Israel wants to attack Iran

[Jaga]

Editorial from New York Times is against it:

Threatening Iran

an attack on Iran would be a disaster.

Israeli leaders spent last week talking tough about Iran and threatening possible military action. The United States and the other major powers need to address Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, but with more assertive diplomacy — including greater financial pressures — not more threats or war planning.

The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, who is bedeviled by a corruption scandal that could drive him from office, led the charge. “The Iranian threat must be stopped by all possible means,” he said in Washington, a day before meeting President Bush at the White House.

Then Israel’s transportation minister, Shaul Mofaz, who is jockeying to replace Mr. Olmert as head of the ruling Kadima Party if the prime minister is forced to resign, declared that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites looks “unavoidable.”

We don’t know what’s going on behind closed doors in Washington — or what Mr. Olmert heard from Mr. Bush. But saber-rattling is not a strategy. And an attack on Iran by either country would be disastrous.

Unlike in 1981, when Israel destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak, there is no single target. A sustained bombing campaign would end up killing many civilians and still might not cripple Iran’s nuclear program. Tehran also has many frightening ways to retaliate. And even Arab states who fear Iran shudder at the thought of America, or its ally Israel, bombing another Muslim country and the backlash that that could provoke.

Mr. Olmert may be trying to divert attention from his political troubles. Still, there is no denying a growing and understandable sense of urgency in Israel, which Iran’s president has threatened with elimination. A recent report by United Nations inspectors on Iran’s nuclear progress, and worrisome links to military programs, has only fanned those fears.

Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, is scheduled to visit Tehran later this month to discuss, in more detail, an incentives package first offered in 2006 by the United States and other major powers. It is likely to fall far short — both in incentives and punishments — of what is needed to get Tehran’s attention.

There is no indication it will contain tougher sanctions — including a broader ban on doing business with Iranian banks and bans on arms sales and new investments. It also needs a stronger commitment from Washington to lift sanctions and to fully engage Iran if it abandons its nuclear efforts. The United States is the only major power not sending a diplomat with Mr. Solana.

Senators Barack Obama and John McCain disagree on holding direct talks with Iran (Mr. Obama would; Mr. McCain would not). But last week, both endorsed enhanced sanctions, including limiting gasoline exports to Iran. That is an idea well worth exploring. Iran relies on a half-dozen companies for 40 percent of its gasoline imports. The United Nations Security Council is unlikely to authorize a squeeze, but quiet American and European appeals might persuade some companies to slow deliveries, and it would grab Tehran’s attention.

On his trip to Europe this week, President Bush is expected to press the Europeans to further reduce Iran-related export credits and cut ties with Iran’s financial institutions. He also must make clear that America will do its part on incentives. We wish he had the will and the skill to propose a grand bargain — and to send Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to deliver it. Unfortunately, there’s no sign of that. At a minimum, he should send a senior official with Mr. Solana to Tehran.

If sanctions and incentives cannot be made to work, the voices arguing for military action will only get louder. No matter what aides may be telling Mr. Bush and Mr. Olmert — or what they may be telling each other — an attack on Iran would be a disaster.

[Jaga]

From the Jeruzalem Post:

www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659697767&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Fundamentally Freund: Israel's big-mouth syndrome

Here we go again. Every few months, it seems, an Israeli government minister decides to open his mouth nice and wide, and blurt out something entirely superfluous or unnecessary, regardless of the damage that it may cause to the country and its interests.


Olmert talks with Mofaz during a cabinet meeting. [file]
Photo: AP
Back in February, you may recall, it was Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai who needlessly sparked an international uproar when he threatened the Palestinians with a "shoah" if they continued to fire Kassam rockets at Israel.

"The more Kassam rocket fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they (the Palestinians) will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves," he told Israel Army radio (February 29).

While the word "shoah" means disaster or conflagration, it also just happens to be the Hebrew term used for the Nazi Holocaust.

[Jaga]

I hope that the attack with be prevented since there are more and more forces in America which are for the talks rather than another war:

Diplomatic gesture on Iran shows US is joining the soft cops

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/world-focus-diplomatic-gesture-on-iran-shows-us-is-joining-the-soft-cops-869732.html

As a diplomatic about-turn, Washington's decision to send a US official to the talks in Geneva on Iran's nuclear programme could hardly be called earth shattering. The American representative, William Burns, is a career diplomat. He will neither participate actively in the talks (he will listen only) nor change policy (his brief is specifically to support the UN demands that Iran cease uranium enrichment as a precondition for any settlement).


But, as a gesture, it is extremely significant. Ever since Iran resumed uranium enrichment after a pause in 2002, the US has played hard cop to Europe's soft talking. The EU, France, Germany and the UK offered the inducements. Washington, led by President George Bush, kept up a steady stream of military threats.

