Dissident Veteran For Peace

    Among the prohibitions of international humanitarian law relevant to this case are the prohibitions against weapons which cause superfluous injury, weapons which do not differentiate between combatants and civilians, and weapons which do not respect the rights of neutral states.

***

    It is not to the point that such results are not directly intended, but are "by-products" or "collateral damage" caused by nuclear weapons. Such results are known to be the necessary consequences of the use of the weapon. The author of the act causing these consequences cannot in any coherent legal system avoid legal responsibility for causing them, any less than a man careering in a motor vehicle at 150 kilometres per hour through a crowded market street can avoid responsibility for the resulting deaths on the ground that he did not intend to kill the particular persons who died.

   The plethora of literature on the consequences of the nuclear weapon is so much part of common universal knowledge today that no disclaimer of such knowledge would be credible.

***

    An argument that has been advanced in regard to the principle regarding "unnecessary suffering" is that, under Article 23 ( e ) of the 1907 Hague Regulations, it is forbidden, "To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering" (emphasis added). The nuclear weapon, it is said, is not calculated to cause suffering, but suffering is rather a part of the "incidental side effects" of nuclear weapons explosions. This argument is met by the well-known legal principle that the doer of an act must be taken to have intended its natural and foreseeable consequences ... It is, moreover, a literal interpretation which does not take into account the spirit and under lying rationale of the provision — a method of interpretation particularly inappropriate to the construction of a humanitarian instrument. It may also be said that nuclear weapons are indeed deployed "in part with a view to utilising the destructive effects of radiation and fall-out".

Source: International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion, On the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (8 July 1996), "Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry", pp. 255, 269-270, 276-277 (477, 491-492, 498-499).

Labels: law, nuclear weapons, quotations, War

Here's the video description from the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy:

National Press Club 2/27/2017 Senator Chuck Schumer admits to journalist Sam Husseini that Israel has nuclear weapons. Under the Arms Export Control Act, the U.S. may not provide foreign aid to countries outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) absent waivers and sanctions.

Despite Israel's status outside the NPT congress passes multi-billion dollar aid packages every year, which the president signs into law.

Transcript follows: CH = Chuck Schumer, SH = Sam Husseini

Schumer is much less reticent to talk about Iran and nuclear weapons. In 2015, he called for "tougher and tougher sanctions" against Tehran and asserted: "A nuclear Iran is not only an existential threat to Israel, it is also a huge threat to the U.S. and the rest of the world.

Labels: Iran, Israel, Israel Lobby, nuclear weapons, politics, United States

Japan's Kyodo News is reporting that the Japanese government is casting doubt on U.S. claims that Iran was behind an attack last Thursday on the Kokuka Courageous, a Japanese-owned ship, near the Straits of Hormuz. I could not find the story on the Kyodo site but UPI and Japan Today are both running it.

UPI reports:

Japan is asking for more evidence from the United States Iran was responsible for attacks against two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman ...

The request for proof comes after U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Tehran is responsible for the attacks that forced the crew of the ships to be rescued and their cargoes unloaded.

The statements from Pompeo are "not convincing," a Japanese government source said Sunday, according to Kyodo News.

Japan Today reports:

A source close to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said, "These are not definite proof that it's Iran."

"Even if it's the United States that makes the assertion, we cannot simply say we believe it," he said.

If having expertise sophisticated enough to conduct the attack could be a reason to conclude that the attacker was Iran, "That would apply to the United States and Israel as well," said a source at the Foreign Ministry.

Curiously, UPI omitted the reference to the U.S. and Israel as having the capability to carry about the attack. Moreover, at this time it appears that UPI is the only American outlet to carry the story about high-level Japanese doubts.

Meanwhile, concerning the Norwegian-owned tanker Front Altair, Norway Today notes: "No country has supported the allegations of the Trump administration, except the British government." The U.S.-based News from Norway cites "a senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Foreign Affairs" writing: "[Kjetil] Selvik also points, however, to Iran's arch-enemy, Saudi Arabia, which is closedly [sic] allied with Trump."

I've seen the U.S. government's supposed video evidence of Iranian involvement in the attacks. It appears to be drone footage. To call it inconclusive would be an understatement.

