| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 4:39 am Post subject: Israel prods Americans into war with Iran |
| Israel prods Americans into war with Iran
Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:45:03
By Dex A. Eastman, Press TV, Tehran
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=62413§ionid=3510303
As the clash between the US and Israel on the one hand and Iran on the other reaches a critical level, the powers that be have been desperately at work spinning a web of deception that may take the already war-exhausted Americans into the military conflict of the century, a confrontation that could eventually escalate into World War III.
"They will not close it... They will not be allowed to close it," declared Vice Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff at a Monday press conference in Bahrain.
The closure by Iranians of the Strait of Hormuz constitutes an "act of war" and would "not be an action against the United States but against the international community", continued the commander of the US Navy 5th Fleet.
But little did the respected Vice Admiral know that the morally bankrupt echelons in Washington and the siege-mentality-enduring people of means had plans for him and his fleet.
PAX AMERICANA
The scheme gained momentum, perhaps, on May 21, when Haaretz reported that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert suggested in an over-lunch conversation with US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Israel that a naval blockade be imposed on Iran.
"The present economic sanctions on Iran have exhausted themselves," an under-fire Olmert told the Democratic heavyweight Pelosi, who was joined by 12 bipartisan Members of Congress.
According to the Israeli newspaper, the desperate-to-be-redeemed prime minister proposed two possible courses of action during the meeting: first, the imposition of a naval blockade on Iran using a US fleet, and second to prohibit the entry of Iranian aircraft, businesspeople and top officials at all world airports.
"Iranian businesspeople who would not be able to land anywhere in the world would pressure the regime," opined the corruption-scandal-implicated politician.
While Nancy Pelosi on May 22 denied having any such conversation in Israel, that same day the notorious Resolution 362 found its way into the US Congress.
Present at the luncheon in Israel, bill sponsor Democrat Gary Ackerman demonstrated his unwavering support for the principles of Zionism, as the bill indirectly puts into play the controversial requests of the Israeli premier.
The bill's key section "demands" that the president, among other things, make strenuous efforts, "prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program".
Considering that Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare war" but does not specify how legislation text should be worded to be considered a "Declaration of War", Resolution 362 can, and probably will, be construed by an already power-abusive President George W. Bush and his team of lawyers as a congressional "demand" for imposing a naval blockade on Iran.
Resolution 362 is, thus, a supposedly innocent way on the part of America of provoking hostility by necessitating the imposition of a blockade on all ships "entering and departing Iran… [and] prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products".
While a naval blockade may be seen as acceptable to US politicians, it constitutes an act of war for Iran and will lawfully justify a response from Tehran.
The Western media will then plaster the headline America under attack! on the front page of all newspapers; Washington will portray Iran's defense as an act of aggression and will easily manage to convince Americans that a swift victory is achievable by waging all-out war on the country under the pretext of the War on Terror.
But how does Israel ensure that a piece of legislation of such caliber is approved?
Lobbying began! The most powerful Zionist lobby, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), convened on June 2-4 and declared its full-throated support for the bill, the approval of which has become its chief legislative priority. Some 80 Congressmen co-sponsored Resolution 362 in the three-day period.
On June 4, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was pressing for his cause in America, attempting to drum up further US support for "the need to vanquish the Iranian threat".
"We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat," said Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert after his 90-minute meeting with President Bush in the White House.
"I left with a lot less questions... regarding the means, the timetable restrictions and American resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it and intends to act on the matter before the end of his term in the White House," heralded he whose mission had been accomplished.
A member of Olmert's delegation said the same day that Tel Aviv and Washington had agreed to cooperate in case of an attack by Iran, asserting that "the meetings focused on 'operational matters' pertaining to the Iranian threat."
The annual AIPAC policy conference and Olmert's trip to the White House had, indeed, gone well. Congress once again capitulated to the humiliation of falling in line with the demands of the Israeli lobby.
As of July 1, House Resolution 362 (and the Senate version Resolution 580), known as the 'Iran War Resolution', enjoys 220 co-sponsors in the House and 32 in the Senate and will be put to vote in the coming days.
ISRAEL PAVES THE WAY FOR WAR
In early June, perhaps coinciding with Olmert's trip to the US, Israel conducted a military maneuver over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece in what Pentagon officials have suggested to be in preparation for a war with Iran.
Over 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s partook in the exercise, which spanned some 900 miles, roughly the distance between their airfields and a nuclear enrichment facility in the central Iranian city of Natanz.
