2-10-09
What is More Stupid,
the USA Going Along with Hypocritical Israel Shaking its Fist At Iran While
Israel has Nukes Galore, or the USA Arming Afghanistan Militias?
I
Ching - Why didn't Israel and or the USA nuke Iran during comrade Little
George's Administration?
2 Earth Flexible. Cultivate obedience
and favorable reception Changes to 7 The Army - following obediently in danger
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
--- ---
--- --- * -------
--- ---
Probably the comrade Little George
Administration did not nuke Iran because they were caught red handed as being
involved in September 11. Contrary to popular opinion,
it was hard for the bad guys, Rothschilds and Rockefellers,
to manipulate September 11 without being caught. Actually they were caught,
because something like 70% of Americans and people around the world do not believe
the US government's version as to how 911 happened and who is responsible. Also
the US military brass may have been against nuking Iran. Certainly during the
Second Term the Little George Administration tried over and over to create situations
which would justify Israel and or the USA nuking Iran. Now the Obama Administration
has a full court press underway to nuke Iran. Why does the bad guy directed
USA and Israel want to nuke Iran so badly? Well that is a $64 dollar question.
Certainly it has nothing to do with Iran's nuclear ambitions. The bad guys trying
to sell a World War III on Iran's nuclear program is going to fall on deafer
ears more than the lame 911 Commission Report. All thinking people realize the
USA and Israel nuking Iran will bring on WWIII. Nuke Iran and sides are instantly
drawn with Israel and the West against Iran, Russia, India, and China. Israel
has nukes galore. Iran has no nukes.
Israel has invaded its neighbors and committed crimes against humanity, cluster
bombs, phosphorus, chemical weapons, depleted uranium arms, consistently ever
since it bull dozed its place in the Mid East. Iran has never been accused of
any of these atrocities. Israel
convicted by secrete tribunal Mordechai Vanunu, who worked for Israel' s
state-owned nuclear industry and disclosed Israel's top secret stockpile of
nuclear warheads, and Vanunu served an eighteen-year prison sentence with eleven
of those years in solitary confinement.
Israel has not recognized as a Nuclear Weapons State by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), Iran has. The International Atomic Energy Agency Director
General Mohamed ElBaradei regards Israel as a state possessing nuclear weapons.
The International Atomic Energy Agency does not recognize Iran has having nuclear
weapons.
Israel is trying to sell the world
on the idea Iran needs to be nuked, where thousands, hundreds of thousands,
or possible millions of Iranian are murdered, because Iran is investigating
the benefits of nuclear energy when Israel has fully operational possibly 400
nukes as I type. Hopefully, people hearing the communi$t propaganda of the many
benefits of nuking Iran to watch Iranians die and to steal Iranian oil will
tell them to "Go fish." The USA and Israel nuking Iran will never
be sold to the people of the world as justifiable and right. Israel and the
USA nuking Iran will only be seen as an act of brute force by a Satanic evil
force for the reason of conquering Arabs and Persians and stealing their oil,
which Israel and some Jewish people around planet covet. Israel should clearly
recognize that by Israel nuking Iran the Rothschilds are setting up Jewish people
to be Holocaust ed again. Israel may have turned its back on and forgotten its
crimes against humanity, but the Rothschilds have not and they have proof of
every single Israeli dirty deed. Why? The Rothschilds want the money of rich
Jewish people and the Rothschilds encourage and direct Jewish people to do evil
for the time will come when the Rothschilds publish and document with undeniable
proof Jewish crimes against humanity which will be used against Jewish people
for propaganda to Holocaust them again. Remember it was the Rothschilds who
became wealthy financing Hitler, directing Hitler to Holocaust Jewish people,
laughing until they could laugh no more as desecrated bodies of Jewish people
were thrown in mass graves and their money turned over to the Rothschilds.
Americans and all people of the planet
will face an immediate decision when the first nuke falls on Iran. Are you on
the side of evil, with Israel and the bad guy directed USA representing Satanic
evil forces, or are Americans on the side of victims. It will be hard to imagine
good Americans siding with Iran, Russia, India, and China, but that is exactly
what good Americans will have to do. The forces of evil are betting that their
propaganda will be able to convince Americans that a bad guy directed USA murdering
Iranians and other people of the world is Godly and good.
Propaganda is a very powerful force.
Propaganda is the reason Americans do not know of Israel's crimes against humanity
or the fact Israel has a massive nuclear arsenal. Propaganda is the reason Americans
do not know Iraqi oil is being shipped to Israel. Propaganda is the reason Americans
do not know that many if not most of the Abu Grahaib interrogators were Israeli
operatives. Propaganda is the reason Americans do not know the USA armed both
sides in the Iraq war. Propaganda is the reason Americans do not know the USA
is arming militias in Afghanistan. Propaganda is the reason Americans do not
know who the enemy is. Propaganda is the reason Americans think Hamas is connected
to Iran when in fact Hamas is Sunni Arab, Iran's oldest enemy. Propaganda is
the reason Americans do not realize Obama is not even eligible to be president
because both his parents were not US citizens. Propaganda is the reason our
elected representatives are not voting as their constituents want them to vote.
Propaganda is the reason Americans do not realize John Negroponte is causing
a Civil War in Mexico. Propaganda is the reason ...
It is equally stupid for the USA
to allow Israel to shake its fist at Israel and for the USA to arm militias
in Afghanistan. However arming the enemy who kill our soldiers has been a bad
guy directed US mode of operation. The USA armed the militias in Iraq, and logic
dictates a bad guy directed USA is arming militias in Mexico and gangs in the
USA. Its how the Rothschilds and Rockefellers take over countries and install
a communi$t police state to run them.
A thought crossed my mind as to why
Iran refused visas to the ladies US badminton team. Iran may have gotten word
the bad guys were plotting an International event whereby the girls were captured
by terrorists. What the communi$t$ will do to kill Iranians and steal their
oil is amazing. It is discouraging we live in such an evil world the Rothschilds
and Rockefellers will do anything for money and power.
Did you know there
are $ 7.9 trillion dollars worth of US mortgages outstanding
which are classified as prime and sub-prime? The bank bailout is providing $700
billion dollars worth of money to fix this problem, less than 10% of the outstanding
mortgage amount. In many cases the lender is lucky if it recoups 40 % of the
loan balance of a loan in foreclosure. Add to this the fact the moral ethics
in the USA is in the sewer so we can assume a huge portion of bailout monies
will go to neardowell wannabe overpaid executives who devise intricate cons
to steal the funds and the American taxpayer blind. The bottom line is we are
trying to solve a probable $5 trillion dollar problem with $700 billion. 72
% of the sub prime loans have exploding ARM, Adjustable Rate Mortgage, features,
70% do not escrow funds for taxes and insurance, 50 % did not substantiate borrowers'
income, 60% were 100% loans with no equity. But this is blew my mind.
18 % of the sub prime loans
were made to Caucasians, 82 % to minorities ( 52% to African-Americans, 30 %Hispanics)
A RE course listed these facts, and
I am not going to give the name of the source because I do not want the hassle
from them. Send me an e-mail and I will give you the source provided, ...
Alan Greenspan working for the Rothschilds
and Rockefellers, they own our banking system and manipulate it to steal money
and power, deliberately caused the creation of these rip off loans. Also Alan
Greenspan also introduced unregulated derivatives which banks were encouraged
to use to increase profits which is now the core problem as to why the USA banks
are insolvent. Not only is Greenspan's actions deplorable and will give fodder
for Holocausting all Jewish people one day, his actions are treason because
Greenspan made economic war against the United States. When the Rothschilds
and Rockefellers use their propaganda to Holocaust Jewish people this time,
they will point out that Alan Greenspan is Jewish and his economic programs
are deliberate against the people of the world.
