Hat Tip: DProgram

by Maysaa Jarour, PT

This year saw an Israeli-US joint exercise “Juniper Cobra 10″ take place off the coast of Israel which involved the IDF and the US Navy 6th Fleet. The purpose of the exercise was to participate in countering simulated attacks by ballistic, medium-range and short-range missiles and rockets by Iran on Israel.

As part of this build up the US Military has more than doubled its stockpile of weapons in Israel which it states “Israel can use.” One would assume that just like the preparation in the build up to the Lebanon Crisis in 2006 and pre Cast Lead in 2008 that this is a very clear indication that both the US and Israel are preparing for a strike on the nuclear facilities in Iran. The US Navy already has a significant naval force in the Gulf and we are now seeing the slow deployment of Israeli Naval Vessels into the region. In order for the Israeli Navy to position to such a location it requires the permission of the Gulf States to enter their waters. One cannot fully understand how these Islamic States could allow Israeli vessels to transit their zone with the intention of carrying out an attack on another Islamic country (Iran). Nothing surprises me anymore when we saw those same states turn their back on Gaza and Palestine.

What I find amazing is that the UN and the world looks on without saying a word knowing that this action will probably take place as soon as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) is ready for operational use. The Pentagon has been applying extreme pressure on Boeing to bring forward the development and testing of this massive bomb by June 2010 almost two years ahead of intended operations. It may also be the US intention to make use of the Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) which was intended for use in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is my understand that this is not just a simple action, to take out nuclear facilities, but rather an extremely dangerous situation that could not only lead to a major action or war but also cause catastrophic radiation contamination of the entire Middle East and the World. I will cover the environmental aspect in Part 2 followed by the Part 3 which will cover the economic damage that such action would cause to the UK and EU economies.

Militarily speaking this possible strike can erupt into a full scale war based on the proviso that if Israel and the US attack Iran that would be considered an act of war resulting in retaliatory action by the Iranian on Israeli and US targets. Make no bones about it Iran has a significant high tech military that can cause much damage on the invaders and once that step has been taken the US would then carry out further attacks resulting in War. My guess would be this is what the US, UK and NATO countries really want, which is a regime change……heard that before in Iraq and Afghanistan?

With the new NATO ground rules clearly in place “An attack on one is an attack on all” or what has recently been added to the rules “An attack on any military facility, oil/gas facility, pipeline or any other commercial entity is an attack on all” we can, as usual, see how the US can carefully manipulate this action into a total NATO involvement or should I say a possible WW3. I must emphasize that any such action by the US and Israel would be totally irresponsible leading to the possible death of millions of people in the region.

So lets again look at this very dangerous and complicated military scenario that is starting to unfold and fully understand who has to be involved in carrying out such an attack and the risks associated with its implementation.

First of all this type of operation is pushing the safety envelope of the Israeli Air Force to its maximum and can only be achieved with the involvement of the US Military. None of the existing IAF aircraft can make such a long range flight without transiting other Islamic States, stopping for fuel or in having in flight refueling provided by the US. The massive US fed munitions stockpile currently in Israel would be utilized by the IAF and they would have to take maximum weapons payload with minimum fuel. This mission would test both aircraft and their crews to the maximum with the main purpose of delivering their deadly payload to target and with no room to detour or carry out a defensive role if attacked by any Iranian aircraft. It would clearly mean that some of the Israeli aircraft would not return as a result of this high risk operation.

The weapons stockpiled by the US in Israel also contain weapons with uranium components such as “Bunker Buster” etc and the combination of such weapons hitting a nuclear facility would lead to terrible consequences in the Middle East. Then we have the question of the MOP which is specifically being tested for use in Iran. This bomb has the potential to not only call catastrophic damage but also has the ability to set off earthquakes in the region. All of the above weapons in that context could be classified as WMD’s and are totally indiscriminate in their application and thus are in breach of the Geneva Convention as well as breaching many other international laws. We have heard rumours that such weapons as the MOP and other penetrating type weapons could have triggered the earthquakes in California and also Haiti. Any weapon of this size when it enters the earth crust sends huge shockwaves deep into the earth and should this be in an area of existing rifts the resultant aftermath is self explanatory.

Let’s now look at this evil bomb currently under test in the US. The MOP is around 20.5 feet long and a total weight of just under 30,000lbs. The weapon carries 5,300lbs of explosives. It is carried aboard a US Air Force B-2 Bomber and is guided to its target by its onboard global positioning navigation system.

Reader will note that the only aircraft capable of carrying this weapon is the USAF B-2 Stealth Bomber and therefore if Israel attacks Iran (which is what the US wants them to do) then the US will definitely be involved in the delivery of this bomb. The B-2 will be able to carry two MOP’s and thus would be a prime target to attack as it approached Iranian airspace. The B-2 would fly at high altitude and release the weapons some distance from target.

