Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 22nd, 2012 #21
KraftAkt
Senior Member
 
KraftAkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 926
KraftAkt
Default

Israel's Iran Strike Routes



Via Stratfor:

A unilateral strike on the Iranian nuclear program is not Israel's preferred option. However, if Israel does decide to proceed with the mission unilaterally, the different routes the strike package could take each pose unique challenges. Currently, the Israeli air force has three principal routes to its targets in Iran. The first route involves flying northward over the eastern Mediterranean Sea between Cyprus and Syria, and then proceeding eastward along the Turkey-Syria border, flying through northern Iraq and into Iran. This route circumvents Syria's air defense network, which was built to cover its western flank against an Israeli air attack. The second route is the shortest and involves flying directly over Jordan and Iraq to reach Iran. Due to the shorter distance, the likelihood that Jordan could be deterred from interfering with the strike package, and the absence of any viable Iraqi air defense, this route probably poses the least risk. The third route goes through northern Saudi Arabia, over the Persian Gulf and into Iran. While most of Saudi Arabia's air defenses and air bases are oriented toward the Persian Gulf and the main cities to the south, Israeli planes would almost certainly be detected, especially since they would have to fly near Tabuk's air base. If Riyadh did choose to intercept the Israeli aircraft, the Israeli air force would face serious complications because Saudi Arabia has a large number of advanced interceptor aircraft. As the war in Syria intensifies, another route may become viable. Rebel operations have already negatively affected the Syrian regime's air defenses somewhat. If this trend intensifies, the country's air defense network may be degraded to the extent that the Israeli air force would be able to fly directly over Syria without undue risk to its aircraft.
Of course, if the US were to engage alongside Israel, presidential elections notwithstanding, and the numerous US aircraft carriers stationed in the Gulf and the Arabian Sea were to participate in any offensive, then all predictive bets are off. One thing is certain: it is, at least in Israel's view, that the window of attack is rapidly closing, which may explain why crude is once again trading on edge every single day, and why gas at the pump, has once again never been more expensive on this day in history, a fact which the Romney camp will certainly hone in on soon to quite soon.


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/israel...-strike-routes
 
Old August 23rd, 2012 #22
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,897
Serbian
Default

Israel’s chief of staff warns enemies of ‘the deadly strength’ of his army

Benny Gantz makes statement hours after Iran’s FM calls talk of an imminent Israeli attack on nuclear sites ‘propaganda’

August 23, 2012, 12:24 am

Anyone who tries to harm Israel will taste “the deadly strength of the IDF,” Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz warned on Wednesday.

“We are at a time when security threats are often heard in Israel. These are testament to a mistaken estimation of our powers and capabilities,” said Gantz, speaking at the annual memorial to the casualties of the Golani Brigade.

“In the face of the threats at our doorstep, we are poised and prepared along the borders of the country,” said Gantz. “IDF soldiers and commanders are among the best and boldest in the world.”

Gantz’s words came after statements made earlier on Wednesday by Iran’s Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, who indicated that Iran considers threats by Israel to bomb its nuclear installations as a propaganda drive and not a genuine signal of imminent attack.

Salehi said that while it is Iran’s responsibility to take seriously Israeli threats of military action, “Israel is not in a position to do such a thing.”

“If they really wanted to take such a step, they would not make so much noise about it,” Salehi said.

Iran’s supreme spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ordered his country’s elite Quds Force to increase its activity against Western countries who called for the toppling of Syrian President Bashar Assad, The (London) Telegraph reported on Wednesday. According to a report by Western intelligence agencies, Iran “could not be passive” when faced the ongoing events in Syria.

Israel’s Channel 10 News claimed on Monday night that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “is determined to attack Iran before the US elections,” and that Israel is now “closer than ever” to a strike designed to thwart Iran’s nuclear drive.

The report added that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak believe President Barack Obama would have no choice but to give backing for an Israeli attack before the US presidential elections in November.

There is considerable opposition to an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the report noted — with President Shimon Peres, the army’s chief of the General Staff and top generals, the intelligence community, opposition leader Shaul Mofaz, “and of course the Americans” all lined up against Israeli action at this stage. Yeah they are real doves. What they are afraid of is that they will not be able to achieve success with the strikes and then the massive Iranian response and global political fallout which they fear.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/dont-te...ays-idf-chief/
__________________
Don Black's Stormfront ''Russians''
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=456327
Russia Insider
https://russia-insider.com/en

Last edited by Serbian; August 23rd, 2012 at 01:37 AM.
 
Old August 27th, 2012 #23
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,897
Serbian
Default

Iran opens nonaligned summit with calls for nuclear arms ban

By Associated Press, Published: AUGUST 26, 12:59 PM ET


TEHRAN, Iran — Iran opened a world gathering of self-described nonaligned nations Sunday with a slap at the U.N. Security Council and an appeal to rid the world of nuclear weapons, even as Tehran faces Western suspicions that it is seeking its own atomic bombs.

