PDA

View Full Version : Israel’s Broken Record: Attack Iran



friedrich braun
Monday, November 1st, 2004, 07:53 AM
US and ISRAEL Threaten and Prepare to Attack IRAN


MIDDLEEAST.ORG - MER - Washington - 31 Oct: In a few days the American election itself will be history. The likelihood is the Bush/Cheney/neocon regime will remain in power; hard as that still is for so many to imagine and understand. Should the Democrats win the White House Middle East policies will be largely in the hands of the neoliberals and the super money-men like Haim Saban who when it comes to the Middle East and Israel have far more in common with the neocons than has yet been realized by many who will vote for them. Whatever happens on Tuesday next the build-up to attacking and if at all possible regime changing Iran is well underway and the showdown increasingly imminent.

Meanwhile, from the bowels of Washington yesterday, the 'most credible' American journalist of yesteryear, Walter Cronkite, made a rather startling comment when asked about Friday's Bin Laden speech to Americans. Cronkite said he is "inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing."


Iran: A Bridge too Far? - The weapon that could defeat the US in the Gulf

by Mark Gaffney

A word to the reader: The following paper is so shocking that, after preparing the initial draft, I didnıt want to believe it myself, and resolved to disprove it with more research. However, I only succeeded in turning up more evidence in support of my thesis. And I repeated this cycle of discovery and denial several more times before finally deciding to go with the article. I believe that a serious writer must follow the trail of evidence, no matter where it leads, and report back. So here is my story. Donıt be surprised if it causes you to squirm. Its purpose is not to make predictions ** history makes fools of those who claim to know the future ** but simply to describe the peril that awaits us in the Persian Gulf. By awakening to the extent of that danger, perhaps we can still find a way to save our nation and the world from disaster. If we are very lucky, we might even create an alternative future that holds some promise of resolving the monumental conflicts of our time. MG


10/26/04:

Last July, they dubbed it operation Summer Pulse: a simultaneous mustering of US Naval forces, world wide, that was unprecedented. According to the Navy, it was the first exercise of its new Fleet Response Plan (FRP), the purpose of which was to enable the Navy to respond quickly to an international crisis. The Navy wanted to show its increased force readiness, that is, its capacity to rapidly move combat power to any global hot spot. Never in the history of the US Navy had so many carrier battle groups been involved in a single operation. Even the US fleet massed in the Gulf and eastern Mediterranean during operation Desert Storm in 1991, and in the recent invasion of Iraq, never exceeded six battle groups. But last July and August there were seven of them on the move, each battle group consisting of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier with its full complement of 7-8 supporting ships, and 70 or more assorted aircraft. Most of the activity, according to various reports, was in the Pacific, where the fleet participated in joint exercises with the Taiwanese navy.

But why so much naval power underway at the same time? What potential world crisis could possibly require more battle groups than were deployed during the recent invasion of Iraq? In past years, when the US has seen fit to ³show the flag² or flex its naval muscle, one or two carrier groups have sufficed. Why this global show of power?

The news headlines about the joint-maneuvers in the South China Sea read: ³Saber Rattling Unnerves China², and: ³Huge Show of Force Worries Chinese.² But the reality was quite different, and, as we shall see, has grave ramifications for the continuing US military presence in the Persian Gulf; because operation Summer Pulse reflected a high-level Pentagon decision that an unprecedented show of strength was needed to counter what is viewed as a growing threat ** in the particular case of China, because of Pekingıs newest Sovremenny-class destroyers recently acquired from Russia.

³Nonsense!² you are probably thinking. Thatıs impossible. How could a few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?²

Here is where the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement, obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for which the US Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting that the US status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am simply saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which other individual states may, on occasion, achieve ³an asymmetric advantage² over the US. And this, in my view, explains the immense scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of overwhelming strength was calculated to send a message.


The Sunburn Missile

I was shocked when I learned the facts about these Russian-made cruise missiles. The problem is that so many of us suffer from two common misperceptions. The first follows from our assumption that Russia is militarily weak, as a result of the breakup of the old Soviet system. Actually, this is accurate, but it does not reflect the complexities. Although the Russian navy continues to rust in port, and the Russian army is in disarray, in certain key areas Russian technology is actually superior to our own. And nowhere is this truer than in the vital area of anti-ship cruise missile technology, where the Russians hold at least a ten-year lead over the US. The second misperception has to do with our complacency in general about missiles-as-weapons ** probably attributable to the pathetic performance of Saddam Husseinıs Scuds during the first Gulf war: a dangerous illusion that I will now attempt to rectify.

Many years ago, Soviet planners gave up trying to match the US Navy ship for ship, gun for gun, and dollar for dollar. The Soviets simply could not compete with the high levels of US spending required to build up and maintain a huge naval armada. They shrewdly adopted an alternative approach based on strategic defense. They searched for weaknesses, and sought relatively inexpensive ways to exploit those weaknesses. The Soviets succeeded: by developing several supersonic anti-ship missiles, one of which, the SS-N-22 Sunburn, has been called ³the most lethal missile in the world today.²

After the collapse of the Soviet Union the old military establishment fell upon hard times. But in the late1990s Moscow awakened to the under-utilized potential of its missile technology to generate desperately needed foreign exchange. A decision was made to resuscitate selected programs, and, very soon, Russian missile technology became a hot export commodity. Today, Russian missiles are a growth industry generating much-needed cash for Russia, with many billions in combined sales to India, China, Viet Nam, Cuba, and also Iran. In the near future this dissemination of advanced technology is likely to present serious challenges to the US. Some have even warned that the US Navyıs largest ships, the massive carriers, have now become floating death traps, and should for this reason be mothballed.