Even a stopped clock is correct twice-a-day, it is said. IMO, Ben Garrison epitomizes this adage—he misses the mark more often than not but when you're right, you're right. And Garrison's cartoon below is pretty close to the mark. However, Garrison features an atomic symbol on a mullah's head dress and he writes: "They [Iran] continue to work on nuclear weapons. Forget about nuclear power—they have plenty of oil for their electricity."

Garrison apparently doesn't know, believe, or care that last week the IAEA issued ("derestricted") a report indicating that Iran was still in compliance with the flawed JCPOA—meaning it is not now (if, indeed, it ever was) developing nuclear weapons—even though the U.S. has walked away from the agreement. Meanwhile, Israel, which "is not a party to any of the major treaties governing WMD nonproliferation, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC)", has 80-90 undeclared nuclear warheads, according to the SIPRI Yearbook 2019.

Garrison also apparently doesn't understand that oil and gas are Iran's major export commodities, i.e. the key source of foreign revenues used to buy goods and services Iran does not produce domestically. It makes sense that Iran, like other oil export dependent countries, would a consider a nuclear powered electricity generating capacity if, on balance, it increased net export revenues.

The U.S. developed its nuclear power industry despite having an abundant supply of coal for electrical generation. Personally, I think nuclear fission is a Pandora's box that should never have been opened but I can understand the short-sighted appeal of nuclear power generation even if it has never lived up to its promise in terms of costs, non-proliferation, and safety.

Labels: Ben Garrison, Iran, Israel, Japan, Neoconservatives, Norway, nuclear weapons, United States, War

The Obama administration Justice Department has investigated three senior officials for mishandling classified information over the past two years but only one faces a felony conviction, possible jail time and a humiliation that will ruin his career: former Joint Chiefs of Staff vice chairman General James E. Cartwright. The FBI's handling of the case stands in stark contrast to its treatment of Hillary Clinton and retired General David Petraeus — and it reeks of political considerations.

Source:  Josh Rogin. "General Cartwright is paying the price for Hillary Clinton's sins." Washington Post. Oct. 18, 2016.

Elsewhere in the opinion piece quoted above, Rogin asserts: "Cartwright's greatest mistake was not talking to reporters or lying about it; he failed to play the Washington game skillfully enough to avoid becoming a scapegoat for a system in which senior officials skirt the rules and then fall back on their political power to save them." Perhaps, but it may also be the more compelling case that Cartwright was hammered because his "leak" about the source of Stuxnet virus was perceived as harmful to Israel. Rogin makes no mention of this.

It is also perhaps telling that Cartwright is out of step with the avaricious DC scumbags—I'd call them "hawks" but hawks are graceful creatures who kill only to stay alive—backing Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons expansion plans. Contra the Nobel Peace Prize laureate-in-chief, Cartwright has publicly called for major cuts in nuclear weapons and a path to their elimination.

Labels: Clintons, crime, Israel, military, nuclear weapons, Obama, politics, voting

... the agreement has a significant downside too, in that it reinforces American hegemony. It does so by the very fact that the U.S. government is regarded by the media and others as the legitimate prosecutor, judge, and probation officer of Iran's government. The U.S. government, of course, commands overwhelming military power, and in that respect alone it has the ability to impose demands on others. But that does not mean an American president has the moral authority to do so.

Source: "2 Reasons to Be Happy About the Iran Deal, and 1 Reason Not to Be" by Sheldon Richman on Reason.com, July 16, 2015.

From almost all points on the US political spectrum, the merits of the "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" turn on its impact and implications for Israel. If there ever could have been any doubt about that, there can be no more. Listen to any politician or look at any media coverage about the agreement. The issues are defined by Israeli interests. The "debate" is whether the deal is good or bad for Israel. For the "pro" deal faction, the agreement's removal of the "existential threat" to Israel is its marquee attraction. For the "anti" deal side, well, all we need to know is that the deal "will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven." The media attention, moreover, is dominated by the voices of Israelis and American Zionists and their apologists. Despite occasional lip service to "American interests," none of the participants in the "national discussion" explain how the agreement solves or does not solve specific US problems or implicates specific US interests. That's because it doesn't. That's because there aren't any! Indeed, the only specific "US interest" ever mentioned – repeatedly, by both sides of the argument – is protecting the Jewish state.