Iran seeks to use the weeklong gathering — capped by a two-day summit of Non-Aligned Movement leaders — as a showcase of its global ties and efforts to challenge the influence of the West and its allies. Among those expected to attend include U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the prime minister of India, Manmohan Singh, whose nation remains an important Iranian oil customer as Tehran battles Western sanctions over its nuclear program.

The 120-nation Non-Aligned Movement, a holdover from the Cold War’s pull between East and West, is also seen by Iran and others as an alternative forum for current world discussions. Iran says it plans talks on a peace plan to end Syria’s civil war, but no rebel factions will attend because of Tehran’s close bonds with Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime.

Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi opened the gathering by noting commitment to a previous goal from the nonaligned group, known as NAM, to remove the world’s nuclear arsenals within 13 years.

“We believe that the timetable for ultimate removal of nuclear weapons by 2025, which was proposed by NAM, will only be realized if we follow it up decisively,” he told delegates.

Iran insists it does not seek nuclear weapons. The U.S. and allies suspect that Tehran’s uranium enrichment could eventually lead to warhead-level material. They have imposed ever-tighter sanctions on Iran’s banking and oil exports in attempt to wring concessions.

Israel has said that it would consider military options if diplomacy and economic pressures fail to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Salehi criticized Israel for remaining outside the U.N. main treaty governing the spread of nuclear technology. Israel refused to discuss the full range of its military capabilities, but it is widely believed to have a nuclear arsenal.

Iran ally North Korea has withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. North Korean Foreign Minister Pak Ui Chun arrived in Tehran Sunday to attend the meetings.

Outside the meeting site, Iran displayed three cars damaged by bomb blasts that Iran has blamed on agents from Britain, the U.S. and Britain. At least five members of Iranian scientific community, including nuclear experts, have been killed since early 2010 as part of a suspected covert war with its main foes.

Iran and proxies, in turn, have been linked by investigators to a series of attacks and plots on Israeli targets around the world.

Salehi also complained about the perception of the “falling” clout of the U.N.’s general membership at the expense of the “rising power of the U.N. Security Council,” led by permanent members U.S., Britain, France, Russia and China.

“Creating a more democratic Security Council should be considered an important part of U.N. reforms,” Salehi told the gathering.

Even before the first session got under way, however, a dispute flared over Palestinian envoys.

Iranian officials said a political leader of Tehran’s ally Hamas has not been invited to the meeting in Tehran, contradicting Hamas claims that Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh was asked to come by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Hamas later Sunday that Haniyeh has dropped plans to attend.

The decision appeared aimed at avoiding a confrontation among Palestinians that could embarrass Hamas’ Iranian backers. The office of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas had warned he would not attend if rival Haniyeh also takes part.

The militant Hamas controls Gaza, while Abbas’ Western-backed administration governs parts of the West Bank. Abbas’ Foreign Minister Riad Malki also plans to travel to Tehran on Monday.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/mi...00b_story.html
__________________
Don Black's Stormfront ''Russians''
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=456327
Russia Insider
https://russia-insider.com/en
 
Old August 30th, 2012 #24
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,897
Serbian
Thumbs down

The hypocrisy knows no bounds


Quote:
West urges Arabs not to target Israel at U.N. nuclear meet

By Fredrik Dahl | Reuters – 19 hrs ago.

VIENNA (Reuters) - Western envoys are urging Arab states not to berate Israel over its assumed nuclear arsenal at the U.N. atomic agency's annual conference, fearing this could imperil wider efforts for a nuclear weapons-free Middle East, diplomats say.

A senior diplomat said Arab countries would criticize Israel but were divided over whether to submit a resolution on the issue to next month's annual General Conference of the United Nations' 154-nation International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

In a surprise move at last year's IAEA gathering, the Arab group refrained from singling out Israel in this way in what was called a "goodwill gesture" ahead of planned talks in 2012 on creating a zone without nuclear arms in the Middle East.

Israel welcomed this as a "positive" move, in a rare conciliatory exchange in an otherwise heated debate that underlined deep Arab-Israeli divisions on nuclear issues.

Diplomats said Arab states had not yet decided whether to propose a non-binding but symbolically important draft text criticizing "Israeli Nuclear Capabilities" at this year's week-long meeting that starts on September 17.

They expressed concern that an Arab move against Israel would discourage the Jewish state from attending the talks due to be held later this year on a nuclear arms-free Middle East.

An Egyptian plan for an international meeting to lay the groundwork for the possible creation of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction was agreed at a review conference on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 2010.

BRUISING BATTLE

But the Western official organizing the conference, Finnish diplomat Jaakko Laajava, said in May he had yet to secure the needed attendance of all countries in the region.

