Israel reassures West: No Iran attack in 2008

TEL AVIV — Israel has signaled the U.S. and other allies that air operations to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities are not imminent.

(The planned war is about Regime Change. Period. The LIES being spread by these warmongering Extremists and the compliant corporate media are simply their weak attempt at concealing the illegal nature of their conspiracy.)

Israeli leaders have sent messages to several Western countries that ruled out an attack on Teheran in 2008. Israel told the governments of Britain, France and the United States that the Zionist state would allow for yet another diplomatic effort to halt Iran's uranium enrichment program.

(The 'Diplomacy Canard' was employed during the run-up to the illegal attack on Iraq. Iran's program of power generation is not the issue. Israel and its co-conspirators have fabricated the illusion of a crisis with the sole purpose of feigning a 'justification' for again comitting "The Supreme International Crime, the Crime Against Peace". But nobody's falling for it.)

"There has been alarm in some capitals that Israel will attack Iran over the next few months or even weeks," an Israeli official said.

The official said the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert plans to wait until France assumes the presidency of the European Union in July. France, he said, was expected to lead a European drive to expand sanctions on Teheran.

(Which raises an interesting question. Have the Paris Police shelved their investigation into documents it uncovered which showed that Sarkozy is an Israeli "Sayan", or foreign agent?)

Over the last few weeks, the United States has raised the prospect of an Israeli air strike on Iran in 2008. Bush administration officials, particularly those from the Defense Department, said an Israel Air Force exercise in the Aegean Sea in June was meant to practice a massive air strike on Iran. The exercise, conducted with Greece, was said to have included more than 100 Israeli aircraft, including F-15s, F-16s and KC-130 air refueling tankers.

"The international community must not allow Iran to go nuclear," Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said.

(Why not?)

The U.S. intelligence community was said to have assessed that the Israeli air exercise concluded basic preparations for an attack on Iran. The intelligence community determined that the exercise demonstrated the feasibility of a massive Israeli air strike at a range of about 1,600 kilometers.

(The strike, however, is about starting their planned war and occupation, not about any fictional "nuclear threat".)

But the Israeli official said the air force exercise did not reflect plans to attack Iran. He said most of the exercise focused on search-and-rescue as well as mid-air refueling.

"There will not be any operation in 2008," the official said. "An operation such as this must be coordinated — at least with the United States."

Britain and France have become concerned over the prospect of an Israeli or U.S. strike on Iran. Britain has issued an alert to its embassy in Bahrain of an imminent U.S. confrontation with Teheran.

(Where is the Antiwar Movement? Have Britons lost control of their Government?)

On June 30, U.S. Fifth Fleet commander Vice Adm. Kevin Cosgriff warned that Iran would not be allowed to block Gulf shipping. Cosgriff, responding to Iranian threats to halt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, said this would constitute an "act of war."

(No, it would be a reaction to the 'belligerence' of the Extremists plotting to attack Iran. But this statement demonstrates the desperation of these War Criminals to start another illegal war.)

"I cannot imagine, given the critical nature of that body of water, that the international community would not be outraged should Iran or any entity move to restrict the freedom of navigation," Cosgriff told a news conference at Fifth Fleet headquarters in Manama. "They are not going to be allowed to do so. It would be an act of war. In a tight oil market, the international community would respond vigorously to that."

(The 'oil market' is being artificially manipulated, by Western companies. Both Britain and the US have, over the past two years, demonstrated their willingness and ability to fake such events.)

On Tuesday, the U.S. television network, ABC News, reported that Israel could strike Iran's nuclear facilities in late 2008. ABC quoted a senior Pentagon official as reporting an "increasing likelihood" that Israel would attack Iran once it produced enough highly-enriched uranium to assemble a nuclear weapon.

(Which wouldn't occur for at least a decade, and only if Iran greatly increased its small and inefficient process, a move which would be immediately evident to the myriad eyes intently watching Iran's every move.)

"The Israelis are interested in such publications," Israel Television military analyst Yoav Limor said. "It tells the international community: 'Stop me.'"

A senior Israeli security source said the military was not ready to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons facilities.