Also there is a very interesting
racist feature to what the Rothschilds and Rockefellers are laying on the world.
Why have the Rothschilds and Rockefellers made Barack Obama president, an African
American, when the cause of our economic meltdown is a frontal attack on minorities.
Obviously the Rothschilds and Rockefellers have a racist attack planned on Obama
and the people of the planet before the end of Obama's term as president.
Another interesting point is found
in the fact that since the Rothschilds and Rockefellers deliberately engineered
the USA and world economic meltdown, as well as putting Obama in Office, where
are the bad guys taking us?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090204/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_us_badminton
Iran denies visas for US women's
badminton team
Buzz Up Send
Email IM Share
Digg Facebook Newsvine del.icio.us Reddit StumbleUpon Technorati Yahoo! Bookmarks
Print By NASSER KARIMI, Associated Press Writer Nasser Karimi, Associated Press
Writer – Wed Feb 4, 2:48 pm ET Play Video Iran Video: Iran's cultural
revolution BBC Play Video Iran Video: Iranians' Thoughts on U.S. Policy ABC
News Play Video Iran Video: Pakistan frees nuclear weapons proliferator AP TEHRAN,
Iran – Iran invited the U.S. women's badminton team to compete in a tournament
then denied its players visas Wednesday, saying there was no time to process
their visa applications.
But the chief executive of USA Badminton
said in a statement the team was told visas had been approved and was invited
to Dubai to secure them.
"Our athletes ... are very disappointed
that they will not be able to compete and meet new friends. Friendship through
sport is a good thing that should be respected and cherished," Dan Cloppas
said in the statement e-mailed to The Associated Press.
The team's participation in event
starting Friday was to have been the first U.S.-Iranian exchange under the Obama
administration. The two countries have not had diplomatic relations since the
Islamic Revolution and the hostage-taking at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979.
The U.S. team will not participate
in the competition due to a "lack of enough time to process" its visas,
the spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry, Hasan Qashqavi, said Wednesday.
It was not clear when Iran invited
the 12-member team or when they had applied for their visas — usually
a long bureaucratic process that is complicated for U.S. citizens by the lack
of diplomatic relations.
State Department spokesman Robert
Wood said Iran has provided no official explanation for not providing the visas,
and that the U.S. team had supplied all required paperwork to the Iranians.
The U.S. State Department sponsored
the squad's trip to the Middle East and said it is disappointed that Iran failed
to issue visas.
Wood said the team is returning to
the United States.
The eight players, along with four
coaches and managers representing USA Badminton, had been in Dubai on Tuesday.
"The Iranian Badminton Federation
was sincere in their invitation to us and we completed our visa applications
over two months ago in plenty of time to meet all deadlines," Cloppas said
in his statement.
The State Department said Monday
that the Iranian Badminton Federation had invited the team to take part in the
Iran Fajr International Badminton Tournament, and that it hoped to extend an
invitation to Iran's national team to come to the United States in July.
Without the Americans, the competition
will go ahead with 13 participants including teams from Malaysia, Syria, Pakistan,
Afghanistan and Iraq.
More than 250 Iranian artists, athletes
and medical professionals have participated in exchange programs in the United
States since 2006, the State Department said.
The U.S. has sent 32 athletes to
Iran under a sports exchange program launched in 2007, and 75 Iranian athletes
and coaches have visited the United States, it said.
Tensions between the countries nevertheless
remain high because of Western concerns over Iran's nuclear program and the
country's alleged support for Shiite militias in Iraq — a charge that
Iran denies.
In late December, the Bush administration
expressed grave concern about the detention and interrogation in Iran of a prominent
American academic who was participating in an exchange. The incident led the
National Academies of Science to suspend educational exchanges with Iranian
institutions.
http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/02/04/us-plan-to-arm-militias-scares-some-in-afghanistan/
US plan to arm militias scares some in Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, some fear a US plan to arm militias against Taliban could spawn
tribal armies
KATHY GANNON
AP News
Feb 04, 2009 06:03 EST
A U.S.-backed plan to create militias and give them guns to fight the Taliban
is drawing criticism from local authorities in areas where the first units are
being rolled out, raising questions as to whether the effort can succeed in
Afghanistan.
The militias have been compared to the U.S.-fostered Awakening Councils in
Iraq, which have often been credited with reducing violence there, and are similar
to neighboring Pakistan's tribal armies which also have been touted as a success.
On Saturday, Afghanistan's interior minister announced the program had begun,
and that the United States would be paying for all aspects, including buying
Kalashnikov automatic rifles for members of the Afghan Public Protection Force.
One skeptical Afghan official said only criminals would join because most citizens
wouldn't want to face the Taliban in combat. And critics question the wisdom
of handing out weapons to Afghans when the government and U.N. have been trying
to reduce the number of arms in the country. They fear the plan could stoke
rivalries between ethnic groups with a bloody past.
"One of the causes of violence in Afghanistan is because most people do
not give up their weapons. Now you want to again give weapons to the villages?"
said Mohammed Hussain Fahimi, the deputy of the provincial council in Wardak,
where officials say the units will be first deployed. "We never learn our
lessons."
Wardak lies southwest of the capital of Kabul and is increasingly falling under
Taliban control, illustrating the growing influence of the Islamic insurgents
in the years since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion.
Fahimi was one of several government officials and residents interviewed in
Wardak by The Associated Press last week, all of whom expressed skepticism about
the plan.
President Barack Obama has said stabilizing Afghanistan will be a U.S. priority
and plans to nearly double the number of American troops from the roughly 34,000
in the country today.
He has not commented on the militia plan, but it has been endorsed by Gen.
David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command and the former top commander
in Iraq whose outreach to Sunni sheiks helped oust militants from key areas
and sharply decreased attacks.
Officials say the force will be guarding highways, schools, clinics and other
government institutions. It is still not clear how large and widespread the
militias will be.
Col. Greg Julian, the U.S. military's spokesman in Afghanistan, said
the United States will mentor, train and give back-up to the new village forces,
but Afghanistan's interior ministry is in charge of the program.
While Iraq's Awakening Councils are made up along tribal lines, officials say
the militias in Afghanistan are to be drawn up by the local councils who are
being told to make their choices based on character, not tribal affiliations.
Yet few Afghans believed tribal loyalties can be avoided, with many fearful
the new force would fall under the control of local warlords who could even
join with the Taliban.
Another council member, Mohammed Mukhlis, predicted only thieves and criminals
would join the force, mostly because no one would risk being killed by the Taliban
to defend the discredited government.
"For the last seven years, the government didn't do anything for the nation,
so people in the districts don't trust them," he said.
Mukhlis's home of Saydabad will be one of the first areas to get the militias
he opposes. Overrun by Taliban, Mukhlis can no longer go to his home and has
moved to a walled compound closer to Kabul.
"Right now I am safe here, but I don't know if in another few months I
will have to move again, even closer to Kabul, to escape Taliban," he said.
Wrangling by Afghanistan's various non-Pashtun ethnic groups has also marred
the establishment of the village militias, officials said.
The tribes in Afghanistan's east and south — where the militias will
be needed the most — are almost exclusively Pashtun, the majority ethnic
group in Afghanistan.
Non-Pashtuns balk at arming ethnic Pashtuns while disarming the rest of the
country.
Saleh Mohammed Registani, an ethnic Tajik member of parliament, warned that
a newly armed Pashtun militia would create deeper fissures between Afghanistan's
Pashtun and non-Pashtun people, who are struggling to heal from decades of retaliatory
attacks and discrimination.
