| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:21 am Post subject: Bet on Israel bombing Iran |
| Bet on Israel bombing Iran
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/09/27/2008-09-27_bet_on_israel_bombing_iran.html
By Robert Baer
Saturday, September 27th 2008, 6:45 PM
Are we going to have an October surprise, an attack on Iran by either the Bush administration or by Israel to stop the regime from becoming a nuclear power?
It could happen - and alter the dynamics of the presidential race in the blink of an eye - but only if Israel pulls the trigger. Don't expect the United States to drop bombs anytime soon. The reason: Iran has us over a barrel.
According to Britain's Guardian newspaper, Bush earlier this year nixed an Israeli plan to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. Reportedly, the President said no because we couldn't afford Iranian retaliation against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan or Iran closing down Persian Gulf shipping. Nonetheless, cynical speculation is now swirling in some quarters that with the financial collapse working against McCain - and Bush's legacy coming into focus - the President might reconsider. Could that tail really wag the dog?
Probably not. The fundamental global power dynamics have not changed. Iran has successfully blackmailed us. Iranian Silkworm missiles could close down Gulf oil exports in a matter of minutes, taking about 17 million barrels a day of oil off world markets. Americans could suddenly be looking at the prospect of $10-$12 for a gallon of gas. If the collapse of Wall Street doesn't push us into a depression, that would. And Bush is right: An angered Iran could punish us with thousands of extra casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, as Iranian-trained, armed and funded fighters flow back into the war zones with a vengeance.
So, giving the go ahead to Israel would just not be worth it.
But none of this changes the fact that Israel - on its own, without U.S. complicity - is moving closer to a decision to attack Iran, almost by the day.
What many Americans miss is that Iran is a threat to Israel's very existence, not an imagined danger used by politicians for political advantage. Every Israeli city is within range of Iranian/Hezbollah rockets. To make matters worse, since the July 2006 34-day war, Hezbollah may have as much as trebled the number of rockets it has targeted on Israel.
Meantime, Hezbollah has become the de facto state in Lebanon. And lest we forget, Israel lost that July 2006 war to Hezbollah, pulling its troops out of Lebanon without having obtained a single objective. In other words, Israel no longer has its deterrence credibility, the fear that it can decisively retaliate against its enemies.
Israel knows that international diplomacy against Iran up until now has been a farce. Iran called Bush's bluff, ignored sanctions and continued its nuclear program with impunity. And if the Israelis needed another psychological kick in the pants, last week North Korea announced that it is back to building a bomb, likewise with impunity.
Finally, Israel has to calculate that American influence around the world is on the wane. Americans are tired of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now, after the war in Georgia, Russia is opening up its flow of weapons to Iran.
Couple all of this with Israel's suspicion that Iran is within only a few short years of having a nuclear bomb, and Israel knows time is not on its side. It is starting to believe that it has no choice but to change its fortunes with arms.
This much is certain. Whether the President is named Bush, McCain or Obama, he will either have to prepare for war in the Gulf or find a way to bring Iran back into the nation-state system. The day of reckoning is near.
I myself think a deal can be cut with Iran. During the last 30 years, Iran has gone from a terrorist, revolutionary power to far more rational, calculating regional hegemon. Its belligerence today has more to do with a weakened United States and Israel than with any plans to start World War III.
The question is what price Iran would exact for a settlement. Or more to the point: Would we prefer to take our chances with an Israeli surprise?
Baer, a former CIA case officer, is author of the just-released "The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower." | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:47 am Post subject: Islamic anger over Israel's nuclear program |
| West, Islamic nations split at nuclear meeting
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
59 minutes ago
VIENNA, Austria — Islamic anger over Israel's nuclear program and bids by Iran and Syria to gain more influence threaten to turn this week's 145-nation International Atomic Energy Agency meeting into an unprecedented showdown between the West and the developing world.
Opening Monday, the IAEA's general conference has traditionally been an annual chance for the United Nations nuclear monitoring agency's member countries to plan general nuclear policies that range from strengthening nonproliferation to programs of medical and scientific benefit.
Decisions are traditionally made by consensus, a practice that had led all sides to bridge sometimes substantial differences and opt for compromise on most issues for most of the general conference's 52-year history. A vote on any topic is unusual and considered a huge dent in the meeting's credibility.
