Israel vs. Iran: The Writing Is on the Wall

Iran has agreed to allow international nuclear inspectors to view its recently revealed uranium enrichment plant near the city of Qom, and President Obama has called talks between U.S. diplomats and their Iranian counterparts about the country's nuclear program a "constructive beginning."

However, recent events and heated rhetoric concerning Iran's nuclear program are reminiscent of the final days that lead to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 when then U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the United Nations Security Council on February 5th of that year with what he called "solid" evidence that showed Iraq had still not complied with resolutions calling for it to disarm and was maintaining a secret WMD program. It seems that history is repeating itself.

Unlike what happened to Iraq in 2003, an invasion of Iran is not on the horizon; however, the prospect of targeting its nuclear facilities is more real than ever. More so than during the Bush Administration. The reason is simple: no amount of pressure or sanctions will force Iran to abandon what it perceives as its "unalienable right" to pursue its nuclear ambitions.

In an article in June, I outlined the drive behind Iran's nuclear ambition, and this has not changed. But most importantly the Obama Administration, although pursuing diplomatic means, seems to be convinced that the Iranians are conducting a clandestine nuclear program parallel to the public one. The aim of this, though of course not admitted by the Iranians, is clearly the acquisition of nuclear weapons. This position is shared by Israel, which will most likely get the green light to attack Iran's nuclear facilities by spring of 2010 when all negotiations with Iran will have hit a dead end.

Since April of this year, the Israeli military has been preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran's nuclear facilities. The United States and Israel have recently conducted their most complex military exercise ever, jointly testing three ballistic missile defense systems. Among the steps taken to ready Israeli forces for what would be a risky raid requiring pinpoint aerial strikes are the acquisition of three Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) aircraft and regional missions to simulate the attack.

The Israeli Air Force has recently been conducting training exercises involving F15 and F16 jets, helicopters and refueling tankers flying to distances of more than 870 miles: the distance between Israel and Iran. Among recent preparations by the air force was the Israeli attack of a weapons convoy in Sudan allegedly bound for militants in the Gaza Strip.

A recent article in the British Daily Express reported that Israeli fighter jets have been allowed to use Saudi airspace to launch go-it-alone air strikes on Iranian nuclear installations. The issue has been discussed in a closed-door meeting in London, where British Intelligence Chief Sir John Scarlett, his Israeli counterpart Meir Dagan, and a Saudi official were present. According to the report, Scarlett has been told that Saudi airspace would be at Israel's disposal should Tel Aviv decide to move forward with his military plans against Iran. The Saudis have denied such claims; however, for the past few weeks Saudi-sponsored media has been raising concern over the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. No mention of Israel's 200 plus nuclear warheads.

A survey just released by the American Jewish Committee reports that for the first time ever, a majority of American Jews support using military force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Fifty-six percent of American Jews think U.S. should strike Iran, while sixty-six percent of Israeli Jews back such an attack.

How many Americans support an attack on Iran?

Fifty-seven percent of American voters say Israel would be justified in attacking Iran's nuclear facilities, given that Iran has publicly threatened to annihilate Israel, according to a McLaughlin poll conducted on May 8-9.

I am not being an alarmist, but the writing is on the wall.

Watch Video

 

Follow Jamal Dajani on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jamaldajani

Comments

[Aussieposter]

StCuthbert wrote :

"The West Bank is not occupied territory in the legal sense. Occupied territory is territory that belongs to another country lost in war. But Jordan renounced claims to the West Bank after 1967, so the territory does not belong to any nation. Therefore, it is not considered occupied and Israelis are allowed to live there."

The legal counsel of the Foreign Ministry, Theodor Meron, was asked whether international law allowed settlement in the newly conquered land. In a memo marked "Top Secret," Mr. Meron wrote unequivocally, "My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

Mr. Meron took note of Israel's diplomatic argument that the West Bank was not "normal" occupied territory, because the land's status was uncertain. The prewar border with Jordan had been a mere armistice line, and Jordan had annexed the West Bank unilaterally.