It was a sign of the difficulties involved in getting Israel, its arch-foe Iran and other Middle East nations to sit around a table this year to discuss the divisive issue.

"It is a very fragile process that needs to be launched," one European diplomat said. "Singling out Israel would not at all be helpful, would be counterproductive."

Israel is widely believed to possess the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, drawing frequent Arab and Iranian condemnation.

The Jewish state is the only Middle Eastern country outside the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Israel and the United States regard Iran as the world's main proliferation threat, accusing Tehran of covertly seeking a nuclear arms capability, something the Islamic state denies.

Arab states scored a diplomatic victory in 2009 when IAEA members narrowly endorsed a resolution urging Israel to join the NPT and place all its atomic sites under agency supervision.

Brought up again in 2010 to keep up pressure on Israel, the resolution was defeated after a bruising diplomatic battle, in which Washington and its allies argued that zeroing in on Israel would harm any hope of banning nuclear arms in the region.

In June this year, Arab states asked for the "Israeli Nuclear Capabilities" issue to be put on the conference agenda, but it remains unclear whether they will follow that with a proposed resolution or refrain, as they did in 2011.

Israel's refusal to become party to the NPT or to place its nuclear installations under IAEA safeguards is "exposing the region to nuclear risks and threatening peace", they said.

Israel has never confirmed or denied having nuclear weapons under a policy of ambiguity aimed at deterrence.

It says it would only join the NPT after a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement. If it signed the 1970 NPT pact, it would have to renounce nuclear weaponry.

An Arab resolution aimed at Israel would "undermine any genuine attempt to promote confidence and security in the Middle East," Israel's ambassador to the U.N. nuclear body, Ehud Azoulay, said in a letter to IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano.

(Editing by Alistair Lyon)
http://news.yahoo.com/west-urges-ara...105335646.html
__________________
Don Black's Stormfront ''Russians''
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=456327
Russia Insider
https://russia-insider.com/en
 
Old August 30th, 2012 #25
Thor
Junior Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 189
Thor
Default

Something just needs to happen militarily already. This saber rattling horseshit gets so old. I'm surprised the "West" hasn't treated Iran like it has Syria and Egypt--covert as well as direct support of a group of liberalized revolutionaries. It's odd that the opportunity wasn't jumped on a couple years back when Iran had those elections.
 
Old August 30th, 2012 #26
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,897
Serbian
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor View Post
I'm surprised the "West" hasn't treated Iran like it has Syria and Egypt--covert as well as direct support of a group of liberalized revolutionaries. It's odd that the opportunity wasn't jumped on a couple years back when Iran had those elections.
They tried during the elections but the Iranians didn't let it metastasize, they nipped it in the budd early on.
__________________
Don Black's Stormfront ''Russians''
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=456327
Russia Insider
https://russia-insider.com/en
 
Old August 30th, 2012 #27
Dawn Cannon
Senior Member
 
Dawn Cannon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Waiting for the solar micronova
Posts: 4,262
Dawn Cannon
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor View Post
Something just needs to happen militarily already. This saber rattling horseshit gets so old. I'm surprised the "West" hasn't treated Iran like it has Syria and Egypt--covert as well as direct support of a group of liberalized revolutionaries. It's odd that the opportunity wasn't jumped on a couple years back when Iran had those elections.
Slick marketing campaigns are ever present in places that dare to defy ZOG...the young coca-cola hipsters who have been denied a starring role in the latest movie, an iphone or an oil well. It can all be theirs one day...(not if you are old, ugly, not humanitarian or poor though)





__________________
The Bloodbath is Coming
7.6 billion savages multiplying and running wild over the earth, devouring everything in sight, trampling over every other lifeform without mercy or compassion.
 
Old August 30th, 2012 #28
Sam Fisher
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Near the kike hive
Posts: 1,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn Cannon View Post





Ahh just ripe for the feminist picking. I'm starting to see why muslim men put their women under a hard thumb.
 
Old August 30th, 2012 #29
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,897
Serbian
Default Do we have an Irish anti-semite here?

Dempsey: ‘I Don’t Want to Be Complicit’ in Israeli Strike on Iran



The top US general warned against an Israeli attack on Iran, which would be counterproductive and dangerous

by John Glaser, August 30, 2012

The United States will not be ‘complicit’ in an Israeli military strike on Iran, America’s top military general warned on Thursday, adding that such an attack would not only fail to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, but could prompt Iran to reconstitute its weapons programs.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs General Martin Dempsey made the comments on Thursday in London, pushing back against US and Israeli warmongers who have advocated for a preemptive military strike on Iran for a nuclear weapons program it doesn’t even have.

He warned that an attack by Israel would “clearly delay but probably not destroy Iran’s nuclear program.” This falls in line with previous analysis by the Obama administration and experts that Iran’s nuclear enrichment is too redundant to be completely destroyed by Israeli attacks and that such a move may encourage the Iranians to actually start making weapons to serve as a deterrent for further strikes.

For now, Dempsey said, whether Iran even wants nuclear weapons is inconclusive. But he did warn that diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran “could be undone if [Iran] was attacked prematurely.”

Previous attempts at cooling the fiery war rhetoric coming from the Israeli leadership and some warmongers in Washington have not sunk in. But Dempsey’s warnings about the counterproductive and dangerous implications of a needless war on Iran could help lessen the chances of an Israeli attack in the near-term.

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/08/30/d...trike-on-iran/
__________________
Don Black's Stormfront ''Russians''
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=456327
Russia Insider
https://russia-insider.com/en
 
Old September 4th, 2012 #30
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,897
Serbian
Default

Hezbollah: Iran Could Strike US Bases, Troops if Israel Attacks

Hassan Nasrallah said 'a decision has been made' that 'if Israel targets Iran, America bears responsibility.'

by John Glaser, September 03, 2012

Print This | Share This


Iran would strike US military bases in the Middle East in response to any Israeli strike on its nuclear facilities, the leader of Iranian-backed Lebanese group Hezbollah said on Monday.



“A decision has been taken to respond and the response will be very great,” Hassan Nasrallah said in an interview. ”The response will not be just inside the Israeli entity – American bases in the whole region could be Iranian targets,” he said. “If Israel targets Iran, America bears responsibility.”

The statement came on the same day an Israeli newspaper reported that the Obama administration sent a secret message to Iran via European allies confirming that the US will not back an Israeli strike against Iran so long as Tehran refrains from attacking American interests in the Persian Gulf.

Iran has conventional capabilities that would allow it to target thousands of US troops in the region, in neighboring Afghanistan, in the southern Gulf island Bahrain, and elsewhere. Even with Obama’s alleged deal, this deterrent threat is something Iran will stick to in order to discourage an attack for a nuclear weapons program it doesn’t even have.

A declassified war simulation run by the Pentagon earlier this year forecasted such a “strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States” and would immediately get at least 200 Americans killed in Iran’s retaliation, not to mention heavy Iranian and Israeli casualties.

Nasrallah also said that Hezbollah would attack Israel in retaliation of any preemptive strike on Iran. Even Hezbollah has no chemical weapons, he added, they do have an arsenal that could strike Israel’s nuclear reactors.

The costs of an unprovoked Israeli strike on Iran would be immense for everybody in the region. The fact that it would entirely be a war of choice, not of necessity, is making Israel’s constant warmongering – and the Obama administrations aggressive economic and diplomatic postures – all the more dangerous.

http://news.antiwar.com/2012/09/03/h...srael-attacks/
__________________
Don Black's Stormfront ''Russians''
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=456327
Russia Insider
https://russia-insider.com/en
 
Old September 4th, 2012 #31
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,897
Serbian
Default

Iran Claims More Progress in Domestic-Made Air Defense System

Air Defense Commander Hopes System Will Be Completed Next Year

by Jason Ditz, September 03, 2012

Print This | Share This


Iranian Air Defense Commander Farzad Esmaili has reported today that his country’s new domestic-built air defense system is now about 30 percent completed, and that he is hoping it will be completed by some time next year.




Iran had initially planned on buying a number of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems, but when Russia failed to deliver after years of delays, they announced in late 2011 a plan to build their own.

Russia signed the S-300 deal in 2007, but eventually canceled the deal claiming it would violate the UN sanctions. Iran has sued Russia over the breach of contract.

Esmaili said that the new system, dubbed the Bavar-373, would be even better than the S-300 when completed. It is designed with the oft-threatened Israeli air strikes against Iran in mind. At present Iran’s air defenses are build mostly around earlier Russian predecessors to the S-300, which Iranian officials say have been modernized somewhat since their acquisition.
__________________
Don Black's Stormfront ''Russians''
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=456327
Russia Insider
https://russia-insider.com/en
 
Old September 4th, 2012 #32
Hunter Morrow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,802
Hunter Morrow
Default

Somebody mentioned why Iran hasn't been politically targeted with some sort of uprising or whatever. They were! The 2009 elections with the "Green Revolution" was CIA, NRO, NSA, DIA all the way. Green is their color, the faux revolutionary calling card. Any time some shit-stirring organization starts wearing green, get your waders on because the bullshit will be piled high up to your hips.

If Iran did the same thing to this 2012 presidential election that America did to Iran's 2009 election, America would go to war. If Iran did to Israel and America what those countries did to Iranian computers, we'd attack Iran.
 
Old September 6th, 2012 #33
Serbian
Senior Member
 
Serbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 11,897
Serbian
Default

Dempsey’s Dissent

Joint Chiefs chairman stands up for America — because Obama won't


by Justin Raimondo, September 05, 2012

Print This | Share This


The President of the United States may not have the cojones to stand up to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but the chairman of the Joint Chiefs does — and he’s doing it!