The Sunburn missile has never seen use in combat, to my knowledge, which probably explains why its fearsome capabilities are not more widely recognized. Other cruise missiles have been used, of course, on several occasions, and with devastating results. During the Falklands War, French-made Exocet missiles, fired from Argentine fighters, sunk the HMS Sheffield and another ship. And, in 1987, during the Iran-Iraq war, the USS Stark was nearly cut in half by a pair of Exocets while on patrol in the Persian Gulf. On that occasion US Aegis radar picked up the incoming Iraqi fighter (a French-made Mirage), and tracked its approach to within 50 miles. The radar also ³saw² the Iraqi plane turn about and return to its base. But radar never detected the pilot launch his weapons. The sea-skimming Exocets came smoking in under radar and were only sighted by human eyes moments before they ripped into the Stark, crippling the ship and killing 37 US sailors.

The 1987 surprise attack on the Stark exemplifies the dangers posed by anti-ship cruise missiles. And the dangers are much more serious in the case of the Sunburn, whose specs leave the sub-sonic Exocet in the dust. Not only is the Sunburn much larger and faster, it has far greater range and a superior guidance system. Those who have witnessed its performance trials invariably come away stunned. According to one report, when the Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani visited Moscow in October 2001 he requested a test firing of the Sunburn, which the Russians were only too happy to arrange. So impressed was Ali Shamkhani that he placed an order for an undisclosed number of the missiles.

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload, or: a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes ³violent end maneuvers² to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution ** not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder ³just in time.²

The Sunburnıs combined supersonic speed and payload size produce tremendous kinetic energy on impact, with devastating consequences for ship and crew. A single one of these missiles can sink a large warship, yet costs considerably less than a fighter jet. Although the Navy has been phasing out the older Phalanx defense system, its replacement, known as the Rolling Action Missile (RAM) has never been tested against the weapon it seems destined to one day face in combat.


Implications For US Forces in the Gulf

The US Navyıs only plausible defense against a robust weapon like the Sunburn missile is to detect the enemyıs approach well ahead of time, whether destroyers, subs, or fighter-bombers, and defeat them before they can get in range and launch their deadly cargo. For this purpose US AWACs radar planes assigned to each naval battle group are kept aloft on a rotating schedule. The planes ³see² everything within two hundred miles of the fleet, and are complemented with intelligence from orbiting satellites.

But US naval commanders operating in the Persian Gulf face serious challenges that are unique to the littoral, i.e., coastal, environment. A glance at a map shows why: The Gulf is nothing but a large lake, with one narrow outlet, and most of its northern shore, i.e., Iran, consists of mountainous terrain that affords a commanding tactical advantage over ships operating in Gulf waters. The rugged northern shore makes for easy concealment of coastal defenses, such as mobile missile launchers, and also makes their detection problematic. Although it was not widely reported, the US actually lost the battle of the Scuds in the first Gulf War ** termed ³the great Scud hunt² ** and for similar reasons. Saddam Husseinıs mobile Scud launchers proved so difficult to detect and destroy ** over and over again the Iraqis fooled allied reconnaissance with decoys ** that during the course of Desert Storm the US was unable to confirm even a single kill. This proved such an embarrassment to the Pentagon, afterwards, that the unpleasant stats were buried in official reports. But the blunt fact is that the US failed to stop the Scud attacks. The launches continued until the last few days of the conflict. Luckily, the Scudıs inaccuracy made it an almost useless weapon. At one point General Norman Schwarzkopf quipped dismissively to the press that his soldiers had a greater chance of being struck by lightning in Georgia than by a Scud in Kuwait.

But that was then, and it would be a grave error to allow the Scudıs ineffectiveness to blur the facts concerning this other missile. The Sunburnıs amazing accuracy was demonstrated not long ago in a live test staged at sea by the Chinese ** and observed by US spy planes. Not only did the Sunburn missile destroy the dummy target ship, it scored a perfect bullıs eye, hitting the crosshairs of a large ³X² mounted on the shipıs bridge. The only word that does it justice, awesome, has become a cliché, hackneyed from hyperbolic excess.

The US Navy has never faced anything in combat as formidable as the Sunburn missile. But this will surely change if the US and Israel decide to wage a so-called preventive war against Iran to destroy its nuclear infrastructure. Storm clouds have been darkening over the Gulf for many months. In recent years Israel upgraded its air force with a new fleet of long-range F-15 fighter-bombers, and even more recently took delivery of 5,000 bunker-buster bombs from the US ** weapons that many observers think are intended for use against Iran.

The arming for war has been matched by threats. Israeli officials have declared repeatedly that they will not allow the Mullahs to develop nuclear power, not even reactors to generate electricity for peaceful use. Their threats are particularly worrisome, because Israel has a long history of pre-emptive war. (See my 1989 book Dimona: the Third Temple? and also my 2003 article Will Iran Be Next? posted at < http://www.InformationClearingHouse.info/article3288.htm (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.Info rmationClearingHouse.info%2Farticle3288. htm) >)

Never mind that such a determination is not Israelıs to make, and belongs instead to the international community, as codified in the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). With regard to Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agencyıs (IAEAıs) recent report (September 2004) is well worth a look, as it repudiates facile claims by the US and Israel that Iran is building bombs. While the report is highly critical of Tehran for its ambiguities and its grudging release of documents, it affirms that IAEA inspectors have been admitted to every nuclear site in the country to which they have sought access, without exception. Last year Iran signed the strengthened IAEA inspection protocol, which until then had been voluntary. And the IAEA has found no hard evidence, to date, either that bombs exist or that Iran has made a decision to build them. (The latest IAEA report can be downloaded at: http://www.GlobalSecurity.org (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.Glob alSecurity.org))

In a talk on October 3, 2004, IAEA Director General Mohamed El Baradei made the clearest statement yet: "Iran has no nuclear weapons program", he said, and then repeated himself for emphasis: ³Iran has no nuclear weapons program, but I personally donıt rush to conclusions before all the realities are clarified. So far I see nothing that could be called an imminent danger. I have seen no nuclear weapons program in Iran. What I have seen is that Iran is trying to gain access to nuclear enrichment technology, and so far there is no danger from Iran. Therefore, we should make use of political and diplomatic means before thinking of resorting to other alternatives.²

No one disputes that Tehran is pursuing a dangerous path, but with 200 or more Israeli nukes targeted upon them the Iraniansı insistence on keeping their options open is understandable. Clearly, the nuclear nonproliferation regime today hangs by the slenderest of threads. The world has arrived at a fateful crossroads.