"If this goes ahead, the south will become a no-go place for non-Pashtuns
and it will encourage other people to find weapons to defend themselves,"
Registani said. "As a non-Pashtun, if I know someone has weapons, I won't
go there. These militias will eventually come together with Taliban because
they are all Pashtuns and they will not fight against each other."
History also suggests the militias may not work.
In the 1980s, the communist government of President Najibullah, besieged by
U.S.-backed mujahedeen fighters, put the job of securing villages in the hands
of village militias. That backfired because villagers, frustrated by the heavy-handedness
of the militias, turned to the mujahedeen for security.
The United Nations has been struggling since the collapse of the Taliban to
disarm Afghanistan's myriad militias, many of the gunmen loyal to warlords.
The U.N. has spent millions of dollars on its Disarmament, Demobilization and
Reintegration program, which was launched within months of the Taliban's ouster
— although some say it really got going two years late.
The plan included collecting weapons and integrating warlords' private militias
into army and police units. But while thousands of pieces of weaponry have been
handed in, much of it is said to be antiquated. Many warlords, meanwhile, have
retained their militias.
"When you give everyone weapons, everyone will think they are king,"
said Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, who was the Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan
before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "It's not just a mistake, it is stupid."
Joanna Nathan, an Afghan analyst with the Brussels-based International Crisis
Group, called the militias a "quick fix" to a deteriorating security
situation by both the international forces and the government of President Hamid
Karzai.
A similar project in 2006 armed thousands of "auxiliary police."
It was soon disbanded, Nathan said, with a third joining the police and the
rest disappearing — along with their weapons.
"It's a constant cycle of quick fixes," she said.
Part the problem is the regular turnover of international officials who want
to show some improvement during their watch and offer up new proposals.
"Every few years, another set of foreigners come in and they all need
to demonstrate real change in their time."
Nathan said money and training should be invested in Afghanistan's police as
the "absolute priority at the district level."
She also said there should be an effort at "really cleaning up the Interior
Ministry."
"We are going to have to grit our teeth and focus on the long term,"
Nathan added. "There are no quick solutions."
Source: AP News
http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/02/04/time-running-out-for-attack-on-iran-israeli-expert/
US cmdr: Iran still supporting extremists
in Iraq
US commander: Iran still providing
weapons, training and funding to Shiite extremists in Iraq
Time running out for attack on Iran
-Israeli expert
Dan Williams
Reuters North American News Service
Feb 04, 2009 07:03 EST
HERZLIYA, Israel, Feb 4 (Reuters)
- Israel has a year in which to attack Iran's nuclear facilities preemptively,
an Israeli legislator and weapons expert said on Wednesday.
Israeli forces could pull off successful
strikes independently, Isaac Ben-Israel said, though these would only delay,
rather than end, Iran's progress towards atomic weaponry.
Echoing Israeli government assessments,
shared by some in the West, that Iran is about a year away from acquiring enough
enriched uranium for a warhead, he said a window for last-ditch military action
was closing.
"Last resort means when you
reach the stage when everything else failed. When is this?" Ben-Israel,
a retired general and former senior Defence Ministry official, told an Israeli
security conference in Herzliya. "Maybe a year, give or take."
Iran says its atomic programme is
peaceful but Western nations suspect it could be used to make bombs. Its virulently
anti-Israel rhetoric has stirred fears in the Jewish state, believed to have
the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal.
However Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general
of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency, said this week Iran would face
technical and political hurdles if it sought to build nuclear arms and there
was "ample time" to deal with the issue.
"Even if I go by the CIA and
other U.S. intelligence, the estimations (are)... we're still talking about
two to five years from now" for Iran to have nuclear weapons capacity,
he said.
MILITARY OPTION "POSSIBLE"
Ben-Israel, who belongs to the centrist,
ruling Kadima party, is a member of parliament's Foreign Affairs and Defence
committee and once headed the Defence Ministry's weapons research and development
unit.
Israel, like the United States under
President Barack Obama, has refused to rule out using military force to deny
Iran nuclear weapons. But in break with the administration of President George
W. Bush, Obama has pledged to talk directly with Tehran about its nuclear programme.
For now, Washington is leading international
efforts to solve the dispute by a "carrot and stick" combination of
diplomatic overtures and economic sanctions.
Israel bombed Iraq's atomic reactor
in 1981 and carried out a similar sortie over Syria in 2007 which the CIA said
destroyed a secret reactor, though Damascus denied having such a facility.
Many independent analysts believe
Israel's air force is too small to take on Iran's nuclear installations, which
are numerous, distant, dispersed and fortified.
But Ben-Israel disagreed.
"The military option is possible.
It's possible also for the independent forces of the State of Israel. It's possible
in the sense of delaying (the Iranian programme) for a few years. It won't be
more than three years, say, and the more time passes, the more it (potential
delay) is diminishing."
He said Iran was steadily producing
a stockpile of enriched uranium and would eventually recover from any attack
to make more.
Addressing the Herzliya Conference
on Tuesday, Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak called for a "strategic
agreement" with the United States on Iran's nuclear programme.
Such an agreement, he said, would
ensure the duration of any talks the new U.S. administration might hold with
Iran "should be kept short and followed by harsh sanctions and readiness
to take action".
Barak said "all options"
must be kept on the table in preventing a nuclear Iran that "would be a
danger not just to Israel but also to the region and the entire world".
(Editing by Dominic Evans)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/08/mohammad-khatami-former-i_n_164994.html
Mohammad Khatami, Former Iranian
President, Will Run In June Vote
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us mixx.com ShareThisNASSER KARIMI | February 8,
2009 03:29 PM EST |
Compare other versions »
Compare 03:29 PM EST12:23 PM EST11:14 AM EST and 03:29 PM EST12:23 PM EST11:14
AM EST versions
I Like It I Don’t Like It World
News
Show your support.
Buzz this article up.Buzz up!
Iran's former reformist President Mohammad Khatami, smiles during a ceremony
organized a group of pro-reform clerics in his party, in Tehran, Iran, Sunday,
Feb. 8, 2009. Mohammad Khatami says he'll challenge hard-line President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad in the country's upcoming presidential elections set for June 12.
(AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)
Get Breaking News Alerts
never spam
Share Print CommentsTEHRAN, Iran — Former Iranian President Mohammed Khatami
declared Sunday he would run again for president, setting the stage for a major
political showdown in coming months between the popular reformist leader _ who
made dialogue with the West a centerpiece of his eight years in office _ and
the country's ruling hard-liners.
Khatami's candidacy poses a serious
challenge to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose mixture of anti-Western rhetoric
and fiery nationalism sharply contrasts with Khatami's tempered tones and appeals
for global dialogue.
"I seriously announce my candidacy
in the next (presidential) election," Khatami announced Sunday after a
meeting with his supporters.
He said he decided to seek the presidency
in the June 12 vote because it was impossible for someone like himself who was
interested in the fate of Iran to remain silent. The 65-year-old liberal cleric
said he is "attached to the country's greatness and the people's right
to have control over their own fate."
Khatami's decision to run against
Ahmadinejad could significantly shake up Iran's politics, appealing to citizens
disillusioned by the country's failing economy and Ahmadinejad's staunch anti-U.S.
foreign policy.
Relations between the United States
and Iran improved marginally during Khatami's eight years in office, and he
encouraged athletic and cultural exchanges. But it deteriorated after the Sept.
11 attacks when former President George W. Bush declared Iran belonged to an
"axis of evil." Ahmadinejad widened that gap after he was elected
in 2005.
But Khatami's decision to run comes
as President Barack Obama has signaled a willingness for a dialogue with Iran,
particularly over the Islamic Republic's controversial nuclear program.
