To understand what is happening in the Mideast, Professor Juan Cole’s daily blog is required reading. Cole, a professor at the University of Michigan, is a frequent guest on PBS’ Lehrer New Hour. Last Friday, before Suddam’s death, Prof. Cole in his blog printed a commentary by Larisa Alexandrovna, editor of www.rawstory.com. So perceptive are her observations that they merit immediate attention.
http://www.juancole.com/
By Larisa Alexandrovna
'PROLOGUE:
When someone does something obviously egregious, we tend to look past it because it is our nature to believe that people are naturally sane, good, and honest. We cannot imagine that anyone would willfully destroy their own country, violate their own laws, trample on their own people, and do it with such naked bravado while the world looked on.
But people have done it and do it even still, because there is also a darker side to human nature. Those of us who see the good in people look past actions that appear to be willfully evil not only because it is in our nature but it is also a foundation of our culture, as Americans, we believe guilt must be proved.
So we do not see what is going on before our eyes and directly in front of us. We look past it, around it, through it, but not at it. We cannot look directly at it, because if we do, we lose the vision of our beloved America and see something so sinister, that our minds would rather collapse than accept it.
But chess forces us to abandon our preconceptions and emotions. It pushes us to think in terms of cause and effect and it forces us to consider each action and counteraction in terms of the whole game. That is to say, chess forces us to think beyond our own present and fixed position, forcing us to reason every possible outcome of each action and counteraction.
Furthermore, chess teaches us to calculate not against a person, or a group, or a nation, but against a strategy that has no inherent religious, moral, or human characteristics. Master players can suspend their fixated self at will. Sadly, I am no master, and so I continue to struggle in seeing the game despite my human nature as an obstacle.
But sometimes, it just happens, something sets it off and there you are, inside the board, walking each action out in your mind and seeing the whole from beginning to end.
QUESTIONS AND SEEING THE BOARD
Sometime this morning, all the various and truly bizarre events the Bush administration has been engaged in recently with regard to troop levels and surges suddenly crystallized for me, as though I were sitting at a chess board and seeing the entire strategy unfold before my eyes.
This is of course my opinion and I may very well be wrong. In fact, I hope I am wrong. But the news that Saddam Hussein would be executed soon, and then the news that it would be in the next 48 hours, boggled my mind. Why on earth would anyone want to set off an ideological bomb during an already chaotic situation? I do not defend Saddam Hussein, not by any measure. But when Iraq is falling into total chaos and civil war, and as American troops continue to die, why would anyone want to add fuel to that fire, enough fuel to destroy what is left?
Suspend your emotions and think strategically. Now look at the question again and in context.
The administration is stalling as it supposedly weighs its Iraq options, when in fact they have already made their decision. How do I know they have made their decision? One need only look at the slow leaks coming out, not the least of which was Joe Lieberman’s op-ed in the Washington Post, to understand that we are going to be sending more troops to Iraq. So why does the administration wait to tell us this?
In the meantime, naval carriers are deployed to send Iran “a warning,” as though the threats thus far and the passing of sanctions are not warning enough. Add to that the detainment of Iranian diplomats invited to Iraq by the Iraqi leadership. Why is the US arresting diplomats invited to a country that the US claims is a sovereign nation governing itself?
And what about those sanctions, which ultimately mean nothing and sadly mean everything? The sanctions are so watered down as to have no real effect on the Iranian population or economy. Why even bother passing them?
Why censor Dr. Leverett's opinion piece on Iran when the CIA already cleared it?
Now given this entire context, ask yourself again why Saddam Hussein is being executed now, during Hajj even? What is the urgency?
THE UGLY STRATEGY I SEE
This is what I think may be playing out, my opinion of course. And yes, the strategy is so brazenly obvious, arrogant, and antithetical to everything America is supposed to be and stand for that it will be difficult to digest.
What the Bush administration appears to be waiting for, stalling for, while they allegedly mull over the Iraq question, is for the naval carriers and other key assets to fall into position. This will happen in the first week of January. Saddam Hussein is being executed (and I would not be surprised if every major network aired it) to enrage tempers and fuel more violence in Iraq. This violence will justify an immediate need for a troop surge, although I think it will be described as temporary. Remember too that the British press has for the past week done nothing but report that Britain will be attacked by the New Year. Clearly they are preparing themselves for a contingency, and that contingency is the massive violence that will erupt across the Muslim world as they watch (and I really believe it will be televised) Saddam’s hanging just before the New Year.
Why is the rush to execute Saddam Hussein not account for Hajj? Or does it?
The carriers will be in position. I imaging there will be an event of some sort in Iraq, or the violence will spill into friendly (our friends) territory. It will be dramatic, even more so than the immediate violence.
The attacks will be blamed on Iran, with the help of the Saudis and Pakistan. Iran will be blamed for something that happens in Iran. The naval carriers, again, will be in position. The sanctions, as watered down as they are, have given the administration the blank check they needed from the world (and they still have their blank check from Congress) to order aerial strikes. The surge troops will be in position, and I estimate that ground support will begin around late February, early March.
Saddam’s execution and the violence will also be a convenient cover while the administration moves pieces into position.
But what the planners in the administration don’t seem to realize is that the Persians are the most expert of chess players, and they are a patient, strategy minded opponent. They are watching this develop, all of it, and they too are planning their counteraction. They know better than to strike first, because in doing so, they would lose the moral argument in the eyes of the world, as well as the advantage of counteraction. The US has a superior air force, but Iran has a formidable navy, and while the house of Saud will fuel this, the fallout will be fatal. Why?
Here is why: Because the US is too stretched to be able to protect Israel, and Israel cannot sustain a long term attack. They can sustain a few hits, but they will not be able to sustain a full blown attack.
If you have any doubt, go back to the recent war with Lebanon. The British will pull out, despite promises of support. Blair is on his way out, and the British public will not tolerate support for Israel, because of its help in supporting US imperialistic aggression. Whatever terrorist cells lurk in the US, and make no mistake, our administration has done little to address this issue, will be activated.
Also consider that the house of Saud is not prepared to defend itself against an uprising, and that the US cannot protect it while simultaneously operating on three different fronts and covertly in god knows how many. Despite the various sectarian differences in the Muslim world, there are two enemies that they all agree to fight and die fighting against: the US and Israel. This attack will set off a Muslim counterattack so large, that nothing will be able to stop it or contain it.
But our leadership does not see this, because they cannot think strategically and won't think in human terms, so they are left with nothing but arrogance. And we ae left with a world ablaze.
Note: Larisa Alexandrovna maintains the blog At-Largely and is Managing Editor - of Raw Story.
Full Version: Is Bush planning an attack on Iran in March?
A Very Dangerous New Year
By Robert Parry
December 21, 2006
The first two or three months of 2007 represent a dangerous opening for an escalation of war in the Middle East, as George W. Bush will be tempted to “double-down” his gamble in Iraq by joining with Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair to strike at Syria and Iran, intelligence sources say.
President Bush’s goal would be to transcend the bloody quagmire bogging down U.S. forces in Iraq by achieving “regime change” in Syria and by destroying nuclear facilities in Iran, two blows intended to weaken Islamic militants in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
The Israeli army and air force would carry the brunt of any new fighting albeit with the support of beefed-up U.S. ground and naval forces in the Middle East, the sources said. Bush is now considering a “surge” in U.S. troop levels in Iraq from about 140,000 to as many as 170,000. He also has dispatched a second aircraft carrier group to the coast of Iran.
So far, however, Bush has confronted stiff opposition from the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff to the plan for raising troop levels in Iraq, partly because the generals don’t think it makes sense to commit more troops without a specific military mission.
But it’s unclear how much the generals know about the expanded-war option which has been discussed sometimes in one-on-one meetings among the principals – Bush, Olmert and Blair – according to intelligence sources.
Since the Nov. 7 congressional elections, the three leaders have conducted a round-robin of meetings that on the surface seem to have little purpose. Olmert met privately with Bush on Nov. 13; Blair visited the White House on Dec. 7; and Blair conferred with Olmert in Israel on Dec. 18.
All three leaders could salvage their reputations if a wider war broke out in the Middle East and then broke in their favor.
Bush and Blair spearheaded the March 2003 invasion of Iraq that has since turned into a disastrous occupation. In summer 2006, Olmert launched offensives against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, drawing international condemnation for the deaths of hundreds of civilians and domestic criticism for his poorly designed war plans.
The three leaders also find themselves cornered by political opponents. Bush’s Republican Party lost control of both the House and Senate on Nov. 7; Blair succumbed to pressure from his own Labour Party and agreed to step down in spring 2007; and Olmert is suffering from widespread public disgust over the failed Lebanese war.
Yet, despite these reversals, the three leaders have rebuffed advice from more moderate advisers that they adopt less confrontational strategies and consider unconditional negotiations with their Muslim adversaries.
Most dramatically, Bush spurned a bipartisan Iraq Study Group plan that was co-authored by the Bush Family’s long-time counselor, former Secretary of State James Baker.
Instead of heeding Baker’s advice to begin a drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq and start talks with Iran and Syria, Bush rejected the notion of a “graceful exit” and then set unacceptable preconditions for talks with Iran and Syria.
In other words, Baker tossed a life preserver to Bush who threw it back.
Victory Agenda
Bush has continued to insist on “victory” in Iraq and has again ratcheted up his rhetoric. He now talks about waging a long war against Islamic “radicals and extremists,” not just the original goal of defeating “terrorists with global reach.”
At his news conference on Dec. 20, Bush cast this wider struggle against Islamists as a test of American manhood and perseverance by demonstrating to the enemy that “they can’t run us out of the Middle East, that they can’t intimidate America.”
Bush suggested, too, that painful decisions lay ahead in the New Year.
“I’m not going to make predictions about what 2007 will look like in Iraq, except that it’s going to require difficult choices and additional sacrifices, because the enemy is merciless and violent,” Bush said.
Rather than scale back his neoconservative dream of transforming the Middle East, Bush argued for an expanded U.S. military to wage this long war.
“We must make sure that our military has the capability to stay in the fight for a long period of time,” Bush said. “I’m not predicting any particular theater, but I am predicting that it’s going to take a while for the ideology of liberty to finally triumph over the ideology of hate. …
“We’re in the beginning of a conflict between competing ideologies – a conflict that will determine whether or not your children can live in a peace. A failure in the Middle East, for example, or failure in Iraq, or isolationism, will condemn a generation of young Americans to permanent threat from overseas.”
So, rather than looking for a way out of the Iraq quagmire, Bush – now waist deep in the muck – is determined to press on.
Bush’s dilemma, however, is that time is working against him. Not only are the American people increasingly angry about U.S. troops caught in the middle of a sectarian civil war in Iraq, but Bush’s domestic and international political bases continue to erode.
Blair, who is widely derided in the United Kingdom as “Bush’s poodle,” is nearing the end of his tenure, and Bush’s Republican Party is worried about Election 2008 if American soldiers are still dying in Iraq in two years.
Plus, few military analysts believe a temporary troop “surge” alone will stop the steady deterioration in Iraq. Bush acknowledged as much at his news conference.
“In order to do so [‘the surge’], there must be a specific mission that can be accomplished with more troops,” Bush said. “That’s precisely what our commanders have said, as well as people who know a lot about military operations. And I agree with them that there’s got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before I agree on that strategy.”
Though not making much sense as a way to quell the civil strife in Iraq, a U.S. military buildup could help protect American interests in Iraq if Israeli attacks on Syria and Iran touch off retaliation against U.S. and British targets.
Wider War
For Bush, this idea of expanding the war outside Iraq also is not new.
Since spring 2006, Bush reportedly has been weighing military options for bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, but he has encountered resistance from senior U.S. military officers.
As investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote in The New Yorker, a number of senior U.S. officers were troubled by administration war planners who believed “bunker-busting” tactical nuclear weapons, known as B61-11s, were the only way to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities buried deep underground.
A former senior intelligence official told Hersh that the White House refused to remove the nuclear option from the plans despite objections from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “Whenever anybody tries to get it out, they’re shouted down,” the ex-official said. [New Yorker, April 17, 2006]
By late April 2006, however, the Joint Chiefs finally got the White House to agree that using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran’s uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, less than 200 miles south of Tehran, was politically unacceptable, Hersh reported.
“Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning,” one former senior intelligence official said.
But – even with the nuclear option off the table – senior U.S. military officials worried about the political and economic fallout from a massive bombing campaign against Iran. Hersh wrote:
“Inside the Pentagon, senior commanders have increasingly challenged the President’s plans, according to active-duty and retired officers and officials. The generals and admirals have told the Administration that the bombing campaign will probably not succeed in destroying Iran’s nuclear program. They have also warned that an attack could lead to serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States.”
Hersh quoted a retired four-star general as saying, “The system is starting to sense the end of the road, and they don’t want to be condemned by history. They want to be able to say, ‘We stood up.’ ” [New Yorker, July 10, 2006]
Beyond the dangers from Iran’s nuclear program, the Bush administration views the growing Shiite crescent across the Middle East as a threat to U.S. influence.
Washington Post foreign policy analyst Robin Wright wrote that U.S. officials told her that “for the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East.” [Washington Post, July 16, 2006]
By summer 2006, Israeli sources were describing Bush’s interest in finding a pretext to hit back at Syria and Iran. That opening came when border tensions with Hamas in Gaza and with Hezbollah in Lebanon led to the capture of three Israeli soldiers and a rapid Israeli escalation of the conflict into an air-and-ground campaign against Lebanon.
Bush and his neoconservative advisers saw the Israeli-Lebanese conflict as an opportunity to expand the fighting into Syria and achieve the long-sought “regime change” in Damascus, Israeli sources said.
One Israeli source told me that Bush’s interest in spreading the war to Syria was considered “nuts” by some senior Israeli officials, although Prime Minister Olmert generally shared Bush’s hard-line strategy against Islamic militants. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush Wants Wider War.”]