(These don't exist, so of course, this would be impossible ... What an irresponsible report, and more evidence of the media acting as a willing stooge for these Sociopaths ...)

The source told the Israeli daily Maariv that the military, weakened by an inadequate budget, was incapable of a sustained strike.

(This is irrelevant, since the US has already signed an agreement which says the US military will collaborate with Israel, even if Israel is the Aggressor. People throughout the world, however, should note that Russia has signed similar agreements with Iran ...)

"Years of neglect, and cancellation of projects and budgets, have left us without strategic ability for effective attack," the Israeli source was quoted as saying on Wednesday.

ABC quoted the Pentagon official as saying that Israel also wants to stage the operation before Iran acquires the SA-20, or S-400 air and missile defense system from Russia. The U.S. intelligence community has assessed that Iran could acquire the S-400 Triumf over the next few months.

"The red line is not when they get to that point, but before they get to that point," the official was quoted as saying. "We are in the window of vulnerability."

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2008/me_israel0292_07_02.asp

The alternative to an Israeli attack on Iran
By Shlomo Ben-Ami and Trita Parsi
Wed Jul 2, 4:00 AM ET

Washington and Jerusalem - Is war between Israel and Iran inevitable?

To listen to Iran's radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Israel's Iranian-born transportation minister Shaul Mofaz, or even recent reports that Israel carried out a major military training mission over the Mediterranean to rehearse an attack on Iran, you might be left with that impression.

Mr. Mofaz's comments last month indicating he would attack Iran didn't help perceptions either. The immediate effect of his statement was a record increase in oil prices – giving Mofaz's Iranian nemeses a windfall of several million dollars.

(But TRILLIONS to the Bush family, and the rest of the Israeli and American career politician-warmongers who draw massive profits from the manipulation of the energy market.)

Mofaz and Mr. Ahmadinejad are wrong. Israel and Iran are not destined to be enemies, nor does the military option present a real way out of the current impasse. In reality, it doesn't offer a solution at all.

(But there is no crisis. Israel and the US engineered this illusion, so that they would appear to be responding to it, rather than starting another illegal and unnecessary war.)

Logistical challenges of hitting Iran's nuclear facilities and regional consequences of war aside, military strikes wouldn't destroy any potential clandestine facilities in Iran nor Iran's knowledge of the enrichment process.

(No, because these do not exist. But the plan is simply to start the war these War Criminals planned before being installed to power.)

Even the most successful bombing raid would leave Iran with some nuclear capability. At best, proponents of this option admit, bombing would set back the program five years. During that time the expectation is that the Iranian people miraculously would unseat the country's ruling clergy and dismantle the nuclear program permanently.

(And Iraqis were to greet their 'liberators' in the streets with flowers ...)

This unjustified expectation underlines a central flaw in the outlook of both Jerusalem and Washington: the tendency to treat the risks and repercussions of military operations with extreme optimism, while treating the diplomacy challenges with extreme skepticism.

(They don't believe this BS. It's the LIE they peddle to hide their true intentions. Such LIES betray the Utter Contempt in which they hold the world ... This is but one signal that these men are Sociopaths. http://www.hare.com This is the real threat we face.)

A much more probable scenario: Tehran would use the attack to invoke Article 10 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and withdraw from the treaty altogether.

(No, they would respond to this Aggression, and the war the Israeli and Israeli-American Extremists are trying so desperately to start would be on.)

This article gives each party the right to withdraw if it decides that extraordinary events "have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country." Iran would cease all cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency, expel all UN inspectors, and by that, deprive the international community of much-needed transparency and insight.

More ominously, the attack could prompt the Iranian leadership to make the crucial decision to seek an actual nuclear bomb and not just the capability to build one, while accentuating Iran's role as a power against the status quo.

(Iran's program of nuclear power does NOT give them the ability to create a bomb.)

Consequently, a successful bombing campaign by either the US or Israel would simply guarantee a nuclear armed and vengeful Iran five years down the road. Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the IAEA, said recently that if Iran left the NPT, it could build a nuclear weapon within a year.