Source: "Where Did We the People Go?" by Peter Casey on Antiwar.com, July 31, 2015.



30 Aug 2015 Addendum: From a justice and peace perspective perhaps the best outcome of the September 17 a possible Congressional vote would be a veto-proof rejection of the Iran nuclear agreement, followed by a collapse of sanctions as European and other countries move to normalize economic relations with Iran in the face of extreme (as opposed normal, run-of-the mill) Zionist-driven American intransigence. I'm not saying this is the most likely outcome—though it is far from implausible—just, possibly, the most desirable. In this scenario, Iran would still be bound by the requirements of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Israel has never signed. They would also be bound by the reality that a nuclear weapons program—something Iranian authorities have repeatedly and credibly denied wanting—would be a strategic military liability for Iran.

05 Sep 2015 Addendum: Here's an interesting quote from Joseph Cirincione, Zionist tool and imperial nuclear policy expert: "The idea that the U.S. can impose sanctions on the rest of the world after we walk away from a deal that everyone else thinks solves the problem is the height of hubris. If the U.S. tried to sanction Chinese banks for trading with Iran, I think you would start to see a determined Chinese effort to move away from the dollar as central global currency. A view would take hold in the world that the U.S. could not be trusted anymore, and that you could not rely on the U.S. to provide stability and consistency in international relations." According to Cirincione, another selling point in favor of the US-Iran nuclear deal is: "At the end of that time, should Iran try to get a weapon, we will know with great precision where Iran’s critical nodes are located; we will have improved intelligence on their entire nuclear supply chain, and if we did have to go on a military strike, we'd be much more effective at conducting a strike after this deal than we are right now."

See also:

• "Iran has signed a historic nuclear deal – now it's Israel's turn" by Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif
• "Iran-US Interim Agreement: Historic Breakthrough or Historic Sellout?" by James Petras

Labels: government, Iran, Israel, Israel Lobby, nuclear weapons, politics, United States, War, Zionism

"... When mass murder's been answered with mass murder, rape with rape, hate with hate, there's no longer much meaning in asking whose ax is bloodier. Evil, on evil, piled on evil. Was there any justification in our 'police action' ...? Certainly there was no justification for what they did―or was there? We only know what that thing [a radio or television--VFPD] says, and that thing is a captive. The Asian radio has to say what will least displease it's government; ours has to say what will least displease our fine patriotic opinionated rabble, which is what, coincidentally, the government wants it to say anyhow, so where's the difference?"  (p. 281)

"You don't have a soul, Doctor. You are a soul. You have a body, temporarily." (p. 295)

"To minimize suffering and to maximize security were natural and proper ends of society and Caesar. But then they became the only ends, somehow, and the only basis of law—a perversion. Inevitably, then, in seeking only them, we found only their opposites: maximum suffering and minimum security." (p. 330)

Source: Character of Abbot Jethras Zerchi in A Canticle for Leibowitz (Bantam Books, 1959, 2007) by Walter M. Miller, Jr.

See also: "A Canticle for Leibowitz Is Divine, But It's the Opposite of Science Fiction" by Josh Wimmer on io9

Labels: art and literature, media, nuclear weapons, quotations, religion

Labels: art and literature, Carlos Latuff, Iran, Israel, nuclear weapons, Obama

It will not come as news to readers of this blog that the leaders of Israel and the mainstream American Jewish community have been pushing hard for an American attack on Iran for the last few years. Among other things, the bloody American quagmire in Iraq and the broad, if shallow, domestic opposition to the Bush administration's bellicose policies have, thus far, prevented such an attack. But there is reason to believe that as the clock runs out on Bush he may strike or if he does not Israel will. So, this post will be a kind of round up of recent news on the subject.

First, earlier this month Israel staged major war exercises that analysts are calling a dress rehearsal for an attack on Iran. Here are two excerpts from a report on Monday in the Middle East Times:

JERUSALEM -- The Israeli government has been forced to acknowledge a top-secret meeting held last Friday between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Aviam Sela, the chief architect of Israel's 1981 attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, after the media got wind of the details.