But Islamic frustration over Israel's refusal to put its nuclear program under international purview and resistance by the Jewish state to Muslim pressure on the issue threatens to force a vote for the third year running.
After losing the vote two consecutive years, Islamic nations are threatening to up the ante this year, warning they will call for a ballot on every item, no matter how uncontroversial, unless they get conference backing on the issues close to their heart.
"In all my years of dealing with the general conference, I have never seen it as divided as this," said one conference veteran Sunday, the eve of the conference. The diplomat demanded anonymity because he wasn't authorized to comment to the media.
As in the past two years, Islamic IAEA members are expected to put forward a resolution urging all Mideast nations to refrain from testing or developing nuclear arms and urging nuclear weapons states "to refrain from any action" hindering a Mideast nuclear-free zone.
Israel, widely considered the only Mideast nuclear weapons state, last year called for a vote on that resolution because of the introduction of a separate Arab-backed resolution deeming Israel a "nuclear threat" and refusal by its sponsors to withdraw it. The resolution was defeated but the fact it was put to the ballot further weakened the consensus principle.
Arab members — backed by Iran — this year have again asked conference organizers to include a similar item. Although it is now labeled "Israeli Nuclear Capabilities" instead of "Nuclear Threat," the Jewish State still objects to being singled out. And diplomats told The Associated Press ahead of the meeting that it will again force a vote on the Mideast nuclear-free zone resolution unless the second item is withdrawn.
Focusing on Israel by name "is substantially unwarranted and flawed," said a letter prepared for review by the conference from Israel Michaeli, the Jewish State's IAEA representative.
Sponsors of the item should instead "address the most pressing proliferation concerns in the Middle East," said the letter in allusion to Iran's defiance of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusal to stop uranium enrichment and world concerns about allegations that Tehran had past plans to make nuclear weapons.
On Saturday, the U.N. Security Council approved a fourth resolution critical of Tehran's defiance on uranium enrichment, which can create both nuclear fuel and the fissile core of warheads.
But Iran, along with ally Syria, figures even more directly at the Vienna conference because they are among four nations seeking their geographic region's nomination for a seat on the IAEA's decision-making 35-nation board.
Iran's bid is strategic. Tehran is running to counteract a U.S. push to have Afghanistan or outsider Kazakhstan elected over Syria, which is under IAEA investigation for allegedly hiding a secret nuclear program, including a nearly completed plutonium producing reactor destroyed last year by Israel.
Tehran is ready to withdraw from the race if Afghanistan does so, narrowing the field to favored Syria and Kazakhstan, diplomats told the AP. But as of Sunday, Afghanistan, backed by the U.S. and its allies, was not ready to do so.
If the regional group does not agree on a candidate by the time the conference turns to the issue, the meeting will also be asked to vote on which nation should take the board seat.
___
On the Net: http://www.iaea.org | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject: |
| I was watching this 'Middle East Press' program on Press TV yesterday as the beginning of it mentioned that at least one Israeli general has discussed the possibility of Israel going back into Lebanon (which would be right in accordance with the rest of the 'A Clean Break' agenda that Bamford discussed in 'A Pretext for War' as such can be accessed via the 'A Clean Break' link on the right of NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM as well). Here is the archive link for the October 6th broadcast from yesterday (simply click on the media player link there):
http://www.presstv.ir/Programs/player/?id=71523 | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:57 pm Post subject: |
| http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3604893,00.html
Israel warns Hizbullah war would invite destruction
IDF Northern Command chief says in any future war Israel would use ' disproportionate' force on Lebanese villages from which Hizbullah will fire rockets at its cities. 'From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases,' Maj.-Gen. Eisenkot tells Yedioth Ahronoth
Reuters
Published: 10.03.08, 20:56 / Israel News
Israel would use "disproportionate" force to destroy Lebanese villages from which Hizbullah guerrillas fired rockets at its cities in any future war, an Israeli general said in remarks published on Friday.
Al-Quds Day
"What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on," said Gadi Eisenkot, head of the army's northern division.
Dahiya was a Hizbullah stronghold that Israel flattened in sustained air raids during a 34-day war with the Shiite group two years ago.
"We will apply disproportionate force on it (village) and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases," Eisenkot told the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.
"This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved," Eisenkot added.
Some 1,200 Lebanese and 159 Israelis were killed during the war, which was sparked by a Hizbullah cross-border attack against an Israeli army patrol.
