Channel 2 in Israel, sourcing a “senior American official”, says that the decision has already been made by the Israeli government to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.
“All U.S. intelligence officials are confident the Israeli leadership has already decided to attack Iran, unless a significant change happens in the coming weeks or months with the Iranian nuclear program,” Channel 2 reports.
The report comes just hours ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to AIPAC in Washington.
AIPAC is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and is widely considered the most powerful pro-Israel lobby group in the United States.
“A senior official stressed in a conversation with News 2 there is a dispute between Israel and the United States on the question of ‘day after’, which means the price of attacking Iranian nuclear facilities,” Channel 2′s report says.
American officials have warned their Israeli counterparts about a regional war in the region following an attack on Iran, along with the collapse of Israel’s stock market and an arms race in the Middle East, according to the report.
In response to the American official’s statement to Channel 2, “sources close to Netanyahu” said the U.S. is doing what it can to “handcuff” the Israelis and to “frighten the Israeli public”.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
AIPAC Works for the 1 Percent
We are, and have long been, the primary engine for radicalism in the Middle East. The greatest favor we can do for democracy activists in Iran, as well as in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf and the states that dot North Africa, is to withdraw our troops from the region and begin to speak to Iranians and the rest of the Muslim world in the civilized language of diplomacy, respect and mutual interests. The longer we cling to the doomed doctrine of permanent war the more we give credibility to the extremists who need, indeed yearn for, an enemy that speaks in the same crude slogans of nationalist cant and violence that they do. The louder the Israelis and their idiot allies in Washington call for the bombing of Iran to thwart its nuclear ambitions, the happier are the morally bankrupt clerics who are ordering the beating and murder of demonstrators. We may laugh when crowds supporting [President] Ahmadinejad call us “the Great Satan,” but there is a very palpable reality that informs the terrible algebra of their hatred. And since even the most optimistic scenarios say that any strike on Iranian nuclear installations will at best set back Iran’s alleged weapons program by [only] three or four years, we can be sure that violence will beget violence, just as fanaticism begets fanaticism.
AIPAC does not drive Middle Eastern policy in the United States. I am afraid it is worse than that. AIPAC is one of an array of powerful and well-funded neoconservative institutions that worship force and drive our relations with the rest of the world. These neoconservatives choose an enemy and then our compliant class of journalists, specialists, military analysts, columnists and television commentators line up to serve as giddy cheerleaders for war. Moments like these always make me embarrassed to be a reporter. Our political elite, Republican and Democrat, finds in this ideology a simple, childish allure. This ideology does not require cultural, historical or linguistic literacy. It reduces the world to black and white, good and evil. The drumbeat for war with Iran sounded by AIPAC is part of this broad, sick, binary vision of a world that can be subjugated by force, a world where all will be made to kneel before these corporate and neoconservative elites, where none, including finally us, will be permitted to whisper dissent.
Pre-emptive war, under post-Nuremberg law, is defined as a criminal act of aggression. George W. Bush, whose disregard for the rule of law was legend, went to the U.N. for a resolution to attack Iraq, although his interpretation of the U.N. resolution as justifying the invasion of Iraq had dubious legal merit. But in this current debate over war with Iran, that pretense of legality is ignored. Where is Israel’s U.N. resolution authorizing it to strike Iran? Why isn’t anyone demanding that Israel seek one? Why does the only discussion in the media and among political elites center around the questions of “Will Israel attack Iran?” “Can it successfully carry out an attack?” “What will happen if there is an attack?” The essential question is left unasked. Does Israel have the right to attack Iran? And here the answer is very, very clear. It does not.
These neoconservatives were too blind and too enamored of their own power to see what invading Afghanistan and Iraq would trigger; so too are they unable to comprehend the regional conflagration that would be unleashed by attacking Iran, what it would mean for us, for Israel, for our allies and for tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of innocents.