A Fearful Symmetry?

If a showdown over Iran develops in the coming months, the man who could hold the outcome in his hands will be thrust upon the world stage. That man, like him or hate him, is Russian President Vladimir Putin. He has been castigated severely in recent months for gathering too much political power to himself. But according to former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, who was interviewed on US television recently by David Brokaw, Putin has not imposed a tyranny upon Russia ** yet. Gorbachev thinks the jury is still out on Putin.

Perhaps, with this in mind, we should be asking whether Vladimir Putin is a serious student of history. If he is, then he surely recognizes that the deepening crisis in the Persian Gulf presents not only manifold dangers, but also opportunities. Be assured that the Russian leader has not forgotten the humiliating defeat Ronald Reagan inflicted upon the old Soviet state. (Have we Americans forgotten?) By the mid-1980s the Soviets were in Kabul, and had all but defeated the Mujahedeen. The Soviet Union appeared secure in its military occupation of Afghanistan. But then, in 1986, the first US Stinger missiles reached the hands of the Afghani resistance; and, quite suddenly, Soviet helicopter gunships and MiGs began dropping out of the skies like flaming stones. The tide swiftly turned, and by 1989 it was all over but the hand wringing and gnashing of teeth in the Kremlin. Defeated, the Soviets slunk back across the frontier. The whole world cheered the American Stingers, which had carried the day.

This very night, as he sips his cognac, what is Vladimir Putin thinking? Is he perhaps thinking about the perverse symmetries of history? If so, he may also be wondering (and discussing with his closest aides) how a truly great nation like the United States could be so blind and so stupid as to allow another state, i.e., Israel, to control its foreign policy, especially in a region as vital (and volatile) as the Mid-East. One can almost hear the Russiansı animated conversation:

³The Americans! What is the matter with them?²
³They simply cannot help themselves.²
³What idiots!²
³A nation as foolish as this deserves to be taught a lessonŠ²
³Yes! For their own good.²
³It must be a painful lesson, one they will never forgetŠ²
³Are we agreed, then, comrades?²
³Let us teach our American friends a lesson about the limits of military power!²

Does anyone really believe that Vladimir Putin will hesitate to seize a most rare opportunity to change the course of history and, in the bargain, take his sweet revenge? Surely Putin understands the terrible dimensions of the trap into which the US has blundered, thanks to the Israelis and their neo-con supporters in Washington who lobbied so vociferously for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, against all friendly and expert advice, and who even now beat the drums of war against Iran. Would Putin be wrong to conclude that the US will never leave the region unless it is first defeated militarily? Should we blame him for deciding that Iran is ³one bridge too far²?

If the US and Israel overreach, and the Iranians close the net with Russian anti-ship missiles, it will be a fearful symmetry, indeedŠ


Springing the Trap

At the battle of Cannae in 216 BC the great Carthaginian general, Hannibal, tempted a much larger Roman army into a fateful advance, and then enveloped and annihilated it with a smaller force. Out of a Roman army of 70,000 men, no more than a few thousand escaped. It was said that after many hours of dispatching the Romans Hannibalıs soldiers grew so tired that the fight went out of them. In their weariness they granted the last broken and bedraggled Romans their livesŠ

Let us pray that the US sailors who are unlucky enough to be on duty in the Persian Gulf when the shooting starts can escape the fate of the Roman army at Cannae. The odds will be heavily against them, however, because they will face the same type of danger, tantamount to envelopment. The US ships in the Gulf will already have come within range of the Sunburn missiles and the even more-advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made (speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles) deployed by the Iranians along the Gulfıs northern shore. Every US ship will be exposed and vulnerable. When the Iranians spring the trap, the entire lake will become a killing field.

Anti-ship cruise missiles are not new, as Iıve mentioned. Nor have they yet determined the outcome in a conflict. But this is probably only because these horrible weapons have never been deployed in sufficient numbers. At the time of the Falklands war the Argentine air force possessed only five Exocets, yet managed to sink two ships. With enough of them, the Argentineans might have sunk the entire British fleet, and won the war. Although weıve never seen a massed attack of cruise missiles, this is exactly what the US Navy could face in the next war in the Gulf. Try and imagine it if you can: barrage after barrage of Exocet-class missiles, which the Iranians are known to possess in the hundreds, as well as the unstoppable Sunburn and Yakhonts missiles. The questions that our purblind government leaders should be asking themselves, today, if they value what historians will one day write about them, are two: how many of the Russian anti-ship missiles has Putin already supplied to Iran? And: How many more are currently in the pipeline? In 2001 Janeıs Defense Weekly reported that Iran was attempting to acquire anti-ship missiles from Russia. Ominously, the same report also mentioned that the more advanced Yakhonts missile was ³optimized for attacks against carrier task forces.² Apparently its guidance system is ³able to distinguish an aircraft carrier from its escorts.² The numbers were not disclosedŠ

