Israel Prodding U.S. To Attack Iran (shocker) 2008

[Shogun]

(CBS) Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen leaves Tuesday night on an overseas trip that will take him to Israel, reports CBS News national security correspondent David Martin. The trip has been scheduled for some time but U.S. officials say it comes just as the Israelis are mounting a full court press to get the Bush administration to strike Iran's nuclear complex.

CBS consultant Michael Oren says Israel doesn't want to wait for a new administration.

"The Israelis have been assured by the Bush administration that the Bush administration will not allow Iran to nuclearize," Oren said. "Israelis are uncertain about what would be the policies of the next administration vis-à-vis Iran."

Israel's message is simple: If you don't, we will. Israel held a dress rehearsal for a strike earlier this month, but military analysts say Israel can not do it alone.

"Keep in mind that Israel does not have strategic bombers," Oren said. "The Israeli Air Force is not the American Air Force. Israel can not eliminate Iran's nuclear program."

The U.S. with its stealth bombers and cruise missiles has a much greater capability. Vice President Cheney is said to favor a strike, but both Mullen and Defense Secretary Gates are opposed to an attack which could touch off a third war in the region.

U.S. intelligence estimates Iran won't be able to build a weapon until sometime early in the next decade. But Israel is operating on a much shorter timetable.

"The Iranians, according to Israeli security sources, will have an operable nuclear weapon by 2009. That's not a very long time," Oren said.

For now, the Bush administration is counting on new economic sanctions which took effect Tuesday to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program. But

Israel Prodding U.S. To Attack Iran, White House Weighs Striking Iran's Nuclear Complex, Which Could Trigger 3rd War In Region - CBS News

 

[Ravi]

What nuclear complex?

 

[Annie]

IAEA Director-General Dr. Muhammad ElBaradei: Iran Can Produce Enough Enriched Uranium for a Nuclear Bomb in Six Months to a Year

Clip

Transcript:

ollowing are excerpts from an interview with IAEA Director-General Dr. Muhammad ElBaradei, which aired on Al-Arabiya TV on June 20, 2008.

Muhammad ElBaradei: If Iran wants to turn to the production of nuclear weapons, it must leave the NPT, expel the IAEA inspectors, and then it would need at least... Considering the number of centrifuges and the quantity of uranium Iran has...

Interviewer: How much time would it need?

Muhammad ElBaradei: It would need at least six months to one year. Therefore, Iran will not be able to reach the point where we would wake up one morning to an Iran with a nuclear weapon.

Interviewer: Excuse me, I would like to clarify this for our viewers. If Iran decides today to expel the IAEA from the country, it will need six months...

Muhammad ElBaradei: Or one year, at least...

Interviewer:... to produce [nuclear] weapons?

Muhammad ElBaradei: It would need this period to produce a weapon, and to obtain highly-enriched uranium in sufficient quantities for a single nuclear weapon.

[...]

In my view, a military strike would be the worst thing possible. It would turn the Middle East into a ball of fire.

Interviewer: It would be worse than sanctions?

Muhammad ElBaradei: Much worse, because a military strike would mean, first and foremost, that even if Iran does not produce nuclear weapons today, it would implement a so-called "crash course," or an accelerated plan to produce a nuclear weapon, with the agreement and blessing of all the Iranians – even the Iranians living in the West.

[...]

Interviewer: Dr. ElBaradei, what do the Iranian officials tell you when you confront them about the need for more transparency?

Muhammad ElBaradei: They say there will be more transparency, but at the end of the day, I'd rather wait to see this transparency.

[...]

I always think of resigning in the event of a military strike.

Interviewer: You will resign in the event that...

Muhammad ElBaradei: If military force is used, I would conclude that there is no mechanism left for me to defend.

Interviewer: This is a threat directed at the Americans – if you strike, I will resign.

Muhammad ElBaradei: I am not doing this for material profit. If I was working in the private sector, I would... I am doing this out of the conviction that I am defending shared values. If we deviate from these shared values...

Interviewer: So there is no justification for an attack...

Muhammad ElBaradei: The day I believe that the international system has begun to collapse is the day I will resign.

[...]

Interviewer: If the world reaches a consensus that there is no solution but to attack Iran, would you still resign? What if Europe, America, and the entire West agree that the only resolution is a military one?

Muhammad ElBaradei: I don't think that what we are seeing today in Iran poses a clear, imminent, and immediate danger.

Interviewer: But in a year or two, it could become...

Muhammad ElBaradei: If this happens, it will be a different story, but if a military strike is launched against Iran now, in my opinion, I will have no choice but to...

