Will Israel Strike Iran ?

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
What Will Israel Do?​

A unilateral military strike against Iran
is much more likely following the latest intel
report about Tehran's nuke program​

Newsweek Magazine
By Michael Hirsh
Dec 20, 2007

Ehud Olmert, like George W. Bush, is trying hard to make it seem that nothing has changed, and that the international diplomatic coalition against Iran is still intact. "The state of Israel is not the main flag-bearer against the quirks of the regime in Tehran," the Israeli prime minister declared testily last week, after officials in his own government seemed to suggest that Israel had been left on its own by Washington. Olmert said that the recent U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran--which stunned leaders around the world by concluding, after years of bellicose rhetoric from Bush officials about Iran's nuclear ambitions, that Tehran had halted its weapons program in 2003--has "generated an exaggerated debate" in Israel. "Some of us even interpreted the report as an American retreat from its support of Israel," Olmert said. "This is groundless … I trust and am confident that the United States will continue to lead the international campaign to stop the development of a nuclear Iran."

But Olmert is not Moses; he can't hold back elemental forces all by himself. And a rising tide of opinion in Israel's intelligence and national-security circles believes that the NIE does signal American retreat--and, more profoundly, renewed Israeli isolation over what is deemed an existential threat out of Tehran. Gen. Ephraim Sneh, a former deputy defense minister who has warned for years that Israel would eventually have to confront Iran alone, told me that "today we are closer to this situation than we were three weeks ago ... we have to be prepared to forestall this threat on our own." Some prominent American experts think that the NIE all but assures Israeli military action at some point. "I came back from a trip to Israel in November convinced that Israel would attack Iran," Bruce Riedel, a former career CIA official and senior adviser to three U.S. presidents--including Bush--on Middle East and South Asian issues, told me Thursday, citing conversations he had with Mossad and defense officials. "And that was before the NIE. This makes it even more likely. Israel is not going to allow its nuclear monopoly to be threatened."

Riedel said the Bush administration compounded the problem by failing to signal to the Israelis that the NIE assessment was coming. "Something like this should have been presented to the Israelis through professional intelligence channels," he said. Yuval Steinitz, a member of the right-wing Likud Party, told me that he had led a delegation of Knesset members to Washington a few weeks before the NIE was made public Dec. 3. Steinitz said he met with Vice President Dick Cheney, national-security adviser Stephen Hadley and other administration officials, but not even they seemed aware that their 2005 estimate that Iran was definitely pursuing nuclear weapons was about to be repudiated. Even though Iran was discussed, he said, "no one seemed to have any sign this was forthcoming," he says.

Many Israeli experts are appalled by the tone of the report, which concludes with "high confidence" that Iran halted its "nuclear weapons program." The NIE arrived at this finding even though it also asserted that Washington now had concrete evidence of that program, and despite Tehran's brazen pursuit of uranium enrichment. Even formerly moderate European and Russian officials suggest that the report went too far, especially in concluding that the U.S. intel community still has "moderate confidence" that the suspension of the program continues. Uzi Arad, a former Mossad official and adviser to Benjamin Netanyahu, the former Likud prime minister, said that on a recent trip he made to Moscow, a Russian general poked fun at the naiveté of the NIE, commenting that if the Iranians had halted weapons development in 2003 it was partly because they were satisfied with progress there and wanted to devote investment to harder parts of the nuclear equation, like enrichment. In the end, these critics say, Iran is likely to be further emboldened by the report (Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lost no time in boasting of America's "surrender"). "The irony is that the effect of this report may be self-negating--by itself it will accelerate Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons," Arad said.

Some experts question whether the Israelis have the capability to seriously damage Iran's nuclear program, which is secured in secret, hardened facilities around the country. But others point out that the new NIE gives evidence of far better intelligence on Iran--possibly including the whereabouts of its facilities. "It did state for first time that a military nuclear program was in motion until 2003," said Sneh. "That was a major revelation that should have been picked up, and it was very damaging incriminating evidence, justifying much harsher action against Iran."

A few experts, such as David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, say the intel still seems scant on the location of Iran's secret centrifuge development and manufacturing complex. Still, Albright points out that the Israelis are likely encouraged by the nonreaction to their September airstrike on what is reported to have been a Syrian nuclear facility, which may have been a test run for Iran, or at least a warning directed at Tehran. "Israel has gotten away with it in a sense," says Albright. He suggests that any Israeli pre-emptive action might not be a "traditional strike" but could involve more "sabotage of equipment." The Israelis also know that the Arab states are terrified of an Iranian nuclear power, possibly to the point of looking the other way at another such strike.

Sneh, like others, isn't conceding failure yet on the official Israeli and U.S. approach, which involves isolating Iran diplomatically and economically. A third U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing economic sanctions against Iran is expected to pass next year, but it is likely to be fairly hollow because of Russian and Chinese opposition. One reason for Bush's abruptly announced nine-day visit to the region in mid-January is to deal with the fallout from the NIE, which includes not only the possibility that Israel will act unilaterally but also that Bush's prized Annapolis peace process will stall. The Bush trip is, in part, an implicit concession to U.S. hawks that the NIE went too far in absolving Iran. It is also a conscious effort to reassure both Israel and the Arab states that Washington will stand up to Iran's increasing intrusiveness and hegemonic tendencies. A dominant conspiracy theory in Arab capitals in the wake of the NIE is that Washington is seeking to cut a deal with Tehran--one that would effectively allow it to keep its nascent uranium-enrichment capability--in exchange for Iranian help in stabilizing Iraq.

Bush may also reassure the Israelis and Arab allies that the NIE overstated things in letting Iran off the hook. In yet another briefing to angry congressmen Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell conceded that "we could have written parts of it more clearly," according to a senior congressman who was there. The ranking Republican member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, says he's calling for an independent commission to probe the report. "Most of the world looks at it and says it's an embarrassment to the United States because once again the U.S. intelligence community has dramatically changed its position," Hoekstra told NEWSWEEK. And it may well be that Washington must take back its words one more time to prevent the Israelis from acting on their own.




© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/81215/
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Israeli minister warns “flawed” US intelligence
on Iran nuke will lead to “Yom Kippur”​

DebkaFile
December 21, 2007

Internal security minister and former Shin Bet head Avi Dichter was the first government member to publicly and harshly question the US National Intelligence Estimate which says Tehran no longer develops nuclear weapons. He warned that it could spark a “regional Yom Kippur” – a reference to the 1973 Middle East War. The minister said Saturday, Dec. 15: “We know the threat to be ongoing and palpable” for Israel and a whole region within the range of Iran’s ballistic missiles, i.e. Europe and North Africa. Israel and other troubled nations must help the US in every way possible, including by their intelligence, to correct a misconception that could spark a “regional Yom Kippur.”

DEBKAfile reports: Dichter voiced concerns which other Israeli ministers have so far expressed only in private (as reported last week on this site), because they conflict with the views of prime minister EhudEhud OlmertOlmert. The NIE report is deemed negative on three grounds:


1. It means the Bush administration has reconciled itself to a nuclear-armed Iran.

2. While Dichter had the courage to open the eyes of the Israeli public to the danger, he too knows there is no way to correct the “misconception” governing the actions of President Bush and Secretary Rice, because the NIE did not come out of the blue; it was the product of a comprehensive strategic reassessment planned to play out up to the end of the Bush presidency.

Both its two underlying objectives are detrimental to Israel:

  • First: America seeks integration in the unfolding Saudi-Iranian axis. This will entail turning its back on Israel.

  • Second: It will also entail concessions to Syria, Hizballah and the Palestinians at the expense of Israel and its security.

3. DEBKAfile’s Jerusalem sources reveal that Olmert has confided in his close aides his intention of using the White House’s about-face in the Middle East to advance on simultaneous peace tracks with the Palestinians and Syria. In other words, the Israeli prime minister is willing to make Bush a gift of broad concessions on the West Bank and Golan to aid and abet the president’s pursuit of the budding Riyadh-Tehran partnership.​

This was hinted at in Dichter’s added caution Saturday that Washington’s “faulty intelligence” and “erroneous conceptions” could warp its judgment as arbiter of the Middle East roadmap between Israel and the Palestinians, by reporting their nonexistent crackdown on terrorists.