The US Navy will come under fire even if the US does not participate in the first so-called surgical raids on Iranıs nuclear sites, that is, even if Israel goes it alone. Israelıs brand-new fleet of 25 F-15s (paid for by American taxpayers) has sufficient range to target Iran, but the Israelis cannot mount an attack without crossing US-occupied Iraqi air space. It will hardly matter if Washington gives the green light, or is dragged into the conflict by a recalcitrant Israel. Either way, the result will be the same. The Iranians will interpret US acquiescence as complicity, and, in any event, they will understand that the real fight is with the Americans. The Iranians will be entirely within their rights to counter-attack in self-defense. Most of the world will see it this way, and will support them, not America. The US and Israel will be viewed as the aggressors, even as the unfortunate US sailors in harmıs way become cannon fodder. In the Gulfıs shallow and confined waters evasive maneuvers will be difficult, at best, and escape impossible. Even if US planes control of the skies over the battlefield, the sailors caught in the net below will be hard-pressed to survive. The Gulf will run red with American bloodŠ

From here, it only gets worse. Armed with their Russian-supplied cruise missiles, the Iranians will close the lakeıs only outlet, the strategic Strait of Hormuz, cutting off the trapped and dying Americans from help and rescue. The US fleet massing in the Indian Ocean will stand by helplessly, unable to enter the Gulf to assist the survivors or bring logistical support to the other US forces on duty in Iraq. Couple this with a major new ground offensive by the Iraqi insurgents, and, quite suddenly, the tables could turn against the Americans in Baghdad. As supplies and ammunition begin to run out, the status of US forces in the region will become precarious.


The occupiers will become the besieged

With enough anti-ship missiles, the Iranians can halt tanker traffic through Hormuz for weeks, even months. With the flow of oil from the Gulf curtailed, the price of a barrel of crude will skyrocket on the world market. Within days the global economy will begin to grind to a halt. Tempers at an emergency round-the-clock session of the UN Security Council will flare and likely explode into shouting and recriminations as French, German, Chinese and even British ambassadors angrily accuse the US of allowing Israel to threaten world order. But, as always, because of the US veto the world body will be powerless to act...

America will stand alone, completely isolated. Yet, despite the increasingly hostile international mood, elements of the US media will spin the crisis very differently here at home, in a way that is sympathetic to Israel. Members of Congress will rise to speak in the House and Senate, and rally to Israelıs defense, while blaming the victim of the attack, Iran. Fundamentalist Christian talk show hosts will proclaim the historic fulfillment of biblical prophecy in our time, and will call upon the Jews of Israel to accept Jesus into their hearts; meanwhile, urging the president to nuke the evil empire of Islam. From across America will be heard histrionic cries for fresh reinforcements, even a military draft. Patriots will demand victory at any cost. Pundits will scream for an escalation of the conflict.

A war that ostensibly began as an attempt to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons will teeter on the brink of their useŠ


Conclusion

Friends, we must work together to prevent such a catastrophe. We must stop the next Middle East war before it starts. The US government must turn over to the United Nations the primary responsibility for resolving the deepening crisis in Iraq, and, immediately thereafter, withdraw US forces from the country. We must also prevail upon the Israelis to sign the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and open all of their nuclear sites to IAEA inspectors. Only then can serious talks begin with Iran and other states to establish a nuclear weapon free zone (NWFZ) in the Mid East ** so essential to the regionıs long-term peace and security. 10/26/04 "ICH"

* Mark Gaffneyıs first book, Dimona the Third Temple? (1989), was a pioneering study of Israelıs nuclear weapons program. He has since published numerous important articles about the Mid-East with emphasis on nuclear proliferation issues. Mhgaffney@aol.com


Source: MID-EAST REALITIES - www.MiddleEast.Org (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.Midd leEast.Org)

Mac Seafraidh
Monday, March 14th, 2005, 09:13 PM
Israel’s Broken Record: Attack Iran


It’s like a broken record: Israel will attack Iran, Israel will attack Iran. Iran is working on nukes, Iran is working on nukes, even though the International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran is not working on nukes. Now we are told the Israelis have created a mock version of Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment plant in order to practice assaults on the facility. Ha’aretz reports “Israel would use F-15 fighter planes and its air force’s elite Shaldag [Kingfisher] unit in the attack.” For months now, Israel has sent the same message over and over: Iran is close to finishing construction on a nuke (call it the George Bush effect; there is no evidence Iran is building a nuke; uranium enrichment is not the same thing as building a nuke, thus Israel is exaggerating and lying as a pretext to attack). Another part of the message is that Iran cannot be trusted, it is a nation of crazed Muslims who want to kill all Israelis. In fact, if Israel has said anything consistently, it is that every single Arab and Muslim wants to kill Jews and push them into the sea.

Last year it was figured the IAEA would be used as a cudgel to beat Iran into submission and impose Iraq-like sanctions on the country. But over the last few months the US and Israel have consistently beat the war drums. Every few weeks Israel comes out with another Iran nuke story. “Heading off Iran’s attempt to attain nuclear capability is one of the Mossad’s main missions, and the foreign media is one of the most important instruments utilized in this effort,” Aluf Benn wrote in Haaretz in 2003. “Mossad agents supply foreign journalists with information about Iran’s nuclear efforts; such foreign reports, the Mossad expects, support the international campaign to thwart Iran’s nuclear weapons program.” Lately, however, Iran has been telling the US and Israel to go suck an egg—it will not stop uranium enrichment, it feels uranium enrichment is in its national interest and Israel and the United States should butt out.