'Hizbullah building capabilities against us'
The army's failure to halt daily barrages of rockets against Israeli cities during the war prompted a wave of criticism of military commanders as well as calls on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to resign over his handling of the conflict.
Israel accused Hizbullah of firing rockets from civilian homes in southern Lebanon during the war, a claim echoed by human rights groups who also accused Israel of using excessive force that claimed the lives of innocent civilians.
Eisenkot said Hizbullah, backed by Iran and Syria, had significantly improved its rocket fire capability since the end of the war two years ago.
He rejected accusations that Israel was violating a UN-brokered ceasefire by sending aircraft on reconnaissance flights over Lebanon, saying the aerial missions were necessary given that Iran and Syria continue to arm Hizbullah in breach of the UN truce.
"Hizbullah is building capabilities against us that contravene the agreement signed by the Lebanese government at the end of the war," said Eisenkot. "Therefore there is legitimacy to continue the flights over southern Lebanon and over Lebanon in general." | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Oct 21, 2008 10:07 pm Post subject: |
| The Bushehr nuclear reactor might even be attacked (by the US and/or Israel) before it becomes operational (which is supposedly scheduled to occur by the end of this year).
Obama, McCain to face 'imminent Iran threat'
Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:10:28 GMT
http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=72818§ionid=351020104
US presidential candidates are reportedly preparing to ward off an imminent threat allegedly being generated from Iran's nuclear program.
Israel's Debkafile reported on Tuesday that Senators Barack Obama and John McCain, the Democratic and Republican nominees, have been provided with a guideline to prepare for an international crisis early after either of them takes Office.
-------------------------------------------
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM
----------------------------------------------------
Subject: Attack on Iran Off the Table?
Date: Monday, October 20, 2008, 6:07 PM
Attack on Iran Off the Table?
by Ray McGovern (source: ConsortiumNews.com)
Monday, October 20, 2008
On Sept. 23, the neoconservative chiefs of the Washington Post's editorial page mourned, in a tone much like what one hears on the death of a close friend, that "a military strike by the United States or Israel [on Iran is not] likely in the coming months." One could almost hear a wistful sigh, as they complained that efforts to stop Iran's nuclear program has "slipped down Washington's list of priorities … as Iran races toward accumulating enough uranium for a bomb."
We are spared, this go-round, from "mushroom clouds." But racing to a bomb? Never mind that the 16 agencies of the U.S. intelligence community concluded in a formal National Intelligence Estimate last November that work on the nuclear weapons-related part of Iran's nuclear program was halted in mid-2003. And never mind that Thomas Fingar, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell's deputy for national estimates, reiterated that judgment as recently as Sept. 4. Never mind that the Post's own Walter Pincus reported on Sept. 10 that Fingar added that Iran has not restarted its nuclear weapons work. Hey, the editorial fellows know best.
The good news is that the bottom line of the Sept. 23 editorial marks one of those rare occasions when the Post's opinion editors have managed to reach a correct conclusion on the Middle East. It is true that the likelihood of an Israeli or U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran has receded in recent months. The more interesting questions are (1) why? And (2) under what circumstances might such an attack become likely again?
The Post attributes the stepping back by Israel and the U.S. to "the financial crisis and the worsening violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan." These are two contributing factors but, in my judgment, not the most important ones. Not surprisingly, the Post and other charter members of the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) omit or play down factors they would prefer not to address.
Russia and Deterrence
More important than the bear market is the Russian bear that, after a 17-year hibernation, has awakened with loud growls commensurate with Russia's growing strength and assertiveness. The catalyst was the fiasco in Georgia, in which the Russians saw the hands of the neocons in Washington and their doppelgänger, the extreme Right in Israel.
You would hardly know it from FCM coverage, but the fiasco began when Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili ordered his American- and Israeli-trained Georgian armed forces to launch an attack on the city of Tskhinvali, capital of South Ossetia, on the night of Aug. 6-7, killing not only many civilians but a number of Russian observers as well.
It may be true that our State Department officials had counseled Saakashvili against baiting the Russian bear, but it is abundantly clear to anyone paying attention to such things that State is regularly undercut/overruled by White House functionaries like arch-neocon Elliott F. Abrams (F. for Fiasco). His encomia include those earned for his key role in other major fiascoes like the one that brought about the unconscionable situation today in Gaza. (Would that the president's father had let Abrams sit in jail, rather than pardoning him after he was convicted for perjuring himself in testimony to Congress on the Iran-Contra fiasco.)