When Gen. Martin Dempsey told British reporters he did not want the US to be “complicit” in an Israeli attack on Iran, the boys in Tel Aviv were crushed. For weeks Netanyahu & Co. had been telling anyone who would listen that the US would have no choice but to be sucked into a devastating regional war in the event of an Israeli first strike on Tehran: their tone was almost gleeful. In the absence of a direct response from the White House, it looked like the Israelis had us over a barrel: the American giant, it seemed, was helpless in the face of the Israeli pygmy’s deft manipulations. Then came Dempsey, whose comments put the kibosh on Israel’s blackmail threats — and threw Netanyahu’s government into a panic:


“Dempsey’s stark comments made clear to the world that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was isolated and that if he opted for war, he would jeopardize all-important ties with the Jewish state’s closest ally.

“’Israeli leaders cannot do anything in the face of a very explicit ‘no’ from the U.S. president. So they are exploring what space they have left to operate,’ said Giora Eiland, who served as national security adviser from 2003 to 2006. ‘Dempsey’s announcement changed something. Before, Netanyahu said the United States might not like (an attack), but they will accept it the day after. However, such a public, bold statement meant the situation had to be reassessed.’”



“Dempsey’s announcement changed something” — it’s the understatement of the year, perhaps the decade. Because this is the first time since the days of George Herbert Walker Bush that a major player has reminded that Shitty Little Country of its littleness. For months, the Israelis have been going around acting like they are the superpower, and we are a minuscule dependency relying entirely on our patron’s generosity — and endless forbearance.

Or maybe not so endless, at least as far as the US military is concerned. You’ll recall that in the run up to the invasion of Iraq, a number of high-ranking officers spoke out in public against the lunacy of believing we could march in and turn the place into an American suburb. They questioned the low-ball estimates of troop strength and other resources required for an extended occupation, and the neocons were telling them to get back into their barracks.

They don’t like Dempsey much, and after this they’ll like him much less: in their eyes he’s just a tool of the Obama administration. Yet even if this is true, and Gen. Dempsey is speaking out at the behest of the White House, haven’t we come to a sorry pass when the President of the United States cannot speak in his own name and on his own authority about an issue vital to our national security? What a testament to the power of the Israel Lobby. Not bad for a pressure group that supposedly doesn’t even exist.

The real problem, however, is that Dempsey in all probability is speaking for himself, and didn’t require any prompting from the White House. Nor is this the first time the military has signaled its opposition to striking Iran. With US military assets in the region vulnerable to an Iranian counterattack, I wouldn’t be surprised if those alleged secret contacts between Washington and Tehran (via European intermediaries) were made at the military’s insistence: the first instinct of a commander, after all, is to protect his troops. In effect, the Israelis, by constantly threatening a first strike at Tehran, are holding the tens of thousands of US military personnel in the region hostage — because they will be likely targets of an Iranian counterattack. With the White House maintaining radio silence on this issue, Dempsey and the generals had no choice but to go public in order to protect their own.

There was a time when the separation of the military and the civilian in politics was strictly observed. While a soldier can still be disciplined for speaking at a Ron Paul rally, the higher ups have a bit more leeway. In the age of empire, the dissolution of the bright line between the civilian and the military is only a matter of time: what’s interesting, however, is that no would-be Caesar has arisen to personify the militarist spirit — although I wouldn’t rule it out. Instead, those military figures who have taken a public stance on these matters almost universally urge caution and restraint.

With back to back deployments, and two wars without a victory, what does the Pentagon have to look forward to but a third war, one which promises to be regional in scope. Little wonder they’re beginning to make their opposition known.

Dempsey can’t be the only soldier who resents taking marching orders from Netanyahu — and dreads the onset of Netanyahu’s war. This has got to be a restraining factor on the Obama administration, which prevents them from completely capitulating to Israeli demands.

Let’s hope the peaceniks in the Pentagon can hold the fort, because Obama and the Democrats raised the white flag of surrender to the War Party long ago. Here is the most recent edition of the Democratic party platform on the question of war with Iran:


“The President is committed to using all instruments of national power to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. … President Obama believes that a diplomatic outcome remains the best and most enduring solution. At the same time, he has also made clear that the window for diplomacy will not remain open indefinitely and that all options — including military force — remain on the table. But we have an obligation to use the time and space that exists now to put increasing pressure on the Iranian regime to live up to its obligations and rejoin the community of nations, or face the consequences.”


While the platform admits “the Iranians have yet to build a nuclear weapon” it goes on to assert they “cannot demonstrate with any credibility that [their] program is peaceful.” Iran is guilty until proven innocent — and the standard of proof is impossible. Because the Americans, egged on by the Israelis, will always be asking “How do we know you aren’t hiding something from us?” As for evidence, it can always be manufactured, although the key question here is: evidence of what?