It is also my belief that whilst Israel and the US are on a war footing they may also possible carry out strikes on Gaza, Lebanon and Syria during 2010. As with all conflicts the whole purpose is to divide and conquer and Israel is right in the middle of a very unstable area. Should they choose to carry out such action I am sure this could well see the end of Israel.

Part 2 of this series will cover the environmental aspect of such an attack. It will show how the catastrophic fallout will initially consume the entire Middle East from Turkey – Afghanistan – Pakistan – India and from North of the Caspian Sea to the Gulf of Aden. Armenia – Georgia – Azerbaijan – Turkmenistan – Uzbekistan -Tajikistan – Kyrgyzstan – China – Nepal – Syria – Iraq – Kuwait – Saudi Arabia – Bahrain – Lebanon – Israel – Palestine – Jordan – Egypt – Qatar – UAE – Oman – Yemen. Not one country in the Middle East will be spared.
All of this contamination will take place within the first couple of days and within 7-10 days will be around the world.

I ask the UN, UK, EU, Russia, China, Japan and all of the above countries to address this problem with the utmost urgency and ensure that the US and Israel do not attack Iran and that diplomacy without threat is the only way to come to some compromise. Maybe if the US and the rest of the world applied the same pressure on Israel as they do on Iran we may see fair play. Surely if Israel has unlimited and uncontrolled nuclear capabilities they would be considered a threat to the Islamic world so common sense must prevail here. As it stands at the moment it is just pure US/Israeli aggression as we have seen so many times before.

Keep watching this space for the horrific details of Part 2 – Environmental Impact of such action.

Read the rest at this link.

by Professor Francis Boyle

“What we’re seeing in Gaza now, is pretty much slow-motion genocide against the 1.5 million Palestinians who live in Gaza…. If you read the 1948 Genocide Convention, it clearly says that one instance of genocide is the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of a people in whole or in part,” stated Francis A. Boyle, professor of International Law at the University of Illinois in Champaign. “And that’s exactly what has been done to Gaza, since the imposition of the blockade by Israel; then the massacre of 1,400 Palestinians, two-thirds of whom were civilians, in Operation Cast Lead. And that also raises the element in the Genocide Convention, of murder, torture, and things of that nature.”

Boyle spoke to {EIR} on Jan. 15, 2010, giving his assessment of Gaza, one year after the Israeli attacks. He stressed that he was speaking only for himself.

While the Israelis stopped the artillery bombardment and air strikes just before the inauguration of President Barack Obama in 2009, the deaths of Palestinians continue–from lack of medicines, infrastructure, clean water, and everything else that the world community–as shown in emergency aid to Haiti–{knows} is necessary to sustain human life.

But no international action has been taken to stop genocide in Gaza–despite the finding by the UN’s Goldstone Report that Israel committed war crimes in the wanton destruction of civilian infrastructure, and in the killing of civilians, and despite the Jan. 21, 2010 letter by more than 50 members of the U.S. Congress to President Obama that due to “the unabated suffering of Gazan civilians,” he must press to end the Israeli blockade.

Similarly, according to Turkish Prof. Bulent Aras, there is almost no hope for a peace agreement, or for ending the growing isolation of Israel from the international community, unless Gaza is opened and reconstruction begins. Aras was speaking on a Jan. 14 conference call, sponsored by the Turkish SETA and New America Foundations in Washington, D.C. He was addressing the recent tensions between Israel and Turkey after the Israeli Foreign Ministry insulted the Turkish ambassador, and on the collapse of the Turkish-mediated Israel/Syria negotiations, which ended with the Israeli attacks on Gaza.

According to Boyle, the question of the Gaza opening must be immediately taken up by the Obama Administration. “We need all the openings to Gaza, the crossings from Egypt and Israel, opened immediately. {Massive} provision of humanitarian assistance, medical supplies to Gaza–exactly what Obama’s doing today, with respect to Haiti–I support that! But why aren’t they doing it to Gaza? You have 1.5 million people over there.

“Unless this step is undertaken, certainly on Gaza, relieving the people of Gaza with massive humanitarian relief supplies, I really think we’re going to see a dog-and-pony show,” being run by the Obama White House, and the sending of Sen. George Mitchell to the region.

So far, what the U.S. has done is, “once again, provid[ed] diplomatic cover for Israel to stall and delay its objectives, and meanwhile, they continue to steal Palestinian lands, destroy their orchards, destroy their olive fields, and build more settlements. This has been going on, right from the beginning of the Middle East peace negotiations in 1991, when I was legal advisor to the Palestinians and the Syrians at that time.”

