Neo-Cons attack again, fearmongering about Israeli nuking Iran in a few hours

[Dig]

The “Wipe Israel Off The Map” Hoax
What Ahmadinejad really said and why this broken record is just another ad slogan for war
By Paul Joseph Watson of Prison Planet 1/29/2007

Barely a day goes by that one can avoid reading or hearing yet another Israeli, American or British warhawk regurgitate the broken record that Iran's President Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map," framed in the ridiculous context that Israelis are being targeted for a second holocaust. This baseless rallying call for conflict holds about as much credibility as Dick Cheney's assertion that Saddam Hussein was planning to light up American skies with mushroom clouds.

Today it's the turn of would-be future British Prime Minister David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, who repeated the "wipe Israel off he map" fraud in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, using it to qualify his refusal to rule out a military strike on Iran under a Tory government.

Did Ahmadinejad really threaten to "wipe Israel off the map" or is this phrase just another jingoistic brand slogan for selling the next war in the Middle East?

The devil is in the detail, wiping Israel off the map suggests a physical genocidal assault, a literal population relocation or elimination akin to what the Nazis did. According to numerous different translations, Ahmadinejad never used the word "map," instead his statement was in the context of time and applied to the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem. Ahmadinejad was expressing his future hope that the Zionist regime in Israel would fall, not that Iran was going to physically annex the country and its population.

To claim Ahmadinejad has issued a rallying cry to ethnically cleanse Israel is akin to saying that Churchill wanted to murder all Germans when he stated his desire to crush the Nazis. This is about the demise of a corrupt occupying power, not the deaths of millions of innocent people.

The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.

The acceptance of the word "map" seemingly originated with the New York Times, who later had to back away from this false translation. The BBC also wrongly used the word and, in comments to Steele, later accepted their mistake but refused to issue a retraction.

"The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favor Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out," writes Steele.

"It's important to note that the "quote" in question was itself a quote, writes Arash Norouzi, "they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office."

Professor Juan Cole concurs, arguing, "Now, some might say, "So he didn't say, 'wipe off the map,' he said 'erase from the page.' What's the difference? Anyway he's saying he wants to get rid of Israel. Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope -- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that 'Israel must be wiped off the map' with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get 5 months free at Prison Planet.tv when you sign up for our New Years Special! TV shows, conference footage, field reports, protest clips, in studio camera and audio interviews, books, every Alex Jones film, dozens of other documentaries! Click here to subscribe!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's consider for a moment that Ahmadinejad really does wish to initiate a nuclear war on Israel, is this feasible? It would be like Paris Hilton picking a fight with Mike Tyson. The CIA's own estimates put Iran five to ten years away from being able to produce one nuclear bomb even if they were in the planning stages now, which is highly unlikely given that international inspectors have found no evidence of such a program and CIA satellite imagery also shows no proof of nuclear arms. Contrast this to an Israeli arsenal of anything up to 200 launch ready nukes allied to the might of the U.S. which has nearly 6,000 active warheads not to mention so-called "mini-nukes."

While it can be reasonably argued that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon at some point in the future, to then claim that this means Ahmadinejad wishes to enact a second holocaust is an unfathomable leap of logic. The real reason for any nation in that region trying to acquire a nuclear weapon is for self defense, because they are surrounded by other hostile powers that already have the bomb.

Returning to the "wipe Israel off the map hoax," loathe are we to forget another of the commercial jingles concocted for hoodwinking Americans into attacking a certain other Middle Eastern country - "he used weapons of mass destruction against his own people," referring of course to Saddam Hussein's alleged role in the Halabja massacre where Iraqi Kurds were gassed. In reality, as former CIA analyst Stephen Pelletiere has revealed, Halabja came as a result of a battlefield exchange between the Iranians and the Iraqis after the Kurds had sided with the Iranians and allowed them to enter the city. According to the DIA's own report at the time, the type of gas that killed the Kurds was not used by the Iraqis but was used by the Iranians. The incident was a tragedy of war, not a directed program of genocide at the behest of Saddam Hussein.

Whenever Bush administration officials and others used Halabja as a pretext for war, the mass media routinely failed to mention the DIA report, just as they have failed to provide any balance on the real meaning of Ahmadinejad's statement, despite the fact that it is completely distorted almost every day and used as a call to arms as well as a propagandistic ploy to convince western populations that dark skinned invaders are hell-bent on their wholesale destruction.

[luckee1]

News from Jerusalem  Iranian Threat  Iran threatens  'No one will dare attack Iranian nation'
'No one will dare attack Iranian nation'
Saturday, 18 April 2009 16:54
Ahmadinejad: Iran's army will cut off the hand of whoever dares attack it
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told his nation on Saturday that "no country in the region threatens Iran," just hours after The London Times published a report claiming that Israel was preparing to attack targets in Iran within hours of receiving a green light from the government in Jerusalem.

Speaking during a ceremony in Iran's Army Day, Ahmadinejad said Iran was one of the strongest countries in the region and that "the gall to threaten the Iranian nation was quashed forever."

"The Iranian nation is ready to become more involved in maintaining order and security based on justice in many regions of the world," Ahmadinejad said.

His speech on Saturday was much more toned down than Army Day speeches from previous years; in 2006 Ahmadinejad warned that Iran's army will "cut off the hand of whoever dares attack it." In 2007 he said "the resistance of the Iranian people will bring down world powers."

The parade of military equipment on Saturday was also more modest than in previous years. While announcements prior to the parade said 140 jets will fly in formation, only several dozen helicopters dotted the skies of Iran on Saturday. An official explained that weather conditions prevented the jet air maneuvers from taking place.

Shihab and Khader missiles, which are usually driven atop their launching vehicles in the streets of Teheran, were also missing.
But Zilzal missiles, armored personnel carriers, unmanned aircraft and even small submarines surrounded by marching soldiers in diving masks. The forces passed before a stage where Ahmadinejad and top brass were sitting.

(jpost)

[sociostudent]

I was wondering wth this was all about. 

[Eckhart Tolle]

Any objection with changing the title to "Neo-Cons attack again, fearmongering about Israeli nuking Iran in a few hours"

None here.. Change it as you see fit.

[Dig]

None here.. Change it as you see fit.

No offense to the original topic.  Whenever this crap gets flashed on a 24/7 CIA-Fake-News program it needs to be vetted. My concern is that we are so conditioned to accept this shit when it really should trigger RICO investigations against those who plant these "news" reports.

[agentbluescreen]

Stale non-News from Jerusalem  Iranian Non-Threat 

Iran threatensHopes  'No one will dare attack Iranian nation'

The parade of military equipment on Saturday was also more modest than in previous years. While announcements prior to the parade said 140 jets would fly in formation, only several dozen spare helicopters dotted the skies of Iran on Saturday. An official explained that weatherIsraeli News conditions prevented the wastefully negligent jet fuel and alertness squandering air maneuvers from taking place.

Shihab and Khader missiles, which are usually driven atop their launching vehicles in the streets of Teheran, were also missingnow fully deployed elsewhere.

[David Rothscum]

You mean like voting for DeMOBlicans or RepublicRATs?

Democracy is the dictatorship of money (and all the religious-socialists it can buy).

Republican Liberty is the dictatorship of a paper monarch of hard won and always controversial freedoms called a (very hard to ever change) 'Constitution' that is guarded and enforced by law.

Well the majority of Israeli's supported the slaughter in Gaza too according to opinion polls. A large part of the Israeli public just wants war unfortunately. It's time we start realizing we can't blame everything on "the shadowy puppetmasters" as Deek calls them, when we buy into their lies we have to accept responsibility as well.

[Dig]

Well the majority of Israeli's supported the slaughter in Gaza too according to opinion polls. A large part of the Israeli public just wants war unfortunately. It's time we start realizing we can't blame everything on "the shadowy puppetmasters" as Deek calls them, when we buy into their lies we have to accept responsibility as well.

That is not accurate.

#1, the PM was not decided by an open election but by a very insane system of parliament shifts/power struggles.

#2, the poles were all over the place with large majority against a ground war (what ultimately ended it).

#3, Israel has the largest number of pilots and now other soldiers that completely disobey orders. It is totally unheard of in most other Armed Forces.  There are over 100 websites dedicated to the Israeli Pilot Disobeyers that refuse to attack any civilian target.

No excuse for the warmongering elite f**ktards that are in power and their genocide of palestinians, but to say that a majority (or an overwhelming majority as others have said) support the slaughter of innocent life may be off. Remember that poles showed for over 6 years that a majority of American people suppoted the genocide of Iraqi children. I do not believe that was accurate either as we all are starting to see. The NWO controls the top of the pyramids and the lower levels of the pyramids are starting to extract themselves from these control systems.  I am starting to see that the rate at which personal knowledge is being acquired may just topple the capstones prior to these insane NWO fearmongering scenarios.