In an article on July 30, 2006. the Jerusalem Post also hinted at the Israeli rejection of Bush’s suggestion of a wider war into Syria. “Defense officials told the Post … that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria,” the newspaper reported.
In August 2006, the Inter-Press Service provided additional details, reporting that the message was passed to Israel by Bush’s deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams, who had been a central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s.
“In a meeting with a very senior Israeli official, Abrams indicated that Washington would have no objection if Israel chose to extend the war beyond to its other northern neighbor, leaving the interlocutor in no doubt that the intended target was Syria,” a source told the Inter-Press Service.
In December 2006, Meyray Wurmser, a leading U.S. neoconservative whose spouse is a Middle East adviser to Vice President Cheney, confirmed that neocons in and outside the Bush administration had hoped Israel would attack Syria as a means of undermining the insurgents in Iraq.
“If Syria had been defeated, the rebellion in Iraq would have ended,” Wurmser said in an interview with Yitzhak Benhorin of the Ynet Web site. “A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hezbollah. … If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran that it would have weakened it and (changed) the strategic map in the Middle East.”
In early 2007, the revival of this neoconservative strategy of using the Israeli military to oust the Syrian government and to inflict damage on Iran’s nuclear program may represent a last-ditch – and high-risk – gamble by Bush and the neocons to salvage their historic legacy.
If that is the case, then Bush will approve “the surge” in U.S. forces into Iraq, which likely will be followed by some provocation that can be blamed on Syria or Iran, thus justifying the expanded war.
Betting the lives of American soldiers and countless civilians across the Middle East, Bush will follow the age-old adage of gambling addicts: in for a dime, in for a dollar.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
http://consortiumnews.com/2006/122006.html
By Robert Parry
December 21, 2006
The first two or three months of 2007 represent a dangerous opening for an escalation of war in the Middle East, as George W. Bush will be tempted to “double-down” his gamble in Iraq by joining with Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair to strike at Syria and Iran, intelligence sources say.
President Bush’s goal would be to transcend the bloody quagmire bogging down U.S. forces in Iraq by achieving “regime change” in Syria and by destroying nuclear facilities in Iran, two blows intended to weaken Islamic militants in Iraq, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories.
The Israeli army and air force would carry the brunt of any new fighting albeit with the support of beefed-up U.S. ground and naval forces in the Middle East, the sources said. Bush is now considering a “surge” in U.S. troop levels in Iraq from about 140,000 to as many as 170,000. He also has dispatched a second aircraft carrier group to the coast of Iran.
So far, however, Bush has confronted stiff opposition from the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff to the plan for raising troop levels in Iraq, partly because the generals don’t think it makes sense to commit more troops without a specific military mission.
But it’s unclear how much the generals know about the expanded-war option which has been discussed sometimes in one-on-one meetings among the principals – Bush, Olmert and Blair – according to intelligence sources.
Since the Nov. 7 congressional elections, the three leaders have conducted a round-robin of meetings that on the surface seem to have little purpose. Olmert met privately with Bush on Nov. 13; Blair visited the White House on Dec. 7; and Blair conferred with Olmert in Israel on Dec. 18.
All three leaders could salvage their reputations if a wider war broke out in the Middle East and then broke in their favor.
Bush and Blair spearheaded the March 2003 invasion of Iraq that has since turned into a disastrous occupation. In summer 2006, Olmert launched offensives against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, drawing international condemnation for the deaths of hundreds of civilians and domestic criticism for his poorly designed war plans.
The three leaders also find themselves cornered by political opponents. Bush’s Republican Party lost control of both the House and Senate on Nov. 7; Blair succumbed to pressure from his own Labour Party and agreed to step down in spring 2007; and Olmert is suffering from widespread public disgust over the failed Lebanese war.
Yet, despite these reversals, the three leaders have rebuffed advice from more moderate advisers that they adopt less confrontational strategies and consider unconditional negotiations with their Muslim adversaries.
Most dramatically, Bush spurned a bipartisan Iraq Study Group plan that was co-authored by the Bush Family’s long-time counselor, former Secretary of State James Baker.
Instead of heeding Baker’s advice to begin a drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq and start talks with Iran and Syria, Bush rejected the notion of a “graceful exit” and then set unacceptable preconditions for talks with Iran and Syria.
In other words, Baker tossed a life preserver to Bush who threw it back.
Victory Agenda
Bush has continued to insist on “victory” in Iraq and has again ratcheted up his rhetoric. He now talks about waging a long war against Islamic “radicals and extremists,” not just the original goal of defeating “terrorists with global reach.”
At his news conference on Dec. 20, Bush cast this wider struggle against Islamists as a test of American manhood and perseverance by demonstrating to the enemy that “they can’t run us out of the Middle East, that they can’t intimidate America.”
Bush suggested, too, that painful decisions lay ahead in the New Year.
“I’m not going to make predictions about what 2007 will look like in Iraq, except that it’s going to require difficult choices and additional sacrifices, because the enemy is merciless and violent,” Bush said.
Rather than scale back his neoconservative dream of transforming the Middle East, Bush argued for an expanded U.S. military to wage this long war.
“We must make sure that our military has the capability to stay in the fight for a long period of time,” Bush said. “I’m not predicting any particular theater, but I am predicting that it’s going to take a while for the ideology of liberty to finally triumph over the ideology of hate. …
“We’re in the beginning of a conflict between competing ideologies – a conflict that will determine whether or not your children can live in a peace. A failure in the Middle East, for example, or failure in Iraq, or isolationism, will condemn a generation of young Americans to permanent threat from overseas.”
So, rather than looking for a way out of the Iraq quagmire, Bush – now waist deep in the muck – is determined to press on.
Bush’s dilemma, however, is that time is working against him. Not only are the American people increasingly angry about U.S. troops caught in the middle of a sectarian civil war in Iraq, but Bush’s domestic and international political bases continue to erode.
Blair, who is widely derided in the United Kingdom as “Bush’s poodle,” is nearing the end of his tenure, and Bush’s Republican Party is worried about Election 2008 if American soldiers are still dying in Iraq in two years.
Plus, few military analysts believe a temporary troop “surge” alone will stop the steady deterioration in Iraq. Bush acknowledged as much at his news conference.
“In order to do so [‘the surge’], there must be a specific mission that can be accomplished with more troops,” Bush said. “That’s precisely what our commanders have said, as well as people who know a lot about military operations. And I agree with them that there’s got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before I agree on that strategy.”
Though not making much sense as a way to quell the civil strife in Iraq, a U.S. military buildup could help protect American interests in Iraq if Israeli attacks on Syria and Iran touch off retaliation against U.S. and British targets.
Wider War
For Bush, this idea of expanding the war outside Iraq also is not new.
Since spring 2006, Bush reportedly has been weighing military options for bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, but he has encountered resistance from senior U.S. military officers.
As investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote in The New Yorker, a number of senior U.S. officers were troubled by administration war planners who believed “bunker-busting” tactical nuclear weapons, known as B61-11s, were the only way to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities buried deep underground.
A former senior intelligence official told Hersh that the White House refused to remove the nuclear option from the plans despite objections from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “Whenever anybody tries to get it out, they’re shouted down,” the ex-official said. [New Yorker, April 17, 2006]
By late April 2006, however, the Joint Chiefs finally got the White House to agree that using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran’s uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, less than 200 miles south of Tehran, was politically unacceptable, Hersh reported.
“Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning,” one former senior intelligence official said.
But – even with the nuclear option off the table – senior U.S. military officials worried about the political and economic fallout from a massive bombing campaign against Iran. Hersh wrote:
“Inside the Pentagon, senior commanders have increasingly challenged the President’s plans, according to active-duty and retired officers and officials. The generals and admirals have told the Administration that the bombing campaign will probably not succeed in destroying Iran’s nuclear program. They have also warned that an attack could lead to serious economic, political, and military consequences for the United States.”
Hersh quoted a retired four-star general as saying, “The system is starting to sense the end of the road, and they don’t want to be condemned by history. They want to be able to say, ‘We stood up.’ ” [New Yorker, July 10, 2006]
Beyond the dangers from Iran’s nuclear program, the Bush administration views the growing Shiite crescent across the Middle East as a threat to U.S. influence.
Washington Post foreign policy analyst Robin Wright wrote that U.S. officials told her that “for the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East.” [Washington Post, July 16, 2006]
By summer 2006, Israeli sources were describing Bush’s interest in finding a pretext to hit back at Syria and Iran. That opening came when border tensions with Hamas in Gaza and with Hezbollah in Lebanon led to the capture of three Israeli soldiers and a rapid Israeli escalation of the conflict into an air-and-ground campaign against Lebanon.
Bush and his neoconservative advisers saw the Israeli-Lebanese conflict as an opportunity to expand the fighting into Syria and achieve the long-sought “regime change” in Damascus, Israeli sources said.
One Israeli source told me that Bush’s interest in spreading the war to Syria was considered “nuts” by some senior Israeli officials, although Prime Minister Olmert generally shared Bush’s hard-line strategy against Islamic militants. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush Wants Wider War.”]
In an article on July 30, 2006. the Jerusalem Post also hinted at the Israeli rejection of Bush’s suggestion of a wider war into Syria. “Defense officials told the Post … that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria,” the newspaper reported.
In August 2006, the Inter-Press Service provided additional details, reporting that the message was passed to Israel by Bush’s deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams, who had been a central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s.
“In a meeting with a very senior Israeli official, Abrams indicated that Washington would have no objection if Israel chose to extend the war beyond to its other northern neighbor, leaving the interlocutor in no doubt that the intended target was Syria,” a source told the Inter-Press Service.
In December 2006, Meyray Wurmser, a leading U.S. neoconservative whose spouse is a Middle East adviser to Vice President Cheney, confirmed that neocons in and outside the Bush administration had hoped Israel would attack Syria as a means of undermining the insurgents in Iraq.
“If Syria had been defeated, the rebellion in Iraq would have ended,” Wurmser said in an interview with Yitzhak Benhorin of the Ynet Web site. “A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hezbollah. … If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran that it would have weakened it and (changed) the strategic map in the Middle East.”
In early 2007, the revival of this neoconservative strategy of using the Israeli military to oust the Syrian government and to inflict damage on Iran’s nuclear program may represent a last-ditch – and high-risk – gamble by Bush and the neocons to salvage their historic legacy.
If that is the case, then Bush will approve “the surge” in U.S. forces into Iraq, which likely will be followed by some provocation that can be blamed on Syria or Iran, thus justifying the expanded war.
Betting the lives of American soldiers and countless civilians across the Middle East, Bush will follow the age-old adage of gambling addicts: in for a dime, in for a dollar.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'
http://consortiumnews.com/2006/122006.html
It's a chillingly plausible scenario, Douglas.
I posted a similar article from Robert Parry the other day but I can't seem to find it on the Forum. Anyway, here it is:
http://www.alternet.org/story/45852/
Parry suggests a plan has been hatched by Bush, Blair and Olmert for Israel to attack Syria and the Iranian nuclear sites, with America providing logistical support. The three leaders have had a round robin of meetings over the last two months.
The unholy haste in executing Saddam Hussein is highly suspicious, as Alexandrovna alludes to. I suspect it was an action designed to provoke a response from America's enemies in the region as a pretext for further action. I thought he was originally scheduled to be executed in late January, so there must be a reason for bringing it forward, since my faith in the good intentions of the US/Israel axis has long ago evaporated. I have read several articles suggesting that the US Administration refuses to rule out the possibility of utilising bunker-busting nuclear weapons in its campaign against Iran. Nothing can be ruled out, as I believe this US Administration, supported by unseen forces of apparently limitless evil, is the most dangerous in living memory.
The chess analogy is a good one. As in 2003, the Bush alliance may open with a few bold moves. However, as we have seen, their end game stinks. A baboon has more chance against Kasparov. The pawns in this game are us, of course, and the Bush regime is prone to gladly sacrificing pieces in order to achieve their unachievable goal--control of the entire Middle East.
I posted a similar article from Robert Parry the other day but I can't seem to find it on the Forum. Anyway, here it is:
http://www.alternet.org/story/45852/
Parry suggests a plan has been hatched by Bush, Blair and Olmert for Israel to attack Syria and the Iranian nuclear sites, with America providing logistical support. The three leaders have had a round robin of meetings over the last two months.
The unholy haste in executing Saddam Hussein is highly suspicious, as Alexandrovna alludes to. I suspect it was an action designed to provoke a response from America's enemies in the region as a pretext for further action. I thought he was originally scheduled to be executed in late January, so there must be a reason for bringing it forward, since my faith in the good intentions of the US/Israel axis has long ago evaporated. I have read several articles suggesting that the US Administration refuses to rule out the possibility of utilising bunker-busting nuclear weapons in its campaign against Iran. Nothing can be ruled out, as I believe this US Administration, supported by unseen forces of apparently limitless evil, is the most dangerous in living memory.
The chess analogy is a good one. As in 2003, the Bush alliance may open with a few bold moves. However, as we have seen, their end game stinks. A baboon has more chance against Kasparov. The pawns in this game are us, of course, and the Bush regime is prone to gladly sacrificing pieces in order to achieve their unachievable goal--control of the entire Middle East.
Well, I'm not going to point any moral;
I'll leave that for yourself
Maybe you're still walking, you're still talking
You'd like to keep your health.
But every time I read the papers
That old feeling comes on;
We're -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a
Tall man'll be over his head, we're
Waist deep in the Big Muddy!
And the big fool says to push on!
Excerpted Words and music by Pete Seeger (1967)
Waist Deep in the Big Muddy
by Bob Burnett
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0630-26.htm
I'll leave that for yourself
Maybe you're still walking, you're still talking
You'd like to keep your health.
But every time I read the papers
That old feeling comes on;
We're -- waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.
Waist deep! Neck deep! Soon even a
Tall man'll be over his head, we're
Waist deep in the Big Muddy!
And the big fool says to push on!
