| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 8:20 pm Post subject: Neocon Coalition for Democracy in Iran |
| Neocon Coalition for Democracy in Iran
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/cdi.php
The Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI) is one of numerous pressure groups created by neoconservatives that focus on changing U.S. foreign policy. These include the U.S. NATO Committee, Committee for Liberation of Iraq, and U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon. In late 2002 Michael Leeden and Morris Amitay spearheaded the creation of the Coalition for Democracy in Iran. Other members include Frank Gaffney, Jack Kemp, Bruce McColm, Joshua Muravhik, Danielle Pletka, Rob Sobhani, Raymond Tanter, and James Woolsey. (1)
CDI represents just one thrust in a phalanx of neoconservative initiatives and organizations that aim to set the U.S. foreign policy agenda for Iran. Other groups include the Middle East Forum, Project for the New American Century, Hudson Institute, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Committee on the Present Danger, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and especially the American Enterprise Institute, which serves as the flagship neocon think tank.
CDI states it was “formed to mobilize the efforts of groups and individuals across the United States, including Iranian-Americans, who support the aspirations of the Iranian people for democracy and respect for human rights in Iran. In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, there is an even greater urgency to focus the attention of the U.S. public opinion and the policy makers on the real agenda of the Iranian regime. If judged by actions rather than by words, the battle between the reformers and the hardliners appears only to be a myth, albeit one that has resulted in conflicting signals from Washington. On the vital issues of support for terrorism and for development of weapons of mass destruction, the Islamic Republic tolerates no dissention. Nor has the theocracy been able to deliver economic and political reforms for the people of Iran. Promoting democracy in Iran will build a more peaceful and prosperous Iran, advancing the common interests of both Americans and Iranians.”
Among CDI's goals are: 1) highlight human rights abuses, which have continued or in some cases increased under the current ‘reformist’ president; 2) highlight the continued pre-eminent role of the Iranian government in global terrorism, the accumulation of weapons of mass destruction and the development of far-reaching and accurate delivery systems; 3) expose the efforts of the Iranian regime to undermine progress toward Middle East peace; and 4) draw attention to the flagrantly discriminative treatment of women in Iran.
According to CDI, “Engaging reformists tied only to the regime is counterproductive since it stifles the growth of more democratic forces inside Iran. Perpetuating the behavior of the current regime fundamentally undermines U.S. moral values and national security interests. Any positive U.S. gestures toward Iran should be directed towards the people of Iran and not its current oppressive regime.” (2)
Origins and Impact
Several of the CDI principals were among the main presenters at an AEI forum titled “The Future of Iran.” Setting the tone of the forum, convener Meyrav Wurmser of Hudson Institute said: “Our fight against Iraq was only a battle in a long war. It would be ill-conceived to think we can deal with Iraq alone…We must move on, and faster.”
Morris Amitay, listed on the program as the vice-chair of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, made mention of his association with CDI. Also presenting were Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), whose sponsorship of congressional resolutions against Iran have been closely coordinated with CDI, American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and Middle East experts at AEI and other neocon policy centers; Michael Ledeen, who Amitay called the “godfather of JINSA, and who has served as the necon's point-man on Iran; and S. Rob Sobhani, an Iranian-American who is president of Caspian Energy Consulting and like others associated with CDI is a close acquaintance of Reza Pahlavi, the son of the ousted Shah of Iran (installed by a U.S.-engineered coup in 1953).
Although CDI calls for greater democracy in Iran, the close association of neocons such as Ledeen and Sobhani with the shah's son raise concern that this may form part of another U.S. plan to restore the monarchy in Iran. Writing in the International Herald Tribune, Cameron Kamran, an Iranian-American commentator, said: “The Coalition for Democracy in Iran has strong ties to the exiled Reza Pahlavi, the deceased shah's son, and the Iran Democracy Act would largely fund dissident groups that advocate a restoration of the monarchy.” (3) (4) As it turned out, the initial request for $50 million to fund exile groups was removed from the 2003 congressional resolution, although its cosponsor Christopher Cox noted that funding for dissident groups could be included in future spending bills.
