ISRAEL TO USE IRANIAN AND PAKISTANI DUPES IN DIRTY NUKE PLOY
“In the 230-page book, Shapira and his co-author, Rabbi Yosef Elitzur (The King’s Torah, currently Israel’s best selling book) argue that Jewish law permits the killing of non-Jews in a wide variety of circumstances. They write that Jews have the right to kill Gentiles in any situation in which “a non-Jew’s presence endangers Jewish lives” even if the Gentile is “not at all guilty for the situation that has been created”.The book sanctions the killing of non-Jewish children and babies: “There is justification for killing babies if it is clear that they will grow up to harm us, and in such a situation they may be harmed deliberately, and not only during combat with adults.”The rabbis suggest that harming the children of non-Jewish leaders is justified if it is likely to bring pressure to bear on them to change policy. The authors also advocate committing “cruel deeds to create the proper balance of terror” and treating all members of an “enemy nation” as targets for retaliation, even if they are not directly participating in hostile activities.” (false flag terror)
“Press clips gathered by the CIA and discovered in the National Archives’ stored CIA files point to an agency keenly interested in any leaks about the highly-classified CIA-Mossad program to establish Osama Bin Laden and the most radical elements of the Afghan Mujahidin as the primary leaders of the anti-Soviet rebels in the 1980s.WMR [Wayne Madsen Report] has pored through the CIA files and a complicated picture emerges of America’s and Israel’s top intelligence agencies, in cahoots with Saudi Arabia, establishing financial links and carve out intelligence programs to provide manpower and financial support to Bin Laden and his allies in Afghanistan. It was these very elements that later created the so-called “Al Qaeda,” which the late British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook described as nothing more than a “database” of CIA front organizations, financial supporters, and field operatives. However, one component omitted by Cook in the Al Qaeda construct is the Israeli participation.”
”Dr. David Kelly, the weapons expert who died in mysterious circumstances after the Iraq war, may have been about to reveal alarming details concerning missing nuclear weapons. Sources familiar with Dr Kelly’s work with South Africa’s security services say he also knew damaging details of how nuclear weapons decommissioned by South Africa were lost in the Middle East in 1991……..Informed experts who have contacted the Sunday Express claim the missing nuclear weapons found their way to Iraq. The claims raise new questions about the extent of Dr Kelly’s knowledge of British security secrets, which some insiders believe may have contributed to his death. Some believe he may have been silenced to prevent him revealing more secrets to the media. The South African weapons allegedly went missing in Oman on their way to be decommissioned in the US and may have then been smuggled to Iraq. A source claimed: “Dr Kelly knew about the South African nukes because he worked for research facilities there.Over the last year intelligence sources in both Britain and America have told journalists they believe that whatever Doomsday arsenal Saddam Hussein had accumulated before the second Gulf War was smuggled into Syria before the Spring 2003 invasion.Last month the Sunday Express revealed that MI5 investigators looking for details of Dr Kelly’s involvement with the South African government, seized his laptop computers after he died. The coroner charged with investigating the Government scientist’s death has said he will not reopen the case.”
|America’s man with a plan for IranThe highest-ranking US military officer says America has a plan for thwarting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, while admitting that such a strike would “endanger the security of the region.”|
Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, turned up the temperature in the Middle East several degrees when he told a US news program that America has a military plan for engaging Iran, while adding that he hoped “we don’t get to that.”
Mullen was asked by NBC’s “Meet the Press” if the US military has a devised plan for confronting Iran over its alleged nuclear weapon’s program. “We do,” Mullen replied. Yet Washington’s leading military adviser held out strong reservations over implementing such a move: “I hope we don’t get to that, but it’s an important option and it’s one that’s well understood.”
Previously, it had been standard protocol for US military leaders to only hint at the possibility of a full-blown attack, stating diplomatically for example that “all the options are on the table,” rather specifically mentioning the last-resort military option.