But he rejected that argument for two reasons. The first was diplomatic: the international community would not accept it and would regard settlement as showing "intent to annex the West Bank to Israel." The second was legal, he wrote: "In truth, certain Israeli actions are inconsistent with the claim that the West Bank is not occupied territory." For instance, he noted, a military decree issued on the third day of the war in June said that military courts must apply the Geneva Conventions in the West Bank.

[BubbaC33]

You continue to cite Meron, but his opinion has been roundly and rightly criticized. It is just plain wrong. Israel has a legal right to annex the West Bank, under international law it is certainly allowed to do so.
Here is the primary point. No matter how often you cite Meron, who is wrong, one thing is not going to change. Israel needs the West Bank for our defense. It affords Israel the strategic depth and the strategic height necessary to provide security for us. Nothing you can offer will change that very elemental fact.
So, we're here and we are not going to give up defendable borders. Your arguments may make sense to you, but in the real world your arguments are a bit short on being right. Plus, Meron was, and is, wrong.

[Aussieposter]

BubbaC33 Wrote:

"You continue to cite Meron, but his opinion has been roundly and rightly criticized."

Where and by who? Some evidence would be nice.

[Aussieposter]

Here is the full text of the clause that you are quoting.

The Fourth Geneva Convention

"Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The clause relates to the temporary evacuation of people while hostilities are current. It does not allow for the permanant annexation.

This site may help

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/157280/beginners_guide_to_law_school.html

The 4th Geneva Convention prohibits Annexation.

THE ICJ HELD THAT AN OCCUPIER STATE IS NOT PERMITTED TO ANNEX"

The occupying state can evacuate areas if hostilities are current in the area but must return that population back to their homes when hostilities cease.

As yet you have provided no independent evidence that supports your contention. The full text of your quote from the Geneva convention that you attempted to hang your hate on deals with individual or mass forced tranfers.

[MosheDayanHero]

"Israel vs. Iran: The Writing Is on the Wall"

Well, even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

[cohen238765]

and Moses parted the sea, and Sarah got pregnant at 90...and the Messiah is coming.

[Wisdo]

Saber Rattling is a bad Idea when you cant afford a sabre.

[leonardox1]

True, but American taxpayers will keep footing the bill for Israel's misadventures just like we’ve done for the past decades because of a Congress full of yes-men to interest groups.

[MosheDayanHero]

Speaking of sabre rattling.... LOL

"Iran yesterday defiantly showed off six of its new ballistic missiles daubed with anti-US and anti-Israel slogans..
At the climax of a military parade... the enormous Shehab-3 missiles were rolled out painted with the messages, "We will crush America under our feet' and "Israel must be wiped off the map."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/23/iran

Speaking of affording it...
GNP per capita income ( 2008)
Israel-- $24,700
Iran--- $3,540 ( next to Angola).

[justice2008]

And how much financial and military aid does the US provide Israel with? How much in loan guarantees?

[piul05]

You just prove the point that Iran can't afford it, either financially or strategically.

As to the "painted messages" Mr Dan De Luce doesn't say what language they were written in, and one assumes it's in Farsi and we are back again at "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155

But then, You knew all this already.

[stardust835]

Thanks for the piece, Mr. Dajani.

I sadly agree that all these "talks" are just to build & provide political cover for the US supporting Israel's bombing of Iran. The steady drip of war propaganda reminds of the lead up to our invasion of Iraq. (The NYT thought it was news that Iran had access to data of how to build nuclear bombs and ran it on the front page today. Everybody has access to data of how to do that.) I think Obama will be like Bush. He'll pretend to talk, make demands & more demands while he slowly beats the war drums and supports Israel bombing Iran.

If the US/UN wanted real nuclear weapons non-proliferation in the Middle East, they'd treat Israel & Iran the same way. Has Israel ever allowed IAEA inspectors in their facilities?

I don't understand how anyone can say they support Iranians in their efforts to improve their democratic rights and then support bombing them.

[MosheDayanHero]

re."I sadly agree that all these "talks" are just to build & provide political cover for the US supporting Israel's bombing of Iran."

