Attacking Iran for Israel?

Joe Hill · 11-02-07, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Attacking Iran for Israel?

http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle18645.htm

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is at her mushroom-cloud hyperbolic best, and this time Iran is the target.

By Ray McGovern

10/31/07 "ICH' -- -- Her claim last week that “the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge to American security interests in the Middle East and around the world” is simply too much of a stretch.

To gauge someone’s reliability, one depends largely on prior experience. Sadly, Rice’s credibility suffers in comparison with that of the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohammed ElBaradei, who insists there is no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iran.

If this sounds familiar, ElBaradei said the same thing about Iraq before it was attacked. But three days before the invasion, American nuclear expert Dick Cheney told NBC’s Tim Russert, “I think Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong.”

Here we go again. As in the case of Iraq, U.S. intelligence has been assiduously looking for evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran; but, alas, in vain.

Burned by the bogus “proof” adduced for Iraq—the uranium from Africa, the aluminum tubes—the administration has shied away from fabricating nuclear-related “evidence.”

Are Bush and Cheney again relying on the Rumsfeld dictum, that “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?” There is a simpler answer.

Cat Out of the Bag

The Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Sallai Meridor, let the cat out of the bag while speaking at the American Jewish Committee luncheon on Oct. 22. In remarks paralleling those of Rice, Meridor said Iran is the chief threat to Israel.

Heavy on the chutzpah, he served gratuitous notice on Washington that effectively countering Iran’s nuclear ambitions will take a “united United States in this matter,” lest the Iranians conclude, “come January ’09, they have it their own way.”

Meridor stressed that “very little time” remained to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. How so?

Even were there to be a nuclear program hidden from the IAEA, no serious observer expects Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon much sooner than five years from now.

Truth be told, every other year since 1995 U.S. intelligence has been predicting that Iran could have a nuclear weapon in about five years.

It has become downright embarrassing — like a broken record, punctuated only by so-called “neo-conservatives” like James Woolsey, who last summer publicly warned that the U.S. may have no choice but to bomb Iran in order to halt its nuclear weapons program.

CUT

The day before Meridor’s unintentionally revealing remark, Vice President Dick Cheney reiterated, “We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

That remark followed closely on President George W. Bush’s apocalyptic warning of World War III, should Tehran acquire the knowledge to produce a nuclear weapon.

The Israelis appear convinced they have extracted a promise from Bush and Cheney that they will help Israel nip Iran’s nuclear program in the bud before they leave office.

Never mind that there is no evidence that the Iranian nuclear program is any more weapons-related than the one Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld persuaded President Gerald Ford to approve in 1976 for Westinghouse and General Electric to install for the Shah (price tag $6.4 billion).

With 200-300 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, the Israelis enjoy a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. They mean to keep that monopoly and are pressing for the U.S. to obliterate Iran’s fledgling nuclear program.

With Vice President Cheney calling the shots now, similar help may be forthcoming prior to any Israeli air attack on Iran.

CUT

What Now?

The only thing that seems to be standing in the way of a preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities is foot-dragging by the U.S. military.

It seems likely that the senior military have told the president and Cheney: This time let us brief you on what to expect on Day 2, on Week 4, on Month 6—and on the many serious things Iran can do to Israel, and to us in Iraq and elsewhere.

CENTCOM commander Admiral William Fallon is reliably reported to have said, “We are not going to do Iran on my watch.” And in an online Q-and-A, award-winning Washington Post reporter Dana Priest recently spoke of a possible “revolt” if pilots were ordered to fly missions against Iran. She added:

“This is a little bit of hyperbole, but not much. Just look at what Gen. [George] Casey, the Army chief, has said...that the tempo of operations in Iraq would make it very hard for the military to respond to a major crisis elsewhere. Beside, it's not the ‘war’ or ‘bombing’ part that's difficult; it's the morning after and all the days after that. Haven't we learned that (again) from Iraq?”

How about Congress? Could it act as a brake on Bush and Cheney? Forget it.

If the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with its overflowing coffers supports an attack on Iran, so will most of our spineless lawmakers. Already, AIPAC has succeeded in preventing legislation that would have required the president to obtain advance authorization for an attack on Iran.

And for every Admiral Fallon, there is someone like the inimitable, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a close associate of James Woolsey and other “neo-cons.”