Now, for the first time, the US is joining the soft cops. The move reflects a shift in Washington's mood that has been developing for several months. Despite all the talk of war, and Israel's increasingly vocal pressure on the US to act or let it act, the administration has been sounding an increasingly conciliatory note. This partly reflects the views of the Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, and the opposition of the generals. It could also reflect a wish to help John McCain wrongfoot Barack Obama's desire for direct talks with Iran.

But it also happens when there are indications of a change in policy on Tehran's part. Riven by internal divisions and growing public discontent at rising prices, and concern at the thought of further sanctions, Iran's leaders seem to have decided to step back from a confrontation with the West. Alongside the displays of military might and the public testing of missiles, recent statements by President Ahmadinejad and those close to the country's religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, have struck a less confrontational note. At the very least, they may presage a willingness to hold nuclear expansion at the current level in return for a staying of further sanctions.

All this is a long way from a settlement with Iran on its enrichment programme. And there is nothing that either the Iranians or the Americans commit themselves to which can't be reversed at the drop of a missile. But, in the meantime, both Washington and Tehran seem keen to move back from the brink. And that, at a time when all the main players – the US, Iran and Israel – have weak governments prone to desperate measures, can't be bad.

[Jaga]

Israel is of course not happy because they want to push for another war:

Israel concerned by U.S. plans to meet with Iranian envoy
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1002762.html
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent

Tags: Iran, U.S., nuclear program

Israel is concerned by American plans to send a senior envoy to meet with a senior Iranian representative to discuss Iran's nuclear program.

"There is a bad feeling in Israel and dissatisfaction with the U.S. move," Israel told senior Washington officials, according to a source in Jerusalem. "There can be no concession on the demand to end uranium enrichment as a precondition to negotiating with Iran," Israel added.

[Atlantis5]

Jaga

Yes indeed, it is/or could be a big mess. For Israel is well known to be rather heavy handed with their neighbours. But then, whilst on the other side of the Roman coin, they must do as they do. For they are surrounded by enemies currant and/or future.

To best that of the Israeli mind-set, is to understand that: Israel is in a constant state of war, so as it be from 1948 as Israel become the sovereign State Of Israel.

The following url is more in detail. Rather laborious reading, but with fact.

www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100597.htm

A component of the IDF, is a 1st strike action as diplomacy. For in the war rooms, it is a game, but a very dangerous game of strategy in the art of survival. If the leadership within the IDF,are wrong, the results would manifest in self to the destruction of their nation. For the boarders are as a dike, for once a breach is formed, it will grow in power and destruction.

For their is two distinct differences in mind-set of three distinctly different peoples: Israeli-Iranian and Syrian, but they do carry a common bond, for them, Israel is a people that forced them selves onto their land by replacing resident Arabs, with that of them selves. With this, the constant push out wards for more land for accommodation of a expanding population.

I realize that of course, diplomacy is the most best approach as prevention of combat. But, it should be remembered that: War is a continuation of Diplomacy raised to an upper level. And war is:---reference based upon teaching of: Carl von Clausewitze---{as used even currently in schools of Panzer Tactical command}-

--{An act of violence with intention to compel our opponents to fulfill our will}{ we is used in reference to Israel}}--

Israel has at present in the currant sense. A great many issues in concerns to their military. For one, it is compulsory induction in as much to our German forces.

They have many issues with leadership in relationship to corruption and vested interest, for even though they are Israelis, they are still human and subject to common flaws of human nature.

In-as-much to some examples of brutal treatment exampled by some Israeli shoulders, this perhaps is a result of the command failure of rotation of combat solders out of active combat into supply command or to teaching in their various military school system. In time, it is much too easy to mistreat or/or consider both Arab militants and Arab people, as simply subjects of non-importance. For the human mind will work in this matter. If the work is repulsive, then for the protection of the mind, it will replace feelings of compassion, by replacement with non-feelings. In clear wording: Removal to non-human status of people {Arab people} there-for, to then treat by de-humanizing, in a brutal manner.

The following is a most clear description of Israeli tactics.

www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/02/3290825

I realize my post response is most unfeeling in a report manner, but this is my work. It is not good to identify with your work.

Charles

[Jaga]

According to Dick Morris in FoxNews Israel and the US should attack Iran and it will help McCain to be elected. He also believes that other countries of the region will be happy if this attack will take place:

www.newshounds.us/2008/07/26/dick_morris_wants_to_start_war_against_iran_to_help_mccain_get_elected.php

here is the video

[Jaga]

JERUSALEM - Israel is building up its strike capabilities amid growing anxiety over Iran's nuclear ambitions and appears confident that a military attack would cripple Tehran's atomic program, even if it can't destroy it.

...