Unlike the recent ostentatious military exercise that the Israeli Air Force (IAF) carried out over eastern Greece - involving over 100 F15 and F16 fighter jets - which was meant to be picked up by Western intelligence agencies and thereby spread Israel's message to the Europeans, the Americans, and the Iranians in particular, that Israel meant business about halting Iran's nuclear program, Friday's tete-a-tete was not meant to hit the headlines.

The Mediterranean exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said.

Apart from sending Iran a very loud message, some experts say that another Israeli objective was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran's nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles. ...

Israel is of the firm belief that Iran is approximately two years away from developing the technology that would enable it to develop nuclear weapons.

This is contrary to last December's U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran which assessed that Iran had ceased is nuclear weapons program.

The Israelis were visibly dismayed by this assessment and Olmert followed up the NIE's report with a quick visit to Washington where he outlined Israel's concerns and attempted to override the view of America's intelligence agencies with the Jewish state's perspective. ...

Many analysts are now commenting that it is not a question of if, in regard to an Israeli offensive operation against Iran, but when.

On the NIE controversy, it is by no means clear to me that the Israelis are "of the firm belief that Iran is approximately two years away" from being ready to develop nuclear weapon. What is clear is that the nuclear-armed Israeli leadership is trying hard to sell that story and they are not the only ones. As WorldNetDaily reported last December, "Editorials in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Los Angeles Times also questioned the NIE report. The Los Angeles Times quoted an expert questioning whether the report sufficiently stressed Iran's enrichment activities."

Second, arch-Zionist and former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton is predicting an Israeli attack after the presidential election but before the inauguration. Here's an excerpt from yesterday's edition of the Telegraph of London:

Mr Bolton, an unflinching hawk who proposes military action to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons, bemoaned what he sees as a lack of will by the Bush administration to itself contemplate military strikes. ...

Israel, however, still had a determination to prevent a nuclear Iran, he argued. The "optimal window" for strikes would be between the November 4 election and the inauguration on January 20, 2009.

"The Israelis have one eye on the calendar because of the pace at which the Iranians are proceeding both to develop their nuclear weapons capability and to do things like increase their defences by buying new Russian anti-aircraft systems and further harden the nuclear installations .

"They're also obviously looking at the American election calendar. My judgement is they would not want to do anything before our election because there's no telling what impact it could have on the election."

But waiting for either Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, or his Republican opponent John McCain to be installed in the White House could preclude military action happening for the next four years or at least delay it.

My last item is a wild card bit--Bush has nominated a Jew to head the US Air Force. Here's part of how the Jerusalem Post reported the story earlier this month in "Jewish general named new USAF chief" (emphasis added):

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates launched the US Air Force in a new direction Monday by announcing an unusual choice as the service's next uniformed chief and by declaring an immediate halt to personnel reductions that he said had put the Air Force under too much wartime strain.

Before flying to Israel [sic!] to explain his moves to airmen and their commanders, Gates recommended that US President George W. Bush nominate Gen. Norton Schwartz, a Jewish 35-year veteran with a background in Air Force special operations, as the new Air Force chief of staff, replacing fired Gen. Michael Moseley. ...

"It's not a mainstream kind of thing" to choose an officer with Schwartz's extensive background in special operations, McPeak said. But Schwartz also has a variety of other experience, including holding senior positions on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "It's good to have that" broader perspective on the Air Force, said McPeak. ...

Schwartz had been thought to be in line for retirement, and his replacement as head of the US Transportation Command, Lt. Gen. William Fraser III, had been announced in April. ...

When the Jewish Community Centers Armed Forces and Veteran's Committee presented its Military Leadership Award to Schwartz in 2004, he said he was "Proud to be identified as Jewish as well as an American military leader."

Here's some of what the Jewish Daily Forward reported (emphasis added):

When he was a cadet at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, Colo., in the early 1970s, Norton Schwartz did not hide his religion under his blue-and-white uniform.