Khatami has not publicly commented
on Obama's November win, but during a 2006 visit to the United States, he said
relations between the U.S. and Iran should be resolved through dialogue.
http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/02/04/us-cmdr-iran-still-supporting-extremists-in-iraq/
AP News
Feb 04, 2009 07:07 EST
The No. 2 U.S. commander in Iraq says Iran is still providing weapons, training
and funding to Shiite extremists in Iraq — an allegation the Iranians
have consistently denied.
Lt. Gen. Lloyd Austin says the number of weapons found on the battlefield has
decreased thanks to better Iraqi control of the borders and U.S.-Iraqi military
operations.
He says "those activities have paid great dividends."
But he says American forces have found recently made rockets and mortars in
Iraq and "that leads us to believe that support activity is still ongoing."
He also told reporters Wednesday that some extremists who fled to Iran have
returned and been captured.
Tehran denies that it supports violence in Iraq, saying it wants its neighbor
to be stable.
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/02/04/clinton-warns-iran-to-comply-with-demands/
Clinton Warns Iran to Comply With Demands
Secretary of State Vows 'Consequences' If Iran Doesn't Cooperate
Posted February 4, 2009
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter
Steinmeier today, and said that while “President Obama has signaled his
intention to support tough and direct diplomacy with Iran,” the US intends
to punish the Iranian government if it continues to decline cooperation with
the assorted demands made by the United Nations Security Council and the IAEA.
“If Tehran does not comply with United Nations Security Council and IAEA
mandates, there must be consequences,” Clinton insisted. Iran has been
cooperating with the IAEA to the extent that the Non-Proliferation Treaty requires,
but has balked at the Additional Protocol to their Safeguards Agreement. The
United Nations Security Council complaints with respect to Iran have largely
stemmed from this as well, though Iran has indicated they would consider resuming
voluntary cooperation with the Additional Protocol if the situations is referred
back to the IAEA instead of the Security Council.
The United States has struggled in recent days to get international cooperation
for additional sanctions against Iran, but President Obama’s popularity
in Europe may make it easier to push through such initiatives.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090204/pl_afp/uspoliticsobamaattackscheney
US Vice President Dick Cheney, seen here on June 11, 2008, addresses the board
of directors of U.S. Chamber …
Former vice president Dick Cheney has warned that President Barack Obama's anti-terror
policies risk exposing the United States to a catastrophic nuclear or biological
attack.
In his first interview since Obama's inauguration, with Politico Tuesday, Cheney
was unapologetic about the bitter controversies surrounding his own influential
role in president George W. Bush's "war on terror."
Cheney said Obama would regret his commitment to closing down the Guantanamo
Bay internment camp and ending harsh interrogations of terrorism suspects.
"These are evil people. And we're not going to win this fight by turning
the other cheek," he said in the interview, conducted at an office near
Cheney's new home in Washington's Virginia suburbs.
He said the "ultimate threat" facing the country since the September
11 attacks of 2001 was if extremists can unleash "a nuclear weapon or a
biological agent of some kind" in the center of a US city.
"That's the one that would involve the deaths of perhaps hundreds of thousands
of people, and the one you have to spend a hell of a lot of time guarding against,"
Cheney said.
"I think there's a high probability of such an attempt," he added.
"Whether or not they can pull it off depends whether or not we keep in
place policies that have allowed us to defeat all further attempts, since 9/11,
to launch mass-casualty attacks against the United States."
Leading up to the end of the Bush administration, both the outgoing president
and Cheney gave a series of exit interviews defending their conduct in the "war
on terror" and insisting they had left the nation safer.
Politico said Cheney declined to criticize Obama personally, but was eager
to attack the Democrats in general over a mammoth economic stimulus bill under
debate in Congress.
He said he had spoken to Bush about a week ago, for the first time since they
left Washington on January 20. Politico said Cheney had recovered from the back
strain that kept him to a wheelchair at Obama's inauguration.
Cheney said Bush was "fine."
"We had a pleasant chat on the phone. It was a private, personal conversation
-- not about policy. We're both citizens, civilians."
Cheney, a former defense secretary and White House chief of staff who is regarded
as the most powerful vice president in history, recapped that he is working
on his memoirs.
http://www.independent.
org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2423
Commentary
The Offensive Side of Missile Defense
January 26, 2009
Mike Moore
William Lynn, President Barack Obama’s nominee for Deputy Secretary of
Defense, vowed to make the Pentagon’s missile defense system “cost-effective”
during his confirmation hearing earlier this month before the Senate Armed Services
Committee. Indeed, missile defense strikes a lot of national security analysts
as a frightful waste of money.
Money is not the central issue, though. The pros and cons of missile defense
are endlessly complex, and men and women in the national security community
understand these subtleties. Some are pro-missile defense; some are not; others
say the current system won’t work, but another kind would. Still others
question the assumption that a rogue nation would ever send a nuclear-armed
missile our way—with its return address effectively written all over it—knowing
that U.S. retaliation would be swift and devastating. Vans or trucks would be
a more likely means of delivery, with weapons components smuggled in and assembled
in garages.
Such subtleties are missing from the manner in which missile defense advocates
market their cause. Case in point: the teaser for the Heritage Foundation’s
forthcoming documentary film, 33 Minutes, part of a new and extensive pro-missile
defense campaign. The teaser features Arabic music, missile launches, and nuclear
explosions. At one point we watch a teeming-with-vitality montage of New York
City street life. “Less than 33 minutes away,” intones Dr. Edwin
Feulner, president of Heritage, “their whole city, their whole life could
be annihilated.”
Scare tactics have long been used to persuade the American people to side with
missile defense. During the 1980s, it was the Soviet Union that was threatening
nuclear Armageddon; now it is rogue nations and even terrorists. China, which
for years has supported the U.S. economy by helping to “cover” our
annual budget deficits through the purchase of hundreds of billions of dollars
of U.S. Treasury notes, is depicted as a Missile Menace. The Middle Kingdom,
says Frank Gaffney, a hugely influential missile defense advocate, “is
inexorably building up ever-larger numbers of missiles. Increasingly, these
are capable not only of intimidating Taiwan but also of attacking the United
States.”
Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, and the Heritage Foundation
are not alone in championing ballistic missile defense: hardline think tanks
favor it, as do many editorial writers, columnists, TV talking heads, and—for
that matter—ordinary people. And why not? How could anything labeled “defense”
be anything but a Good Thing?
In the real world, though, labels and promotional materials are often misleading.
Missile defense is widely perceived elsewhere in the world, even by U.S. friends
and allies, as dangerously provocative. The infrastructure for a ballistic missile
defense system is, in large measure, the same as that needed for an offensive
anti-satellite system.
Meanwhile, the United States is the only nation that says it intends to develop
the means to militarily dominate space—according to international law
the “province of all mankind.” Given that, U.S. missile-defense
systems capable of offense look a little sinister, particularly in the light
that the United States has vetoed, since 1981, any serious attempt to negotiate
a treaty designed to prevent a space-related arms race.
What is the world’s hyperpower really up to? The cover of the March 12,
2001, issue of The New Republic said it best: “Missile defense isn’t
really meant to protect America. It’s a tool for global dominance. And
that’s why we need it.”
If missile defense systems can be made reliable, goes the argument, America’s
ability to militarily intervene anywhere at any time will be greatly enhanced.
War games have demonstrated time and again that the United States can be deterred
from military intervention if the target state has the ability to retaliate
with nuclear weapons. A workable missile defense system would cure that defect.
As Lawrence F. Kaplan, the brilliant neoconservative author of The New Republic
story, said: missile defense is mainly about the ability to “project”
military force globally.
That is not an idiosyncratic observation. The link between missile defense
and military intervention is part of the intellectual mix when national security
experts get together behind closed doors. That insight needs to be part of the
public discussion, too. Our propensity for military intervention—as in,
for instance, Iraq—touches upon the very meaning of America.
