Successive Israeli governments have consistently inhibited in the past any public discussion about Iran's nuclear program and what Israel might do to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In recent weeks however, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak have been openly discussing the issue while intimating their readiness to take whatever actions necessary to eliminate the Iranian threat. The question is why Netanyahu and Barak have chosen to "advertise" their deep concerns now and why they have such an urgency to act at this particular juncture, both of which have prompted newspaper reporters and pundits to speculate about what the real intentions are behind this public exposure and what is to be expected. Meanwhile, former and current officials, including President Peres, have expressed pointed objections to taking any unilateral military strikes against Iran, insisting that if such action became necessary, it must certainly be led by the U.S. to shield Israel from being singled out and blamed for the potentially disastrous regional consequences.
Having concluded that sanctions and diplomacy have failed as Iran is either technologically nearing the point of no return or achieving a zone of immunity that will make their most advanced nuclear plants at Fordo (near Qom) impregnable to air attack, the Netanyahu government has decided on a new strategy designed to achieve multiple purposes. While Israel's determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons has not changed, the new strategy is meant to strongly convey that Israel is not bluffing. Israel's groundwork for the new strategy is as follows: Israel will alert its closest ally, the U.S., alarm its European friends, credibly threaten Iran and gather more information, warn other enemies such as Hezbollah and Hamas, test the private sentiments and public reactions of the Sunni Arab states, and will finally prepare the Israeli public while laying in wait for the right moment to strike, should everything else fail.
The Netanyahu government has already expressed its displeasure with the strategy the Obama administration has adopted to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Whereas many Israelis believe that President Obama's credibility is on the line and he will act militarily should it become necessary, others, including Netanyahu and Barak, are not so sure. They are concerned that Obama may eventually have to choose between preventing or containing Iran and will settle on the latter by providing Israel and other Arab allies in the region with some kind of security umbrella.
Netanyahu and Barak are troubled by the fact that Obama has relied excessively on a diplomatic solution knowing full well that the Iranians are masters of playing for time. Moreover, he chose to impose gradual sanctions to which the Iranian government was able to adjust instead of inflicting real, crippling sanctions, especially after the failure of the first few sets of negotiations, which could have forced Tehran to change course. This approach, from the Israeli perspective, played into Iran's hand while engaging the P5+1 (the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China plus Germany) in futile negotiations that have never stood a chance of success.
By asking the P5+1 to declare that the talks with Iran have failed, Netanyahu is alerting the U.S. that time is of the essence and challenging Obama to take more decisive actions against Iran. Netanyahu's rationale is that since Obama seeks to prevent an Israeli attack in an election year, he will be under immense pressure from his presidential rival, Mitt Romney, not only to adopt a final set of truly crippling sanctions but to be clear about his willingness to use force against Iran before it reaches the point of no return or enters the zone of immunity.
Netanyahu's message of alarm is directed against the EU, Turkey and China, which will be the most affected by the potential disruption of oil supplies should the Strait of Hormuz become imperiled. Netanyahu and Barak are convinced that the EU in particular is engaged in wishful thinking, believing that continuing diplomatic efforts coupled with stiffer sanctions will force the Mullahs to come to their senses. The EU clearly view Netanyahu as overzealous about Israel's national security, are extremely worried about an Israeli attack and are convinced that the repercussions will be catastrophic. Thus, for them, no attack should be contemplated as long as Iran is willing to continue to talk.
Using the repeated Iranian existential threat against Israel, and while observing the Western powers' ineptitude in the past in dealing with the genocide in Bosnia, Sudan and now the wholesale slaughter in Syria, Netanyahu has little faith in what the EU can, or will, do to bring Iran to a halt. The EU, from Netanyahu's perspective, could have done a great deal more to cripple Iran economically but it still has yet to do so. At the same time, the EU refuses to declare Hezbollah, Iran's prime surrogate but Israel's staunchest enemy, as a terrorist organization while it continues to allow Hezbollah to freely raise tens of millions of dollars in Europe, when much of it is used for buying armaments to target Israel.