A member of the academy’s Jewish choir before graduating in 1973, according to one of his classmates, Schwartz has since risen up the ranks and on June 9 was appointed Air Force chief by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

If confirmed by the Senate, Schwartz will be expected to immediately deal with an armed service that has been badly embarrassed by the recent mishandling of nuclear material. But Schwartz, one of only a few Jews in the top ranks of the military, will also have to face off with the difficult questions of religion at his alma mater. During the past decade, the Air Force Academy has developed a reputation for being a hotbed of evangelical Christian proselytizing, drawing numerous constitutional complaints. Opponents of this trend see a ray of hope in Schwartz’s appointment.

“He has the capacity to bring change and change this general feeling that the Air Force Academy likes you more if you’re an evangelical Christian,” said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

With his appointment, Schwartz becomes the third Jew in the top ranks of the military, alongside Lieutenant General Steven Blum, who heads the National Guard, and General Robert Magnus, who is the assistant commandant of the Marines. ...

Two months ago, the Defense Department announced that Schwartz was to retire at the end of the year from his position as head of the Transportation Command, which manages global air, land and sea transportation for the Defense Department. But it was soon after this that the Secretary of Defense learned that the Air Force had sent four fusing devices for ballistic missile nuclear warheads to Taiwan instead of sending helicopter batteries. This followed an incident last summer in which a B-52 bomber mistakenly armed with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles flew to Louisiana from North Dakota. Gates ordered an internal probe, and on June 5 he ousted the top military and civilian officials at the helm of the Air Force. Four days later, he tapped Schwartz to be secretary of the Air Force.

Schwartz’s Jewish identity did not go unnoticed after his appointment, particularly given the current military tensions with Iran. Press TV, an Iranian English language media outlet, wrote an article last week, titled “U.S. Names Jewish as Air Force Chief.”

There have long been rumors that Schwartz’s predecessor, Michael Moseley, was opposed to a military attack on Iran. The appointment of Schwartz has prompted speculation in the Iranian press and on some blogs that the Bush administration is yet again seriously considering the military option to thwart Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

On the reference to "the recent mishandling of nuclear material" and how that may or may not be related to Schwartz's predecssor's removal and an attack on Iran see "B-52 Nukes Headed for Iran, Not For Decommissioning: Airforce Refused."

See also: Podhoretz Predicts US Attack on Iran

Labels: Carlos Latuff, Iran, Israel, Israel Lobby, Jews, John Bolton, nuclear weapons, War

Edward S. Herman is an outstanding critical thinker and political essayist. Below is an excerpt from a piece published last December entitled "Great and Little Satan Free to Aggress and Ethnically Cleanse-Their Targets Have No Right of Self Defense (or Any Other Right Questioned by the Satans)."

To see those Western allies greatly agitated over the possibility that Iran might have a nuclear program that at some future date would allow it to produce such weapons, while taking Israel's arsenal as a given not even worthy of mention, reflects a gross political double standard that is both racist and illustrative of that famous "clash of civilizations," with the clash coming from Western initiatives, actions and threats.

Gates and the Iranian Versus Israeli Threat

While this double standard is not even discussible in the Western mainstream it is considered a major issue and is debated in the Arab world. Thus, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates was confronted with the double standard at a conference in Bahrain organized by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, where Gates was urging the Arab states to press Iran to halt any nuclear activities. Gates was asked by Bahraini Minister of Labor Majeed al-Alawi whether Gates thought "the Zionist (Israeli) nuclear weapon is a threat to the region." Gates paused, and answered tersely: "No, I do not." A.P. reports that "Asked if U.S. acceptance of that was a double standard in light of Washington's pressure on Iran, Gates again said 'no,' and described the government in Jerusalem as more responsible than the one in Tehran. 'I think Israel is not training terrorists to subvert its neighbors. It has not shipped weapons into a place like Iraq to kill thousands of innocent civilians covertly,' said Gates. 'So I think that there are significant differences in terms of both the history and the behavior of the Iranian and Israeli governments.'" [1] This reportedly elicited a great deal of laughter among the Arab representatives present, but both the laughter and the issue at stake are outside the orbit of accepted thought in the West.

Labels: critical thinking, Iran, Israel, nuclear weapons, United States, War

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was in Washington last week. A focus of many of the news stories has been on the (in)sufficency of his country's apologies "for Japan's wartime exploitation of foreign women as military prostitutes." The US House of Representatives is working on a "resolution to demand another formal apology from Japan to the so-called comfort women."

The Chinese and Koreans have every right to pursue this matter but American politicians ought to shut their mouths until the US apologizes for using the nuclear weapons that killed 155,000 to 214,000 people, mostly Japanese civilians, in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As Admiral William D. Leahy said:

It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

And where is the US apology for the prostitution that is to this day endemic at many overseas US military bases, including Okinawa, Japan? To learn more about the impact of such prostitution in the Philippines, see "Campaign Against The Return Of Military Prostitution."

While we're on the subject of apologies, it turns out that the droughts that triggered, but did not cause, the famines in sub-Saharan with their millions of victims in the 1970s and 80s may have been caused by the pollution of industrialized nations, mostly in Europe and North America. According to the PBS documentary film, Dimming the Sun (watch trailer here), the pollution probably resulted in a cooling effect that caused the African monsoon rains to fail.

Labels: Africa, famine, Japan, nuclear weapons, prostitution, United States, violence

From "Israel tries to cut off Tehran from world markets" (1/26/07) by David Hearst in The Guardian (UK):

Israel is launching a campaign to isolate Iran economically and to soften up world opinion for the option of a military strike aimed at crippling or delaying Tehran's uranium enrichment programme.

Pressure will be applied to major US pension funds to stop investment in about 70 companies that trade directly with Iran, and to international banks that trade with its oil sector, cutting off the country's access to hard currency. The aim is to isolate Tehran from the world markets in a campaign similar to that against South Africa at the height of apartheid.

Meanwhile, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is to be pursued in international courts for calling the Holocaust a myth, and saying Israel should be wiped off the map. The case will be launched under the 1948 UN convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, which outlaws "direct and public incitement to genocide".

Before flying to London to spearhead the mission to sell the sanctions, the Likud party leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, said: "A campaign to divest commercial investment from Iran, beginning with the large pension funds in the west ... either stops Iran's nuclear programme or it will pave the way for tougher actions. So it's no-lose for us." ...

A senior official said: "They currently have problems but if the programme is allowed to continue without interruptions we estimate they will have mastered the technology this year. We expect a declaration from them in the next month, possibly on February 21, the day of the Islamic Revolution, that they have reached significant achievements.

"It will be a bluff, but it will have the potential of marketing Iran as a regional superpower. If they do it, a nuclear Iran will cast a long shadow over the whole of the Middle East; we will have Hizbullastan in Lebanon, Hamastan here, and Shiastan in Iraq."

Military analysts speaking at an annual conference in Herzliya, near Tel Aviv, claimed that Israel was facing an "existential threat" from the Iranian uranium enrichment programme, which Tehran has consistently claimed was for a civilian nuclear fuel cycle. The only division of opinion was over the imminence of this threat.

Not that Israeli claims about an Iranian nuclear weapons program should be believed--they should not--but notice that the "existential threat" here is not that any rational person thinks Iran actually will use nuclear weapons against Israel--that would be suicidal as Israel alone has 200-300 nuclear weapons and modern German submarines to launch them from, then there's the massive American arsenal. Furthermore, an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would undoubtedly kill a vast number of non-Israelis instantly and via fallout. No, the threat is that Israel and the US will no longer enjoy the same relative impunity to threaten or carry out attacks on a nuclear-armed Iran.

Labels: hasbara, Iran, Israel, nuclear weapons

Many readers of this blog will know about the Israeli connection to the US war in Iraq and Zionist agitation for a US attack on Iran. Early this morning, I heard a BBC interview with Seymour Hersh answering criticism of his recent article in the New Yorker. In the interview, Hersh stated that the CIA had found no "conclusive evidence" of a clandestine Iranian nuclear weapons program but that the Bush administration is relying upon Israeli 'intelligence' that there is such a program. However, the White House refuses to make the Israeli 'intelligence' available to the CIA. This smacks of the buildup to the Iraq war where the White House created special units--with strong Israeli connections--to cook up 'intelligence' to support the adminstration's determination to go to war.