At the same time, as long as ministers like Dichter who are clearly at issue with the prime minister stay in his government, Olmert has no incentive to abandon his plans.

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4858
 

Makkonnen

The Quizatz Haderach
BGOL Investor
israel attacking Iran will start an all out Israeli prompted war


I wonder if the neocons will get the Israelis to do what they have been unable to do, drag the US into war with Iran?
 

Spectrum

Elite Poster
BGOL Investor
Mossad has been behind a long series of false-flag events...even linked the 9-11 events in many capacities and if nothing else... 9-11 increased out involvement in the Middle East...and that is what Israel has always wanted. Iran is one of Israel's biggest threats in the region and we all know...through either zionist israeli's in our own government on through other means, they will push their agenda.... Israel has always played our strings and manuevers our policy like a puppet. I just hope that we don't have another major event before Bush leaves office.
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
Good question.......Didn't Putin say that if Iran's nuclear facilities are attacked while Russian scientist and technicians are there he would consider it an act of war? Also,a few days ago Russia delivered the nuclear fuel for the reactors so I would think Israel doesn't have much time to decide on what to do.

Are the Israeli's silly enough to chance killing some Russians and a confrontation with Russia forcing the U.S. to come to their defense? Another potential drawback would be that Arab governments may be forced to side with Iran if Israel attacks or risk domestic unrest within their own countries.

I'm leaning that they won't do it but there still is a possibility that they will.
 

Jam_Jam

Star
Registered
If they do attack Iran it would be the beginning of the end of all the bullshit. After this fiasco in Iraq people are no longer going to sit idly by and watch the U.S. and Israel destroy another Arab nation. The fact that Iran is no longer accepting U.S. currency for their oil is in itself an act of war. Any country that tries to hurt the U.S. economically is an enemy that must be dealt with according to the neo con-artists that are running this nation. War is imminent. The only question now is....when?
 

actinanass

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Good question.......Didn't Putin say that if Iran's nuclear facilities are attacked while Russian scientist and technicians are there he would consider it an act of war? Also,a few days ago Russia delivered the nuclear fuel for the reactors so I would think Israel doesn't have much time to decide on what to do.

Are the Israeli's silly enough to chance killing some Russians and a confrontation with Russia forcing the U.S. to come to their defense? Another potential drawback would be that Arab governments may be forced to side with Iran if Israel attacks or risk domestic unrest within their own countries.

I'm leaning that they won't do it but there still is a possibility that they will.

Russia's in it for the money. They will settle down if they know we are going to support Israel. Remember, beyond popular belief, we're still the country noone wants to fuck with...
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
Russia's in it for the money. They will settle down if they know we are going to support Israel. Remember, beyond popular belief, we're still the country noone wants to fuck with...

I believe the US is in the Middle East for the same reason,money.....Right?

So you think Russia will fall back if Israel attacks Iran because we will back Israel?

I think they won't. they still possess more than enough nuclear weaponry to make both Israel and the U.S. think twice about pissing them off. The fact that Iran hasn't been attacked to this day is testament to that fact. Who is Israel or the U.S. afraid of?....Who?.....If nobody then why haven't they attacked? There isn't anyone to stop them......Right?
 

actinanass

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
I believe the US is in the Middle East for the same reason,money.....Right?

So you think Russia will fall back if Israel attacks Iran because we will back Israel?

I think they won't. they still possess more than enough nuclear weaponry to make both Israel and the U.S. think twice about pissing them off. The fact that Iran hasn't been attacked to this day is testament to that fact. Who is Israel or the U.S. afraid of?....Who?.....If nobody then why haven't they attacked? There isn't anyone to stop them......Right?

Let me clarify, Russia will change it's stance in the open. Iran is basically being used by Russia for economic purposes. Russia do not want a war with the west, and vice versa. Even if we were to get into a conflict with Russia, our technology, and number of allies will greatly outnumber Russia's. People still got memories of the Soviet Union's tactics...
 

BigUnc

Potential Star
Registered
Let me clarify, Russia will change it's stance in the open. Iran is basically being used by Russia for economic purposes. Russia do not want a war with the west, and vice versa. Even if we were to get into a conflict with Russia, our technology, and number of allies will greatly outnumber Russia's. People still got memories of the Soviet Union's tactics...


What do you mean change their stance in the open?....Putin has publicly said an attack on Iran will be considered an attack on Russia. Is he gonna say never mind I really didn't mean it if Israel attacks? What do you base that on?


Even with the downsizing of the former USSR, the Russian military still pack a considerable conventional punch. They will not be defeated because no one is gonna invade them. A strategic draw is the best anyone could hope for.

Many thought that a technological edge would stem the tide if the Soviets came through the Fulda Gap and invaded Western Europe. Every wargame has indicated the only way to stop them would be with nuclear weaponry. Once that happens every supposed advantage you stated doesn't mean squat. Unless you"re one who believes a nuclear exchange can be won.
 

Baldhead_Digital

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
I think Israel will make somekind of movie against Iran, thus turning Israel in to a rouge nation, and forcing the US and the rest of the countries to re-evaluate the true value of Israel. Now that US power has been flexed all over Iraq, the next president could fix this whole Middle east issues by making enemies with Israel. There's nothing in Israel that's needed any more. The sole purpose for Israel was to act as a destabilizing agent in the region. The Middle East will become the next Russia. Former foe but now a friend. IN 15 year you'li be drinking Arab Liquor in the Club, and there will be a MC Donalds in Iran.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="4"><center>Russian experts arrive to install Russian TOR-M1
air defense batteries at Iran's nuclear facilities </font size></center>


s_4881.jpg

Russian TOR-M1
protects Iran's
nuclear plants

DEBKAFile
December 25, 2007

Tuesday, Dec. 25, Mikhail Dmitriev, head of the Russian Federal Service for Military and Technical Cooperation, announced the imminent installment of sophisticated Russian TOR-M1 missile batteries at Iran’s nuclear installations. Our Iranian and Moscow sources report that, only a few days ago, Moscow shipped nuclear fuel to Iran for its atomic reactor at Bushehr and committed to have the reactor up and running next year.

DEBKAfile’s military sources assert that the multi-functional, multiple layer hardware substantially upgrades the shield protecting Iran’s banned uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Isfahan, as well as Bushehr, from many types or air and missile attack.

The TOR-M1 is designed to intercept “stealth” aircraft, helicopters and drones as well as laser-guided precision bombs, rockets and cruise missiles. Traveling at a speed of 700 kph up to a range of 25km, it can destroy any of these incoming objects 12 km before they make contact with target.

Another outstanding feature is the weapon’s ability to function in all weather conditions day and night against two simultaneous targets.

The eight-missile battery mounted aboard an armored vehicle (see picture) functions as an autonomous command platform for intelligence-gathering, determining targets, firing missiles and their in-flight guidance. Its 3D pulse Doppler electronic beam feeds data on 48 targets simultaneously to the system’s firing computers, selecting the ten most dangerous and responding in 5-8 seconds. Its crew are protected against nuclear, chemical and biological warfare

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4881]/url]
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<font size="5"><center>Moscow adds another anti-air, anti-missile
layer – S-300 – to defend Iran’s nuclear
facilities against Israel attack </font size></center>



s_4886.jpg

S-300: Russian
high-flying ballistic
missile killer for Iran


DEBKAFile
December 26, 2007

DEBKAfile’s military and Iranian sources report that, while Russian-Iranian military ties are burgeoning rapidly, no complaint is heard from Jerusalem.

Iranian defense minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar announced Wednesday, Dec. 26 that he and a visiting Russian delegation had just signed a contract for the supply of another Russian anti-air weapon, the highly sophisticated S-300, rated the most effective killer of ballistic missiles on the market.

The news came a day after Russian air defense officers and technicians arrived in Tehran to install TOR-M1 missile batteries at Iran’s nuclear facilities; and two weeks after the delivery of Russian uranium fuel rods for Iran’s atomic reactor at Bushehr.