An Israeli politician familiar with the Air Force initiative said that Iranians should "read the writing on the wall . . . This was a dress rehearsal, and the Iranians should read the script before they continue with their program for nuclear weapons."
On June 6, reportedly a day after the unpublicized exercise ended, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, who hopes to succeed Olmert as the next prime minister, described a war with Iran as "unavoidable" and threatened to wage war on Iran if the country fails to halt its nuclear activities.
His tactless remarks, while tacitly justified by the media as an attempt to win approval for future elections, have sparked a war of words between Tehran and Tel Aviv and have somewhat benefited Israel in its portrayal of Iran as a threat before the docile US Congress to secure the approval of Resolution 362.
Iran almost instantly urged UN Security Council action against Israel, saying the inaction of the United Nations over Israeli atrocities has emboldened Tel Aviv to such an extent that it now publicly threatens Iran in flagrant violation of the UN Charter.
"Iran's Armed Forces have reached a pinnacle of their military might and if anyone is to take such measures (attacks Iran), the response will be excruciating," responded Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier General Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar.
Israel later played down the threats but fired back by using a harsher rhetoric suggestive of a nuke attack on Iran. "We must tell them: If you so much as dream of attacking Israel, before you even finish dreaming there won't be an Iran anymore," Israeli Infrastructure Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer told the Israeli public radio June 7 without elaborating on why he believed Tehran would ever attack Tel Aviv.
"Iran should know the price it will have to pay when it begins to think concretely about attacking Israel," he continued in a direct attempt to represent Tehran as the aggressor.
Israel later ramped up its anti-Iran "operational" activities. On June 10, Israeli sources revealed that Tel Aviv had set up an 'Iran Command' within its Air Force as part of preparations for a war on the Islamic Republic.
The Command was said to be directed at improving coordination among Israeli ballistic missiles and air and missile brigades that deploy the Arrow and Patriot missile systems. That very day, Congress threw more of its weight behind Israel.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki commented on the issue. He argued that Israel "lacks legitimacy" and has already been defeated not by "a modernized army" but by "a resistance group" in its 33-day war against Lebanon, suggesting that Tel Aviv should not be taken seriously.
REPAIRING THE BUSH IMAGE
Exposed to fierce criticism because of his feckless attitude before 9/11 as well as his deplorable performance in handling the unconstitutional invasion of Iraq, a frowned-upon George W. Bush admitted to The Times on June 11 that his gun-slinging rhetoric had made the world believe that he was a "guy really anxious for war".
While defending his decision to invade Iraq, the man infamous for his use of such phrases as "bring them on" and "dead or alive" said, "Look, I think that in retrospect, you know, I could have used a different tone."
His confession that people saw him as "you know, not a man of peace" signaled a shift in the Bush administration policy on Iran.
Comments were made less often about the option of launching a military strike on Iranian nuclear sites and, when mentioned, the word "diplomacy" was almost always integrated into the same sentence in one form or another.
"All options remain on the table if diplomacy fails to get Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to abandon Iran's uranium-enrichment program," said Bush in a June 15 interview with the Observer.
However, the president's rhetoric grew more intense as he became more inclined to associate Iran to the War on Terror.
"My message would be: Stop fooling around with the Iranians and stop harboring terrorists," said Bush on June 14.
"I would like to say one thing about the Iranian demand for civilian nuclear power, it is a justifiable demand… Iranians must understand all options are on the table however," said Bush on June 16 in London in clarification of the price of "civilian nuclear power".
Israel and the White House have even lent a helping hand in improving the Bush image. A June 13 report published by DEBKAfile, a website believed to have links with the Israeli military and intelligence agency, stated that Bush is clearly bidding farewell to the option of a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
"They can either face isolation or they can have better relations with us all. No third option, of a punishing military strike, was mentioned," the website reported.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino also touched on the issue.
"President Bush believes that we can solve this issue (Iran's nuclear program) diplomatically, and that everyone's preference is to solve it diplomatically, not just here in the United States but with our allies and certainly with Israel," she claimed June 25.
But why would an outgoing neocon president with nothing to lose suddenly shift policy and claim to push for diplomacy with Iran? Is there any other way to make an Iranian retaliation against the peace-loving American forces blockading the Persian Gulf look more innocent? Could it be that an apparently unknowing Bush will one day justify a possible provocation by saying we tried diplomacy but to no avail?
ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE
"We will not allow Iran to close it," threatens Vice-Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff of the 5th Fleet. "The US Navy has been in the region for 60 years and will be here for decades to come."