[David Rothscum]

That is not accurate.

#1, the PM was not decided by an open election but by a very insane system of parliament shifts/power struggles.

#2, the poles were all over the place with large majority against a ground war (what ultimately ended it).

#3, Israel has the largest number of polits and now other soldiers that completely disobey orders. It is totally unheard of in most other Armed Forces.  There are over 100 websites dedicated to the Israeli Pilot Disobeyers that refuse to attack any civilian target.

Look at the last election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_legislative_election,_2009
Kadima    כן    758,032    22.47%
Likud    מחל    729,054    21.61%
Yisrael Beiteinu    ל    394,577    11.70%
Labor Party    אמת    334,900    9.93%
Shas    שס    286,300    8.49%.
United Torah Judaism    ג    147,954    4.39%
United Arab List–Ta'al    עם    113,954    3.38%
National Union    ט    112,570    3.34%
Labor Party and Kadima are the supposed Moderates. Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu are run by absolutely batshit insane people. And these parties got 32% of the votes. National Union is another pro-Imperialism party. That's 35%. Add Kadima to that list that is supposedly moderate but supported the slaughter in Gaza and you're at 55%. Israel was the only country where a majority of the population of the population supported the invasion of Iraq, besides the United States.
More than 90% of the Israeli public backed the invasion of Gaza according to a public opinion poll:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/gaza-israel-palestine
More than 90% of Jewish Israelis back the invasion, although that view is reversed among Israeli Arabs, according to the latest War and Peace Index in December.

And here's the public opinion on peace with Palestine:

http://www.arabisto.com/article/Blogs/Sabria_Jawhar/Israels_public_opinion_has_changed_but_not_the_govts/32855
A RECENT poll announced that 64 percent of the people in Israel oppose the 2002 Arab peace plan that promises Arab recognition of Israel if it returns to its 1967 borders and the Palestinian “right to return” issue is negotiated in good faith.

Do you have dissenting voices in Israel? Yes, thank God you do, and that's why you can't just condemn the whole Israeli public, just like you can't condemn every American for their government's illegal wars. Are the Israeli people under worse propaganda attacks from the media than we? Probably. Still, we can't just blame this all on the criminal Israeli government. A large portion of the public supports the government's criminal actions. And when the people have experienced the horrors of war themselves they often change their mind, the Israeli public is probably more pro-war than the Israeli military. It doesn't mean the Israeli public doesn't generally support these various wars it's government starts. If you went to the Palestinian territories you'd probably find a majority supporting pro-war opinions as well.

[Q]

Israel to go to war with Iran hours after order
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=91797&sectionid=351020101
Sat, 18 Apr 2009 12:47:10 GMT


Israel is reportedly preparing for a massive attack on Iran's nuclear sites "within days of being given the go-ahead by its new government."

According to a report by The Times, the Israel Defense Force (IDF) is taking every step to ready itself for "what would be a risky raid" on Iranian nuclear facilities.

"Israel wants to know that if its forces were given the green light they could strike at Iran in a matter of days, even hours," one senior Israeli defense official told The Times.

"They are making preparations on every level for this eventuality. The message to Iran is that the threat is not just words," the source added.

To ready itself for the "massive aerial assault" on Iran Israel has moved to equip itself with three Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) aircraft and regional missions to simulate the attack.

This is the quote (from the Times) that all these stories are based on, and it says the zionists could strike within days or hours of the order being given. So really, this is a readiness report and not much more - except propaganda from the zionist regime who are blowing hot air because that's all they're allowed to do right now.

[cathiasus]

Members of Iran's army march during a parade to commemorate the anniversary of army day in Tehran, April 18. (Photo by Arman Teymour)

Yeah! Army Day, lol.

[Q]

That is not accurate.

#1, the PM was not decided by an open election but by a very insane system of parliament shifts/power struggles.

#2, the poles were all over the place with large majority against a ground war (what ultimately ended it).

#3, Israel has the largest number of pilots and now other soldiers that completely disobey orders. It is totally unheard of in most other Armed Forces.  There are over 100 websites dedicated to the Israeli Pilot Disobeyers that refuse to attack any civilian target.

No excuse for the warmongering elite f**ktards that are in power and their genocide of palestinians, but to say that a majority (or an overwhelming majority as others have said) support the slaughter of innocent life may be off. Remember that poles showed for over 6 years that a majority of American people suppoted the genocide of Iraqi children. I do not believe that was accurate either as we all are starting to see. The NWO controls the top of the pyramids and the lower levels of the pyramids are starting to extract themselves from these control systems.  I am starting to see that the rate at which personal knowledge is being acquired may just topple the capstones prior to these insane NWO fearmongering scenarios.

You'd hope that some soldiers would disobey orders considering what they were being ordered to do in Gaza (torture/burning/murder of little kids). But most did not. Most carried out their orders and some even got the t-shirt (literally).

The zionist regime's population was overwhelmingly supportive of the Gaza genocide, as they are of the general policy of clearing Gaza and the West Bank, as they probably are of an attack on Iran. They're heavily manipulated of course - on many levels.

[Dig]

This is the quote (from the Times) that all these stories are based on, and it says the zionists could strike within days or hours of the order being given. So really, this is a readiness report and not much more - except propaganda from the zionist regime who are blowing hot air because that's all they're allowed to do right now.

agreed

[cathiasus]

Even if this fear mongering is true, Iran is not a country I want to eff with. Israel would have a better chance at defeating Hamas.
Pictures from Iran's Army Day.
http://www.payvand.com/news/09/apr/1200.html

[Dig]

You'd hope that some soldiers would disobey orders considering what they were being ordered to do in Gaza (torture/burning/murder of little kids). But most did not. Most carried out their orders and some even got the t-shirt (literally).

The zionist regime's population was overwhelmingly supportive of the Gaza genocide, as they are of the general policy of clearing Gaza and the West Bank, as they probably are of an attack on Iran. They're heavily manipulated of course - on many levels.

Most soldiers did not disobey orders, that is correct. But the percentage that did compared to let's say the US/UK in Iraq was unheard of.  Military in general are severely conditioned and controlled.  Kind of a requirement in an actual war.  But the leaders who used to want to get in, win, get out are now interessted in sustaining long wars and causing as many civilian casualties as possible.  Over one million women and children slaughtered in Iraq is just one example of this.

As far as information about the Israeli pilots, here are a few websites/stories where you can voice your support or use them to educate others about the zionist insanity running the armed forces at the behest of her majesty:

Helicopter Pilot 'Refused Order to Blast Palestinian House'
The rightwing Israeli newspaper Hatzofeh said the Apache pilot refused a direct order for fear of hitting civilians. The disclosure follows widespread ...
www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0418-02.htm - 12k - Cached - Similar pages

Refusal to serve in the Israeli military - Wikipedia, the free ...
There are some Israeli rabbis, former generals and public figures who call on soldiers to refuse orders to dismantle Israeli settlements and remove their ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_serve_in_the_Israeli_military - 66k - Cached - Similar pages

An Israeli pilot speaks out | From Occupied Palestine
Waiting for the order to attack. The order is received. ... love the State of Israel and to contribute to the Zionist enterprise, refuse to take part in the ...
www.fromoccupiedpalestine.org/node/1079 - 39k - Cached - Similar pages

Helicopter pilot 'refused order to blast Palestinian house ...
Apr 18, 2002 ... The rightwing Israeli newspaper Hatzofeh said the Apache pilot refused a direct order for fear of hitting civilians. ...
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/18/israel2 - 76k - Cached - Similar pages

Israeli debate over soldiers' duty deepens | The Japan Times Online
OFFICERS REFUSE ORDERS. Israeli debate over soldiers' duty deepens ... Yiftah Spector, a veteran Israeli pilot who participated in the 1973 Yom Kippur war ...
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20031003a1.html - Similar pages

ei: Senior Israeli pilot condemns air strikes that hit civilians
The Electronic Intifada: Human Rights: Senior Israeli pilot condemns air strikes that ... orders" or to take part in raids against populated civilians centres. ... a petition in which he and 26 other Israeli airmen say they'll refuse to ...
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article2093.shtml - 28k - Cached - Similar pages

USS Liberty - Israeli Pilot Speaks Up
Jul 10, 2003 ... The order was `Note the signal and, if it is Israeli, drop it. .... He refused to do so and returned to base, where he was arrested. ...
www.rense.com/general39/pilot.htm - 50k - Cached - Similar pages

AM - Israeli pilots refuse to attack civilians
Sep 26, 2003 ... (Israeli pilot speaking) "We are opposed to carrying out illegal and immoral attack orders," say the pilots, "of the sort Israel carries out ...
www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s954237.htm - 16k - Cached - Similar pages

