- 20 aug 2011
Danny Schechter: 'Nuke-free ME requires Israel's will'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_By11lcZZzQ
Head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Yukiya Amano says he is planning to set up a meeting between Israeli and Arab leaders to discuss nuclear-free Middle East.
Press TV has conducted an interview with Danny Schechter, an editor with the Mediachannel.org, to share his thought on the issue.
The following is the transcript of the interview.
Press TV: Even the IAEA has failed to convince Israel to sit at the table and talk to Arab countries about its nukes and controversial nuclear facilities. What is your assessment of the role the IAEA has played so far?
Schechter: Well, the IAEA would like to settle this problem in some way. They would like to see Israel make some concession, at least in terms of information, some interested of exploring the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and some role for Israel under the terms of that treaty.
But the hardliners in Israel don't want that. They don't want to even admit that they have as many as 300 nuclear weapons. They have been hostile to joining the nuclear Non-Proliferation accord. And so this is some maneuver to try to have some sort of media under the ages of a peace nuclear free Middle East.
Now, is that possible? They would point to success in other parts of the world, in the Pacific, in South America, in other places that have nuclear-free zones, but can that work in the Middle East remains to be seen. It requires political will on Israel's part, as well as on the part of the Arab states. And so far we haven't seen that will.
Press TV: Israel has chosen to be silent on the issue of its nuclear arsenal. Do you see the same reaction from the world's major powers towards similar cases in other parts of the world?
Schechter: Well, of course not. You know, Israel has always been an exception in a way. It has always seen itself as an exception; it has always seen itself beleaguered, on the defensive, under attack, you now, with a PR campaign to paint itself as the victim in all the conflicts in the Middle East.
So, of course in this issue as well Israel basically takes the position of not saying anything about all of this as opposing the acknowledging the presence of nuclear weapons, which the world knows are there.
The United States has been reluctant to actually push Israel to disclose all of this, despite the fact that many Arab states see this as hypocrisy, as double standards and the like, but Israel has been able to maneuver around all of this on the claim that it is under attack, or it's under threat, or risk of attack.
So, it's been impossible to have a break through. Perhaps this meeting could be the start of a new process. Let's be hopeful, let's hope it could, but it doesn't look that way.
Press TV: Israel is not a signatory to the NPT and has not allowed any inspections of its nuclear facilities. How is it going to affect the idea of a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East?
Schechter: Well, Israel has gone beyond that. It has actually prosecuted nuclear scientists in Israel who have exposed the nuclear stock pile and the nuclear program there. They have actually tried to suppress information about this.
It will take some sort of change of heart in Israel, some willingness, to take some new initiative on this issue, and so far we have seen it, in part because of some incidents like the ones that took place this week, pressure in Israel by an angry public, and also a lot of activity by the Israeli lobby to try to stop Palestinians asking for or getting a recognition for their own state.
I have already seen a lot of information from parts of the Israeli lobby saying we are against this; we want a two-state solution, which is ironic because for years they opposed any solution. So can we be hopeful here? I don't know, but let's give the nuclear agency a chance, let's give peace a chance.
http://www.presstv.com/detail/194874.html 31 mar 2012, 23:29 , Respect -
Maria 6 sept 2011
Israel to hold drill at Dimona N plant
A partial view of the Dimona nuclear power plant in the southern Negev desert
Israeli army together with its Atomic Energy Commission plans to hold an extensive drill at the Dimona nuclear plant, in preparation for possible earthquakes or missile attacks.
The drill, dubbed “Fernando,” is set to be held in the Negev desert on Tuesday, the Jerusalem Post reports.
Hundreds of soldiers, police forces, medical staff and Dimona employees will participate in the exercise, which will simulate a possible missile attack or an earthquake that could lead to a nuclear meltdown.
During the drill, Israel will examine the experience it has obtained from the recent earthquake in Japan, which led to a major nuclear crisis.
Japan's Fukushima plant has been leaking radiation into the air, the soil and the Pacific Ocean ever since it was hit by a 9-magnitude earthquake and a devastating tsunami in March.
The last time Israel held a similar drill was in 2004.
Israel began building the Dimona plutonium and uranium processing facility in the Negev desert in 1958. Tel Aviv is widely believed to be the sole owner of nuclear weapons in the Middle East.
Former US President Jimmy Carter has stated that Israel has a nuclear arsenal that includes between 200 and 300 warheads. Decades of recurrent reporting and aerial footage have also established the possession of atomic arms by Israel.
Tel Aviv neither confirms nor denies possession of the weapons, and steadfastly refuses to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/197708.html 31 mar 2012, 23:29 , Respect -
Maria 18 sept 2011
Israel to join key European atomic Org.
Israel has signed an agreement to upgrade its ties with the European particle physics laboratory and become an associate member in the center.
The European Organization for Nuclear Research, also known as CERN, announced on Friday that it has admitted Tel Aviv as an associate member, pending ratification by the Israeli regime's parliament, the Knesset.
The Geneva-based organization, famed for its giant atomic collider beneath the Swiss-French border, has 20 members, with the Tel Aviv regime due to become its first non-European affiliate.
CERN membership would openly allow Israeli companies to conduct contract work for the major Western nuclear laboratory. The development comes despite an adamant and persisting Israeli refusal to join any international nuclear regulatory and non-proliferation organization.
Israeli physicists have been working for decades at CERN, which has 61 Israeli scientists as registered users. The Israeli regime, meanwhile, enjoys a higher raking in the European nuclear institution, compared to the United States, which only possesses an observer status at the major research agency.
Moreover, Israel is widely believed to be in possession of over 200 nuclear warheads, something that the regime has never denied but refuses to confirm, in following with its official policy of maintaining a nuclear ambiguity.
