At the same time as the US delivered 1,800 2,000-pound MK-84 bombs to Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, in a meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, while threatening Iran, again mentioned Iran as a nuclear threat to the region. In this regard, the following points are noteworthy.

1. Netanyahu’s threats against Iran are not a new issue, and usually, when Israel fails, he tries to distract public opinion from its failures by posing threats against Iran. This, along with the threat by the US secretary of state, takes on a double form, and of course, if the threats become reality, as Leader of the Islamic Revolution has said, we will respond to any aggression with aggression, and experience has shown that whenever the Zionist regime attacks our country, it has received a proportionate response.

2. Israel, with about 80 nuclear bombs, has posed the most nuclear threats against neighboring states and the West Asia region. The lack of transparency regarding Israel’s nuclear programs and its “neither confirm nor deny” approach are part of Tel Aviv’s strategic policy that has thwarted international efforts to disarm the regime.

In its latest move, in December 2014, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly approved a resolution on the dangers of Israel’s nuclear weapons proliferation in West Asia, which had three main thrusts: First- Demanding that the occupying regime renounce its possession of nuclear weapons; second- calling on the regime to quickly and without delay join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and third- urging the regime to place all of its nuclear facilities under the comprehensive safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency, none of which Israel has complied with.

3. In addition to the existence of destructive nuclear weapons in Israel, in recent years, the issue of attacking nuclear facilities has been an important part of the regime’s military threats against other countries, including Iran. Among them, the nuclear threat that Netanyahu officially raised against Iran in the United Nations General Assembly is contrary to the rules and regulations of international law. This issue is important both in terms of the nuclear threat of an independent country and in terms of the nature of nuclear facilities. On July 8, 1996, the International Court of Justice announced its advisory opinion on the nuclear threat of states and said: No rule has explicitly permitted the threat to use or the use of nuclear weapons.

4. The repetition of nuclear accusations against Iran by Israel is a humorous point and is announced only to create media fodder for the West. Such a brutal regime, which itself has this type of weapon and at the same time is not a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency and in the Gaza war mercilessly massacred nearly fifty thousand people with bombs donated by the United States, calls Iran a nuclear threat. If Iran is not seeking nuclear weapons, it is not out of fear of the United States and other powers, but rather based entirely on moral and religious considerations, and Leader of the Islamic Revolution’s fatwa prohibiting the production of this type of weapon reflects these considerations.

The conclusion is that although Netanyahu’s recent threats are only a media bluff and cannot be implemented due to the increasing weakness of this regime, they do reflect the Zionists’ belligerent approach in the international arena. The Zionist regime, which, according to its own officials, is on the path to decline, needs a strategy of creating a crisis in order to continue its survival, and international forums must certainly be sensitive to pursuing these threats and not allow Israel to create a crisis with its actions.