(That's not exactly what he said ...)

To make matters worse, any military attack would reduce rather than increase the likelihood of a democratic takeover. As unpopular as the Iranian government is, the expectation that a secular democratic government would emerge in the aftermath of a bombing campaign is wildly optimistic and reminiscent of the Bush administration's miscalculations going into Iraq.

(This wasn't a 'miscalculation'. It was just another of their LIES.)

War with Iran would be the death knell and not the savior of the Iranian democracy movement.

(These Extremists are not interested in 'Democracy'. Bush, PNAC, and the Israeli Extremists loathe the concept, because they know full well that their brand of Neo-Fascism is opposed by the majority.)

Any serious effort to address the Iranian challenge must recognize the true nature of the conflict. There is nothing apocalyptic about the nuclear stand-off or the Israeli-Iranian rivalry. Rather, these are strategically driven conflicts that can be managed and even resolved through the appropriate level of diplomacy.

(No, what you have to understand is that there is NO CRISIS, except for the fact that Fascists in the US and Israel are trying to start another illegal war.)

A give and take is needed between Iran and Israel in which Iran must end its support for violent groups and acknowledge Israel's legitimate security concerns. Israel and the US must accommodate an Iranian role commensurate with its geopolitical weight and use Iran's inclusion into regional political and economic structures to tame Iran's revolutionary impulses.

(Israel and the US must begin to respect and obey the Rule of Law ...)

That said, Israeli-Iranian enmity is not entirely dissociated from the Arab-Israeli dispute.

(Meaning European Zionism's decades-long War against the Palestinians ...)

The latter definitely facilitates and enhances Iran's strategy of regional destabilization.

(The US and Israel are the parties responsible for 'regional destabilization', but most of this is intentionally carried out, in the name of OIL.)

A regional system of security and cooperation in the Middle East cannot be established without an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

(Zionism's beliigerent continuation of its war to eliminate Palestine, and the world communities shameful Appeasement of these Extremists.)

And it is equally important to address the question of nuclear disarmament.

For regional security to be possible it is not only necessary for Iran, Israel, and the US to grant one another minimum levels of recognition, it would also be necessary that Israel discard the notion that the regional order should be based on its nuclear monopoly.

(Its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons - WMD - are not about 'regional order'. It's about making action to stop its race war in Palestine appear to be an impossibility, and effectively place Zionists above the law.)

The real choice in the long run is not between suspension of enrichment or war – it is between a verifiably nuclear-free Middle East or uncontrolled proliferation.

(No, it's a choice between the continued Appeasement of the real belligerent parties - the US and Israel - or some frank discussion about the real threat facing us, and some political will and courage to hold the criminals accountable for their actions.)

• Shlomo Ben-Ami is vice president of the Toledo International Center for Peace and former foreign minister of Israel. Trita Parsi is president of the National Iranian American Council and author of "Treacherous Alliance – The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the US."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080702/cm_csm/yparsi_1

Ex-intelligence official: World expects Israel to bomb Iran

West assumes Israel will hit Iran, (Zionist) State to be blamed in case of global flare-up, ex-intel officer Yossi Kuperwasser says; Tehran believes likelihood of strike on its nuke facilities very low, he says

Roi Mandel Published: 07.01.08, 22:00 / Israel News

The West believes that Israel is aware of the magnitude of the Iranian nuclear threat and assumes that the Jewish state will bomb Iran, ex-IDF intelligence officer Yossi Kuperwasser told Ynet Tuesday.

(The 'west' understands that the 'threat' is entirely fictional, and is nothing more than the "Iraq Treatment", this time being used to start a war against Iran that a relatively small but powerful group of Neo-Fascists planned over a decade ago.)

Kuperwasser, the former head of the IDF's Research and Assessment Division, believes that the Pentagon source's assessment that Israel will likely strike in Iran by the end of the year shows that the West assumes Israel will do the dirty work for it.

(No, this demonstrates that nobody else is foolish enough to start another illegal war against an Arab state.)

"That way, in case of a global flare-up, Israel could be blamed," Kuperwasser says.

