US Distances Itself Publicly From Israeli Drive for Iran War
Oppose US/Israeli Neo-Fascism, Aggression | 03.07.2008 23:59 | Anti-militarism | World
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.
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
Anti-Iran War Arguments Belie Fearmongering
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402416.html
Israel "Reassures West": No Iran Attack in 2008
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402411.html
Iran is Not the Belligerent Party
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402407.html
US Escalates 'Covert Operations' (TERRORISM) Against Iran
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402400.html
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 Anti-Iran War Arguments Belie Fearmongering
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402416.html Israel "Reassures West": No Iran Attack in 2008
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402411.html Iran is Not the Belligerent Party
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402407.html US Escalates 'Covert Operations' (TERRORISM) Against Iran
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/07/402400.html
Oppose US/Israeli Neo-Fascism, Aggression
Comments
Display the following comment