The direct threat against Iran is based on Netanyahu and Barak's calculation that although public discussion about the potential attack on Iran provides Tehran more time to prepare for the worst, it will provide Israel with certain advantages. Fear of an imminent Israeli attack will force the Iranian authorities to take additional security measures to protect their nuclear facilities, which will reveal Iran's preparedness and capabilities, and expose its weaknesses and how much of its boastings of a damaging counter-attack against Israel are in fact accurate. Importantly, Israel will also be in a position to better assess the Iranian public's reaction and whether the rumors of an imminent attack will precipitate panic, which may reveal how the Iranian authorities react and pacify the public. More than anything, Israel wants Iran to take its threats seriously, which explains why Netanyahu and Barak openly stated that when it comes to Israel's national security, Israel must, in the final analysis, rely only on itself.
Netanyahu's and Barak's exposé is also intended to warn all those who might think of coming to Iran's aid by engaging Israel on another front (in particular with groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas) that they should think twice before they dare to provoke Israel. By openly discussing their intentions, Netanyahu and Barak want these groups or states to assume that Israel would not have discussed such a sensitive national security matter had it not taken into full consideration their potential involvements. The message to Hezbollah is clear: there will not be a repeat of the 2006 war, Israel will break its back and that this time around no one will come to its aid considering Syria is in shambles and Iran is under intense economic pressure and too busy to deal with the potentially catastrophic effects of an Israeli attack.
The other target of Israel's open discourse on attacking Iran is to test the Sunni Arabs, especially the Gulf States led by Saudi Arabia. There have been ongoing tacit discussions between Israel and the Gulf States about the potential Israeli strike and how that might affect both their public reactions and their private interests and concerns. There is no doubt that all Sunni Arab states would prefer to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons peacefully. But after failing to do so by diplomatic means, they would support an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, whether the attack is carried out by Israel, the U.S. or through a joint effort. Saudi Arabia in particular sees the conflict between Shiites verses Sunnis in terms of regional domination with a focus on the Gulf, and views Iran with nuclear weapons as a nightmarish scenario that must be prevented at all costs.
Finally, Netanyahu's and Barak's message was intended for the Israeli public not only to prepare them for a potential Iranian counter-attack but to begin psychological and logistical preparations ( including the distributions of gas masks, stocking underground shelters with food and water) to avoid public panic and rally the nation around the government's prospective actions. Although the Netanyahu government is not dismissive of the voices of the Israelis who consider a unilateral attack as ill-conceived and extremely risky, Netanyahu and Barak want to demonstrate unshakable resolve in the face of an existential threat and that the public can ultimately trust their judgment. Moreover, such an exercise, even if a strike is avoided either because of the United States or because of Netanyahu's/Barak's readiness to act, will be good for Israel and good for the entire region as long as Iran never acquires nuclear weapons.
Israel has time and again stated in the past that it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons or the technology to quickly assemble such arsenals. The Israelis insist that whatever repercussions arise from attacking Iran's nuclear facilities will be far less ominous than allowing Iran to obtain nuclear capabilities, which will have far more reaching geopolitical and security implications that will adversely affect every state in the region.
In the final analysis, an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities may not come as soon as many predict. The strike can and may well happen but it is very unlikely that such an incredibly ominous undertaking will occur without a minimum of U.S. acquiescence, if not outright support and direct involvement. Regardless of how much Netanyahu and Barak may be sure of themselves and Israel's military capabilities, they cannot afford to make any mistakes or miscalculations because Israel's future is on the line.
Yet, exactly because of that, no one should think for a moment that Israel is bluffing. Netanyahu and Barak have concluded that diplomacy has run its course and only extraordinary, crippling and immediate sanctions may still have a slim chance of success. Once Israel determines that Iran has either achieved the point of no return or is about to reach the zone of immunity and the U.S. is not prepared to take military action, Israel will attack Iran singlehandedly and no consequences of such an attack, from the Israeli perspective, will fare against such an existential threat.