But, “miracles can always happen: Look at the darkest days of the apartheid regime in South Africa, and all of that collapsed,” said Boyle. “Well, here we have another apartheid regime, Israel. It’s apartheid to its core, it always has been. This whole situation could turn around and collapse very quickly–I just don’t know. But I’ll hang in there, certainly, with the Palestinians.”

And recent events in the field of international law lead Boyle to say that, as in the case of Chilean fascist Pinochet, law may catch up with Israeli criminals.

Read the rest at this link.

by Stephen M. Walt,  HezekialWyman

Probably the most controversial claim in my work with John Mearsheimer on the Israel lobby is our argument that it played a key role in the decision to invade Iraq in 2003. Even some readers who were generally sympathetic to our overall position found that claim hard to accept, and some left-wing critics accused us of letting Bush and Cheney off the hook or of ignoring the importance of other interests, especially oil. Of course, Israel’s defenders in the lobby took issue even more strenuously, usually by mischaracterizing our arguments and ignoring most (if not all) of the evidence we presented.

So I hope readers will forgive me if I indulge today in a bit of self-promotion, or more precisely, self-defense. This week, yet another piece of evidence surfaced that suggests we were right all along (HT to Mehdi Hasan at the New Statesman and J. Glatzer at Mondoweiss). In his testimony to the Iraq war commission in the U.K., former Prime Minister Tony Blair offered the following account of his discussions with Bush in Crawford, Texas in April 2002. Blair reveals that concerns about Israel were part of the equation and that Israel officials were involved in those discussions.

Take it away, Tony:

As I recall that discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations that we had even with Israelis, the two of us, whilst we were there. So that was a major part of all this.”

Notice that Blair is not saying that Israel dreamed up the idea of attacking Iraq or that Bush was bent on war solely to benefit Israel or even to appease the Israel lobby here at home. But Blair is acknowledging that concerns about Israel were part of the equation, and that the Israeli government was being actively consulted in the planning for the war.

Blair’s comments fit neatly with the argument we make about the lobby and Iraq. Specifically, Professor Mearsheimer and I made it clear in our article and especially in our book that the idea of invading Iraq originated in the United States with the neoconservatives, and not with the Israeli government. But as the neoconservative pundit Max Boot once put it, steadfast support for Israel is “a key tenet of neoconservatism.” Prominent neo-conservatives occupied important positions in the Bush administration, and in the aftermath of 9/11, they played a major role in persuading Bush and Cheney to back a war against Iraq, which they had been advocating since the late 1990s. We also pointed out that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and other Israeli officials were initially skeptical of this scheme, because they wanted the U.S. to focus on Iran, not Iraq. However, they became enthusiastic supporters of the idea of invading Iraq once the Bush administration made it clear to them that Iraq was just the first step in a broader campaign of “regional transformation” that would eventually include Iran.

At that point top Israeli leaders from across the political spectrum became cheerleaders for the invasion, and they played a prominent role in helping to sell the war here in the United States. Benjamin Netanyahu visited Washington, DC in April 2002 and spoke in the U.S. Senate, telling his audience “the urgent need to topple Saddam is paramount,” and that the campaign “deserves the unconditional support of all sane governments.” (It sure sounds like he was well aware of the discussions in Crawford, doesn’t it?) In May, foreign minister Shimon Peres said on CNN that “Saddam Hussein is as dangerous as bin Laden,” and that the United States “cannot sit and wait.” A month later, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post recommending that the Bush administration “should, first of all, focus on Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein.”

This chorus continued through the summer and fall, with Barak and Netanyahu writing additional op-eds in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, each calling for military action to topple Saddam. Netanyahu’s piece was titled “The Case for Toppling Saddam” and said that “nothing less than dismantling his regime will do.” Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s official spokesman, Ra’anan Gissen, offered similar statements during this period as well, and Sharon himself told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee in August 2002 that Iraq was “the greatest danger facing Israel.” According to an Aug. 16 article by Aluf Benn in Ha’aretz, Sharon reportedly told the Bush administration that putting off an attack would “only give [Saddam] more of an opportunity to accelerate his program of WMD.” Foreign Minister Peres reiterated his own warnings as well, and told reporters in September 2002 that “the campaign against Saddam Hussein is a must.” (For sources, see pp. 233-38).

If that’s not enough evidence of where Israel’s leaders were in the run-up to the war, consider that former President Bill Clinton told an audience at an Aspen Institute meeting in 2006 that “every Israeli politician I knew” (and he knows a lot of them) believed that Saddam Hussein was so great a threat that he should be removed even if he did not have WMD. Nor is this testimony at all surprising, given that we are talking about the leader who had fired Scud missiles into Israel during the first Gulf War in 1991 and had been giving money to the families of suicide bombers. If the Bush administration was bent on taking him out and then turning its gun-sights on Syria and Iran, one can easily understand why Israelis would welcome it.

Read the rest at this link.