Attacking Iran: The Israel Connection

[Hissyspit]

http://www.alternet.org/story/35740/

Attacking Iran: The Israel Connection
By Stephen Zunes, Foreign Policy in Focus
Posted on May 3, 2006, Printed on May 3, 2006

With even mainstream media outlets like the Washington Post and The New Yorker publishing credible stories that the United States is seriously planning a military attack on Iran, increasing numbers of Americans are expressing concerns about the consequences of the United States launching another war that would once again place the United States in direct contravention of international law.

The latest National Security Strategy document published earlier this year labeled Iran as the most serious challenge to the United States posed by any country. This should be an indication of just how safe the United States is in the post-Cold War world, where the "most serious challenge" is no longer a rival superpower with thousands of nuclear weapons and sophisticated delivery systems capable of destroying the United States, but a Third World country on the far side of the planet which, according to the latest National Intelligence Estimate out of Washington, is at least 10 years away from actually producing a usable nuclear weapon.

Furthermore, Iran has no capacity to develop any delivery system in the foreseeable future capable of landing a weapon within 10,000 miles of our shores.

However, despite the fact that there is no evidence that Iran is even developing nuclear weapons in the first place, the Bush administration and Congressional leaders of both parties argue that simply having the technology which would make it theoretically possible for Iran to manufacture a nuclear weapon at some point in the future is sufficient casus belli.

As part of his desperate search for enemies, President Bush claimed in January that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "a grave threat to the security of the world," words that echoed language he used in reference to Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion of that oil-rich country. Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney vowed "meaningful consequences" if Iran did not give up its nuclear program and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton claimed there would be "tangible and painful consequences" if Iran did not cooperate.

MORE

[Douglas Carpenter]

1. majority of Israelis oppose the idea of a strike against Iran

I thought this was a very interesting part of the same article:

http://www.alternet.org/story/35740/

snip:" (Israeli) Public opinion polls show that a majority of Israelis oppose the idea of an Israeli strike against Iran. Policy analyst Steve Clemons was quoted in the Washington Monthly as saying, "I have witnessed far more worries about Iranian President Ahmadinejad's anti-Holocaust and anti-Israel rhetoric in the U.S. than I did in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem… Nearly everyone I spoke to in Israel who ranged in political sympathies from the Likud right to Maretz left thought that… Israel thought it wrong-headed and too impulsive to be engaged in saber-rattling with Iran at this stage." He added, "Israeli national security bureaucrats -- diplomats and generals -- have far greater confidence that there are numerous potential solutions to the growing Iran crisis short of bombing them in an invasive, hot attack."

There is no indication that Iran would ever contemplate a first strike against Israel or any other country. Iran, like other Islamic governments in the region, has used Israel's repression of the Palestinians for propaganda purposes, but has rarely done anything to actually help the Palestinians.

It is inconceivable that the Iranians would ever consider launching a nuclear attack on Israel -- which possesses at least 300 nuclear weapons and sophisticated missiles and other delivery system that could totally destroy Iran -- for the sake of the Palestinians, many thousands of whom would die as well. However, an Israeli attack could give Iran grounds for retaliation. Despite these dangers, Israel -- with U.S. encouragement -- has long considered the possibility of an attack against Iran.



http://www.dontattackiran.org

[DemoTex]

2. Three quick points ..

Iran:
Standing army-518,000, reserves-350,000, tanks-1,394, combat aircraft-297, combat ships-4, patrol boats-48, nuclear armed warheads-none, submarines 3.

http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/security.html

1. Iran has an 800,000+ man army with nothing better to do than kick our ass. Iran's army can defend the homeland against any ground action we could mount (which we can't), and they can spill over into Iraq and help redefine the term "killing fields" (for us and them).

2. Iran has 2.1 Mach (twice the speed of sound) Russian-built Sunburn cruise missiles in batteries dug into the heights overlooking the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz. US naval forces in the gulf and any relief forces steaming through the straits are sitting ducks in a relatively small, shallow bath-tub.

3. With Israel, Turkey, and several other states having (potentially) dogs in this fight, the possibility of a false flag action looms large. If an attack on Iran would mean significantly higher profits for a corporate entity (like Halliburton), a false flag action sufficient to trigger a war could come from that sector (treason or not .. $$$... see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag ).