Israel attack on Iran 'unavoidable'-Olmert deputy

Source: Reuters

JERUSALEM, June 6 (Reuters) - An Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites looks "unavoidable" given the apparent failure of sanctions to deny Tehran technology with bomb-making potential, one of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's deputies said on Friday.

"If Iran continues with its programme for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective," Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz told the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper.

"Attacking Iran, in order to stop its nuclear plans, will be unavoidable," said the former army chief who has also been defence minister.

It was the most explicit threat yet against Iran from a member of Olmert's government, which, like the Bush administration, has preferred to hint at force as a last resort should U.N. Security Council sanctions be deemed a dead end.


Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL06251958

With the tacit permission from the occupying power in Iraq of course.

civilians courtesy of the US government.

...they're becoming an endangered species in some parts of the world:

(1/5) http://youtube.com/watch?v=0tAe3cbrT-w

(2/5) http://youtube.com/watch?v=Iku88saobmQ&feature=related

(3/5) http://youtube.com/watch?v=esc6199w6iw

(4/5) http://youtube.com/watch?v=t38NTvl2Gnw

(5/5) http://youtube.com/watch?v=7BGUv4KNbAs

Israel doesn't have the ability to mount sustained attackes on Iran. So a better strategy for Iran is to absorb the Israeli attack, and then proceed to reconstruct its program. The attack will have proved to all the world that Israel is the agressor, and it will win Iran wide sympathy and support. Israel, on the other hand, will become a Pariah State, sort of like apartheid South Africa. Only the US will continue to support Israel -- Europe, China, Japan, and essentially all the rest of the world will support Iran. The Sunni Arab states will be reluctant to support Iran, but the "arab street" will demand that they do so.

has handled things so far. I'm thinking particularly of the British sailor crisis (Dec 07--probable "Gulf of Tonkin" moment--deliberate provocation of Iran). What does Iran do? Gleefully, joyfully, with all good will, HANDS THE SAILORS RIGHT BACK TO ENGLAND! Smart Iranians. They don't want a war. They never have. They have invaded no one, bombed no one, and have shown no territorial ambitions. They are well-armed and well-able to defend themselves--huge, young, well-motivated army--very unlike the pushover Iraq had become, prior to the U.S. invasion--something I'm sure that U.S. military strategists are thinking of: what does the U.S. do after it bombs Iran? It would need TWO U.S. militaries to occupy that country, and even then insurgent Iranians would give them endless grief, and would win, in the end--and the U.S. doesn't even have ONE military to commit to it. Our military is fully committed--and is, in many respects, "broken."

So, I think you're right. They would ride out an Israeli attack, giving the U.S. no excuse to enter the fray. Because neither the U.S., nor Israel, has the ability to occupy them.

There is one horrifying scenario that could break Iran--and that is, a full scale nuclear attack. How could that come about? If I'm right about what Rumsfeld was up to, in Iraq--that is, PLANTING nukes in Iraq, after the invasion, to be "found" by the U.S. soldiers who were "hunting" for them (this was to be their triumphant justification for the war)--a foiled scheme that may be connected to the Plame/Brewster-Jennings outings, and the murder of David Kelly in England--then--given the scumbag arms dealers they were working with, and the black ops capabilities they were developing--what they may have in the works for Iran, is use of a nuclear weapon by us as if it were the Iranians doing it. Say they take out a piece of Israel, or Turkey, or Iraq, or a U.S. ship, with a nuke. It wouldn't be difficult to push the "Big Lie" that U.S. decimation of Iran was justified. In any case, it would be done before anyone could object, or stop it. No matter that it is MADNESS. It could destroy the entire planet (if Carl Sagan was right about the impact to earth's atmosphere of even a limited nuclear exchange--death of the planet, within months)--and would certainly hugely impact the Middle East, immediately (multi-millions of refugees with radiation sickness! --that alone would be horrifying), and long term, rendering large areas unlivable.

This was Nixon's dilemma in Vietnam (whether to nuke it into submission). In fact, the issue goes all the way back to the LBJ-Goldwater election in 1964. (LBJ was able to paint Goldwater as a madman nuker of Vietnam--and won the election on that issue--I remember, cuz it was my first vote for president, and I voted for the PEACEMAKER, LBJ!). The U.S. anti-war movement stayed Nixon's hands (according to later reports). What will stay Bush/Cheney's hand? Can they be stopped, in that circumstance--a dirty trick black op, using a nuke, and their finger pointed at Iran?

What would they gain if they did it? Probably that's the only thing that can stop them. Common sense. Do they have any? Or the common sense of others (the U.S. military?) who are restraining (or could restrain) them--if they are just plain loony (a la Dr. Strangelove). WW I is instructive--as to just plain lunatic violence, escalating out of control. If they'd had nukes, in that war, we wouldn't be here. Common sense utterly failed.

But I tend to think that Bush/Cheney and cabal are too greedy to nuke Iran. They may well be mad, but it's a madness of greed. You can't run an oil industry if everybody has to wear radiation suits, and all your sucker consumers, all over the planet, are dying of starvation, with the death of all plant life. Can you?

Personally, I think they are barred from Iran's oilfields--by these various constraints and contingencies--and will strike in South America, before they leave office. They've got a number of things set up. The main targets are Venezuela and Ecuador (biggest oil reserves in the western hemisphere; members of OPEC; democratic, leftist governments into social justice and regional autonomy), and one of their strongest allies, Bolivia (gas and oil reserves). And the tactic will probably be secessionist movements and civil war (to establish fascist mini-states, where the resources are, split off from their national governments). These plots are well under way. They have furthermore reconstituted the 4th Fleet (nuclear), which will be stationed off the coast of Venezuela (the area where the oil is) by mid-summer.

I think that is the most feasible quagmire they can hand to Obama. It will destroy U.S./South American relations, and bring the oil war home to this hemisphere. And it's conceivable that they think they can defeat Obama with it. This may be why the Mark Penn-run Clinton campaign was so adamant that only Clinton could win the GE. She was on board for the oil war in South America, and Obama not so much. And the Corporate Rulers--who now control the voting machines with their "trade secret" programming code--desperately, avariciously, adamantly, violently want that oil!

Is that the price of a barrel of oil quickly skyrocketed up by over US$10.00/day in immediate response to this otherwise senseless, but criminal, posturing, to a new all-time high, above US$138/barrel!

This precipitous rise broke the previous one day record rise, set a few days ago, of US$5+/barrel. About doubled the amount of the previous, albeit fleeting, record.

Unprecedented volatility in this crucial commodity recently. Personal reduction/conservation of gasoline, and energy in general, is about all each of us can do to influence and mitigate the cost of petroleum.

It would interesting to know if this was a set-up, if any "bets" were laid before the incendiary statement.

This is expected to lead to another round of increases in the price of gasoline and everything else related to these escalations.

Israelis must be insane to allow this sort of stupidity, as insane as us!

There are two major terrorist states in the world.

Iran isn't one of them.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:(

If the USA and Israel keep it up, we may well see WWIII, if all the other nations of the world opposing us.

one thing doesn't Israel have nukes and Iran doesn't.

Could someone explain again why they keep getting weapons?

Hint: If you use the word "defense", you fail.

(But not as much as Tehran)

From the story:

<snip>

"Independent analysts have questioned, however, whether Israel's armed forces can take on Iran alone, as its nuclear sites are numerous, distant and well-fortified."

<more>

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080606/wl_nm/israel_iran_mofaz_dc_3

*

Who will step up to get this Apocalypse started?

if not they stopped themselves. Be realistic. This is all posture, but they have the ability to cripple iran.

Israel did not achieve its political objectives, so they were stopped.

You may be right, but actually I think the U.S. had a part in restraining Israel's Military. By the way this was'nt an anticipated event. If another event took place during conflict with Iran I think Israel would unleash on Hezbola. This is just an opinion.

SL

And the plan to invade Lebanon again had been prepared months before the July war.

Given the bat-shit neighbors in the region. who for some reason or another, have a propensity to ignore international treaties, grab land and water beyond stated accords, has BIG friend that invaded my neighbor, and jointly pounds the drums of war.


edit to add:

And kan haz nookes.

#1 Airspace

#2 If an Iran ally attacks them we have to respond under treaty.

#3 Missiles fly all over the place.

#4 Because of the current election cycle things are up in the air as far as alliances.

Attacking Iran is unavoidable???..only if you are crazy and enabled by the United States under George Bush I guess.

This guy seems to give a dozen speeches a week all over the world, and every one of them has the major theme "bomb Iran".

against Olmert:

Citing sources close to Netanyahu, Israel's Channel 10 reported Thursday that Rove's name has come up on a roster of strategic consultants that the Israeli opposition leader is thinking of hiring as he prepares for a possible leadership challenge against the embattled Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/108952.html

Really, really, really, really, really, really sickening eh?

Who in their right mind would hire Rove?

Hillary and Obama in many ways seem to give the green light to Israel to do this very thing. Sad.

wouldn't Iran now be justified in striking Israel?

Jay

The point is that preemption is shite.

Jay

Iran in surrounded by us. If they attack they would start something they can not sustain.

No wonder they want nukes.

NT!

I just threw up in my mouth. I'm sick.

Israel HAS nukes, has had nukes as provided by......USofA.

Israel is just as big of a threat to the region as Israel perceives Iran to be to them.

I've read that France had a role and perhaps Britain, but the US?

What is your source for that information?

Then those 3 worked in unison to get Israel their nukes.

Bombing Iran :nuke::smoke:

All I see is them painting themselves AND us into a smaller & smaller corner. Grrrr

and thinks this will make him look tough.

Actually it just makes him look even more stupid than Olmert.

If the Israelis have some sense, with the limited choices they've got, they will replace Olmert with either Barak or Livni. If they don't, they will choose Netanyahu (argh!) Either way, it won't be Mofaz.

An analysis that makes a lot of sense, from Dave Lindorff at
Counterpunch:

"Most analysts say an actual attack on Iran would send oil almost immediately to past $300 per barrel—a level that would strangle economies worldwide and send the world into an economic collapse not since the Smoot-Hawley Tariffs kicked off the Great Depression. The repercussions of that would be staggering."

http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff06072008.html

It sounds like a viable scenario to anyone with a functioning brain, but
does that inlclude the deadly duo of Bush/Cheney?

Leaving them ripe pickings for their neighbors.

They will never do this.

Not having guilt is not a strength.... it's a weakness, even a disability. Neo-cons who live in an Orwellian-upside-down-existence, are too mentally handicapped to see it.