He was responding to remarks made by commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), Major General Mohammad-Ali Jafari, who was asked whether Tehran would consider closing the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz waterway if it were attacked.
"When a country comes under attack, it naturally uses all its capacities to confront the enemy," said the Iranian commander.
It does seem silly, however, and somewhat insane that despite the cavernous archives of Washington acts of aggression against sovereign nations, their countless years of meddling in Iran, their coup d'état against Mossadeq, their support for the oppressive Shah, their unapologetic downing of passenger flight 655, their long-time support for and funding of terrorist groups such as the Mojaheddin Khalq Organization (MKO) and Jundullah in hopes of destabilizing the country and their cruel efforts to arm late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction to use against Iranian and Iraqi civilians, an American Vice Admiral even has the gall to say that an Iranian attempt to protect their sovereignty against a gang of aggressor countries attacking them in violation of the UN Charter would be considered by the world as an act of holding 40 percent of world oil "hostage" by "a single country".
Yes, indeed, America does have a 60-year history of brazen imperialism in the Middle East and "will be here for decades to come". That must be why Bush says the Iranian threat must be dealt with.
A military strike on Iran will not be the easy hit-and-run job Americans expect it to be, though. According to US Vice-Admiral Cosgriff, it will be "pretty disastrous," with "echoes and aftershocks" reverberating throughout the region.
As waves of US and Israeli fighter jets scream over the country, Iranian missile defense systems will load the skies, downing an overwhelming number of high-tech aircraft. According to Western media outlets, while the violators will be able to accomplish parts of their mission, there is the prospect of retaliatory attacks on US military bases and American forces stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. If correct, scores of US soldiers may be vanquished in a relatively short time.
Sharp-shooting pilots will dice with death to repel US warships and kamikaze missions may commence against US naval forces in the Persian Gulf. The military will respond to Israeli airstrikes with missile attacks never seen before in Israel.
Harking back to the eight-year war imposed upon Iran by a US-backed Saddam (1980-88), the spirit of the sovereign nation that has never accepted foreign domination will be revitalized. The American strategists will be thoroughly bewildered by the courageous missions carried out by those who love Iran despite its hardships.
As with the US-led siege on Iraq and Afghanistan, demonstrators will take to the streets all around the world; Washington will be the scene of violence as the White House justifies the move under the guise of the War on Terror.
Opposition to the war will be evident in Arab countries throughout the already volatile Middle East and some nations may intervene, wreaking further havoc. The ensuing battles could easily close the 21-mile Strait of Hormuz chokepoint, cutting crude exports from the oil-rich Persian Gulf.
As the war of attrition continues, it has been suggested by international analysts that Latin American countries that have long suffered because of US interference may halt oil exports to the US in condemnation of the aggression, thus triggering massive oil spikes.
According to predictions by Rice University economists, oil prices may surge to $200 a barrel in the next year which would mean Americans will have to pay $6.64 per gallon for gasoline. Pundits, however, say a war on Iran will double or triple crude prices.
The already weak US economy could, if the war persists, assume the burden of $10-a-gallon gasoline and could plunge into an unprecedented depression. The fuel shortage will prompt an increase in biofuel farming. Hundreds of millions worldwide could have nothing to eat; high fuel prices would lead to a surge in farming costs and may further deepen the food crisis. Riots could ensue. The world will never be the same.
If you would like to contact the writer please write to eastman@presstv.ir
---------------------------------------------------------------
AIPAC pushing US to war with Iran for Israel:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/10/re-aipac-is-pushing-us-to-war-with-iran.html
Stop the AIPAC sponsored 'Iran war' legislation calling for a blockade of Iran (to get the war with Iran going for Israel):
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2008/06/22/stop-the-iran-war-resolution.php
Here is the URL for the Bromwich piece about AIPAC pushing for war with Iran for Israel:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/congress-to-bush-and-chen_b_109868.html
Check out the question for Scott McClellan about how the JINSA (Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs) crowd pushed US to attack Iraq for Israel and are now doing similar to get US to attack Iran (how many more Americans have to die/get horribly maimed for this perpetual war for Israel agenda?):
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/06/scott-mcclellan-questioned-about-neocon.html
McCain is a serving Israel first traitor to America:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/03/make-people-aware-subscribe.html
Israeli threat spikes our oil prices and crashes our stock market:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/06/israeli-threat-spikes-our-oil-prices-we.html
The big miscalculation on Iran
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=111427&d=2&m=7&y=2008
Subject: 'Attacking Iran will have consequences'
Date: Friday, July 4, 2008, 3:26 PM
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=62573§ionid=351020203
'Attacking Iran will have consequences'
Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:09:47
Top Lebanese cleric Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah says an attack on Iran would bring forth an all-out war with the entire Muslim world.