Can anyone spell “global hegemony”?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Moore is Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, former editor of
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and author of the book, Twilight War:
The Folly of U.S. Space Dominance.
http://www.matthewgood.org/2007/12/banking-on-memory-loss/
Banking On Memory Loss
December 5, 2007, Matthew Good
This is what we like to call damage control. After all sixteen of your own intelligence
agencies deliver to you an estimate that is consistent with the findings of
the IAEA, there’s not much left to do but play it down and continue to
apply pressure. With enough face time, and the right media coverage, in a few
weeks the NIE will have been forgotten, and the rhetoric employed by the administration
will once again become the mainstay.
I found this passage of particular
interest…
“They can come clean with the
international community about the scope of their nuclear activities, and fully
accept the longstanding offer to suspend their enrichment programme and come
to the table and negotiate.
“Or they can continue on a
path of isolation that is not in the best interest of the Iranian people.”
You have to wonder why that exact
same statement isn’t made about the Israelis? Forget nuclear energy, Israel
possesses a considerable nuclear weapons arsenal, has not signed the NPT, and
even continues to claim that they don’t possess nuclear weapons at all.
The only person to actually attempt to reveal the scope of Israel’s program
was jailed for 18 years, 11 of those in solitary confinement, and nary a word
was said about it. Ironically, were the Iranians to have anywhere near the same
nuclear weapons program, and an Iranian revealed the extent of it to the world,
they would be praised to high heaven by the likes of the Bush administration
who would, without question, condemn their imprisonment for leaking that information.
Following his release from prison
in 2004, Mordechai Vanunu did what any decent and courageous person would do
in his position – he spoke up again, leading to even further troubles
with the Israeli authorities. Of course, at the time, Washington had nothing
to say about it, nor have they ever. Unfortunately, men who believe in peace,
and have the strength of character to speak their minds no matter the consequences,
are only hailed as heroes when their deeds expose the transgressions of those
that we perceive as enemies. In Vanunu’s case, because of how the West
perceives Israel, his is a story of courage that has been entirely overlooked.
In truth, given the overwhelming
size of America’s nuclear arsenal, one has to wonder why the IAEA isn’t
allowed to scrutinize it. Unfortunately, whether you like it or not, the United
States is far more guilty of international transgressions than the Iranians
ever will be. Those that oppose the Iranians, and I completely agree that theirs
is a nation that is controlled by a hard-line element that does not act in the
people’s best interest (sound familiar?), repeatedly make claims about
Iran’s complicity with regards to supporting the likes of Hezbollah. But
where is the same outrage over US support for a myriad of organizations and
governments that have been wholly undemocratic and guilty of mass human rights
violations?
When it comes to peace, you can’t
have it both ways. You can’t dick around in the affairs of others for
decades and then have the audacity to claim that you are morally beyond reproach.
Peace is not defined by the ability to ensure it through the deterrence that
an immense military capability provides. That is simply global détente.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Israel and weapons of mass destruction
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Israel is widely believed to possess an estimated 75 to 200 nuclear warheads[1]
and medium-range ballistic missiles capable of delivering those warheads.[2]
Officially Israel neither confirms nor denies possessing nuclear weapons. The
US Congress Office of Technology Assessment has recorded Israel as a country
generally reported as having undeclared chemical warfare capabilities, and an
offensive biological warfare program.[3]
Although Israel is widely suspected
of having weapons of mass destruction, it took part in a regional conference
with the Union for the Mediterranean - including majority-Arab states - on 13
July 2008 to remove all weapons of mass destruction from the Middle East.[4]
[edit] Nuclear weapons
Main article: Nuclear weapons and Israel
The Israeli government refuses to officially confirm or deny whether
it has a nuclear weapon program. It has an unofficial but rigidly enforced policy
of deliberate ambiguity, saying only that it would not be the first to "introduce
nuclear weapons in the Middle East".[5] In the late 1960s, Israeli
Ambassador to the US Yitzhak Rabin informed the United States State Department,
that its understanding of "introducing" such weapons meant that they
would be tested and publicly declared, while merely possessing the weapons did
not constitute "introducing" them.[6] Israel is widely believed to
be one of four nuclear-armed countries not recognized as a Nuclear Weapons State
by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the other three being India,
Pakistan and North Korea.[7] The International Atomic Energy Agency Director
General Mohamed ElBaradei regards Israel as a state possessing nuclear weapons.[8]
In a December 2006 interview, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said:
“ Iran openly, explicitly and
publicly threatens to wipe Israel off the map. Can you say that this is the
same level when they are aspiring to have nuclear weapons as America, France,
Israel, Russia?[9] ”
Olmert's office later said that the
quote was taken out of context; in other parts of the interview, Olmert refused
to confirm or deny Israel's nuclear weapon status.[10]
[edit] Development program
Israel first showed interest in procuring nuclear materials in 1949, when a
unit of the IDF Science Corps carried out a two year geological survey of the
Negev. One objective of this was to find sources of uranium.[11] In June 1952,
Israeli chemist Ernst David Bergmann was appointed by Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion
to be the first chairman of the Israel Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC). Also
appointed head Division of Research and Infrastructure of the Ministry of Defense
earlier that same year, Bergmann used the Defense unit as the "chief laboratory"
of the IAEC, and during this time developed the capability to extract uranium
from the Negev and produce indigenous heavy water.[11]
At this point in the mid-1950s, Israel's
nuclear weapons program began receiving aid from other countries. By the Suez
crisis in 1956, according to the preliminary Protocol of Sèvres, France
agreed to help Israel build a nuclear reactor and reprocessing plant near Dimona
which used natural uranium moderated by heavy water. Plutonium production started
in about 1964. Top secret British documents obtained by BBC Newsnight show that
Britain made hundreds of secret shipments of restricted materials to Israel
in the 1950s and 1960s. These included specialist chemicals for reprocessing
and samples of fissile material—uranium-235 in 1959, and plutonium in
1966, as well as highly enriched lithium-6 which is used to boost fission bombs
and fuel hydrogen bombs. The investigation also showed that Britain shipped
20 tons of heavy water directly to Israel in 1959 and 1960 to start up the Dimona
reactor. The transaction was made through a Norwegian front company called Noratom
which took a 2% commission on the transaction. Britain was challenged about
the heavy water deal at the International Atomic Energy Agency after it was
exposed on Newsnight in 2005. British Foreign Minister Kim Howells hid behind
the Noratom contract and claimed this was a sale to Norway. But a former British
intelligence officer who investigated the deal at the time confirmed that this
was really a sale to Israel and the Noratom contract was just a charade.[12]
The Foreign Office finally admitted in March 2006 that Britain knew the destination
was Israel all along.[13]
In 1961, the Israeli Prime Minister
David Ben-Gurion informed the Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker that
a pilot plutonium-separation plant would be built at Dimona. British intelligence
concluded from this and other information that this "can only mean that
Israel intends to produce nuclear weapons".[14] By 1969, U.S. Defense Secretary
Melvin Laird believed that Israel might have a nuclear weapon that year.[15][16]
Later that year, U.S. President Richard Nixon in a meeting with Israeli Prime
Minister Golda Meir pressed Israel to "make no visible introduction of
nuclear weapons or undertake a nuclear test program", so maintaining a
policy of nuclear ambiguity.[17] The US Central Intelligence Agency believed
that Israel's first bombs may have been made with highly enriched uranium stolen
in the mid-1960s from the US Navy nuclear fuel plant operated by the Nuclear
Materials and Equipment Corporation, where sloppy material accounting would
have masked the theft.[18][19]
By 1974 US intelligence believed
Israel had stockpiled a small number of fission weapons,[20] and by 1979 were
perhaps in a position so they could test a more advanced small tactical nuclear
weapon or thermonuclear weapon trigger design.[21]
On 5 October 1986, the British newspaper The Sunday Times ran Mordechai Vanunu's
story on its front page under the headline: "Revealed: the secrets of Israel's
nuclear arsenal"The first public revelation of Israel's nuclear capability
(as opposed to development program) came in the London based Sunday Times on
5 October 1986, which printed information provided by Mordechai Vanunu, formerly
employed at the Negev Nuclear Research Center, a facility located in the Negev
desert south of Dimona. After being abducted from Italy, Vanunu was tried in
Israel and sentenced to 18 years in prison for treason and espionage. Although
there had been much speculation prior to Vanunu's revelations that the Dimona
site was creating nuclear weapons, Vanunu's information indicated that Israel
had also built thermonuclear weapons.[22]
In 1998, former Prime Minister Shimon
Peres said that Israel "built a nuclear option, not in order to have a
Hiroshima but an Oslo".[23] The "nuclear option" may refer to
a nuclear weapon or to the nuclear reactor near Dimona, which Israel claims
is used for scientific research. Peres, in his capacity as the Director General
of the Ministry of Defense in the early 1950s, was responsible for building
Israel's nuclear capability.[24]
[edit] Nuclear weapons capability
Current estimates of Israel's nuclear stockpile range from slightly below 100
to about 200 nuclear warheads. According to Nuclear Threat Initiative, based
on Vanunu's information, Israel has approximately 100–200 nuclear explosive
devices by 1980 and the Jericho missile delivery system.[25] A United States
Defense Intelligence Agency report (leaked and published in the book Rumsfeld's
War: The Untold Story of America's Anti-Terrorist Commander by journalist Rowan
Scarborough in 2004) estimates the number of weapons at 82. U.S. intelligence
sources in the late 1990s estimated 75–130 weapons; Federation of American
Scientists believes that Israel "could have produced enough plutonium for
at least 100 nuclear weapons, but probably not significantly more than 200 weapons".[26]
The difference might lie in the amount of material Israel has on store versus
assembled weapons, and estimates as to how much material the weapons actually
use (which depends on their sophistication).