Military sources say that Moscow has designed the multi-layer air defense system to make Iran proof against Israel’s Air Force and the ballistic missiles in its armory. Yet not a murmur has been heard from prime minister Ehud Olmert or strategic threats minister Avigdor Lieberman, who is fond of boasting about his friendly ties with Russian president Vladimir Putin.

While TOR-M1 can locate and destroy moving targets at low altitudes, the S-300 system uniquely zaps high-flying, medium-range ballistic missiles of the type which is the backbone of Israel’s surface missile units at a distance of 1-40 km. Together, they lend Iran air superiority over any missiles and aircraft.

Another of S-300’s significant features is its advanced guidance method which relies on a single phased array radar to trace missiles in the air. This reduces its deployment time to five minutes; secondly, the missiles are sealed rounds and require no maintenance over their lifetime.

Our military sources add that Syria will soon to receive the S-300, as Damascus and Tehran progress toward a unified military command. They will provide coverage against attack for the territory between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf.

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4886
 

nittie

Star
Registered
Nah they ain't fucking with Iran or anyone else Hezbollah let them know they can be hurt too. If anyone strikes Iran it will be the U.S. and that's not going to happen anytime soon.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Another Arab-Israeli War ? or is Israel about to Hit Iran ?

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/rumors_arab_israeli_war_and_sum_routine_events" WIDTH=790 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/rumors_arab_israeli_war_and_sum_routine_events">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 

Jay4ya

Support BGOL
Registered
Re: Another Arab-Israeli War ? or is Israel about to Hit Iran ?

good data as always Que.

as we all know, Iran is next on the US hit list.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Another Arab-Israeli War ? or is Israel about to Hit Iran ?

Stratfor said:
The bombing of Syria symbolizes our confusion. Why would Syria want a nuclear reactor and why put it on the border of Turkey, a country the Syrians aren’t particularly friendly with? If the Syrians had a nuclear reactor, why would the Israelis be coy about it? Why would the Americans? Having said nothing for months apart from careful leaks, why are the Israelis going to speak publicly now? And if what they are going to say is simply that the North Koreans provided the equipment, what’s the big deal? That was leaked months ago.

See:
Syria Fires on Israeli Warplanes
Israeli air strike 'took out Syria's secret nuclear site'
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=193489

 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Another Arab-Israeli War ? or is Israel about to Hit Iran ?

<font size="5"><center>Another Syrian armored division
masses on Israeli-Lebanese borders</font size></center>


DEBKAFile
April 14, 2008,

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that Damascus has deployed the 10th armored corps at the Massaneh crossing of Mount Hermon. It links up with the northwestern positions the 14th division took up last month on the Syrian-Israeli border which cuts through the Hermon range.

Syrian troops are now strung along a continuous crescent-shaped line from the central Lebanese mountains through Mt Dov on the western slopes of Mt. Hermon and up to southeastern Lebanon. This deployment, commanding Syria’s Israeli and Lebanese borders, is under the command of the president’s brother, Maher Assad.

The 10th armored corps was moved forward straight after Syria’s snap civil defense exercise which crashed after three hours last Thursday, April 10. The exercise was ordered without notice by president Bashar Assad on the last day of Israel’s five-day homeland defense drill.

DEBKAfile’s military sources are criticizing Israel officials for attributing Syria’s latest military movements to domestic troubles inside the Syrian leadership. They say this is throwing sand in the public’s eyes and at one with the government’s practice of playing down all the heightened military threats to Israel – whether from Syria, the Lebanese Hizballah or the Palestinian Hamas in Gaza.

The IDF’s Northern Command officers report that the Syrian army’s buildup opposite Israel has accelerated in April and warn that its units are arrayed for a quick transition to attack mode.

The link-up between Syria’s 10th and 14th divisions on the border running through Mt Hermon should have been a wake-up call for the government in Jerusalem, they say, and elicited counter-moves to show Damascus that Israel is ready to meet every contingency.

Sunday, April 13, prime minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas met briefly to rough out the position Abbas will put before President George W. Bush whom he meets at the White House in ten days. Olmert made the gesture of licensing the entry to Israel of 5,000 Palestinian construction workers. This gesture was challenged by security services as a carrying the risk of terrorist infiltration and by economic leaders who say the Palestinians will take Israeli jobs.

Foreign minister Tzipi Livni is in Qatar, where she is to address the 8th annual Doha Forum on Democracy, Development and Free Trade. Qatari rulers plan to persuade her that Israel should back their initiatives to patch up quarrels in the Arab world between Egypt and Syria and the Palestinian Fatah and Hamas. Neither is in Israel’s interest, because conciliation would confer legitimacy on Arab and Islamist radicalism and spur its expansion.

Livni, who knew she would come under pressure during her Doha visit, insisted on going through with it andtreating it as a breakthrough in Israeli relations with the Gulf emirates.

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5190
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Another Arab-Israeli War ? or is Israel about to Hit Iran ?

<font size="4"><center>Amid new Iranian threat, Israel connects to
America’s Ballistic Missile Early Warning System</font size></center>


s_5192.jpg

The 12th Space
Warning Squadron,
Greenland

DebkaFile
April 15, 2008, 12:36 PM

Israel requested the hook-up to the BMEWS for early warning to defend itself against Iranian missile attack. Tuesday, April 15, Iran’s deputy C-in-C Mohammad Reza Ashtiani threatened to eliminate Israel from “the scene of the universe” if it launches a military attack on the Islamic state.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report the system operates from three global centers – the US Thule Air Base in Greenland, where the 12th Space Warning Squadron is located; the Clear Air Force Station in Alaska and the British RAF long-range radar station at Fylingdales, Yorkshire, in England.

This is the third time Israel has been connected to the BMEWS. The first was in 1991 before the first Gulf War and the second in 2003 before the US invasion of Iraq. Then, Israel feared Iraqi missile attack, which indeed materialized in 1991. Now, US military sources interpret the request as signifying Israel’s sense of the need to prepare for an Iranian missile attack in the not-too-distant future.

Such an attack could develop from a US or Israeli strike against Iran, or any war situation involving Israel, Syria or Hizballah. Tehran might also stage a pre-emptive strike if early intelligence was received of an impending US or Israeli attack on Iran, Syria or Hizballah.

These sources stressed that Iran could even decide to lash out against Israel after the event in reprisal for an American assault, not necessarily on its nuclear sites but on Revolutionary Guards bases involved in directing, arming and training militias for attacks on US troops in Iraq. In such a contingency, Tehran could decide to hit back at US bases and strategic sites in the Persian Gulf and Middle East at large, including Israel.

The hook-up to the US early warning system will give Israel a better chance to prepare its Arrow and Patriot missile defense systems – and the US to prepare its own Israel-based Patriot batteries - in good time to ward off an Iranian missile attack. The BMEWS would start beaming data on an incoming Iranian missile at the launching stage and before it is airborne.

American military sources have no doubt that if an Iranian missile barrage targets Tel Aviv, Israel will counter with a missile attack on Tehran or Damascus.

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5192
 

Magicdplaya

Potential Star
Registered
If they do attack Iran it would be the beginning of the end of all the bullshit. After this fiasco in Iraq people are no longer going to sit idly by and watch the U.S. and Israel destroy another Arab nation. The fact that Iran is no longer accepting U.S. currency for their oil is in itself an act of war. Any country that tries to hurt the U.S. economically is an enemy that must be dealt with according to the neo con-artists that are running this nation. War is imminent. The only question now is....when?

I glad someone brought the oil issue up. Mossad aint nothing to fuck with but at the same time, attacking Iran is attacking a cornerstone of the Arab world, it'll cause a guerilla war the U.S. won't be able to comprehend.
 

African Herbsman

Star
Registered
The March to War: Israel Prepares for War against Lebanon and Syria

This is rather long but it's good reading.