Now we have Mossad agents pulling fire alarms, telling the world they are actually practicing bombing Iran. Mossad, the Likudite faction in Israel, and the Strausscons in the United States want you to know they plan to bomb Iran very soon. If they do this all hell will break loose. Natanz is not Ain Saheb. Iran is not Syria. The Likudites and the Strausscons realize that any attack on Iran would solidify the position of the fundie mullahs. “Tehran, experts expected, could move Iraqi Shiite groups to launch attacks against US occupation forces, already facing a hellish situation amid a bubbling cauldron of chaos and anarchy in the war-scarred country. They can also provide these groups with human and logistic support,” Islam Online reported last year. “The Islamic Republic could also use Southern Lebanon, controlled by the Lebanese resistance movement Hizbullah which can not stand neutral regarding an Israeli attack on Iran.” As the experts cited by Islam Online see it, this “could spill over to a Syrian-Israeli confrontation.”

Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah—three targets at the top of the Likudite-Strausscon mafia hit list. Israel wants to start a war—the Strausscons call it World War IV—and get the United States to fight it. The NED and Republican NGO engineered “Cedar revolution” in Lebanon will of course not pan out—not if the Muslim majority in Lebanon, who know a scam when they see it, have anything to say about it—and even if they do manage to get “moderates” (Christian Maronite fascists) back in power, this will not put an end to Hezbollah who understand the true nature of the Israeli colonialist settler state: Israel hungers for southern Lebanon, its land and water, and it will stop at nothing to pitch Lebanon—indeed, the entire region—into war and chaos. Fragmenting and balkanizing the Arab and Muslim world remains a long-held Zionist dream.

In the propaganda campaign for total war (and the Haaretz item above is simply the latest element of this on-going propaganda blitz) we are told “Israel is worried that a preemptive strike against Iran could provoke ‘a ferocious response,’ including attacks against Jewish and Israeli targets abroad, as well as Lebanese-based rocket attacks on northern Israel,” which is of course precisely what the Likudites want, especially among the Shia in southern Iraq who will undoubtedly be agitated if Israel attacks Iran. A Shia jihad declared against the infidels is exactly what the Likudites and the Strausscons want. It will provide an excuse for even more military action on the part of the United States, possibly in Iran and Lebanon as well as in Iraq. Of course, this is completely insane, since the US cannot contain a couple hundred thousand Sunni resistance fighters in Iraq let alone an influx of possibly millions of Muslims from Iran. For the Strausscons and Israelis, bombing Iran is a way to up the ante and set in motion a series of events that will result in total war. In order to for the American people to find the “stomach” (as the Strausscon godfather, Norman Podhoretz, deems it) for total war, a few terrorist events closer to home may be required. Mossad has plenty of experience pulling off such events.

Israel, however, did not learn its lesson in southern Lebanon. “The increasingly effective operational capabilities of the resistance prove once more that it takes a small group of determined fighters armed with light arms and ‘weighty’ faith to expose zionist pretentious claims to invincibility and omnipotence as nothing short of a hollow myth,” Khalil Osman wrote in 1998, before Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon.

It will be a “hollow myth” that drives the Likudite-Strausscon war against the Arab and Muslim Middle East. It is no longer 1920 and the Arabs are not so easily divided and ruled. If Israel attacks Iran, a Hezbollah-styled resistance will spread across the Middle East and may even join together with the Sunni resistance in Iraq, even though the corporate media loves to tell us the Shia want nothing more than to put down the Sunni rebellion. Regardless of what the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times says, at the end of the day the common enemy is the US-Israel alliance.

http://anu.org/ (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fanu.org% 2F)

http://kurtnimmo.com/blog/index.php?p=607 (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fkurtnimm o.com%2Fblog%2Findex.php%3Fp%3D607)

White_One
Thursday, January 4th, 2007, 04:48 AM
Are Israelis gearing up to bomb Iran?


The Middle East is abuzz with ugly rumours. One of them is so dire - and comes from sources in so many capital cities - that it has to be taken seriously.

The suggestion is that the Israeli government has served notice on the White House that it must take pre-emptive action against Iran's sites of nuclear weapons development - or Israel will go it alone and do the job itself. Israel has apparently given Bush a deadline of six months.

The pressure on the Americans - if it is true - comes with the appointment of Avigdor Lieberman, one of the hardest of all hard-liners, as Israel's new Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Strategic Affairs, under the new coalition with his party, Yisrael Beytenu.

MORE, http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=1061

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, January 4th, 2007, 05:57 AM
"The suggestion is that the Israeli government has served notice on the White House that it must take pre-emptive action against Iran's sites of nuclear weapons development - or Israel will go it alone and do the job itself. Israel has apparently given Bush a deadline of six months."

That says volumes about who controls whom. Iran should state, now, in public, that any strike on Iran will be considered a strike by Israel and that if this happens, Iran will launch a ground invasion of Israel as they did against Iraq in their war with them. Israel does not have the man power to confront millions of Iranians marching across the desert even if the only weapon they carried was a knife.

White_One
Sunday, January 7th, 2007, 01:49 PM
Report: Israel Planning, Training for Low-Level Nuke Strike Against Iran


Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons, according to a report in the Sunday Times of London.

The paper cites several Israeli military sources saying that two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters.”

The Israeli Foreign Ministry denied the report.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office said it would not respond to the story.

"We don't respond to publications in the Sunday Times," said Miri Eisin, Olmert's spokeswoman.

Israeli Minister of Strategic Threats Avigdor Lieberman also declined to comment on the report.

MORE,

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242243,00.html

Carl
Monday, January 8th, 2007, 02:12 PM
report only:

""The Sunday Times 7Jan07

Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, has described military action against Iran as a “last resort”, leading Israeli officials to conclude that it will be left to them to strike.
Israeli pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets. Three possible routes have been mapped out, including one over Turkey.

Air force squadrons based at Hatzerim in the Negev desert and Tel Nof, south of Tel Aviv, have trained to use Israel’s tactical nuclear weapons on the mission. The preparations have been overseen by Major General Eliezer Shkedi, commander of the Israeli air force.