In any event, it is almost certainly true that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin saw folks like Abrams, Vice President Dick Cheney, and their Israeli counterparts as being behind the attack on South Ossetia. For centuries the Russians have been concerned – call it paranoid – over threats coming from their soft southern underbelly, and their reaction could have come as no surprise to anyone familiar with Russian history – or, by analogy, those familiar with American history and the Monroe Doctrine, for example.
Even neocon Randy Scheunemann, foreign policy adviser to Sen. John McCain and former lobbyist for Georgia's Saakashvili, would have known that. And this lends credence to speculation that that is precisely why Scheunemann is said to have egged on the Georgian president. Russia's reaction was totally predictable, and it enabled McCain to "stand up to Russia" with very strong rhetoric and not-so-subtle suggestions that his foreign policy experience provides an important advantage over his opponent in meeting the growing danger of a resurgent Russia.
Russia's leaders are likely to have seen in Saakashvili's provocation, in the attempt to get NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, in the deployment of anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, and in hasty U.S. recognition of an independent Kosovo indignities that Russia should no longer tolerate.
I can visualize Russian generals telling Putin:
Enough! Look at the weakened Americans. They have destroyed what's left of their Army and Marine Corps, spreading them out and demoralizing them in two unwinnable wars. We know how bad it is with just one unwinnable war. It has not been that long since Afghanistan. But, Vladimir Vladimirovich, before we indulge ourselves with schadenfreude, consider what such actions betoken – total recklessness of a kind we have seen only rarely in Washington.
Who can assure us that "the crazies" – the Cheney-Abrams-Bush cabal – will not encourage the Israelis to precipitate the kind of armed provocation vis-à-vis Iran that would "justify" America's springing to the defense of its "ally" to bomb and missile-attack Iran? You are aware of the importance of the Israel lobby, and how American politicians vie with one another to prove themselves the most passionately in love with Israel.
Periodic attempts by Congress to require President Bush to seek congressional approval before ordering a strike on Iran have failed miserably. So his hands are free for another "preemptive war" before he leaves office. After all, Bush has publicly promised the Israelis he will deal with the "Iranian threat" before then. Besides, our political analysts suggest that Bush and Cheney might think that wider war would help the Republicans in the November election
No big bear likes to have its nose tweaked. But the Russian reaction to Georgia was not merely one of pique. It became a well-planned strategic move to disabuse Israel and the United States of the notion that Russia would sit still for an attack on Iran, a very important country in Russia's general neighborhood. After Georgia, the Russians were bent on sweeping such plans "off the table," so to speak, and seem to have succeeded.
The signs of new Russian assertiveness are in the public domain, although the FCM has not given them much prominence. What is more telling is the effect on Israel and the United States. Since early August there has been a sharp decline in the formulaic rhetoric against Iran's "path toward nuclear weapons," especially among U.S. policymakers and in American media following the conflict in Georgia and the expiration of the latest "ultimatum" served on Iran to stop its nuclear program.
The change in official Israeli statements was the most pronounced. After a consistently hawkish stance toward Iran, Israel's president, Shimon Peres told London's Sunday Times in early September:
"There are two ways [to deal with Iran's nuclear threat]; a military and a civilian way. I don't believe in the military option – any kind of military option … an attack can trigger a bigger war."
And then came the bombshell from Ehud Olmert in his valedictory interview appearing in the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot on Sept. 29. Olmert argued that Israel had lost its "sense of proportion" in believing it could deal with Iran militarily.
Not Russia Alone
It is a curious twist, but to their great credit, senior military officers Adm. William Fallon, who quit rather than let himself be on the receiving end of an order to attack Iran, and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, fought and continue to fight a rearguard action against the dreams and plans of "the crazies" in the White House to attack Iran. Fallon famously declared that the U.S. military was not going to "do Iran on my watch" as commander of Centcom.
In addition to his outspoken opposition to opening a "third front" in the area of Iraq and Afghanistan, Mullen has done much behind the scenes to talk sense into the Israelis. From the Israeli press we know that Mullen went so far as to warn his Israeli counterparts not to even think about another incident like the one on June 8, 1967, when Israeli jets and torpedo boats deliberately did their utmost to sink the intelligence collector USS Liberty off the Sinai coast.
