WarSclerotic

Iran Strikes: Are You With or Against Israel? » Publications » Family Security Matters.

Israel’s profound choice on Iran | Juneau Empire – Alaska’s Capital City Online Newspaper.

Portending trends: Iran threatens to target any country.

Iran threatens to target any country (File photo of Iran’s deputy Revolutionary Guards commander,Gen. Hossein

Holocaust justifies uneasiness: Baird – Winnipeg Free Press.

(Canada is truly Israel’s best friend. – JW )

OTTAWA — Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird invoked images of the Holocaust in defending the notion of possible Israeli military action against Iran.

Appearing on CTV’s Question Period Sunday, he suggested the Jewish state has every right to feel threatened and pointed to recent comments by the Islamic republic’s supreme leader, who vowed to remove a “cancer” of Israel from the Middle East.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a speech broadcast across Iran on Friday, also pledged to aid any nation or group that challenges Israel.

“Obviously you can understand why the Jewish people and why Israel would take him seriously,” Baird told the program from Israel.

“Hitler wrote Mein Kampf more than a decade before he became chancellor of Germany. And they take these issues pretty seriously here.”

The book Mein Kampf laid the foundation of Nazi ideology, which led to the Second World War and eventually the Holocaust.

Baird’s comments added to the escalating war of words during the weekend over Iran’s nuclear enrichment program.

Hossein Salami, deputy head of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard, warned in an interview with the semi-official Fars news agency that any country in the Middle East whose territory is used to launch a military strike will face retaliation.

Salami was quoted as saying Tehran will use “retaliatory aggression” against its neighbours if they aid in such an attack.

The Iranian charge d’affaires, Kambiz Sheikh-Hassani, recently criticized both Baird and Prime Minister Stephen Harper in an email to the Ottawa publication Embassy Magazine, calling their statements on Iran “uninformed, undocumented and inflammatory.”

Harper is on the record several times during the last few weeks describing the regime in Tehran as “a grave threat to peace and security,” and warning it would have no hesitation about using nuclear weapons.

Baird, now on his way to join Harper in China, emphasized Canada supports U.S. President Barack Obama in keeping “all options,” including military action, on the table. “At the same time, I think we have an incredible responsibility to take every single diplomatic effort necessary,” he said.

Repeatedly throughout his visit to the Middle East, Baird has said the new wave of sanctions imposed on Iran by the international community, including a European embargo against Iranian oil, is having a significant impact on the hardline regime.

The concern about the possibility of Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons is not limited to Israel, he said.

“The fear in the Arab world, the entire Gulf, the entire Middle East is palpable on this issue, and it is increasingly a significant security threat for the West,” Baird said.

Israel and Iran Agreed on Nuclear Ambiguity – IPS ipsnews.net.

Analysis by Pierre Klochendler

JERUSALEM, Feb 6, 2012 (IPS) – Will Israel attack Iran’s nuclear facilities this spring? That is a question dominating the international agenda. Meanwhile, the grand project of a nuclear weapon-free Middle East is relegated to the utopian “day after” a solution is found to the Islamic republic’s atomic programme.

Strangely enough, Israeli public opinion has no clear opinion on the subject, and relies on ‘those who know best’. ‘Those who know best’, like Defence Minister Ehud Barak, say: “Should sanctions fail to stop Iran’s nuclear programme, there’ll be a need to consider taking action.” “Whoever says ‘later’, could find that it’s too late,” he warned last week.

The concern shared by many defence analysts, including Israelis, is that an Israeli strike would not only unleash a terrible all-out war, but would only set Iran’s nuclear programme back by just a few years.

“Tough sanctions and a united diplomatic front are the best chance for crippling Iran’s nuclear programme,” urged a New York Times op-ed on Friday.

On the other hand, Israeli defence officials have expressed concern that should the Iranian nuclear issue not be tackled head-on – either financially or militarily – the region would plunge into nuclear proliferation chaos, with potential leakage to non-actor states.

Such are the parameters of the debate; either an attack – with or without U.S. endorsement – or sanctions. What about alternatives, like the radical idea of a nuclear weapon-free zone (NWFZ) as strategy to neutralise Iran’s nuclear programme?

Israeli governments have conditioned a regional NWFZ with achieving comprehensive peace with all of Israel’s neighbours. This is virtually impossible given the current character of the Iranian regime. And, there’s no progress on the Arab peace front.

Yet, civil society activists take succour from the fact that following the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, a follow-up conference will be convened this year in Finland.

The gathering will discuss an agreement on how to transform the region into a NWFZ and free of all other weapons of mass destruction. The host country has been accepted by all governments, including both Israel and Iran. “Most Israelis aren’t even aware that their country’s willing to contemplate the NWFZ idea,” emphasises Hillel Schenker, co-editor of the Palestine-Israel journal, a Jerusalem-based quarterly run by both Israeli and Palestinian experts.