The March to War: Israel Prepares for War against Lebanon and Syria


8727.jpg



Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research
April 24, 2008
By the start of 2007, reports about major upgrades to the Syrian military, including advances in missile technology, with Iranian help were widespread in Israel. [1] The impression of an imminent war existed across much of the Middle East. Syria, Hezbollah, and Iran were reported in Israel to be preparing for a war to spark in the Levant. [2]
It was also claimed in Israel that Damascus had sent secret messages to Tel Aviv that should Israel continue to reject Syria’s peace overtures, a war would breakout in the Golan Heights and that Syrian reservists were forbidden from leaving Syria because of the possibility of combat. [3]
In June, 2007, an inner circle of the Israeli government that would form a “war cabinet” in a Middle Eastern war scenario was categorically informed that a war with Syria would absolutely involve Iranian military intervention. [4]
It is now 2008 and the spectre of war has remerged in the Middle East. Syrian President Basher Al-Assad revealed that his country is uneasy and prepared for the worst once again. Despite Tehran’s position that the U.S. would not dare launch a war against Iran, the Iranian military is on standby. The Lebanese military and Hezbollah have also been placed on alert.
“While war is not a preferable option, if Israel declares war on Syria and Lebanon or if America declares war on Iran, Syria would be prepared,” the Syrian President told a gathering of Arab intellectuals according to Al-Akhbar, a Lebanese newspaper, on April 16, 2008. [5] “We should analyze the situation from the perspective of American interests, because the last war in Lebanon has shown that at some point Israel wanted to stop the fighting, but was forced by the [Bush Jr. Administration] to pursue it further,” Basher Al-Assad continued. [6] Thus the threat of war lives on in the Middle East in 2008…
“Miscalculations” in the Levant: Setting the Stage for War?
Hereto, Tel Aviv has been deliberately promoting tensions with Syria and Lebanon. In 2007, Major-General Moshe Kaplinsky, the former deputy chief of staff for the Israeli military, stated during a press briefing that war between Syria and Israel was unlikely as an answer to growing rumours of war that started since late-2006 and the commencement of 2007. The Israeli flag officer however did not rule out an eventual Israeli-Syrian conflict. Major-General Kaplinsky along with many other Israeli commanders and officials repeatedly stressed that a “miscalculation on the border” could spark a conflict between Syria and Israel sometime in the future. [7]
Not long after the 2006 Israeli defeat in Lebanon, Tel Aviv started crafting the “justifications” for more wars in its surrounding neighbourhood, the Levant. [8] The Israeli definitions of “miscalculation” have been extremely vague and ominous.
Tel Aviv has been involved in the process of creating a military carte blanche, allowing for “flexibility” in its regional approach towards Lebanon and Syria.
“Miscalculations” in the eyes of Tel Aviv range from the domestic affairs of the Lebanese and the events in the occupied Palestinian Territories to the most audacious and bellicose of definitions, such as the reaction of the Syrians to Israeli hostilities.
The secretive air assault, later revealed by the codename Operation Orchard, made by the 69th Squadron of the Israeli Air Force (IAF) against an unheard of facility in Deir ez-Zoir Governorate of Syria on September 6, 2007 could have become a “miscalculation” on the part of Syria had it responded to Israeli provocations.
The Israeli definition of a “miscalculation” also means any arbitrary fire into Israel. The Jerusalem Post defined a “miscalculation” that could spark a war with Syria as an incident “along the border, in the form of a terrorist attack that escalates into a larger conflict.” [9] Such an incident could easily be sparked through conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.
A false flag operation could also bring such an incident about. On July 18, 2007 there was rocket fire from South Lebanon into Israel by an unknown group, something that could have been used as a pretext for war. In Syria, Lebanon, and the Arab World the incident was believed to be the work of the Israelis and their allies in an effort to justify a future war.
Tel Aviv’s Orwellian talk of Peace
In May, 2008 the head of the Mossad, the intelligence service of Israeli, said that talks of peace with Syria would lead to war. [10] Le Nouvel Observateur reported in July 2007 that the Israeli Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, ruled out the resumption of peace talks with Syria while stressing that she believed Damascus posed a problem that must be tackled on a regional scale. [11] When asked about the prospects of peace with Syria, Tzipi Livni responded, “Absolutely not. Syria is pursuing the dangerous game it plays in the region [Middle East],” and added that Syria “remains a threat” to Israel. [12] These statements reveal the conduct of Tel Aviv and its hidden agenda. Within the context of a public declaration of peace during the summer of 2007, they also reveal Tel Aviv’s duplicity.
While Tzipi Livni stated that there would be no peace between Israel and Syria, Ehud Olmert stated in a televised interview with the Al-Arabiya News Channel, that he personally wanted peace with Syria. Prime Minister Olmert addressed President Basher Al-Assad, the head of Syria, directly, saying “you know that I am ready for direct talks with you” and added that “I am ready to sit with you and talk about peace, not war.” Several days later, Ehud Olmert also stated in Orwellian fashion that he wanted peace with the Syrians, but that peace did not equate to immediate peace negotiations between Syria and Israel and could mean a continuation of the “status quo.”
Olmert’s statement is doublespeak. Hereto, according to the Israelis, the threat of war exists as a result of the status quo between Syria and Israel. This statement is very important to keep in mind because it indicates that Israel did not want to return the Golan Heights, but wanted something else from Syria as the condition of peace. This is where Tehran comes into the picture.
Israeli officials were further incriminated by the fact that in 2007 Prime Minister Olmert also said he was not concerned by an imminent war with Syria, but that he was unhappy with the public discussion about peace between Syria and Israel. One should question the logic behind Ehud Olmert’s “irritation” regarding public overtures of peace between Syria and Israel. [13] Realpolitik is definitely being played by Israel in regards to Damascus in a consorted effort to de-link Syria from Iran and its other allies. In this regard, Damascus publicly insisted that there be no secret talks between Syrian and Israeli officials as to the conditions for peace. [14] The rationale for the Syrian insistence on transparency was to deprive Israeli of any means to covertly try to divide Syria from its Middle Eastern allies by generating suspicions of betrayal.
The international press extensively reported Ehud Olmert’s statements in 2007 about wanting peace with the Syrians. Israeli officials also repeatedly claimed that the Syrians were the ones rejecting peace. [15] These claims are made despite the fact that all public records show exactly the opposite. Syria’s leadership have been calling for peace negotiations between Israel and Syria since the premierships of Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon. Israeli claims of pursing peace for the most part have been part of an international public relations campaign attempting to portray the aggressor as the victim. In the case of Syria peace means that Tel Aviv will not go to war with Damascus if it distances itself from Tehran.
De-linking Syria from Iran: Israel’s Real Condition for Peace with Syria
The return of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, which was was formerly called the “Syrian Heights” in Israel, to Syria was always the recognized condition for establishing Israeli-Syrian peace.
Dr. Alon Liel, a former director-general within the Israeli foreign affairs ministry and a former Israeli ambassador to South Africa, who was heavily involved with previous Israeli negotiations with Syria, has indicated the real issue holding Tel Aviv from accepting peace. Dr. Alon Liel went on record: he confirmed that 85% of negotiations between Syria and Israel were agreed upon by both Damascus and Tel Aviv. [16] The major issues for establishing peace between Damascus and Tel Aviv were all resolved in 2000; water rights for Israel from Syrian territory, guaranteed Israeli access to the Golan Heights upon its return to Syria, and security guarantees between both parties. [17]
Peace, in the sense of an agreement by both sides, however was unachievable in 1993, 1995, 1996, and 2000 due to Tel Aviv’s internal politics. The situation became more so after 2001 with the start of an aggressive U.S. policy in the Middle East. “Israel isn’t going to hand over [or return] the Golan [Heights] to an ally of Iran,” Alon Liel has insisted as being the problem in regards to peace between both sides. [18]
Tel Aviv has imposed broader demands on Syria as the price of peace. It is in the strategic interests of the U.S. and Israel to isolate Iran, even at the cost of peace with Syria. [19] In this regard, Syrian internal affairs and foreign relations are decisive factors for Israel in regards to negotiations.