Michael Ledeen, who was one of the leading actors in the Iran-Contra affair during the second Reagan administration, is once again involved in backchannel operations involving U.S. government officials (Larry Franklin and Harold Rhode who work in the DOD's Office of Policy under Douglas Feith), Iranian dissidents and arms merchants (notably Manhucher Ghoranifar, who helped arrange the U.S. arms transfers to Iran with Ledeen in 1986-87), and Italian and likely Israeli officials. These meetings have come under congressional scrutiny by the Select Senate Intelligence Committee, which has postponed further inquiry until after the November 2 elections.
To build support for their Middle East restructuring agenda, CDI and other neocon groups repeatedly highlight the repressed role of women in Islamic societies. An extreme interpretation by Rob Sobhani of this argument has drawn angry criticism from students at Georgetown University, where Sobhani is an adjunct professor. They charge that Sobhani has on at least two occasions (one being at the AEI forum in 2003) made the following statement: “There's a young lady here in the United States who is in her mid thirties. She's a Deputy Secretary of Education in the United States, an American Iranian. That same 30-something in Iran has to prostitute herself to make ends meet.” In a complaint to the university administration, the critics charge: “Mr. Sobhani's irresponsible and inappropriate statement implies that Iranian women are prostitutes, however competent they might be. His allegation is both false and malicious… His manner of argument uses the degradation of the image of Iranians to that of a helpless, backward people as a tactic to gain support for his political agenda.” (5)
The Coalition for Democracy in Iran also includes members of other key neoconservative policy institutes and think tanks, including Raymond Tanter of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (an off-shoot of AIPAC); and Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy. In the 1990s Feith served as the board chairman of the Center for Security Policy, and James Woolsey is currently co-chairman of the advisory committee of this militarist institute whose slogan is “peace through strength.” Other neocon institutes represented in the coalition by more than one member include the American Enterprise Institute (Muravchick, Ledeen, Pletka), Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (Woolsey, Kemp, Gaffney), and Freedom House (Woolsey, McColm).
CDI and the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee were among the main policy groups that worked with House and Senate members to pass resolutions in 2003 and 2004 that express support for regime change in Iran, call for more restrictive international sanctions, and condemn Iran for its support of terrorism and human rights abuses. The congressional members taking the lead in both the House and the Senate were right-wing Republicans such as Christopher Cox, Jon Kyl, Rick Santorum, and Sam Brownback. But the Iran congressional initiatives also drew in Democrats as sponsors including Charles Schumer (NY) and Daniel Inouye (Hawaii), and Patrick Leahy (D-VT).
Just as the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 established the foundation for bipartisan congressional support for the 2002 invasion, the congressional initiatives regarding Iran have drawn in broad congressional support for resolutions that prepare the ground for a more aggressive U.S. posture, including possible support for expatriate groups and military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities and missile sites. Lauding the Brownback Senate amendment of July 2003 supporting democracy in Iran, AEI scholar Joshua Muravchik, speaking for CDI, said: “This amendment is an important milestone in the relationship between the U.S. Congress and the people of Iran. It sends a message to the Iranian people that the American people are aware of their struggle to free themselves, and that we want to do what we can to help. The days of waiting for the Iranian regime to reform itself are over.”
After the Iraq invasion, CDI principals and CDI itself increasingly began blaming Iran for the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq. CDI stated “It is clear that Iran's mullahs will not tolerate an emerging democracy on their border. They have reportedly sent millions of dollars and numerous intelligence operatives into Iraq to create chaos and attack Coalition forces. Iran's biggest export continues to be terrorism. If we are to succeed in Iraq, Iran must be reined in. We call upon the administration to react to this clear and present danger to U.S. interests by using all the means at its disposal to deter Iran's activities in Iraq and its development of nuclear weapons.” (6)
In a December 19, 2003 analysis of Iran's nuclear program posted on CDI's web site, Michael Ledeen wrote:
“Alas, there is no sign that the West is willing to accept the truth about Iran, and therefore the imperative for action. Instead, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell pronounced himself ‘very happy’ with a feeble UN criticism of Iran's nuclear program that bemoans Iran's longstanding violation of its international agreements but does not shut down the program. At the moment the world is trusting that the Iranian rulers have been true to their word, and suspended their uranium enrichment…despite the explicit statement by Iranian National Security Council head Hassan Rohani during a news conference on Saturday, ‘Our uranium enrichment program has been suspended voluntarily, temporarily, to build trust,’ he said, adding that ‘the issue of ending uranium enrichment is not in question and never has been nor will be.’