Follow Alon Ben-Meir on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AlonBenMeir
توفيق عكاشة يعرض جريمة الإخوان بقتل مواطن بتونس - YouTube
توفيق عكاشة يعرض جريمة الإخوان بقتل مواطن بتونس - YouTube
If you assumptions were anywhere near factual, i have a very easy solution- remove all Judes from the illegal state of israel and all the problems the west has are resolved..instantly !
As far as your you tube crap goes...its a propaganda reconstruction...just as fabricated as you did with the 'infallible' evidence you produced in the bushy era of WMD's in iraq...i dont even need to go to the site..i already about know about it !
Or take the consequences if you do.
If iran is attacked, it will have brought this war entirely upon itself.
As for iran, well, here in the US, we have a saying that goes something to the effect of, "the best cure is prevention...."
You mean that attacks such as the shooting in the Sikh Temple in Wisconsin and the (second) arson at an Islamic center in Missouri last week and countless of other examples, well like these are not "terrorist attacks"?
Islamic Center Murfreesboro TN 08-28-2010
Dar-El-Eman Islamic Center Arlington TX 07-23-2010
Islamic Center Marietta GA 07-05-2010
Islamic Center Jacksonville FL 05-11-2010
Islamic Center Educational Mosque Tampa FL 04-13-2007
Islamic Society of Schuylkill Mosque MechanicsvillePA 04-11-2007
National Islamic Association Mosque Newark NJ 01-24-2007
Petersburg Islamic Center Meadow View VA 02-04-2006
2800 Granby Street Mosque Falls Church VA 01-28-2006
Islamic Center of Bloomington Bloomington IN 07-09-2005
Adelanto Mosque Adelanto CA 06-03-2005
Islamic Center of Savannah Savannah GA 10-07-2003
Could you perhaps share a definition of "terrorist attacks" or are you implying that "terrorist attacks" must be committed by Muslims before they can be labelled as "terrorist attacks"...
so that you can blame Muslims for being behind "all" terrorist attacks"? :))))))))
1952 Moshe Dayan, Israeli defense minister, declared:
"Our task consists of preparing the Israeli army for the new war approaching in order to achieve our ULTIMATE GOAL, the creation of an ISRAELI EMPIRE."
David Ben Gurion 1937
The Jewish state now being offered to us is not the Zionist objective. But it can serve as a decisive stage along the path to GREATER ZIONIST IMPLEMENTATION."
ISRAEL has the LARGEST MILITARY in the Middle East and the ONLY NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
Israel does not need the US to provide a security umbrella - it has around 100 nukes of its own. If it has the capability to attack Iran at a distance of some 1000 miles with missile or air strikes it plainly has the capacity to protect itself. Israel in not anti-nuke, it's policy is that Israel will be the only nuclear-armed country in the middle east, as this allows it to dominate the region.
By challenging Obama to take more decisive action ("if you don't do it, Israel will") The tail is wagging the dog, Israel seeks to determine US foreign policy either by "moral" blackmail or if that fails, by attacking Iran and forcing the US into a position where it would probably have no political option but to support the Israeli action.
An Israeli or US strike against Iran would unite the population of Arab countries and conditions in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan would become far more problematic for the US. It could well also alienate populations in some allied countries such as Turkey, Egypt and Libya.
A nuclear-armed Iran is a major problem but an Israeli strike on Iran (and we can only we hope they do not use nuclear weapons in the strike) is a much bigger one.
There is plenty of evidence that Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons.
The reason the sanctions are not working is because the sanctions are NOT against any nuclear weapons program. That's another fiction.
The sanctions are against Iran's refusal to give up its uranium-enrichment program - a nuclear energy program that is allowed by Iran's participation in the Non-Proliferation treaty, and an action that is under full IAEA Safeguards inspections. Every NPT-signatory has that, supposedly INALIENABLE, right of enrichment.
The whole alleged Iran nuclear weapons program warmongering charade is no less than pitiful self-serving, nationalistic propaganda.
Thanks to Alon for wasting the ink.
We get the message.
Israel is not kidding.
Pity.