Admitting Israel to the group as an associate member after a minimum two-year waiting period could prove controversial, however, as several British and South African academics recently called for a boycott of collaboration with the Tel Aviv regime.
The boycott demand comes in response to ongoing conflicts between Israel and Palestinians over a number of issues, particularly the Israeli opposition to a Palestinian bid to win official recognition as an independent state at the United Nations as well as the Tel Aviv regime's continued expansion of Jewish settlements in occupied Palestinian territories.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/199745.html 31 mar 2012, 23:29 , Respect -
Maria 19 sept 2011
Israel can commit 'nuclear holocaust'
(6:11) Bolshevik Israel can commit 'nuclear holocaust'
Israeli nuclear weapons have raised the prospects for a “nuclear holocaust” committed by Israel against the people of countries in the region, an analyst tells Press TV.
Israel's nuclear weapons threaten European cities as well as all regional countries that fall within range of Tel Aviv's missiles, Ralph Schoenman, the author of The Hidden History of Zionism said in an interview with Press TV on Sunday.
"The [Israel's] nuclear capacity is designed to terrorize the regional populations and the governments of the countries with the prospect of a preemptive nuclear strike by Israel," Schoenman added.
He made the remarks after the European Organization for Nuclear Research, also known as CERN, announced on Friday that it has admitted Israel as an associate member and its first non-European affiliate.
"In this regard, they are supported and clandestinely facilitated by the US military and now the European CERN is only adding a patina of legitimacy to the facts on the ground," Schoenman said.
"The facts on the ground are that the Israeli monopoly of nuclear capacity in the region is a threat to the survival of the peoples of the world because it represents the prospect of a nuclear holocaust initiated by the Israelis against the peoples of the region with all of the deathly consequences that represents," he added.
"Israeli academics and officials associated with the Mossad have spoken often about Israel's capacity to take nuclear action against European cities as a deterrent or as a threat against Europe's support of the aspirations of the Palestinian people or of any of the aspirations of the regional peoples of the world to throw off the chains of imperialism and subjugation," Schoenman said.
Israel, which reportedly houses an arsenal of some 200 nuclear warheads, is widely believed to be the only entity in the Middle East that posseses nuclear weapons.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/199934.html 31 mar 2012, 23:29 , Respect -
Maria 24 sept 2011
Update: Israel sees 'positive' Arab move at IAEA meeting
VIENNA (Reuters) -- Israel welcomed as a "positive move" on Friday a decision by Arab states not to single out the nation with a resolution condemning its assumed atomic arsenal at a meeting of the UN nuclear agency.
Arab delegations earlier said they would not submit a resolution entitled "Israeli Nuclear Capabilities" for a vote at the annual member state gathering of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as they had in 2009 and 2010.
They described this as a "goodwill" gesture ahead of rare IAEA-hosted talks later this year on efforts to free the world of nuclear weapons that is expected to be attended by both Israel and Arab countries.
"The decision by the Arab group, from whatever motivations and constraints, not to table this year a draft resolution is ... a positive move," David Danieli, deputy director of Israel's atomic energy commission, told the IAEA conference.
"However in order to foster genuine trust and confidence among all regional parties, this must be accompanied next year by withdrawing permanently this politically divisive item from the agenda of the conference," he said.
Earlier on Friday, the 151-member IAEA adopted a resolution calling on all countries in the Middle East to join a global anti-nuclear arms treaty, without naming any state. Israel and the United States abstained.
Israel is widely believed to harbor the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, drawing frequent Arab and Iranian condemnation. The state is the only Middle East country outside the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Israel and the United States regard Iran -- and to a lesser extent Syria -- as the Middle East's main proliferation threats, accusing Tehran of seeking to develop a nuclear arms capability in secret.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=422868 31 mar 2012, 23:29 , Respect -
Maria 26 sept 2011
'Why is Israel allowed to have nukes?'
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan says the West practices double standards in regard to Israel's nuclear arsenal.
In an interview with CNN on Sunday, Erdogan noted that Israel is the only player in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons and asked, “Why is it that countries banning Iran from having nuclear weapons don't also ban Israel from having nuclear weapons?”
Turkey downgraded ties with Israel after Tel Aviv refused to apologize for its attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla, which left nine Turkish citizens dead on May 31, 2010.
Earlier in September, the Turkish Economy Minister said Ankara would continue its “normal” economic ties with Tel Aviv. From January 2011 to July 2011, trade between Turkey and Israel reached $2.3 billion.
Erdogan also commented on Turkey's decision to host one component of a missile shield system, calling it a “NATO concept.”
He advised against “different interpretations” of Turkey's decision and urged everyone to look at “what is actually the reality” in the issue.
But Turkey's move was still censured in some circles, with Iran describing it as “a cause for concern” and “questionable.” Russia criticized Turkey for collaborating with NATO.
Turkey could earn as much as $4 billion from the missile shield system. It has been reported that a Turkish defense company is holding negotiations on a $2 billion contract in connection with the project.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/201329.html 31 mar 2012, 23:30 , Respect -
Maria 5 oct 2011
Erdogan: Israel’s nuclear weapon a threat to region
JOHANNESBURG, (PIC)-- Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said that Israel’s nuclear weapons is a threat to the region, Turkey’s Anatolia news agency said.
During an official visit to South Africa, Erdogan said that Israel is a threat to the region because it has a nuclear weapon.
Erdogan reiterated condemnation of Israel’s lethal attack on a Turkish-flagged aid ship to Gaza in 2010 and its use of excessive force and forbidden weapons in the 2008-2009 war on Gaza..
The Turkish premier accused Israel of “state terrorism” in the Middle East as Israel refuses to confirm whether it has nuclear weapons. He added that it is wrong to criticize Iran over its controversial nuclear program in disregard of Israel, which is widely believed to be the region’s only nuclear power.