A gutsy move. The Israelis know that Mullen knows that that attack was deliberate – not some sort of unfortunate mistake. Mullen could have raised no more neuralgic an issue in taking a shot across any Israeli bow that might be thinking of a provocation of some sort in the Persian Gulf.
Hats off to the new admirals… who outshine predecessor admirals who bowed to pressure from President Lyndon Johnson to portray the Israeli air and torpedo strikes on the USS Liberty, which took the lives of 34 U.S. sailors and wounded more than 170 others, as a mistake in the fog of war – despite unimpeachable evidence it was deliberate.
Hats off, too, to the grassroots movements that succeeded in quashing resolutions in both houses of Congress calling for the equivalent of a blockade of Iran. Several members actually withdrew their earlier sponsorship of the resolution in the wake of public pressure. Many of them came to realize that facilitating a new war might make them vulnerable to charges of poor judgment – the kind of charges that sabotaged Sen. Hillary Clinton, who, ironically, thought she had done the politically smart thing in voting to give the president authority to attack Iraq.
Not Completely Out of the Woods
There remain as many "crazies" among the Israeli leadership as there are here in Washington – crazies who continue to believe that Iran must be attacked while the going is good. And it will never be as good as it is with Bush and Cheney in the White House. If the Randy Scheunemanns of this world are capable of goading the likes of Saakashvili into irresponsible action, they can try to do the same with a wink and a nod to the crazies in Tel Aviv.
The fact that the McCain/Palin campaign seems to be in serious jeopardy provides still more incentive for recklessness. If, as all seem to agree, a terrorist event of some kind might give the edge to McCain, many could argue that the same result could be achieved by a wider war including Iran, requiring the senior, seasoned leadership of one who has "worn the uniform."
And there is still more incentive for Bush and Cheney to look with favor on an attack on Iran… very personal incentive. It is a safe bet that if John McCain loses, Bush and Cheney and others will be plagued by various legal actions against them for the war crimes for which they are clearly responsible. Such would also be possible under a President McCain or Palin – but much less likely.
But attacking Iran would be crazy, you say. Not for nothing have many of the folks around Bush and Cheney been referred to as "the crazies" since the early Eighties. Some are still there; and they do things.
In April 2006, one of my Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) colleagues, in a conversation with Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, asked the general if he thought the U.S. or the U.S.-cum-Israel would attack Iran. Zinni shook his head vigorously, saying, "That would be crazy." Then he stopped and quickly added that we are dealing with "the crazies."
This article first appeared on ConsortiumNews.com.
--------------------------------------------------------
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.COM | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:36 am Post subject: |
| Biden to Supporters: "Gird Your Loins", For the Next President "It's Like Cleaning Augean Stables"
October 20, 2008 7:35 AM
ABC News' Matthew Jaffe Reports: Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., on Sunday guaranteed that if elected, Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions.
"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/biden-to-suppor.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpiNfuG8YY8
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2008/10/25/suicide-bombing-attacks-coming-to-us-within-months.php
Last edited by Alpha on Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:53 am; edited 2 times in total | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Oct 23, 2008 11:25 am Post subject: |
| Report: Iranian Officials Recommend Preemptive Strike Against Israel
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Top officials in Iran are proposing a preemptive strike against Israel to avoid an assault on its nuclear reactors, Israel's Haaretz newspaper reported Wednesday.
Senior Tehran official Dr. Seyed G. Safavi said at a recent briefing in London that the proposal followed threats by Israeli authorities, but a possible preemptive strike against Israel has not yet been incorporated into Iranian policy.
Israeli Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said in June that Israel would be forced to strike Iran’s nuclear reactor if Tehran continues to pursue its controversial uranium enrichment program, Haaretz reported.
Safavi told the paper that Tehran recently drafted a new policy for responding to an Israeli or American attack on its nuke facilities. While the country previously called for attacks against Israel and American interests in the Middle East and beyond, the new policy is to target Israel alone.
In addition, Safavi said that Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards would respond to a U.S. attack on Iranian soil by attacking Israel, which they believe would be a part of any American military action.
The U.N. Security Council passed a dual-track resolution last month in a slow-moving pressure campaign to persuade Iran to give up objectionable parts of its nuclear program. It calls for offering Iran incentives to stop enriching uranium but imposing sanctions if Tehran refuses, which it has thus far done, The Associated Press reported.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,443141,00.html | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