(Aside from American politicians aligned with Israeli/Zionist Extremism, Israel is the only state trying to start another unnecessary and disastrous, illegal war.)

The former senior officer, who for many years dealt with (invented) Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, told Ynet the most problematic issue was Tehran's ability to produce industrial quantities of high-grade uranium.

(It does not possess such a capability ...)

"Within a year to a year and a half, the Iranians will have enough uranium for a nuclear bomb," Kuperwasser says. "This is also the American intelligence estimate, which at the time was harshly criticized, and rightfully so. As far as we know, the Iranians have not yet reached this capability…at the same time, they continue their research uninterrupted."

(This is NOT what the NIE said, and this statement is a LIE, wholly unsupported by any form of evidence.)

Turning his attention to the SA-20 aerial defense system purchased by Iran from Russia, Kuperwasser admits that the missile system could make an aerial strike considerably more difficult to carry out.

"This is a missile system that can to protect against missiles and airplanes. The Iranians have another aerial system today, but they view it as inadequate. Clearly, every addition to the aerial defense system may minimize the effectiveness of an aerial strike," he says.

(That's the plan. I'd upgrade, too, if I knew that such people were conspiring to attack my country, completely devoid of any justification.)

'West is sensitive to pain, money'

While the West has increasingly internalized the Iranian nuclear threat, the process has been too slow and insufficient, the former military officer says.

(There is no such threat, and this is why they haven't acted.)

"The West realizes that this is an Iranian challenge to the existing world order, aiming for Islam to enjoy a different status," Kuperwasser says. "Finally people have woken up, but the question is whether officials in the US and Europe realize the gravity at this time. It looks as though everyone is trying to shift the responsibility to someone else, and they believe that ultimately, if nothing changes, Israel will do the job for the West."

(No, they will do it for themselves. Nobody's buying these LIES this time around, regardless of the political processes the Americans and Israelis have succeeded in manipulating throughout 'the West'.)

Kuperwasser says the Iranians are continuing their nuclear project unabated, in the belief that nobody will stand in their way.

(That's because they've done nothing wrong, so nobody should ...)

"Iran realizes that the West is sensitive to pain and money, and won't embark on an operation that would significantly boost oil prices," he says. "Every time the possibility of a military strike is raised, the Revolutionary Guard's commander speaks out and warns against the chaos. They believe that the likelihood of a strike is very low."

"In this poker game, the Iranians are leading at this time," Kuperwasser says. "The pressure should be boosted considerably, and it should be made clear that a military move will be carried out if needed…if the Iranians believe that the West is serious, they will think twice about whether it is worthwhile for them to continue."

(This is not a poker game. We should all fear politicians speaking about warfare as if it's a game ... A game that they won't play themselves, but they'll force their citizens into ...)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3562702,00.html

US admiral urges caution on Iran

Adm Mullen said the results of war in Iran would be unpredictable

America's top military officer has said opening up a third front in the Middle East through a strike on Iran would be "extremely stressful" for US forces.

(And the award for Understatement of the Year goes to ...)

Adm Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was commenting on the likelihood of US or Israeli military action over Iran's nuclear programme.

(Or 'because they want to', since the power generation program is the LIE this time, not the reason for their desire to start another illegal war on an Arab state.)

Tensions have risen amid reports Israel could be planning a possible strike against Iran's nuclear facilities.

Iran denies its nuclear programme is anything other than peaceful.

(The IAEA and international intelligence community, including the CIA, agrees. Those Extremists claiming otherwise have absolutely no contradictory evidence.)

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says it has been clear for some time that Adm Mullen does not want to attack Iran.

But his latest remarks suggest he is fighting hard behind the scenes for both the US and Israel to think carefully about the consequences of an attack before considering mounting it, he says.

(The Extremist politicians believe that if they start the war, others will pay the price for their Madness, and these sociopaths could care less about the safety of their average citizens, which their LIES prove they hold in Utter Contempt.)

"This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable"
Adm Mike Mullen

At a US defence department news conference, Adm Mullen refused to say what Israeli leaders told him during meetings last week about any plan to strike Iran.