LINKS:
North Koreans in Iran: http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2011/11/14/2011111400526.html
Iranians in North Korea: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/9206287/Iranian-officials-observed-North-Korean-rocket-launch.html
UN officials about uranium: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/world/middleeast/un-finds-uranium-in-iran-enriched-to-higher-level.html
UN officials about sites missing: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/iran-un-agency-to-meet-on-access-to-site-where-tehran-allegedly-carried-out-secret-nuke-work/2012/08/21/237cf60c-ebd4-11e1-866f-60a00f604425_story.html
There is plenty and plenty of evidence that Iran is in violation of illegal military research and WMD research. Its also evident by its behavior and the construction of Fordo, that military enrichment is in order. How is their "evidence" of Israel's nuclear program when its status is ambiguity?
Sanctions are hitting the economy hard but they were placed way too late to make such damage. The West, IAEA, and dozens of intelligence agencies know that this "nuclear energy program" is a shame and your just behind in the memo. Iran received equipment and technology to construct a nuclear program for energy/medical purposes. They violated the treaty years ago by conducting in military research which is an violation of the treaty. Once you violate the treaty, you have no rights to enrich until you expose your full program to inspectors. When the UNSC ordered 6 Resolutions for Iran to halt activities, they didn't.
It brings me pleasure to know that intellectuals that share your opinion have no control over the Iranian situation, and thank god for that.
"Coming right atcha! Red Herrings! Strawmans! And Opinions!""
?? Illegal Military and WMD research ??
From the same people that gave us WMDs in Iraq?
PUHLEEZ.
First, what are they? Claims? or Proof?
Either way, obviously NOT violations of the NPT.
Official ambiguity is a tacit admission to anyone who really cares.
Regardless, Israel having nukes is as stupid and meaningless as Iran having nukes.
You say everyone KNOWS.
We have the IAEA to monitor activities and administer Safeguards.
Which they are doing in Iran.
Why don't those in the KNOW show the evidence to the IAEA, so we can be done with it? Not very good with propaganda, are you?
Actually I read all the memos - which one did I miss?
Please explain EXACTLY when and how Iran violated the NPT years ago, beyond reporting requirements for materials, which reporting omissions were completely the result of OUR sanctions after the Revolution.
There was no charge of violation of the NPT.
And MANY countries are in violation of the NPT on a regular basis - more so than Iran did after the sanctions.
And they are all still welcome in the NPT.
YOUR posture - that for ANY violation would end cooperation - would endanger the planet.
Thank you very much.
Let them develope their own strategies and relationships.
Doesn't mean that the US can't publicly announce that whatever decision is taken they will have their backs, but this manipulation of the geopolitical situation in the ME stopping people from doing what they know is best for them has got to stop.
And, for the anti-Obamists, a quick reminder, Bush was exactly the same way regarding avoiding Iran.
Israel seems to be threatening an awful lot of other countries. Given that their prime minister is so hell bent on starting a war, one which, is farcical in that we are somehow justifying a non IEA partner against one that is a member of the group.
Additionally there is the sovereign right of Iran to have a nuclear plant or plants.... that is its right and the West should bow out.
Being a non believer, but an avid reader, of the Bible, and its predictions, the Israelis seem hell bent on making Armageddon come true!
Links:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/ayatollah-kill-all-jews-annihilate-israel/
Revolutionary Guard in Syria:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/iranian-revolutionary-guard-generals-among-hostages-seized-by-syrian-rebels/story-fnb64oi6-1226449902821
Yup, Iran, that wonderfully peaceful state...it's just, so, so, so smart that those who threaten the existence of a group of people worldwide and then decimate entire populations be allowed to build nuclear plants and have the capability to build nuclear weapons.
http://news.yahoo.com/tumour-israel-soon-destroyed-ahmadinejad-091548418.html
If he really had a thing against Israelis, then why on earth does he not start with the thousands that are living and working in Iran...... in fact, more than ANY Arab country.
He means the government.... not the people!
Try this and see what you think?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=QorJMPtz1Fw&NR=1
One of the reasons I love the Israeli's too.....
"We are on the brink of war only because facts and the rule of law need only apply when convenient."
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/letters/article/1244668--facts-behind-iran-israel-conflict