Israel believes Tehran will have enriched enough uranium for a nuclear bomb by next year or 2010 at the latest. The United States has trimmed its estimate that Iran is several years or as much as a decade away from being able to field a bomb, but has not been precise about a timetable. In general U.S. officials think Iran isn't as close to a bomb as Israel claims, but are concerned that Iran is working faster than anticipated to add centrifuges, the workhorses of uranium enrichment.

"If Israeli, U.S., or European intelligence gets proof that Iran has succeeded in developing nuclear weapons technology, then Israel will respond in a manner reflecting the existential threat posed by such a weapon," said Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, speaking at a policy forum in Washington last week.

"Israel takes (Iranian President) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements regarding its destruction seriously. Israel cannot risk another Holocaust," Mofaz said.

The Iranian leader has in the past called for Israel's elimination, though his exact remarks have been disputed. Some translators say he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," while others say a better translation would be "vanish from the pages of time" — implying Israel would disappear on its own rather than be destroyed.

Iran insists its uranium enrichment is meant only for electricity generation, not a bomb — an assertion that most Western nations see as disingenuous.

Yet the cost of an attack — by the U.S., Israel or both — is likely to be enormous.

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080807/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_striking_iran

The Jewish state has purchased 90 F-16I fighter planes that can carry enough fuel to reach Iran, and will receive 11 more by the end of next year. It has bought two new Dolphin submarines from Germany reportedly capable of firing nuclear-armed warheads — in addition to the three it already has.

[Jaga]

Are these Israeli officials taking some extra testosteron/viagra pills?

[Atlantis5]

Aug 6, 2008 21:55:37 GMT -7 Jaga said:

Are these Israeli officials taking some extra testosteron/viagra pills?

For as you have proposed of the Israelis, perhaps they are using their smoking the odd stuff or those pills of too much, who knows what goes through their minds, and perhaps we should wish not to know.

What is obvious though, the Israelis are not timid with use of the big stick against their Arab and Farsie neighbours. What is obvious as also, they mind not to risk not just their selves, but to bring risk other nations with only the thought of them selves.

Perhaps they may get away with this with a few bombs and violation of airspace of non-involved between borderen, or, perhaps they may not. For the risk is very grave if perhaps the surrounding Arab nations should in-this-stead of looking and not touching,should in that stead, call for {enough is enough}. Then form a Pan-Arab coalition, and attack from all sides, against the borders of Israel with a co-ordinated attack.

The Israelis are placing the Arab reluctance of action a bit too far. For once a small attack is initiated, then the candle is lighted,for from that point on, war becomes in-self, a fluid action.

english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=8704250913

It would be of hope, that if the Americans refuse to actively assist, the Israelis will back off to Diplomatic resolution and accept the Iranians on their own grounds as an equal nation sharing the lands of the Mid-East as they have been for many centuries of the existence of civilization.

These lands have seen countless military incursions, and consequent destructions of same. The occupants will change, but in the end, the land will win, for it never changes.

www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/dolphin/Dolphin.html

www.nti.org/db/submarines/israel/import.html

Charles

[kaima]

[Jaga]

Kai,

I loved your joke ))

Charles, thank you for your analysis. I will look at these links also. You are amazingly well informed in all areas of politics. I love reading your input!

[Jaga]

did you hear the news that America is secretly preparing the attack?

EDITORIAL: US blitz against Iran?

A British newspaper has reported that the US may be about to launch a blitz against Iran “as the last resort” to block Tehran’s efforts to nuclearise. It says the preparations in the Pentagon are not just war-games but the plan is to actually make the strike. The most likely strategy would involve aerial bombardment by long-distance B-2 bombers, each armed with up to 40,000 pounds of precision weapons, including the latest bunker-busting devices.

If this is being planned, it signals an end to the US-European efforts to persuade Iran through concessions and sanctions to abandon its nuclear programme. Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Khamenei is defiant. He has his Revolutionary Guards firmly in control of the economy and the population and he is selling oil at buoyant rates. The latest US “preparation” is clearly linked to Israel’s security, which is much shaken by Iran’s assistance to the Shia militia Hezbollah in Lebanon which succeeded in denting the credibility of the Israeli army during the IDF’s 2006 invasion, though at much cost to Lebanon.

America should know that if it embarks upon an adventure in Iran, it will not be supported at the UN. Its efforts to thwart the growing power of Russia in the region close to Iran are also not getting anywhere because the European Union is once again not united behind it. The attack will not denuclearise Iran; it will only delay the production of the final deliverable bomb. Moreover, the US policy of rewarding India with a civilian nuclear deal — which has now got stuck in the negotiations phase with the NSG — while risking war with Iran which is still years away from actually developing nuclear weapons doesn’t make for a saleable argument.

...
www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C08%5C31%5Cstory_31-8-2008_pg3_1