Every single pronouncement by the article's author for the last ten years about "any day now" strike on Iran has proven to be wrong. Every. One.
Every pronouncement was followed the throngs of yes-men agreeing with it( sadfly or otherwise).
Would you keep believing a person predicting an event that never happens?
The answer seems to be " yes " for some.
Think for your self.....

[leonardox1]

A prediction is based on a set of circumstances applicable to a certain period of time. An outcome changes when circumstances change.

I researched the author's writings about this topic, for example when the author wrote about an "October Surprise?" with a question mark, he discussed a plausible scenario and NEVER said in the article that this was going to happen.

Second you say: "Every single pronouncement by the article's author for the last ten years about "any day now" strike on Iran has proven to be wrong." This is a total lie. Can you provide a single article written by the author about this subject, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, years ago? You claim for the past Ten Years! People are not as stupid as you think...if you have an axe to grind with the author or do not like his perspective, that's fine but do not exaggerate and lace your comments with lies.

[JerryLevy]

The author is exactly right, no amount of negotiations will stop Iran from building nuclear weapons. It is exactly what they want, they have spent hundreds of millions of their oil wealth on it and they continue to state clearly their objective----the destruction of Israel. If anyone thinks they will stop building the nuclear arsenal, they fail to see the history of negotiating with totalitarian idealogues.

[Wisdo]

They have never "stated" their "objective" as the destruction of Israel.

[MosheDayanHero]

Khem....Sorry to intrude with reality:

"Iran yesterday defiantly showed off six of its new ballistic missiles daubed with anti-US and anti-Israel slogans..
At the climax of a military parade... the enormous Shehab-3 missiles were rolled out painted with the messages, "We will crush America under our feet' and "Israel must be wiped off the map."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/23/iran

[Justtellthetruth]

The most shocking thing abut your article is that you do not attempt to disabuse people of the notion that Iran has ever threatened Israel explicitly or otherwise. In fact, the willful mistranslation of Ahmadinejads statement remains strangely enexplored in many articles such as this one. Ahmadinejad (a world class jerk, I grant you) said something to the effect that he would like to see the apartheid regime in Israel be removed from the pages of time, which is meant to imply that he would like to see them come to the same fate as, for example, the apartheid regime in South Africa. No bombs, no killing, but leaving power for good.

It was in no way direct threat, and Iran has maintained many times subsequently that they would never attack Israel first (they have a very long standing policy of no preemptive war, and in fact they have not attacked another nation for virtually centuries. the war with Iran, (which we helped bankroll and start) was started by Iran.

If Israel attacks Iran, they will mine the gulf and take other measures that will send the price of oil to the stars (500 per barrel or more). the US will be thrust into an oil price based depression of unparalleled magnitude.

Just as Brzezinsky suggested, we should shoot down any Israeli jets that cross Iraq's airspace to accomplish such madness. They may as well be bombing the US for all of the needless devastation and suffering they will cause.

[WBMD]

I guess you missed my blog below, specifying Iran's commentary on Israel. Now here is a question for you, and all those who believe as you do.

What if.....you are all wrong? What if this time, Iran means what it says, and intends to attack Israel? Will you all say you are sorry after the bomb is dropped? Will you be sorry? Will that do the Jewish people any good?

[Wisdo]

Iran has never "said" it "intends" to attack Israel.

[Justtellthetruth]

They said exactly the same thing about Saddam, and that all turned out to be Lies. VERY expensive and devastating lie.

After the US has been devastated by the consequences of attacking Iran (depression, hunger, massive unemployment, decades of suffering) your going to happily try to paste the worn out, thread bare, Hitler mustache on the next "threat" to Israel.

Please, Give me, Give us ALL, a break.

[MosheDayanHero]

Predominant Israel concept is that its enemies be confronted in their own lands, not on Israeli territory.
Using this concept Israel defeated and eliminated most of the threats to its existence.
Anybody doesn't like it?-- tough.

[ray01]

This concept seemed to work very well with 9/11

[MosheDayanHero]

For who, Arabs?

[cohen238765]

It's really interesting how a couple of people try to control the conversation. Their propaganda is repetitive and boring...something frankly Israelis themselves are no longer resorting to. No one these days buys in the biblical interpretation on whose land it is. The fact of the matter, Israel is occupying Palestinian lands and must let go of it to preserve its identity. Also, not all Jews want the AIPAC to speak on their behalf, so please spare us their rhetoric.