AIPAC does not drive Middle Eastern policy in the United States. I am afraid it is worse than that. AIPAC is one of an array of powerful and well-funded neoconservative institutions that worship force and drive our relations with the rest of the world. These neoconservatives choose an enemy and then our compliant class of journalists, specialists, military analysts, columnists and television commentators line up to serve as giddy cheerleaders for war. Moments like these always make me embarrassed to be a reporter. Our political elite, Republican and Democrat, finds in this ideology a simple, childish allure. This ideology does not require cultural, historical or linguistic literacy. It reduces the world to black and white, good and evil. The drumbeat for war with Iran sounded by AIPAC is part of this broad, sick, binary vision of a world that can be subjugated by force, a world where all will be made to kneel before these corporate and neoconservative elites, where none, including finally us, will be permitted to whisper dissent.
Pre-emptive war, under post-Nuremberg law, is defined as a criminal act of aggression. George W. Bush, whose disregard for the rule of law was legend, went to the U.N. for a resolution to attack Iraq, although his interpretation of the U.N. resolution as justifying the invasion of Iraq had dubious legal merit. But in this current debate over war with Iran, that pretense of legality is ignored. Where is Israel’s U.N. resolution authorizing it to strike Iran? Why isn’t anyone demanding that Israel seek one? Why does the only discussion in the media and among political elites center around the questions of “Will Israel attack Iran?” “Can it successfully carry out an attack?” “What will happen if there is an attack?” The essential question is left unasked. Does Israel have the right to attack Iran? And here the answer is very, very clear. It does not.
These neoconservatives were too blind and too enamored of their own power to see what invading Afghanistan and Iraq would trigger; so too are they unable to comprehend the regional conflagration that would be unleashed by attacking Iran, what it would mean for us, for Israel, for our allies and for tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of innocents.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Obama gets Iran right, finally
The results of Friday's election for Iran's parliament, the Majlis, generate a political climate in Tehran that augurs well for the commencement of talks over the nuclear issue. The US administration senses this. The big issue is whether President Barack Obama can carry the United States' two key allies - Saudi Arabia and Israel - in the quest of finding a "permanent" solution to the US-Iran standoff.
Yet this has been a season of fables. Iranian politics arouses great curiosity, and election time becomes a carnival of fables. Four years ago Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was usurping political power and the country was becoming a military dictatorship. This year's hot pick (so far) is that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is dispatching President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to political exile and the Majlis is their arena of contestation. It's all forgotten how Khamenei fought off single-handedly the reformists' challenge in 2009 and preserved Ahmedinejad's presidency.
True, Iran's politics, like politics anywhere, is complex. The Shi'ite religious establishment is known in history as fractious. Party politics as is known in Western liberal democracies does not exist in Iran. But factions and cliques and interest groups realign incessantly, and that gives much verve to Iranian politics.
Friday's election has been no exception. An added factor is how the newly elected Majlis will affect the country's power structure - and what impact that will have on policies - at a juncture when Iran is at crossroads against the backdrop of the epochal upheaval in the region.
From the results, the composition of the Majlis may shift in a direction that can have positive fallout for regional security. The factions and cliques that can be called "conservative" - in the Iranian context - bonded together as "Principalists" and fought the election as an identifiable grouping, and they have done exceedingly well.
Yet this has been a season of fables. Iranian politics arouses great curiosity, and election time becomes a carnival of fables. Four years ago Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was usurping political power and the country was becoming a military dictatorship. This year's hot pick (so far) is that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is dispatching President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to political exile and the Majlis is their arena of contestation. It's all forgotten how Khamenei fought off single-handedly the reformists' challenge in 2009 and preserved Ahmedinejad's presidency.
True, Iran's politics, like politics anywhere, is complex. The Shi'ite religious establishment is known in history as fractious. Party politics as is known in Western liberal democracies does not exist in Iran. But factions and cliques and interest groups realign incessantly, and that gives much verve to Iranian politics.
Friday's election has been no exception. An added factor is how the newly elected Majlis will affect the country's power structure - and what impact that will have on policies - at a juncture when Iran is at crossroads against the backdrop of the epochal upheaval in the region.
From the results, the composition of the Majlis may shift in a direction that can have positive fallout for regional security. The factions and cliques that can be called "conservative" - in the Iranian context - bonded together as "Principalists" and fought the election as an identifiable grouping, and they have done exceedingly well.