He said Ankara opposes the nuclear arms race in the Middle East and called for a diplomatic approach to tackle the crisis between Western forces and those of Iran with regard to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
http://fwd4.me/0DBU 31 mar 2012, 23:30 , Respect -
Maria 5 oct 2011
Erdogan: Israel’s nuclear weapon a threat to region
JOHANNESBURG, (PIC)-- Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said that Israel’s nuclear weapons is a threat to the region, Turkey’s Anatolia news agency said.
During an official visit to South Africa, Erdogan said that Israel is a threat to the region because it has a nuclear weapon.
Erdogan reiterated condemnation of Israel’s lethal attack on a Turkish-flagged aid ship to Gaza in 2010 and its use of excessive force and forbidden weapons in the 2008-2009 war on Gaza..
The Turkish premier accused Israel of “state terrorism” in the Middle East as Israel refuses to confirm whether it has nuclear weapons. He added that it is wrong to criticize Iran over its controversial nuclear program in disregard of Israel, which is widely believed to be the region’s only nuclear power.
He said Ankara opposes the nuclear arms race in the Middle East and called for a diplomatic approach to tackle the crisis between Western forces and those of Iran with regard to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
http://fwd4.me/0DBU 31 mar 2012, 23:30 , Respect -
Maria 1 nov 2011
Israel to upgrade nuke capabilities
Israel's Dimona nuclear reactor
A report says Israel is seeking to beef up its nuclear weapons capabilities despite Tel Aviv's repeated defiance of international calls to join global non-proliferation treaties.
Israel is widely believed to be the sole possessor of a nuclear arsenal in the Middle East with over 300 nuclear warheads.
The Israeli regime has never denied or confirmed the existence of its nuclear arsenal as part of its long-held “nuclear ambiguity” policy.
Tel Aviv has rejected all global demands to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and refuses to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors to monitor its nuclear facilities.
The Tel Aviv regime is planning to extend the range of its Jericho III land-to-land missiles, developing its inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) capability, according to a report for the British American Security Information Council (BASIC) published by The Guardian on Monday.
Israel also has plans to expand the capabilities of its cruise missiles designed to be launched from submarines.
Tel Aviv currently has three submarines, with two more under construction in Germany.
Despite international objections to the Israeli program, the United Nations and its nuclear regulatory agencies have never taken serious steps to censure or impose sanctions on the Zionist regime.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/207835.html 31 mar 2012, 23:30 , Respect -
Maria 6 nov 2011
Amerika Uber Alles: Our Zionazi Nation
By Captain Eric H. May
While I always hope to be wrong in my worst-case analysis, my Wednesday article, Nuclear November, is supported by a cascade of alarming indicators that make it certain that Israel is about to prove Europeans right in their opinion that it’s the world’s most dangerous nation. Armed with one of the world’s largest nuclear arsenals, they cry out to humanity that they are history’s greatest victims; but more and more of humanity is crying out that they are history’s greatest victimizers.
Recent events support the Judeophobes over the Judeophiles, and warrant the coining of a new word, Judeopathic, to describe the actions of the self-proclaimed Jewish Nation. They either are preparing to start a war with Iran, or are running a bluff to push the West into a stronger anti-Iran position to avert war. Look to Adolf Hitler’s 1936 Rhineland, 1938 Czechoslovakia and 1939 Poland threats for a close parallel. In the first and second cases he was bluffing; in the third he wasn’t. Then as now, informed insiders thought hard about it all, and misinformed masses hardly thought at all.
The coming third world war demands reflection on the second. In my abbreviated but adventurous life, I have enjoyed the friendship and mentoring of U.S. World War Two veterans from both European and Pacific theaters, as well as Russians and Germans from both sides of the front. With Veterans Day, 11/11/11, fast approaching, I dedicate this edition of Amerika Uber Alles, first published by The Lone Star Iconoclast in 2007, to them. I offer it to my readers without updates, believing that what I posted four years ago has stood the test of time.
Amerika Uber Alles: Our Zionazi Nation
Saint Peter’s Prologue
The most persuasive anti-Nazi I ever knew was my mentor, Dr. Peter W. Guenther, who believed that Nazism was monstrous at every level. As a professor of humanities, he thought it was both inhumane and inhuman. As a professor of art history, he thought its aesthetics were artless histrionics. He readily granted that his intellectual opinions were molded by his personal experiences.
As a German veteran of World War II, he regretted the loss of his youth, the waste of his friends’ lives and the devastation that they had inflicted on others. He held Hitler accountable for all of this – after all, it was Hitler who had drafted them into the war. He had served from 1939 to 1945, from Poland to Norway, France and Russia. He once quipped that before every one of their invasions their leaders said they were fighting for national defense, but after the shooting started every soldier on every side believed that he was fighting for his own self-defense.
By the time of the Iraq war he was retired from academe, and I was writing military analysis for media. As U.S. forces began storming up the Euphrates Valley in the spring of 2003, hell-bent on Baghdad, we began to discuss the limited American mobilized manpower and materiel, and the overall limitations of blitz tactics. Guided by his insights, I published a then-radical op-ed in the Houston Chronicle that warned of a quicksand war in Iraq, and maybe a world war as a result of it.
As the easy war promised us by the Bush administration wore on into the summer of 2003, Dr. Guenther and I began to note that there were more similarities between Post-9/11 America and Third Reich Germany than just over-reliance on Blitzkrieg tactics, and we determined that the two nations were following parallel political courses. Most disturbing for my mentor, who had become a patriotic American citizen after World War II, was the painful conclusion that our American president, with his global war for a New American Century, was just another German fuhrer, with a world war for a Thousand Year Reich.