Sources close to the Pentagon said the United States was highly unlikely to give approval for tactical nuclear weapons to be used. One source said Israel would have to seek approval “after the event”, as it did when it crippled Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak with airstrikes in 1981.

Scientists have calculated that although contamination from the bunker-busters could be limited, tons of radioactive uranium compounds would be released.

The Israelis believe that Iran’s retaliation would be constrained by fear of a second strike if it were to launch its Shehab-3 ballistic missiles at Israel.

However, American experts warned of repercussions, including widespread protests that could destabilise parts of the Islamic world friendly to the West.

Colonel Sam Gardiner, a Pentagon adviser, said Iran could try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the route for 20% of the world’s oil.

Some sources in Washington said they doubted if Israel would have the nerve to attack Iran. However, Dr Ephraim Sneh, the deputy Israeli defence minister, said last month: “The time is approaching when Israel and the international community will have to decide whether to take military action against Iran.”

-------------------------------------------------------------

Reaction:

""Israelis denounce reports of plan to strike Iran

"" Daily Telgraph 08/01/2007



Israel reacted with anger yesterday to a British newspaper report claiming that it was preparing a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran to stop the hard-line regime in Teheran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Sources at the Israeli prime minister's office, foreign ministry and defence ministry, as well as a retired intelligence expert, denied the report flatly.

While Israel is unlikely ever to use its nuclear strike capability pre-emptively on Iran, Israeli military planners have long been considering options for conventional strikes if Teheran continues to defy diplomatic pressure.

advertisementEhud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, prefers to emphasise Israel's support for the multinational diplomatic effort, although his planners have already spent years considering what to do if the diplomatic track fails.

Israel resorted to force in 1981 to destroy Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor at Osirak with conventional bombs dropped from eight F16 jets in a covert mission known as Operation Opera.

Israeli military intelligence accepts that an attack on Iran would be more complex as it presents significant logistic problems for refuelling military aircraft.

And while most of Saddam's nuclear programme was located in the one Osirak facility, the Iranians have spread theirs to at least a dozen sites, some of which are hidden in tunnel systems built under mountains.

But Israeli military planners still believe a successful bombing raid on a carefully chosen target representing an essential and irreplaceable part of the Iranian programme would delay the date for Teheran acquiring nuclear weapons.

Last year Ephraim Sneh, Israel's deputy defence minister, spelled out Israel's position that bombing Iran was an option if diplomacy fails: "I do not advocate a military, Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran. I am aware of all its possible repercussions. I consider it very much the last resort but sometimes the last resort is the only resort."

Israeli intelligence has altered its estimate for Iran acquiring nuclear weapons after Teheran encountered unanticipated problems in enriching uranium. The latest estimate puts the date at no earlier than 2010. ""

---------------------------------------------------------------

We shall see! Bush is apparently planning to again build up American troops in Iraq. They would be strategically placed for any future extended actions within the Region. We shall see!

re: Policy shift ?

http://forums.skadi.net/uk_gordon_brown_signals_policy_shift-t87686.html?nojs=1

http://forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=734975&postcount=3

Carl
Saturday, January 13th, 2007, 09:34 AM
""Doing nothing over Iran risks leaving Israel to act
"" 08/01/2007


By a series of stumbles and lurches, we have come closer to a nuclear conflagration than at any time since the bombing of Nagasaki. Although Israel has - thank Heaven - disavowed reports that it is planning a direct strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, there can be little doubt that Tel Aviv would authorise such attacks if the only other option were a nuclear Iran.

From an Israeli point of view, the ayatollahs are not a putative threat but a proven aggressor. They have armed terrorist proxies in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Iraq, Lebanon and even Argentina, where a bombing at a Jewish community centre in 1994 killed 100 people.

Iran's Shahhab-3 missile has a range of 1,500 miles, but why worry about delivery mechanisms when you have paramilitaries? We have seen Teheran's readiness to equip Hizbollah with rockets.

Can we be confident that they would not, if they could, tip these devices with nuclear warheads?

It is now too late to prevent Iran from acquiring the know-how and materials it needs. Ten years were wasted in futile discussions with the EU, which believed that it could talk the mullahs out of their nuclear ambitions.

Nor is Iran's programme vulnerable to a clean strike in the way that Iraq's was. Its reactors are dispersed and buried under tiered layers of earth and concrete.

........ it may be that President Ahmadinejad's talk of wiping the Jewish state from the map, and his sponsoring of Holocaust denial, are deliberately designed to provoke an Israeli strike............. (??)

If this strike were nuclear - which Tel Aviv may judge the surest way to disable underground facilities - Teheran would have the perfect justification for a nuclear counterstrike. This would guarantee the ascendancy of the ayatollahs, not only within Iran but throughout Araby, too.

The international community, bitter after Iraq, is in no mood to listen to arguments about weapons of mass destruction. But if we do nothing, we encourage Israel to act, so bringing calamity on the region.

In between the present policy of passing milk-and-water UN resolutions and the nuclear option (for once the expression is apposite) is an escalating scale of pressure: targeted sanctions, asset seizures and, in extremis, the kind of armed siege that paralysed Saddam during the 1990s.

Above all, we should be sponsoring Iranian dissidents: students, secularists, monarchists, non-Persians. The mullahs have harried their neighbours ever since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

It is time to replace them with a regime that is capable of dealing with other states on the basis of territorial jurisdiction, human rights and international law.


That's one view , anyway!

Oski
Saturday, January 13th, 2007, 09:43 AM
Bombs will fall everywhere because of Israel.

SineNomine
Sunday, October 7th, 2007, 03:01 PM
The following piece is part of an ongoing series of OffTheBus reports by citizen policy experts critiquing different aspects of Campaign 08.