Video: Israeli Soldiers refuse to serve in Gaza | NowPublic News ...
Jan 14, 2009 ... I was an operational fighter pilot and Captain of Black Hawks. ... Every soldier has not only the right, but duty to refuse orders and ...
www.nowpublic.com/world/video-israeli-soldiers-refuse-serve-gaza - 70k - Cached - Similar pages

Israel
One was the action of a fellow Israeli pilot who fired a 1-ton bomb from his ... include the obligation to refuse to obey orders that are clearly illegal ...
www.votenader.org/issues/foreign-policy/israel/ - 34k - Cached - Similar pages

6 posts - 3 authors - Last post: Apr 6, 2007
It wasn’t the first time Israeli soldiers refused to serve—dissident ... Shapira , the son of an Israeli pilot from an Ashkenazi family, .... One veteran right wing pilot said that people like me who disobey orders in ...
www.inthesetimes.com/article/3092/an_israeli_refusenik_good_fight/ - 46k - Cached - Similar pages

Flying Focus Newsletter August 2005
Yonatan Shapira, an Israeli pilot who refused to serve in the occupied ... soldiers who refuse to carry out orders that involve evacuating Jewish settlers, ...
www.rdrop.com/~ffvc/News0805.html - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

Senior Israeli Pilot Condemns Air Strikes That Hit Civilians
Oct 21, 2003 ... Senior Israeli Pilot Condemns Air Strikes That Hit Civilians ... say they no longer want to "obey illegal and immoral orders" or to take part ... in which he and 26 other Israeli airmen say they'll refuse to take part in ...
www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1021-07.htm - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

Israel terror attack on the U.S.S Liberty [Archive] - Forums of ...
Condilover, do you know what happened to the Israeli pilot that refused to ... Ground control orders the helicopter pilots to look for survivors and to ...
http://engforum.pravda.ru/archive/index.php/t-157413.html - 29k - Cached - Similar pages

25 Israeli Air Force pilots to refuse attack orders
25 Israeli Air Force pilots to refuse attack orders ... Spector is a mythological pilot in the Air Force, who commanded squadrons and bases, participated in ...
www.labournet.net/world/0309/airforce1.html - 7k - Cached - Similar pages

Israeli Air Force pilots in reserves refuse to attak
I don't understand how one can refuse in advance to carry out an order ... Yiftah Spector, a highly decorated retired pilot who, according to Israeli media , ...
www.refusingtokill.net/Israel/israeliaiforcepilots.htm - Similar pages

'I refuse to fight for Israel' - Guardian Weekly
'I refuse to fight for Israel'. Wednesday February 18th 2009 ... I was put on trial for refusing the order to become a soldier and sentenced to military prison. ... my mother’s boyfriend is an army pilot and my brother is in the army ...
www.guardianweekly.co.uk/?page=editorial&id=955&catID=6 - 26k - Cached - Similar pages

Israeli pilot kicked out of air force for saying Israeli acts are ...
Israeli pilot kicked out of air force for saying Israeli acts are immoral, ... joined today the Israeli pilots who refused to carry out assassination ... deal with itself as on occupying force and deal with the immoral orders, as well, ...
www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/031010/2003101046.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

Mideast Dispatch Archive: CNN, BBC, Eurosport refuse to air Ron ...
An Israeli pilot has been in captivity for 18 years and the campaign's aim ... The committee had convened this morning in order to receive a report on the ...
www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000038.html - 21k -

[Dig]

Look at the last election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_legislative_election,_2009
Kadima    כן    758,032    22.47%
Likud    מחל    729,054    21.61%
Yisrael Beiteinu    ל    394,577    11.70%
Labor Party    אמת    334,900    9.93%
Shas    שס    286,300    8.49%.
United Torah Judaism    ג    147,954    4.39%
United Arab List–Ta'al    עם    113,954    3.38%
National Union    ט    112,570    3.34%
Labor Party and Kadima are the supposed Moderates. Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu are run by absolutely batshit insane people. And these parties got 32% of the votes. National Union is another pro-Imperialism party. That's 35%. Add Kadima to that list that is supposedly moderate but supported the slaughter in Gaza and you're at 55%. Israel was the only country where a majority of the population of the population supported the invasion of Iraq, besides the United States.

You are using the party structure (BTW, notice there is no majority?) to say that a majority agree with something.  You then admit that the supposed moderate parties have war mongering leadership.  By that analysis, over 99% of the American people want to continue the war in Iraq and want to expand the war in Afghanistan.  Also over 99% of the public in the US support giving $13 Trillion to the international banking elite.

More than 90% of the Israeli public backed the invasion of Gaza according to a public opinion poll:

And that is why I say the polls were all over the place because there were polls that showed over 50% against the Gaza incursion and even more against the ground war.  But as we all kno, polls are to be taken with a grain of salt.

And here's the public opinion on peace with Palestine:Do you have dissenting voices in Israel? Yes, thank God you do, and that's why you can't just condemn the whole Israeli public, just like you can't condemn every American for their government's illegal wars. Are the Israeli people under worse propaganda attacks from the media than we? Probably. Still, we can't just blame this all on the criminal Israeli government. A large portion of the public supports the government's criminal actions. And when the people have experienced the horrors of war themselves they often change their mind, the Israeli public is probably more pro-war than the Israeli military. It doesn't mean the Israeli public doesn't generally support these various wars it's government starts. If you went to the Palestinian territories you'd probably find a majority supporting pro-war opinions as well.

Well we can blame it on the government set up by Britain/US/Nazi Germany, we can blame it on over 50 years of false flag terrorism by the anlo oligarchy to force both sides into bloody hell, we can blame it on UK/US support of genocide, we can blame it on the neocon puppets like Sharon/Olmert/Arafat/Abbas/Netanyahu/etc. and we can blame it on the mind controlled insanity programming the israeli people 10x more than those in the US, and we can blame it on many of the zionists that are prevelant throughout the US/UK/Israel.  Also members of Hamas and Beit Shin who like members of MI6/SAS/CIA obey insane orders for G7 interests.

[Bad Slave]

Change the title of your post man, that's disinfo. They aren't going to nuke Iran, they are going to bomb Irans nuclear sites.

Israel used nuclear weapons against Iraq in the first Gulf War and uranium munitions against the Palestinians during the most recent attack.  You cannot take out Iran's nuclear sites with surgical strikes.  It will take weeks.  Iran can kick Israel's ass if we stay out of it.

[Q]

Most soldiers did not disobey orders, that is correct. But the percentage that did compared to let's say the US/UK in Iraq was unheard of.  Military in general are severely conditioned and controlled.  Kind of a requirement in an actual war.  But the leaders who used to want to get in, win, get out are now interessted in sustaining long wars and causing as many civilian casualties as possible.  Over one million women and children slaughtered in Iraq is just one example of this.

As far as information about the Israeli pilots, here are a few websites/stories where you can voice your support or use them to educate others about the zionist insanity running the armed forces at the behest of her majesty:

Good stories and good people - and the insights are valuable, no doubt.

But they are the exception that proves the rule - and there's no way around that.

[David Rothscum]

You are using the party structure (BTW, notice there is no majority?) to say that a majority agree with something.  You then admit that the supposed moderate parties have war mongering leadership.  By that analysis, over 99% of the American people want to continue the war in Iraq and want to expand the war in Afghanistan.  Also over 99% of the public in the US support giving $13 Trillion to the international banking elite.

The supposedly moderate Kadima supported this war in Gaza and yet the public made them the biggest party after the election. If the people didn't want this they should've voted Labor or Meretz or something along those lines instead of rewarding these psychopaths. More people probably supported the air strikes than did the ground war, but still the vast majority supported the ground war. The reason is because this means there'll be Israeli casualties as well. It's the same as in the US and Europe. You never hear about the civilian death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan, only about the occupying nations death toll.

And that is why I say the polls were all over the place because there were polls that showed over 50% against the Gaza incursion and even more against the ground war.  But as we all kno, polls are to be taken with a grain of salt.

The only polls that showed opposition to a ground invasion were taken far before any ground invasion took place. Besides, we constantly see results like these.

Well we can blame it on the government set up by Britain/US/Nazi Germany, we can blame it on over 50 years of false flag terrorism by the anlo oligarchy to force both sides into bloody hell, we can blame it on UK/US support of genocide, we can blame it on the neocon puppets like Sharon/Olmert/Arafat/Abbas/Netanyahu/etc. and we can blame it on the mind controlled insanity programming the israeli people 10x more than those in the US, and we can blame it on many of the zionists that are prevelant throughout the US/UK/Israel.  Also members of Hamas and Beit Shin who like members of MI6/SAS/CIA obey insane orders for G7 interests.