Interviewer: So there is no justification for a strike against Iran today.

Muhammad ElBaradei: None whatsoever. There will be no point for me to continue doing my work if military force is used at present.

 

[Shogun]

I guess if israel has a problem with its neighbor then ISRAEL needs to fix its own problems instead of running like a scared little bitch for the shadow f an actual world superpower, eh?

 

[Ravi]

I find it troubling that they are asking this...does this mean they are admitting that they (Israel) don't have nukes of their own?

 

[Shogun]

no, they have em.... but, who needs to dirty their own hands when there is an actual western nation to hide behind?

 

[Christopher F.]

As Israel contemplates militarily striking Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel empowers the resolve of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s hardliners to achieve greater security while harming United States strategic interests, Israeli security interests, Iranian dissident interests, and world economic interests. Monday’s WSJ Editorial charges that Israel has, “no choice but to defend themselves,” against the Iranian threat.

Yet even if Iran’s nuclear sites were bombed, virtually nothing could prevent the regime from rebuilding its nuclear sites. Bombing Iran would only further exacerbate and reinforce the belligerence of the fundamentalist regime, alienate pro-America Iranians, radicalize moderate support behind the unpopular regime, provide a pretext for the regime to crack down on human rights, and undermine the democratic movement in Iran.

A report released by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), considered a major proponent of the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S., “does not advocate military action against Iran’s nuclear program. The time is not right for such a decision.” Instead the report considers an attack on Iran’s oil infrastructure, which accounts for 80% of its export revenue, far more noteworthy.

On Thursday in the Asia Times, national and international security affairs analyst David Isenberg contends that the political shock from losing oil income would force the regime to rethink its nuclear aspirations. Conversely, he points out that an attack on Iran’s oil infrastructure may force oil prices to skyrocket which would hurt consumers worldwide. News of Israel's military exercise earlier this month caused the price of U.S. July crude to rise by US$2.69 and settle at US$134.62 a barrel last Friday.

An attack on Iran’s nuclear sites alone may cause crude oil to reach US$200 a barrel or more. Saturday’s Washington Post article interviewed PFC Energy analyst Mr. J. Robinson West who predicted, “A raid on Iran would convulse the markets. The price would go into uncharted territory. Pick a number.” The Post argues that the staggering cost of oil may dissuade U.S. military action or hamper the administration’s blessing of an Israeli attack.

An Israeli attack on Iran’s oil exporting infrastructure may lead to protracted war that would undoubtedly affect crude prices. Any temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which ships nearly 40 per cent of the world’s oil, would force oil importing nations to rely upon oil exporting countries to make up for lost output. Inevitably, the regime will retaliate against an Israeli attack and possibly against American interests in the region with powerful long range missiles. A state of mutually assured destruction is more than likely to develop between Israel and Iran due to the spread of technology. Consequently, Israel must reassess its long term security strategy with Iran and view the nature of Iran’s regime as its primary existential threat. Otherwise, only the Islamic republic stands to win.

Source: 6/25 usiranalliance.org Press Release

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

I guess if israel has a problem with its neighbor then ISRAEL needs to fix its own problems instead of running like a scared little bitch for the shadow f an actual world superpower, eh?

This idea totally works for me.

 

[us4israel]

BS"D

Excerpted from the JAHG-USA Newsletter (available at noahide.com/newsletter/news53.htm)

Factual Background:
A common misunderstanding imagines that Iran is today ruled by a government of religious fanatics who, for the sake of Islam, seem intent on stirring up a Middle East war. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The misperception is rooted partly in the fact that Iran was ruled for several years by Ruhollah Khomeini, a bearded Iranian who managed to misappropriate the title "Ayatollah," normally reserved for the highest leaders of Shi'ite Islam. But Khomeini was actually so anti-religious and anti-Muslim that he was vigorously opposed by the Hakim family in Iraq, the real Ayatollahs of Shi'ite Islam, and by 95 percent of all mullahs (Muslim clerics) in Iran — all of whom supported the pro-Western, anti-Communist (and Israel-friendly) Shah of Iran as the legitimate ruler.

So then who was that bearded Khomeini character?

It was the Communists, not the religious clerics, who backed his revolution in overthrowing the Shah. Khomeini's brother and ardent supporter was an actual member of the Tudeh Party (the Communist party of Iran); his closest advisor was an affiliate of European Communist Parties. Khomeini's revolution was supported by such religious luminaries as the Soviet Union (including hundreds of KGB agents inside Iran); the Tudeh Party; the Communist Party of France; the Communist Party of Italy; the Soviet-controlled Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), especially Yassir Arafat's Marxist wing, Fatah, and George Habash's even more brazenly Marxist wing, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) (both openly anti-Muslim); the Marxist-Leninist Feda'iyin-e Khalq; the equally Marxist-Leninist Mujahedin-e Khalq; and Saddam Hussein, Moscow's (former) puppet ruler of Communist Iraq (and well-known for his suppression of Islamic religion, and of Shi'ites in particular).

