netanyahu said, "I'm not eager for war. If the issue can be solved with international pressure, or if someone else can do it for us — great. When we didn't have a state or an army, our enemies threatened and then carried out genocide. We Jews begged help from others. Today, we don't beg; we prepare."

Asked whether, if re-elected, he could promise that by the end of that term Iran would not have a nuclear weapon, Netanyahu answered with a resounding "Yes."

Netanyahu also responded to claims that he would not dare attack Iran and would hesitate to “push the red button”: "Of course I am capable if I have to. Though I hope I don't."

The prime minister was interviewed as part of the Channel 2 news program "Uvda" ("Fact"), which was aired on Monday night. The program focused largely on a 2010 meeting between Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, then Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. (res) Gabi Ashkenazi and then Mossad Chief Meir Dagan, during which Netanyahu and Barak reportedly ordered the Israel Defense Forces and spy chiefs to prepare for a military strike in Iran. The IDF reportedly responded that it was not prepared to carry out the mission.

In the interview, Netanyahu would not discuss the meeting. "I will not refer to a specific meeting,” he said. “But even if the things presented are inaccurate, in the end the responsibility falls on the prime minister."

Barak and former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert were also interviewed for the program about the 2010 meeting. Barak said the intention of the order had been to be prepared, not necessarily to go to war.

"The supposition that you can't decide to do something if the chief of staff recommends not doing it, even if it can be done operationally, is completely unfounded. It can be carried out even if it's against his recommendation," Barak said.

In the program Olmert and Barak traded accusations on the handling of the Iran issue.

"Certain operations were backed down from, due to external factors," Olmert said. "I would have preferred that overall responsibility for these matters would be in someone other than Barak's hands, and that the appointed official above him would be someone who could slam his fist on the table and say, 'That is what we can and cannot do,' which I believe is not the case right now."

Olmert also said a military strike on Iran was something that would have to be done with consent from the U.S.

Barak responded that Olmert required "observation and guidance when dealing with national affairs," and cited the Winograd Report on Israel's conduct in the 2006 Lebanon War when Olmert was prime minister.

In his interview, Netanyahu said, "If someone opposes [an Israeli action], does that mean we have to just sit on our hands? Anyone sitting in this [prime minister's] chair, who requires approval by others to operate, is not fit to lead."

The Channel 2 report stated that as far as Ashkenazi and Dagan were concerned, the order in 2010 to prepare for an imminent attack had not been processed through the proper channels, and the two did not hesitate to offer their reservations: "This isn't something you do if you're not certain you will eventually want to carry it out," the former chief of staff told Netanyahu.

Those close to Ashkenazi said he was concerned that merely ordering the IDF to a state of P-Plus, preparation for war, even while refraining from an immediate attack, could lead to war: "It's like an accordion that makes music even if it is merely handled," he said at the time.

Dagan, according to those present at the time, was even harsher than Ashkenzai: "You [speaking to Barak and Netanyahu] are possibly making an unlawful decision to go to war. Only the cabinet is authorized to make such a decision."

Dagan later explained, "The prime minister and defense minister simply tried to steal a war."

According to Barak, who was speaking publicly for the first time about the meeting, Ashkenazi told him that it was not possible to implement P-Plus because the army did not have the proper operational capability.

It was not clear whether the IDF was indeed incapable of carrying out an attack at the time, but as far as Barak was concerned, Ashkenazi failed to prepare the option and the command could not be executed.

In private discussions, Ashkenazi has vehemently objected to the defense minister's version: "Barak isn't telling the truth. I prepared the option, the army was ready for an attack, but I said that attacking now would be a strategic mistake."

Barak and Netanyahu have since signaled that an attack on Iran was not imminent. In September, Netanyahu told the United Nations that Iran would be on the brink of nuclear weapons' capability only in the spring or summer of 2013.

Barak said last week that Iran had pulled back on its nuclear program, which has given Israel more time to contemplate its next steps.

How Romney plans to deal with Iran

Jeffrey Goldberg publishes an email he received from Mitt Romney in which the candidate answers questions about how he would deal with Iran as President. 

“I have always talked about the diplomatic process,” he wrote. “I will not rule out diplomatic options, so long as we would not be rewarding bad behavior and so long as the Iranian leadership was truly cornered and ready to change its behavior. A crumbling economy is not enough. Because even with a crumbling economy, the Iranian leadership is still racing towards a bomb right now.”