All true. But we can also blame the dumb people that support this. I mean, in most of the Western world people have Internet. Yet they choose to believe propaganda on TV instead, while they could try to find out the truth. We can't always just blame someone else.

[Dig]

Good stories and good people - and the insights are valuable, no doubt.

But they are the exception that proves the rule - and there's no way around that.

Absolutely like all militay, I am talking about percentages of those refusing orders.

They are exponentially higher than the US/UK - and there's no way around that.

[Dig]

The supposedly moderate Kadima supported this war in Gaza and yet the public made them the biggest party after the election. If the people didn't want this they should've voted Labor or Meretz or something along those lines instead of rewarding these psychopaths. More people probably supported the air strikes than did the ground war, but still the vast majority supported the ground war. The reason is because this means there'll be Israeli casualties as well. It's the same as in the US and Europe. You never hear about the civilian death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan, only about the occupying nations death toll.
The only polls that showed opposition to a ground invasion were taken far before any ground invasion took place. Besides, we constantly see results like these.All true. But we can also blame the dumb people that support this. I mean, in most of the Western world people have Internet. Yet they choose to believe propaganda on TV instead, while they could try to find out the truth. We can't always just blame someone else.

Out of the multimillions to blame, I like to focus on the really psycopathic and genocidal maniacs.  We are also brain washed to believe that blaming the general population or categories of people rather than the elites is a preferable method to bring about a "final solution".  Then we can also blame ourselves. I think you get my point and I get yours.  They are nearly identical and food for thought.  I accept your stand on this and understand it.

[Shadow911Zeus]

A short time ago I read that the U.S. was sending military weapons shipments to Israel.

Below is the article which states Israel could start bombing within hours.

Should we start preparing?

Your views?


Link : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6115903.ece


From The TimesApril 18, 2009

Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites
Sheera Frenkel in Jerusalem
The Israeli military is preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran's nuclear facilities within days of being given the go-ahead by its new government.

Among the steps taken to ready Israeli forces for what would be a risky raid requiring pinpoint aerial strikes are the acquisition of three Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) aircraft and regional missions to simulate the attack.

Two nationwide civil defence drills will help to prepare the public for the retaliation that Israel could face.

“Israel wants to know that if its forces were given the green light they could strike at Iran in a matter of days, even hours. They are making preparations on every level for this eventuality. The message to Iran is that the threat is not just words,” one senior defence official told The Times.

Related Links
ANALYSIS: Same facts, different viewpoints
Iran opens first nuclear fuel production facility
Only Obama can save Iran from Israel
Officials believe that Israel could be required to hit more than a dozen targets, including moving convoys. The sites include Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges produce enriched uranium; Esfahan, where 250 tonnes of gas is stored in tunnels; and Arak, where a heavy water reactor produces plutonium.

The distance from Israel to at least one of the sites is more than 870 miles, a distance that the Israeli force practised covering in a training exercise last year that involved F15 and F16 jets, helicopters and refuelling tankers.

The possible Israeli strike on Iran has drawn comparisons to its attack on the Osirak nuclear facility near Baghdad in 1981. That strike, which destroyed the facility in under 100 seconds, was completed without Israeli losses and checked Iraqi ambitions for a nuclear weapons programme.

“We would not make the threat [against Iran] without the force to back it. There has been a recent move, a number of on-the-ground preparations, that indicate Israel's willingness to act,” said another official from Israel's intelligence community.

He added that it was unlikely that Israel would carry out the attack without receiving at least tacit approval from America, which has struck a more reconciliatory tone in dealing with Iran under its new administration.

An Israeli attack on Iran would entail flying over Jordanian and Iraqi airspace, where US forces have a strong presence.

Ephraim Kam, the deputy director of the Institute for National Security Studies, said it was unlikely that the Americans would approve an attack.

“The American defence establishment is unsure that the operation will be successful. And the results of the operation would only delay Iran's programme by two to four years,” he said.

A visit by President Obama to Israel in June is expected to coincide with the national elections in Iran — timing that would allow the US Administration to re-evaluate diplomatic resolutions with Iran before hearing the Israeli position.

“Many of the leaks or statements made by Israeli leaders and military commanders are meant for deterrence. The message is that if [the international community] is unable to solve the problem they need to take into account that we will solve it our way,” Mr Kam said.

Among recent preparations by the airforce was the Israeli attack of a weapons convoy in Sudan bound for militants in the Gaza Strip.

“Sudan was practice for the Israeli forces on a long-range attack,” Ronen Bergman, the author of The Secret War with Iran, said. “They wanted to see how they handled the transfer of information, hitting a moving target ... In that sense it was a rehearsal.”

Israel has made public its intention to hold the largest-ever nationwide drill next month.

Colonel Hilik Sofer told Haaretz, a daily Israeli newspaper, that the drill would “train for a reality in which during war missiles can fall on any part of the country without warning ... We want the citizens to understand that war can happen tomorrow morning”.

Israel will conduct an exercise with US forces to test the ability of Arrow, its US-funded missile defence system. The exercise would test whether the system could intercept missiles launched at Israel.

“Israel has made it clear that it will not tolerate the threat of a nuclear Iran. According to Israeli Intelligence they will have the bomb within two years ... Once they have a bomb it will be too late, and Israel will have no choice to strike — with or without America,” an official from the Israeli Defence Ministry said.

[Shadow911Zeus]

A short time ago I read that the U.S. was sending military weapons shipments to Israel.

Below is the article which states Israel could start bombing within hours.

Should we start preparing?

Your views?


Link : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6115903.ece


From The TimesApril 18, 2009

Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites
Sheera Frenkel in Jerusalem
The Israeli military is preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran's nuclear facilities within days of being given the go-ahead by its new government.

Among the steps taken to ready Israeli forces for what would be a risky raid requiring pinpoint aerial strikes are the acquisition of three Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) aircraft and regional missions to simulate the attack.

Two nationwide civil defence drills will help to prepare the public for the retaliation that Israel could face.

“Israel wants to know that if its forces were given the green light they could strike at Iran in a matter of days, even hours. They are making preparations on every level for this eventuality. The message to Iran is that the threat is not just words,” one senior defence official told The Times.

Related Links
ANALYSIS: Same facts, different viewpoints
Iran opens first nuclear fuel production facility
Only Obama can save Iran from Israel
Officials believe that Israel could be required to hit more than a dozen targets, including moving convoys. The sites include Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges produce enriched uranium; Esfahan, where 250 tonnes of gas is stored in tunnels; and Arak, where a heavy water reactor produces plutonium.

The distance from Israel to at least one of the sites is more than 870 miles, a distance that the Israeli force practised covering in a training exercise last year that involved F15 and F16 jets, helicopters and refuelling tankers.

The possible Israeli strike on Iran has drawn comparisons to its attack on the Osirak nuclear facility near Baghdad in 1981. That strike, which destroyed the facility in under 100 seconds, was completed without Israeli losses and checked Iraqi ambitions for a nuclear weapons programme.

“We would not make the threat [against Iran] without the force to back it. There has been a recent move, a number of on-the-ground preparations, that indicate Israel's willingness to act,” said another official from Israel's intelligence community.

He added that it was unlikely that Israel would carry out the attack without receiving at least tacit approval from America, which has struck a more reconciliatory tone in dealing with Iran under its new administration.

An Israeli attack on Iran would entail flying over Jordanian and Iraqi airspace, where US forces have a strong presence.

Ephraim Kam, the deputy director of the Institute for National Security Studies, said it was unlikely that the Americans would approve an attack.

“The American defence establishment is unsure that the operation will be successful. And the results of the operation would only delay Iran's programme by two to four years,” he said.

A visit by President Obama to Israel in June is expected to coincide with the national elections in Iran — timing that would allow the US Administration to re-evaluate diplomatic resolutions with Iran before hearing the Israeli position.

“Many of the leaks or statements made by Israeli leaders and military commanders are meant for deterrence. The message is that if [the international community] is unable to solve the problem they need to take into account that we will solve it our way,” Mr Kam said.

Among recent preparations by the airforce was the Israeli attack of a weapons convoy in Sudan bound for militants in the Gaza Strip.

“Sudan was practice for the Israeli forces on a long-range attack,” Ronen Bergman, the author of The Secret War with Iran, said. “They wanted to see how they handled the transfer of information, hitting a moving target ... In that sense it was a rehearsal.”

Israel has made public its intention to hold the largest-ever nationwide drill next month.

Colonel Hilik Sofer told Haaretz, a daily Israeli newspaper, that the drill would “train for a reality in which during war missiles can fall on any part of the country without warning ... We want the citizens to understand that war can happen tomorrow morning”.

