Media Making Emergency Preparations To Cover War With Iran.

2 at 12:05 pm – Permalink – Source via Alexander Higgins Blog

(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

	0digg
Share352

• 
• 1038

   

  1153

  Share

  18

  Email

Major western news outlets, including FOX, CBS, NBC and Reuters, rent rooftops, prepare emergency broadcast infrastructure, and deploy senior producers to Israel to cover war with Iran.

Israel news agencies are reporting the western media outlets are obtaining assets and gearing up infrastructure to provide live coverage of war with between Iran and Israel.

News outlets, including FOX, CBS, NBC and Reuters have started renting rooftops in Tel-Aviv and Helena to pprovide live video broadcast of a war that that those familiar with the situation say will start within the next few months.

CEO of JCS , a the television and video production contractor for the majority of foreign networks in Israel, also confirm that has firm received several calls in the last few days to build emergency means of continued broadcast communications and video production from their media centers in Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem.

Richard Silverstein points us to an article in the Hebrew newspaper Globes, translated into English below, which informs us of the latest developments on the situation.

Foreign Press Rents Tel Aviv Rooftops to Cover Iran War

Richard Silverstein
Wednesday, February 8, 2012

You remember the descriptions of the First Battle of Bull Run when all of Washington’s high society rode out in their fine carriages and horses to picnic under the shady trees and watch their Union boys send the Yankees packing?

Did they get the shock of their lives when the Rebel musket balls whizzed over their heads and the Union soldiers ran for their lives from the field? Or similarly, the Israelis in southern Israel who took lawn chairs out to watch the IDF smash Gaza to smithereens in 2009? Here’s a picture of another group of expectant, thrilled Israelis watching the action.

That’s what the foreign press corps appears to be doing now in Tel Aviv in preparation for an attack on Iran. They’re renting the right to put film crews and reporters on the city’s rooftops (Hebrew) during the upcoming war in order to cover the anticipated Iranian counterattack. That way they can get great photo ops and pictures of missiles wreaking havoc on the city. What a story! What a feast for the eyes! Other news organizations like CBS, Fox News, and NBC are sending their senior producers to Israel to scope out the place in case they have to send in the big boys–the news anchors and senior correspondents (especially since no one can report from Teheran!).

We can’t wait! I don’t know why I should have to point out that this is irony. But there are some right-wingers who have neither a sense of irony nor humor. So it’s for them I guess.

Here’s a report translated from Hebrew to English from the Israeli newspaper the Globe.

The foreign media is preparing for an Israeli war with Iran

Various agencies, including Reuters, have rented the roofs of houses in Tel Aviv hired to prepare to broadcast an attack on the town ■ In addition, television networks in have sent their senior producers to Israel

Foreign Media Makes Preperations For A War With Iran To Topple Regime Of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Although there non-ongoing uncertainty in Israel around the nuclear confrontation with Iran , Globes “has learned that the foreign media feel that the great event is coming” – meaning the war is going to happen.

Globes has learned that recently various agencies, including Reuters ,have rented several roofs of houses in Tel – Aviv, to prepare for the shooting attack on the city. Also, the world’s television networks have sent a variety of senior producers to Israel to examine communications infrastructure and protective measures, in Helena as well as Tel-Aviv, in preparation of big teams will come to Israel to cover the events.

The FOX , NBC and CBS networks are making preparations to deploy their teams from their American and European and Asian agencies.

One senior source of foreign broadcasters told Globes “It would be illogical not to prepare for war, when we constantly hear your defense minister openly talking about. This assessment is similar to the days immediately before the start of days of the Gulf War, the early ’90s. ”

Hanani Rapoport, CEO of JCS , a the television and video production contractor for the majority of foreign networks in Israel, told Globes “We receiving inquiries in recent days due to the increased flow of reports regarding a possible conflict in the Middle East in the coming months. We are receiving calls from our clients who to be sure we are preparing for the possibility of war, including making emergency preparations at our centers in Jerusalem and Tel – Aviv  for provide continued transmission and production capabilities during the war. We also continue to hear references to Turkish links to the situation. I hope that the plans remain on paper. ”

Knowing I am a member of the media, the foreign news outlets refused to comment.

Source: Globes

West offers words, only, as Syria killing … JPost – Middle East.

Hitler announced to the world that he would destroy the Jews.  He then proceeded to do so with 20th century efficiency.

The world called him all kinds of names but did nothing to stop him.

It’s happening again, right before our eyes.  The world is allowing Assad to butcher his own people with no opposition.  Why?  Because no country has a “vital interest” in opposing it.

The morals, ethics, international law of a situation, always take a second seat to other countries’ interests.

This is a simple statement of fact.  Bemoaning it may be justified, but is not the issue at the moment.

The Jewish people’s experience of being abandoned by the whole world is brought to life fresh witnessing the horrors in Syria.  Lot’s of angry epithets hurled at Assad and his UN “enforcers.” But nobody actually does anything.

The butchery continues and grows day by day.  The world community shifts its eyes away and nervously whistles. 

How bad does it have to get before any country will do any thing to help?

Ben Gurion understood this reality about international relations.  That was why he insisted that Israel should always have the ability to defend itself on it’s own.

Netanyahu is a spiritual descendant of Ben Gurion.  He will not wait till it’s too late for Israel to stop the Iranian bomb. 

It is to the Israelis and the Jews all over this world that I address this warning:

What makes you think that the world cares any more about Jews than they do about Syrians?

Bottom line, it’s up to us to protect ourselves.  Like every other country we need to put our interests above any others.  That’s how the game of international relations is played.

I’m hoping and believe that Bibi’s holding an “ace in the hole.”

Joseph Wouk

February 9, 2012

Amb. Marc Ginsberg: The Obama Administration’s Syrian Double Standard.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Morocco

We do not want further militarization of the situation in Syria.” So sheepishly declared an Obama Administration spokesman today when pressed why isn’t the U.S. prepared to help defend defenseless Syrian protestors by providing humanitarian and perhaps financial and logistical support to the Free Syrian Army.

My how the tides have changed in the hallways of the Eisenhower Executive Office building.

When Col. Gaddafi’s forces were on the outskirts of Benghazi, White House staffers were falling all over themselves in a mad dash to declare to any and all that a humanitarian catastrophe demanded urgent international action to prevent an assault on innocent civilians. Nightmares of Rwanda and Bosnia compelled the burning of midnight oil at the State Department.

Abetted by a cavalry of outraged academics in Washington think tanks demanding action from the Administration, President Obama publicly signaled events demanded action and marshaled his top officials to explore every conceivable avenue to thwart Gaddafi’s forces. Secret arms deliveries were smuggled in to Libya courtesy of Qatar and Egypt. CIA operatives were parachuted in to help the nascent Libyan opposition forces. A NATO led no-fly zone was declared and enforced. No stone was left unturned to keep Gaddafi’s forces from killing civilians. Everyone was on red alert.

Fortunately, because of that example of presidential leadership a humanitarian catastrophe in Benghazi was averted and the Administration has been patting itself on the back ever since… never mind that Libya today is suffering a destabilizing outbreak of post-revolutionary violence threatening the very victory Administration officials crowed about. But, hey that’s no longer necessarily our business… right?

While the appalling massacre of innocent civilians escalates daily across Syria, and images from Homs and other Syrian cities are far worse than anything witnessed in Libya, the cacophony of outrage from Washington’s hallowed think tanks is strangely subdued. True, the U.S. led an effort to pass a Security Council resolution urging a political solution to the Syrian crisis. And yesterday, the U.S. decided to close our embassy in Damascus and is “exploring additional new economic sanctions” against Assad.

Meanwhile, while Administration officials “explore” those sanctions options, Russian ships and cargo aircraft pour tanks, artillery, aircraft and ammunition into Syria to replenish Assad’s killing machine. Russia defends its conduct by charging that the West is acting like a “bull in a china shop.” The Kremlin’s propagandists are masters of the “big lie” in Syria…it is Moscow which is thwarting international will by militarily intervening under cover of their own Security Council veto — testament to the newly branded thuggish “Putinization” of Moscow’s diplomacy.

Although time is of the essence, the White House seems too satisfied with itself talking the talk of outrage and frustration. True, senior officials have used uncharacteristically harsh rhetoric as daily toll throughout Syria escalates. But sadly, President Obama has so far not evidenced much in the way of Libya-style resolve to challenge Russia’s ploy reserving to itself the sole right to militarily intervene in Syria.

If the Administration continues on its present, relatively passive course and shirks America’s duty and responsibility to confront the Russian Syrian arms transfers with tougher resolve, it won’t be merely “leading from behind;” it will be turning its back on the growing humanitarian catastrophe in Syria.

So what can the U.S. realistically do without landing marines on the beaches of Syria:

1. Call Russia’s bluff. Force a UN Security Council resolution vote demanding an arms embargo on Syria and dare the Russians veto it.

2. Expel Russia from the G-8 until it ceases arms transfer to Syria. Freeze Russia out of some other international gatherings and forums for good measure.

3. Straightjacket the Central Bank of Syria by completely cutting off its access to U.S. and European banking facilities.

4. Develop support for an international indictment in the International Criminal Court against the Assad regime’s leadership for crimes against humanity.

5. Encourage Arab League efforts to organize a military supply airlift through southern Turkey to provide additional support to the Free Syrian Army.

6. Officially delegitimize the Assad regime by recognizing the Syrian National Council as the new, legitimate government of Syria, and galvanize European Union and Arab League nations to follow suit.