Israel has operated three modern
German-built Dolphin-class submarines[27] since 1999. Various reports indicate
that these submarines are equipped with American-made Harpoon missiles modified
to carry small nuclear warheads[28] and/or, and more possible[29], medium range
(1500-2400km) larger Israeli-made "Popeye Turbo" cruise missiles,
originally developed by Israel for air-to-ground strike capability.[30][31]
No known nuclear weapons test has
been conducted within Israel, although the boosted weapons shown in Vanunu's
photographs may well have required testing. It is also possible that the Israelis
received results from French nuclear testing in the 1960s. In June 1976, the
West Germany Army magazine, Wehrtechnik, claimed that a 1963 underground test
took place in the Negev, and other reports indicate that some type of non-nuclear
test, perhaps a zero yield or implosion test, may have occurred on 2 November
1966.[32] In September 1979, a Vela satellite detected a double flash of light
near South Africa, accompanied by underwater acoustic[citation needed] and ionospheric
effects. It has been speculated that this flash of light may have come from
a 3 kiloton oceanic nuclear explosion, which may have been a joint nuclear test
between Israel and South Africa (see and Israel-South Africa relations). However,
recently declassified information about the event concludes that it "was
probably not from a nuclear explosion, although [it cannot be ruled] out that
this signal was of nuclear origin."[33].
In an interview the Israeli Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert appeared to have admitted that Israel possesses nuclear
weapons. However, an Israeli spokesman later stated that Olmert meant to give
no such statement, and there has been no change in policy on nuclear weapons.[34]
On 1 February 2007, President Chirac
of France commented on the nuclear ambitions of Iran, hinting on possible nuclear
countermeasures from Israel:
"Where will it drop it, this bomb? On Israel? It would not have gone 200
metres into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed".[35]
In arguing that the United States should directly talk to Iran rather than through
intermediaries, former President Jimmy Carter stated in May 2008 that Israel
has "150 or more" nuclear weapons in its arsenal.[36]
[edit] Timetable of estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal
Nuclear weapons
History of nuclear weapons
Nuclear warfare
Nuclear arms race
Nuclear weapon design
Nuclear testing
Effects of nuclear explosions
Delivery systems
Nuclear espionage
Proliferation / Arsenals
Nuclear-armed states
US · Russia · UK · France
PR China · India · Israel
Pakistan · North Korea
(South Africa)
This box: view • talk • edit
The State of Israel has never made public any details or confirmations of its
nuclear capability or arsenal. The following is a history of estimates by many
different reputable sources on the size and strength of Israel's nuclear arsenal.
1967 (Six Day War)- 2 bombs[37];
13 bombs[38]
1969- 5-6 bombs of 19 kilotons yield each[39]
1973 (Yom Kippur War)- 13 bombs[40]; 20 nuclear missiles plus developed a suitcase
bomb[41]
1974- 3 capable artillery battalions each with 12 175 mm tubes and a total of
108 warheads[42]; 10 bombs[43]
1976- 10-20 nuclear weapons[44]
1980- 200 bombs[45]
1984- 12-31 atomic bombs[46]; 31 plutonium bombs and 10 uranium bombs[47]
1985- at least 100 nuclear bombs[48]
1986- 100 to 200 fission bombs and a number of fusion bombs[49]
1991- 50-60 to 200-300[50]
1992- more than 200 bombs[51]
1994- 64-112 bombs (5 kg/warhead)[52]; 50 nuclear tipped Jericho missiles, 200
total[53]
1995- 66-116 bombs (at 5 kg/warhead)[54]; 70-80 bombs[55]; "A complete
Repertoire" (neutron bombs, nuclear mines, suitcase bombs, submarine borne)[56]
1996- 60-80 plutonium weapons, maybe more than 100 assembled, ER variants (neutron
bombs), varitable yields[57]
1997- More than 400 deliverable thermonuclear and nuclear weapons[58]
2002– Between 75 and 200 weapons[59]
The figure dropped between 1997 and 2002 due to satellite photographs showing
the power of the reactor had not increased since the 1970s.[citation needed]
[edit] Chemical weapons
Israel has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). There
are speculations that a chemical weapons program might be located at the Israel
Institute for Biological Research (IIBR) in Ness Ziona [1].
190 liters of dimethyl methylphosphonate,
a CWC schedule 2 chemical used in the synthesis of Sarin nerve gas, was discovered
in the cargo of El Al Flight 1862 after it crashed in 1992 en route to Tel Aviv.
Israel insisted the material was non-toxic, was to have been used to test filters
that protect against chemical weapons, and that it had been clearly listed on
the cargo manifest in accordance with international regulations. The shipment
was from a U.S. chemical plant to the IIBR under a U.S. Department of Commerce
license.[60]
In 1993, the U.S. Congress Office
of Technology Assessment WMD proliferation assessment recorded Israel as a country
generally reported as having undeclared offensive chemical warfare capabilities.[3]
Former US deputy assistant secretary of defense responsible for chemical and
biological defense, Bill Richardson, said in 1998 "I have no doubt that
Israel has worked on both chemical and biological offensive things for a long
time ... There's no doubt they've had stuff for years".[61]
[edit] Biological weapons
Israel is not a signatory to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). It is
assumed that the Israel Institute for Biological Research in Ness Ziona develops
vaccines and antidotes for chemical and biological warfare.[62] While it is
believed that Israel is not currently producing chemical or biological weapons,
there remains speculation that Israel's ability to start production and dissemination,
if necessary, remains active.[63]
In 1993, the U.S. Congress Office
of Technology Assessment WMD proliferation assessment recorded Israel as a country
generally reported as having an undeclared offensive biological warfare program.[3]
[edit] Delivery systems
[edit] Missiles
Israel is known to have tested two versions of the Jericho missile system. The
Jericho I with a range of 500km and the Jericho II with a range of 1,500km.