Israel will conduct an exercise with US forces to test the ability of Arrow, its US-funded missile defence system. The exercise would test whether the system could intercept missiles launched at Israel.

“Israel has made it clear that it will not tolerate the threat of a nuclear Iran. According to Israeli Intelligence they will have the bomb within two years ... Once they have a bomb it will be too late, and Israel will have no choice to strike — with or without America,” an official from the Israeli Defence Ministry said.

Sorry about reposting this article as a thread, I searched but did not notice a thread was already posted.

[heavyhebrew]

Israel used nuclear weapons against Iraq in the first Gulf War and uranium munitions against the Palestinians during the most recent attack.  You cannot take out Iran's nuclear sites with surgical strikes.  It will take weeks.  Iran can kick Israel's ass if we stay out of it.

While I think you are high to make the statement about using nukes by Israel you must understand that we will not stay out of any conflict. Are military establishment will be keenly interested to see how their most modern equipment does against the Russian/Chinese supplied Iranians. Nothing more than a return to the bad days of proxy warfare. Since the establishment of Central Banks in the 19th century the world has seen 4 years of peace. At all times, anywhere on the globe their is a conflict of some sort.
This time is when they get to see how their equipment shapes up against the two major states left not thoroughly under their thumb. Think of it as a preview.

This is just business, nothing more. Not Armageddon not some slide into chaos. Just a product review. So a few hundred thousand die, you think the global elite care?

And with an inflamed Muslim world, more justification for more police control here at home.

[Eckhart Tolle]

Sorry about reposting this article as a thread, I searched but did not notice a thread was already posted.

It's no big deal, That happens quite often on here. IMO, it's better to be double/triple posted then not posted at all.

Plus we like to keep Sane busy lol 

[Joseon]

It seems like Ephraim Kam is a key component to this analysis. He says that Israel would unlikely attack without the approval from US. And from his insight, since he has connections to military secrets in Israel, the US does not think that an attack would be a wise thing to do at this juncture. More likely, Kam reveals that the new report, rather unchanged will be a guiding map, to his future decisions regarding Iran. Kam and the American intelligence has gathered that Iran has 2 of 3 neccessary ingredients for Nuclear grade weapons.

this is from Ephraim Kam's own research documents.

America's Intelligence Assessment on the Iranian Nuclear Issue
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:RvYGQk_s4zMJ:israelpolicyforum.ngphost.com/blog/americas-intelligence-assessment-iranian-nuclear-issue+Ephraim+Kam&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

INSS Insight No. 98, March 19, 2009

In February 2009, the American intelligence community published the unclassified portion of the intelligence assessment regarding threats directed against the United States.[1] The intelligence report, signed by Admiral Dennis Blair, the new Director of National Intelligence, includes a section on the Iranian nuclear issue. The new intelligence assessment does not differ in essence from the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the Iranian issue, which sparked much criticism in Israel and the United States for downplaying the nuclear question. However, the emphases of the new report differ in part from those of the preceding one.

The new intelligence report is in part similar to the 2007 estimate:

   1. The new assessment repeats the previous finding that in 2003 Iran froze its military nuclear program, which included attempts at converting fissile materials into weapons, clandestine uranium conversions, and other activities connected to the process of enriching uranium. The new report determines that this freeze lasted at least until the middle of 2007, and that there is no information indicating that the program was resumed. American intelligence does not have enough information to determine with certainty if Iran is prepared to continue the freeze on its military nuclear program.
  
 2.The new assessment also allows a measure of doubt as to whether Iran has made a final decision on producing nuclear weapons. Thus, it determines that the American intelligence community does not know if Iran intends to produce nuclear weapons, and notes twice that "Iran could develop nuclear weapons" should it decide to do so.
  
3. Similar to the 2007 report, the new assessment also notes that Iran retains the option to develop nuclear weapons, and that it possesses the technological infrastructure that would allow it to develop nuclear weapons.
  
4. The timetable involved in Iran obtaining nuclear weapons has not changed. According to the assessment, Iran will be able to produce high quality enriched uranium in quantities sufficient for nuclear weapons between 2010 and 2015 (though according to assessment of the US State Department research units, not before 2013).

Nevertheless, the new report treats the risk of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons with greater gravity than the previous report in two ways:

  
1. The new assessment particularly emphasizes that Iran is making significant progress in at least two of the areas relevant to producing nuclear weapons: enriching uranium, which would allow the production of fissile material to produce nuclear weapons, and manufacturing and improving ballistic missiles as launching vehicles capable of carrying a nuclear payload. Whereas the 2007 report placed its emphasis on the freezing of the Iranian program, the new assessment focuses on the progress made in these two areas.
  

2. The new report estimates that Iran seems to have succeeded in importing some fissile material, though not in quantities sufficient to produce nuclear weapons. The report does not rule out the possibility that Iran has either already obtained or will at some future point obtain nuclear weapons or fissile material in sufficient quantities for nuclear weapons from abroad. However, according to the American intelligence assessment, Iran today does not have nuclear weapons, and to date has not obtained fissile material in quantities sufficient to produce nuclear weapons. In this sense, the assessment does not support the statement by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, who at the end of February claimed that Iran has enough fissile material to produce a bomb.

The new intelligence assessment also refers to the possibility of stopping Iran before it attains nuclear weapons. According to the assessment, only a political decision on the part of Iran's leadership to renounce the goal of attaining nuclear weapons will stop Iran's quest for this type of weapon. However, convincing Iranian leaders to renounce this goal will be difficult because of the connection Iran sees between possessing nuclear weapons and its own national security and because of the efforts Iran has already invested in realizing this goal. The report adds that there is a possibility that a composite of threats and pressures, together with the creation of alternative ways for Iran to advance its national security, may motivate Iran to stop striving for nuclear weapons, but that it is very difficult to say what such a composite would be.

Ramifications

The new American intelligence estimate has thus far not received the kind of special attention as did the intelligence estimate of December 2007. Still the new estimate is of great significance because this is the first intelligence assessment placed on President Obama's desk, and specifically on the Iranian nuclear situation. It is expected to guide him in the near future as he determines his policy towards Iran, including his attempt to develop a meaningful dialogue with it.

The message emerging from this estimate is not unequivocal. On the one hand, it points to Iran's significant progress towards nuclear weapons in at least two of the three areas contributing to their development - but not in all three. The conclusion regarding the third - converting fissile material into weapons - remains open. The estimate even raises the possibility that Iran might leap ahead in its pursuit of nuclear weapons should it manage to obtain fissile material in sufficient quantities to make a bomb from abroad, or might even obtain the bomb itself. On the other side, the estimate does not convey a sense of urgency, and more important, it casts doubt on Iran's having made the final decision to go ahead with the production of nuclear weapons, even though it continues to keep the option on the table and has the technological capability of fulfilling to do so.

Furthermore, the conclusion of the American intelligence community about stopping Iran before it obtains nuclear weapons is also equivocal. It feels that it may be possible to stop Iran by a combination of pressures and enticements. The fact that Iran froze its military nuclear program in 2003 supports that point, yet it would nonetheless be difficult to achieve because Iran views its nuclear program as a vital national project. It is also not clear what precise combination of pressures and enticements would be able to convince Iran to renounce the goal of obtaining nuclear weapons.

Essentially, the American intelligence community still clings to the basis of its December 2007 estimate, with a change of emphases and formulation. The previous estimate of the American intelligence community of February 2008 - written just two months after the December 2007 estimate and in light of the criticism leveled against that report - deleted the doubts about Iran's intention of developing nuclear weapons.[2] In the new estimate of February 2009, these doubts are revived.

In the absence of information, it is hard to assess how the Obama administration will relate to the new intelligence assessment. In mid-March 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that in light of the failure of intelligence with regard to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, any American president would be "very, very careful" when it comes to relying on intelligence.[3] In the meantime, after the publication of the estimate, President Obama characterized Iran as an extraordinary threat against the security of the United States, and extended American sanctions against Iran. However, if a dialogue of substance develops between the American administration and Iran, the intelligence estimate may serve to create a feeling within the administration that time is not of the essence, and that at this stage there is no need to limit the time period of the dialogue if it seems that this option can be productive.

 

[Shadow911Zeus]

It's no big deal, That happens quite often on here. IMO, it's better to be double/triple posted then not posted at all.

Plus we like to keep Sane busy lol 

 

[Q]

Absolutely like all militay, I am talking about percentages of those refusing orders.

They are exponentially higher than the US/UK - and there's no way around that.

Percentages aren't necessarily important though. 0.01% is 100 times .0001% but it's still only 0.01%. Do you have the percentages so that we can compare anyway?

The important factor is whether there are significant numbers (or percentages) - that is, significant tactically or for morale. A few high profile swans do not make a summer.