“This is a bad copy of a bad original,” he said.
“Drang Nach Osten” — The Eastern Offensive
George W. Bush came into office with a secret war plan and no excuse to implement it – just as Hitler had come into office in 1933 with the same predicament. Both of them wanted the prize of Middle Eastern oil. In Hitler’s case that meant going through “Judeo-Bolshevik” Russia on the way, while in Bush’s case that meant going through “Islamo-Fascist” Iraq. In Hitler’s case the guiding document was Mein Kampf, while in Bush’s case there were two.
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm was presented to the Israeli government in 1996 by American neocons Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and David Wurmser, among others. Rebuilding America’s Defenses was presented to the American government in 2000. Its arguments mirrored the Israeli document, and had been drawn up by the neocons as well. In 2001 Feith, Perle and Wurmser became key Bush administration members.
Neither Hitler’s nor Bush’s plans for world dominance could have been pursued without some good luck. Both leaders entered office with over half their nations opposing them, and an avid opposition that wanted to pull them down. Hitler’s good luck came with the Reichstag fire, blamed on Jewish Communists, which mobilized his fatherland to rally behind him. Bush’s good luck happened on 9/11, blamed on Muslim Fundamentalists, which mobilized his homeland to rally behind him.
In both cases, their followers smiled at their good luck, and began their new order of things. Hitler quickly instituted an Enabling Act for the protection of the German people, slated for expiration in five years, which was quietly continued. Bush quickly instituted a Patriot Act for the protection of the American people, slated for expiration in five years, which was quietly continued. Hitler created the Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo) to further protect the German people, while Bush created theDepartment of Homeland Security (Homeseca) to do the same for the American people.
“Führer Prinzip” — The Unitary Executive
Both leaders were believers in the authoritarian concept. A few weeks before assuming office, Bush said outright that he thought dictatorship would be a fine form of government, if he could be the dictator. They both believed that power should come from above and obedience should come from below, and they offered protection in exchange for loyalty. Thus no one was surprised when Hermann Goering made a fortune helping to run Germany, just as no one was surprised when Irving “Scooter” Libby received a pardon for his pro-Bush political crimes in America.
Both leaders supplemented their new security police and security acts with concentration camps such as Dachau and Gitmo, initially designed for only a small percentage of national enemies. Both dispensed with international rules and regulations in their treatment of enemies in those installations, and applied a wide variety of innovative persuasive techniques to extract information and obtain confessions. The lessons learned in these proto-type camps proved to be invaluable in later establishments such as Auschwitz and Abu Ghraib.
Both leaders relied on agreeable legislatures. In Germany the Reichstag cheered enthusiastically as it endorsed the increase in police powers, the reduction in civil rights and the national march to world war. In America Congress did the same things, but in more subdued fashion, even with a show of dissent. In Germany, Hitler declared a dictatorship under Article 48, provided by the old Weimar Constitution in the event of a national emergency. In America Bush recently issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD 51), thereby legalizing a dictatorship in the event of a national emergency.
“Gott Mit Uns” — God’s on Our Side
Neither Hitler nor Bush could have effected their radical plans without a party full of functionaries and a compliant national media, of course. Hitler relied on his “Nazi” party, an acronym of his National Socialist Party. He had a brilliant individual named Joseph Goebbels to control the Reich Propaganda Ministry and rally the public behind Nazi policies. Bush relied on his “Nozi” party, an anagram of Zion. He had a brilliant cartel of Zionists to control the American Mainstream Media and rally the public behind Nozi policies.
The greatest accomplishment of both the Nazi and Nozi parties was convincing themselves and their citizens that they were not conspirators of any sort, but rather the victims of an international conspiracy. The Nazi party said that Judeo-Communism was the hidden enemy, against which all the powers of a determined fatherland had to be directed, and that they were the targets of anti-German propaganda. The Nozi party says that Islamo-Fascism is the hidden enemy, against which all the powers of a determined homeland have to be directed, and that they are the targets of anti-Semitic propaganda.
The rest of the world didn’t buy the pro-war propaganda from Germany’s Nazis three generations ago, and they don’t buy it from America’s Nozis three generations later. The way the rest of the world sees it, what we have been taught to call the axis of evil is not so dangerous to the world as the axis of America and Israel. They see American naval forces massing in the name of national defense against Iran, and they remember Iraq. They see Israeli air forces attacking Syria, and they remember Lebanon. The rest of the world knows who we have become, even if we don’t.
Saint Peter’s Epilogue
Dr. Peter W. Guenther died on his 85th birthday, March 30, 2005, followed six months later by his wife of 58 years, Andrea. They were my Baucis and Philemon, the most elegant couple I ever knew — particularly when I visited them, with my apish martial artist hands and heavy East Texas twang.
I can fairly call him my comrade, since the writing I continued to push and publish carried us far over the line of journalism and into intelligence, and had both of us ducking for cover in mid-July, 2003. The same can be said of my other WWII advisor, Mr. Joseph Coleman, an Army veteran who had served in the Pacific. Thanks to their alarmed admonitions, I went underground on July 17, 2003 — half a day before Bush and Blair started a five-day series of assassinations beginning with Dr. David Kelly in England.
Dr. G and Mr. C saved my life, and those of us who were involved knew it; those who lacked the brains or guts to be involved say that it couldn’t have happened. It’s the same story with all wars, my mentors taught and my experience confirms. The loudest growls inevitably come from from the mouths of paper tigers. For the best account of what it was really happened, see the article by Iconoclast publisher W. Leon Smith. For a sample of our correspondence before things became deadly, see my Rebel Redux.
http://fwd4.me/0gI9 31 mar 2012, 23:30 , Respect -
Maria 7 nov 2011
Analysis: What is Israel's military strategy on Iran?