US to Attempt Overthrow of Putin Government
As predicted - the Western media and US State Department-funded "opposition" inside Russia have called Vladimir Putin's landslide victory a "fraud." It was stated on Thursday March 1, that the Western media had "already determined how Russia's elections will unfold, creating the pretext in the minds of impressionable viewers to justify the unrest the US is undoubtedly planning."
This is similar to what took place during the 2009 Iranian elections where US State Department-funded opposition groups also claimed the elections were "illegitimate" and took to the streets in an attempt to reverse the democratic process through ochlocratic means. In Egypt, directly before the US-engineered Arab Spring, elections that predictably overlooked the suspicious Mohamed ElBaradei were likewise called "fraudulent" and used as the rhetorical justification to execute destabilization long-planned by the US State Department since 2008.
Proceeding Thailand's July, 2011 elections, as explained in ""Stolen Elections" Battle Cry of the Color Revolution," Wall Street and London's operatives laid the groundwork to likewise call any result aside from their proxies' full installation to power "fraud," to then be used as impetus to justify street mobs, destabilization, and violence.
And already, before Sunday's elections, US State Department-funded Freedom House, through an article written by its "president" David Kramer, stated in Foreign Policy magazine:
"Even if the system delivers the required results, clear evidence of rigging may lead voters to reject the election as unfair and illegitimate. Moreover, the authorities' stifling of the Russian public's voice runs the risk of creating an even more combustible environment in the period after March 4. The balloting, whatever its outcome, is therefore unlikely to extinguish the rising desire for real change. Unless and until that change is permitted, Putin's continued pursuit of simulated democracy will fail to achieve even a simulation of stability."
This is similar to what took place during the 2009 Iranian elections where US State Department-funded opposition groups also claimed the elections were "illegitimate" and took to the streets in an attempt to reverse the democratic process through ochlocratic means. In Egypt, directly before the US-engineered Arab Spring, elections that predictably overlooked the suspicious Mohamed ElBaradei were likewise called "fraudulent" and used as the rhetorical justification to execute destabilization long-planned by the US State Department since 2008.
Proceeding Thailand's July, 2011 elections, as explained in ""Stolen Elections" Battle Cry of the Color Revolution," Wall Street and London's operatives laid the groundwork to likewise call any result aside from their proxies' full installation to power "fraud," to then be used as impetus to justify street mobs, destabilization, and violence.
And already, before Sunday's elections, US State Department-funded Freedom House, through an article written by its "president" David Kramer, stated in Foreign Policy magazine:
"Even if the system delivers the required results, clear evidence of rigging may lead voters to reject the election as unfair and illegitimate. Moreover, the authorities' stifling of the Russian public's voice runs the risk of creating an even more combustible environment in the period after March 4. The balloting, whatever its outcome, is therefore unlikely to extinguish the rising desire for real change. Unless and until that change is permitted, Putin's continued pursuit of simulated democracy will fail to achieve even a simulation of stability."
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Gulf Arabs offered bribe to Russia for yes vote on Syria
Informed diplomatic sources have reported to WMR that Bahrain, representing the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), offered Russia a bribe of $5 billion if it did not use its veto in the Security Council to defeat an Arab League-sponsored resolution calling for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down.
In the February 4 vote on the resolution, Russia, along with China, used their vetoes to shoot down the resolution. U.S. ambassador to the UN Susan Rice called the vetoes “disgusting” and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to the Russian and Chinese action as “despicable,” with Germany’s UN ambassador Peter Wittig calling the vetoes a “disgrace.”
But in what could be termed disgusting, despicable, and disgraceful was the reported offering of a $5 billion bribe for Russia’s yes vote by Bahrain’s foreign minister, Shaikh Khalid bin Ahmed bin Mohammed Al Khalifa, during a trip to Moscow prior to the UN Security Council vote. Our sources report that the Russian government flatly turned down the offer of the money, which was bundled by Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman.