In the New Yorker article Hersh writes that post-election (emphasis in bold added):

The White House's concern was not that the Democrats would cut off funds for the war in Iraq but that future legislation would prohibit it from financing operations targeted at overthrowing or destabilizing the Iranian government, to keep it from getting the bomb. "They're afraid that Congress is going to vote a binding resolution to stop a hit on Iran, à la Nicaragua in the Contra war," a former senior intelligence official told me.

Concerning the Vice President, Hersh writes:

Cheney is emphatic about Iraq. In late October, he told Time, "I know what the President thinks," about Iraq. "I know what I think. And we’re not looking for an exit strategy. We're looking for victory." He is equally clear that the Administration would, if necessary, use force against Iran. "The United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime," he told an Israeli lobbying group early this year. "And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: we will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

Hersh also writes:

In the past six months, Israel and the United States have also been working together in support of a Kurdish resistance group known as the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan. The group has been conducting clandestine cross-border forays into Iran, I was told by a government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon civilian leadership, as "part of an effort to explore alternative means of applying pressure on Iran." (The Pentagon has established covert relationships with Kurdish, Azeri, and Baluchi tribesmen, and has encouraged their efforts to undermine the regime's authority in northern and southeastern Iran.) The government consultant said that Israel is giving the Kurdish group "equipment and training." The group has also been given "a list of targets inside Iran of interest to the U.S." (An Israeli government spokesman denied that Israel was involved.)

Hersh also reveals how Zionist fifth columnists in the US are stoking the fires for war against Iran:

In the current issue of Foreign Policy, Joshua Muravchik, a prominent neoconservative, argued that the Administration had little choice. "Make no mistake: President Bush will need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office," he wrote. The President would be bitterly criticized for a preëmptive attack on Iran, Muravchik said, and so neoconservatives "need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes."

The main Middle East expert on the Vice-President's staff is David Wurmser, a neoconservative who was a strident advocate for the invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Like many in Washington, Wurmser "believes that, so far, there’s been no price tag on Iran for its nuclear efforts and for its continuing agitation and intervention inside Iraq," the consultant said. But, unlike those in the Administration who are calling for limited strikes, Wurmser and others in Cheney's office "want to end the regime," the consultant said. "They argue that there can be no settlement of the Iraq war without regime change in Iran."

In closing, here are a couple of more revealing excerpts from the Hersh article that shed light on the Zionist motives behind moves against Iran (emphasis in bold added):

Earlier this year, the government of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert created a task force to coördinate all the available intelligence on Iran. The task force, which is led by Major General Eliezer Shkedi, the head of the Israeli Air Force, reports directly to the Prime Minister. In late October, Olmert appointed Ephraim Sneh, a Labor Party member of the Knesset, to serve as Deputy Defense Minister. Sneh, who served previously in that position under Ehud Barak, has for years insisted that action be taken to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. In an interview this month with the Jerusalem Post, Sneh expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of diplomacy or international sanctions in curbing Iran:

The danger isn't as much Ahmadinejad's deciding to launch an attack but Israel's living under a dark cloud of fear from a leader committed to its destruction. . . . Most Israelis would prefer not to live here; most Jews would prefer not to come here with families, and Israelis who can live abroad will . . . I am afraid Ahmadinejad will be able to kill the Zionist dream without pushing a button. That's why we must prevent this regime from obtaining nuclear capability at all costs.

... A senior European diplomat agreed: "For Israel, it is a question of life or death. The United States does not want to go into Iran, but, if Israel feels more and more cornered, there may be no other choice."

See also:

• Olmert's drums of war in Ha'aretz (11/19/2006)
• 9/11 Commission Chairmen Admit Whitewashing the Cause of the Attacks
• The "JINSA Crowd" and the Iraq War
• Israel pushes U.S. on Iran nuke solution

Labels: Iran, Iraq, Israel, Israel Lobby, Neoconservatives, nuclear weapons

While doing some research for another post I ran across a February 21, 2005, article in the Washington Times that illustrated a point in my earlier Israeli Psyops Against EU and US post. In the lead paragraph of "Israel pushes U.S. on Iran nuke solution," Rowan Scarborough writes:

Israel has been privately pressing Washington to solve the Iran nuclear problem in a hint that Tel Aviv may be left with no choice but to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities, defense officials say.

Labels: Iran, Israel, nuclear weapons