The Israelis have set a new standard when it comes to Iran. They insist the red line must be the “breakout” capability, as estimated by Tel Aviv’s strategists, of course: that is, the moment when Tehran can theoretically throw together a nuclear weapon of some sort on very short notice.

The catch is that this point exists in theory only: there is no solid evidence the Iranians are pursuing nuclear weapons, and indeed the official US assessment is that they gave up all such attempts in 2003, and haven’t resumed. There have been all sorts of rumors that a new intelligence assessment was in the works, but so far it hasn’t surfaced. The clear implication is that, as in the Iraq misadventure, key elements of the intelligence community are refusing to drink the Israeli Kool-Aid: Dempsey’s dissent is the first unequivocal and clear voice raised against the prospect of fighting an unnecessary war for Israel’s sake.

You won’t find that in the Democratic platform.
__________________
Don Black's Stormfront ''Russians''
http://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=456327
Russia Insider
https://russia-insider.com/en
 
Old September 6th, 2012 #34
Bernie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,300
Bernie
Default

China has said it is prepared to go to Nuclear war if Iran is attacked. If Israel lobs Nukes on Iran's power stations it will result in many Russian Technicians being killed. This will make President Putin very cross indeed. I'll go out on a limb here and say they are bluffing.

The only way the murderous Israelis will attack is after they sink an American Carrier in the Gulf using one of their German Subs and blame it on Iran. Their pissant army, done over by Hezbollah a few years ago, is no match for Iran with around 80 Million people.

There are now three US Carriers in the gulf. Do we really think they won't risk a false flag because of the internet? If those insane bastards can blow up the New York WTC complex on 911 killing 3000 people in broad daylight, they can sink one Carrier in the dead of night. Maybe they sink ALL THREE of them.

Most of us on here know they are mad enough to do this. We live in interesting times.
 
Old September 8th, 2012 #35
Tomasz Winnicki
White - European - Aryan
 
Tomasz Winnicki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, Ontario, Dominion of Canada
Posts: 4,203
Tomasz Winnicki
Default

Canada declares Iran a state sponsor of terror, recalls its diplomats from Iran and expels all Iranian diplomats.

http://www.lfpress.com/2012/09/07/ca...mbassy-in-iran
http://www.lfpress.com/2012/09/07/ca...nsor-of-terror
__________________
Alex Linder: "Want to rebel White teen? Become a White Nationalist."
vnnforum.com | freedomsite.org | douglaschristie.com
RACE IS NOT SKIN COLOR. LOOK HERE http://i.imgur.com/mSKW5An.png AND HERE http://i.imgur.com/6O86hP6.png
 
Old September 8th, 2012 #36
DeShawn S. Williams
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,471
DeShawn S. Williams
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomasz Winnicki View Post
Canada declares Iran a state sponsor of terror, recalls its diplomats from Iran and expels all Iranian diplomats.

http://www.lfpress.com/2012/09/07/ca...mbassy-in-iran
http://www.lfpress.com/2012/09/07/ca...nsor-of-terror
Pathetic but I know the jews control Canada maybe even MORE than they control the US. Anyone who support Israel is a state sponsor of terror in my opinion.

PEACE
 
Old September 11th, 2012 #37
Horseman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,704
Horseman
Default

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-israe...tory?track=rss

Izzy is disatisfied with the USA's stance on Iran! They want US to draw a line in the sand. Is there anything else we can do for you bibi? lmao. Two wars fought for you is not enough? Stunning.
 
Old September 23rd, 2012 #38
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,354
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

The Neocons’ Project for the New American Century: 'American World Leadership' – Syria Next To Pay the Price?

by Felicity Arbuthnot

“In every age it has been the tyrant, the oppressor and the exploiter, who has wrapped himself in the cloak of patriotism, or religion, or both to deceive and overawe the people.” (Eugene Debs, 1855-1926, speech Canton, Ohio, 16th June 1918.)

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC), unleashed in June 1997, has largely disappeared from the political radar, yet the mire, murder and general mayhem the US, UK and dwindling “boots on the ground” allies find themselves in, are seemingly rooted in its aims, which march relentlessly on.

PNAC was founded under the Chairmanship of William Kristol, former Chief of Staff to Vice President Dan Quale during the Presidency of George Bush Snr. Kristol’s father, Irving Kristol has been described as the “Godfather of Neoconservatism.”

The organization was: “ ... dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: That American leadership is good for America and the world.” Projects were devised: “ ... to explain what American world leadership entails.”

Consulting “the world” about the mind-numbing concept of a US planetary take-over was not a consideration.

Little time was wasted in advancing this new world order. On 29th May 1998 PNAC sent a letter to the then Speaker of the House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich and to Senate Majority Leader, Trent Lott. It referred to a letter sent to President Clinton four months earlier: “expressing our concern” that U.S policy of “containment of Saddam Hussein was failing.” Thus: “the vital interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East would soon be facing a threat as severe as any we had known since the end of the Cold War.”

Therefore a strategy should be implemented to: “... protect the United States and its allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction (and) put in place policies” that would topple the Iraqi leadership.

Without a glance towards international law, the letter continued: “.U.S. policy should have as its specific goal removing Saddam Hussein’s regime ... Only the U.S. can (demonstrate) that his rule is not legitimate. To accomplish (this) the following political and military measures should be undertaken ...” The first “measure to be taken” was what has now become the blueprint for each planned overthrow of a sovereign government:

“We should help establish and support (with economic, political and military means) a provisional, representative and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam’s control.”

That Iraq’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity” was guaranteed in law and by the United Nations was not an issue for consideration. Signatories, a veritable “Whose Who” of neo-cons, included John Bolton, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Robert Kagan, James Wolsey, Zalmay Khalizad and PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan.

Robert Kagan is currently on Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Policy Advisory Committee, his wife is Victoria Nuland, spokeswoman for the Clinton headed U.S. State Department. Kagan’s loftily entitled book The World America Made, was publicly endorsed by Barack Obama.Its theme was referenced in his 2012 State of the Union address.

Nor has William Kristol gone away. In March 2011 he wrote an editorial in the Weekly Standard arguing that US Military “interventions” in Muslim countries (including the decimations of the 1991 Gulf War, the Balkans, and destructions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq) should not be classified as “invasions” but as “liberations.” Needless to say, he backed US “intervention” in Libya, urging Conservative support.

A more recent piece of war mongering was on Fox News (7th August 2012) when he opined:

“I went back and looked at the speech President Obama gave in March 2011 when he announced the very mild intervention in Libya, which did help to get rid of Qaddafi. Every reason he gave for intervening in Libya is there squared, in triplicate, for intervening in Syria, including the strategic importance of getting rid of Assad and weakening Iran, and we’re sitting there talking about ‘we really hope there won’t be sectarian violence later on’, and, gee, this is kind of unfortunate.”

“If we are abdicating our role of helping to shape events in this absolutely crucial part of the world, what does that say? Are we just going to let other countries, ya know, play their games and stand back as if it doesn’t affect U.S. national security?”

On the same programme Hillary Clinton talked of: “the day after” President Assad. For anyone familiar with the 1983 film of that name portraying the effect of a nuclear strike on Missouri, it was a chilling phrase.

So far it is not known if Kristol and Clinton have connected their perceived threat to U.S. “national security”, the spectre of a dead Ambassador, three colleagues, ten guarding them, burning or under attack US Embassies around the world, generated by actions, provocations and invasions, exactly as they advocated again on Fox News.

Before his next appearance on Fox, Kristol could do worse than peruse Professor Hamoud Salhi’s address, presented at the Center for Contemporary Conflict, of the (U.S.) Naval Postgraduate School in June 2004. It is entitled: “Syria’s Threat to America’s National Interest.” It is arguably even more pertinent now – and another reminder of how long Syria has been in U.S. sights.

He opens: “Syria’s threat to America’s national interest in the Middle East can only be understood in the context of U.S. plans to reconfigure the Middle East. Knowing now that the motive for invading Iraq was strategic, taking over Syria would give the United States further strategic depth in the region ... tipping the balance of power (even more) in favour of the United States regional allies, Israel and Turkey.”

Salhi notes that “strategic pre-emption” is long central to American policy in the Middle East, citing Rapid Deployment Forces during the Carter Administration, Dual Containment under Clinton, Pre-emptive Doctrine under George W. Bush. Polices, he holds, which: “have been instrumental in maintaining hegemony in the region”, avoiding threats to U.S interests, or to those of Israel,Turkey and the Gulf States.

After the 1998 US-UK Christmas bombing of Baghdad drew world-wide criticism, Salhi points out that the often daily (illegal) bombing of Iraq by the two countries was stepped up, with often daily sorties, “using the latest technology” destroying what minimal economic infrastructure remained: “under the pretext that they represented future threats.” It was he contends, the “quiet war”, an ongoing tragedy little noticed by the world.

The ground was – literally – being prepared for invasion, the trigger finger ever itchier, any excuse sought. George W. Bush would later explain that invading Iraq was necessary: “ ... to advance freedom in the greater Middle East ...” (Emphasis mine.)

11th September 2001 arguably gave the excuse to release the safety catches. On 20th September 2001 PNAC sent a letter to Bush: “ ... recommending the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, even if no direct link to the 9/11 attack were found.” Time to redeem American: “supremacy in global politics (and for) regime changes in Iraq, Iran and Syria.”