Syria and Iran are part of a strategic alliance in the Middle East resisting the interests of America, Britain, Israel, France, and Germany. Other Middle Eastern players resisting the same foreign interests are additionally allied or associated with Syria and Iran within one tangible bloc, the Resistance Bloc. [20] It is in this context that one understands Israel is not pursuing peace with Syria, but is threatening the Syrians with war if they do not abandon Iran and their allies.
On the eve of major Israeli exercises in which Israel and Syria fought a fictitious war, the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister, Haim Ramon, stated on a radio interview that Syrian anxiety had no basis and that Israel was pursing peace with Damascus, but added “unfortunately Syria is stuck deep in the evil axis of connections with [Hezbollah].” [21] If this is not indicative enough, Haim Ramon also concluded that Damascus has made a strategic choice to preserve its alliance with Iran rather than “pursue peace,” which to Tel Aviv would mean a termination of Syrian-Iranian ties. Furthermore, on March 23, 2003 Shimon Peres stated that “peace talks with Syria cannot begin while it keeps supplying Lebanon with weapons.” [22] This was a reference to the important role of Damascus as a middle man between Tehran and the Levant.
Neutralizing Syria: Prerequisite for Neutralizing Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran
Damascus is pivotal to the framework of resistance in the Middle East against Israeli, Anglo-American, and Franco-German interests. Syria acts as a bridge between Iran and Iraq at one end of the Middle East and the Levant on the other. Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, Iraq, and Iran are all tied together through Syria. [23]
In this regard, Damascus serves as the central link that holds together the forces resisting a new regional order in the Middle East, also known as the “Project for the New Middle East.”
What the Israelis have been trying to do, in coordination with the U.S., Britain, France, and Germany is to remove Syria from these alliances and thus splinter or break the link between Iran and the Levant. The main goal is to pressure Syria into making a peaceful political surrender (just as Libya did to Britain and the U.S. in 2003), and to distance itself from Iran and the Arab resistance within Palestine and Lebanon to Israel.
Shlomo Ben-Ami, a former Israeli foreign minister, hinted in October 2007 that if Syria would not dissociate itself peacefully from Iran, a military solution was inevitable: “Driving a wedge between Syria and Iran, drying up [Hezbollah] by cutting its lines of arms supply, allowing the vital task of stabilizing Lebanon to succeed [meaning empowering client forces in Beirut], and forestalling what now looks as a most realistic scenario of a triple front war of Israel against Syria, Hamas and [Hezbollah] are the strategic fruits concomitant to a Syrian-Israeli peace.” [24]
Removing Syria from the “Resistance Bloc” is a prerequisite for Israel, America, and their partners for tackling Iran. With Syria removed from Iran’s influence, the entire Levant could be controlled and the resistance in the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon under such players as Hamas and Hezbollah could be significantly weakened. Under such a framework, the Levant could be integrated into the economic order of the so-called “Western Powers” under the Washington Consensus and within the Mediterranean Union: this is where Israeli, Anglo-American, and France-German Middle East interests merge.
In 2006, the ultimate objective of the Israeli attack on Lebanon was to remove Syria from its alliance with Iran and insert Damascus within the orbit of a new regional order. With this understanding in mind, the 2006 Israeli attacks on Lebanon were revealed to have been planned to also target Syria.[25]
War however became a far costlier option for America, Britain, Israel, and their partners and that is why political channels were pursued with Damascus after the 2006 defeat of Tel Aviv in Lebanon. Haaretz released a revealing report in August, 2007 about the true nature of the diplomatic mission of Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, to Damascus. The intentions of her visit to Damascus were stated to help establish peace between Syria and Israel and better ties with America, but the conditions were not fully disclosed.
Syria was being courted to abandon Iran, just as Italy was courted to abandon Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire by London and Paris before the First World War: “The chairman of the [U.S.] House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Tom Lantos, who accompanied Pelosi, said Assad should be given a final opportunity to disengage from the ‘axis of evil.’ According to Lantos, in a few years, Sunni Muslims and not Iran under Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be in control in the region, and it is to the advantage of Damascus to know which side to be on.” [26]
For Tel Aviv and its partners, if the goal of removing Damascus from its alliance with Tehran can not be achieved through diplomatic dialogue, economics, threats, or pressure then the original course of action, warfare, within a major three-front confrontation is the other alternative against Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Territories. These hostilities would also be linked to confrontation with the Iranians and could result in an broader conflict in the Middle East and Central Asia. Ehud Olmert declared “I believe that we can expect a calm summer, a calm autumn and a calm winter [which runs from November, 2007 to March, 2008],” when tensions were rising between Syria and Israel in 2007. [27] It is worth noting that tensions began to rise again in the Levant after Olmert’s timeframe of calm.
The threats of war in 2007 were partly scare tactics to pressure Syria into yielding and conceding to the geo-strategic interests of America, Britain, Israel, France, and Germany. [28] Up to now, all efforts to remove the Syrians from their alliances have failed.
Clearly, Israel has been preparing for war on a broader regional level. Simultaneously, Tel Aviv has been preparing to shift blame for any possible outbreak of a regional war on the Syrians, the Lebanese, the Palestinians, even the Russians, and foremost on the Iranians.
Operation Orchard: Fabricating a Syria-Iran-North Korea Nuclear Axis
On September 6, 2007 Israeli warplanes violated Syrian airspace and mysteriously attacked an unheard of facility. The Syrian military reported that Israeli aircraft illegally entered Syrian airspace from over the Mediterranean Sea and headed towards northeastern Syria. “Air defense units confronted [the Israeli warplanes] and forced them to leave [Syria] after they drooped [sic; dropped] some ammunition in deserted areas without causing any human or material damage,” the Syrian military initially claimed. [29] The Syrians immediately also stated that Israel was trying to create pretexts for another war in the Middle East. [30] The U.S. government also entered the commotion by claiming that the White House was aware of the operation and the Pentagon had assisted the Israelis. The White House also claimed that the Israelis had destroyed a facility that was linked to a clandestine nuclear program in Syria. Damascus also maintained that the attacks and the claims about a secretive nuclear program were preludes to U.S. involvement in an Israeli war against Syria. [31]
In this context, Syria restrained itself, fearing that Tel Aviv wanted to entice Damascus into a war. Professor Eyal Zisser, the director of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University, noted “Any misunderstanding could lead to conflagration. However, the Syrian announcement was surprising in its moderation.” [32] The operation was also reported as being a possible test-run for an Israeli attack on Iran. The U.S. and Israel also asserted that the Russian-made air defence systems in Syria did not function. [33] The attacks could have also been a form of pressure to force the Syrians to go to the Annapolis Conference to detect if a war was intended against their country.
The attack was described as an Israeli success by the Bush Jr. Administration and the mainstream media. A propaganda campaign was launched: Through media disinformation and political statements, efforts were placed on establishing the threat of a “Syria-Iran-North Korea nuclear proliferation axis.” [34]
<table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="200"> <tbody><tr> <td height="12">
onepixel.gif
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> <tr> <td><!-- adman_adcode (middle, 3) --><script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-0849512753345323"; /* 200x200, created 3/7/08 */ google_ad_slot = "7114990287"; google_ad_width = 200; google_ad_height = 200; //--> </script> <script style="display: none;" type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script><!-- /adman_adcode (middle) --></td> <td width="12">
onepixel.gif
</td> </tr> <tr> <td height="8">
onepixel.gif