“As for the inspections promised yesterday, we are all diligently repeating the same mistake we made with Saddam Hussein, and the Iranian rulers are copying his methods…Just as we gave the terror masters nearly a year and a half to scatter and hide the Iraqi weapons, and organize their Iraq strategy, so we are giving the Iranians precious time to pursue their weapons program and solidify internal terror.”
Amitay, the former director of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, shares Ledeen's scorn for the State Department, where the prevailing mind-set is that there is “no tyrannical regime [that] can't be made a friend by showing our good will.” CDI's founders and associates form part of a tight circle of neocon groups closely allied with militarists in Israel. Ledeen, one of the colorful and shadowy figures in the neocon web, believes that the “appeasers” in Congress and the State Department stand in the way of regime change in Iran. A longtime critic of Colin Powell and other Republican realpolitikers, Ledeen charged that the appeasers in Washington “prefer to schmooze with the mullahs” than to promote “democratic revolution in Iran” supported by U.S. aid and military action. (7) (8)
In a November 2003 article for the National Review Online, Ledeen argued that the “appeasers” in Congress and the State Department “don't want to know about Iran, because if they did, they would be driven to take actions that they do not want to take. They would have to support democratic revolution in Iran.” Ledeen concludes, “I guess some top official will have to die at the hands of (obviously) Iranian-supported terrorists before the Pentagon is permitted to work on the subject.” (9)
In the view of CDI, the democratic opposition that is attempting to gradually reduce the power of the Council of the Guardians is counterproductive. According to CDI, “[President] Khatami is part of the problem, not the solution. He merely puts a gentler face on a brutal and oppressive system in order to stall and deflect international criticism…While Khatami monopolizes the reform mantle, there has been, outside of press attention, a growing broad-based movement for change in Iranian society. This popular movement, which spans Iran's rich and diverse society, is pro-democratic and yearning to live in freedom.”
Just who are these freedom fighters? Based on statements and the links of CDI principals, they appear to be a diverse and unlikely coalition of monarchists, arms dealers like Ghorbanifar, and the Mojahedeen Khalq Organization (MKO), a guerrilla group based in Iraq. (10)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRAN TO RESUME ENRICHMENT/RETURN OF MILITARY DRAFT:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/05/28/breaking-news-iran-to-resume-enrichment-return-of-draft.php
Last edited by Alpha on Wed Jun 01, 2005 10:57 pm; edited 1 time in total | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon May 30, 2005 11:49 pm Post subject: Re: Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement |
|
From: "Kevin MacDonald"
Date: Sun May 29, 2005 6:35 am
Subject: Re: Soros, Oligarchs and Trotskyites
It is worth pointing out that the National Endowment for Democracy mentioned for its role in Ukraine is a fiefdom of the neocon left tracing its roots to Max Schachtman. From my article on neocons: Carl Gershman [a Jew] remains head of the NED which supports the U.S.-led invasion and nation-building effort in Iraq.[i] The general line of the NED is that Arab countries should “get over” the Arab-Israeli conflict and embrace democracy, Israel, and the United States. In reporting on talks with representatives of the Jewish community in Turkey, Gershman frames the issues in terms of ending anti-Semitism in Turkey by destroying Al Queda; there is no criticism of Israel its policies in producing hatred throughout the region.[ii] During the 1980s, the NED supported non-violent strategies to end apartheid in South Africa in association with the A. Philip Randolph Institute headed by longtime civil rights activist and SD/USA neocon Bayard Rustin.[iii] Critics of the NED, such as Rep. Ron Paul (R. Tex) have complained that the NED “ is nothing more than a costly program that takes US taxpayer funds to promote favored politicians and political parties abroad.”[iv] KM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] C. Gershman, “A democracy strategy for the Middle East.” http://www.ned.org/about/carl/dec1203.html ; Dec. 12, 2003.