By Dan Williams
JERUSALEM (Reuters) -- Menachem Begin did not pull his punches. In 1981, as work neared completion on an Iraqi nuclear reactor that Israel believed would produce plutonium for warheads, the Israeli prime minister dispatched eight F-16 bombers to destroy the plant.
Begin later said that the raid was proof his country would "under no circumstances allow the enemy to develop weapons of mass-destruction against our people".
The event defined a strategy that became known as the "Begin Doctrine" and is best summed up by the phrase "the best defense is forceful preemption."
Israel's message is now more guarded. In a civil defense drill of unprecedented scale last June, sirens summoned schoolchildren to shelters, radars searched the skies for computer-simulated missile salvos, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's cabinet descended into the Jerusalem foothills to inaugurate a nuclear bunker with a mock war-session.
Why would a country that has long vowed to stop its foes attaining nuclear weapons need a nuclear bunker? The question highlights a new, reluctant restraint that has quietly infused Israeli decision-making in recent years as regional threats have grown more complex and sapped the applicability of classic force of arms. Nowhere is this felt more than in the Netanyahu government's posture toward Iran.
The spin of the Islamic republic's uranium centrifuges stirs mortal fear in Israel. In defiance of western pressure to curb the project's bomb-making potential, Iran has pushed on with its nuclear program, saying it has no hostile designs.
The International Atomic Energy Agency will say this week that Iran now has the ability to build a nuclear weapon, the Washington Post has reported. Israeli officials have long hinted they may launch a preemptive strike.
That threat has taken on fresh intensity in the two years since Netanyahu -- a right-wing ideologue like Begin -- assumed office. Media speculation that Israel might launch a unilateral strike has surged again in the past two weeks.
In October, the dean of Israeli pundits, Nahum Barnea, suggested on the front page of the best-selling Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper that the government was hatching an imminent attack.
Days later Netanyahu warned of the "direct and heavy threat" posed by Iran's nuclear program and then, on Nov. 2, Israel test-fired a missile. The same day the military said it had completed air exercises in Sardinia, "practicing operations in (a ) vast, foreign land".
Such talk robs Israel of some of the element of surprise if it really is planning an assault on Iran. Could it instead be a loud reminder to the rest of the world of its problem with Iran in the hope that Washington or another power might intercede?
Interviews in recent months with government and military officials -- most speaking on condition of anonymity -- and independent experts suggest that Israel prefers caution over a unilateral strike against the Iranians.
The country has been digging in under sophisticated strategic defenses with at least as much energy as it has been preparing offensive options. Netanyahu's own circumspection is instructive.
As opposition leader in 2005, he told Israel Radio that in dealing with Iran he would "pursue the legacy" of Begin's "bold and courageous move" against Iraq.
But as prime minister he has been less explicit -- both in public and, to judge by leaked US diplomatic cables dated as recently as 2010, in closed-door meetings he and aides held with visiting American delegates. Instead, Israel has pushed its demand that world powers stiffen sanctions on Tehran and that the United States provide the vanguard of any last-ditch military move.
"The military option is not an empty threat, but Israel should not leap to lead it. The whole thing should be led by the United States, and as a last resort," Deputy Prime Minister and Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon told Israel's Army Radio.
The Prime Minister's Office declined to comment directly on whether Netanyahu felt bound by the Begin Doctrine regarding Iran.
No silver bullet
Israelis have known for years that an attack on Iran would be much more difficult than their Iraq strike.
Iran is larger, more distant and, perhaps because it learned the lessons of Iraq, has built numerous and well-fortified facilities. Taking these out would require a sustained campaign by the Israeli air force, which is more geared for precision strikes through the use of advanced technology.
"With Iran it's a different project. There is no one silver bullet (with which) you can hit," a senior Israeli defense official told Reuters, in a rare admission of his country's tactical and strategic limitations.
Iran has allies across its borders in Lebanon and Gaza, against whom Israel fought costly wars in 2006 and 2009. With the Netanyahu government facing growing isolation -- its impasse with the Palestinians is deepening; its alliances with Turkey and Egypt fraying -- Israel acknowledges that it is reluctant to go it alone against the Iranians.
"We have to learn that the situation is changing, the region is changing. Not everything that was possible before is possible now and new possibilities open up," said Dan Meridor, deputy prime minister in charge of Israel's nuclear and intelligence affairs.
It was Meridor who recommended "defense" as a fourth pillar of Israeli national security in a secret memorandum he authored on behalf of the government in 2006.
That report added to the three doctrinal "D's" set out by Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, soon after the country's founding in a 1948 war with neighboring Arabs: detect enemies' threats, deter them with the promise of painful retribution and, if hostilities nonetheless ensue, defeat them quickly on their own turf.
"This was something counter-intuitive for Israel, especially for the military. Israelis like to be on the attack, not on the defensive," Meridor said.
While he declined to discuss the prospect of military action against Iran, Meridor distanced himself from the idea that the Begin Doctrine commits Israel to such a course.
"I am not sure what people mean when they use this term. In any event, there is no contradiction between any attack doctrine and a defense doctrine. They are complementary. If the attack doesn't does not solve the problem, then you need to be able to defend yourself."
Limits of shields
The most obvious example of Israel's shifting stance is its pioneering missile shield, which incorporates a network of radar-guided interceptors designed to shoot down everything from the ballistic Shehab and Scud missiles of Iran and Syria to the lower-flying, Katyusha-style rockets of Hezbollah and Palestinian militants.
In artist renditions at Israeli defense conferences, the shield covers Israel in overlapping bubbles, like some huge plexiglass Babushka doll. That sits in contrast to the publicity images of warplanes or tank columns taking the offensive, which used to define Israel's military self-image.