</td> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody></table> The alleged nuclear facility was a Syrian project aided by North Korea and Iran according to the U.S. and Israeli governments. Trying to pin Syria for having weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs is not a fresh approach. In fact just barely a month after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq the U.S. and Britain actively started trying to portray Syria in an Iraq-like manner claiming that Damascus also had hidden weapons of mass destruction (WMD) stockpiles.
In early-April, 2008 it became clear that Israel and the U.S. had been planning on releasing details about Operation Orchard and the alleged nuclear facility attacked by Israel in Syria to further demonize Damascus and to further construct a weapons of mass destruction (WMD) link between Syria, North Korea, and Iran. [35] The Jerusalem Post subsequently reported on April 14, 2008 that Israeli experts suggested that the full disclosure about an Israeli attack in 2007 in the U.S. Congress could even “embarrass” the Syrians to the point of militarily responding against Israel. [36]
The Assassination of Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus: Antecedent to War?
On February 12, 2008 Imad Fayez Mughniyeh, a top Hezbollah security official, was assassinated in Damascus by means of a remote detonated car bomb. The intelligence services of America, Israel, Britain, France, Germany, Jordon, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia were all suspected of some form of involvement. According to The Daily Star, an English-language newspaper based in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia had helped Israel in assassinating Imad Mughniyeh and a Saudi military attaché was arrested in Damascus due to links to a Syrian collaborator in the assassination. [37]
More than a month following the Mughniyeh assassination, U.S. Vice-President Cheney made a regional tour of the Middle East. “We must not, and will not, ignore the darkening shadows of the situations in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Syria and in Iran and the forces there that are working to derail the hopes of the world,” Vice-President Cheney vowed dramatically in a insinuation that conflict was brewing and the U.S. was prepared to aid Israel. [38]
It did not take long for pundits to point toward Mughniyeh’s murder as being used in a ploy to launch war in the Middle East. Israel’s intelligence and information apparatus started exerting themselves in a misinformation campaign to create doubts about the murder of Imad Mughniyeh. Tel Aviv’s aims were to shift the blame on the Syrians in a psychological operation (PSYOP) intended to inseminate doubts and mistrust between Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, in order to strain their alliance and weaken the Resistance Bloc.
According to Israel’s Channel 10, sometime after the assassination of Mughniyeh, Tel Aviv sent Hezbollah a letter through a third party, threatening another disproportionate war against Lebanon. Tel Aviv also wasted no time in threatening Syria if Hezbollah launched retaliatory attacks on Israel. [39] In this context, Reuters also reported that an unnamed senior Israeli official had spelled out conflict with the Syrians as a reprisal for hostile Lebanese and Palestinian actions against Israel. [40] The root of these so-called hostile actions by Lebanese and Palestinian groups are of retaliatory nature to hostile actions initiated by Tel Aviv. In many cases, these attacks against Israel are invited by Tel Aviv as a means to create the justifications of postponing peace, annexing territory, and launching war.
In mid-April, 2008, Israeli jets and helicopters created insecurity among residents of Haifa when they scrambled across Israel to intercept an unidentified light plane entering Israeli airspace. [41] Tel Aviv’s security and military forces have been on high alert since the Mughniyeh Assassination. [42] On March 18, 2008 an Israeli warship was also dispatched into Lebanese waters, where it was intercepted by an Italian warship, in a move that many in Lebanon saw as a taunt by Israel.
Israel has advertised very publicly that it expects retaliation from Hezbollah. [43] This “retaliation” could also give Israel an excuse for launching another war. The Israeli government also used the opportunity to raise domestic tensions amongst its own citizens. Israeli officials also warned about possible attacks from across the Lebanese border by Iranian-manufactured “explosive-packed drones” or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) sent by Hezbollah. [44]
Creating Pretexts for War in Lebanon
Israel has overtly claimed, as part of a concerted public relations campaign, that Hezbollah increased the range of its rocket arsenal. [45] The public advertisement of the increase in the rocket range of Hezbollah by Tel Aviv stands outside the standardized protocol of Israeli officials who consistently work domestically to keep public confidence in the strength of the Israeli military and security apparatus. Although there was a genuine probability of truth to the Israeli statements, the main objective behind their very publicly advertised declarations were to further build excuses for further Israeli aggression, such as pre-emptive strikes, in Lebanon or the so-called Israeli “Northern Front” and regionally in the Middle East.
In reality, Hezbollah’s rocket range was probably upgraded or already capable of hitting deep into Israeli territory before Tel Aviv decided to divulge its knowledge. Hezbollah had already threatened to strike Tel Aviv in 2006 if Beirut were to be attacked by Israeli bombs. The timing of the information by Israeli officials about Hezbollah’s rocket range is linked to painting the picture of a growing threat amongst its own citizens and to gain their support for combat.
In the case of Hezbollah, like those of the Palestinian Resistance and Syria, the increased range of their projectiles have been attentively linked to Iran, itself the ultimate target. Starting in March, 2008 the mainstream media in Israel and worldwide reported that the Israeli government had warned that most of Israel, up to the city of Dimona in the Negev Desert, was within the striking range of Hezbollah from Lebanon. Haaretz correspondents in addition reported that “Hamas militants who recently returned to the Gaza Strip after training in Iran [held] a detailed plan for upgrading the capabilities of the rockets being developed in the [Gaza] Strip, according to senior Palestinian Authority sources.” [46] As a note, the Palestinian Authority sources being referred to are the unelected Fatah officials in the West Bank who themselves collaborate with Israel. These types of reports have also helped boost the case for war.
The basis for war against Lebanon is an intricate parcel of a broader conflict in the Middle East, which in turn is itself a component of an even larger conflict in Eurasia. The fact that various Palestinian resistance groups have trained in Lebanon, Syria, and Iran is also being used as a justification for war and as a means to tie all three republics closer together as a single enemy axis by Israel. Aside from those in the Palestinian Territories, in the event of a major war the Palestinian groups based in Lebanon and Syria have made it clear that they will fight alongside the Lebanese and Syrians. Palestinians in Egypt and Jordon have also elucidated towards such a course of action too.
With 2008 efforts to implicate Hezbollah in regards to attacks on American and British troops in Iraq have resurfaced. These reports were originally made by London in an effort to link Hezbollah to the roadside bombs in Basra at the start of the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq, but were dismissed. The main British objective of involving Hezbollah as an enemy in Iraq was the foreknowledge that Lebanon would be attacked by Israel in 2006.
On April 8, 2008 General David H. Petraeus, the commander of Coalition troops in Iraq, accused both Iran and Hezbollah of helping the Iraqi forces that attacked the “Green Zone” in Baghdad. [47] He testified to the U.S. Senate about Hezbollah’s alleged involvement in killing American and Coalition troops: “Together with the Iraqi Security Forces, we have also focused on the Special Groups [meaning those forces fighting against American and Coalition forces]. These elements are funded, trained, armed, and directed by Iran’s Qods [Jerusalem] Force, with help from Lebanese Hezbollah.” [48] The allegations by General Petraeus were part of the conscious effort to justify a greater American role in the next conflict against the Lebanese.
The Mediterranean Front
It is clear to the Pentagon, NATO, and Tel Aviv that the Levant stands to ignite a Mediterranean battle-front in the event of a war against Iran. To this end, the marshaling of a relatively invisible NATO war fleet in the Eastern Mediterranean is rigidly tied to war plans against Tehran. [49] The naval build-ups in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean have been ongoing since 2001 with the strategic aim of preparing the logisitical framework for war against Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestinian resistance, Syria, and Iran.
Paris and Berlin have intense vested interest in the Anglo-American wars in the Middle East. As has been repeatedly uttered by French, German, and E.U. officials the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East are the “eastern borders of the European Union.” [50] To this end Nicolas Sarkozy’s Mediterranean Union is a declaration of these Franco-German interests that are very much tied to the wars in the Middle East and the establishment of a settlement between the Arabs and Israel in the Levant. [51]