WMR has also learned that a similar bribe by the GCC was offered to China in return for its yes vote on the Syria resolution. The offer, which was scoffed at by the Chinese government, was reportedly made during a visit by Chinese Prime Minister Wei Jiabao to Doha, the Qatari capital, on January 18.
Under U.S. law, specifically, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the involvement of any GCC financial institutions in arranging for bribe offers to Russia or China could be construed as a violation of the law. If Rice or other U.S. officials were involved with the GCC in making such offers, they could also be found in violation of federal law.
In the February 4 vote on the resolution, Russia, along with China, used their vetoes to shoot down the resolution. U.S. ambassador to the UN Susan Rice called the vetoes “disgusting” and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to the Russian and Chinese action as “despicable,” with Germany’s UN ambassador Peter Wittig calling the vetoes a “disgrace.”
But in what could be termed disgusting, despicable, and disgraceful was the reported offering of a $5 billion bribe for Russia’s yes vote by Bahrain’s foreign minister, Shaikh Khalid bin Ahmed bin Mohammed Al Khalifa, during a trip to Moscow prior to the UN Security Council vote. Our sources report that the Russian government flatly turned down the offer of the money, which was bundled by Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman.
WMR has also learned that a similar bribe by the GCC was offered to China in return for its yes vote on the Syria resolution. The offer, which was scoffed at by the Chinese government, was reportedly made during a visit by Chinese Prime Minister Wei Jiabao to Doha, the Qatari capital, on January 18.
Under U.S. law, specifically, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the involvement of any GCC financial institutions in arranging for bribe offers to Russia or China could be construed as a violation of the law. If Rice or other U.S. officials were involved with the GCC in making such offers, they could also be found in violation of federal law.
The End in Afghanistan?
Is it all over but the (anti-American) shouting — and the killing? Are the exits finally coming into view?
Sometimes, in a moment, the fog lifts, the clouds shift, and you can finally see the landscape ahead with startling clarity. In Afghanistan, Washington may be reaching that moment in a state of panic, horror, and confusion. Even as an anxious U.S. commander withdrew American and NATO advisors from Afghan ministries around Kabul last weekend — approximately 300, military spokesman James Williams tells TomDispatch — the ability of American soldiers to remain on giant fortified bases eating pizza and fried chicken into the distant future is not in doubt.
No set of Taliban guerrillas, suicide bombers, or armed Afghan “allies” turning their guns on their American “brothers” can alter that — not as long as Washington is ready to bring the necessary supplies into semi-blockaded Afghanistan at staggering cost. But sometimes that’s the least of the matter, not the essence of it. So if you’re in a mood to mark your calendars, late February 2012 may be the moment when the end game for America’s second Afghan War, launched in October 2001, was initially glimpsed.
Amid the reportage about the recent explosion of Afghan anger over the torching of Korans in a burn pit at Bagram Air Base, there was a tiny news item that caught the spirit of the moment. As anti-American protests (and the deaths of protestors) mounted across Afghanistan, the German military made a sudden decision to immediately abandon a 50-man outpost in the north of the country.
True, they had planned to leave it a few weeks later, but consider the move a tiny sign of the increasing itchiness of Washington’s NATO allies. The French have shown a similar inclination to leave town since, earlier this year, four of their troops were blown away (and 16 wounded) by an Afghan army soldier, as three others had been shot down several weeks before by another Afghan in uniform. Both the French and the Germans have also withdrawn their civilian advisors from Afghan government institutions in the wake of the latest unrest.
Sometimes, in a moment, the fog lifts, the clouds shift, and you can finally see the landscape ahead with startling clarity. In Afghanistan, Washington may be reaching that moment in a state of panic, horror, and confusion. Even as an anxious U.S. commander withdrew American and NATO advisors from Afghan ministries around Kabul last weekend — approximately 300, military spokesman James Williams tells TomDispatch — the ability of American soldiers to remain on giant fortified bases eating pizza and fried chicken into the distant future is not in doubt.
No set of Taliban guerrillas, suicide bombers, or armed Afghan “allies” turning their guns on their American “brothers” can alter that — not as long as Washington is ready to bring the necessary supplies into semi-blockaded Afghanistan at staggering cost. But sometimes that’s the least of the matter, not the essence of it. So if you’re in a mood to mark your calendars, late February 2012 may be the moment when the end game for America’s second Afghan War, launched in October 2001, was initially glimpsed.
Amid the reportage about the recent explosion of Afghan anger over the torching of Korans in a burn pit at Bagram Air Base, there was a tiny news item that caught the spirit of the moment. As anti-American protests (and the deaths of protestors) mounted across Afghanistan, the German military made a sudden decision to immediately abandon a 50-man outpost in the north of the country.
True, they had planned to leave it a few weeks later, but consider the move a tiny sign of the increasing itchiness of Washington’s NATO allies. The French have shown a similar inclination to leave town since, earlier this year, four of their troops were blown away (and 16 wounded) by an Afghan army soldier, as three others had been shot down several weeks before by another Afghan in uniform. Both the French and the Germans have also withdrawn their civilian advisors from Afghan government institutions in the wake of the latest unrest.
Why Can’t Americans Have Democracy?
For Washington “democracy” is a weapon of mass destruction. When Washington brings “democracy” to a country, it means the country’s destruction, as in Libya and Iraq. It doesn’t mean democracy. Libya is in chaos, a human rights nightmare without an effective government.
Washington installed Nouri al-Maliki as president of Iraq. He lost an election, but remained in power. He has declared his vice president to be a terrorist and ordered his arrest and is using the state police to arrest Sunni politicians. Syria’s Assad is more democratic than Iraq’s Maliki.
For a decade Washington has misrepresented its wars of naked aggression as “bringing democracy and human rights to the Middle East.” While Washington was bringing democracy to the Middle East, Washington was destroying democracy in the US. Washington has resurrected medieval torture dungeons and self-incrimination. Washington has destroyed due process and habeas corpus. At Obama’s request, Congress passed overwhelmingly a law that permits american subjects to be imprisoned indefinitely without a trial or presentation of evidence. Warrantless searches and spying, illegal and unconstitutional at the turn of the 21st century, are now routine.
Obama has even asserted the right, for which there is no law on the books, to murder any american anywhere if the executive branch decides, without presenting any evidence, that the person is a threat to the US government. Any american anywhere can be murdered on the basis of subjective opinion in the executive branch, which increasingly is the only branch of the US government. The other two “co-equal” branches have shriveled away under the “war on terror.”
Why is Washington so determined to bring democracy to the Middle East (with the exception of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the Emirates), Africa, Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, and China, but is hostile to constitutional rights in america?
Washington installed Nouri al-Maliki as president of Iraq. He lost an election, but remained in power. He has declared his vice president to be a terrorist and ordered his arrest and is using the state police to arrest Sunni politicians. Syria’s Assad is more democratic than Iraq’s Maliki.
For a decade Washington has misrepresented its wars of naked aggression as “bringing democracy and human rights to the Middle East.” While Washington was bringing democracy to the Middle East, Washington was destroying democracy in the US. Washington has resurrected medieval torture dungeons and self-incrimination. Washington has destroyed due process and habeas corpus. At Obama’s request, Congress passed overwhelmingly a law that permits american subjects to be imprisoned indefinitely without a trial or presentation of evidence. Warrantless searches and spying, illegal and unconstitutional at the turn of the 21st century, are now routine.
Obama has even asserted the right, for which there is no law on the books, to murder any american anywhere if the executive branch decides, without presenting any evidence, that the person is a threat to the US government. Any american anywhere can be murdered on the basis of subjective opinion in the executive branch, which increasingly is the only branch of the US government. The other two “co-equal” branches have shriveled away under the “war on terror.”
Why is Washington so determined to bring democracy to the Middle East (with the exception of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and the Emirates), Africa, Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, and China, but is hostile to constitutional rights in america?
Friday, March 2, 2012
Will Bibi Break Obama?
The prime minister of Israel is angry with Barack Obama and is coming here to force a hardening of U.S. policy toward Iran.
"Bibi" Netanyahu had his anger on display at a meeting in Israel with Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
McCain emerged saying he had never seen an Israeli prime minister "that unhappy." "He was angry," said McCain. "I've never seen U.S.-Israel relations at this point."
"The Israelis are unnerved," said Graham. "They think the administration is sending the wrong signal, and so do I."
What has so enraged Netanyahu? The Obama policy of tightening sanctions on Iran while holding out the opportunity for Tehran to negotiate and provide guarantees that its nuclear program is not aimed at an atomic bomb.
The U.S. intelligence community unanimously believes that Iran is some time away, perhaps years, from being able to produce a nuclear weapon and has not made the command decision to build one.
Israel retorts that Iran is entering a "zone of immunity," when Israel will lack the ability to attack and abort Iran's nuclear program, as new nuclear sites are being moved underground. Netanyahu's government is also angry at what it sees as U.S. leaders' distancing themselves from Israel.
"Bibi" Netanyahu had his anger on display at a meeting in Israel with Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham.
McCain emerged saying he had never seen an Israeli prime minister "that unhappy." "He was angry," said McCain. "I've never seen U.S.-Israel relations at this point."
"The Israelis are unnerved," said Graham. "They think the administration is sending the wrong signal, and so do I."
What has so enraged Netanyahu? The Obama policy of tightening sanctions on Iran while holding out the opportunity for Tehran to negotiate and provide guarantees that its nuclear program is not aimed at an atomic bomb.
The U.S. intelligence community unanimously believes that Iran is some time away, perhaps years, from being able to produce a nuclear weapon and has not made the command decision to build one.
Israel retorts that Iran is entering a "zone of immunity," when Israel will lack the ability to attack and abort Iran's nuclear program, as new nuclear sites are being moved underground. Netanyahu's government is also angry at what it sees as U.S. leaders' distancing themselves from Israel.
Netanyahu’s War
What’s taking the special-ness out of the "special relationship" is the showdown between President Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu, which will be reaching its climax when the latter comes to the US next week. With the Israeli propaganda campaign reaching significantly higher decibel levels of late, Bibi is upping the ante with fresh demands, declaring through intermediaries that the new joint US-Israeli policy has to define several "red lines" Iran must not cross.
The Israelis define that fateful boundary as Tehran developing a nuclear "capability" rather than actually building a nuclear arsenal. It’s a crucial distinction that underscores the logical disconnect at the heart of the Israeli case for war. After all, any one of a number of human beings has, for example, the capability to commit murder: however, this does not make a convincing case for preemptive execution.
American reluctance to go along with such hysterics and launch a third war in the Middle East has the Israelis in a lather. Ha’aretz reports Netanyahu complained bitterly to American emissaries, including a delegation of "senior" US Senators led by John McCain, about certain US officials who have dared to speak out publicly against going to war with Iran. He surely named Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs, who told Fareed Zakaria war with Iran would not be "prudent." It’s well-known senior military figures are opposed to a war with Iran, and the rank-and-file are probably even less sympathetic to the prospect: that’s why anti-war presidential candidate Ron Paul has garnered more donations from members of the armed services than all the other candidates combined.
How dare our generals, our soldiers, sailors, and airmen – you know, the people who will actually have to fight in Netanyahu’s war – speak their minds on the matter! Why, it’s an outrage! On the other hand, it’s perfectly all right that billionaire gambling casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who funds Netanyahu’s far-right Likud party, is also pumping millions into the campaign of Newt Gingrich – and, he says, the eventual Republican, whoever it is (minus Ron Paul) – while loudly proclaiming his goal of advancing Israeli interests and promoting war with Iran.
Is this a war aim Americans need to die for?
The Israelis define that fateful boundary as Tehran developing a nuclear "capability" rather than actually building a nuclear arsenal. It’s a crucial distinction that underscores the logical disconnect at the heart of the Israeli case for war. After all, any one of a number of human beings has, for example, the capability to commit murder: however, this does not make a convincing case for preemptive execution.