Last October, the former spokesperson for the Israeli branch of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War coordinated a meeting between Israeli and Iranian activists. Held in London under the auspices of a civil society initiative to establish a Conference on Security and Cooperation in the Middle East, the meeting facilitated the development of areas of mutual understanding between both peoples.

Such meeting is exceptional. By and large, public discussion is stifled by pressure at the helm. When ex- Mossad spy agency chief Meir Dagan questioned the judgment of Israel’s leaders that a military solution exists, Barak attacked his outspokenness, calling it “serious behaviour”.

Usually open to debate, Israelis tend to consider the nuclear question taboo or too complex for expressing dissenting opinions. It’s fine by most that only top acting political and military leaders assume that right, only in closed forums. Any relevant information in Hebrew is rare; information in English is abundant but arduous to analyse.

The absence of discussion stems also from the fact that, since the inception of its own nuclear programme in the late 1950s, Israel has officially stuck to a policy of “ambiguity”: it “won’t be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons in the region” is the official posture.

Israel is not an NPT signatory; Iran is. But both countries reject and refrain from any linkage between their respective nuclear programmes.

The secrecy shrouding their country’s programmes enables Israelis to feel that they participate in the defence of their state without having to grapple with its nuclear choices.

“If we as a society give any thought to nuclear weapons, it’s to Iran’s, which hasn’t yet become a reality,” notes Sharon Dolev, Greenpeace Mediterranean disarmament campaigner.”Like the hunchback who doesn’t see his hump, we don’t see our own weapons.”

Ambiguity therefore means that the international community should continue to ignore Dimona, believed to be the centre of the Israeli nuclear programme, and focus solely on Natanz, said to be the nerve centre of the Iranian nuclear programme.

Likewise, Iran is ambiguous with regard to its nuclear quest. While the International Atomic Energy Agency reported in November that Iran has engaged in activities related to the development of nuclear weapons, there’s no ‘smoking gun’ as to a decision to actually develop a bomb.

Israeli government officials praise “ambiguity” as it enhances Israel’s security almost as much as WMD. Assuming such a policy is necessary, nuclear demilitarisation activists propose a debate which would respect the constraints of not exposing Israel’s nuclear capability. Such discussion would strengthen the democratic character of their society.

“It’s still possible, even obligatory, to hold serious discussions about the need for nuclear weapons, the dangers they present regionally and globally, and the various possibilities for disarmament,” says Dolev.

Advocates of the abolition of Israel’s “nuclear opacity” believe that calling a spade a spade could gradually open the region towards arms control, if not creating a NWFZ.

“But if prevention (of Iran’s nuclear capability) fails, it’s unlikely that Israelis would look to arms control as a solution,” predicts Avner Cohen, author of the controversial ‘Israel and the Bomb’ (1998). All the more so given that during the Cold war, the backdrop to arms control dialogues was the declared existence of nuclear weapons.

Besides, Israelis almost consensually consider nuclear ambiguity as a case of force majeure, the most effective deterrent to what’s widely perceived here as the “existential threat” posed by Iran.

This linkage approach between WMD and extreme hostility, advocates of denuclearisation concede, takes precedence over all other considerations. Supposing Iran develops a bomb, “we don’t know which nuclear weapons state will disarm first, we do know which will disarm last. That country is Israel,” says Cohen.

Many civil society activists conclude that it’s probably already too late for Israelis to persuade their leaders that getting out of the “ambiguity” bunker might defuse the Iranian time-bomb that’s already ticking dangerously. (END)

Iranians bemoan sanctions hardship as vote approaches.

Monday, 06 February 2012

Syrian forces resume Homs bombardment; up … JPost – Middle East.

By REUTERS/Handout

The Final Countdown: Israel vs. Iran | FrontPage Magazine.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“No one should expect that a people who lost six million people to a lunatic ideology that had announced its intentions in advance, would make the same mistake twice.”

The 33-year farce of Western appeasement of Iran may be reaching its denouement. For the last few months, the pace of events have quickened as the West sanctions and threatens, and Iran blusters about closing the Strait of Hormuz, cutting off oil to Europe, and unleashing its terrorist proxies. Just last week Iran’s “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei subtly suggested that Iran would step up its already considerable support of terrorist outfits targeting Israel and the U.S.: “From now on, in any place, if any nation or any group confronts the Zionist regime, we will endorse and we will help. We have no fear expressing this.” Indulging traditional Islamic anti-Semitic language, Khamenei said Israel was a “cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut,” and claimed that the U.S. would suffer defeat and damage its regional prestige if it decides to use military force to stop the country’s nuclear program.

Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta has said there was a “strong likelihood” that Israel would attack Iran in April, May, or June of this year, a supposition reinforced by French President Nicolas Sarkozy. And Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in his remarks at the Herzilya Conference that Iran’s “military nuclear program is steadily nearing ripeness and is about to enter the ‘immunity zone.’ From that point on, the Iranian regime will be able to act to complete the program, with no effective disturbance and a time that is convenient for it.” The backdrop of this war of words is the West’s imposition of yet more sanctions, while the Iranian regime once again rope-a-dopes the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, and rumors of American troop concentrations in the region abound.

A constant in all this the diplomatic fencing is the threat of military action by Israel, along with the rumors surrounding such an event and speculations about the extent of Israel’s military capabilities. More important, however, is the unsavory way the Obama administration is using the threat of Israeli military action to influence Iranian behavior, at the same time it positions itself to avoid any responsibility for an attack. Thus Panetta publicly has been warning Israel against attacking, listing all the “unintended consequences” that would follow, at the same time the U.S. demands that Israel do nothing without alerting the United States in advance. However, despite these public warnings to Israel, it has long been clear that the administration’s diplomatic efforts have all been underwritten by the implicit threat that Israel will take unilateral military action. So it is that Israel is made the Dirty Harry of the Middle East, her actions decried by Western nations too cowardly to do what they know needs to be done, as in 1981, when Israel destroyed Iraq’s Osirak atomic reactor only to be condemned by the United States.

For make no mistake, Iran cannot be allowed to succeed in manufacturing nuclear weapons, or even achieving “nuclear latency,” the ability rapidly to produce them when needed. Such armaments in the hands of an Iranian regime besotted with apocalyptic Twelver Shi’ism and religiously sanctioned Jew-hatred would radically reconfigure the Middle East, sparking nuclear proliferation in the region and endangering not just Israel, but a large portion of the world’s oil supply. Yet on her own, Israel can at best delay Iran’s progress for at best three to five years. Apart from the logistical challenges of such a complex attack, nuclear production facilities in Iran have been dispersed into 17 known sites, many of which have been moved deep underground into fortified bunkers and tunnels.

The fallout of such an attack, moreover, could hit Israel hard. By Israeli estimations, Iran’s proxy Hezbollah has stockpiled in Lebanon 50,000 missiles, which can reach every corner of Israel. Following the fall of Mubarak and the ascendancy of the Muslim Brothers, the southern border with Egypt is no longer secure, thus providing an avenue for Hamas terrorist attacks. A beleaguered Bashar al Assad in Syria could distract attention from his slaughter of Syrians by attacking Israel in the Golan. Although the United States has said it would defend Israel in these circumstances, it is not certain how reliable that pledge is in an election year, with a U.S. president who already has shown by his actions a marked dislike for Israel. After all, this is a president who counts Turkey’s Recep Erdogan as one of his closest international buddies, despite Turkey’s naked support for the genocidal Hamas, but who publicly disparages Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu. Certainly, Israel would find little sympathy and support in the U.N. or the E.U. after an attack on Iran.

Yet despite these difficulties, Israel cannot coexist with a nuclear Iran that has threatened to “wipe Israel from the map,” as Iranian president Ahmadinejad has said, or any longer bide her time hoping economic sanctions will work on religious fanatics. Israel takes seriously the post-Holocaust “never again” pledge that the rest of the world professes, but does little to enforce. No one should expect that a people who lost six million people to a lunatic ideology that had announced its intentions in advance, would make the same mistake twice. Nor should we expect a country that since its birth has been attacked three times by its more populous neighbors, and subjected to continual terrorist murder of its citizens by peoples who have made clear that Israel’s existence is a intolerable crime against their faith, to roll the dice and accept letting the world’s foremost supporter of jihadist terrorism acquire weapons of apocalyptic lethality. Yet at least publicly, there has been little appreciation of Israel’s existential predicament on the part of her presumed allies. On the contrary, for decades now Israel has been pressured to make concession after concession to enemies seeking her destruction, pilloried on the diplomatic world stage as a neo-colonialist racist oppressor, and blamed for every political and social dysfunction in the region, all at the hands of Western nations that would not tolerate living with Israel’s existential threats for five seconds.

Particularly distasteful has been the current administration’s actions. Even as he praises the “Arab Spring” and its alleged march toward liberal democracy, Obama has bullied, blamed, and put at risk the only genuine liberal democracy in the region, a beacon of freedom and respect for human rights, and a stalwart ally in the midst of Islamist hatred directed as much at America as at Israel. Rather than playing this duplicitous game of relying on Israeli military muscle to give teeth to diplomatic efforts while publicly distancing itself from an Israeli strike, the Obama administration should start planning and announcing a joint U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran of the sort that drove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in 1990-91. The stated goal, moreover, should not be just the degradation of Iran’s nuclear facilities, but the destruction of the Republican Guards’ military assets and the material support of Iranian dissident groups in order to effect regime change.