The 2006 Israeli siege against Lebanon, with the active support of American military personnel and planners in Israel, was a phase of this military schedule as well as a dress rehearsal by both sides for a larger Middle Eastern war. Both sides were given the opportunity to re-evaluate their tactics and strategies for such an upcoming war, should it spark. History will see what comes to pass.
Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a writer and geopolitical analyst based in Ottawa who specializes on the Middle East and is currently Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Also see: The March to War: Syria Preparing for US-Israeli Attacks
NOTES
[1] Ze’ev Schiff, Syria rearms, moves troops closer to Golan Heights border, Haaretz, February 22, 2007; Ze’ev Schiff, Israel’s message in talks with Gates: Syria is preparing for war, Haaretz, April 22, 2007; Yitzhak Benhorin, Syria arming intensely, minister says, Yedioth Ahronoth, May 4, 2007.
[2] Herb Keion, ‘Syria, Iran, Hizbullah planning war,’ The Jerusalem Post, June 6, 2007; Yakkov Katz, ‘War with Syria this summer unlikely,’ The Jerusalem Post, July 11, 2007; Roee Nahmias, Syria’s top general to pilots: Be prepared for war, Yedioth Ahronoth, October 23, 2007.
[3] Smadar Peri, Syria plans war of attrition in the Golan Heights, Yedioth Ahronoth, August 2, 2007; Aluf Been, IDF, government preparing for possible Syrian strike on Golan Heights, Haaretz, April 2, 2007; Yakkov Katz, IDF prepares for Syrian attack on Golan, The Jerusalem Post, April 27, 2007; Smadar Peri, Arab official: Syrian general mulling war with Israel, Yedioth Ahronoth, August 14, 2007.
[4] Ronn Sofer, Syria not planning offensive, security officials say, Yedioth Ahronoth, June 11, 2007.
[5] Roee Nahmias, Assad: US wants Israel to declare war on Syria, Yedioth Ahronoth, April 17, 2008; Assad: Syria is preparing for war, The Jerusalem Post, April17, 2008; ‘We are prepared for Israel war,’ Press TV, April 17, 2008.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Amos Harel, IDF deputy chief: Summer war with Syria not likely, Haaretz, July 11, 2007.
[8] The Levant in its cotemporary definition is a geographic sub-region of the Middle East that includes Lebanon, Palestine/Israel, Syria, and Jordon. The Turkish province of Hatay, where the city of Alexandretta (Iskenderon) is located, has traditionally been considered a part of the Levant along with small portions of Turkey. The exact boundaries of the Levant are abstract, but the categorization of Levantine countries, in the geographic sense of the word, is unambiguous. The Levant is roughly bordered by Iraq to the east, the Mediterranean Sea to the west, the mountain range of the Taurus in the north, and Arabia to the south.
[9] Yakkov Katz, IDF wary of possible war with Syria, The Jerusalem Post, July 11, 2007.
[10] Itamar Eichner, Talks with Syria could lead to war, says Mossad chief, Yedioth Ahronoth, May 14, 2007.
[11] Tzipi Livni, Tzipi Livni : «Nous allons aider Mahmoud Abbas…», interview by Henri Guirchoun, Le Nouvel Observateur, July 12, 2007.
[12] Ibid.; Tzipi Livni: « Absolument pas. La Syrie poursuit le jeu dangereux qui est le sien dans la région. (…) et demeure une menace… »
[13] Hern Keinon, Olmert: Israel, Syria don’t want war, The Jerusalem Post, July 12, 2007.
[14] Assad sets Golan pullout as condition for future talks, The Daily Star (Lebanon), July 18, 2007.
[15] Syria dismisses Olmert offer to hold peace talks, The Jerusalem Post and Associated Press (AP), July 10, 2007.
[16] Yaakov Lappin, Israel-Syria pact ‘85 percent done,’ Yedioth Ahronoth, July 18, 2007.
[17] Adam Entous, Syria may be flexible on key Israeli demand: UN, Reuters, July 12, 2007.
[18] Lappin, Israel-Syria pact, Op. cit.
[19] Adam Entous, Israel says awaits clear Syrian message on Iran, Reuters, July 18, 2007.
[20] The Resistance Bloc is a group of players that can be categorized within one grouping for resisting foreign programs and interests in the Middle East. Iran, Syria, both the Lebanese Resistance and the Lebanese National Opposition, the Hamas-led Palestinian government in the Gaza Strip, the Palestinian Resistance, the Iraqi Resistance, and various elements of opposition in the Arab World all fall into this regional grouping opposed to Anglo-American, Franco-German, and Israeli interests.
[21] Deputy PM Ramon: ‘Israel has no intention of attacking Syria,The Jerusalem Post, April 3, 2008.
[22] Aviram Zino, Peres: Israel will not cede Golan Heights for Syria-controlled Lebanon, Yedioth Ahronoth, March 23, 2008.
[23] It is interesting to note that the outline of this bloc also falls within the perimeters of the so-called “Shia Crescent,” an artificial and misleading concept about Shiite ascendancy in a crescent starting from Iran, going through Iraq and Syria, and ending in Lebanon and Palestine. This concept is a brethren-term of the very terminology that conceptualized the “Sunni Triangle” in Iraq, which did not exist until the campaign to occupy Iraq started. Both terms are psychological devices and concepts described as a means to re-categorize and divide the Middle East.
[24] Shlomo Ben-Ami, The way to Damascene conversion, Yedioth Ahronoth, October 21, 2007.
[25] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The Premeditated Nature of the War on Lebanon: A Stage of the Broader Middle East Military Roadmap, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), September 10, 2007.
[26] Aluf Ben, Israel seeks to reassure Syria: No summer attack, Haaretz, April 3, 2007; it should also be noted that the grounds were paved for war against Berlin and Vienna in 1914 by London and Paris by first de-linking Rome from Germany and Austro-Hungary and this is precisely what Washington, D.C. and Tel Aviv have been trying to do in regards to Damascus and Tehran.
[27] Barak Ravid, Olmert: Israel, Syria have no interest in military conflict, Haaretz, August 11, 2007.
[28] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The March to War: Détente in the Middle East or “Calm before the Storm?Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), July 12, 2007.
[29] Air Defense Units Confront Israeli Aircrafts over Syrian airspace forcing them to Leave, Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA), September 6, 2007.
[30] Syria: Israel Is Spreading False Reports In Order To Justify War, Reuters, September 30, 2007
[31] Syrian paper warns nuclear rumors may be prelude to US attack, Associated Press (AP), September 16, 2007.
[32] Alastair MacDonald, Syria-Israel bombing incident shrouded in mystery, Reuters, September 7, 2007.
[33] Report: Russia sent technicians to Syria, Jerusalem Post, October 2, 2007.
[34] Sarah Baxter et al., Israelis ‘blew apart Syrian nuclear cache,’ The Sunday Times (U.K.), September 16, 2007; Alexander Kogan, The secretive Syrian-N. Korean alliance, The Jerusalem Post, September 18, 2007.
[35] Amos Harel and Barak Ravid, Israel, U.S. plan to release details on Syria attack, Haaretz, April 9, 2008.
[36] Yakkov Katz and Herb Keinon, Status of Syria strike hearing unclear, The Jerusalem Post, April 14, 2008.
[37] Riyadh accused of role in Mughniyeh assassination, The Daily Star (Lebanon), April 10, 2008.
[38] Cheney backs Israel over security, British Broadcasting Corporation News (BBC News), March 23, 2008.
[39] ‘Israel threatened to attack Damascus,’ The Jerusalem Post, March 15, 2008; Adam Entous and Daniel Williams, Israel secretly warned Syria about Hezbollah, ed. Dominic Evans, Reuters, March 14, 2008; Jon Brain, Israel calms fears of Syria conflict, British Broadcasting Corporation News (BBC News), April 3, 2008.
[40] Ibid.
[41] Hanan Greenberg and Ahiya Raved, Light plane causes scare in north, Yedioth Ahronoth, April 12, 2008.
[42] Ron Ben-Yishai, Revenge for Mugniyah could ignite conflict in north, Yedioth Ahronoth, April 3, 2008.
[43] Yoav Stern, Nasrallah: Mughniyah’s blood will lead to elimination of Israel, Haaretz, March 14, 2008; Police to beef up forces over Purim, fearing Hezbollah strike, Associated Press (AP), March 17, 2008; Avi Issacharooff et al., Hezbollah deputy chief: We have proof Israel killed Mughniyah, Haaretz, March 23, 2008; IDF chief: Army prepared for any scenario, Yedioth Ahronoth, April 18, 2008.
[44] Yakkov Katz, ‘Hizbullah may send bomb-laden UAVs,’ The Jerusalem Post, April 6, 2008.
[45] Israel: Hezbollah increases rocket range, Associated Press (AP), March 27, 2008.
[46] Avi Issacharoff and Amos Harel, Hamas gets Iranian plans for improved Qassams, Haaretz, March 31, 2008.
[47] Andrew Gray and David Morgan, U.S. sees Iran and Syria “Lebanon” gambit in Iraq, ed. Philip Barbara, Reuters, April 8, 2008.
[48] General David H. Petraeus, April 8, 2008 SFRC Testimony (Testimony, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C., April 8, 2008).
[49] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), October 1, 2006.
[50] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The Mediterranean Union: Dividing the Middle East and North Africa, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), February 10, 2008.
[51] Ibid.; Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The Mediterranean Union: NATO’s Role in Conquering the Middle East and North Africa, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), February 18, 2008.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8727
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: The March to War: Israel Prepares for War against Lebanon and Syria