[ii] C. Gershman, “After the bombings: My visit to Turkey and Istanbul's Jewish community.” http://www.ned.org/about/carl/dec2703.html Dec. 27, 2003.
[iii] Massing, 1987.
[iv]Paul 2003.
----- Original Message -----
From: james sanchez
Sent: Saturday, May 28, 2005 10:17 PM
Subject: [jacobandesau] Soros, Oligarchs and Trotskyites
(Here is the full text of an article from the Workers World, the
newspaper of the Trotskyite Workers World Newspaper. The article has a
lot of good information about Soros, the Oligarchs and the coup in
Ukraine.)
==========
(abstract)
Fred Goldstein. "Subversion in Name of 'Free and Fair Elections': Stage
Set for New Crisis in Ukraine", in Workers World, December 16, 2004. p.
8.
The US and European imperialists and their stooges inside Ukraine have
won a political victory, gaining the opportunity for their favored
candidate, Viktor Yushchenko, to win in a new election. Washington, the
European Union and hordes of imperialist-sponsored NGO operatives have
been working feverishly to overturn the election of Viktor Yanukovich on
the grounds of "widespread fraud."
Whatever fraud may have occurred in the presidential election runoff on
11/21/2004, freedom and fairness have nothing to do with why the
imperialist world is unanimously calling for new elections. If their
object were free elections, they would raise a world outcry against the
fraudulent elections being prepared by the Bush administration in Iraq.
where the people are being ordered to participate in a US-staged
election under the gun of 150000 occupation troops - an event so outside
all international law that everyone connected with it, including the UN
staff, should be prosecuted. And what about when US Marines nullified a
free and fair election in Haiti by kidnapping and overthrowing Pres.
Jean-Bertrand Aristide? What about Saudi Arabia, guardian of Western oil
interests, where there are no elections at all? Where is the outcry?
The political crisis in Ukraine is about US and European finance capital
taking over the country and tightening a cordon sanitaire around Russia.
Campaign an 'American Creation'
In a polemic against Russian Pres. Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov about Western interference in Ukraine, Secretary of State
Colin Powell declared, "What we have seen isn't interfering in
democracy. What we have seen is the international community coming
together to support democracy."
In fact, Washington has played a major role in manipulating the
political process and institutions in an attempt to attain the election
result it wants. It pressured the Ukrainian Supreme Court to declare the
election invalid and it got the parliament to go along with a new
election. This pressure comes as a climax to widespread and protracted
imperialist preparation for a political and economic takeover.
Ian Tailor wrote in the London Guardian on 11/26/2004 that "the campaign
is an American creation, a sophisticated and brilliantly conceived
exercise in Western branding and mass marketing.... Funded by and
organized by the US government, deploying US consultancies, pollsters,
diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government
organizations, the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000
to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot box. Richard Miles, the US
ambassador in Belgrade, played a key role. And by last year, as US
ambassador in Tbilisi, he repeated the trick in Georgia, coaching
Mikhail Saakashvili in how to bring down Eduard Shevardnadze."
In Minsk, the capital of Belarus, US Amb. Michael Kozak, a former Latin
American operative who worked on subversion in Nicaragua, ran a similar
operation in an unsuccessful attempt to oust the government of Alexander
Lukashenko.
When the television screen flashes pictures of crowds around government
buildings in Kiev, Ukraine's capital, it is vital to know that these
crowds, many of them made up of the middle classes that have benefited
or want to benefit from privatization and the formation of thousands of
small businesses, have been organized by political operatives in
Washington, Wall Street and the capitals of Europe.