Explicitly mentioning a military response to Iran’s ongoing nuclear program, which Tehran claims is solely for civilian energy purposes, falls short of Obama’s noble pledge to “sit down and talk” with America’s enemies, as opposed to relying on the last-resort option of military action that largely defined the Bush years.
As things now stand, the world continues to hold its breath, hoping the latest round of economic sanctions against Iran will compel the Islamic Republic to fully co-operate with the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA).
In June, the United Nations imposed the harshest round of sanctions on Iran yet, targeting Iranian banks and export businesses; the EU and the United States unilaterally moved to block oil and gas investment in the country. But Iran shows no sign of backing down.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gone on record as saying the latest round of economic sanctions will have no effect on Iran, as it is his country’s “right to pursue renewable technologies, like other nations in the world.”
Yet, as the Russian president confirmed recently, Iran is not simply interested in the energy needs of its population.
Last month, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned the world that Iran is “moving closer” to having the potential to create nuclear weapons.
“Iran is moving closer to possessing the potential which in principle could be used for the creation of nuclear weapons,” President Medvedev told a meeting of ambassadors in Moscow.
What price military action?
Commencing a military operation against Iran would open a hornets’ nest of grave problems in the Middle East, as Admiral Mullen was quick to mention.
Without elaborating on the details of the plan, Mullen warned that such an attack would have “unintended consequences that are difficult to predict in what is an incredibly unstable part of the world.”
This was not the first time that Obama’s leading military advisor provided slightly ambiguous comments as to how America would respond to the threat of Iran possibly joining the nuclear club.
In February, during a news conference at the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, Mullen said he was opposed to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, while repeating his warning of the “unintended consequences” of a military strike.
“From a policy standpoint, Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, [or] nuclear capability,” Mullen said, before adding a significant caveat: “I’ve also been clear, them getting a weapon and/or the outbreak of a conflict would be a big, big problem for all of us. And I worry a great deal about the unintended consequences of a strike that are pretty hard to be specific about, in a pretty volatile region that’s pretty hard to predict.”
Indeed, even the suggestion of a military attack was greeted in Tehran with hostility and saber-rattling.
“If the Americans make the slightest mistake, the security of the region will be endangered. Security in the Persian Gulf should be for all or none,” Yadollah Javani, the deputy head of the elite Revolutionary Guards, told the official IRNA news agency on Sunday.
“The Persian Gulf is a strategic region and if it is endangered they (Americans) will suffer losses and our response will be firm,” Javani added. “We will defend ourselves if America or Israel resort to any hostile measures against our vital values.”
Also on Sunday, Iran’s envoy to the United Nations warned that the Islamic Republic would set Tel Aviv ablaze if Israel attacks it.
“If the Zionist regime commits the slightest aggression against Iranian soil, we will set the entire war front and Tel Aviv on fire,” Mohammad Khazai said, as quoted by Kashmar, the Farhang-e Ashti daily.
Meanwhile, Iranian President Ahmadinejad made an impassioned plea to Barack Obama, challenging him on Monday to a televised debate to determine who has the best solutions for the world’s problems.
“Toward the end of summer we will hopefully be there for the (UN) General Assembly and I will be ready for one-on-one talks with Mr Obama, in front of the media of course,” Ahmadinejad told a conference of Iranian expatriates in Tehran. “We will offer our solutions for world issues to see whose solutions are better.”
The proposal by Ahmadinejad is an interesting one, especially since Barack Obama regularly pledged during his presidential campaign to “sit down and talk” with America’s enemies, as opposed to implementing the “option of last resort” more popular with the neocon hawks of the Bush presidency.
Yet in the unlikely event that such a debate would occur (which could possibly attract better television ratings than the World Cup), there are several nagging factors that Ahmadinejad would use to his possible advantage, including the assertion that Israel has a nuclear weapons capability.
Analysts are practically unanimous in the belief that Israel has no less than 200 nuclear warheads in its arsenal, including submarine-launched nuclear cruise missiles. Iran’s predictable counterargument is one commonly heard in any school playground: “why is he allowed to do that, but we are not?” A very simple question that has no simple answer, at least not one that will be acceptable to Tehran in any case.