Excerpted Words and music by Pete Seeger (1967)
Waist Deep in the Big Muddy
by Bob Burnett
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0630-26.htm
Thanks for posting that Doug. I agree that Bush will increase troop numbers in Iraq and that he will give Israel the go-ahead to bomb Iran. The timing of this is going to be very important. Bush will want to do it before Blair leaves office. It is also significant that Blair moved Jack Straw from the post of minister of defence. Straw had already made it clear that he was opposed to taking military action against Iran. When Blair made this decision in May, 2006, I posted on the forum that this was a sign that he was willing to go along with Bush over his military plans concerning Iran.
Interestingly, the reason why Clinton refused to sanction a US invasion of Iraq was his belief, that if he did so, the US would eventually become involved in a war with Iran. Ironically, this judgment was based on intelligence provided by the CIA.
Interestingly, the reason why Clinton refused to sanction a US invasion of Iraq was his belief, that if he did so, the US would eventually become involved in a war with Iran. Ironically, this judgment was based on intelligence provided by the CIA.
QUOTE(John Simkin @ Jan 1 2007, 08:24 AM) [snapback]87101[/snapback]
Thanks for posting that Doug. I agree that Bush will increase troop numbers in Iraq and that he will give Israel the go-ahead to bomb Iran. The timing of this is going to be very important. Bush will want to do it before Blair leaves office. It is also significant that Blair moved Jack Straw from the post of minister of defence. Straw had already made it clear that he was opposed to taking military action against Iran. When Blair made this decision in May, 2006, I posted on the forum that this was a sign that he was willing to go along with Bush over his military plans concerning Iran.
Interestingly, the reason why Clinton refused to sanction a US invasion of Iraq was his belief, that if he did so, the US would eventually become involved in a war with Iran. Ironically, this judgment was based on intelligence provided by the CIA.
Interestingly, the reason why Clinton refused to sanction a US invasion of Iraq was his belief, that if he did so, the US would eventually become involved in a war with Iran. Ironically, this judgment was based on intelligence provided by the CIA.
There are many sad lessons of history, one of them concerns itself with the sad reality that history does indeed repeat itself cyclically. Among other lessons of history, is the fact that the actions of leaders of government's presupposes a moral bearing in which it is a very hopeful sign when the realm of politics is elevated from 'politicians' to 'statesmen.' The world stage in the current epoch is filled with politicians, but there are precious few statesmen.....The last lesson I will note is that the human condition being what it is, hate and bloodlust will always exist, the ideal is that statesmen rule with the goal of creating a better world for the next generation instead of engaging in geopolitical powerplays for global hegemony and control the aforementioned aspect of the human condition in their own domain, so that the common good is the prevailing norm as opposed to anarchy and chaos.
It is a historical fact that when conflicts of epic proportions [See WW1 & WW2] kill large amounts of humanity, and the cries of no more war, have faded......after two or three generations have passed the lesson of the last bloodletting are, in many way's forgotten...or, at least relegated to the history books....Songwriter David Byrne wrote the words once "Same as it ever was," which seems apropos.
While I wiil not offer my speculations as to whether what is being discussed will come to pass, I will say that if "it" happens, it would not be very surprising if it did.....
If the assault on Iran does proceed as some are predicting, I think we can safely say that 2006 was the end of an era.
One observation that makes me especially alarmed is that the (zionist) mass media is now spinning the proposition that the neocons have lost power and influence since 2003. I just watched the BBC World 'Service' replay this theme in a special 'insight' into current US politics
Now, it may be true that some independent-minded Americans in positions of influence are increasngly disturbed about the policies of the Bush Administration, but the implication is being cast that if Bush launches another mad and very much expanded war in the middle east, it will not at the behest of the Zionist/Israeli lobby at all - but his own personal adventure, a gamble "to save his political skin". Spin and lies? I think so.
I usually avoid speculation about the near future... When will the next terror attack strike? How many dead in Iraq next month? It's usually just a way to get dizzy. The only ones who really know are the would-be perpetrators - and they must constantly need to adapt their plans, in any case - to deal with the unexpected.
However, this new war proposition has such serious potential consequenees that it is appropriate to get out the maps and play scenarios, just like they do in Washington (and presumably in Tehran as well).
The President of Iran, it is said, is quietly confident that there will be no attack. This may be based on a realistic assessement of Iran's ability to wreak havoc on the world economy in retaliation. However, I fear it may also be based on a misapprehension. The Iranian Government may not realise the callousness of the warmonguers they face - and how they are perfectly willing to risk the health of the world economy to consolidate their power. Indeed, that may even be part of the game plan (watch out middle classes - your histoirical lucky run may be about to end).
Let's look, as others have done, at the scenario of a massive assault on Iran. I's hard to imagine the Iranians NOT retaliating by creating havoc in the Straights of Hormuz.
Blocking the straights to shipping would not be hard. The miracle really is that this narrow but crucial oil 'corridor' has operated so well for so long. Making the straights effectively unusable would cut the flow of a very high proportion of the world's oil (is it more than 50%? I'm not sure... but it's a huge slice of the oil extraction pie).
This would precipitate an oil shock on a scale that would make 1973 seem minor.
Presumably a massive global recession would follow in short order.
Meanwhile, violence flares throughout the middle east. The US / Israeli / British? gangster-invaders move to control the most oil rich parts of the Gulf and at least one major route to get oil out of the region. Is there an alternative to re-opening the Straights of Hormuz? A pipeline / pipelines through Saudi Arabia?
The mind boggles.
Do they have a plan to occupy southern Iran on a permanent basis? Northern Saudi Arabia?
The mind boggles again.
As an envonmentalist, I should say that there is some cold comfort in this scenario. Just as the US skies became somewhat cleaner (on a very temporary basis) in the days following 9-11, oil scarcity and sky-rocketing fuel prices would force a reduction in oil usage.
But what would be left of our civilization, now on a permanent war footing, locked in endless conflict, our mass media controlled, our civil liberties in tatters, our 'post-war' prosperity a memory, our society increasingly divided into rich and poor, visions of global peace and harmony mere relics of happier times.
The mind thrice boggles.
In my opinion, the one thing likely to stop this next war is if the ultimate perpetrators estimate that it might blow their cover for ever and a day - and that they could be named, blamed and brought to justice if they take this fateful extra step of turning proposals for a 100 years war into the real thing.
After 1990, after 2001, after 2003, after Walt and Mearsheimer... only fools would NOT hold the Zionist lobby accountable if there is an attack on Iran with the horrific, entirely predictable consequences.
Are most of the western intelligensia really such fools?
One observation that makes me especially alarmed is that the (zionist) mass media is now spinning the proposition that the neocons have lost power and influence since 2003. I just watched the BBC World 'Service' replay this theme in a special 'insight' into current US politics
Now, it may be true that some independent-minded Americans in positions of influence are increasngly disturbed about the policies of the Bush Administration, but the implication is being cast that if Bush launches another mad and very much expanded war in the middle east, it will not at the behest of the Zionist/Israeli lobby at all - but his own personal adventure, a gamble "to save his political skin". Spin and lies? I think so.
I usually avoid speculation about the near future... When will the next terror attack strike? How many dead in Iraq next month? It's usually just a way to get dizzy. The only ones who really know are the would-be perpetrators - and they must constantly need to adapt their plans, in any case - to deal with the unexpected.
However, this new war proposition has such serious potential consequenees that it is appropriate to get out the maps and play scenarios, just like they do in Washington (and presumably in Tehran as well).
The President of Iran, it is said, is quietly confident that there will be no attack. This may be based on a realistic assessement of Iran's ability to wreak havoc on the world economy in retaliation. However, I fear it may also be based on a misapprehension. The Iranian Government may not realise the callousness of the warmonguers they face - and how they are perfectly willing to risk the health of the world economy to consolidate their power. Indeed, that may even be part of the game plan (watch out middle classes - your histoirical lucky run may be about to end).
Let's look, as others have done, at the scenario of a massive assault on Iran. I's hard to imagine the Iranians NOT retaliating by creating havoc in the Straights of Hormuz.
Blocking the straights to shipping would not be hard. The miracle really is that this narrow but crucial oil 'corridor' has operated so well for so long. Making the straights effectively unusable would cut the flow of a very high proportion of the world's oil (is it more than 50%? I'm not sure... but it's a huge slice of the oil extraction pie).
This would precipitate an oil shock on a scale that would make 1973 seem minor.
Presumably a massive global recession would follow in short order.
Meanwhile, violence flares throughout the middle east. The US / Israeli / British? gangster-invaders move to control the most oil rich parts of the Gulf and at least one major route to get oil out of the region. Is there an alternative to re-opening the Straights of Hormuz? A pipeline / pipelines through Saudi Arabia?
The mind boggles.
Do they have a plan to occupy southern Iran on a permanent basis? Northern Saudi Arabia?
The mind boggles again.
As an envonmentalist, I should say that there is some cold comfort in this scenario. Just as the US skies became somewhat cleaner (on a very temporary basis) in the days following 9-11, oil scarcity and sky-rocketing fuel prices would force a reduction in oil usage.
But what would be left of our civilization, now on a permanent war footing, locked in endless conflict, our mass media controlled, our civil liberties in tatters, our 'post-war' prosperity a memory, our society increasingly divided into rich and poor, visions of global peace and harmony mere relics of happier times.
The mind thrice boggles.
In my opinion, the one thing likely to stop this next war is if the ultimate perpetrators estimate that it might blow their cover for ever and a day - and that they could be named, blamed and brought to justice if they take this fateful extra step of turning proposals for a 100 years war into the real thing.
After 1990, after 2001, after 2003, after Walt and Mearsheimer... only fools would NOT hold the Zionist lobby accountable if there is an attack on Iran with the horrific, entirely predictable consequences.
Are most of the western intelligensia really such fools?
I couldn't believe that the US and UK Governments would be stupid enough to invade Iraq - sadly I was proved wrong.
I don't believe that the US is stupid enough to invade Iran - I hope I'm not proved wrong again. If they do go ahead (and heaven help us all if that's the case), then I'm assuming it will be on their own - I don't think the UK has the militray resources or political will to go to war in Iran.
I don't believe that the US is stupid enough to invade Iran - I hope I'm not proved wrong again. If they do go ahead (and heaven help us all if that's the case), then I'm assuming it will be on their own - I don't think the UK has the militray resources or political will to go to war in Iran.
QUOTE(Dave Greer @ Jan 2 2007, 10:10 AM) [snapback]87196[/snapback]
I couldn't believe that the US and UK Governments would be stupid enough to invade Iraq - sadly I was proved wrong.
I don't believe that the US is stupid enough to invade Iran - I hope I'm not proved wrong again. If they do go ahead (and heaven help us all if that's the case), then I'm assuming it will be on their own - I don't think the UK has the militray resources or political will to go to war in Iran.
I don't believe that the US is stupid enough to invade Iran - I hope I'm not proved wrong again. If they do go ahead (and heaven help us all if that's the case), then I'm assuming it will be on their own - I don't think the UK has the militray resources or political will to go to war in Iran.
The New York Times today prints a large photograph of a group of American troops with the caption underneath: "Soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division boarded a plane yesterday in North Carolina. About 3,300 are to be sent to Kuwait by the end of the week."
Another ominous development is reported below:
Second U.S. carrier group to deploy to Gulf: sources
By Kristin Roberts Wed Jan 3, 4:40 PM ET
Reuters
The Pentagon will send a second aircraft carrier and its escort ships to the Gulf, defense officials said on Wednesday, as a warning to Syria and Iran and to give commanders more flexibility in the region.
Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Bremerton, Washington-based USS John C. Stennis strike group would deploy this month. It will put 5,000 more U.S. sailors in the region, bringing the total to 16,000.
The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier group entered the Gulf in December.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman declined to comment, saying the Defense Department would not discuss future deployments or ship movements. But military analysts said the move was intended to demonstrate U.S. resolve in the face of acts by Iran and Syria that it sees as provocative, such as Tehran's pursuit of its nuclear program.
The Stennis had been scheduled to deploy to the Pacific region. But the Pentagon agreed instead to send the carrier group to the Gulf after a request from U.S. Central Command, the military command responsible for Middle East operations.
Senior defense officials have said that request was aimed at increasing Central Command's flexibility in a variety of operations and providing deterrence in the region.
INCREASED U.S. PRESENCE
Washington has locked horns with Tehran over the Iranian nuclear program. American defense officials also regularly charge Iran and Syria with fanning sectarian violence in Iraq and contributing to the deteriorating situation there by providing arms and technologies.
The second carrier, while adding relatively few service members to the region, is valuable as a symbol of America's increased presence in the Gulf, military analysts said.
Longer term, however, the Bush administration must decide if it will keep two carrier groups in the Gulf indefinitely.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates previously said the increased American presence in the Gulf was a message to the region as a whole and not a response to any specific action by Iran.
"I think the message that we are sending to everyone, not just Iran, is that the United States is an enduring presence in this part of the world," Gates told reporters on a December visit to Baghdad. "We will be here for a long time and everybody needs to remember that -- both our friends and those who might consider themselves our adversaries."
QUOTE(Douglas Caddy @ Jan 4 2007, 05:27 PM) [snapback]87475[/snapback]
QUOTE(Dave Greer @ Jan 2 2007, 10:10 AM) [snapback]87196[/snapback]
Defense Secretary Robert Gates previously said the increased American presence in the Gulf was a message to the region as a whole and not a response to any specific action by Iran.
"I think the message that we are sending to everyone, not just Iran, is that the United States is an enduring presence in this part of the world," Gates told reporters on a December visit to Baghdad. "We will be here for a long time and everybody needs to remember that -- both our friends and those who might consider themselves our adversaries."
"I think the message that we are sending to everyone, not just Iran, is that the United States is an enduring presence in this part of the world," Gates told reporters on a December visit to Baghdad. "We will be here for a long time and everybody needs to remember that -- both our friends and those who might consider themselves our adversaries."
QUOTE(Douglas Caddy @ Jan 4 2007, 05:27 PM) [snapback]87475[/snapback]
QUOTE(Dave Greer @ Jan 2 2007, 10:10 AM) [snapback]87196[/snapback]
I couldn't believe that the US and UK Governments would be stupid enough to invade Iraq - sadly I was proved wrong.