CIA, NED, USAID and Soros
Institutions funded by the National Endowment for Democracy, aptly
described by Michel Chossudovsky as "the civilian arm of the CIA," have
virtually overrun Ukraine in the past decade. "In Venezuela," he adds,
"the NED was also behind the failed coup against Pres. Chavez and in
Haiti it funded the opposition parties and NGOs in the US-sponsored coup
d'etat and deportation of Pres. Aristide." (www.globalresearch.ca)
This electoral overturn has been long in the making. The NED and US
Agency for International Development fund an NGO called the National
Democratic Institute (NDI) that has been in Ukraine since 1993, two
years after the bourgeois government in Kiev declared its independence
following the collapse and breakup of the Soviet Union - a historic
setback for socialism under the pressure of imperialism.
For the first election in 1994, the NDI organized a group called the
Committee of Voters of the Ukraine (CVU). This coalition of bourgeois
forces fielded 4000 election monitors in the parliamentary and
presidential election. After the elections, in 1995, it went around the
country promoting privatization. By 1997 it had 17000 election monitors
ready. Now it has 18000 volunteers and 160 branches throughout Ukraine.
Albright and Woolsey, Too
And who heads this organization? Madeleine Albright, former US secretary
of state under Bill Clinton - a fierce advocate of he destruction of
Yugoslavia, architect of the takeover of Serbia, and defender of the
genocidal sanctions against Iraq.
Another principal institution operating in Ukraine is Freedom House.
Along with NDI, it has organized election monitors and trained campaign
operatives. Heading its board of trustees is James Woolsey, a former
director of the CIA. Woolsey is a hawk on Iraq and part of the
Cheney-Rumsfeld faction that tried to link al-Qaeda and 9/11/2001 to
Saddam Hussein. Freedom House is partly funded by George Soros's Open
Society. Soros, whose wealth is estimated at around $10 billion, has
played a key role in Ukraine. In 1992 he made a billion dollars and
became persona non grata in Britain when his speculation caused the
collapse of the pound. He has a vast corporate empire and played a
personal role in consolidating the capitalist counter-revolution in the
former socialist countries of Eastern Europe.
Ask in an interview on 3/3/2004, "Could you name the sum allocated for
your programs in Ukraine in 2004?" he replied, "The budget is $5
million. Another million is supposed to be allocated for grants.... It's
quite possible that in the end we will spend about $8 million."
(www.civicua.org/soros/en/index.html)
Another key institution funding programs in Ukraine is the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace. It is endowed by Boeing, Citigroup,
the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, General Electric and
the Andrew Mellon Foundation, among others. It is also endowed by Yukos,
the Russian oil company whose billionaire owner, Mikhail Khodorkovsky,
tried to sell a huge chunk of it to US oil companies and is now in jail.
Jonathan Steele pointed out in the London Guardian of 11/26/2004: "In
Ukraine, Yushchenko got the western nod, and floods of money poured in
to groups which support him, ranging from the youth organization Pora to
various opposition websites.... Intervening in foreign elections under
the guise of an impartial interest in helping civil society, has become
the run-up to the postmodern coup d'etat, the CIA sponsored third world
uprising of Cold War days adapted to the post-Soviet conditions...."
Steele puts his finger on the essential factor in the present crisis.
"Ukraine has been turned into a geostrategic matter not by Moscow but by
the US, which refuses to abandon its cold war policy of encircling
Russia and seeking to pull every former Soviet republic to its side. The
EU should have none of this."
It is clear that the foundations and the NGOs are basically an extension
of the US capitalist state, but they allow corporations and former
government officials to carry on subversion in open relationships that
would be more difficult to execute within the formal framework of the
government. Different factions of the ruling class get to promote their
policies outside of, but in tandem with, the government. The State
Department and the CIA have been working on the subversion of the
Ukraine since long before the USSR broke up. The present campaign is
just a continuation of that policy.