Possibly the most important factor is the overwhelming support for military action from the population which has a reinforcing effect on the military - they are among the most hawkish populations anywhere, possibly more so than the military, and plenty of willing new recruits to replace any Conscientious Objectors.

So while the relative numbers of COs might be of academic interest, I don't believe it to be significant.

[Joseon]

turns out that Ephraim Kam published another insane article about Iran's nuclear/political capability in 2005. I think that he is definitely in the hands of some neo-con, NWO organisation. He was a deputy  head of the Jaffee institute for Strategic  Studies in 1995. And before that, Kam was a colonel for military intelligence for Israel in 1993.

Dr. Ephraim Kam has served as Deputy Head of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University since 1995. He previously served as a colonel in the Research Division of IDF Military Intelligence. He specializes in security problems of the Middle East, Iranian strategy, Israeli national security issues, and strategic intelligence. His publications include: Surprise Attack: The Victim's Perspective (1988); The Changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe: Implications on the Middle East (1991, Hebrew); The Political Framework of the Palestinian Entity (1993, Hebrew); and From Terror to Nuclear Bombs: The Significance of the Iranian Threat (2004, Hebrew).

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:m5MOvWLuYz0J:www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp%3FDBID%3D1%26TMID%3D610%26LNGID%3D1%26FID%3D380%26PID%3D0%26IID%3D547+%22Ephraim+Kam%22&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a


Here is the article itself

by  Dr. Ephraim Kam
Published September 2005

Vol. 5, No. 5     29 September 2005

 
What If Iran Gets the Bomb?
The Iranian Challenge to the West

Ephraim Kam

      The Iranians are conducting a clandestine nuclear program in parallel to the public one, the aim of which is clearly the acquisition of nuclear weapons. The Israeli intelligence assessment speaks of three or four years; the Americans add another year or two to this timetable.
    *

      The Americans conducted a large-scale operation in Iraq in order to bring down a regime which was engaged, it was thought at the time, in supporting terrorism and having weapons of mass destruction programs. Iran is clearly in the same category, and therefore it is concerned about an American/Israeli operation against its nuclear facilities.
    *

      From the Israeli viewpoint, an Iranian bomb will mean that for the first time an enemy country - and Iran is an enemy country by all definitions - will acquire the capability to inflict a very heavy blow on Israel. The more so since the formal Iranian position is that Israel should disappear from the map, that the solution of the Palestinian problem should be the establishment of a Palestinian state not alongside Israel but instead of Israel. No Arab government today holds such a position.
    *

      A nuclear Iran has to take into account certain important constraints. One is American deterrence. The Iranians have no doubt about the balance of power between themselves and the Americans. And if they had any doubts, the American conduct of the war in Iraq left no doubt about American capabilities. The Iranians must also take into account that if Iran uses a nuclear bomb against any of the allies of the U.S., especially against Israel, America will regard this as an attack against itself, and will react accordingly.
    *

      If Iran acquires the bomb, it will encourage other countries in the Middle East to join this nuclear arms race, especially Egypt, and perhaps Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Algeria, and Syria. It would be difficult for a country like Egypt, the leader of the Arab world, to stay out of this circle.


The Failure of the Reformists

Iran has been undergoing important domestic change since the late 1980s, in fact, since the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. This change is reflected by the fact that the Iranian political system is now more open, there is more freedom. People allow themselves to criticize the regime or at least the policy of the regime. People speak more freely.

After the election of former president Muhammad Khatami in 1997, a majority in parliament was captured by those who wanted reform. The elected institutions in Iran - the presidency, the parliament, many municipal councils - were in the hands of reformists, moderates who wanted change, while the unelected institutions - the army, the revolutionary guards, the legal system, the economic system, and, above all, the spiritual leadership - remained in the hands of the radical wing of the regime.

There were many expectations. Immediately after his election, former president Khatami referred to his admiration of Western culture and suggested a dialogue between the Iranian people and the American people. The feeling was that things were moving toward further important changes inside Iran and in its foreign policy, but this has not happened. During the last two years, change has occurred in the other direction, which means the reformists lost their strongholds one by one. They lost a majority in many municipal councils; last year they lost the majority in the parliament; and this year they lost their last stronghold, the presidency, when a radical president was elected.

The election of a radical as the new president of Iran was not a surprise because there was no chance that a reformist would be elected this time. The surprise was that an unknown politician like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former mayor of Teheran and an ultra-radical, won. He won because he managed to deliver a message that he's going to take care of the poor and transfer money from the rich to the poor. Many of the poor people voted for him. The other reason he won is that the radical establishment and spiritual leader Ali Khamenei himself supported him.

What are the reasons for the failure of the reformists in the last two years? Although they had a leader, former president Khatami, he was not determined enough to lead the struggle and eventually many of those who wanted change despaired of the current situation and didn't come to the polls to vote.

In the short run, the election of the new president is a clear victory for the radical establishment and for Khamenei, but the president doesn't have much ability to change foreign policy. Even with eight years of Khatami as president, he did not manage to advance his call for improving relations with the United States. He did not differ with regard to Iran's nuclear policy, and he never said one positive word with regard to Israel.

Iran's Drive to Acquire Nuclear Weapons

The other bad news relates to the nuclear arena. Beginning three years ago, there have been a series of revelations regarding the Iranian nuclear program. We know now about an entire series of nuclear sites which had been unknown before. The Iranians are conducting a clandestine nuclear program in parallel to the public one, under the title of building a full nuclear fuel cycle, the aim of which - though not of course admitted by the Iranians - is clearly the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

The bottom line is that Iran is close to having these weapons. The Israeli intelligence assessment speaks of three or four years, which means they need about another year to get control of the technology, and another year or two to gather a sufficient amount of fissile material, probably highly enriched uranium, and then to turn it into an atomic bomb. The Americans add another year or two to this timetable. In the past, both the American and Israeli intelligence communities were mistaken, predicting since 1992 that Iran would acquire its first bomb in five to eight years. This was not accurate because it is difficult to make a really accurate assessment. But three to five years is the timetable we have to think about until Iran acquires its first atomic bomb.

Iran is under heavy pressure emanating from American military moves around Iran, mostly in Afghanistan and more importantly in Iraq. Iran is now encircled by pro-American regimes and in some of the countries bordering on Iran there are American troops. The message of the American move into Iraq is very clear to the Iranians. The Americans conducted a large-scale operation in Iraq in order to bring down a regime which was engaged, it was thought at the time, in supporting terrorism and having weapons of mass destruction programs. Iran is clearly in the same category. According to the American definition, Iran is the country most involved in terrorism around the world.

Consideration of a Pre-emptive Strike

The American administration under President Bush is indicating quite clearly that it is not ignoring the military option with regard to the Iranian program if the diplomatic option fails. The outcome is that Iran is very much concerned about an American/Israeli operation against its nuclear facilities.

There is very little to compare when considering a possible military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and the case of the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear plant in 1981. The Iranian site is much better protected. It's not a matter of one plant, as in the Iraqi case, but a series of three or four important sites. Some of them are deep underground, and the Iranians may have some secret sites we don't even know about. Furthermore, even if Iran's known sites are destroyed, it might take Iran a relative short time to rebuild them?

There are other difficulties. Any country that attacks Iran will have to pay a political price, especially Israel. Even those who may benefit from such an attack will condemn it. In addition, Iran can respond to an attack, unlike Iraq in 1981. It can respond, for example, by using Hizballah to fire its large rocket system against the north of Israel. It can try to disrupt the oil flow from the Gulf area. It can act against American targets in the Middle East and the Gulf area. And Iran says explicitly that if Israel attacks Iranian nuclear sites, it will respond by using its new operational missile, the Shihab III, which can reach Israeli targets.

The bottom line is that to carry out such an attack is a huge mission. It may be necessary to repeat such an attack two or three times because one attack may not be enough. In my judgment, it's a matter for a superpower to consider, not a local power, even if its name is Israel.

A Change in European Attitudes

Another outcome of the revelations about the Iranian nuclear program has been a real change in position by many European governments and, above all, the French government, which until a few years ago did not believe that the Iranians really intended to acquire the bomb.

Since 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency, with the encouragement of the European governments and the blessing of the American government, has been sending inspectors to the Iranians' known nuclear sites, and the agency publishes a report every three months about the Iranian nuclear program. All of these reports very harshly criticize the Iranians for hiding their activities. On the other hand, the agency has failed to declare that the Iranians are violating their commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and that they are really aiming to acquire the bomb.

The European governments, backed by the American administration, have been conducting negotiations for the last two years with the Iranian government in order to find some compromise which will stop, if not end, the Iranian nuclear program. In my judgment, on the one hand, Iran is not going to give up its nuclear program. For the Iranians this is a national project. There is much agreement inside the Iranian establishment to continue this program and they say it explicitly, without any reservations.

