Israeli intelligence sets deadline for strikes on Iran

World War 4 Report ^ | Bill Weinberg

[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?

[Stepan12]

crim:3 bucks a gallon is a small price to pay to keep Isreal from becoming a smoking crater... ""

Chamberlain's bluff: Oh, so the US has to fight Israel's wars? Since when?

Paying 3 bucks a gallon for gas is fighting Israel's wars?

You have a weird definition of fighting something.

[globalheater]

yawn .. well if you don't know what to say just compare to WWII (was that the only time we did something with the army that worked ?)

Russia and China also threatened to do things we couldn't tolerate - as did south korea. Sure the mujahedin we supported with stingers and training (rambow III) didn't turn out to be that supportive afterwards (they are called taliban now and they gave their hospitality and trained warriors to Osama to dispose at will) and where given a good bombing and burning - but they are still there.

You can't bomb the knowledge of a-bomb building and you can't bomb hate. One can bomb a facility though if anything else fails. But you have to be sure it's not the chineese embassy ;-). That whould be cheap -but only if they stop trying afterwards.


Diplomacy is cheaper and if applied correctly (not in a unilateral approach) much more effective - now start crying me a river over the french weasels always spoiling the effort.
It's the fault of your grandpa - the next time they feel the need to be de-germanized just hold it back.

I still think that there's a way for Iran to join the coca cola drinking world.

[agere_contra]

Diplomacy is cheaper and if applied correctly (not in a unilateral approach) much more effective

Please post an historical example of a rabid martyr-happy Islamic state threatening its neighbour with nuclear annihilation - and being brought to heel by diplomacy alone. Diplomacy only works if there is credible threat of force.

But even the threat of force only works against people who care about their lives, and the lives of their children. There has NEVER BEEN IN THE WHOLE OF HISTORY a more compelling candidate for a pre-emptive strike than Iran's current Regime. Our Iranian freepers will no doubt agree - I hope that they will join this thread.

[RoadTest]

His use of the word "quagmire" raises a Dimocrat alert light on my panel. That's the traitors' old, used Vietnam word wherewith they stabbed the Vietnamese loyaists in the back, abandoned an ally and denigrated the heroism of thousands of American soldiers.

[Rocketwolf68]

"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."

The Soviets weren't religious cult fanatics hell bent on Islam dominating the world and killing all the infidels. The mark of that dark corner of the world is the total inability to be rational. Most of the intellectuals left that country around '79; the rest were murdered.

[globalheater]

I name north korea as a hot candidate.

Noone and even less a whole group of people as large as Iran are careless about their lifes.

The will to live on is the very essence of life. Not only for christendom but for ants and daisys aswell. (If such a thing like free will exists)

If you must - please shoot the hate preachers but don't mobilize against the islam, the jews or the arabs. Well ok mobilize against the taliban.

[Crim]

Disagreememnt is a good thing...pissing off most of the forumites is quite another...

I've had occasion to disagree with the herd once and a while...but I try and take care that I do so in at least some type of logical fashion..or with some slight amount of respect...

Or start crying about the whether or not my gas prices will go up if Isreal might decide to defend itself against the nuclear mulla's...screaming Neo-con...or lementing the fact that we dont start a war with china...so we should not start a war with enyone else...ever..

I've witnessed Zots for less...

Respectfully.

[Convert from ECUSA]

Ping!

[PerConPat]

I still think that there's a way for Iran to join the coca cola drinking world.

Well, we've found common ground. Your way, however, is to rely on diplomacy in the hope that a gang of religious zealots, who don't mind suicide tactics, will eventually develop a taste for sugar water. My way is to make it clear, by the use of force, to the millions upon millions that spawn and support terrorism that life goes better with soda pop, not nukes.

But that probably presents fairness issues for you. Apparently it is not fair for me to point out my observations as to the possible lessons to be gleaned from history, since you feel perfectly free to spout your examples while pontificating that my comments are merely the result of not knowing what to say. How unseemly that is in a responsible discussion forum

The thirst for perfection permeates your post. Alas, there will be no perfection in the matter under discussion. Iran is, and has been, on a course that cannot be seen as anything but absolutely perilous for her enemies. We cannot achieve satisfactory security arrangements with a nation demonstrating, by word and deed, a dedication to our destruction.

There will be war with Iran, unless their leadership undergoes a very unlikely change.

[globalheater]

I think you should not consider the Iranian Society as a Bunch of People that whish t destroy life and christendom. I think the needs and thoughts of the people there are often enough highly controverse to those of their 'elected' leaders.

Show them the stick and the carrot. You will see that you need to have a stick but the carrot is what realy makes the donkey walk.

Thats true - although not proven by WWII. In WWII the world saw a highly technicised and highly coherent social entity running amok. Iran isn't speaking with one tounge and is mainly inhabited by uneducted and very poor people - these guys burn flags if you give them food or point a gun at them and wount do that if you stop to do so.

It's the hate preaching mullahs that need a spanking - and by far not everyone in Iran belongs in that drawer.

Muslims are not the problem. Iran is not the problem. The hate preaching Mullahs and our efforts to bury our credibility are.

[PerConPat]

It's the hate preaching mullahs that need a spanking - and by far not everyone in Iran belongs in that drawer.

I agree. There are elements in Iran that deserve our respect and assistance. By keeping pressure on the militant elements we may, in time, provide the millions of decent Iranians with a chance to better their lives. I have no quarrel with Islam.

[globalheater]

so you feel disrespected by what I posted ... ?

that wasn't my intention - my intention is however to see a more balanced debate.

[globalheater]

Yup. I agree.

(A european and a conservative US guy agree... there must be a misunderstanding we haven't discovered :))

[Crim]

???

Uh...no...

I dont feel disprespected...

I was pointng out there is a difference between disagreement...and trolling...whcih is what I was accusing another poster of...not you...

[Prov3456]

Another possibility is that after Iran nukes someone and parts of the world crumble into chaos, the gas prices will collapse to near-zero. You can't buy gas if you a)can't get it or b)don't have vehicles to put it into.

[Prov3456]

The Soviets had a vastly different mind-set than the Iranians (and others). The Soviets wanted to stay alive while they defeated the west; many in the middle east would gladly kill themselves in order to kill/destroy "the great Satan" and/or Israel.

That's a big difference.