<font size="5"><center>
USS Mount Whitney on way to Lebanon
for unscheduled mission </font size><font size="4">

Official: Long-term deployment not expected </font size></center>


480px-USS_Mount_Whitney_(LCC-20)_Counter_Measure_Wash_Down_System.jpg

USS MOUNT WHITNEY (LCC 20), showing a small rainbow cascading across
the ships deck, as she tests her Counter Measure Wash Down System
(CMWDS), while the ship is underway rounding the Horn of Africa, during
Operation ENDURING FREEDOM


Stars and Stripes
By Sandra Jontz,
European edition
Thursday, May 15, 2008


The U.S. Navy’s 6th Fleet flagship, the USS Mount Whitney, sails this week for an unscheduled deployment toward Lebanon and Cyprus to support Navy ships already at sea, Navy and U.S. officials said.

"[The ship] is deploying to assist with logistical missions and supporting assets at sea in the Mediterranean," said Lt. Patrick Foughty, a 6th Fleet spokesman. "It will be supporting additional communication requirements for our ships already underway" in the 6th Fleet area of operations.

He declined to provide details, citing security reasons. "I can say we don’t have any long-term plans to keep the Mount Whitney away from its home base."

Communications is the primary mission of the Mount Whitney, homeported in Gaeta, Italy.

The Mount Whitney deployed in 2006 as the command and control ship for evacuation efforts of some 15,000 Americans from Lebanon.

Violence erupted once again last week in the embattled nation, but this time between the U.S.- and Western-backed government and Hezbollah-led opposition.

The violence forced the closure of the international airport in Beirut a week ago. The U.S. Embassy in Cyprus stepped in and began helping U.S. Embassy staffers in Beirut by providing helicopter support to ferry in personnel and supplies such as in mail, said a U.S. Embassy spokesman in Cyprus.

"With the airport inaccessible, we have to be able to re-supply the embassy."

A spokesman from the U.S. Embassy in Beirut did not respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

In July 2006, 15,000 people were evacuated from Lebanon to Cyprus after war broke out between Hezbollah and Israel; and the U.S. military diverted some of its naval, air and ground assets to the region to help in the evacuation efforts.


http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=62151&archive=true
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: The March to War: Israel Prepares for War against Lebanon and Syria

<font size="5"><center>
Command vessel USS Mount Whitney
posted opposite Lebanon</font size></center>



s_5276.jpg


DEBKFile
May 17, 2008

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that Saturday, May 17, the USS Mount Whitney , considered the US Navy’s most advanced command, control, communications, computer and intelligence vessel, took up position opposite Lebanese shores for an “unscheduled mission.”

The Sixth Fleet spokesman Lt. Patrick Foughty said the ship would be there “to support additional communication requirements for our ships already underway.”

DEBKAfile’s sources add that the USS Cole missile destroyer arrived in that sector last week, while the USS Harry Truman carrier strike group began cruising in the Mediterranean around Greece, whence the aircraft on its decks can reach Syrian and Lebanese skies. The fleet spokesman added there are no long-term plans to keep the Mount Whitney away from its home base.

Although the US lieutenant did not name those plans, military observers gained the impression that the American navy-air build-up off Lebanon was designed for a short stay or a specific operation, after which it will disperse.

Our sources disclose that, during the fierce Hizballah onslaught on Beirut last week and its closure of the international airport, the Americans ran a helicopter lift from Cyprus to the US embassy landing pad with provisions of food, water, medicine and personnel.

The Mount Whitney enables a joint task commander to effectively control all the units of his force. The ship can receive and transmit large amounts of secure data from any point on earth and provide timely intelligence and operational support as needed.

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5276
 

nittie

Star
Registered
Re: Another Arab-Israeli War ? or is Israel about to Hit Iran ?

If Israel hits Iran the price of gas would go to $8.00 per gallon and collapse the Western economy. That's why OPEC refuses to dramatically increase oil production. They are Muslims and Arabs they have not forgotten what this country did to them. Even if they did increase production it wouldn't stop Al Qaeda from staging another major attack thus driving up the price of every product and using inflation to kill our economy. Chickens are coming home to roost for the U.S. because the white ruled government can't understand the world will not forget 400yrs of white supremacy.
 

blackbull1970

The Black Bastard
Platinum Member
Re: Another Arab-Israeli War ? or is Israel about to Hit Iran ?

Let the mofos fight. Get it out of their system. hopefully they will kill each other to extinction and then we can get some peace and quiet for a change.

Peace.
 

carlitos

Potential Star
Registered
Re: Another Arab-Israeli War ? or is Israel about to Hit Iran ?

..n we all fall inline to wait for this great event..just to suffer more economically..while the rich gets richer, n the masses gets fuked more. Fuck all this saber rattling, but as big mike says welcome to 'big game'..where the real perpetrators will be those will benefit big..:angry:

..there is no profit in peace..
 
Last edited:

Big_Sarge

Support BGOL
Registered
Re: Another Arab-Israeli War ? or is Israel about to Hit Iran ?

Let the mofos fight. Get it out of their system. hopefully they will kill each other to extinction and then we can get some peace and quiet for a change.

Peace.

I wish it was that easy...IMO there will always be turmoil in that area of the world...


Thanks for the post QueEx
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Israeli: Attack on Iran "UNAVOIDABLE"

<font size="5"><Center>'Unavoidable' attack on Iran looms,
says Israeli minister</font size></center>


Haroon Siddique and agencies
guardian.co.uk, Friday June 6 2008

An Israeli minister has said an attack on Iran's nuclear sites will be "unavoidable" if Tehran refuses to halt its alleged weapons programme.

In the most explicit threat yet by a member of Ehud Olmert's government, Shaul Mofaz, a deputy prime minister, said the hardline Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "would disappear before Israel does".

"If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective," Mofaz, who is also Israel's transport minister, said in comments published today by the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

"Attacking Iran in order to stop its nuclear plans will be unavoidable."

Iranian-born Mofaz is a former army chief and defence minister. He is a member of Olmert's security cabinet and leads regular strategic coordination talks with the US state department.

Iran denies trying to build nuclear weapons and has defied western pressure to abandon uranium enrichment.

The leadership in Tehran has threatened that if attacked the country will retaliate against Israel - believed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal - and American targets in the region.

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel to be wiped off the map since becoming president. On Monday, he said Israel was "about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene".

Olmert met the US president, George Bush, on Wednesday to discuss concerns over Iran. The Israeli prime minister, who is being pressured to resign over a corruption scandal, has said that Iran's nuclear threat "must be stopped by all possible means".

Israeli planes bombed Syria in September, destroying what the US administration said was a partly built nuclear reactor using North Korean help. Syria denied having any such facility. UN inspectors announced this week that they would be visiting Syria to investigate the American claim.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/06/israel.iran
 

Spectrum

Elite Poster
BGOL Investor
Re: Israeli: Attack on Iran "UNAVOIDABLE"

Read this earlier. This is troubling....especially with the neo-cons desire to do so and with Liebermann doing everything he can to accomplish the goal as well.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Israeli: Attack on Iran "UNAVOIDABLE"

<font size="3">
THIS "unavoidable" proclamation (from the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister) and
some analyst at Morgan Stanley saying oil will reach $150 a barrel by July 4th
and what happens?

Oil jumped up a record $10.75 per barrel to trade at $138.54 a barrel

If we think gas prices are high now, they are about to go even HIGHER !

</font size>
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Israeli: Attack on Iran "UNAVOIDABLE"

Read this earlier. This is troubling ....especially with the neo-cons desire to do so and with Liebermann doing everything he can to accomplish the goal as well.

to put it mildly.

QueEx
 
Top