On the other hand, the European governments did manage to conclude two agreements with the Iranians - one in October 2003 and the other in November 2004 - to at least temporarily suspend their nuclear activities. These temporary agreements did manage to delay the Iranian timetable for acquiring the bomb by perhaps one year.

If the negotiations with Iran fail, the next step could be to refer the matter to the UN Security Council, but it is not at all clear that the council will impose sanctions on Iran. While the Americans and the Europeans will support such a move, the position of the Russians and the Chinese is not at all clear and either could veto such a resolution. And if they don't veto, are there real, substantial sanctions that could be imposed on Iran?

Furthermore, both China and especially Russia are important partners of Iran, especially in the economic field. The Russians are investing a lot of money in Iran, and are building the nuclear plant in Bushehr. The Chinese are supplying the Iranian army with military material and technology. In addition, both Russia and China regard American attempts to contain Iranian nuclear efforts as manifestation of American patronage over the Middle East, and they want to contain that too.

Can a Political Deal be Struck?

To what extent can we expect a grand deal between the Western world and Iran like the one that took place with Libya? The conditions for such a deal are clear to both sides. Iran is required to give up its nuclear program, give up its involvement in terrorism, and not try to disrupt the Arab-Israeli peace process. The Europeans add a fourth condition, which is better treatment of human rights inside Iran. The Iranians want guarantees for their security, especially on the part of America which poses the main threat to Iran. They want agreements on large-scale technological assistance by the West, especially with regard to the oil sector. Iran would also like to have greater influence on what happens in its neighborhood, especially in the Persian Gulf area, and recognition of their interests in that area.

Yet despite the fact that there has been some dialogue between the Iranians and the American administration for the past five years, there is no trust between the parties and without that, no real dialogue has developed.

The key obstacle is the position of the Iranian regime. The radical wing of the regime is refusing to negotiate with the Americans on substantial issues because the lack of a relationship with the United States is one of the last symbols of their revolution. If they initiate a real dialogue with the United States, or even with Israel, what is left of the revolution? So they are not willing to give this up.

The Israeli Perspective

So what happens if Iran acquires the bomb? For some Israeli leaders, this is the most significant strategic threat, especially considering that Israel is not bothered about Egyptian or Jordanian threats, the Syrian threat is relatively limited, and Iraq is now out of the picture.

An Iranian bomb will mean that for the first time an enemy country - and Iran is an enemy country by all definitions - will acquire the capability to inflict a very heavy blow on Israel. The more so since the formal Iranian position is that Israel should disappear from the map, that the solution of the Palestinian problem should be the establishment of a Palestinian state not alongside Israel but instead of Israel. Even more moderate leaders like Khatami said specifically: The Jews should go back to their countries of origin; the State of Israel should be part of the Palestinian state. No Arab government today holds such a position.

Why is Iran So Hostile to Israel?

Why is Iran so hostile to Israel? Before the establishment of the regime, Khomeini and his followers regarded Israel as a political entity which should not exist for several reasons: Israel is occupying Muslim territory and suppressing Muslim people, the Palestinians; Israel is controlling Muslim holy sites, especially Jerusalem.

The Israelis are also regarded by the Iranians as linked to the United States and to the former hated regime of the Shah. In addition, there is the security aspect. Since the early 1990s, the Iranians have come to regard Israel as a threat to their regional aspirations.

A State Sponsor of Terror

Continued Iranian assistance to Hizballah and, for the last three years, substantial assistance to Islamic Jihad and Hamas inside the Palestinian territories has become part of the game. By supporting Palestinian terrorism, Iran continues its struggle against Israel, while Iran pays no price for its actions. They have never been punished by Israel, the Americans, or anyone for their support of terrorism.

However, since the 9/11 terror attack, the Iranians are much more cautious on the question of sponsoring terrorists. They understand very well that fighting terrorism has become a key issue around the world and they cannot associate themselves with terrorist organizations. They are making an effort to show a clear distinction between themselves and al-Qaeda or other radical Islamic organizations. From time to time they leak reports to the press that they have arrested some al-Qaeda operatives inside Iran, where some of them indeed moved after the American operation in Afghanistan.

The Iranians have spoken of "the export of revolution" to other Muslim countries, especially during the first decade under Khomeini. However, since the 1990s, we have heard much less about this idea for two reasons. First, the Iranians were not very successful in exporting the revolution to any country. Second, they learned very quickly that the concept of "exporting the revolution" alienated many governments against the Iranians. So they made it clear that "exporting revolution" did not refer to using force but to providing a model for other countries.

The Iranians have taken advantage of the vacuum in Iraq which has existed for the last two years in order to improve relations with the Shi'ite community in that country. Certain Shi'ite organizations get a lot of money from Iran. The Iranians are also sending all kinds of instructors to Iraq. While the Americans are trying to limit Iranian influence in Iraq, in the long run it could be significant. However, I don't see an axis of Shi'ite Iraq and Shi'ite Iran. There is a lot of animosity between the two countries after a very traumatic war between them. Yet Iran's position in Iraq is much better today than what it was under Saddam Hussein's regime and this should be a matter of concern.

Constraints on Iran's Use of the Bomb

A nuclear Iran has to take into account certain important constraints. One is American deterrence. The Iranians have no doubt about the balance of power between themselves and the Americans. And if they had any doubts, the American conduct of the war in Iraq left no doubt about American capabilities. The Iranians must also take into account that if Iran uses a nuclear bomb against any of the allies of the United States, especially against Israel, the U.S. will regard this as an attack against itself, and will react accordingly.

Another constraint involves Iran's reasons for seeking a nuclear bomb. One reason is deterrence. The Iranians started their nuclear program back in the late 1980s because Iraq was intending to acquire the bomb. Iraq was perceived as the most important threat to Iran and the Iranians wanted an answer to this threat. In Iran's view, the Iraqi threat was replaced in the 1990s by the American threat. Israel is seen as a limited threat, but the Americans are projecting the most important threat from the Iranian viewpoint and the Iranians want an answer to this threat.

Moreover, the Iranians regard their nuclear capability as a very important symbol for acquiring hegemony in the Middle East, especially in the Gulf area. If I'm correct that the Iranians want a bomb mostly for deterrence and not so much for offensive intentions, Iran is not likely to waste this weapon, once it acquires it, against a country like Israel that does not pose a real threat to its existence.

Consequences of a Nuclear Iran

However, even if Iran is not going to use the bomb against anybody including Israel, there are still very negative implications from its acquisition of the bomb. First, if Iran acquires the bomb, it will encourage other countries in the Middle East to join this nuclear arms race, especially Egypt, and perhaps Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Algeria, and Syria. It would be difficult for a country like Egypt, the leader of the Arab world, to stay out of this circle.

Secondly, an Iran with the bomb is going to be a more aggressive country. This could be seen, for example, in encouragement of Hizballah to initiate new attacks against Israel. It could be in the field of oil prices. With the safety net of a nuclear capability, Iran might behave differently and more aggressively.

Finally, Iran with the bomb is going to be the cornerstone of the radical camp in the Muslim world and in the Middle East as well. More moderate countries like Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states will have to accommodate themselves more than in the past to this new situation in which a central radical country will have the bomb.

Despite the trends of the last two years, which were negative ones for the reformists, change in Iran will continue because there is a genuine demand for a change. The younger generation in Iran, which now is the majority of the population, demands more personal freedom, more political freedom, less corruption, a better life, and a better economy. If this is the will of most of the Iranian people, it's going to be very difficult for the radical regime to contain this change. At the end of all this I expect a dialogue between Iran and the United States, and a dialogue between Iran and Israel. And if this is to be the case, even if Iran has the bomb by that time, the bomb will have a different meaning.

*     *     *

[Monkeypox]

April 18, 2009
Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear sites
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6115903.ece

Translated to spanish the most important

18 de Abril de 2009
Israel esta preparado/listo para atacar los sitios nucleares de Iran
El ejercito militar de Israel se esta preparando por si mismo para lanzar un masivo ataque aereo en las instalaciones nucleares de Iran apocos dias si le diesen el disto bueno por parte de su nuevo gobierno.
Entre los pasos tomados para preparar a las fuerzas israelies, sera una riesgosa redada requiriendo señalar ataques aereos con la adquisicion de tres nuevos aviones Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC), y misiones regionales para simular el ataque.
Dos ejercicios (simulacros) a nivel nacional ayudarán a preparar al público para la represalia que Israel podría enfrentar.
“Israel quiere saber si es que a sus fuerzas armadas les dieran luz verde ellos podrian atacar a Iran en cosa de dias, incluso horas. Ellos estan haciendo preparaciones en cada nivel para esta eventualidad. El mensaje para Iran es que la amenaza no son solo palabras”, un alto oficial de defensa menciona a The Times. La distancia de Israel a Iran es de 870 millas (1400 kilometros), una distancia que las fuerzas israelies han cubierto en ejercicios militares el año pasado, con aviones F15 y F16, helicopteros y tanques reabastecedores.

