Posted on 12/01/2005 11:10:12 PM PST by F14 Pilot
The best-case scenario for the Bush administration in Iraq now is a modicum of stability under a Shi'ite-dominated regime more loyal to Tehran than Washington. In the January 2005 elections, voters trounced the US proxies, the secular Shi'ites of Iyad Allawi's CIA-groomed Iraqi National Accord, in favor of the Tehran-backed radical Shi'ites of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. So "regime change" in Iran is now necessary for the US to maintain effective control over Iraq as well. But how, given that Bush has already got his hands more than full with an increasingly unpopular quagmire? The answer is obvious: US imperialism's regional pit-bull, Israel. From the Jerusalem Post, Nov. 30:
Military Intelligence Chief Aharon Ze'evi Farkash said [Nov. 30] that after March, Israel must be prepared to use means other than diplomacy to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program...
Farkash would not detail other options, but sources on the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, which Farkash was addressing Wednesday said it was clear that Israel would have to consider taking military action against Iran.
"In my years here, seeing the data I have seen, I feel it is clear that Iran has passed the point of no return," said committee chairman Yuval Steinitz (Likud). "It is accurate to say that unless Iran encounters a major interference, it will have a functioning nuclear arsenal within one or two years."
Iran has produced 45 tons of UF- 6 gas that is used in the centrifuge process for producing enriched uranium for nuclear weapons, said Steinitz.
"If by the end of March 2006 the international community will have failed to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program, diplomatic efforts will be pointless," said Farkash. "Iran has the upper hand in negotiations with the international community.
In order to deflect international attention from its weapons program, Iran has been encouraging Hizbullah to step up attacks on Israel, said Farkash, noting that the recent Hizbullah attacks along Israel's northern border were instigated by Syria and Iran.
"The latest flare up in the north was a strategic plan by Hizbullah," Farkash said.
The story also noted that Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz denied that Israel was considering attacking Iran. He seems to (whether wittingly or not) be playing a game of good-cop/bad-cop with the bellicose Farkash.
There are several such games going on here. Israel itself is playing Bad Cop for Washington. Bush is restrained by politics from openly threatening aggression against Iran right now, so good thing Farkash is so obliging. And as veteran journalist Doug Ireland recently noted on his blog, at least some of the Iran intelligence Israel is relying on here originated in the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans. This is the leak which resulted in the indictment of two AIPAC staffers (whose arrests garnered much more media coverage than the actual content of what was leaked). So the Justice Department played Bad Cop with Israel (mostly for US domestic consumption) even while elements of the Pentagon were throwing the Israelis a wink.
The function of a system is what it does. None of this is to imply that Farkash does not really want to bomb Iraq, or that the prosecutors in the AIPAC scandal didn't really want to bring indictments. Israel is not a US puppet—it is a proxy, which performs its work with ostensible independence. Which makes the strategem all the more effective.
Of course, if Israel takes the bait and once again does Uncle Sam's dirty work, the worst of the backlash will be conveniently deflected from the US—not only to Israel, but to Jews all over the world. Will the Jews ever wake up?
What's a Bill Weinberg and what are his (or her if that's the case.....or transgendered, sorry, I don't want to risk offending if that's the case) sources?
Wow, that website is a joke.
I think that the Israelis are fully aware of the potential consequences of a strike against Iran's nuke capability. There's no way "Uncle Sam" will escape the backlash from an Israeli strike on Iran. The Iranians have already made their threats, and told us about their "suicide commandos". Nevertheless, the job has be done, and someone has to do it. I would like see the US lend (at least) some covert support to Israel, but in any event, I hope that the Israelis give us some advance warning so that our military commanders can initiate appropriate "force protection" measures.
If Israel doesn't do the "dirty work" who goes up in smoke first? Israel protecting itself is not a proxy of US policy. It's called survival.
A war against Iran will send gas prices in US up by at least a dollar a gallon, maybe higher (while we don't use Iran oil directly, Japan does, and it'll be competing for us for oil from other sources). The Iraq war is already responsible for some of the gas increase that's acting as a tax on Americans. Call it the "neo con war tax". It'll be much much higher - and a recession or depress the result - if you neocons get your war against Iran. Too bad everybody will have to pay your tax, in the form of crushingly high gas taxes, and not just you war-lovers.
What an incredible ability to shoot straight through to the fringe of the subject...
I'm just telling you what will happen if the neocons get their war against Iran. Whether or not I'm "worried" about sky-high gas prices and a recession or depression is beside the point: That's what's going to happen.
And by the way, the Soviets had nuclear weapons for 40 years - aimed right at our cities - and we didn't need to invade the Soviet Union in order to protect ourselves or defeat them.
China also has nuclear weapons. One of their generals has threatened they'll use them on LA if we defend Taiwan. But nobody's talking about invading China. This neocon obsession with invading Arab countries shows a very selective concern about dictators and nuclear weapons. The concern is strictly limited to the middle east -- and that's why I don't give the neocons much credibility, because if they really believed it's necessary to invade countries in order to protect ourselves against them (as opposed to using containment as we did against the Soviets), why are they only interested in invading countries in the middle east? Their obsession with US military action in the middle east is going to cause us a recession or depression, if they're successful in making their invasion fantasies reality. Fortunately, I think Bush is starting to wise up to their jibe - that's why he's got Condaleeza and his Iraq ambassador talking with the Iranians instead of threatening an invasion. He realizes that the necocons sold him a bill of goods with the Iraq invasion, and he's not going to follow their lead into new unnecessary conflicts.
yep
Yeah yeah...sure sure....so buy a yugo and STFU...
3 bucks a gallon is a small price to pay to keep Isreal from becoming a smoking crater...
Like they wouldnt respond to an Iranian nuke anyways..
Dufuss...
Oh, so the US has to fight Israel's wars? Since when?
What's that sound I hear?
Ohhh...it's the sound of a big ole ZOT comming your way pal...
*snicker*
You sound like that South Carolina senator - Hollings? - who charged that we're fighting on behalf of Israel. Two peas in a pod, you and him.
I say NUKE EM NOW...
Unless your willing to give aid to the student freedom movement...
Nah...you's rather see a nuclear Iran....with it's sites on the jews...
Do you cheer dead jews Curchill buff?
can I assume that means WARD churchill buff?...
fanboy...go to bed before your mom catches you up this late...
Isreal can take care of itself...it's the public opinion of crybabies like you that keep them from simply taking out their enemies in the first place...
Nuke nuke nuke....noonan...noonan...noonan...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.