American reluctance to go along with such hysterics and launch a third war in the Middle East has the Israelis in a lather. Ha’aretz reports Netanyahu complained bitterly to American emissaries, including a delegation of "senior" US Senators led by John McCain, about certain US officials who have dared to speak out publicly against going to war with Iran. He surely named Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs, who told Fareed Zakaria war with Iran would not be "prudent." It’s well-known senior military figures are opposed to a war with Iran, and the rank-and-file are probably even less sympathetic to the prospect: that’s why anti-war presidential candidate Ron Paul has garnered more donations from members of the armed services than all the other candidates combined.
How dare our generals, our soldiers, sailors, and airmen – you know, the people who will actually have to fight in Netanyahu’s war – speak their minds on the matter! Why, it’s an outrage! On the other hand, it’s perfectly all right that billionaire gambling casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, who funds Netanyahu’s far-right Likud party, is also pumping millions into the campaign of Newt Gingrich – and, he says, the eventual Republican, whoever it is (minus Ron Paul) – while loudly proclaiming his goal of advancing Israeli interests and promoting war with Iran.
Is this a war aim Americans need to die for?
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Nasty surprises await warmongers in Persian Gulf
For example, according to Russ Winter of The Wall Street Examiner , Iran’s Sunburn missiles, acquired from Russia and China over the last 10 years, have the capability of creating "a world of hurt" for the US Navy’s 5th Fleet.
"The Sunburn is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world, designed to fly as low as 9 feet above ground/water at more than 1,500 miles per hour (mach 2+). The missile uses a violent pop-up maneuver for its terminal approach to throw off Phalanx and other US anti-missile defense systems. Given their low cost, they’re perfectly suited for close quarter naval conflict in the bathtub-like Persian Gulf.”
With its 90-mile range, the Sunburn can be fired from practically any platform, including a flat bed truck, and could hit a ship in the Strait in less than a minute.
Adding this warning, Mark Gaffney says , "The US Navy has never faced anything in combat as formidable as the Sunburn missile.”
He mentions the even more-advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made (speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles) deployed by the Iranians along the Persian Gulf's northern shore.
“Every US ship will be exposed and vulnerable. When the Iranians spring the trap, the entire lake will become a killing field,”
The question certainly needs to be asked, she says, "What hold does Israel have over America? Is America prepared to sustain immense damage to its vital interests on behalf of an unstable and insolent ally that remains, if numerous polls are to be believed, the world’s most hated nation?"
"The Sunburn is perhaps the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world, designed to fly as low as 9 feet above ground/water at more than 1,500 miles per hour (mach 2+). The missile uses a violent pop-up maneuver for its terminal approach to throw off Phalanx and other US anti-missile defense systems. Given their low cost, they’re perfectly suited for close quarter naval conflict in the bathtub-like Persian Gulf.”
With its 90-mile range, the Sunburn can be fired from practically any platform, including a flat bed truck, and could hit a ship in the Strait in less than a minute.
Adding this warning, Mark Gaffney says , "The US Navy has never faced anything in combat as formidable as the Sunburn missile.”
He mentions the even more-advanced SS-NX-26 Yakhonts missiles, also Russian-made (speed: Mach 2.9; range: 180 miles) deployed by the Iranians along the Persian Gulf's northern shore.
“Every US ship will be exposed and vulnerable. When the Iranians spring the trap, the entire lake will become a killing field,”
The question certainly needs to be asked, she says, "What hold does Israel have over America? Is America prepared to sustain immense damage to its vital interests on behalf of an unstable and insolent ally that remains, if numerous polls are to be believed, the world’s most hated nation?"
UK Politician Resigns After Saying Israel 'Will Not Go On Forever'
"It will not go on for ever, it will not go on for ever. Israel will lose support and then they will reap what they have sown."
These words, spoken by a member of the UK's House of Lords, have sparked a huge amount of controversy in the UK.
The Guardian reports that Baroness Jenny Tonge, a Liberal Democrat peer, was filmed making the remarks during a student panel last week.
She also went on to say, "One day, the United States of America will get sick of giving £70 billion [$112 billion] a year to Israel to support what I call America's aircraft carrier in the Middle East – that is Israel. One day, the American people are going to say to the Israel lobby in the USA: enough is enough."