The Shavit rocket is used for inserting objects into a low earth orbit.
Third version of the Jericho missile is possible. It has been speculated that
Jericho III entered service in mid-2005[citation needed]. On 17 January, 2008
Israel test fired a multi-stage ballistic missile believed to be of the Jericho
III type. With a payload of 1,000 - 1,300 kg it is estimated to have a range
of 4,800 km, or 7,800km with a payload of 350 kg (one Israeli nuclear warhead)[citation
needed]. If true, that would give Israel, at least, nuclear strike capability
against Africa, Europe, and most of Asia.
Popeye turbo cruise missile with a range of 1,500km.
[edit] Aircraft
Israel lacks strategic bombers to deliver nuclear weapons over a long-range,
although its F-16 fighter aircraft have been cited as possible nuclear delivery
systems.[64][65][3] The U.S. Air Force uses the F-15 to deliver tactical nuclear
weapons.[66]
The Israeli Air Force possesses the
following types of fighter aircraft:
Lockheed Martin F-16I Sufa ("Storm")
McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F-15 Eagle Baz 2000 (A/B/C/D/E)
[edit] Marine
Dolphin Class - Type 800 coastal submarines - "Nuclear capable", according
to The Washington Post [2]
[edit] See also
Project Daniel
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CAR20070115&articleId=4477
Israel’s plans to Wage Nuclear
War on Iran: History of Israel's Nuclear Arsenal
Hundreds of nuclear warheads under the control of Israel's defense establishment
by Michael Carmichael
Global Research, January 15, 2007
The Planetary Movement and Global Research
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
This article expands upon an earlier text published by Global Research
In 1986, an Israeli civil servant who worked in the state-owned nuclear industry
flew to London where he was invited to meet with reporters working for The Sunday
Times. In these press briefings, Mordechai Vanunu revealed Israel’s top
secret - the Israelis had gained control of a growing stockpile of nuclear warheads.
In the weeks immediately following
these explosive revelations, Mr Vanunu visited Rome where Israeli espionage
agents abducted him and forced his return to Israel. Back in Tel Aviv, Mr Vanunu
was placed on trial for treason. Tried before a secret tribunal, Mr. Vanunu’s
conviction was a foregone conclusion, and he served an eighteen-year prison
sentence with eleven of those years in solitary confinement.
Released in 2004, Mr Vanunu was placed
under orders prohibiting him from travel to other nations where he has been
offered academic posts. Mr Vanunu is now living in the sanctuary of a Christian
Church in Israel, but this refuge has not stopped his political persecution
by the government of Israel. Since his release, Mr Vanunu has been arrested
four times, and he is now facing 21 charges of contravening a lawful direction,
a charge that carries a penalty of two years in prison for each count (ie. 42
years).
The European Parliament condemned
the state of Israel’s persecution of Mr. Vanunu. Amnesty International
published a report charging that Israel’s treatment of Mr. Vanunu was,
“cruel, inhuman and degrading . . . such as is prohibited by international
law.”
Since his exposé of Israel’s
nuclear arsenal, Mr. Vanunu has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize a total
of seventeen times. Even though Joseph Rotblat placed Mr. Vanunu’s name
in nomination, Vanunu’s Nobel nominations have always faced systematic
opposition organized by friends and supporters of the state of Israel who wield
immense influence in the Nobel deliberations.
In 1987, Mr. Vanunu received the
alternative Nobel Peace Prize (ie. the Right Livelihood Award). In 2005, he
was awarded the Peace Prize of the Norwegian people and an honorary doctorate
from the prestigious University of Tromso.
The state of Israel has consistently
blocked Mr. Vanunu’s taking up his academic post as a Lecturer in history
at the University of Glasgow. The Israeli government prohibits Mr. Vanunu from
traveling beyond their borders apparently for fear that he will hold press briefings
about their now well-known arsenal of nuclear weapons. Expert opinions vary
but some now rank Israel third or fourth behind only the USA, Russia and possibly
France in holding the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons.
In addition to the nuclear devices
themselves, Israel has a formidable arsenal of delivery systems. Israel’s
Shavit rocket has been used to launch satellites into orbit, and the Bulletin
of the Atomic Scientists reported that the Shavit could be converted to an ICBM
with a range of 7,000 miles allowing an Israeli nuclear strike anywhere in the
Middle East as well as eastern and western Europe and Central Asia. Additionally,
Israel now has a fleet of Dolphin class submarines armed with cruise missiles
capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
reported that Israel may have developed nuclear artillery shells as well as
nuclear land-mines that could be deployed in the Golan Heights to discourage
Syrian designs on the region.
(Israeli submarine)
Even though the existence of Israel’s
nuclear arsenal is now a well-established fact, the state of Israel has consistently
refused to confirm its nuclear status. Furthermore, Israel refuses to become
a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Israel’s adamant
nuclear insularity and denials have created tensions – not only in the
Middle East – but globally.
America’s acquiescence to the
Israeli nuclear arsenal may have encouraged India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran,
Saudi Arabia and other states now known to be capable of developing nuclear
capabilities. For instance, in 2003, leading members of the government of Saudi
Arabia announced that due to worsening relations with the United States they
were considering the development of nuclear weapons. The worsening relations
between Saudi Arabia and the United States are predicated upon the policies
of Israel: its rogue nuclear arsenal and its harsh treatment of Palestinians
in the Occupied Territories. Some reports indicate that India has secretly provided
Saudi Arabia with nuclear weapons.
In the early 1990s, one of America’s
premiere journalists, Seymour Hersh, published a best-selling book, The Samson
Option, detailing Mr Vanunu’s testimony. Hersh’s book contained
a great deal of new information about Israel’s vaunted nuclear defense
capability.
Since 1986, the overwhelming majority
of the global population has known about Israel’s nuclear arsenal, but
many Americans remain completely unaware of the existence of hundreds of nuclear
warheads under the direct control of the Israeli defense establishment. In the
mid-1990s, Michael Moore – a person who is not known for his conservatism
nor for his reflexive support for the policies of the state of Israel - made
disparaging remarks during an interview that touched on the existence of the
Israeli nuclear arsenal. Moore made this gaffe because – even though he
is usually well-informed – it was obvious that he was oblivious to either
Mordechai Vanunu’s testimony or Mr Hersh’s bestselling book.
In the reports linked below, The
Sunday Times have now revealed new evidence that Israel is currently planning
to launch a nuclear attack against Iran. Aimed at destroying the embryonic Iranian
nuclear industry, the Israeli missiles armed with nuclear warheads will be delivered
via conventional jet fighters. The Sunday Times reported that Israeli jet pilots
are already undergoing advanced training to fire the nuclear warheads at targets
in Iran - – in a tactical replay of their attack that destroyed Saddam
Hussein’s nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1982.
In The Sunday Times coverage, no
reference was made to the possibility of a nuclear strike from Israeli submarines
that have been equipped with cruise missiles that could be armed with nuclear
warheads. Military experts have been reporting the presence of Israel’s
Dolphin class submarines in the Persian Gulf for the past two years ostensibly
to support US naval operations in case Iran attempts to close the Straits of
Hormuz.
Two years ago, Seymour Hersh began
publishing a series of papers in The New Yorker detailing a vast planning project
in Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon to attack and wage war on Iran. In the interim,
many other authors have now reported details of the highly publicized policy
of the Bush-Cheney White House to use military force to compel Iran to abandon
any ambitions she might have to develop nuclear weapons. These American military
options involve the use of nuclear weapons sometimes called bunker busters that
are designed for striking deeply embedded underground locations such as Iran’s
nuclear laboratories.