I don't believe that the US is stupid enough to invade Iran - I hope I'm not proved wrong again. If they do go ahead (and heaven help us all if that's the case), then I'm assuming it will be on their own - I don't think the UK has the militray resources or political will to go to war in Iran.
I don't believe that the US is stupid enough to invade Iran - I hope I'm not proved wrong again. If they do go ahead (and heaven help us all if that's the case), then I'm assuming it will be on their own - I don't think the UK has the militray resources or political will to go to war in Iran.
The New York Times today prints a large photograph of a group of American troops with the caption underneath: "Soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division boarded a plane yesterday in North Carolina. About 3,300 are to be sent to Kuwait by the end of the week."
Another ominous development is reported below:
Second U.S. carrier group to deploy to Gulf: sources
By Kristin Roberts Wed Jan 3, 4:40 PM ET
Reuters
The Pentagon will send a second aircraft carrier and its escort ships to the Gulf, defense officials said on Wednesday, as a warning to Syria and Iran and to give commanders more flexibility in the region.
Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Bremerton, Washington-based USS John C. Stennis strike group would deploy this month. It will put 5,000 more U.S. sailors in the region, bringing the total to 16,000.
The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier group entered the Gulf in December.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman declined to comment, saying the Defense Department would not discuss future deployments or ship movements. But military analysts said the move was intended to demonstrate U.S. resolve in the face of acts by Iran and Syria that it sees as provocative, such as Tehran's pursuit of its nuclear program.
The Stennis had been scheduled to deploy to the Pacific region. But the Pentagon agreed instead to send the carrier group to the Gulf after a request from U.S. Central Command, the military command responsible for Middle East operations.
Senior defense officials have said that request was aimed at increasing Central Command's flexibility in a variety of operations and providing deterrence in the region.
INCREASED U.S. PRESENCE
Washington has locked horns with Tehran over the Iranian nuclear program. American defense officials also regularly charge Iran and Syria with fanning sectarian violence in Iraq and contributing to the deteriorating situation there by providing arms and technologies.
The second carrier, while adding relatively few service members to the region, is valuable as a symbol of America's increased presence in the Gulf, military analysts said.
Longer term, however, the Bush administration must decide if it will keep two carrier groups in the Gulf indefinitely.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates previously said the increased American presence in the Gulf was a message to the region as a whole and not a response to any specific action by Iran.
"I think the message that we are sending to everyone, not just Iran, is that the United States is an enduring presence in this part of the world," Gates told reporters on a December visit to Baghdad. "We will be here for a long time and everybody needs to remember that -- both our friends and those who might consider themselves our adversaries."
That's terrible news.
The US wants the oil so bad they are willing to risk a conflict to get it.
Two years until the next US election is too long.
It's definitely getting more and more depressing.
Heard on a local radio news bulletin a couple of days ago, that plans are afoot to send up to 40,000 (?- unsure of figure as I was driving at the time, reception not good!) more US troops to Iraq, not to train the locally recruited security forces, but to actively seek out and disarm the militiamen who are helping destabilise the country.
Which ominously ties in with the prediction of more troops being sent to the region as a pre-cursor to an Iranian invasion...
Heard on a local radio news bulletin a couple of days ago, that plans are afoot to send up to 40,000 (?- unsure of figure as I was driving at the time, reception not good!) more US troops to Iraq, not to train the locally recruited security forces, but to actively seek out and disarm the militiamen who are helping destabilise the country.
Which ominously ties in with the prediction of more troops being sent to the region as a pre-cursor to an Iranian invasion...
QUOTE(Dave Greer @ Jan 2 2007, 08:10 AM) [snapback]87196[/snapback]
I couldn't believe that the US and UK Governments would be stupid enough to invade Iraq - sadly I was proved wrong.
I don't believe that the US is stupid enough to invade Iran - I hope I'm not proved wrong again. If they do go ahead (and heaven help us all if that's the case), then I'm assuming it will be on their own - I don't think the UK has the militray resources or political will to go to war in Iran.
I don't believe that the US is stupid enough to invade Iran - I hope I'm not proved wrong again. If they do go ahead (and heaven help us all if that's the case), then I'm assuming it will be on their own - I don't think the UK has the militray resources or political will to go to war in Iran.
Mr. Greer admits his wrong assessment on Iraq. He CAN admit when he is wrong. When will he see the light on Apollo?
Jack
QUOTE(Jack White @ Jan 5 2007, 01:17 AM) [snapback]87536[/snapback]
QUOTE(Dave Greer @ Jan 2 2007, 08:10 AM) [snapback]87196[/snapback]
I couldn't believe that the US and UK Governments would be stupid enough to invade Iraq - sadly I was proved wrong.
I don't believe that the US is stupid enough to invade Iran - I hope I'm not proved wrong again. If they do go ahead (and heaven help us all if that's the case), then I'm assuming it will be on their own - I don't think the UK has the militray resources or political will to go to war in Iran.
I don't believe that the US is stupid enough to invade Iran - I hope I'm not proved wrong again. If they do go ahead (and heaven help us all if that's the case), then I'm assuming it will be on their own - I don't think the UK has the militray resources or political will to go to war in Iran.
Mr. Greer admits his wrong assessment on Iraq. He CAN admit when he is wrong. When will he see the light on Apollo?
Jack
Jack, I'm as fallible as the next man! And I do admit when I'm wrong.
Now, if you want to discuss the error you made about those Apollo shadows, best take it to another thread instead of threadjacking this one...
I'd suggest this one I started last year. I'll respond to Steven Phillips post to get the ball rolling.
Happy New Year by the way
Scott Ritter has a new book out, "alleging that Jerusalem is pushing the Bush administration into war with Iran, and accusing the pro-Israel lobby of dual loyalty and “outright espionage” (according to this review in The Jewish Daily Forward).
Here's a longer extract:
Here's a longer extract:
QUOTE
Later in the book, Ritter adds: “Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else.”
Ritter’s book echoes recent high-profile attacks on the pro-Israel lobby by former President Jimmy Carter and by scholars Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. Ritter, who recently returned from a weeklong speaking engagement on The Nation cruise, speaks of a “network of individuals” that pursues Israel’s interests in the United States. The former weapons inspector alleges that some of the pro-Israel lobby’s activities “can only be described as outright espionage and interference in domestic policies.” Ritter also accused the American Israel Public Affairs Committee of having an inherent dual loyalty. He called for the organization to be registered as a foreign agent.
Representatives for both Aipac and the Israeli Embassy in Washington declined to comment on Ritter’s accusations.
In his book, Ritter also accuses the pro-Israel lobby of invoking the memory of the Holocaust and of crying antisemitism whenever Israel is accused of betraying America. “This is a sickening and deeply disturbing trend that must end,” Ritter writes.
Ritter’s book echoes recent high-profile attacks on the pro-Israel lobby by former President Jimmy Carter and by scholars Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. Ritter, who recently returned from a weeklong speaking engagement on The Nation cruise, speaks of a “network of individuals” that pursues Israel’s interests in the United States. The former weapons inspector alleges that some of the pro-Israel lobby’s activities “can only be described as outright espionage and interference in domestic policies.” Ritter also accused the American Israel Public Affairs Committee of having an inherent dual loyalty. He called for the organization to be registered as a foreign agent.
Representatives for both Aipac and the Israeli Embassy in Washington declined to comment on Ritter’s accusations.
In his book, Ritter also accuses the pro-Israel lobby of invoking the memory of the Holocaust and of crying antisemitism whenever Israel is accused of betraying America. “This is a sickening and deeply disturbing trend that must end,” Ritter writes.
QUOTE(Sid Walker @ Jan 5 2007, 04:47 AM) [snapback]87578[/snapback]
Scott Ritter has a new book out, "alleging that Jerusalem is pushing the Bush administration into war with Iran, and accusing the pro-Israel lobby of dual loyalty and “outright espionage” (according to this review in The Jewish Daily Forward).
Here's a longer extract:
Here's a longer extract:
QUOTE
Later in the book, Ritter adds: “Let there be no doubt: If there is an American war with Iran, it is a war that was made in Israel and nowhere else.”
Ritter’s book echoes recent high-profile attacks on the pro-Israel lobby by former President Jimmy Carter and by scholars Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. Ritter, who recently returned from a weeklong speaking engagement on The Nation cruise, speaks of a “network of individuals” that pursues Israel’s interests in the United States. The former weapons inspector alleges that some of the pro-Israel lobby’s activities “can only be described as outright espionage and interference in domestic policies.” Ritter also accused the American Israel Public Affairs Committee of having an inherent dual loyalty. He called for the organization to be registered as a foreign agent.
Representatives for both Aipac and the Israeli Embassy in Washington declined to comment on Ritter’s accusations.
In his book, Ritter also accuses the pro-Israel lobby of invoking the memory of the Holocaust and of crying antisemitism whenever Israel is accused of betraying America. “This is a sickening and deeply disturbing trend that must end,” Ritter writes.
Ritter’s book echoes recent high-profile attacks on the pro-Israel lobby by former President Jimmy Carter and by scholars Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. Ritter, who recently returned from a weeklong speaking engagement on The Nation cruise, speaks of a “network of individuals” that pursues Israel’s interests in the United States. The former weapons inspector alleges that some of the pro-Israel lobby’s activities “can only be described as outright espionage and interference in domestic policies.” Ritter also accused the American Israel Public Affairs Committee of having an inherent dual loyalty. He called for the organization to be registered as a foreign agent.
Representatives for both Aipac and the Israeli Embassy in Washington declined to comment on Ritter’s accusations.
In his book, Ritter also accuses the pro-Israel lobby of invoking the memory of the Holocaust and of crying antisemitism whenever Israel is accused of betraying America. “This is a sickening and deeply disturbing trend that must end,” Ritter writes.
Ritter was ignored when he said there were no WMD's in Iraq and he'll probably be ignored again.
Ritter is right, of course. America's Middle East foreign policy has been fully captured by Israel and it has been this way for years. The rot started on November 22 1963 by my reckoning, which is one of the reasons why I suspect Israeli involvement in the assassination.
Interestingly, Israel's aggression towards the Palestinians seems to be subject to more mainstream media scrutiny in Jerusalem than in Washington--testimony to the power of Israeli lobby's hold over the American media.
QUOTE(John Simkin @ Jan 1 2007, 09:24 AM) [snapback]87101[/snapback]
Thanks for posting that Doug. I agree that Bush will increase troop numbers in Iraq and that he will give Israel the go-ahead to bomb Iran. The timing of this is going to be very important. Bush will want to do it before Blair leaves office. It is also significant that Blair moved Jack Straw from the post of minister of defence. Straw had already made it clear that he was opposed to taking military action against Iran. When Blair made this decision in May, 2006, I posted on the forum that this was a sign that he was willing to go along with Bush over his military plans concerning Iran.
Interestingly, the reason why Clinton refused to sanction a US invasion of Iraq was his belief, that if he did so, the US would eventually become involved in a war with Iran. Ironically, this judgment was based on intelligence provided by the CIA.
Interestingly, the reason why Clinton refused to sanction a US invasion of Iraq was his belief, that if he did so, the US would eventually become involved in a war with Iran. Ironically, this judgment was based on intelligence provided by the CIA.
John: Your assertion about the role of Israel in the upcoming war against Iran is proven to be accurate, if one is to believe the following article from today's Times (U.K.):
The Sunday Times January 07, 2007
Focus: Mission Iran
Israel will not tolerate Iran going nuclear and military sources say it will use tactical strikes unless Iran abandons its programme. Is Israel bluffing or might it really push the button? Uzi Mahnaimi in New York and Sarah Baxter in Washington report
In an Israeli air force bunker in Tel Aviv, near the concert hall for the Israeli Philharmonic Orchestra, Major General Eliezer Shkedi might one day conduct operations of a perilous kind. Should the order come from the Israeli prime minister, it will be Shkedi’s job as air force commander to orchestrate a tactical nuclear strike on Iran.
Two fast assault squadrons based in the Negev desert and in Tel Nof, south of Tel Aviv, are already training for the attack.
On a plasma screen, Shkedi will be able to see dozens of planes advance towards Iran, as well as the electronic warfare aircraft jamming the Iranian and Syrian air defences and the rescue choppers hovering near the border, ready to move in and pluck out the pilots should the mission go wrong.
Another screen will show live satellite images of the Iranian nuclear sites. The prime target will be Natanz, the deep and ferociously protected bunker south of Tehran where the Iranians are churning out enriched uranium in defiance of the United Nations security council.
If things go according to plan, a pilot will first launch a conventional laser-guided bomb to blow a shaft down through the layers of hardened concrete. Other pilots will then be ready to drop low-yield one kiloton nuclear weapons into the hole. The theory is that they will explode deep underground, both destroying the bunker and limiting the radioactive fallout.
The other potential targets are Iran’s uranium conversion facility at Isfahan — uncomfortably near a metropolis of 4.5m people — and the heavy water power reactor at Arak, which might one day be able to produce enough plutonium to make a bomb. These will be hit with conventional bombs.
In recent weeks Israeli pilots have been flying long-haul as far as Gibraltar to simulate the 2,000-mile round trip to Natanz. “There is no 99% success in this mission. It must be a perfect 100% or better not at all,” one of the pilots expected to fly on the mission told The Sunday Times.
The Israelis say they hope as fervently as the rest of the world that this attack will never take place. There is clearly an element of sabre-rattling in their letting it be known the plan exists and that the pilots are already in training. But in the deeply dangerous and volatile Middle East, contingency plans can become horrible reality.
NO nuclear weapon has been fired in anger since the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Should Israel take such a drastic step, it would inflame world opinion — particularly in Muslim states — and unleash retaliation from Iran and its allies. But Israelis have become increasingly convinced that a “second holocaust” of the Jews is brewing, stoked by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president and chief Holocaust denier, who has repeatedly called for Israel to be destroyed.