Wow, I can actually read that well enough to understand it.

[David Rothscum]

Are military establishment will be keenly interested to see how their most modern equipment does against the Russian/Chinese supplied Iranians. Nothing more than a return to the bad days of proxy warfare. Since the establishment of Central Banks in the 19th century the world has seen 4 years of peace. At all times, anywhere on the globe their is a conflict of some sort.
This time is when they get to see how their equipment shapes up against the two major states left not thoroughly under their thumb. Think of it as a preview.

Good point, never thought about it that way.

[Bad Slave]

While I think you are high to make the statement about using nukes by Israel you must understand that we will not stay out of any conflict. Are military establishment will be keenly interested to see how their most modern equipment does against the Russian/Chinese supplied Iranians. Nothing more than a return to the bad days of proxy warfare. Since the establishment of Central Banks in the 19th century the world has seen 4 years of peace. At all times, anywhere on the globe their is a conflict of some sort.
This time is when they get to see how their equipment shapes up against the two major states left not thoroughly under their thumb. Think of it as a preview.

This is just business, nothing more. Not Armageddon not some slide into chaos. Just a product review. So a few hundred thousand die, you think the global elite care?

And with an inflamed Muslim world, more justification for more police control here at home.

Do you deny Israel has nuclear weapons?  Do you deny they used them in Lebanon?  Do you deny they have threatened to use them and requested that the U.S. use them in both Gulf Wars?  DU munitions are nuclear weapons.  They will use mini-nukes in any attack against Iran.  Iran has thousands of conventional missiles that can and will hit targets in Israel.  Syria has a mutual defense pack with Iran.  Syria has the largest chemical weapons stockpile in the middle east and the rockets to deliver it.  Hundreds of more rockets will come from Lebanon.  Israel's defensive systems will be overwhelmed and its population is not prepared to withstand a chemical weapons attack from Syria.  Israel has also targeted Russia with nukes.  What makes you think the Russians may not strike?  I don't think we would engage Russia in a nuclear conflict for the sake of Israel.  A majority of Americans would not mind if Israel was annihilated.  As far as proxy wars go, the U.S. is in the Middle East fighting as a proxy for Israel.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial.  Israel is the most destabilizing force in the world.  We have not forgotten the U.S.S. Liberty.

[trailhound]

Did anyone notice that the helmets the Iranians are wearing appear to be kevlar helmets JUST like the US has. The load bearing assault vests also appear to be US as well.

The elites have been on both sides of the ball for at least a century and probably much longer.

[Aerioch]

Anyone who is actually paying attention to the details knows Iran still doesn't have a bomb, let alone a bomb that is missile capable.

If Israel actually starts the war with no concrete evidence, and doesn't take the time to allow the U.N. to investigate this evidence to confirm, then people will see the truth. When the exact cost of Nancy Pelosi's / AIPAC's treasonous actions will come to light the Federal Government won't be able to control the "Home-Grown Domestic Terrorists" that rise up. 

The international backlash seen from the 3 weeks of Operation: Cast Lead will pale in comparison to what the world will do if WW III is sparked by nothing more than Israeli paranoia.

[TGRR]

I'm not certain why I should give a damn about either Iran or Israel.

[Dig]

Percentages aren't necessarily important though. 0.01% is 100 times .0001% but it's still only 0.01%. Do you have the percentages so that we can compare anyway?

The important factor is whether there are significant numbers (or percentages) - that is, significant tactically or for morale. A few high profile swans do not make a summer.

Possibly the most important factor is the overwhelming support for military action from the population which has a reinforcing effect on the military - they are among the most hawkish populations anywhere, possibly more so than the military, and plenty of willing new recruits to replace any Conscientious Objectors.

So while the relative numbers of COs might be of academic interest, I don't believe it to be significant.

I believe you will find that the recent 2 ground incursions were utter disasters for Israel.  I believe that the resisting soldiers and their supporting families, friends, supporters had a lot to do with it.  Also Israel does not get recuits, military service is mandatory for men and women.  Lastly, the major problems come from US/UK funding of their war machine and military technology (as well as the US/UK using insane Israeli companies like AMDOCS).  All funding to Israel needs to be stopped ASAP (and to all surrounding nations in the Middle East).  Once this funding is cut off, and the dictates from the US/UK on how to use that funding, then you will see much less insanity from that region.

[luckee1]

This is a little out there for some of you here but try not to feed into this idea they are feeding off our fear we will project from this. best to just think of it as BS.  check out the global consciousness dot it is red right now . http://gcpdot.com/      If they were going to do it they already would have. It is a mind control exercise see it for what it is.   start living in the right now and what is and dont get caught up in the oh shit we are going to die bull shit.   Your  life will be the same today and tommorow

Cool tool thanks!

[nustada]

I'm not certain why I should give a damn about either Iran or Israel.

If Israel was to attack Iran, Russia and most the middle ease and most of Africa would back Iran. The US, UK, many in the UN, and many in NATO would back Israel. Basically, it would trigger an apocalyptic nuclear world war. Iran would sink ships blocking oil delivering straight on the medium to long term, sending oil prices to greater than $500 per barrel. Other than that I don't see any reason why you should be concerned. I personally do not think they will attack yet, because buildaberg decided they wouldn't. Things may change after the next meeting though.

[StemCell]

Israel Tells U.S. No Plan To Attack Iran

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/16/world/main4949333.shtml?source=RSSattr=Politics_4949333

The Israeli president has told President Obama's Mideast envoy there is no military solution to the threat caused by Iran's nuclear program and talk of Israeli plans to attack nuclear facilities there are "unfounded."

Shimon Peres' office says he told visiting envoy George Mitchell Thursday that progress with Iran depended on international cooperation and exploring whether dialogue presented a real opportunity or if Tehran was just stalling.

Israel sees a nuclear Iran as the most serious threat to its existence. Iran's president has called for Israel's destruction, and Iran has tested long-range missiles that could strike Israel.

While not directly threatening Iran's nuclear facilities, Israel has kept the military option open.

Mitchell began a new round of diplomacy Wednesday aimed at bridging the growing divide between a right-wing Israeli government and a weak Palestinian leadership.

His first challenge was the series of meetings with a new Israeli government that is seemingly at odds with the Obama administration over the basic outlines for Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Mitchell, on a weeklong regional tour, said on an earlier stop in Algeria on Tuesday that the creation of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel is "the only way" to peace.

CBS News correspondent Robert Berger reports that the message Peres delivered to Mitchell was a different one to what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been saying on the matter.

Netanyahu has said Israel will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and insists the military option remains on the table.

Mitchell was to meet later Thursday with Netanyahu, who has not endorsed Palestinian statehood and has yet to unveil his government's policy on peace efforts. He was also to meet Netanyahu's foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who has said pledges made by the previous Israeli administration to work for Palestinian independence are no longer relevant.

He met with Defense Minister Ehud Barak at his Tel Aviv home for a little over an hour on Wednesday evening. A statement from Barak's office said he told Mitchell it was "possible and necessary (for Israel and the U.S.) to coordinate and understand one another regarding all the current issues."

Promising a vigorous push for Israel-Palestinian peace, Mitchell made his first Mideast foray in January, just a week after Mr. Obama took office. He made a second visit with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton a month later.

Since then, a general election that strengthened hawks and the religious Jewish right put Netanyahu at the head of a governing alliance softened only slightly by the inclusion of Barak's battered Labor Party, beaten into fourth place in the election.

Berger reports that, in a first tangible blow to Israel's foreign relations over the hawkish nature of the new government, Egypt said Thursday that it would not deal with foreign minister Lieberman.

Lieberman fell from grace because he once said that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak could "go to hell," and that Egypt's Aswan dam should be bombed.

Mitchell did not speak on his arrival Wednesday.

On Friday he is scheduled to meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad in the West Bank. Their government, headed by Abbas' Fatah movement, is in control only of the West Bank because their rivals in the militant Hamas group seized control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007. Efforts to reconcile those factions have so far failed, adding a serious obstacle to peace efforts.

[Voskhod3]

Someone tells the truth about Israel and they throw their toys out the pram and walk out.

This is why the NWO wants Iran destroyed.

Israel is the most racist country on the planet, no question, I have been monitoring the BBC discussion forum since the walkout, and I would say about 50% of the people agree that Israel is the problem.

Time is running out for them, people are starting to see what is really happening, the lies are not working any longer.

Expect a bombing of Iran soon.