It is a delicate matter, because US imperialism needs Russia's support
or acquiescence in the war in Iraq, pressuring North Korea, and in
keeping military bases and an oil presence in Central Asia and the
Caucasus. But at the same time, it wants to reduce Russia to complete
dependency, fomenting pro-Wall Street factions inside Russia to
challenge the bourgeois grouping of Pres. Vladimir Putin and nationalist
elements. The ultimate goal is a takeover of Russia.
Not the Old Cold War
The term Cold War has been used to describe the present crisis. This
term has to be analyzed from a Marxist point of view. When the USSR
collapsed, the Cold War, in its fundamental meaning, was over. It had
been a class war between two irreconcilable social systems. The USSR was
based upon the nationalized means of production, a planned economy and a
monopoly on foreign trade. It was a socialist system based on production
for social use, not for profit.
For a variety of reasons, all of which can ultimately be traced to its
protracted isolation as a socialist state, war, and the poverty of its
economic foundation, it was defeated by imperialism. The first and most
crucial phase of that defeat was the destruction of socialist property
relations and the establishment of capitalist relations, wage slavery,
exploitation and private property - together with national oppression,
poverty, unemployment and all the attendant evils that workers suffer
under capitalism.
But for imperialism, simply overturning property relations and
establishing a capitalist class in Russia and the former republics of
the USSR is hardly the end of the process. After overturning the
economic foundation, the ultimate goal of the giant monopolies is to
seize control of the superstructure, that is, to completely take over
the political systems in order to open the doors to thoroughgoing
imperialist exploitation.
That is what is behind the crisis in Ukraine and is their goal with
respect to Russia. Wall Street and Washington want to go back completely
to the days before the working class, led by Lenin and the Bolshevik
Party, seized power in Russia. Tsarist Russia had been both an
imperialist country, with respect to its colonies, and a colony of
Western imperialism: French, German, British and, to a lesser extent at
that time, US capital.
In the struggle over turning back the clock, Ukraine is a vital element.
The Russian government, representing the new gangster capitalist class
there, which enriched itself by seizing the wealth built up under
socialism by the workers and peasants, has been struggling to hold back
the invasion of Western imperialism - as have sections of the Ukrainian
bourgeoisie. In 9/2003 they came together to form the Common Economic
space, composed of Ukraine, Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. With a
combined population of 225 million, it is intended as a counterweight to
the European Union and US corporations.
Yushchenko and his group, Our Ukraine, declared their intention to
destroy the CES should they be elected. This is a major factor behind
the anti-Yanukovich agitation of the Western imperialists. The CES is an
attempt to reconstitute, on a bourgeois basis, a Russian-centered
economic bloc that would ultimately reduce and eliminate tariffs,
develop a common tax policy and work towards economic coordination. This
is anathema to the imperialists, both economically and in terms of the
geopolitical struggle. Their solution is to make Ukraine "European" -
that is, a slave of Western capital. That would open the door to forcing
russia down the same path, back to the days of being a neocolony.
Right now, the Ukrainian oligarchs and bourgeois groupings around Pres.
Kuchma and Yanukovich are retreating, as is Putin of Russia. They are
selling out the interests of not just the domestic bourgeoisie, but of
the working class and peasantry, who will suffer most under a complete
imperialist takeover.
The only way Russia and the republics were able to fight back against
world capital was to organize a socialist republic with the working
class in power. The Ukrainian workers of the Donetz basin and the
industrial regions have every right to oppose the bourgeois and petty
bourgeois crowds and politicians in Kiev, who want to sell the country
to the West. But the answer does not lie in Yanukovich, who is a tool of
the oligarchs, nor does it lie in Putin. The only way Ukrainian workers
can stave off the further encroachment of Western capital is to fight
their own capitalists and reestablish a socialist Ukraine. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 8:25 am Post subject: Ex-producer for ABC World News Tonight:"Iraq war for Is |
| Ex-producer for ABC World News Tonight:"Iraq war for Israel"
A Pretext for War:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/zeese1.html | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue May 31, 2005 6:49 pm Post subject: Israeli planner says don’t rule out Osiraq-like strike on Ir |
| http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_31-5-2005_pg4_9
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
R E G I O N: Israeli planner says don’t rule out Osiraq-like strike on Iran
* David Ivry claims Tehran’s quest for a bomb may be delayed by military action
TEL AVIV: Military action would not stop Iran’s nuclear programme but could be a last resort to delay any quest for an atomic bomb, the mastermind of Israel’s 1981 air strike on the Iraqi reactor at Osiraq said on Monday.
