Skip to content or view screen version

Will Israel Start World War 3?

wp | 14.08.2003 12:20

A senior Washington Post columnist yesterday
reported that after the latest meeting between
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and U.S. President
George W. Bush in Washington, there is mounting
concern in the administration that Israel might be
planning to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.


The columnist, Jim Hoagland,
opened his column yesterday by
saying: "A grim warning from
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon to President Bush that
Iran is much closer to
producing nuclear weapons than
U.S. intelligence believes, has
triggered concern here that
Israel is seriously considering

a preemptive strike against Iran's Busher
nuclear reactor." According to Hoagland, who
quoted U.S. and Israeli sources, Sharon brought
Maj. Gen. Yoav Galant, his army liaison
officer, "to shower a worried-looking Bush with
photographs and charts from a thick dossier on
Iran's covert program."

Hoagland said Sharon told Bush that Israel
believes Iran is much closer to a bomb than
American intelligence suspects, and that as far
as Israel is concerned, the delivery date of
Russian fuel for the Iranian project will be a
point of no return. Hoagland noted that Israel
deliberately struck the Iraqi reactor in 1982
before it was supplied with nuclear fuel.

The column indicated that Sharon still "enjoys"
a reputation in Washington as a "wild card" or
"rogue," a reputation that the prime minister
put to good use leading up to the war in Iraq
when his semi-veiled threats to take action if
Baghdad struck Israel made Washington provide
both a defensive umbrella for Israel and a
hefty aid package.

But Sharon has been careful not to make explicit
threats, lest they be tested one day and
meanwhile cause unnecessary escalation.
Instead, he has preferred to make vague
statements that have left the Arabs, Iranians
and Americans in a worrying fog.

Israel has made no secret that the Iranian
nuclear program is the leading risk to its
national security. Israeli intelligence
believes the point of no return in the Iranian
nuclear program is within two to three years,
and some elements in Israeli intelligence
apparently think it could come sooner.

But attacking Iran's nuclear facilities would be
far more complicated than the 1982 strike
outside Baghdad. First, Iran's nuclear program
is dispersed at several sites, some of which
are protected from conventional weapons; the
distance to fly is much greater; and perhaps
most importantly, the Iranians could respond in
a painful manner.

Therefore, Israel would prefer that the United
States handle the problem through either
diplomatic means or force. There have been
recent reports that the CIA has shown some
countries, although not Israel, plans for an
air and missile attack on the Iranian
facilities.

Israel would like to maintain a low profile and
let the Americans lead the campaign against the
Iranian program, so Israeli officials are not
commenting on it right now

wp
- Homepage: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=329267&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

Comments

Hide the following 4 comments

Duhh!

14.08.2003 13:11

World War III has already begun.

It began on 9/11 as the US spread it's imperial wings, & set about conquering the world country by country.

Mr Man


Dr David kelly

14.08.2003 13:58

I wonder if Dr David kelly was selling secrets to the iranians,and that's why the MOSSAD killed him....The man who earnt and knew too much.....And he was possibly planning a luccrative retirement with covert earnings before they wet-opsed him.....And this whole LOrd Hutton enquiry is a sham and a not so clever smokescreen...These things smell....

flowers


Correct, Mr Man

14.08.2003 22:00

Though 'American imperial ambitions' is just a cover. It's because America has the power to enable the process of establishing global fascism on behalf of others, some American, some not.
Kelly was murdered for a number of reasons - the proposition here sounding unlikely tho not impossible. Chief among the reasons was his knowledge of the intended targetted biological warfare against specific portions of the human populace. Twelve or so eminent microbiologists, virologists etc have died before him in highly dubious circumstances since 911. The 'evidence' put before Hutton today by MOD types is building a picture of DR Kelly being under enormous pressure, in order to justify the suicide nonsense
Anybody else gain the impression that Newsnight's Susan Watts has been leant on?

dh


double duhh.

15.08.2003 17:51

many of the fifth international of crusty hippy loved up trippy @narkisty muppets follow the WW4 line of thinking.
WW1 1914-1919.
Many historians and intellectuals and good bods and brainy types think that WW1 was not a world war because it wasn't global it really was a European war with belated involvement by the "anglo-saxon" USA in many ways this conflict forged the "US/K" alliance which has proved to be the principle beligerent alliance of the 20th century to date.
(most readers of this site live in the UK bit of the US/K. You have smaller buildings and a queen and generally weigh a little bit less than your North American counterparts who are called "yanks" you are called "brits". [This is of course not your fault but life sucks and you must make amends for it somehow]).

WW1 was followed by a period of global desiese and capitalist system collapse the period 1919-1929 marked the end of "money" as it had existed and been understood in Europe since about 1728. The capitalist system crises was followed by return to dictatorships which aped the autocracies of the 19th century (in Europe only the UK, Sweden, Switzerland and Andorra did not have a period of dictatorship between 1922 and 1946).

WW2 1939-1945 followed the Iberian and Abysinian conflicts it was a very very big war.
and truly global. If you are either a "brit" or a "yank" You have already watched most of the relevant patriotic bits on TV. WW2 ended with genocide, starvation, and the use of weapons of mass destruction. It was followed by a period of capitalist extension. This period some believe marked the begining of WW4 and WW3 simultaneously.



WW3 then was considered the cold war. 1945-1989/1990.
Being a conflict fought by proxy bewteen centralised state communism the bolshevik system and american military/deomcratic capitalism.
global. bloody. nasty.
WW4 was declared by the multi-national-corporations on the poor of the planet.
The MNC entities exist as extra-state concepts and as such feed and direct the activities of the state. World War IV thus began at some point in the post WW2 period. It might have begun during bretton woods '44 it might have begun in '48, but it _had_ most certainly begun when Eisenhower left the White House.

September 11 2001 can not been considered the beginning of a global war.

To believe such is one of the principle misconceptions of that event. It was an event of such magnitude and publicity value that it could not be ignored. Normally "war" has been in progress quite some time when historically we see such gestures. It thus might have been one the events of a long and drawn out conflict, but that is something we yet do not know. That indeed is the problem of the World War term.
The supposed "war on terror" or "war on drugs" are misuses of the term.
If you want to understand war and it's theory you may read clauswitz or machiavelli or present yourself at any office of the war machine and volunteer for a period of three years of your life as a "soldier". You will find offices of the war machine on your high street in either parts of the US/K. If you are a "brit" you can get a uniform within three months and get sent to really hot places like former Yugoslavia, Belfast, Iraq or Africa. If you are a "yank" similarly you can "enlist" and get your uniform in a shorter period of time. You also get better quality toys and weapons and airlifted out of the battle zone if anything goes wrong.

Good luck with your military career!

ipsiphi