[BubbaC33]

In 1967 Israel took control of land from Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. No Palestinian homeland was in existence at that time and there had been no discussion of a Palestinian homeland. The fact of the matter is the calls for this homeland are propaganda and nothing more. A Palestinian homeland exists today and has since 1922. That is the year Transjordan was created to serve as a kingdom for the Hashemite allies of the Brits and as a homeland for those Arabs who did not want to live in a Jewish homeland. If "Palestinians" want a homeland move to Jordan and leave us alone.

[cohen238765]

Tiered propaganda and as I said Israelis do not believe in this anymore. The entire map of the Middle East was redrawn by France & England at the time Jews in Palestine were a small minority, 97% of the land was owned by Palestinian Muslims and Christians. Ilan Pappe wrote extensively about this topic.

[phute]

'Leave us alone'.......who invited the occupiers in the first place?

[MosheDayanHero]

There is no such thing a "Palestinian" lands. there's is no such thing as Palestine. It is an idea, an abstract concept..
Palestine, an administrative part of various extinct imperial entities, ceased to exist in 1948.
Part of that land was used to construct the State of Israel, the other part annexed by Jordan and Egypt.

Lucky for people who live in the area, Israel freed this land from the grasp of foreigners and placed under its own administration. This is ONLY reason a possible new state may some day be formed in the area. Or not.

Israelis electorate may, if conditions allow, permit some, most all or none, of this land to be used to form a new political entity.
Next subject...

[cohen238765]

Old AIPAC stuff. Read Ian Pappe's Ethnic cleansing of Palestine.

[leonardox1]

There is one country which practices pre-emptive strikes in the Middle East beside the US and it is the State of Israel. For the past 4 yeas it has been rattling the saber and has been threatening to strike Iran. Only Israeli leaders are capable of making irrational decisions to attack other countries without putting into consideration the amount of death and destruction their action would cause, these examples were evident in Israel’s attack on Lebanon in 2006 and recent attack on Gaza. The only reason that Israel has not yet struck Iran is because it lost in Lebanon against Hezbollah and now it wants to drag the US to do its dirty work for it.

[WBMD]

Being tiny, with a very small population, Israel cannot safely absorb a first strike, as was proven when it was attacked on Yom Kippur 1973. It was nearly destroyed because of faulty intelligence which prevented it from striking first. If and when Israel perceives a threat of attack against it, it must, and will do whatever necessary to survive.

Just to refresh your memory, the Hisbullah attacked from Lebanon in 2006, provoking Israel's response; and the Palestinians bombarded Israel for 8 years, before Israel responded.

[jad114]

A tiny state established on others land with 200+ nukes and the full backing of the US

[joz22]

Hizbollah kidnapped Israeli soldiers- it did not bomb schools, hospitals, bridges in Tel Aviv.

[Wisdo]

Pre-emptive strikes were not so well admired during the attack on Pearl Harbour.

[WBMD]

"Pre-emptive" - taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; preventive; deterrent.

See, there is a difference between an aggressive attack, initiating a war (crossing an international border to kill and kidnap citizens) and a pre-emptive action as a deterrent or to prevent losing a war about to be unleashed.

[MosheDayanHero]

Besides being embarrassingly wrong, such announcements are far better described as be fear-mongering.. . In an unending line of the same. All out of obsessive and mostly disingenuous effort de-legitimatize people of Israel.

Mar 05, 2007 "Dajani... was already bracing “for some kind of strike in the near future – the question was whether it would be conventional or a limited strike on nuclear facilities.” http://news.ncmonline.com

[joz22]

Fear mongering? Like sane people should not fear Israel...a country that has invaded its neighbors and oppresses the indigenous people?...Give me a break!

[WBMD]

I thought we clarified that.

Israel defende itself against attacks on it. It did not "invade" its neighbors. And the Jews are the indigenous people in the area.

[BubbaC33]

Israel has not invaded any nation except in response to a crisis situation.