While Israel and its US ally have not excluded the option of attacking Iran if all diplomatic efforts to curb its nuclear capability fail, independent experts believe the Islamic republic’s facilities are too dispersed and fortified to be eliminated militarily.
But David Ivry, who planned the Osiraq raid as then chief of the Israeli air force, argued against thinking in all-out terms.
“You cannot eliminate an idea, a national will. But you can delay progress on a nuclear programme with the appropriate military action,” Ivry told Reuters. “That is a valuable objective in itself.” Eight Israeli F-16 jets, using detachable fuel containers and relatively light bombs to extend their range, destroyed Osiraq on June 7, 1981. The Iraqi quest for atomic weapons was driven underground until UN inspectors uncovered it in 1991.
“When Israel struck Osiraq, the intention was never to get rid of Saddam Hussein’s nuclear plans. We wanted to buy time, and we succeeded in doing that,” Ivry said.
Iran has denied seeking an atomic bomb, saying its nuclear programme is for energy needs only.
It has suspended uranium enrichment, a process that can produce bombs, at the behest of France, Britain and Germany. But Washington wants Tehran referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions if it does not scrap the programme. Israel, believed to be the Middle East’s only nuclear power, has made no secret of seeking means to confront Iran militarily. But it denies planning to attack its arch-foe unilaterally.
However, Israeli officials say they have assessed that Iran will obtain the know-how to make atomic weapons within months. That is a more pressing prognosis than Washington’s, suggesting Israel could yet go it alone.
“A country decides when to act against the enemy based on its assessment of when the threat has become insufferable. You set a deadline beyond which you believe you will lose the option of acting,” Ivry said. “With Osiraq, it was the fact that the Iraqis were about to bring uranium into the reactor.”
Although a fleet of advanced F-16i jets has extended the Jewish state’s reach into the Gulf, analysts doubt an Israeli strike could deal with the dozens of nuclear facilities in Iran, a state much bigger than Iraq and with formidable air defences.
“Israel’s best option would be a simultaneous multi-pronged strike using different routes, for example through Jordan and Iraq as well as the Mediterranean route through Turkey and or Azerbaijan,” Kaveh Afrasiabi, a political analyst at Tehran University, said in a recent published article.
“Yet at present neither option is available to Israel ... given Iran’s cordial relations with its neighbors and the fears and concerns of those neighbours of a severe Iranian backlash in case they permit their air space for an Israeli attack on Iran.” The warplanes that bombed Osiraq overflew Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which were then formally at war with Israel. But Ivry said seeking permission would not be necessary.
“I do not know of any country that would ask permission of another (to use its air space). Doing so would compromise the secrecy of the mission, and approval would not be forthcoming anyway. When dealing with a mission seen as crucial for national security, such issues are irrelevant,” said Ivry. The retired general also disputed the assumption that all or most of Iran’s facilities would have to be tackled in a strike.
“It is enough to hit the key component of the production cycle to put the whole operation out of action,” he said. “Given the sensitivity of the technologies in question, a strike that simply shakes the structure housing them is usually sufficient to cause irreparable damage. Total destruction of the target is not necessary or even desirable.”
And although an “Osiraq option” against Iran is a matter of widespread speculation, Ivry suggested that Israel could still have tricks in store if it decided to proceed with a strike. “The Iranians attacked Osiraq twice before we did (in the Iran-Iraq war). Each time, the Iraqis bolstered their defences at the site. So even then, we did not really have the element of surprise in terms of the overall concept of a strike,” he said.
“If and when Iran is attacked, I think I can assure you it will come as a surprise to everyone.” reuters | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