Western Europe and the United States have been trying to persuade Tehran to drop its nuclear ambitions, using the carrot of co-operation with a legitimate nuclear energy programme and the stick of UN sanctions. But they have had no effect.
As a result, Israel sees itself standing on its own and fighting for its very existence. It got a taste of what Iran was capable of during last summer’s war in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah, Tehran’s proxy troops fighting from bunkers secretly built by Iranian military engineers, humiliated the Israeli army and rained missiles into northern Israel.
Every Israeli government has vowed never to let Iran acquire nuclear weapons. Ariel Sharon, when he was prime minister, ordered the military to be ready for a conventional strike on Iran’s nuclear programme. Since then, however, the Iranians have strengthened their nuclear facilities and air defences, making a conventional strike less likely to succeed.
“There are 24 strong batteries around Natanz, making it one of the most protected sites on earth,” said an Israeli military source. Its centrifuge halls, where the uranium is enriched, are heavily protected at least 70ft underground.
Ehud Olmert, the prime minister, recently “let slip” the world’s worst-kept secret that Israel is a nuclear power; Israeli defence experts are now openly debating the use of nukes against Iran. Shlomo Mofaz, a reservist colonel in Israeli military intelligence, believes that tactical nuclear weapons will be required to penetrate the defences that Iran has built around its nuclear facilities.
Israel developed tactical nuclear weapons in the early 1970s for use on the battlefield. In an attack on Iran, its air force would be expected to use a low-yield nuclear device of 1 kiloton (equivalent to 1,000 tons of TNT), loaded on a bunker-buster missile.
“If the nuclear device explodes deep underground there will be no radioactive fallout,” said Dr Ephraim Asculai of the Tel Aviv Institute for Strategic Studies, who worked for the Israel Atomic Energy Commission for more than 40 years.
Professor Peter Zimmerman, a nuclear physicist at King’s College, London, was less sure. “The definition of low-yield nuclear weapons is not easy,” he said. “I assume that it includes any device which is less than 5 kilotons. If such a bunker-buster missile is exploded at 70ft below ground” — thought to be the minimum depth of the hidden centrifuges in Natanz — “some radioactive fallout is expected.”
Nonetheless, Professor Martin Van Creveld, an Israeli military expert, said last week that tactical nuclear weapons were “the only way, if there is a way at all, to destroy Iran’s nuclear sites”.
Some senior American defence analysts agree. One source with ties to the Pentagon said: “There is no way for Israel to engage effectively in such a strike without using nuclear weapons.” But, he asked: “Would the Israelis dare?”
For all their military preparations, not even the Israelis are sure of the answer. Their decision rests to a great extent on their assessment of two further questions. How close is Tehran to having a nuclear bomb? And what does Washington really intend to do about it?
The actions and rhetoric of Ahmadinejad have been deliberately provocative. Last week he boasted that the Iranians would not only continue their atomic programme but also give a “historic slap in the face” to nations that opposed it. He has vowed that America, Israel and Britain will disappear “like the pharaohs” of Egypt and he believes that oil-rich Iran is well on its way to becoming the regional superpower.
Next month, on the anniversary of the Islamic revolution, he intends to celebrate what he calls his country’s mastery of nuclear technology. He promised that 3,000 centrifuges would be ready by the end of last year and that 60,000 would ultimately be in place. In the event, technical problems have slowed the programme. The Iranians are believed to have installed only 500 centrifuges at Natanz and they will reach 2,000 by spring at the earliest.
This is enough, however, to convince some Israelis that Iran is reaching the “point of no return” at which it has the technical know-how to build a nuclear bomb.
Ahmadinejad insists that Iran is developing only peaceful nuclear energy, but the development of long-range ballistic missiles such as the Shehab-3 suggests a different story. Israeli intelligence sources say Iran recently tested this missile with dummy nuclear weapons for its warheads.
“The Iranians are progressing quickly with their delivery platform for their future nuclear weapons,” said a source. “With an approximate range of 1,000 miles, the Shehab-3 can reach all of Israel.”
Meir Dagan, head of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, has told members of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, that his organisation assumes the Iranians will have a complete nuclear device by 2009.
In these circumstances, sabre-rattling by the Israelis has its uses. Whether or not Israel intends to go nuclear, it might be in its interest to spread the word that it will. “In the cold war, we made it clear to the Russians that it was a virtual certainty that nukes would fly and fly early,” said an American defence source. “Israel may be adopting the same tactics: ‘You produce a weapon; you die’.”
Michael Rubin, an expert on Iran at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, believes it could be a dangerous ruse. “You never want to threaten something you don’t follow through on,” he said.
Rubin believes the Israeli debate about using tactical nuclear weapons is “much more likely to be about pressing the United States to do the job”.
President George W Bush included Iran in his original “axis of evil”. Bogged down now in Iraq, he has cooled on the idea of attacking Iran. At a private meeting in the Oval Office last autumn, he was openly sceptical that America possessed enough intelligence data to carry out the job thoroughly. Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, told Congress at his confirmation hearings last month that he would be willing to give the order for strikes on Iran only as an “ absolute last resort”.
However, the Bush administration is still tempted to deliver a punishing blow to Iran for its regional meddling in Iraq and Lebanon. At the very least, it would like the swaggering regime in Tehran to believe that the United States might yet decide to cut it down to size. The nomination of Admiral William Fallon, a former navy fighter pilot, to command US military operations in the area is regarded as a sign of forward planning. Fallon does not have a reputation as a hawk, but in the words of a Pentagon source: “If you go after Iran, you have a naval war on your hands.”
Retired Colonel Sam Gardiner, a former National War College professor who has wargamed airstrikes on Iran, believes an American attack remains a possibility. The current deployment of a second US aircraft carrier strike force to the Gulf region, as well as British minesweepers, is a “huge deal”, he said. “It is only necessary to do that if you are planning to strike Iran and deal with the consequences” — including an attempt to shut the Strait of Hormuz, the sea route for much of the world’s oil from the Gulf states.
General John Abizaid, whom Fallon is due to replace, warned last year that an American attack on Iran could cripple oil supplies, unleash a “surrogate” terrorist army and provoke Iranian missile attacks on America’s Middle Eastern allies.
Should Israel launch a tactical nuclear strike, the consequences could be catastrophic. Gardiner believes that there would not only be “low DNA operations” — difficult to trace directly back to the Iranians — such as terrorist attacks, but the Muslim world would also be so inflamed that the stability of pro-western regimes would be threatened.
“It doesn’t take much imagination to see Pakistan (a nuclear power) falling to Islamic fundamentalists,” Gardiner said. “It could mean that in order to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons, we could be handing them to a terrorist nation.”
According to a senior British defence official, an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran is simply unthinkable: “The damage to Israel to be the only state to use nuclear weapons in anger since 1945 is dangerous stuff. They cannot be seen to be taking the lead on this.”
Or can they? Ephraim Sneh, Israel’s deputy defence minister, said recently: “At the end of the day it is always down to the Jews to deal with the problem.”
US analysts concur that America would never give its consent for such an operation, but as in the attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981, it may not object all that vociferously after the event. Nor is it thought that Sunni powers such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt would mourn the humbling of Shi’ite Iran, their main regional rival.
Are Israel’s plans an elaborate bluff or not? In today’s dangerously volatile world, who will dare to make that call?
Strike one: Israel took out Saddam’s reactor in 1981
IF Israeli forces attack nuclear sites in Iran, it will not be their first pre-emptive strike against a perceived nuclear threat. In 1981 Israeli jets bombed a reactor in Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein getting nuclear weapons.
The Iraqi dictator had built a 40-megawatt research reactor just south of Baghdad with the aid of France, which supplied technology, expertise and about 27lb of uranium-235.
Fearing this could be used in the long term to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons, Israel decided to destroy what became known as the Osirak reactor. Israel’s first move was in 1980 when war broke out between Iraq and Iran: its chief of army intelligence urged Iran to bomb Osirak.
A pair of Iranian jets attacked the site, but damage was minor. So Israel decided to bomb it, secretly building a dummy site and carrying out full dress rehearsals. On June 7, 1981, Israel launched Operation Opera: six F-15I and eight F-16I jets flew over Jordanian and Saudi Arabian airspace and caught Iraqi defences by surprise.
The raid crippled the reactor. Many countries, including the United States, condemned the attack. Opposition parties in Israel claimed that it had been cynically timed to coincide with a looming election.
Some Iraqi scientists later said the attack spurred Saddam to redouble his efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Attempts were made to rebuild the Osirak facility. However, Saddam’s nuclear ambitions were again halted when coalition forces bombed Osirak during the 1991 Gulf war.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535177,00.html
QUOTE(Douglas Caddy @ Jan 7 2007, 02:03 AM) [snapback]87854[/snapback]
John: Your assertion about the role of Israel in the upcoming war against Iran is proven to be accurate, if one is to believe the following article from today's Times (U.K.)....
The Sunday Times January 07, 2007
Focus: Mission Iran
Israel will not tolerate Iran going nuclear and military sources say it will use tactical strikes unless Iran abandons its programme. Is Israel bluffing or might it really push the button? Uzi Mahnaimi in New York and Sarah Baxter in Washington report
The Sunday Times January 07, 2007
Focus: Mission Iran
Israel will not tolerate Iran going nuclear and military sources say it will use tactical strikes unless Iran abandons its programme. Is Israel bluffing or might it really push the button? Uzi Mahnaimi in New York and Sarah Baxter in Washington report
An interesting article Douglas.
I trust it's not too contentious to point out what must be obvious to intelligent readers of any of Mr Murdoch's newspapers (and Murdoch's newspapers are close to all the 'choice' we have, here in his home base of Australia).
Murdoch - and his Empire - are essentially playing on the same team as the Israel Lobby.
Therefore one should look at the function of an article such as this.
In part, I think it can be seen as getting public opinion ready for the shock of an attack.
But also, very sneakily, it makes the case for such an attack.
This is achieved by repeating a key lie without question or qualification, in a place in the article where it's slipped in, ancilliary to the main topic at that point.
This blatant lie is that "Israelis have become increasingly convinced that a “second holocaust” of the Jews is brewing, stoked by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president and chief Holocaust denier, who has repeatedly called for Israel to be destroyed."
Now, it's entirely possible that, in their state of paranoia born of decades of incessant war and non-stop illegal occupation, many Israelis do believe that the Iranian President "has repeatedly called for Israel to be destroyed".
And it's likely many in the western world as a whole believe that. After all, reputable organs such as The Sunday Times and the BBC tell us so, regularly.
One little problem with this war-justifying lie... it just ain't true.
See Lost in translation by Jonathan Steele, for instance.
If BBC and Sunday Times journalists don't know that, they are pig igorant.
I think it more likely that the authors and commentators in question are deliberate liars.
Article in today's Sunday Times (January 07, 2007)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20...35310_2,00.html
Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington
ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.
The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.
Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.
“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.
The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.
Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.
Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.
Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks against Jewish targets around the world.
Israel has identified three prime targets south of Tehran which are believed to be involved in Iran’s nuclear programme:
Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges are being installed for uranium enrichment
A uranium conversion facility near Isfahan where, according to a statement by an Iranian vice-president last week, 250 tons of gas for the enrichment process have been stored in tunnels
A heavy water reactor at Arak, which may in future produce enough plutonium for a bomb Israeli officials believe that destroying all three sites would delay Iran’s nuclear programme indefinitely and prevent them from having to live in fear of a “second Holocaust”.
The Israeli government has warned repeatedly that it will never allow nuclear weapons to be made in Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map”.
Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, has described military action against Iran as a “last resort”, leading Israeli officials to conclude that it will be left to them to strike.
Israeli pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets. Three possible routes have been mapped out, including one over Turkey.
Air force squadrons based at Hatzerim in the Negev desert and Tel Nof, south of Tel Aviv, have trained to use Israel’s tactical nuclear weapons on the mission. The preparations have been overseen by Major General Eliezer Shkedi, commander of the Israeli air force.
Sources close to the Pentagon said the United States was highly unlikely to give approval for tactical nuclear weapons to be used. One source said Israel would have to seek approval “after the event”, as it did when it crippled Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak with airstrikes in 1981.
Scientists have calculated that although contamination from the bunker-busters could be limited, tons of radioactive uranium compounds would be released.
The Israelis believe that Iran’s retaliation would be constrained by fear of a second strike if it were to launch its Shehab-3 ballistic missiles at Israel.
However, American experts warned of repercussions, including widespread protests that could destabilise parts of the Islamic world friendly to the West.
Colonel Sam Gardiner, a Pentagon adviser, said Iran could try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the route for 20% of the world’s oil.
Some sources in Washington said they doubted if Israel would have the nerve to attack Iran. However, Dr Ephraim Sneh, the deputy Israeli defence minister, said last month: “The time is approaching when Israel and the international community will have to decide whether to take military action against Iran.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,20...35310_2,00.html
Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington
ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.
Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.
The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.
Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.
“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.
The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.
Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.
Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.
Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks against Jewish targets around the world.
Israel has identified three prime targets south of Tehran which are believed to be involved in Iran’s nuclear programme:
Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges are being installed for uranium enrichment
A uranium conversion facility near Isfahan where, according to a statement by an Iranian vice-president last week, 250 tons of gas for the enrichment process have been stored in tunnels
A heavy water reactor at Arak, which may in future produce enough plutonium for a bomb Israeli officials believe that destroying all three sites would delay Iran’s nuclear programme indefinitely and prevent them from having to live in fear of a “second Holocaust”.
The Israeli government has warned repeatedly that it will never allow nuclear weapons to be made in Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map”.
Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, has described military action against Iran as a “last resort”, leading Israeli officials to conclude that it will be left to them to strike.
Israeli pilots have flown to Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets. Three possible routes have been mapped out, including one over Turkey.
Air force squadrons based at Hatzerim in the Negev desert and Tel Nof, south of Tel Aviv, have trained to use Israel’s tactical nuclear weapons on the mission. The preparations have been overseen by Major General Eliezer Shkedi, commander of the Israeli air force.
