Netanyahu 1992: Iran will Have the Bomb by 1997

Scott Peterson at the Christian Science Monitor did a useful timeline for dire Israeli and US predictions of an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon, beginning 20 years ago.

1992: Israeli member of parliament Binyamin Netanyahu predicts that Iran was “3 to 5 years” from having a nuclear weapon.

1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres predicts an Iranian nuclear warhead by 1999 to French TV.

1995: The New York Times quotes US and Israeli officials saying that Iran would have the bomb by 2000.

1998: Donald Rumsfeld tells Congress that Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit the US by 2003.

15 Responses

  1. Given that Netanyahu’s current rhetoric is too deadly and serious to ignore and uses up so much energy why would all bother if its just a bluff?
    Can it be simply to smoke the Palestinian issue and the land grab? Has it been that way all along?

    • I have had a similar question for awhile: What is the ultimate goal of Israel? It cannot be mere survival, they with their current estimated capability can bomb the entire ME many times over. It cannot be their economy, high oil prices hurts them. They are trade partners with the top economies of the world, their GDP is better than any other country in the region. It cannot be their technology, they are the most technologically advanced regime in the region. What is threatening them?

      • The question is, what roles do the expanding settlements and the military play in Israel’s economic success? This is a recurring question – how much impact does military spending have on any economy? Or for historical analogies, would America’s extreme pro-capitalist, anti-government views have been established if its people had not had an endless supply of Indian land to steal to act as a pressure valve against the manifest injustices of its capitalist economy?

        If the settlements are Israel’s frontier, and its real estate bubble, then having to fix its borders to normalize relations with the Arab world might have a traumatic impact like the closing of the American frontier, after which American farmers and workers had no choice but to stay and fight for better pay. With no new illegal subdivisions, the already-tight housing market in the rest of Israel might detonate in a more serious social disruption.

        Israel and the US have used each other’s history as an excuse for their own crimes, and these are crimes of expansionism. These might be countries that cannot function without the entitlement of expansion, and all the technology in the world cannot replace that.

  2. Amazing how the people who have been proven right time and time again by events are consistently ignored while those who are repeatedly dead wrong about what will happen (but who are wrong in the “correct” way) keep getting listened to. It’s enough to make you want to gnaw yer own head off.

  3. Seeing that the leader of a tiny client state can bully the president of the world’s only superpower seems very strange to most people who watch this theater of absurd from abroad, but at least the Israelis themselves see it for what it is, as set out in the following article in Haaretz. I wish such articles could be published in US newspapers:

    link to

    • You are right here is part of the article:-
      link to
      “An elephant and an ant will meet in Washington on Monday for a critical summit. But wait, who here is the elephant and who the ant? Who is the superpower and who the patronage state?

      A new chapter is being written in the history of nations. Never before has a small country dictated to a superpower; never before has the chirp of the cricket sounded like a roar; never has the elephant resembled the ant – and vice versa. No Roman province dared tell Julius Caesar what to do, no tribe ever dreamed of forcing Genghis Khan to act in accordance with its own tribal interests. Only Israel does this. On Monday, when Barack Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu meet at the White House, it will be hard to tell which one is the real leader of the world.”

  4. Given the history of Israel’s propaganda and warnings of Iran and Iraq’s nuclear weapons and the consequent US war with Iraq and potentially Iran, Mel Gibson looks like an oracle.

  5. It should be clear that Israel won’t stop with such accusations, as long as there will be at least one country supporting the Palestinians. I think this is the real cause.

  6. What this constant Israeli aggression and accusation strategy has resulted in is the avoidance of any peace agreement with the Palestinians. This has been the motivation behind all of the turbulence. While the ME has been in a constant state of siege (overt and covert) by the US, the Israelis have increased their settlements, committed a massacre in Gaza, and tried on several occasions to even the score with Hezbollah. Israel has no intention of formulating a peace with the Palestinians. Why would they when they’ve increased their land grab, increased their water resources, confined the Palestinians, and moved forward their Zionist game plan.

  7. He has found his best diversion, he can blackmail US/Europe with money, ignore Palestinian occupation while steeling more land, and more recently, divert attention from Israel’s economic woes.

  8. I am rather disturbed by the anti-semitic overtones of some of these comments, such as, for example, the comment that “Mel Gibson looks like an oracle” (Jeffrey Stewart), the idea that Israel moves “forward their Zionist game plan” (sufferingsuccatash), and the notion that it “blackmails US/Europe with money” (these allusions seem strongly concordant with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion). Publicly denouncing such comments would show genuine courage on the part of Juan (I don’t think they actually violate the moderation policy, but do seem to be against its spirit).

    • Hi, Eugene. Yes, I denounce comments that endorse Mel Gibson’s views of Jews, or which maintain that Jews are a cabal controlling things. I try to moderate comments so that they contribute to a useful discussion and are not just hateful; but I’m not the only comment moderator at the site and there is room for disagreement as to what the red lines are. I regret any offense caused by the ones mentioned, and they certainly don’t represent my own views.

  9. I agree-let’s disregard the Mel Gibson perceptions and just focus on the facts about the theft of Palestinian land, the disregard of UN resolutions, the obfuscation of the Israeli nuclear weapon program, the suffocation of human rights in Gaza. Where is the outrage from a nation that needlessly pays $3 billion a year to a client state the size of Connecticut that continually shows its ingratitude to its benefactor through endless machinations to disguise its real intent.

Comments are closed.