Meanwhile, the Islamic Republic firmly believes, especially with the anticlimactic demise of Iraq next door, that it is an influential regional power that should not be restrained from developing its nuclear capabilities. After all, there are already nine nuclear powers on the planet, Tehran argues, including punchy Pakistan, which borders Iran in the southern part of the country.
In light of these and other factors, which place Washington in an extremely awkward position when it comes to lecturing Iran about its own nuclear developments, it is more understandable why Obama has become the international spokesman for a “world without nuclear weapons.”
Such an ambitious platform, forwarded by none other than the Nobel Peace Prize winner, gives the United States more of an argument for discouraging other countries, including Iran, from letting the nuclear genie out of the bottle.
In other words, do as we say, not as we do. Whether the world will ever go “nuke-free,” well, that is an altogether different question.
So if – God forbid – the latest round of sanctions fail to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the decision to open yet another military front in the Middle East is decided, what can we expect?
Certainly nothing good, to say the least. First, it is doubtful that a full-blown military campaign will destroy all of Iran’s nuclear research facilities, while it would only intensify its quest for nuclear power.
“Even a successful military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would delay Iran’s program by only a few years, and it would almost certainly harden Tehran’s determination to go nuclear,” wrote James A. Lindsay and Ray Takeyh in the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs political journal.
The authors then rather half-heartedly speculated that a military attack, or even the threat of one, could be enough to bring down the already wobbling regime of President Ahmadinejad: “The ongoing political unrest in Iran could topple the regime, leading to fundamental changes in Tehran’s foreign policy and ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. But that is an outcome that cannot be assumed.”
Finally, it needs to be remembered that the Iran of 2010 is not the Iraq of 2003: Iran possesses an impressive range of ground and air resources.
In a 2007 parade to commemorate the anniversary of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, Tehran put on display its Shahab 3 missile, saying it could travel 2,000 km – a range long enough to hit Israel and US bases in the region. Another missile, the Ghadr 1, can reach targets up to 1,800 km away. In November 2008, Iran said it had test-fired a Sejjil missile with a range of close to 2,000 km.
But a full-blown war in the Middle East would have repercussions not just for the immediate region, but for the entire planet. It does not take a very vivid imagination – considering the vast arsenal of weapons that such a military adventure would demand – to foresee the horrible environmental consequences that such a decision would inflict around the world. This underlines the paradox of modern military power: the more powerful the weapons of mass destruction become, the more national governments must restrain themselves from implementing their use unless they want to wish to wipe out all life as we know it.
In the end, either war will become extinct or mankind – it is as simple as that. The current debate on Iran will test mankind’s ability to use judgment in deciding which of the two evils is greater: allowing one’s avowed enemy to (possibly) arm himself with the deadliest weapons ever created, or unleash a war the likes of which the planet may never recover from. After all, Iran may cool its heels when (if) it ever acquires nuclear weapons. Or it may not. But the latter scenario would mean nothing less than national suicide, which not even Ahmadinejad would be willing to accept.
Fortunately, there is a third option: We can hope that the present sanctions against Iran will work to erode the power base of the present regime, thus paving the way for an Iranian leader the West can work with.
Ironically, the West had exactly that man with Mohammad Khatami, an Iranian scholar and liberal-minded politician who served as the fifth President of Iran from August 2, 1997 to August 3, 2005. Khatami was a peace-loving leader who pushed for a “Dialogue amongst Civilizations”. The United Nations declared the year 2001 as the Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations, on Khatami’s suggestion.
Since the United States must take a large part of the blame for the rise of Iran’s hawkish President Ahmadinejad, who rose to power on a wave of anti-American fervor following the very unpopular and very unnecessary War in Iraq, it seems that the United States must “sleep in the bed it made” and find the most peaceful and reasonable way of disarming Ahmadinejad.
In the end, it has to be a decision we can all live with.
Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)
Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!
Print this page