Fadlallah warned that a military intervention in the Islamic Republic would spark Muslim fury in a Friday prayer sermon in Haret Hreik's Imamayn Hassanayn Mosque.
The senior cleric condemned Washington's 'Iran war' rhetoric and stressed that such psychological warfare will not be tolerated in the Muslim World.
"We warn that any European or Arab country advocating aggression against Iran will pay the price. An Iran war will not only wreck havoc on the region but will have worldwide consequences," he said.
"Washington's support for MKO terrorists is a blatant example of US attempts to undermine Iran's security and stability," the prominent cleric added.
He reiterated that an attack on Iran would be interpreted as a declaration of war on the entire Muslim world and resistance groups.
SBB/HGH
Iran: Attacking our N-sites means war
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=62507§ionid=351020104
Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:38:05
The top Islamic Revolution Guards Corps commander warns that any attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would lead to the outbreak of war.
"Any action against Iran will be interpreted as the start of a war," Major General Mohammad-Ali Jafari told reporters Thursday.
He made the remarks when asked about increasing rumors of a potential US or Israeli attack on Iran, IRNA reported.
The IRGC commander warned that Iran's response to any act of aggression would make the invaders 'regret' their decision.
Washington has never ruled out the possibility of resorting to the use of force against Iran over its nuclear program and reports suggest that the Israeli regime is preparing for a unilateral strike on Iran's nuclear sites.
This is while Washington and Tel Aviv, which accuse Tehran of seeking a military nuclear program, claim they favor a diplomatic solution to the standoff.
Refusing to give up its nuclear drive, Iran insists as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) the country is entitled to a civilian nuclear program.
In its most recent report, the UN nuclear watchdog conceded that there is no link between the use of nuclear material and the 'alleged studies' of weaponization in Iran's nuclear facilities.
MD/HGH
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Prodding US to Attack Iran:
http://www.soldiervoices.net/svfor/showthread.php?t=1183
Saudi Paper: Prepare for Nuclear Fall-Out:
http://soldiervoices.net/svfor/showthread.php?t=1147
Hersh: Congress Agreed to Bush Request to Fund Major Escalation in Secret Operations Against Iran:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/30/hersh_congress_agreed_to_bush_request
Chris Hedges: Insane to attack Iran:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/05/hedges-its-insane-to-attack-iran.html
Bob Barr: Attacking Iran Highly Irresponsible & Detrimental
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/05/bob-barr-attacking-iran-highly.html
A Clean Break/war for Israel agenda:
http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/02/clean-break.html
Would it be possible (if it isn't too late to already) to conduct a House hearing with Flynt Leverett after what he mentioned at New America about the Bush regime perpetuating fraud over Iran (a youtube of Flynt conveying such is daisy-chained after the initial youtube about the disgraceful interview that '60 Minutes' did with Ahmadinejad via the following link)?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onNzrNEFs1E&feature=PlayList&p=181923B27C885CDF&index=0&playnext=1
The following article appeared in the 'Daily Star' in Lebanon:
Bush could do himself a favor by heeding Iran's warnings:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&article_id=93662&categ_id=17 | |  | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 8:10 am Post subject: Iran warns of closing Hormuz Strait |
| Iran warns of closing Hormuz Strait
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=62662&ionid=351020101
Sat, 05 Jul 2008 16:22:14
Chief of Staff of Iran's Armed Forces says the Islamic Republic will close the Strait of Hormuz if its interests are placed in jeopardy.
"The Strait of Hormuz is a strategic waterway and it is therefore very important for us to keep it open," Major General Hassan Firouzabadi said on Sunday.
"It should be made clear that we will not allow anyone to pass through the waterway, if Iran's regional interests are jeopardized," he added.
Firouzabadi's remarks come after a recent New York Times report revealed that in the first week of June, the Israeli air force staged a maneuver off the southern Mediterranean Island of Crete in preparation for a war with the Islamic Republic
According to the report, Israeli aircraft flew over 900 miles, roughly the distance from their airfields to a nuclear enrichment facility in the central Iranian city of Natanz.