When George Bush and Dick Cheney talk about their plans to bomb Iran, they are told "You can't do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated"--that's what a Republican former intelligence official told legendary investigative reporter Seymour Hersh. "But," the former official went on, "Cheney doesn't give a rat's ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President."

I recently spoke with Hersh, whose new piece, "Target Iran," is featured in The New Yorker this week.

When I asked Hersh who wants to bomb Iran, he said, "Ironically there is a lot of pressure coming from Democrats. Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Edwards have all said we cannot have a nuclear-armed Iran. Clearly the pressure from Democrats is a reflection of - we might as well say it - Israeli and Jewish input." He added the obvious: "a lot of money comes to the Democratic campaigns" from Jewish contributors.

But while Democrats argue that we must "do something" about an Iranian nuclear threat, Hersh says the White House has concluded their own effort to convince Americans that Iran poses an imminent threat has "failed." Apparently the public that bought the story of WMD in Iraq is now singing the classic Who song, "Won't Get Fooled Again."

Moreover, Hersh reports, "the general consensus of the American intelligence community is that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb" - so the public is right to be skeptical.

As a result, according to Hersh, the focus of the plans to bomb Iran has shifted from an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities to an emphasis on the famed "surgical strikes" on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere. The White House hopes it can win public support for this kind of campaign by arguing that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is responsible for the deaths of Americans in Iraq.

Why don't Bush and Cheney "give a rat's ass" about getting Republicans reelected to the Senate and the House in 2008? "Of course that was hyperbole to make a point," Hersh said. "When it comes to choice between bombing Iran and taking some political heat, the president will do what he wants. Look, no decision has been made, no order has been given, I've never said it's going to happen. But I had breakfast this morning in Washington with somebody who's close to a lot of military people, and there's a sense among them that the president is essentially messianic about this. He sees this as his mission. It could be because God is telling him to do it. It could be because his daddy didn't do it. It could be because it's step 13 in a 12-step program he was in. I just don't know."

The biggest problem in US relations with Iran, Hersh said, is that Bush refuses to "talk to people he doesn't like. . . . We dealt with China, we dealt with the Soviet Union in those bad days of Stalin and Mao. But there is no pressure whatsoever" coming from the leading Democratic presidential candidates demanding that Bush negotiate with the Iranians rather than bombing them.

Source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jon-wiener/who-wants-to-bomb-iran-_b_67229.html).

NorthernDawn
Sunday, October 7th, 2007, 06:49 PM
Anyone who still believes there is a difference between the two major political parties in the U.S. is a fool and a victim of media brainwashing!

Dr. Solar Wolff
Monday, October 8th, 2007, 08:27 AM
There is no difference as long as both take Jewish money. Obama and Edwards say they take no political action committee (PAC) money. Hillary Clinton might just as well be spelled Judy Geld because she does take American-Israeli Political Action Committee money. In fact, Jewish PAC money is one topic which is off the table for discussion in the USA. Nobody is allowed to ask about it. Has anyone ever asked (live or via internet) of any candidate "Do you or will you ever accept money from AIPAC or their known repersentatives?". It is a simple question. Why is it not asked?

NorthernDawn
Monday, October 8th, 2007, 10:10 PM
One of the few people who consistantly brings up the issue of PAC money, and Jewish strongarm lobbying in Washington is Pat Buchanan. He is not afraid at all to call out the politicians who sit so comfortably in the vest pocket of the Pro-Israeli lobby, and especially the so-called "Anti-War" candidates who..... with the financial bribery of the above mentioned PAC money, have sudddenly become aggressively "hawkish" in their stance on Iran. Ron Paul has openly stated also that the Israeli lobby in Washington will cease to exist if he is elected President. One more fantastic reason to vote for Ron Paul!

baroqueorgan
Friday, August 6th, 2010, 08:37 PM
http://rt.com/Top_News/2010-08-05/israel-attack-iran-chossudovsky.html

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138962



A group of former CIA and military officials have written to President Obama to say they believe Israel is preparing to attack Iran this month.

The group explained that Israel wants to launch a war suddenly, and make it politically untenable for Obama to do anything other than offer full US military support.

Note that RT's dissenting opinion on this is from a Canadian Jew, who insists that Israel would need to get US's opinion first.

Also, I included the article from the israelnationalnews source because the comments from rabid Zionist Jews are just too funny - here's a good one:


36. US antisemites !

They want Israel to sit and wait for the iranian nuke to fall ! This is the same people that spared Auschwitz from being bombed and denied access for the jews to the US......Antisemites in the USA : still present today but doomed like all antisemites ! ''He who curses Israel will be cursed!'' Look at the USA today : thats what a cursed nation looks like - how tragical! But its their choice !

Jaacov Baumann, (08/06/10)

Ĉgir
Friday, August 6th, 2010, 09:51 PM
That’s funny…I thought we were cursed because we bent over backwards for Israel…maybe we really should just start ignoring them…it may become a blessing…lol

WoBear
Friday, August 6th, 2010, 10:10 PM
I agree, ignore them - but that wont make them go away.

Ragnar Lodbrok
Friday, August 6th, 2010, 10:53 PM
I agree, ignore them - but that wont make them go away.

Sure they won't the rich walstreet jews will keep pulling strings, and the religious ones will keep trying to cast Kabbalah spells chanted from their hebrew sephirot tree on those antisemites living amongst. Their stupid and pointless chants and spells stolen from real ancient Egyptian wizardry will only prove the religious ones to be harmless idiots.

Just refuse to shop for their kosher taxed food store products and maybe it will get easier to ignore them.

Wynterwade
Friday, August 6th, 2010, 11:27 PM
The key word is "might".

Russia Today is a biased news organization. I remember a few years ago they talked about how George Bush was planning on invading Iran before the end of his 2nd term. And that never happened.

Israel will not attack Iran because it will draw international criticism and give a green light to Iran to counter attack.