Multiple sources are today reporting that Tonge has resigned from the Liberal Democrats today after video of her remarks prompted politicians to call for the party's leader, Nick Clegg, to take disciplinary action against Tonge.
"No place in politics for those who question existence of the state of Israel. Nick Clegg must condemn Jenny Tonge's remark & demand apology," Ed Miliband tweeted.
Tonge has apparently refused to apologize. She remains a member of the House of Lords under its current system.
These words, spoken by a member of the UK's House of Lords, have sparked a huge amount of controversy in the UK.
The Guardian reports that Baroness Jenny Tonge, a Liberal Democrat peer, was filmed making the remarks during a student panel last week.
She also went on to say, "One day, the United States of America will get sick of giving £70 billion [$112 billion] a year to Israel to support what I call America's aircraft carrier in the Middle East – that is Israel. One day, the American people are going to say to the Israel lobby in the USA: enough is enough."
Multiple sources are today reporting that Tonge has resigned from the Liberal Democrats today after video of her remarks prompted politicians to call for the party's leader, Nick Clegg, to take disciplinary action against Tonge.
"No place in politics for those who question existence of the state of Israel. Nick Clegg must condemn Jenny Tonge's remark & demand apology," Ed Miliband tweeted.
Tonge has apparently refused to apologize. She remains a member of the House of Lords under its current system.
The Battle of Maryland: Radical Left (and Big Business) vs. Immigration Patriots Over DREAM Act
On May 10, 2011 Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley signed the so-called “Maryland DREAM Act” (SB-167). This law would offer in-state tuition rates at Maryland colleges and universities to illegal aliens who met certain requirements.
But by the end of June, no less than 132,071 Maryland voters had signed a petition to stop SB-167 and put it to a referendum in November 2012. This is the first successful petition drive in Maryland in twenty years. And (note to any GOP campaign consultants worried about cracking the “Blue States”) almost half of the signatures—far in excess of the 55,736 needed —came from Democrats and Independents.
Top Democratic Party lawyer Joseph E. Sandler, illegal alien support group CASA de Maryland, and 8 “Juan Does” have brought suit to stop the referendum. On December 5th, however, they were forced to admit that they could not challenge enough signatures to invalidate the petition.[Illegal Alien Activists End Challenge to “Sufficiency and Number” of Petitions to Put Maryland DREAM Act to Voter Referendum, December 7, 2011]
They then tried to claim SB-167 cannot be subject to referendum under Maryland law because it is an appropriations bill. But last week, the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County ruled that SB-167 is not an appropriations bill.[JW VICTORY! Illegal Alien Tuition to Stay on Maryland Ballot!, February 24, 2012]
Obviously, CASA de Maryland did expect to win its own lawsuit, either. It is seeking to hire a professional fundraiser to raise $10 million to defeat the referendum in November.[Campaign Fundraising manager Job Posting, Casa de Maryland]
But by the end of June, no less than 132,071 Maryland voters had signed a petition to stop SB-167 and put it to a referendum in November 2012. This is the first successful petition drive in Maryland in twenty years. And (note to any GOP campaign consultants worried about cracking the “Blue States”) almost half of the signatures—far in excess of the 55,736 needed —came from Democrats and Independents.
Top Democratic Party lawyer Joseph E. Sandler, illegal alien support group CASA de Maryland, and 8 “Juan Does” have brought suit to stop the referendum. On December 5th, however, they were forced to admit that they could not challenge enough signatures to invalidate the petition.[Illegal Alien Activists End Challenge to “Sufficiency and Number” of Petitions to Put Maryland DREAM Act to Voter Referendum, December 7, 2011]
They then tried to claim SB-167 cannot be subject to referendum under Maryland law because it is an appropriations bill. But last week, the Circuit Court of Anne Arundel County ruled that SB-167 is not an appropriations bill.[JW VICTORY! Illegal Alien Tuition to Stay on Maryland Ballot!, February 24, 2012]
Obviously, CASA de Maryland did expect to win its own lawsuit, either. It is seeking to hire a professional fundraiser to raise $10 million to defeat the referendum in November.[Campaign Fundraising manager Job Posting, Casa de Maryland]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)