[Horst]

Did you hear the one about the Iranian President who is actually Jewish......

[leonardox1]

Report says Iran has data to make atom bomb

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE59228E20091003

[postman66]

Anyone with an Internet connection has that data.

[MosheDayanHero]

Israel destroyed Iraqi nuclear capacity. And the world is better off for it.

[phute]

Yeah right - and when did you last ask the world?

[MosheDayanHero]

There's is a concept called 'consensus' among educated people. Study up on that.

[BubbaC33]

During the first Gulf war with Iraq a number of military leaders agreed the situation would have been far riskier, but thanks to the Israeli raid Iraq did not possess nukes.

[steveobviously]

An israeli attack on Iran would simply justify Iran's paranoia and their need for a nuclear deterent to a nuclear armed neighbor. Either no country should have nuclear weapons or all countries should have nuclear weapons.Not too hard to figure out which option would allow us to populate this planet for awhile longer.

[MosheDayanHero]

re/"Either no country should have nuclear weapons or all countries should have nuclear weapons."

Sane people vehemently disagree.

[phute]

I say - a real little spokesperson for the people aren't we.

[bobo5]

It would lead to missile attacks on Saudi Arabia in retaliation for opening their airspace. That would mean a mortal blow to an already bad economy.

[S1m0n]

While it might be true that 'no amount of pressure or sanctions will force Iran to abandon what it perceives as its "unalienable right" * to pursue its nuclear ambitions", it is also true that no amount of inspections will ever those convinced that Iran is bomb-building. Among those are Jamal Dajani, who blandly asserts as fact a conclusion for which he has not a single piece of evidence.

This, of course, follows the same game last used against Iraq, in which the total absence of evidence of a nuclear program, despite repeated expansions of the inspections protocols, came to be seen as proof not that Iraq had no such program (which was the truth) but rather as proof that Iraq was engaged in an elaborate cat and mouse game, hiding the program that the west 'knew' it had but couldn't find.

Dajani also claims, again falsely, that Iran has threatened to 'annihilate Israel'. This is not the truth. No such threat has been made. The widely repeated 'off the map' comment is a mistranslation initially made in error, but by now widely repeated in bad faith. The BBC wire service translator has withdrawn his erroneus translation and issued a correction.

* Iran's asserted right, by the way, that doesn't need to be in scare quotes. There's nothing doubtful about it; this is a straight forward reading of Article 4.1 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the treaty Israel refused to sign. http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html

[justice2008]

You are now misquoting from Dajani's writing as the annihilating Israel part was in the context of a question in the McLaughlin poll:

"Fifty-seven percent of American voters say Israel would be justified in attacking Iran's nuclear facilities, given that Iran has publicly threatened to annihilate Israel, according to a McLaughlin poll conducted on May 8-9."

[Alexander2791]

right on. When are we going to openly face that double standard? We should denuclearitize the whole middle east.

[WBMD]

On October 26, 2005, Ahmadinejad said: "Our dear Imam [Khomeini] ordered that this Jerusalem-occupying regime [Israel] must be erased from the page of time. This was a very wise statement."

The New York Times translated the statement as Israel "must be wiped off the map."

In the same speech, Ahmadinejad returned to the theme of Israel as dirty vermin which needed to be eradicated: "Soon this stain of disgrace will be cleaned from the garment of the world of Islam, and this is attainable."


In a public address on June 2, 2008, Ahmadinejad reiterated: "Thanks to God, your wish will soon be realized, and this germ of corruption will be wiped off the face of the world."

Resalat, a conservative Iranian daily, published an editorial on October 22, 2006, entitled "Preparations for the Great War," in which it reflected on a speech given by Ahmadinejad two days earlier. It stated: "It must not be forgotten that the great war is ahead of us... The nation of Muslims must prepare for the great war, so as to completely wipe out the Zionist regime, and remove this cancerous growth

In a Friday sermon, former Iranian President Rafsanjani made the statement: "If one day... the Islamic world will also be equipped with the weapons available to Israel now... employment of even one atomic bomb inside Israel will wipe it off the face of the earth, but would only do damage to the Islamic world "