Romney went out of his way to suggest that the Obama administration plans to spring some sort of late-November surprise on America’s Middle East allies, citing a recentNew York Times report that Iran and the White House had agreed to face-to-face negotiations after the election (a report denied by the White House). “Our closest allies, likeIsrael, will not learn about our plans from the New York Times,” Romney wrote. “And I’ll be clear with the American people about where I’m heading. I won’t be secretly asking the Ayatollahs for more flexibility following some future election.”

...

He also denied that his new emphasis on negotiations means that he would accept less than a complete halt to Iran’s nuclear work: “To be clear, the objective of any strategy will be to get Iran to stop spinning centrifuges, stop enriching uranium, shut down its facilities. Full stop. Existing fissile material will have to be shipped out of the country.”

I asked Romney to name the biggest mistake he thinks Obama has made on Iran. “President Obama has sent the Ayatollahs mixed messages throughout the past four years,” he wrote. “That’s why he has lost credibility on the negotiating track. Round after round after round of talks and nothing to show for them. Iran continues to race to a nuclear weapons capability and continues to become more brazen in its support of terrorism around the world, including a terror plot in Washington, D.C.,” a reference to a thwarted plot, hatched in Tehran, to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the U.S.

Romney went on: “What do I mean by mixed messages? In the first year of his administration, the President said he would sit down with Ahmadinejad without pre-conditions, and President Obama deliberately remained silent during the Green Revolution, signaling to the Ayatollahs that Iran’s dissident movement would not have America’s support. President Obama also pursued a policy of creating ‘daylight’ -- his word -- between the U.S. and Israel. And through the end of the third year of his administration, the president fought congressional efforts -- bi-partisan congressional efforts -- to pass crippling sanctions on Iran’s Central Bank. This all happened against the backdrop of the president’s top advisors and cabinet secretaries broadcasting the risks of the military option, therefore conveying to Iran’s leadership that the threat is simply not real. Add all of this together, one can understand why Iran’s leaders are not taking the United States very seriously these days.”

 I would add a couple of other points. I believe that Romney would be less likely to leave Israel hanging out to dry if it were to decide to go it alone against Iran. And I believe that Romney would be more amenable to reducing Israel's risks by acting sooner against Iran than would Obama. And I believe that Israel would be more willing to let Romney take the lead than would be the case with Obama, who is not trusted by much of this country's population, including most of its politicians.

But it doesn't sound like Goldberg asked him about any of that.

The Red Line; Here are 3 reasons why a nuclear Iran would be catastrophic for the world:

1) Economy – A nuclear Iran would quickly move against its Arab neighbors, dominating the Straits of Hormuz and controlling 40 percent of the world's seaborne petroleum exports. Iran could then wield the ultimate oil weapon – sending petroleum prices skyrocketing and triggering global economic paralysis.

2) Mideast Destabilization – A nuclear Iran would place unparalleled weaponry into the hands of proxy terror regimes including Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas and beyond. A nuclear Iran would trigger mass nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, thus destabilizing an already-volatile region, while undoing decades of international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation. Further, a nuclear Iran could act on its threat to annihilate the State of Israel, a vital strategic asset and America's closest ally in the Middle East.

3) Jihad – A nuclear Iran would be emboldened to act upon its perceived religious obligation to destroy America the Great Satan, and its incumbent goal of launching an apocalyptic war in order to hasten the messianic Twelfth Iman's pledge of global Islamic domination.

Iran - The Greatest Threat to Western Civilization

America is a relatively safe place. However, a regime halfway around the world could destroy our way of life. 

From the beginning, the current Iranian regime made it clear that America is public enemy #1. One way to seriously damage America would be a nuke, and one terrifying scenario is a nuclear bomb detonated at high altitude. This is an issue that Congressional commissions and others have investigated, and concluded that it is a credible threat. This would cause severe damage or catastrophic destruction to the electric grid across America. 

In this day and age, everything ultimately depends on electric power: communications, transportation, banking, finance, food and water. The result of such an attach would mean that within a short amount of time, it will be nearly impossible to get food and water, pump gas, provide medical care, withdraw money or use cellular phones. Moreover, without electricity, nuclear power plants melt down. If their containment buildings are breeched, the areas around them could become uninhabitable for centuries. Anarchy. Starvation. Disease. 

As long as the current Iranian regime is in power, we are NOT SAFE..