Instead, in our relations with Israel we increasingly resemble the despicable behavior of France and England towards Czechoslovakia in 1938. As Hitler used diplomacy as cover for his aggression, France and England pressured the Czechs to make more and more suicidal concessions. Afraid to fight when it most likely would have won, the French and English abandoned Czechoslovakia and had to fight anyway a year later, when victory was in doubt and ultimately achieved mainly because of Hitler’s lunatic invasion of the Soviet Union. So too today, the equally genocidal Iranian regime can be stopped by a unified and determined Western alliance. Instead, though, Obama is leaving Israel out on a limb as he calculates the “unforeseen consequences” and seeks political advantage. He needs to start calculating the easily foreseen and much more disastrous consequences of Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons. That’s what true leaders do: recognize that the choice is seldom between the good and the bad, but rather between the bad and the worse.

‘Israeli attack will prompt Pakistani response’ – Israel News, Ynetnews.

European diplomat based in Islamabad says Israeli strike would force Pakistan to support Iranian retaliation, while EU official says ‘political and economic consequences of attack would be catastrophic for Europe’

Dudi Cohen and AP

Is the world counting down to “D-Day”? After US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta estimated that Israel would attack Iran by June, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned government officials against “Iran chatter,” A European diplomat based in Pakistan said that if Israel attacks, Islamabad will have no choice but to support any Iranian retaliation.

 

The diplomat’s statement raised the specter of putting a nuclear-armed Pakistan at odds with Israel, which is widely believed to have its own significant nuclear arsenal.

 

To some, the greatest risk of an attack was to the moribund world economy. Nick Witney, former head of the EU’s European Defense Agency, said “the political and economic consequences of an Israeli attack would be catastrophic for Europe” since the likely spike in the price of oil alone “could push the entire EU, including Germany, into recession.”

 

He said this could lead to “messy defaults” by countries like Greece and Italy, and possibly cause a collapse of the already-wobbly euro.

 

Revolutionary Guard officers during exercise

 

Witney, a senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, added that “the Iranians would probably retaliate against European interests in the region, and conceivably more directly with terrorism aimed at Western countries and societies.”

 

Meanwhile, Iran continued to raise the bar, a senior Revolutionary Guard commander on Sunday warned that the Islamic Republic will target any country where an attack against it is staged.

 

Gen. Hossein Salami, deputy commander of the elite Revolutionary Guard, Iran’s most powerful military force, did not elaborate. His comments appeared to be a warning to Iran’s neighbors not to let their territory or airspace be used as a base for an attack.

 

On Friday, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called Israel a “cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut,” and boasted of supporting any group that will challenge the Jewish state.

 

West, Arab states must move to stop Assad violence – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

The only possible explanation for the conduct of China and Russia is the desire to prevent a Western ‘takeover’ of the Arab Spring, no matter the cost in human life.

Haaretz Editorial

Russia and China’s veto of the UN Security Council resolution against Syria is in fact license for Syria’s president to continue slaughtering his citizens with impunity. The veto makes eminently clear how weak the international community is when it comes to people who are trying to free themselves from the dictator’s burden and who dream of democracy and a fair life.

China and Russia’s rejection of the resolution despite the terrible slaughter in Homs and despite changes made in the resolution to satisfy those two countries is nothing less than a spit in the face of Syria’s citizens. Their move makes the two superpowers full partners in the acts of murder.

	The United Nations Security Council
	Photo by: AP

The members of the protest movement in Syria waited a long time before they asked for help from the international community. Like their counterparts in Egypt, they thought at first that dialogue with the existing regime might bring about reasonable reform. But instead of dialogue, they got more bullets and bombs.

Even the Arab League hesitated before deciding on the extraordinary step of suspending Syria’s membership in that body and imposing economic sanctions. But even then, it left Assad with the opportunity to resolve the crisis by allowing Arab monitors to study the situation in his country. Assad mocked the Arab League’s proposal and thwarted the monitors.

All through that period, Western countries made do with denouncing Syria and imposing weak sanctions on the pretext that they were waiting for the Arab League to approach them, as if legitimization was needed to act against a murderous ruler.

It is difficult to think of a good reason to veto a resolution that does not even call for Assad’s removal, and is careful not to support outside intervention. The only possible explanation for their conduct is the desire to prevent a Western “takeover” of the Arab Spring, no matter the cost in human life.

In light of the miserable outcome of the United Nations deliberations, and considering the terrible number of casualties, we can only hope that the West, together with the Arab League, will be able to quickly formulate a new, much more aggressive policy that will put a stop to Assad’s murderousness.