Sources close to the Pentagon said the United States was highly unlikely to give approval for tactical nuclear weapons to be used. One source said Israel would have to seek approval “after the event”, as it did when it crippled Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak with airstrikes in 1981.
Scientists have calculated that although contamination from the bunker-busters could be limited, tons of radioactive uranium compounds would be released.
The Israelis believe that Iran’s retaliation would be constrained by fear of a second strike if it were to launch its Shehab-3 ballistic missiles at Israel.
However, American experts warned of repercussions, including widespread protests that could destabilise parts of the Islamic world friendly to the West.
Colonel Sam Gardiner, a Pentagon adviser, said Iran could try to close the Strait of Hormuz, the route for 20% of the world’s oil.
Some sources in Washington said they doubted if Israel would have the nerve to attack Iran. However, Dr Ephraim Sneh, the deputy Israeli defence minister, said last month: “The time is approaching when Israel and the international community will have to decide whether to take military action against Iran.”
This article reminds me of two events that I attended while in Washington D.C.
The first being a progressive Caucus meeting at which the issue of a possible strike againast Iran was the topic. Indeed it was said that if the US military were going to destroy any nuclear facility, it would have to do it with nuclear weapons of some sort. The initial blasts themselves are not the biggest problem. Winds could blow toxens into Afghanistan and seveal surrounding countires.
The second was a talk given by Seymour Hersh, whom I met very briefly, at a meeting of the organisation 'alliance for justice'. At this talk Hersh spoke with certainty that the Bush administration was going to strike Iran following the November elections despite whatever outcome they might yield. Hersh spoke of his conversations with Mossad agents, CIA agents and high ranking officials in the Pentagon which convinced him of the imminence of this threat.
It has been in the wind for a while now, earlier than last July people were predicting the timing of a strike against Iran. If I have heard of these predictions, you can be sure that the Iranian Government has also.
John
The first being a progressive Caucus meeting at which the issue of a possible strike againast Iran was the topic. Indeed it was said that if the US military were going to destroy any nuclear facility, it would have to do it with nuclear weapons of some sort. The initial blasts themselves are not the biggest problem. Winds could blow toxens into Afghanistan and seveal surrounding countires.
The second was a talk given by Seymour Hersh, whom I met very briefly, at a meeting of the organisation 'alliance for justice'. At this talk Hersh spoke with certainty that the Bush administration was going to strike Iran following the November elections despite whatever outcome they might yield. Hersh spoke of his conversations with Mossad agents, CIA agents and high ranking officials in the Pentagon which convinced him of the imminence of this threat.
It has been in the wind for a while now, earlier than last July people were predicting the timing of a strike against Iran. If I have heard of these predictions, you can be sure that the Iranian Government has also.
John
From Zeenews.com:
Home > World
Iran vows to hit back at any Israeli strike
Tehran, Jan 07: Iran on Sunday warned it would make any foe "regret" an attack against the Islamic Republic after a British newspaper reported Israel was planning a strike against its nuclear facilities.
"Any action against the Islamic republic will not go without a response and the aggressor would regret the action very quickly," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters.
A senior Israeli official has dismissed as "absurd" the report in the Sunday Times that the Jewish state had drawn up plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities in a tactical nuclear strike.
"This comes after the confession of the Israeli Prime Minister who acknowledged that the Israeli regime possesses a nuclear weapon," Hosseini said, referring to Ehud Olmert's apparent slip last year which broke a decades-long official silence on Israel's nuclear programme.
"It will convince world public opinion that the main threat for the world and the region is the Zionist regime," he added.
Bureau Report
I think it is possible that these stories are an attempt to put pressure on the government of Iran. During the negotiations about bringing the Vietnam War to an end, stories were leaked to the North Vietnamese government that Nixon was mad and that he was in danger of ordering a nuclear strike on Vietnam. Luckily, they did not fall for this story and the US was forced to withdraw. Maybe, Bush is now using the same strategy.
QUOTE(John Simkin @ Jan 8 2007, 08:40 AM) [snapback]88042[/snapback]
I think it is possible that these stories are an attempt to put pressure on the government of Iran. During the negotiations about bringing the Vietnam War to an end, stories were leaked to the North Vietnamese government that Nixon was mad and that he was in danger of ordering a nuclear strike on Vietnam. Luckily, they did not fall for this story and the US was forced to withdraw. Maybe, Bush is now using the same strategy.
I think you're right John, but judging by Iran's reponse I don't think they are going to be bluffed.
Both Israel and the US know that using even small scale nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's facilities is too risky. If anything goes wrong the whole world, not just the Arab world, would condemn Israel and the US.
The justification of using nuclear force to prevent a second holocaust, which is currently being put forward by sections of the western media, doesn't hold up under serious scrutiny.
Just as Israel will baulk at the prospect of using a nuclear weapon, so would Iran if it ever possessed one. The consequence of Iran ever using a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel would be the complete destruction of Iran within hours.
Iran will build a nuclear weapon one day, and they already have an adequate missile delivery system. The US and Israel will have to accept that the balance of power within the region will inevitably change.
That's what all the fuss is about---the US and Israel are having trouble coming to terms with this reality.
QUOTE(John Simkin @ Jan 8 2007, 09:40 AM) [snapback]88042[/snapback]
I think it is possible that these stories are an attempt to put pressure on the government of Iran. During the negotiations about bringing the Vietnam War to an end, stories were leaked to the North Vietnamese government that Nixon was mad and that he was in danger of ordering a nuclear strike on Vietnam. Luckily, they did not fall for this story and the US was forced to withdraw. Maybe, Bush is now using the same strategy.
January 8, 2007
Nuking Iran
Are Bush's Wars Winding Down or Heating Up?
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01082007.html
Most Americans believe that Bush's Iraqi misadventure is over. The occupation has lost the support of the electorate, the Congress, the generals and the troops. The Democrats are sitting back waiting for Bush to come to terms with reality. They don't want to be accused of losing the war by forcing Bush out of Iraq. There are no more troops to commit, and when the "surge" fails, Bush will have no recourse but to withdraw. A little longer, everyone figures, and the senseless killing will be over.
Recent news reports indicate that this conclusion could be an even bigger miscalculation than the original invasion.
On January 7 the London Times reported that it has learned from "several Israeli military sources" that "Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons."
The Israeli Foreign Ministry denied the report.
The Times reports that "Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack."
In other news reports Israeli General Oded Tira is quoted as follows: "President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure."
General Tira gives the Israel Lobby the following tasks: (1) "turn to Hilary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they support immediate action by Bush against Iran," (2) exert influence on European countries so that "Bush will not be isolated in the international arena again," and (3) "clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabis so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran."
Israel's part, General Tira says, is to "prepare an independent military strike by coordinating flights in Iraqi airspace with the US. We should also coordinate with Azerbaijan the use of air bases in its territory and also enlist the support of the Azeri minority in Iran."
British commentators report that "the British media appears to be softening us up for an attack on Iran." Robert Fox writing in The First Post (January 6) says, "Suddenly the smell of Britons being prepared for an attack on Iran is all pervasive."
On January 7 the Jerusalem Post reported that Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told the Israeli newspaper that "iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable" and that "the use of force against Teheran remained an option." The Jerusalem Post notes that "Hoyer is considered close to the Jewish community and many Israeli supporters have hailed his elevation in the House." Hoyer was the Israel Lobby's first victory over House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who preferred Rep. John Murtha for the post. Murtha was the first important Democrat to call for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
On November 20 the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, reported that President Bush said he would understand if Israel chose to attack Iran.
Bush showed that he was in Israel's pocket when he blocked the world's attempt to stop Israel's bombing of Lebanese civilians and civilian infrastructure.
Many commentators believe that the failure of the neoconservatives' "cakewalk war" has destroyed their influence. This is a mistaken conclusion. The neoconservatives are long time allies of Israel's right-wing Likud Party and are part of the Israel Lobby in the US. The Israel Lobby represents the views of only a minority of American Jews but nevertheless essentially owns both political parties and most of the US media. As the neoconservatives are an important part of this powerful lobby, they remain extremely influential.
The Lobby works to increase the neoconservatives' influence. To appreciate the Lobby's influence, try to find columnists in the major print media and TV commentators who are not apologists for Israel, who do not favor attacking Iran, and who support withdrawing from Iraq. Recently, Billy "One-Note" Kristol, a rabid propagandist for war against Muslims, was given a column in Time magazine. Why would Time think its readers want to read a war propagandist? Could the reason be that the Israel Lobby arranged for Time to receive lucrative advertising contracts in exchange for a column for Kristol?
Neoconservatives have called for World War IV against Islam. In Commentary magazine Norman Podhoretz called for the cultural genocide of Islamic peoples. The war is already opened on four fronts: Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Iran.
The Bush administration has used its Ethiopian proxies to overthrow the Somalian Muslims who overthrew the warlords who drove the US from Somalia. The US Navy and US intelligence are actively engaged with the Ethiopian troops in efforts to hunt down and capture or kill the Somalian Muslims. US Embasy spokesman Robert Kerr in Nairobi said that the US has the right to pursue Somalia's Islamists as part of the war on terror.
For at least a year the Bush administration has been fomenting and financing terrorist groups within Iran. Seymour Hersh and former CIA officials have exposed the Bush administration's support of ethnic-minority groups within Iran that are on the US State Department's list of terrorist organizations. Last April US Representative Dennis Kucinich wrote a detailed letter to President Bush about US interference in Iran's internal affairs. He received no reply.
The Israeli/neoconservative plan, of which Bush may be a part or simply be a manipulated element, is to provoke a crisis with Iran in which the US Congress will have to support Israel. Both the Israeli government and the American neoconservatives are fanatical. It is a mistake to believe that either will be guided by reason or any appreciation of the potentially catastrophic consequences of an attack on Iran.
US aircraft carriers sitting off Iran's coast are sitting ducks for Iran's Russian missiles. The neoconservatives would welcome another "new Pearl Harbor."
The US media is totally unreliable. It cannot go against Israel, and it will wrap itself in the flag just as it did for the invasion of Iraq. The American public has been deceived (again) and believes that Iran is on the verge of possessing nuclear armaments to be used to wipe Israel off the map. The fact that Americans are such saps for propaganda makes effective opposition to the neoconsevatives' plan for WW IV practically impossible.
Large percentages of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attack. Recent polls show that 32% still believe that Iraq gave substantial support to al-Qaeda, and 18% believe that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the 9/11 attack. WXIA-TV in Atlanta posted viewers comments about Hussein's execution on its web site. Atlantan Janet Wesselhoft was confident that Saddam Hussein is "the one who started terrorism in this country, he needs to be put to rest."
Even the London Times is in the grip of Israeli propaganda. In its report of Israel's plan to attack Iran with nuclear weapons, the Times says that Iranian president "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has declared that 'Israel must be wiped off the map.'" It has been shown by a number of credible experts that this quote is a made-up concoction taken completely out of context. Ahmadinejad said no such thing.
In a world ruled by propaganda, lies become truths. The power of the Israel Lobby is so great that it has turned former President Jimmy Carter, probably the most decent man ever to occupy the Oval Office and certainly the president who did the most in behalf of peace in the Middle East, into an anti-semite, an enemy of Israel. The American media, from its "conservative" end to its "liberal" end did its best to turn Carter into a pariah for telling a few truths about Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinians in his book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.
If truth be known, there is nothing to stop the Israeli/neoconservative cabal from widening the war in the Middle East.
As I previously reported, the neoconservatives believe that the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would force Muslims to realize that they have no recourse but to submit to the Isreali/US will. The use of nuclear weapons is being rationalized as necessary to destroy Iran's underground facilities, but the real purpose is to terrorize Islam and to bring it to heel.
Until the US finds the courage to acquire a Middle East policy of its own, Americans will continue to reap the evil sowed by the Israel Lobby.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts01082007.html
QUOTE(Mark Stapleton @ Jan 8 2007, 12:03 PM) [snapback]88049[/snapback]
QUOTE(John Simkin @ Jan 8 2007, 08:40 AM) [snapback]88042[/snapback]
I think it is possible that these stories are an attempt to put pressure on the government of Iran. During the negotiations about bringing the Vietnam War to an end, stories were leaked to the North Vietnamese government that Nixon was mad and that he was in danger of ordering a nuclear strike on Vietnam. Luckily, they did not fall for this story and the US was forced to withdraw. Maybe, Bush is now using the same strategy.
I think you're right John, but judging by Iran's reponse I don't think they are going to be bluffed.
Both Israel and the US know that using even small scale nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's facilities is too risky. If anything goes wrong the whole world, not just the Arab world, would condemn Israel and the US.
The justification of using nuclear force to prevent a second holocaust, which is currently being put forward by sections of the western media, doesn't hold up under serious scrutiny.
Just as Israel will baulk at the prospect of using a nuclear weapon, so would Iran if it ever possessed one. The consequence of Iran ever using a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel would be the complete destruction of Iran within hours.
Iran will build a nuclear weapon one day, and they already have an adequate missile delivery system. The US and Israel will have to accept that the balance of power within the region will inevitably change.
That's what all the fuss is about---the US and Israel are having trouble coming to terms with this reality.
Iran threatens to block strategic oil strait
Pakistan Daily Times
January 9, 2007
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p..._9-1-2007_pg7_4
TEHRAN: A senior officer in the volunteer Basij militia said on Monday Iran could block oil traffic through the strategic Strait of Hormuz if the West threatens its economy over Tehran’s nuclear programme.
“Given Iran’s authority over the Strait of Hormuz, the passageway to more than 40 percent of the world’s energy, we have become so strong that the world’s economic and energy security are in the hands of Iran,” deputy Basij commander General Majid Mir Ahmadi was quoted as saying by the semi-official Fars news agency.
“We can exert pressure on the US and British economies as much as we ourselves are put under pressure,” he said. “US allies, especially those who host US military sites or facilitate American strategies against us, are exposed to our threat,” Mir Ahmadi added. “This is the Islamic republic’s strategy in the Persian Gulf – security for everyone or for nobody.”
