Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Friday that Iran’s nuclear program must be stopped on way or another, warning that a stronger Islamic Republic means a stronger Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.
On an official visit to Canada to meet with his counterpart Robert Nicholson in Ottawa, Ya’alon added that Iran must be prevented from operating under a “nuclear umbrella [which would] allow it to advance its terror operations, for example, using a ‘dirty bomb’ on Western targets around the world.”
“We must not be patient and allow Iran to become a nuclear state,” Ya’alon said. “One way or another, Iran’s military nuclear program must be stopped. We must continue with harsh sanctions on the diplomatic front while presenting a credible military threat.”
“We stand before a bad deal [in Geneva], after which Iran will still be allowed to preserve its [uranium] enrichment capabilities and operate without pressure.A strengthened Iran is a strengthened Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. These are groups that present a threat to the West and to us, ” warned the defense minister.
Ya’alon’s comments came just as nuclear talks between the P5+1 world powers and Tehran were set to resume for a third day in Geneva Friday.
On Thursday, a second day of nuclear talks in Geneva ended with both sides indicating substantive issues still stood in the way of a deal between Iran and the six world powers.
The day saw negotiators try to fine-tune a draft agreement that would limit Tehran’s atomic program in return for easing some sanctions. Iran’s ability to produce nuclear fuel and relief for Iran’s oil and banking sectors appeared to be among the sticking points.
Renewed opposition from influential members of the US Congress to any deal they feel gives the Iranians too much for too little complicated the diplomatic maneuvering. The Democratic-led Senate signaled Thursday it would only give President Barack Obama until next month before pressing ahead with new Iran sanctions, and a key Republican introduced legislation to limit the president’s future negotiating ability with Tehran.
Participants at the talks refused to spell out what was standing in the way of a deal. But Iranian statements and remarks from Western officials suggested they included finding mutually acceptable language on whether Iran has a right to enrich uranium, a technology that can produce both reactor fuel and nuclear warhead material.
Sanctions relief was also an issue.
The talks group six world powers and Iran. But negotiators for the six — the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany — were reduced to a side role Thursday, with top European Union diplomat Catherine Ashton shuttling between them and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif as the two tried to chip away at differences.
As the talks moved into evening, Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told Iranian state TV that the two sides had “common viewpoints in many cases, while there are serious differences in some cases.”
He said talks included possible ways to reduce sanctions on Iranian oil sales and banking.
A member of the Iranian delegation said his country recognizes that core oil and banking sanctions could not be lifted immediately but suggested Iran was looking for some relief over six months of the first-step agreement.
He also indicated that Iran was ready to discuss a limit on its uranium enrichment but said Iran wants some mention of its right to uranium enrichment — something the United States and its allies have long resisted. The delegation member demanded anonymity because he was not authorized to comment on the closed negotiations.
On the world powers side, Ashton spokesman Michael Mann said she is determined to narrow the differences between the sides, according to a Voice of America report.
“It was a real meaningful, detailed, substantial negotiation trying to drill down into the details of the text to try and narrow the differences that still existed after the last round,” Mann said.
The United States and its allies have signaled they are ready to ease some sanctions in return for a first-step deal that contains Iran’s nuclear program. But they insist that the most severe penalties — on Tehran’s oil exports and banking sector — will remain until the two sides reach a comprehensive agreement to minimize Iran’s nuclear arms-making capacity.
Iran says it does not want such weapons and has indicated it’s ready to start rolling back its program but wants greater and faster sanctions relief than that being offered.
In Moscow this week to meet with President Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu renewed his demand for a halt to all Iranian nuclear programs that could be turned from peaceful uses to making weapons.
Israel wants a settlement that is “genuine and real,” he said.
“Israel believes that the international community must unequivocally ensure the fulfillment of the UN Security Council’s decisions so that uranium enrichment ends, centrifuges are dismantled, enriched material is taken out of Iran and the reactor in Arak is dismantled,” Netanyahu said, referring to Iran’s plutonium reactor under construction.
“They must not have nuclear weapons,” he told a gathering of Russian Jews. “And I promise you that they will not have nuclear weapons.”

November 22, 2013 at 2:49 PM
I hope that the realities of the “bad deal” are getting filtered down to the general public. The actors involved have dreadful success credentials, reminds me of those “progressive” educators who wanted to throw away the grading system, bad grades made children feel bad..these clowns think that an “e” for effort is an acceptable mark.Quite scary if the world lets them get away with it!
November 22, 2013 at 4:02 PM
Like Michael Savage always says, ‘Liberalism is a mental disease”. Now it’s become a world epidemic.
November 22, 2013 at 4:30 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke
November 22, 2013 at 4:50 PM
Sorry Joop…this is not the liberalism we see today at all….
” He argues that property is a natural right and it is derived from labour.”
November 23, 2013 at 3:52 PM
I know but lets stop to call socialist fascism liberalism
November 22, 2013 at 4:38 PM
Israel has been campaigning hard against the “bad deal” since November 6th. Certainly some of this has filtered down to the public although I still can’t believe how little news coverage Iran is getting in the US media this week.
Negotiations will probably go into early Sunday morning like they did 2 weeks ago. Then once they fail (or France caves), Netanyahu will finally have to make the fateful decision he’s been sitting on for more than 4 years now.
November 22, 2013 at 5:01 PM
That’s why so many of us turn to the internet for news. The rest just don’t give a damn and watch whatever crap the networks spew out. Then again, a lot of folks watch nothing at all and live a life of rainbows and unicorns.
It amazes me watching the ‘Man in the Street’ videos on Fox how absolutely inept people can be and how little they know about government and current events. The information is there for the taking but they chose to pursue other things in life. The old saying, “You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink” comes to mind.
Just rambling….
November 22, 2013 at 5:09 PM
In Israel it’s a bit different.
The cab drivers tend to know more than the average Network anchors in the states.
November 22, 2013 at 6:57 PM
I guess part of what I don’t get is that 10 years ago the runup to the Iraq war was the top story on cable news for at least 6 months.
MSNBC even created a 7pm show called “Countdown: Iraq” on October 6, 2002.
http://www.newsday.com/lifestyle/msnbc-begins-countdown-iraq-1.348387
Now you can tune into an hour of Foxnews and the only mention of the Iran talks in Geneva is in the screencrawl at the bottom of the screen. Rush Limbaugh isn’t talking about Iran either this week (at least nothing on the website).
So I guess my question is, is the US media ignoring Iran because they don’t think war will happen – or because they are against another war and think the best way to oppose it is not to mention it at all? After all the US media has a lot less influence over Israel, Saudi Arabia, and France than they do over US policy (and they couldn’t stop Bush’s Iraq war despite months of criticism).
November 22, 2013 at 7:08 PM
To answer my own question, I think US media is ignoring NOT because they think it won’t happen but because they think by not talking about it they can make people think no crisis exists.
Therefore it will be harder for Netanyahu to take action because that would “shock” everybody.
But in the end the Israelis will do what they have to regardless…..
November 22, 2013 at 7:27 PM
I guess the other possibility is that the US media genuinely wants to keep Israel’s element of surprise.
But that never seemed to concern them at all with the Iraq war and I think the only people who will be surprised will be the American public.
I don’t think the Iranians will be at all surprised if Israel launches war this year. Maybe they’ll be surprised by Israel’s tactics but not by the timing.