Since Khomeini's revolutionaries seized power in 1979, they have been backed not only by the Soviet Union and the PLO, but also by such great defenders of Muslim values as Red China; Communist Syria; the atheist regime of Communist North Korea; and by Mostafa Chamran Savehi, a Berkeley student radical in the 1960s and Trotskyite Communist who founded such notable Marxist groups as Red Shi'ism. The Hezbollah terrorist network, run by Iran to this day, was created by the Soviets using PLO agents. The head of Iranian intelligence, responsible for their worldwide terror operations, is an agent of Soviet Russia. Etc., etc.

One would be hard pressed to find anyone involved in the Iranian revolution who even pretended to be Muslim or religious in any way.

The urban myth that Iran's regime is religious may have originated to some extent in a decision made by the Communists about three years after the Shah's overthrow. Having consolidated Soviet control over the regime and the nation, the most overtly Marxist-Leninist groups in the "government" chose — voluntarily — to stage a "withdrawal" from the regime, allowing it to appear as if it had become less Communist, by virtue of the fact that the Communist-affiliated and -controlled dictator was calling himself an "Ayatollah." From the Communist standpoint, it was necessary to hide their control over Iran for a while, given the potential backlash not only from within Iran (by provoking an anti-Communist uprising) but also by the United States against the Soviet Union. Iran was a valuable capture by Moscow, but they couldn't afford to provoke a reaction against the real source of the problem.

Nevertheless, to this day the Communist Bloc continues to control and arm Iran. Soviet Russia and Red China are supplying the regime with everything from guns and bombs (many of which are forwarded to Soviet-controlled terrorist groups, including Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and the PLO) to tanks, military aircraft, missiles, and nuclear submarines. And, of course, there's the nuclear weapons capability, being built in Iran entirely by Soviet Russia.

In short, Iran is a fully Communist nation, its Marxism loosely concealed behind a bit of distracting, pseudo-"religious" rhetoric. It serves as a proxy for Soviet and Red Chinese support of revolutionaries, terrorists, and underground financial networks throughout the Middle East and the world, allowing these activities to be blamed on non-existent "religious fanatics" while keeping the Communist Bloc out of the spotlight.

Relevant Torah Principles:
As mentioned numerous times, the Noahide Commandment (for gentiles) of justice also requires action to protect national security. This includes the power to fight wars, including launching pre-emptive attacks. Indeed, the approach that eliminates a threat before it becomes larger and more dangerous, thus saving lives and money, is mandated (not optional) by the Torah, and thus first-strike offensives may often be the only way to proceed.

Analysis:
On its own, the Iranian regime wouldn't amount to any threat at all, nor could it even prop itself up to remain in power. Furthermore, its weapons aren't the problem; Soviet Russia is installing the nuclear capability, and anytime the Soviets would choose to do so, they could simply place ballistic nuclear missiles in Iran, or withdraw them again, or place them back in again at any time. So even if Israel or other countries struck at Iran's nuclear facilities, or if Iran chose to shut them down, it would mean about as much as confiscating a Mafia godfather's pistol and telling him he's a bad boy. Take away the nukes, and the Soviets will simply put them right back.

So the real problem is the Communist Bloc, with Soviet Russia and Red China at the center of the world revolution and the international terror network. Iran, like a number of puppet regimes, is but a finger of the Soviet hand. Which means we must strike with full force at Soviet Russia and Red China.

That means, first and foremost, stopping the flow of American and European economic aid and technology that's arming the Soviet and Red Chinese militaries — and indirectly their stooges in Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere. But to the extent that's not enough to destroy the Communist Bloc regimes, war is the only answer. Nuclear and conventional war. War with no limits, no combat restrictions, no "rules of engagement." The Communist enemy recognizes no such restrictions, and they're not just fighting to win, they're fighting to annihilate all of us, America included.

We have nothing to lose, and our very lives to gain, by all-out war with Moscow and Beijing. And if we turn to G-d for His mercy, promising to eradicate Communist influence from everywhere in the world, we can be sure He will be on our side and give us the victory. But we'd better get moving, because time is running out.

 

[Shogun]

what a fucking batshit crazy nutjob...