7. Provide additional financial and diplomatic support to the Syrian National Council to form a Syrian government in exile and have its leadership publicly embraced in western and Arab capitals.

8. Work with Turkey to declare and enforce a humanitarian zone in northern Syria to provide shelter for Syrians fleeing the fighting.

The Syrian people have paid heavily for defying their regime, and the outcry for international help from Syria’s beleaguered cities compels more imaginative action by this White House. Declaring that the U.S. wishes to avoid further “militarization” of the situation in Syria ignores the reality that the country is already in a civil war. It is one of those nice diplomatic phrases that, in reality, is an inadequate alibi for inexcusable inaction. The world is watching to see if the Obama Administration can free itself from its own self-imposed rhetorical straight jacket on Syria. The Syrian people have earned the right to more midnight oil out of this Administration.

Israpundit » Blog Archive » Obama not leading even from behind.

Assad forces mull use of chemical weapons in Homs, opposition says – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Opposition figures claim government stockpiling chemical weapons and distributing gas masks to soldiers near Homs; 130 people reportedly killed on Thursday as government intensifies crackdown.

By Zvi Bar’el and DPA

Syria’s military has begun stockpiling chemical weapons and equipping its soldiers with gas masks near the city of Homs, opposition sources reported on Thursday.

Opposition activists said they had received reports that the Syrian army had transferred a significant quantity of grenades and mortars containing chemical agents to a school building in Homs.

	Syrian rebels in Idlib, Feb. 9, 2012.
	Photo by: AP

The opposition also reported that gas masks were being distributed to soldiers at roadblocks.

Homs has become the focal point of violent confrontations between insurgents and the country’s military in recent days, and opposition figures are concerned that the moves could signal the regime’s intention to use chemical weapons against its citizens.

News agencies reported over 130 killed in Syria on Thursday, as Bashar Assad’s government intensified its crackdown on an expanding uprising against his regime.

Demonstrations were reported on Thursday in Aleppo, Syria’s second largest city, which had previously not seen large-scale protests against the government.

Meanwhile, an opposition website reported that an armored brigade of the Syrian military was headed toward the city of Zabadani, which has been held for the past ten days by the Free Syrian Army, the opposition’s armed wing. The site speculated that the brigade would attempt to retake the city over the next two days.

Opposition sources said the ferocity of attacks by government forces against the cities of Homs, Idlib and Daraa had reached unprecedented levels of intensity over the past two days, with hospitals and clinics bombed and doctors arrested.

British Prime Minister David Cameron on Thursday said there was a need to continue to maintain pressure on Syria’s government over its bloody crackdown on the country’s opposition.

“Clearly what we are seeing on our television screens is completely unacceptable,” Cameron told a news conference in Stockholm. “It really is appalling to see the destruction of Homs… It is quite clear that this is a regime that is hell-bent on killing, murdering and maiming its own citizens.”

Cameron added that there was a need to “take the toughest response we can” against Syria.

Arab League foreign ministers are scheduled to meet in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on Saturday to discuss the organization’s next steps on the crisis. The Arab League suspended its monitoring mission to Syria in late January due to the rising violence.

Approximately 6,000-7,000 people have died thus far in the 11-month uprising, which has become increasingly militarized in recent months.

FM: If Iran sanctions don’t work,… JPost – Diplomacy & Politics.

Lieberman: Hezbollah could soon provoke Is… JPost – Middle East.

By REUTERS

U.S. Israel Differences May Have Prompted Israel Iranian Terror Group Expose.

A report out from NBC News quotes anonymous U.S. government officials linking Israeli intelligence to a State Department designated Iranian terrorist group. 

The officials claim that the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists in recent years have been made possible by Israel’s relationship with the People’s Mujahedin of Iran, as the group has provided access to information the Mossad would not have otherwise been able to attain.

NBC’s sources within the U.S. government have made clear that despite the Obama administration’s supposed knowledge of these activities, there is no involvement by American personnel in these operations.

These statements come on the heels of a more publicized dispute between Washington and Jerusalem as to the “point of no return”.  This refers to the time when Iran’s nuclear facilities reach a phase in which they are no longer vulnerable to a military strike.

“It appears to be an issue of timeline and redlines. Israel likely believes that the redline or Iranian point of no return in its nuclear development may be sooner than the American perception,” Matthew Brodsky of the Jewish Policy Center in Washington told The Algemeiner.

On Wednesday, The New York Times published an article quoting an Obama administration official who said that Washington believes there are ways to stop Iran from completing it’s development of a nuclear weapon, even if facilities reach a point where military operations would have no effect.  This view is not shared by Israeli counterparts.

“There are many other options,” said the American official who spoke with the paper.