Meanwhile, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said that Tehran would never yield to international pressure to deprive it of its right to nuclear technology, state radio said.
“The Iranian nation will surely not abandon its right and Iranian officials have no right to deprive the nation of its right,” Khamenei was quoted as saying on the occasion of the Shia feast of Eidul Ghadir.
Khamenei, who was shown on television, was making his first public appearance since rumours appeared on websites on Thursday that he had died. Iran last week denied the reports.
Khamenei has final say on all state matters in the Islamic republic, including Iran’s nuclear standoff with the West. agencies
Forbes reports Pentagon confirms US nuclear submarine collides with Japanese commercial ship
The Japanese sailors must have been terrified for a moment. They may have thought they were being attacked by real terrorists. Perhaps they'd bumped into Bin Laden's personal submersible, fully equipped with video production studio?
Imagine their relief to discover it was only a friendly old US nuclear sub, ramming into them by accident in the busy Arabian sea lanes!
Anyhow, all well that ends well.
Back in the USA, Pat Buchanan asks Who Is Planning Our Next War?
This extract is choice:
The Japanese sailors must have been terrified for a moment. They may have thought they were being attacked by real terrorists. Perhaps they'd bumped into Bin Laden's personal submersible, fully equipped with video production studio?
Imagine their relief to discover it was only a friendly old US nuclear sub, ramming into them by accident in the busy Arabian sea lanes!
Anyhow, all well that ends well.
Back in the USA, Pat Buchanan asks Who Is Planning Our Next War?
This extract is choice:
QUOTE
on Dec. 30, retired Gen. Oded Tira, who headed up all Israeli artillery units, burst into print with this admonition:
"As an American air strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help (Bush) pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and U.S. newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure."
"Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran," writes Tira. Thus, Israel and its U.S. lobbying arm "must turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran."
"The Americans must act," Tira concludes. "If they don't, we'll do it ourselves ... (and) we must immediately start preparing for an Iranian response to an attack."
According to UPI editor-at-large Arnaud De Borchgrave, Tira's line tracks the New Year's Day message of Likud superhawk "Bibi" Netanyahu, the former prime minister.
Said Netanyahu, Israel "must immediately launch an intense, international public relations front first and foremost on the U.S. The goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make clear to the (U.S.) government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel."
Israel's war, says Bibi, must be sold as America's war.
We are thus forewarned. A propaganda campaign, using Israeli agents and their neocon auxiliaries and sympathizers, who stampeded us into war in Iraq, is being prepared to stampede us into war on Iran.
"As an American air strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help (Bush) pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and U.S. newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure."
"Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran," writes Tira. Thus, Israel and its U.S. lobbying arm "must turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they publicly support immediate action by Bush against Iran."
"The Americans must act," Tira concludes. "If they don't, we'll do it ourselves ... (and) we must immediately start preparing for an Iranian response to an attack."
According to UPI editor-at-large Arnaud De Borchgrave, Tira's line tracks the New Year's Day message of Likud superhawk "Bibi" Netanyahu, the former prime minister.
Said Netanyahu, Israel "must immediately launch an intense, international public relations front first and foremost on the U.S. The goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges he would not allow Iran to arm itself with nuclear weapons. We must make clear to the (U.S.) government, the Congress and the American public that a nuclear Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel."
Israel's war, says Bibi, must be sold as America's war.
We are thus forewarned. A propaganda campaign, using Israeli agents and their neocon auxiliaries and sympathizers, who stampeded us into war in Iraq, is being prepared to stampede us into war on Iran.
An American air strike on Iran is essential for America's existence, eh?
How perfectly sane and rational.
I think this was the same retired Israeli General who was interviewed by Geraldine Doogue on Australia's RN recently. This fellow kept repeating the mantra, 'the West must confront Iran, the West must confront Iran'.
Is there anyone on the Forum, anyone at all, who supports this type of thinking?
If the propaganda blitz on the Democrats is successful and bipartisan support for this is secured, who on the Forum will continue to deny that US foreign policy has been fully captured by the hawks of Israel?
With the recent US attack on the Muslim rebels in Somalia, it looks like a major global conflict based on religion could become a reality.
How sane and rational is that?
How perfectly sane and rational.
I think this was the same retired Israeli General who was interviewed by Geraldine Doogue on Australia's RN recently. This fellow kept repeating the mantra, 'the West must confront Iran, the West must confront Iran'.
Is there anyone on the Forum, anyone at all, who supports this type of thinking?
If the propaganda blitz on the Democrats is successful and bipartisan support for this is secured, who on the Forum will continue to deny that US foreign policy has been fully captured by the hawks of Israel?
With the recent US attack on the Muslim rebels in Somalia, it looks like a major global conflict based on religion could become a reality.
How sane and rational is that?
On the Saddam thread Sid wrote (Note I edited Peter and Sid’s posts to remove portions not related to this topic):
[…]
Also I have read, over and over again, in western and eastern media (eg Al Jazeera) that the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map. This statement has been repeated over and over again by highly placed clerics and secular leaders, over many years, in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, etc. As to whether Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons capability in this aim, I wouldn't begin to debate that point.
Hi Peter
[…]
Turning now to the more current issue you raise: did the Iranian President really say that Israel should be "wiped off the map" - or were his words miscontrued and misrepresented, as I have claimed?
You may wish to correspond with Professor Juan Cole and Guardian writer Jon Steele if you have superior information to theirs on this topic.
If not, your confidence in the accuracy of the western mass media is touching - even a little unusual on this Forum.
You mention Al Jazeera. Insofar as it has purveyed the 'wipe of the map' myth as well, IMO it has engaged in sloppy journalism. A quick search I just conducted yielded this short article, for instance. It was apparently reporting other 'Agencies' without question or comment. I'd call that sloppy - especially if no subsequent correction was issued.
Remarkably, in this case Wikipedia has quite a full and accurate account of the debate over President Ahmadinejad's 2005 "World Without Zionism" speech (see below).
If you read through it, I think you may agree that Ahmadinejad was calling for the end of apartheid in the Holy Land - not for nuclear attacks on anyone (those calls have come from within Israel and the USA).
As for why this particular topic strayed from the execution of Saddam Hussein to Nuremberg ... it's all explained in the thread itself.
John made the comparison with the Nuremberg Trials. I - for reasons I've already presented - felt an examination of Nuremberg is indeed appropriate in this context..
Out of an apparent desire to 'nail' the issue of The Holocaust, Stephen Turner started another thread dedicated specifically to the topic, last week. A brief discussion ensued therein - before the thread was closed to further discussion, presumably by Andy.
I don't intend to make new points within this thread on the Nuremberg comparison... but do reserve the right to reply to ill-founded, poorly documented attacks on points I've already made.
Critical comments that are well-founded - and grounded in documented, factual information - are another matter.
__________________________________
Extract from Wikipedia - January 9th 2007:
To which I replied:
QUOTE(Sid Walker @ Jan 8 2007, 07:34 PM) [snapback]88161[/snapback]
QUOTE(Peter McKenna @ Jan 8 2007, 09:45 PM) [snapback]88122[/snapback]
[…]
Also I have read, over and over again, in western and eastern media (eg Al Jazeera) that the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map. This statement has been repeated over and over again by highly placed clerics and secular leaders, over many years, in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, etc. As to whether Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons capability in this aim, I wouldn't begin to debate that point.
Hi Peter
[…]
Turning now to the more current issue you raise: did the Iranian President really say that Israel should be "wiped off the map" - or were his words miscontrued and misrepresented, as I have claimed?
You may wish to correspond with Professor Juan Cole and Guardian writer Jon Steele if you have superior information to theirs on this topic.
If not, your confidence in the accuracy of the western mass media is touching - even a little unusual on this Forum.
You mention Al Jazeera. Insofar as it has purveyed the 'wipe of the map' myth as well, IMO it has engaged in sloppy journalism. A quick search I just conducted yielded this short article, for instance. It was apparently reporting other 'Agencies' without question or comment. I'd call that sloppy - especially if no subsequent correction was issued.
Remarkably, in this case Wikipedia has quite a full and accurate account of the debate over President Ahmadinejad's 2005 "World Without Zionism" speech (see below).
If you read through it, I think you may agree that Ahmadinejad was calling for the end of apartheid in the Holy Land - not for nuclear attacks on anyone (those calls have come from within Israel and the USA).
As for why this particular topic strayed from the execution of Saddam Hussein to Nuremberg ... it's all explained in the thread itself.
John made the comparison with the Nuremberg Trials. I - for reasons I've already presented - felt an examination of Nuremberg is indeed appropriate in this context..
Out of an apparent desire to 'nail' the issue of The Holocaust, Stephen Turner started another thread dedicated specifically to the topic, last week. A brief discussion ensued therein - before the thread was closed to further discussion, presumably by Andy.
I don't intend to make new points within this thread on the Nuremberg comparison... but do reserve the right to reply to ill-founded, poorly documented attacks on points I've already made.
Critical comments that are well-founded - and grounded in documented, factual information - are another matter.
__________________________________
Extract from Wikipedia - January 9th 2007:
QUOTE
2005 "World Without Zionism" speech
President Ahmadinejad speaking at "The World without Zionism" conference
In his translation of a speech to the "World Without Zionism" conference held for students in October 2005, Nazila Fathi of The New York Times' Tehran bureau reported Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying, in part:
Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks.[1]
Wikinews has news related to:
Iranian president calls Israel ‘disgraceful blot’
Ahmadinejad also claimed in the speech that the issue with Palestine would be over "the day that all refugees return to their homes [and] a democratic government elected by the people comes to power" [2], and denounced attempts to normalise relations with Israel, condemning all Muslim leaders who accept the existence of Israel as "acknowledging a surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."
The speech also indicated that the Iranian President considered Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip to be a trick, designed to gain acknowledgement from Islamic states. In a rally held two days later, Ahmadinejad declared that his words reflected the views of the Iranian people, adding that Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid. [3]
Translation of phrase "wiped off the map"
Many news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad's phrases in Persian as a statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map"[4][5][6], an English idiom which means to cause a place to stop existing[7].
Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:
The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[8]
According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[1]
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:
[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[9]
On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said. [10][11][12]
In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away." Bronner stated: "So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question." [2]
On June 15, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele cites several Persian speakers and translators who state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "wiped off the map". [13]
A synopsis of Mr Ahmadinejad's speech on the Iranian Presidential website states:
He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away. [14]
Interpretation of speech as call for genocide
The speech was interpreted by some as a call for genocide. For example, Canada's then Prime Minister Paul Martin said, "this threat to Israel's existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran's obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore."[15]
Cole interprets the speech as a call for the end of Jewish rule of Israel, but not necessarily for the removal of Jewish people:
His statements were morally outrageous and historically ignorant, but he did not actually call for mass murder (Ariel Sharon made the "occupation regime" in Gaza "vanish" last summer[sic]) or for the expulsion of the Israeli Jews to Europe.[16]
In the speech, Ahmadinejad gave the examples of Iran under the Shah, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq as examples of apparently invincible regimes that ceased to exist. Ahmadinejad used these examples to justify his belief that the United States and the State of Israel can also be defeated claiming, "they say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan."[1]
In April 2006, Iran's ambassador was asked directly about Ahmadinejad's position towards Israel by CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer:[17]
BLITZER: But should there be a state of Israel?
SOLTANIEH: I think I've already answered to you. If Israel is a synonym and will give the indication of Zionism mentality, no.
But if you are going to conclude that we have said the people there have to be removed or they have to be massacred or so, this is fabricated, unfortunate selective approach to what the mentality and policy of Islamic Republic of Iran is. I have to correct, and I did so.
Another reason for the interpretation of the speech as a call for genocide using nuclear weapons is because the same statement of Ahmadinejad appeared on a Shahab-3 missile in a national military parade attended by Ahmadinejad. [3]
Interpretation of speech as call for referendum
Iran's stated policy on Israel is to urge a one-state solution through a countrywide referendum. Juan Cole and others interpret Ahmadinejad's statements to be an endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for; which would normally be an end to the "Zionist state".[18]
In November 2005 Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, rejecting any attack on Israel, called for a referendum in Palestine:
We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government. [19]
Ahmadinejad himself has also repeatedly called for such solution.[20][21][22][23] Most recently in an interview with Time magazine:[24]
TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?
Ahmadinejad: [...] Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way.
President Ahmadinejad speaking at "The World without Zionism" conference
In his translation of a speech to the "World Without Zionism" conference held for students in October 2005, Nazila Fathi of The New York Times' Tehran bureau reported Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying, in part:
Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks.[1]
Wikinews has news related to:
Iranian president calls Israel ‘disgraceful blot’
Ahmadinejad also claimed in the speech that the issue with Palestine would be over "the day that all refugees return to their homes [and] a democratic government elected by the people comes to power" [2], and denounced attempts to normalise relations with Israel, condemning all Muslim leaders who accept the existence of Israel as "acknowledging a surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."
The speech also indicated that the Iranian President considered Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip to be a trick, designed to gain acknowledgement from Islamic states. In a rally held two days later, Ahmadinejad declared that his words reflected the views of the Iranian people, adding that Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid. [3]
Translation of phrase "wiped off the map"
Many news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad's phrases in Persian as a statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map"[4][5][6], an English idiom which means to cause a place to stop existing[7].
Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:
The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[8]
According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[1]
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:
[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[9]
On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said. [10][11][12]
In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away." Bronner stated: "So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question." [2]
On June 15, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele cites several Persian speakers and translators who state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "wiped off the map". [13]
A synopsis of Mr Ahmadinejad's speech on the Iranian Presidential website states:
He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away. [14]
Interpretation of speech as call for genocide
The speech was interpreted by some as a call for genocide. For example, Canada's then Prime Minister Paul Martin said, "this threat to Israel's existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran's obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore."[15]
Cole interprets the speech as a call for the end of Jewish rule of Israel, but not necessarily for the removal of Jewish people:
His statements were morally outrageous and historically ignorant, but he did not actually call for mass murder (Ariel Sharon made the "occupation regime" in Gaza "vanish" last summer[sic]) or for the expulsion of the Israeli Jews to Europe.[16]
In the speech, Ahmadinejad gave the examples of Iran under the Shah, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq as examples of apparently invincible regimes that ceased to exist. Ahmadinejad used these examples to justify his belief that the United States and the State of Israel can also be defeated claiming, "they say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan."[1]
In April 2006, Iran's ambassador was asked directly about Ahmadinejad's position towards Israel by CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer:[17]
BLITZER: But should there be a state of Israel?