The shield is a work in progress. Its lowest tier, the short-range Iron Dome interceptor, was deployed this year. The top tier, Arrow, is designed to blow up threats above the atmosphere, high enough to safely vaporize a nuclear warhead. The Arrow III upgrade, due for live trials by early 2012, features a detachable satellite that will collide, kamikaze-like, with incoming missiles in space.
Many Israelis rankle at the idea that the shield, which was conceived following Iraq's use of conventional Scud missiles during the 1991 Gulf war, should be relied on to stave off nuclear catastrophe.
"Hermetic protection will be impossible," Colonel Zvika Haimovitch of the air defense corps told Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies in a Sept. 5 speech. "I assess that, in any conflict, rockets and missiles will fall here."
But others, including INSS scholar and retired Israeli general Shlomo Brom, argue for Israel's defensive posture to be expanded, and perhaps even for the secrecy to be eased around the country's own, reputed atomic arsenal.
Aiming to avoid a regional arms race and skirt international anti-proliferation scrutiny, Israel currently neither confirms nor denies having the bomb.
"The answer is mutual deterrence, with the other side knowing the price it would pay for launching a nuclear strike -- mutual destruction," said Brom.
Like Meridor, Brom dismissed the suggestion that the Iraqi reactor strike set a precedent for a potential Israeli strike on Iran. He notes Israel's decision not to take military action against suspected chemical weapons programs of Syria and Iraq has already undermined the Begin Doctrine.
Signals from Syria
Israel did loose its jets on Syria in 2007, to destroy a desert installation that Washington later described as a nascent, North Korean-supplied atomic reactor. Damascus denied having such a facility and Israel has never formally taken responsibility for the raid.
In his memoir, former US President George W. Bush said Israel's prime minister at the time, Ehud Olmert, preferred the reticence "because he wanted to avoid anything that might back Syria into a corner and force (President Bashar) Assad to retaliate".
Former US Vice President Dick Cheney was not surprised that Israel went it alone. "I ... remembered 1981, when the Israelis had ignored world opinion and launched an air strike to destroy a nuclear reactor Saddam Hussein was building at Osirak in Iraq," Cheney wrote in his autobiography. "For the Syrians and the North Koreans ... the private message was clear -- Israel would not tolerate this threat."
But some argue the attack on Syria was designed to send a message to Iran.
"We noted a whole lot of Iranian interest in what happened in Syria -- trips by consultants, intense communication," said a one-time adviser to Olmert, breaking Israel's official silence around the episode.
By tackling Syria, Israel hoped to make the Iranians think twice about pursuing their nuclear program.
To illustrate, the ex-adviser cited "Family Business", a 1989 crime drama in which a veteran jailbird, played by Sean Connery, counsels his grandson on how to survive prison: "You pick out a tough guy, kick his ass right away ... Word gets around, and it makes your time easier."
Of course, the Americans also took note. Visiting Israel last month, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta was asked by a reporter about the possibility that the 2007 sortie augured an Israeli attack on Iran. Panetta did not answer directly. He made clear that Washington disapproved of the idea of unilateral action, but said "a number of countries in this region recognize the threat from Iran," and that concerned countries would "work together to do whatever is necessary to make sure that they do not represent a threat to this region."
Time running out
Israelis often question US President Barack Obama's resolve in the Middle East. But even if he loses power in next year's presidential election to a more hawkish Republican, it may be too late for Israel, which predicted last January that Iran could have its first nuclear device in two years. That forecast was echoed by Britain.
"If they (Israel) feel they could achieve their objective, or at least initiate the kind of conflict that would meet their objective, through a one-off strike, that would be feasible," said Richard Kemp, a retired British army colonel who has studied Israeli strategy.
Israel's military does not comment on prospective operations. But many in Israel's defense establishment have gone out of their way to downplay the feasibility of a unilateral attack. Former Mossad spymaster Meir Dagan has repeatedly ridiculed the idea in briefings to Israeli reporters.
"Attacking the reactors from the air is a stupid idea that would have no advantage," he said in May. "A regional war would be liable to unfold, during which missiles would come in from Iran and from Hezbollah in Lebanon."
The Mossad under Dagan, who retired in January, is widely believed to have been behind the Stuxnet software attack on Iran's nuclear computer systems as well as the assassination of several Iranian scientists. Israel has neither confirmed nor denied those allegations.
And even Netanyahu has shown signs of being gun shy -- certainly when compared to his predecessor, the centrist Olmert, who ordered the Israeli wars in Lebanon and Gaza.
The prime minister's swift deployment of short-range Iron Dome interceptors outside the Hamas-ruled territory of Gaza in April may have helped scotch rocket attacks that might have otherwise drawn an Israeli invasion into the coastal strip.
In January 2010, after the United Arab Emirates accused the Mossad of murdering a senior Hamas arms procurer in his Dubai hotel room, Israeli officials whispered that such skulduggery was preferable to the civilian toll of another Gaza war.
Keeping the world guessing as to how -- and if -- a confrontation might happen is in itself part of Israel's strategy.
"I hope that the Iranians see an Israeli conspiracy in this," said Yaalon of the mixed messages emanating from the Netanyahu government and its detractors, like Dagan. "That could help."
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=435430 31 mar 2012, 23:31 , Respect -
Maria 7 nov 2011
Israel owns 300 nuclear missiles, Russia warns Israeli-Iranian war
The Iranian President, Ahmadinejad, said during an interview with an Egyptian newspaper on Sunday that Israel owns 300 nuclear missiles, the Maan News Agency reported Monday morning.