The statements made to NBC news regarding Israel’s involvement with an Iranian terrorist group may have been an attempt by Washington to counter Israeli statements that Iran’s development of a nuclear bomb is fast becoming immune from advancement, and therefore diplomacy is nearing it’s endgame, according to Brodsky.

“It could be that the U.S. is publicly outing Israel in regards to its saber-rattling because the Obama administration feels that what it says behind the scenes isn’t working. U.S. officials may want Israel to cool it down while sending Iran the message that the door to negotiations remains open and free from threats.” Brodsky said. “The perception from the White House may well be that Israel’s public position presents an obstacle to diplomatic engagement with Iran.”

Another possibility, Brodsky says, is that President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu both know military intervention will be necessary, but the public threats of carrying them out should come from Israel.

“There’s also a third scenario,” he explained. “It may well be that both American and Israeli interests are served by having Israel make the threats, while the U.S. makes the case that the window for a diplomatic solution is closing. The bottom line in any scenario will remain the difference in perception  of Iran’s nuclear point of no return as seen from Washington and Jerusalem. But there can be no doubt that situation with Iran is reaching a critical period.”

Israel and Iran: Closer to take-off | The Economist.

Momentum is growing for an Israeli airstrike on Iran—with or without American support

Feb 11th 2012 | from the print edition

 

IS IT all part of a carefully calibrated campaign of bluff and rumour intended to support tightening sanctions and bring Iran to the negotiating table, or is the ground really being prepared for an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities in the next few months? Perhaps it is neither and the people who count, yet to make up their minds, are frantically hedging and debating.

In early February the annual Herzliya security conference in Israel provided a platform for the country’s military and intelligence elite to air their concerns about Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon. Israel’s hawkish defence minister, Ehud Barak, said that the “window” for an effective strike was rapidly closing because the continuing movement of essential uranium-enriching centrifuges to the Fordow underground facility, close to the holy city of Qom, would give Iran a “zone of immunity” in which it could construct a bomb regardless of any intervention by the outside world.

Attacking the case for waiting to assess the impact of the latest round of sanctions, due to come into effect by midyear, Mr Barak warned that “whoever says ‘later’ may find that later is too late.” He added that “the assessment of many experts…is that the result of avoiding action will certainly be a nuclear Iran, and dealing with a nuclear Iran will be more complicated, more dangerous and more costly in lives and money than stopping it.”

Mr Barak’s American opposite number, Leon Panetta, who was travelling with journalists to a meeting with his NATO counterparts in Brussels, confided soon afterwards that there was a strong likelihood of Israel attacking Iran in April, May or June, when the skies are usually clear. Mr Panetta was not speaking on the record, but later turned down an opportunity to disown his remarks.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, responded by using his nationally broadcast Friday sermon on February 3rd to commit the country to continuing its nuclear programme no matter what, and to threaten both Israel and America. He described Israel as a “cancerous tumour” that “will be removed” and declared that if war broke out “it would be ten times deadlier for the Americans” than for Iran.

Mr Khamenei also called on regional allies to attack Israel. “Iran would assist any country or organisation that would fight the Zionist regime, which is now weaker than ever,” he said. It is a call that may, however, fall on deaf ears. Iran’s main ally in the region, the Syrian government, has other things on its mind. If it falls, pro-Iranian groups in Lebanon and Gaza will find their supply-lines cut.

Amid the escalating war of words, the military preparations for a conflict are indeed under way. The head of ground forces at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has announced exercises in the south of the country, near the Strait of Hormuz, and America has begun its largest amphibious-landing drill for a decade, described by Admiral John Harvey of the US Fleet Forces Command as “informed by recent history” and “applicable” to the Strait of Hormuz. Meanwhile, DEBKAfile, an excitable but at times well-informed Israeli security website, reported that “many thousands” of American troops have arrived at two islands close to the Strait, Masirah in Oman and Socotra in Yemen.

Yet for all the alarums and excursions, there are few hard conclusions to draw about whether an attack on Iran is imminent, or whether Israel is prepared to act unilaterally. And it is not clear whether, if it was convinced this was about to happen, America would feel compelled to hold Israel back and carry out the strikes itself. Only Israel’s senior leadership (and perhaps the Americans) know whether the Israeli air force is capable of carrying out an effective attack on its own.

Attempting to calm things down, Barack Obama said on February 5th that he did not think Israel had “made a decision on what they need to do” and that the two countries would work in “lockstep as we proceed to solve this, hopefully diplomatically”. Mr Obama will be mindful that an attack would dominate his bid for re-election in November—though it is unclear whether he would gain as a war president or lose ground because of a surge in oil prices and an economic reversal.

The consequences might not be as catastrophic as some fear. On the other hand they fall into the disturbing category that Donald Rumsfeld, a former American defence secretary, once called “known unknowns”. Unfortunately for Mr Obama the decision is more likely to rest with Mr Barak and his prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, than with him.