SOLTANIEH: I think I've already answered to you. If Israel is a synonym and will give the indication of Zionism mentality, no.
But if you are going to conclude that we have said the people there have to be removed or they have to be massacred or so, this is fabricated, unfortunate selective approach to what the mentality and policy of Islamic Republic of Iran is. I have to correct, and I did so.
Another reason for the interpretation of the speech as a call for genocide using nuclear weapons is because the same statement of Ahmadinejad appeared on a Shahab-3 missile in a national military parade attended by Ahmadinejad. [3]
Interpretation of speech as call for referendum
Iran's stated policy on Israel is to urge a one-state solution through a countrywide referendum. Juan Cole and others interpret Ahmadinejad's statements to be an endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for; which would normally be an end to the "Zionist state".[18]
In November 2005 Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, rejecting any attack on Israel, called for a referendum in Palestine:
We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government. [19]
Ahmadinejad himself has also repeatedly called for such solution.[20][21][22][23] Most recently in an interview with Time magazine:[24]
TIME: You have been quoted as saying Israel should be wiped off the map. Was that merely rhetoric, or do you mean it?
Ahmadinejad: [...] Our suggestion is that the 5 million Palestinian refugees come back to their homes, and then the entire people on those lands hold a referendum and choose their own system of government. This is a democratic and popular way.
To which I replied:
QUOTE(Len Colby @ Jan 10 2007, 02:41 PM) [snapback]88492[/snapback]
Sid has really only found one expert Cole who disputes the interpretation of the translation. Just as a “no such idiom exists in Persian” for ‘wipe off the map’ no idiom exists for “vanish from the page of time” or “eliminated from the pages of history” did the phrase indicate he wanted a regime change or genocide or expulsion of Israelis? I doubt anyone on this board is qualified to say. OK it seems like he didn’t use the Persian word for map but what exactly did he mean. The column from the Guardian cited by Wikipedia shows that is not entirely clear exactly what he meant (though the author [not a Persian speaker] shares Sid’s take). http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonath...6/post_155.html
I’m not sure either way but there is evidence to support a more ominous interpretation of what he said.
According to MEMRI which the author of the Wikipedia article cited Ahmadinejad “emphasized the need to eliminate Israel” http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=arc...amp;ID=SP101305
Even the Iranian president’s web site (according to the Wikipedia article) said he called for Islam to “wipe Israel away” which could have several interpretations but sounds rather ominous.
From Sid’s Wikipedia article “Another reason for the interpretation of the speech as a call for genocide using nuclear weapons is because the same statement of Ahmadinejad appeared on a Shahab-3 missile in a national military parade attended by Ahmadinejad. [3]” accounts of the parade indicate other missiles had banners with the phrase “Death to Israel”
http://web.archive.org/web/20060503212036/...chinese_md.html
According to a senior fellow in the Center for Strategic and International Studies: “Some members of the government have even boasted how they would use them: to destroy Israel. "Islam could survive the retaliation," they insist, "but Israel would be gone forever." ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...01/23/ixop.html
[…]
I’m not sure either way but there is evidence to support a more ominous interpretation of what he said.
According to MEMRI which the author of the Wikipedia article cited Ahmadinejad “emphasized the need to eliminate Israel” http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=arc...amp;ID=SP101305
Even the Iranian president’s web site (according to the Wikipedia article) said he called for Islam to “wipe Israel away” which could have several interpretations but sounds rather ominous.
From Sid’s Wikipedia article “Another reason for the interpretation of the speech as a call for genocide using nuclear weapons is because the same statement of Ahmadinejad appeared on a Shahab-3 missile in a national military parade attended by Ahmadinejad. [3]” accounts of the parade indicate other missiles had banners with the phrase “Death to Israel”
http://web.archive.org/web/20060503212036/...chinese_md.html
According to a senior fellow in the Center for Strategic and International Studies: “Some members of the government have even boasted how they would use them: to destroy Israel. "Islam could survive the retaliation," they insist, "but Israel would be gone forever." ”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...01/23/ixop.html
[…]
[/font]
QUOTE(Len Colby @ Jan 11 2007, 12:20 AM) [snapback]88524[/snapback]
On the Saddam thread Sid wrote (Note I edited Peter and Sid’s posts to remove portions not related to this topic):
Extract from Wikipedia - January 9th 2007:[/b]
Extract from Wikipedia - January 9th 2007:[/b]
QUOTE
2005 "World Without Zionism" speech
President Ahmadinejad speaking at "The World without Zionism" conference
In his translation of a speech to the "World Without Zionism" conference held for students in October 2005, Nazila Fathi of The New York Times' Tehran bureau reported Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying, in part:
Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks.[1]
Wikinews has news related to:
Iranian president calls Israel ‘disgraceful blot’
Ahmadinejad also claimed in the speech that the issue with Palestine would be over "the day that all refugees return to their homes [and] a democratic government elected by the people comes to power" [2], and denounced attempts to normalise relations with Israel, condemning all Muslim leaders who accept the existence of Israel as "acknowledging a surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."
The speech also indicated that the Iranian President considered Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip to be a trick, designed to gain acknowledgement from Islamic states. In a rally held two days later, Ahmadinejad declared that his words reflected the views of the Iranian people, adding that Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid. [3]
Translation of phrase "wiped off the map"
Many news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad's phrases in Persian as a statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map"[4][5][6], an English idiom which means to cause a place to stop existing[7].
Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:
The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[8]
According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[1]
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:
[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[9]
On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said. [10][11][12]
In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away." Bronner stated: "So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question." [2]
On June 15, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele cites several Persian speakers and translators who state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "wiped off the map". [13]
A synopsis of Mr Ahmadinejad's speech on the Iranian Presidential website states:
He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away. [14]
Interpretation of speech as call for genocide
The speech was interpreted by some as a call for genocide. For example, Canada's then Prime Minister Paul Martin said, "this threat to Israel's existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran's obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore."[15]
Cole interprets the speech as a call for the end of Jewish rule of Israel, but not necessarily for the removal of Jewish people:
His statements were morally outrageous and historically ignorant, but he did not actually call for mass murder (Ariel Sharon made the "occupation regime" in Gaza "vanish" last summer[sic]) or for the expulsion of the Israeli Jews to Europe.[16]
In the speech, Ahmadinejad gave the examples of Iran under the Shah, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq as examples of apparently invincible regimes that ceased to exist. Ahmadinejad used these examples to justify his belief that the United States and the State of Israel can also be defeated claiming, "they say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan."[1]
In April 2006, Iran's ambassador was asked directly about Ahmadinejad's position towards Israel by CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer:[17]
BLITZER: But should there be a state of Israel?
SOLTANIEH: I think I've already answered to you. If Israel is a synonym and will give the indication of Zionism mentality, no.
But if you are going to conclude that we have said the people there have to be removed or they have to be massacred or so, this is fabricated, unfortunate selective approach to what the mentality and policy of Islamic Republic of Iran is. I have to correct, and I did so.
Another reason for the interpretation of the speech as a call for genocide using nuclear weapons is because the same statement of Ahmadinejad appeared on a Shahab-3 missile in a national military parade attended by Ahmadinejad. [3]
Interpretation of speech as call for referendum
Iran's stated policy on Israel is to urge a one-state solution through a countrywide referendum. Juan Cole and others interpret Ahmadinejad's statements to be an endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for; which would normally be an end to the "Zionist state".[18]
In November 2005 Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, rejecting any attack on Israel, called for a referendum in Palestine:
We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government. [19]
Ahmadinejad himself has also repeatedly called for such solution.[20][21][22][23] Most recently in an interview with Time magazine:[24]
TIME: You have been quoted as
President Ahmadinejad speaking at "The World without Zionism" conference
In his translation of a speech to the "World Without Zionism" conference held for students in October 2005, Nazila Fathi of The New York Times' Tehran bureau reported Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying, in part:
Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks.[1]
Wikinews has news related to:
Iranian president calls Israel ‘disgraceful blot’
Ahmadinejad also claimed in the speech that the issue with Palestine would be over "the day that all refugees return to their homes [and] a democratic government elected by the people comes to power" [2], and denounced attempts to normalise relations with Israel, condemning all Muslim leaders who accept the existence of Israel as "acknowledging a surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."
The speech also indicated that the Iranian President considered Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip to be a trick, designed to gain acknowledgement from Islamic states. In a rally held two days later, Ahmadinejad declared that his words reflected the views of the Iranian people, adding that Westerners are free to comment, but their reactions are invalid. [3]
Translation of phrase "wiped off the map"
Many news sources have presented one of Ahmadinejad's phrases in Persian as a statement that "Israel must be wiped off the map"[4][5][6], an English idiom which means to cause a place to stop existing[7].
Juan Cole, a University of Michigan Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History, translates the Persian phrase as:
The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).[8]
According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to wipe Israel off the map because no such idiom exists in Persian" and "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse."[1]
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) translates the phrase similarly:
[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.[9]
On 20 February 2006, Iran’s foreign minister denied that Tehran wanted to see Israel “wiped off the map,” saying Ahmadinejad had been misunderstood. "Nobody can remove a country from the map. This is a misunderstanding in Europe of what our president mentioned," Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference, speaking in English, after addressing the European Parliament. "How is it possible to remove a country from the map? He is talking about the regime. We do not recognise legally this regime," he said. [10][11][12]
In a June 11, 2006 analysis of the translation controversy, New York Times deputy foreign editor Ethan Bronner concluded that Ahmadinejad had in fact said that Israel was to be wiped off the map. After noting the objections of critics such as Cole and Steele, Bronner said: "But translators in Tehran who work for the president's office and the foreign ministry disagree with them. All official translations of Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement, including a description of it on his Web site (www.president.ir/eng/), refer to wiping Israel away." Bronner stated: "So did Iran's president call for Israel to be wiped off the map? It certainly seems so. Did that amount to a call for war? That remains an open question." [2]
On June 15, 2006 The Guardian columnist and foreign correspondent Jonathan Steele cites several Persian speakers and translators who state that the phrase in question is more accurately translated as "eliminated" or "wiped off" or "wiped away" from "the page of time" or "the pages of history", rather than "wiped off the map". [13]
A synopsis of Mr Ahmadinejad's speech on the Iranian Presidential website states:
He further expressed his firm belief that the new wave of confrontations generated in Palestine and the growing turmoil in the Islamic world would in no time wipe Israel away. [14]
Interpretation of speech as call for genocide
The speech was interpreted by some as a call for genocide. For example, Canada's then Prime Minister Paul Martin said, "this threat to Israel's existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran's obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore."[15]
Cole interprets the speech as a call for the end of Jewish rule of Israel, but not necessarily for the removal of Jewish people:
His statements were morally outrageous and historically ignorant, but he did not actually call for mass murder (Ariel Sharon made the "occupation regime" in Gaza "vanish" last summer[sic]) or for the expulsion of the Israeli Jews to Europe.[16]
In the speech, Ahmadinejad gave the examples of Iran under the Shah, the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq as examples of apparently invincible regimes that ceased to exist. Ahmadinejad used these examples to justify his belief that the United States and the State of Israel can also be defeated claiming, "they say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan."[1]
In April 2006, Iran's ambassador was asked directly about Ahmadinejad's position towards Israel by CNN correspondent Wolf Blitzer:[17]
BLITZER: But should there be a state of Israel?
SOLTANIEH: I think I've already answered to you. If Israel is a synonym and will give the indication of Zionism mentality, no.
But if you are going to conclude that we have said the people there have to be removed or they have to be massacred or so, this is fabricated, unfortunate selective approach to what the mentality and policy of Islamic Republic of Iran is. I have to correct, and I did so.
Another reason for the interpretation of the speech as a call for genocide using nuclear weapons is because the same statement of Ahmadinejad appeared on a Shahab-3 missile in a national military parade attended by Ahmadinejad. [3]
Interpretation of speech as call for referendum
Iran's stated policy on Israel is to urge a one-state solution through a countrywide referendum. Juan Cole and others interpret Ahmadinejad's statements to be an endorsement of the one-state solution, in which a government would be elected that all Palestinians and all Israelis would jointly vote for; which would normally be an end to the "Zionist state".[18]
In November 2005 Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, rejecting any attack on Israel, called for a referendum in Palestine:
We hold a fair and logical stance on the issue of Palestine. Several decades ago, Egyptian statesman Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was the most popular Arab personality, stated in his slogans that the Egyptians would throw the Jewish usurpers of Palestine into the sea. Some years later, Saddam Hussein, the most hated Arab figure, said that he would put half of the Palestinian land on fire. But we would not approve of either of these two remarks. We believe, according to our Islamic principles, that neither throwing the Jews into the sea nor putting the Palestinian land on fire is logical and reasonable. Our position is that the Palestinian people should regain their rights. Palestine belongs to Palestinians, and the fate of Palestine should also be determined by the Palestinian people. The issue of Palestine is a criterion for judging how truthful those claiming to support democracy and human rights are in their claims. The Islamic Republic of Iran has presented a fair and logical solution to this issue. We have suggested that all native Palestinians, whether they are Muslims, Christians or Jews, should be allowed to take part in a general referendum before the eyes of the world and decide on a Palestinian government. Any government that is the result of this referendum will be a legitimate government. [19]
Ahmadinejad himself has also repeatedly called for such solution.[20][21][22][23] Most recently in an interview with Time magazine:[24]
TIME: You have been quoted as