Michael Ledeen, foreign policy expert, another neo-con minded Fox News commentator, alleged to be a “strong admirer” of Niccolo Machiavelli, regarded 1991’s Desert Storm attack on Iraq as a woeful missed chance states Salhi. He notes Ledeen’s view that driving Iraqi troops from Kuwait was wholly inadequate. Strategy should have been: “regime change in Baghdad” (as) “one piece in an overall mission”, which should have been: “one battle ... against Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia.”

Addressing “The Syrian Threat”, Professor Salhi reminds of the U.S. Congress 2004 “Syria Accountability Act” which considerably financially weakened Syria’s fragile economy, with further aims clearly paving the way to regime change.

That achieved: “...the United States will have completed its final stage of encircling Iran. This would further tip the region’s balance of power in favour of Israel and ultimately open new doors” for the U.S. “active involvement in toppling the Iranian regime.”

PNAC’s John Bolton, as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control, had testified before a Senate Sub-Committee on Syria’s threats to the U.S., which of course included terrorism and “weapons of mass destruction” reminds Salhi – pointing out that Bolton could cite no specifics. The more a Syrian danger was inflated, the more “justification” for an attack.

Conversely he reasoned, a massively threatened Syria then: “has a motive to make itself more threatening than it actually is.” (On a personal note his comment had resounding resonance. In an interview with Iraq’s then Foreign Minister Tareq Aziz prior to the invasion, I asked about the weapons of mass destruction allegations relentlessly assailing Western air waves . He side- stepped the question neatly: “Madam Felicity, we too are afraid.” He of course knew the truth, Iraq was a sitting duck, but U.S. uncertainty was slender hope for catastrophe averted.)

In a rare moment of intemperance, President Assad stated the country had chemical weapons and would use them if invaded. As Aziz, he would hardly declare there was no way to counter an invasion’s fearsome arsenal.

Concluding, the Professor pointed out that: “Syria’s economic capabilities do not support the argument that Syria could become a threatening force in the region ... “ Further, it’s technological development falls to near nil as a threat to the United States. A: “lack of interest in the sciences is reflected in patents registered in the United States, a meager ten, as against 16,328 for Korea and 7,652 for Israel (1980-2000.) Syria has a long way to go before it could reach any kind of technological development to be a threat to the United States.”

Moreover: “Syria’s leadership has pursued a principled foreign policy, built around deeply rooted philosophical orientations and molded to conform to the realities of the region.”

Whilst ideologically deeply rooted in Arab nationalism: “Syrian’s political approach has been consistently pragmatic ... a scenario in which Syria acquires nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and uses them against the United States or its regional allies is unlikely.”

Further, as with Iraq, which was minutely scrutinized by US satellites since the late 1980’s (“We can see a Coca Cola can in a trash bin”, “If Saddam sneezes we can see him reach for his handkerchief”) it is surely happening with Syria, with Israel also openly admitting to Drone surveillance.

Professor Salhi’s final point is that to deter ever mounting threats, Syria might resort to acquiring WMDs, perceived as for their own protection. However: “What is certain, is that using WMDs would be inconsistent with Syria’s well established political approach.”

What is also certain is that in the event of an attack on Syria, the worldwide attacks on US and allied interests and personnel of the last few days will pale in to insignificance.

September 22, 2011

Felicity Arbuthnot is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

http://lewrockwell.com/orig12/arbuthnot2.1.1.html
 
Old September 23rd, 2012 #39
America First
Senior Member
 
America First's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 3,699
America First
Default

It has been completely over since 1998 with the release of that Arrogant insane P.N.A.C. document and the Senate bitch majority leader at the time had not one word in opposition.

Clitooon being Lewinskied had to be related to him not going to war. Thus the later cooked scheme to off a bunch of White victims and have a big insurance day.

Thug whores taking orders from jooos. Thats all it is.

1998
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-12-16/p...PM:ALLPOLITICS
__________________
Isn't it strange that we talk least about the things we think about most?

We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples
to lead our country to destruction.

-Charles A. Lindbergh
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495c.asp
 
Old September 23rd, 2012 #40
Hunter Morrow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,802
Hunter Morrow
Default

Everything happening today was planned about 20 years ago.

For instance, there is this policy paper called A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.

Quote:
A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (commonly known as the "Clean Break" report) is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Prime Minister of Israel.[1] The report explained a new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on "Western values". It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.
The whole freedom and democracy rah-rah-rah of NATO forces spying on and rigging votes for Iraqi puppets and stooges to get elected is the "Western values" crap. 40 percent of this country doesn't even vote once every 4 years for the highest politicial office in this country so the sham democracy angle after WMDs turned out to be a colossal lie is a sick joke.

A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

Lots of money quotes in it. You can read it and see how it was Israel's blueprint for the past 15 years or so.

Quote:
"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."[1]
 
Reply

Tags
#1, iran, israel

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:26 PM.
Page generated in 0.19281 seconds.