“Even though that Israel owns 300 nuclear missiles, that wouldn’t benefit it, and that Israel is going to be removed from the whole world and world map,” told Nejad to the Egyptian Al-Akhbar Newspaper.
He further added that the US and the West are concerned of Iran because it is more sophisticated and developed than they are, denying Iran’s intention of developing comprehensive destruction weapons, confirming that Israel is advancing and producing such weapons and that it has 300 nuclear missiles.
Russia, for its part, warned of what it has described “destructive consequences” that could result in attacking Iran. “Attacking Iran would be a destructive mistake and that may deepen the crisis in the region,” said Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergei Lavrov.
Lavrov stated that there is no military solution for the Iranian nuclear crisis, pointing out that such military operations, being done in Afghanistan by NATO troops, showed the risks behind any foreign intervention.
http://fwd4.me/0gMT 31 mar 2012, 23:31 , Respect -
Maria 7 nov 2011
'Israel, transplanted organ body rejects'
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Zionism resembles a transplanted liver that the body has rejected and therefore it is doomed to collapse.
“Israel is fated to disintegrate and its collapse will occur in the near future, IRNA quoted President Ahmadinejad as saying in an interview with Egyptian daily al-Akhbar on Monday.
The Iranian president said Israel and the West, particularly the US, fear Iran's capabilities and role and this is why they are trying to win international support for a military operation which has been designed to stop the Islamic Republic influence.
“The bullying powers of the world should know that Iran will not allow them to take any measure against the country,” he added.
Pointing to the threatening remarks by Israeli President Shimon Peres, the Iranian president said, “Iran has no nuclear bombs but the Zionist regime [of Israel] with its 300 nuclear warheads threatens the entire region.
Ahmadinejad emphasized that Iran pursues nuclear technology for peaceful purposes and in line with the regulations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which is a signatory.
He added that the US will not be able to save Zionism as it resembles a “transplanted liver that the body has rejected and [for this reason] it will disintegrate.”
In response to a question about the recent anti-Iran US-fabricated scenario regarding Tehran's involvement in a plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador to Washington Adel al-Jubeir, Ahmadinejad said, “The US fabricated these lies to create a rift between us and the Saudis.”
“The US is a sponsor of terrorism in the world and uses terrorism to achieve its objectives.”
He added that Tehran-Riyadh relations have not been severed and Iran is ready for direct talks with the Kingdom to resolve existing problems.
Ahmadinejad dismissed US and Israeli threats of taking military action against the country and stressed that issuing threats against Iran is not a new development.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/208855.html 31 mar 2012, 23:31 , Respect -
Maria 7 nov 2011
Peres says Iran greatest threat to Israel
Israeli President Shimon Peres
Israel's President Shimon Peres says Iran is the 'greatest danger' for the Tel Aviv regime amid a Knesset debate over a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.
“Iran is the greatest threat faced by Israel,” Peres said on Sunday while visiting a northern Israeli village, Ha'aretz newspaper reported.
The remarks come as Peres said on Friday that an attack on Iran was becoming increasingly more likely.
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed Knesset last Monday in an effort to garner support for a military attack on Iran over its nuclear program.
Supported by the defense minister, Ehud Barak, and foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, Netanyahu argued that Israel should proceed with efforts to encourage the West to exert more economic and political pressure on Iran. He also emphasized that any action against Iran should be carried out in full coordination with the United States.
Israel, which is widely believed to possess over 300 atomic warheads, along with the US accuses Tehran of pursuing a military nuclear program.
Under pressure from Washington and Tel Aviv, the UN Security Council has imposed four rounds of sanctions against Tehran. Washington and the European Union have also adopted unilateral measures against Iran's energy sector.
While Israel refuses to allow inspections of its nuclear facilities or to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty based on its policy of nuclear ambiguity, Iran is a signatory to the NPT and has been subjected to snap International Atomic Energy Agency inspections due to its policy of nuclear transparency.
Israel has recently test fired a new long-range missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The test was carried out at the Palmahim air base in central Israel.
This three-stage Jericho-3 missile, which is capable of delivering a 750-kilo warhead to a distance, is estimated to have a range of up to 10,000 kilometers.
Paradoxically, the new nuke-capable missile, which can target many parts of the globe, is not considered a threat in the eyes of the West.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/208744.html 31 mar 2012, 23:31 , Respect -
Maria 8 nov 2011
Warmongers eager for more blood-letting
by Stuart Littlewood
What a spectacle they make of themselves, whooping and stomping to the frenzied beat of Tel Aviv’s drum, their dumb-ass chant getting ever shriller
Are we expected to believe that Israel’s leaders, given their lawless and belligerent track record, are saner than Iran’s Ahmadjinadad?
You can read about it on a British government website.
“The UK and many other countries have serious concerns about the Iranian Government’s policies,” says the Foreign Office, “its failure to address serious international concerns about its nuclear programme; its support for terrorism and promotion of instability in its region; and its continued denial of human rights…”
I really thought they were talking about Israel and had got the names muddled up. But no… “On Iran’s nuclear programme, we are actively seeking a solution through diplomatic engagement and sanctions to encourage compliance by Iran with the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and six UN Security Council resolutions.”
Wow, does this means that Israel, which Iran is supposed to be threatening, is an innocent victim of Iranian aggression, is a menace to no-one, is suddenly co-operating with the IAEA and is now in full compliance with all those UN resolutions?
This is hot news!
The Foreign Office goes further: “Iran’s backing of Hizbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and other Palestinian Rejectionist Groups…”
Just a minute. What exactly is a “rejectionist group”? I had to look it up in the Oxford dictionary. A rejectionist, it says, is a person who rejects a proposed policy, especially an Arab who refuses to accept a negotiated peace with Israel.