It is worthy of note that Elizabeth
Cheney, the eldest daughter of Vice President Richard Cheney, is the US government
official at the State Department responsible for a budget of circa $100 million
per year to encourage “democracy” inside Iran – ie. covert
operations designed to construct a fifth column inside Iranian society that
is hostile to the existing government.
From a lengthening series of reports,
it is now clear that the Bush-Cheney administration has been severely weakened
by the recent midterm elections, and they apparently no longer feel capable
of launching a direct nuclear strike against Iran using American forces, American
weapons and America’s formidable nuclear arsenal. In negotiations that
took place in Washington between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and President
George Bush - as well as in the highly publicized negotiations between Vice
President Dick Cheney and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia - it would now appear
that the joint planning to strike Iran has altered only slightly from the grandiose
schemes originally designed by Donald Rumsfeld prior to his abrupt retirement
on the day after the midterm elections last year.
(Prime Minister Ehud Olmert)
According to The Sunday Times, there
has been a slight re-calibration of the plans for the war against Iran. Rather
than a direct American nuclear strike against Iran’s hard targets, Israel
has been given the assignment of launching a coordinated cluster of nuclear
strikes aimed at targets that are the nuclear installations in the Iranian cities:
Natanz, Isfahan and Arak.
What remains to be seen is whether
the American media - now ranked 53rd on the International Press Freedom Index
- will cover the story, and whether the American people will be informed of
the intimate collaboration between the Bush-Cheney White House, the Olmert government
in Israel and other governments now known to be involved in the military planning
to contain Iran’s still nascent nuclear development.
Following The Sunday Times’
detailed coverage of Israeli’s plans to launch a nuclear strike against
Iran, the government of Israel issued an unconvincing denial. One Israeli official
made an ambiguous statement when he said that the story could have been leaked
intentionally in order to prevent the nation of Israel from doing something,
“crazy.” When Israeli government officials offer praise –
even in this odd manner – it is time to take note that a political realignment
may be taking place in Tel Aviv.
In America, there is no doubt whatsoever
that a major political realignment has already taken place. The American Israel
Political Action Committee (AIPAC) and its cheerleaders are concerned that the
trend to criticize Israel is now intensifying both on the left and in the center
of the political spectrum in the US. The government of Israel’s support
for the disasters brought about by the neoconservative ideology has triggered
an American political backlash in the wake of years of disappointment over the
war in Iraq – a war that was to have been the crowning achievement of
the Bush-Cheney administration.
Former President Jimmy Carter’s
book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid is now standing high on the bestseller
lists even though he has faced a firestorm of protest from the Israel-Firsters
led by Abraham Foxman, the formidable propagandist of the Anti-Defamation League
(ADL).
Against this rapidly shifting backdrop,
American politicians of both parties – and from all parts of the political
spectrum: left, right and center - are now openly expressing their opposition
to the war in Iraq. That said, relatively few members of Congress have taken
any position on the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld plans for war with Iran.
Last week, the new Chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) challenged Secretary
of State, Condoleezza Rice, about her inflammatory remarks threatening a military
intervention to confront what she termed Iran’s “aggression.”
In striking terms, Senator Biden warned Secretary Rice that Congress would not
tolerate any US military attack across the Iraq-Iran border. Senator Biden arrested
Secretary Rice with his promise of a “constitutional confrontation”
between Congress and the White House if President Bush orders US forces to cross
the border. Currently the most outspoken opponent of America’s plans to
wage war on Iran in the US Congress, Senator Biden is an unannounced candidate
for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008.
In a parallel development, top-ranking
staff at the White House ordered Tony Snow to issue a weak statement designed
to allay rising public concerns about expanding the unpopular war into Iran.
Snow attempted to pour scorn on what he deemed to be an “urban legend”
– that the Bush White House has made plans for war with Iran. Coming as
they did in the aftermath of Condoleezza Rice’s provocative remarks about
Iranian “aggression” and the highly publicized seizure of five Iranian
officials by US forces in Iraq, Mr. Snow’s attempt to quell the concerns
of Americans was underwhelming, unconvincing and little more than a transparent
attempt to disinform the public. The appointment of Mr. Snow, a former personality
from Fox News, was, perhaps, one of the worst of many questionable decisions
made by a White House besieged on so many fronts.
During his confirmation hearings
last month, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates responded to a question about
potential US military intervention against Iran. Mr. Gates stated that such
an attack could have, “devastating consequences,” for America and
her friends in the region.
Mr. Gates was right. The reality
is stark. If Israel attacks Iran, she will be playing Russian roulette on a
grand scale. The retaliation from a broad spectrum of nations and multinational
militias in the Middle East could bring about a concerted series of devastating
hard power attacks against both Israeli and American forces arrayed in a dense
cluster from Iraq to Kuwait, Qatar and the Persian Gulf.
During his recent appearance at the
Oxford Union, Avi Shlaim, one of the premiere historians of Israel, said,
“There was never any special
relationship between America and Britain. Whenever Bush was confronted with
the choice of pleasing Blair or Sharon, he always sided with Sharon. The real
special relationship is between America and Israel.”
There is an old adage in politics:
It’s never your enemies who get you into trouble: it’s your friends.
(Mordechai Vanunu in Israel)
Michael Carmichael is Chairman &
Chief Executive Officer, The Planetary Movement, Oxford, UK and a frequent contributor
to Global Research
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Mordechai Vanunu
The Mordechai Vanunu website
Free Mordechai Vanunu
Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike
on Iran
An unholy alliance threatening catastrophe
Israel will do whatever it takes
Ellsberg warns Bush & Cheney
contemplating ‘gravest crime against humanity’
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists / Israeli nuclear forces, 2002
List of states with nuclear weapons
THE COMING WARS
THE IRAN PLANS
Israel Denies It Has Nuclear Strike
Plans - Newspaper Report Claims Israeli Pilots Are Training For Nuke Hit On
Iran
Tensions rise as Washington accuses
Iran over militias
Rice: U.S. aims to curb Iran aggression
US seeks to banish Iran war ‘rumor’
US: No immediate plans to attack
Iran
Next target Tehran - All the signs
are that Bush is planning for a neocon-inspired military assault on Iran
Israel, US camouflage Iran attack
plan
Michael Carmichael is a frequent
contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Michael Carmichael
http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN07326555
Mexican border city protests army
operations-paper
Sun Feb 8, 2009 1:19am EST Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-]
Text [+]
MEXICO CITY, Feb 8 (Reuters) - Hundreds of residents in a Mexican border city
briefly blocked access roads to the United States on Saturday to protest army
operations against drug cartels which they say put children and families at
risk, Mexican daily El Universal reported.
Some 2,300 people, some with their
children, carried signs and choked up traffic on the busy crossing between Reynosa
and Texas to protest the army's deployment to drug hot spots along the border,
which have turned the region into a battleground, the paper said in its online
edition.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon
has sent thousands of soldiers and police across the country to take on powerful
drug traffickers, but the frontal assault has failed to curb violence with more
than 5,700 people murdered last year alone.
The northern state of Tamaulipas,
where Reynosa is located, is known as the home of the Gulf Cartel, whose feared
armed-wing, the Zetas, are famed for torturing and decapitating rivals.
Human rights groups have raised concerns
about army abuses against citizens in the government's anti-drug operations,
complaining there have been arbitrary detentions and heavily-armed shootouts
in the street without regard to the people living nearby.
A Reynosa newspaper said demonstrators
also protested against car import rules and demanded more local government support
for farmers.
(Writing by Mica Rosenberg; Editing
by Sandra Maler)