The air campaign “will be easy,” says McInerney, a Fox News pundit who was a rabid advocate of shock and awe over Iraq. “Ahmadinejad has nothing in Iran that we can’t penetrate,” he adds, and several hundred bombers, including stealth bombers, will be enough to do the trick:

“Forty-eight hours duration, hitting 2,500 aim points to take out their nuclear facilities, their air defense facilities, their air force, their navy, their Shahab-3 retaliatory missiles, and finally their command and control. And then let the Iranian people take their country back.”

And the rationale? Since it will be a hard sell to promote the idea, against all evidence, of an imminent threat that Iran is about to have a nuclear weapon, the White House PR machine is likely to focus on other evidence showing that Iran is supporting those “killing our troops in Iraq.”

The scary thing is that Cheney is more likely to use the McInerneys and Woolseys than the Fallons and Caseys in showing the president how easily it can be done.

Madness

It is not as though we have not had statesmen wise enough to warn us against foreign entanglements, and about those who have difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of the United States and those of other nations, even allies:

“A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.” - (George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796)

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, D.C. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

This article was first published by Consortiumnews.com

Any coincidence that corporate control over our lives (and the inevitable erosion of our Bill of Rights) corresponds with the influence of AIPAC and the Apartheid State of Israel?

bhkad · 11-02-07, 01:53 AM

Let's cut the bull ****.

If Iran gets nukes Israel would be forced to attack them out of self defense.

If Israel attacks Iran the entire region could explode.

If nukes were used by any party there would be a hard time keeping the war contained to the Mid-East.

So, if Iran gets nukes there is a real possibility that a global nuclear war could start.

We would attack Iran because it would be the best of several terrible options.

winston53660 · 11-02-07, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

Let's cut the bull ****.

If Iran gets nukes Israel would be forced to attack them out of self defense.

.

That wouldn't be self defense. That would be a pre-emptive strike. At least call it what it is man.

bhkad · 11-02-07, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winston53660

That wouldn't be self defense. That would be a pre-emptive strike. At least call it what it is man.

Quote:

Preemption must be considered responsibly, on a case-by-case basis, but it remains one aspect of every government’s duty to protect its people. Weapons of mass destruction (the very possession of which may be illegal) can now be fashioned by many states and delivered in many ways. When such weapons are likely to be used by a state, directly or through surrogates, and all reasonable means short of force have been exhausted, it is reasonable to expect target states to consider preemption. In the war in Iraq, each of these tests was met.

Hoover Institution - Hoover Digest - On the Legality of Preemption

Your posts are so frequently jokes that one might just consider everything you say to be laughable.

winston53660 · 11-02-07, 03:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

Your posts are so frequently jokes that one might just consider everything you say to be laughable.

Pssst I didn't make any value judgments about pre-emptive attacks. Ya certainly jumped the gun there like I thought you would.

bhkad · 11-02-07, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winston53660

Pssst I didn't make any value judgments about pre-emptive attacks. Ya certainly jumped the gun there like I thought you would.

But it WOULD be self defense.

L2R.

winston53660 · 11-02-07, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bhkad

But it WOULD be self defense.

L2R.

L2R.......

Volker · 11-02-07, 04:01 AM

It would not be self defense and it would not be a preemptive whatever.

It would be another terrible American crime, nothing else.

bhkad · 11-02-07, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Volker

It would not be self defense and it would not be a preemptive whatever.

It would be another terrible American crime, nothing else.

Quote:

Preemption must be considered responsibly, on a case-by-case basis, but it remains one aspect of every government’s duty to protect its people. Weapons of mass destruction (the very possession of which may be illegal) can now be fashioned by many states and delivered in many ways. When such weapons are likely to be used by a state, directly or through surrogates, and all reasonable means short of force have been exhausted, it is reasonable to expect target states to consider preemption. In the war in Iraq, each of these tests was met.

Hoover Institution - Hoover Digest - On the Legality of Preemption

Trajan Octavian Titus · 11-02-07, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Hill

Any coincidence that corporate control over our lives (and the inevitable erosion of our Bill of Rights) corresponds with the influence of AIPAC

Yep it's all a plot by those evil JOOS.

Quote:

and the Apartheid State of Israel?

You mean the only truly liberal Democracy in the entire region whose 16% Arab population has full and equal rights unlike their Arab counterparts in the rest of the ME.