Ah. So what are we supposed to call an Israeli who rejects a perfectly reasonable Arab peace deal… like “get off our land and there’ll be no trouble”? What do we call an Israeli who defies international law and denies the human rights of others? An Israeli who treats UN resolutions with contempt?
“Rejectionist” Israel
Rejectionism is an Israeli thing; it’s what they do, they specialise in it. Israel, let’s face it, is king of the rejectionist business.
All this sabre-rattling and talk of pre-emptive strikes against Iran is getting on everyone’s nerves. Iran, after all, is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and Israel is not. What does that tell us?
The Treaty dates back to 1970 so Israel has had more than enough time to show good faith and come on board with the other 189 State parties. The NPT has more signatories than any other treaty of its kind. The only refuseniks – OK, let’s stay with the Foreign Office’s new buzzword – the only rejectionists are India, Israel and Pakistan.
The British government says the international community must be prepared to “respond robustly” when a country withdraws from the NPT… “The NPT is not like any other treaty and the risks associated with its abuse are uniquely dangerous. We recommend immediate discussions at the UN Security Council if a country announces its intention to withdraw. The IAEA should be required to report immediately on the nuclear activities of that country.”
It’s common sense really. So what about countries, like Israel, that have stacks of nukes and refused to sign up to the NPT in the first place? What about the “uniquely dangerous risks” in Israel’s case? Where’s the robust response? Is the UNSC addressing Israel’s rejectionism? Has the IAEA reported on Israel’s nuclear activities?
As a matter of fact the IAEA is quite bothered about Israel. The BBC reported yesterday “On 18 September 2009, the IAEA called on Israel to join the NPT and open its nuclear facilities to inspection. The resolution said that the IAEA ‘expresses concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities, and calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT and place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards’…
“Israel refuses to join the NPT or allow inspections. It is reckoned to have up to 400 warheads but refuses to confirm or deny this.”
I’ve seen the 400 “deliverable” nukes figure before – it’s nearly twice Britain’s arsenal – also that European cities were targeted.
Israel is the third or fourth largest nuclear force in the world and the only one in the Middle East. A 2006/7 report by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission says: “Most unofficial estimates claim that Israel possesses a nuclear arsenal numbering in the hundreds, possibly larger than the British stockpile. Israel is widely believed to possess both fission and fusion bombs. It has an unsafeguarded plutonium production reactor and reprocessing capability and possibly some uranium enrichment capability, along with various other uranium-processing facilities.”
It is the only state in the region that is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. As regards biological and chemical weapons, Israel has not signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. It has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.
So why is the focus on Iran and not rejectionist Israel? Israel’s incessant foaming at the mouth over Iran has nothing to do with the alleged remark by Mr Ahmadjinadad to “wipe Israel off the map” – a remark he never made anyway. Long before that, back in 2002 and 2004 Israel was urging the international community to target Iran as soon as it had finished in Iraq and to strip Iran of WMD.
Are we expected to believe that Israel’s leaders, given their lawless and belligerent track record, are saner than Iran’s Ahmadjinadad? Washington and London may believe such tosh but I doubt if anyone in the Middle East would. Or anyone else in Europe for that matter. A European Commission survey finds that the public believe Israel to be the biggest threat to world peace, greater than North Korea, Afghanistan or Iran.
Eighty per cent of Conservative MPs preach that Israel’s enemies are our enemies but who is listening?
War-war not jaw-jaw
Perhaps the looniest thing I have heard lately is the passage through Congress of the ‘‘Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011’’. Hidden away where it wouldn’t be noticed, under “General Provisions – Denial of Visas for Certain Persons of the Government of Iran” (Section 601), is this gem…
(c) RESTRICTION ON CONTACT. — No person employed with the United States Government may contact in an official or unofficial capacity any person that
(1) is an agent, instrumentality, or official of, is affiliated with, or is serving as a representative of the Government of Iran; and
(2) presents a threat to the United States or is affiliated with terrorist organizations.
(d) WAIVER. — The President may waive the requirements of subsection (c) if the President determines and so reports to the appropriate congressional committees 15 days prior to the exercise of waiver authority that failure to exercise such waiver authority would pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States.
It effectively bans diplomacy with Iran. Neither the President himself nor the Secretary of State nor any US diplomat or emissary is allowed to engage in negotiations or diplomacy with Iran unless the President can convince the “appropriate Congressional committees” (e.g. the House Foreign Affairs Committee whose strings are pulled by AIPAC) that not doing so would present “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the vital national security interests of the United States”.
War-war is preferred to jaw-jaw. And it’s no surprise to discover that this nonsense was cooked up by Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Howard Berman (D-CA), who both lead the Foreign Affairs Committee.
How clever is it to abandon all the channels of normal diplomacy? Those who support the measure must be desperate for more bloodshed – as long as they personally don’t have to act as cannon-fodder. Who can forget the chicken-hawks who casually ordered troops into Iraq and Afghanistan but would never dream of donning uniform and picking up a rifle themselves?
The preamble to this junk piece of legislation states:
In the 2006 State of the Union Address, President Bush stated that ‘‘The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons. America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats…” In February 2009, President Obama committed the Administration to ‘‘developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon… Iran is a major threat to United States national security interests.”
Is it really?
Circulating in the background for years have been rumours speculating on the whereabouts of nuclear warheads dumped by a US B-52 which crashed in 1991. Did freelancers salvage them? Was the nuke exploded by North Korea in 2006 one of these? Does Iran have some? Is this what the panic’s about?
Many people are quite sure that if the increasingly unhinged Israeli leadership, with finger on the nuke button, believed their unlawful ambitions in the Middle East were permanently thwarted, they would think nothing of taking the rest of the world to hell with them.
http://fwd4.me/0gRi