But he warned that opening up a third front, after Iraq and Afghanistan, would be "extremely stressful, very challenging, with consequences that would be difficult to predict".

(They are EASY to predict. He simply can't voice them, because his overlords don't want the public, which will do the fighting for their corrupt Neo-Fascist politicos, hearing them ...)

Asked if he was concerned Israel would strike before the end of the year, he said: "This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable."

The admiral said that if a conflict began, he believed Iran would have the capability to disrupt ship traffic through the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a waterway near the Persian Gulf, but he would not say if the US Navy was stepping up its patrols in the region.

He said: "I believe [Iran is] still on a path to get nuclear weapons and I think that's something that needs to be deterred."

(They have never been on this 'path'.)

Iranian leaders say their nuclear intentions are peaceful

(The IAEA and intelligence community agrees. The "Saddam has nukes!" madmen can't supply any evidence to the contrary, and are trying to create the illusion of a crisis, in order to feign a reason for another disastrous and illegal Act of Aggression.)

He added: "My position with regard to the Iranian regime hasn't changed. They remain a destabilising factor in the region.

"But I'm convinced that the solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behaviour, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure."

He called for dialogue between the US and Tehran.

(But the 'Neo-Conservative/Fascists are only interested in starting another war. There is no real 'crisis' which necessitates dialogue ...)

Adm Mullen's boss, US President George W Bush, has also been asked about recent speculation that there might be a military strike on Iran.

The president has said all options were on the table but that military action would not be his first choice. His senior soldiers will be pleased to hear it.

(Really? I think they'll remember that same sentence coming out of his mouth in the weeks leading up to the illegal war against Iraq, again started on a bed of LIES and belligerent Madness.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7486338.stm

If Israel were not planning some kind of an attack on Iran, Admiral Mullen would not have been sworn to silence about what the Israeli brass told him.

Also, it appears that their little "dog and pony show", to convince him that they could pull off such an attack against Iran without US help, just exploded in their faces like a bad trick cigar.

Unfortunately, however, Bush has pledged to support Israel militarily, no matter who starts the shooting.

So if Israel is going to do a strike, it has to be well before Bush leaves office.

The Israeli politicians are concerned that the next US president will probably not be anywhere near as carnage-happy as Bush, so they want to get this going as quickly as possible...and by any means they consider necessary.

Nice try, Plant.

US Distances Itself Publicly From Israeli Drive for Iran War


Can Israel start an attack on Iran all on its lonely?

Probably, yes.

But can it finish such an attack without the help of US air power?

Probably not.

And remember: Bush has promised that the US will support Israel military, no matter who starts the shooting.

It looks as though Israel's plan is to start an attack, and expect that the US will finish it for Israel.

I'd love to believe that there are some in congress, the military, and the executive who would be willing to throw cold water on such foolishness, but unfortunately, considering the stranglehold Israel has over this government, that's not about to happen.



Iran and Washington's Israeli option

By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News website

The possible timing of any Israeli attack on Iran remains uncertain

(This is an interestingly benign statement, considering that Israel has no just cause for attacking another sovereign state, and any attack would constitute "The Supreme International Crime", demanding immediate sanctions and/or intervention by the International Community.)

The warning by the senior US military commander Adm Mike Mullen that an attack on Iran would be "extremely stressful" for US forces must lessen the chances of the US taking part in any strike against Iran.

(Don't count on it. We're not dealing with rational people here ...)

But the admiral, who is chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and who has just visited Israel, spoke of Israel's vulnerability to "very real threats".

(However, Israeli and American insiders have published reports which contradict this assessment, saying Israel is acting from a position of military superiority, and the only real threat facing Israel is that its ruling Extremists will start another illegal war.)

So the possibility remains that Israel might undertake an operation against Iran by itself. Recent large-scale Israeli air force exercises have strengthened this possibility, according to military observers.

(However - and this is an issue the media is conspicuously avoiding - Bush has signed agreements which state that the US military will intervene in any war between Iran and Israel - even if Israel is the Aggressor.)

Nor does Adm Mullen's intervention resolve the ambiguity of the Bush administration's position that "all options" are on the table.