It would be far better for Israel to wait for Iran to do something aggressive then gain world support for Israel.

I think this news story could easily be an attempt to scare Iran.

I say discredit this news story.

baroqueorgan
Friday, August 6th, 2010, 11:58 PM
Wynterwade, RT may be driving the story's coverage (and yes, it is a biased propaganda instrument, funded by the Kremlin itself), but it is a group of former CIA and US military officials that are saying they believe an Israeli attack is imminent. RT, in fact (as opposed to other outlets reporting this story), went out of its way to dig up some Canadian Jew to tell us not to worry, and that the US would have to give Israel a green light beforehand.

I don't know if it will happen this month or not, but my money is on it happening in the next couple of years, one way or another.

Wynterwade
Saturday, August 7th, 2010, 03:58 AM
baroqueorgan,

I think you will find my opinion to your post interesting- and I do think it is the most probable.

I know how the CIA operates and I WOULD 100% HOPE that the CIA is leaking false information that Israel is going to attack.

This will provide incentive for Iran to quit developing nuclear bombs. When something that large (nuclear race in the middle east) is at stake things can get dirty politically and I hope we get dirty too otherwise we will get walked over.

It is not in Americas, Israels, Saudi Arabias or even THE ENTIRE WORLD's interests for Iran to get a nuclear bomb.

But I highly suspect it is a bluff because it is not in the interests of Israel to risk declaring war on a gigantic population, far away, that could even in the future attain a bomb that could destroy their whole country in an instant.

Also, the possibility of war is never off the table- it is always present- and I highly doubt it is at a higher level now than say last month or last year. They are probably merely trying to scare Iran into getting their Nuclear Power Plant supply produced in Turkey or Russia.

Lagergeld
Saturday, August 7th, 2010, 04:00 AM
Both Israel and Washington have been sword-rattling against Iran for decades. This is probably some foreign policy propaganda gambit whipped up by Washington, Tel Aviv, or both.

ŝeudiskaz
Saturday, August 7th, 2010, 04:04 AM
here's a good one:

ROTFL! :thumbup

That guy is such an idiot, lol.


It would be far better for Israel to wait for Iran to do something aggressive then gain world support for Israel.

Even a directly pre-emptive strike, like the 6 Days War would be better for Israel. Sure, tensions are high, especially between those to countries, but you don't want to be caught against a larger country with the world turning against you, that's for sure.

Hell look at Iraq invading Kuwait!

Wynterwade
Saturday, August 7th, 2010, 04:21 AM
Der_Erlkoenig "Even a directly pre-emptive strike, like the 6 Days War would be better for Israel. "
------------------------------------------------------------------
I do not agree. As soon as Israel crosses that line from saying "its a bad idea to develop weapons" to "attacking Iran" they immediately give Iran a chance to directly or indirectly support Israels destruction.

For one, Iran supports the terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Through that median they can indirectly support a war against Israel- fund it, supply weapons and maybe even a nuke in the future.

And if the world finds out their support then they can simply say, "we didn't do it" and when the evidence against them becomes overwhelming they can say "they attacked us first- it was either us or them".
-------------------------------------------------------------------
What Iran is trying to do right now is be that annoying kid in your class that keeps messing with you, paying people to hit you, and saying "I want you out of my class" when the teachers not looking. They are going to do everything they can to provoke Israel so that Iran can in the future support their destruction. Iran wants Israel for the Palestinians and they aren't afraid of blood.

(-Which is strangely like that one video I watched on here about Sweden when the Muslim students make it unbearable for the native students, pestering them about religion, picking on them, not inviting them to birthday parties- so the natives leave for the suburban white areas. lol)

baroqueorgan
Saturday, August 7th, 2010, 04:08 PM
It is not in Americas, Israels, Saudi Arabias or even THE ENTIRE WORLD's interests for Iran to get a nuclear bomb.

Considering that the Jews have over 100 of them stockpiled in Israel and that they casually talk about the possibility of one day nuking European cities (http://www.nowpublic.com/world/israeli-professor-we-could-destroy-all-european-capitals-0), I think that Israel is far more of a danger to the world and that it constitutes far more of a power imbalance in the region than Iran could ever hope to.

For more insight onto just how arrogant these neoconservative Jewish forces are here in the US, here is an MSNBC segment with Ari Fleischer and Pat Buchanan, in which the former suggests that Americans should stay in the middle east for decades of war.

nuBeirIKRhQ

Wynterwade
Saturday, August 7th, 2010, 06:15 PM
"casually talk about the possibility of one day nuking European cities"
---------------------------------------------------------
Well I mean the guy who said that is only a professor and he has nothing to do with the government.

It's similar to me saying America can nuke every city and small town in Europe if it wanted too. And so can Russia.
-------------------------------------------------------
I think that we will need to stay in the middle east for decades because I doubt that Afghanistan has the ability to keep itself afloat. This is not a view that only Jews hold. However, our presence in numbers will continue to decrease overtime- and I hope it does.

WoBear
Saturday, August 7th, 2010, 06:31 PM
Israel will not attack, with all the diplomatic pressure after the aid ship assault.
But if they do, will America and EU back them? I don't think so, they will stand alone. Hopefully they have a good long war (a bit more than 6 days) and we can have peace and quiet from that corner for a while.

Ragnar Lodbrok
Saturday, August 7th, 2010, 07:56 PM
Israel will not attack, with all the diplomatic pressure after the aid ship assault.
But if they do, will America and EU back them? I don't think so, they will stand alone. Hopefully they have a good long war (a bit more than 6 days) and we can have peace and quiet from that corner for a while.

Yeah if they attacked like that maybe our ruling powers that be wouldn't be kissing their butts anymore and the aid going there would at least go down...Hey its something...