Speaking one day after the 20th anniversary of the downing of an Iranian passenger plane by the US Navy in the Strait of Hormuz, Maj. Gen. Firouzabadi criticized Washington for bowing to Tel Aviv's every demand.
"The US military belongs to the government of the United States. Greedy warmongers like Bush and the Zionists must not be able to take advantage of this institution," said Firouzabadi.
The top Iranian commander said the US government is 'trapped in the jaws of global Zionism', concluding that the American nation and military forces should not be sacrificed for unworthy rulers serving the interests of Zionism.
MJ/JG/RA/HGH
07/04/08
Last edited by Alpha on Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:23 pm; edited 1 time in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject: AN ATTACK AGAINST IRAN WILL BE A JOINT ISRAEL-U.S. OPERATION |
| AN ATTACK AGAINST IRAN WILL BE A JOINT ISRAEL-U.S. OPERATION DESPITE THE PROPAGANDA AND RHETORIC
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/07/04/p26763
Damian Lataan
There should be no misunderstanding here. If there is an attack against Iran, it will be by BOTH Israel and the US. It would be impossible for Israel to attack Iran without the nod from the US. It will be joint effort.
The current rhetoric about US reluctance to attack Iran before giving other options a chance and about the possibility of Israel going it alone is pure propaganda designed to lull the Iranians into a false sense of security because they know that the Israelis can’t do it on their own. The current rhetoric also creates the impression that the US actually wants to give ‘diplomacy a chance’ which, in turn, creates the impression that it is the US holding back the Israelis from attacking Iran.
The reality, however, is this; Israel, at the very least, will need to overfly Iraq in order to get to Iran and will therefore require US permission. Israel will need to acquire the special weapons it needs for such an operation from the US. The US will need to provide airspace control over the entire route from Israel to Iran and back. The US will need to supply Israel with extraordinary amounts of jet fuel. The US will need to pre-plan and provide air support for unexpected contingencies during a strike operation. The US will need to have other preparations in hand ready for any Iranian retaliation. In other words, the idea of Israel simply going after Iran on its own or against the wishes of the US is a complete illusion.
Since the real objective has always been regime change, to be achieved by destroying Iran’s military and political institutions, and not the destruction of Iran’s so-called nuclear facilities, though these no doubt will be hit just to make it seem as though they were the objective, with their real primary targets presented to the media as merely secondary, the Israelis will require a massive air fleet to launch such an attack with their strike aircraft possibly having to do two or even three sorties each throughout the operation. The real challenge for the Israelis, however, lies in their ability to prevent an Iranian counter attack against Israel. This means destroying Iranian missile sites during the initial attack on Iran’s nuclear sites and before they are able to mobilise them into action; a massive undertaking that Israel alone could not undertake.
The threat by the US and Israel to take on Iran has been one of those ‘on-again off-again’ threats that has dominated the entire Bush presidency. Now the Bush presidency is drawing to close and an Obama presidency will not attack Iran. One can reasonably conclude therefore that an attack against Iran is now imminent if for no other reason than the opportunity to do so is rapidly disappearing.
The US by using the propaganda and rhetoric of a ‘diplomatic resolution to solve the Iranian nuclear weapons crisis’ are hoping to avert the public backlash there would be if the US started simply issuing overt threats in a run-up to a war against Iran. A ‘surprise’ attack, on the other hand, would be fait accompli which, as usual, a compliant media and an American public pre-occupied with simply trying to keep a roof over their heads will just accept. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 11:15 pm Post subject: |
| Oil will skyrocket if Iran is attacked
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=62713§ionid=3510213
Sun, 06 Jul 2008 01:35:10
The cost of crude oil will spike dramatically if Iran becomes the target of any form of military action, Iran's oil minister stresses.
"Even the slightest hint of a possibility of an attack will lead to an increase in global oil prices by $10-15. But in case of real aggression, oil prices will rise to unpredictable highs," Gholam Hossein Nozari said in Tehran on Saturday.
The minister underscored, “when just a statement about a possible attack creates this level of volatility in the market, can you imagine if any action takes place what the result in the oil market would be?”
He added that in the event of any assault Iran is not going to sit quietly but will react fiercely.
Iran is the second-largest crude oil producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
The country ranks fourth in terms of crude reserves after Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait.
In the past two years, oil production in Iran has exceeded 4m bpd and is currently at 4.21m bpd, which is a post- revolution high
Oil prices have risen more than 50 percent so far this year. Crude futures reached a record high of $145.85 in New York on Thursday before settling at a record close of $145.29 a barrel.
MP/HAR | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