(There is no 'abiguity' ...)

But his views do indicate that the body of US military opinion is that they have their hands full in Iraq and Afghanistan.

(Or the US military is at odds with their own ruling Extremists, or the Neo-Fascists are making a public show of pretending they are not interested in another war.)

Administration at odds

Adm Mullen's opinion echoes what the then head of Central Command, Adm William Fallon, said last November, that an attack on Iran was not "in the offing".

(Bush/PNAC have planned a war. Whether or not their military will allow them to prosecute another illegal war of aggression, based solely on a violent ideology, is the only question.)

"Iran is not making highly enriched uranium suitable for a weapon, only low-enriched uranium useable as nuclear power fuel"

Adm Fallon resigned in March amid reports that he was at odds with the administration over Iran.

Increasingly, the military option seems to be narrowing to an Israeli option.

(Which only means that Israel will now be the ones to start the war, which will then draw the US military in.)

While Adm Mullen did not diverge from the Bush administration's line that the military option remains for the US and also said that in his view Iran was working to develop nuclear weapons, he stressed that "the solution still lies in using... diplomatic, financial and international pressure".

(However, since there is no 'nuclear crisis', and this LIE is simply a reenactment of the "Iraq Treatment", these are hollow and empty words. This is about starting a war in order to try and gain control over Iran. Period.)

Military opposition to an attack on Iran is bound to weigh heavily on President George W Bush but would not necessarily be the determining factor.

(No, these Extremists don't consider the people who will be forced to do the fighting an dying because of their Madness ...)

Whether President Bush would dissuade Israel from launching its own attack is not known.

(If he wanted to ...)

Iran has warned that any attack would bring consequences, one of which could be an Iranian move to close the Straits of Hormuz, through which oil is transported from the Gulf. The effect on oil prices would be serious.

(Another powerful motive for these Extremists, most, if not all, of whom draw wealth from the oil and arms industries, and therefore, profit directly from conflict.)

An Israeli cabinet minister and former chief of staff, Shaul Mofaz, has said that an attack on Iran is "unavoidable" if it "continues with its nuclear programme".

(However, Iran has done absolutely nothing wrong, and Israel and the US have deliberately engineered the illusion of a crisis, in order to pretend they are not aggressively pursuing more illegal war.)

However, the timing of any attack remains uncertain.

Red lines

A recent ABC News report suggested that Israel might act before two "red lines" are reached.

The first would be the production by Iran of enough highly-enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb and the second would be its acquisition of a new Russian anti-aircraft system, the S-300.

(The first of which is impossible, given the small scale of Iran's current program. Enriching weapons-grade material would involve a massive addition to their program, a move which would be immediately to the many eyes intently watching Iran. Neither of these would legitimize Israel's aggression against a sovereign state, and member of the United Nations.)

However, Iran is not making highly enriched uranium suitable for a weapon, only low-enriched uranium useable as nuclear power fuel.

The International Atomic Energy Agency would probably spot any move to change this. So exactly how and when this "red line" might be reached is unclear.

(It won't. Israel is simply using the same fearmongering deceit they, the Bush and Bliar Regimes used in order to create an illusion of a threat posed by Iraq, which necessitated their illegal aggression.)

As for the S-300, it was only in December that Iran indicated that it would buy this very advanced anti-aircraft system. It has only recently taken possession of the Tor-MI and it could be many months before the S-300 is delivered.

(And they have only requested these defensive weapons because of the conspiracy by the Israeli and American Governments to attack it without cause. It should also be noted here that Iran maintains a defence pact with Russia.)

Iran says that it has no intention of developing nuclear weapons and a US National Intelligence Estimate has concluded that it probably gave up a nuclear weapons programme in 2003.

(No, despite the media's narrow focus on this claim, the NIE said they have no current program, and the singular claim that they once had a program came from a dubious source, another of the CIA's infamous 'defectors', reminiscent of the phony information provided by the criminal Ahmed Chalabi. The IAEA has also ssupported the fact that there is no such program.

Israel and the US have yet to produce one piece of contrary evidence ...)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7486971.stm