Massive Arms Build-Up In Israel
Associated Press | 19.12.2005 03:45
A glimpse of bias from the Associated Press, who obviously can write this stuff with a straight face, and ignore the glaring hypocrisy inherent. The point is that Israel is arming itself to the teeth, expanding its military capabilities, while pushing for Aggressive Warfare in the name of "peace".
Israel prepares for feared nuclear attack by Iran
By Steven Gutkin
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Saturday, December 17, 2005
JERUSALEM — Israel is expanding its arsenal to deal with what it now views as the greatest potential threat to its existence: a nuclear attack by Iran.
(Or at least, that is its cover story. The fact is that Iran has no nuclear program, nor are they threatening any such thing. Interesting to note how the tightly-controlled Western media interprets recent events. The only ones rattling the sabre are Israel, Britain, and the United States under PNAC.)
It has acquired dozens of warplanes with long-range fuel tanks to allow them to reach Iran and signed a deal with Germany for two submarines reportedly capable of firing nuclear missiles.
Former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he'd support a pre-emptive raid on Iran.
(That should read "Illegal, Aggressive Attack". Propoaganda Points again for the AP.)
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map.'
(However, if you examine what he said, he did not mean this in any military sense. He meant that such an Apartheid, Racist, Militant country should not exist. But reforms, such as those being demanded by a majority of Israelis, could change this paradigm.)
Though Israeli security officials say a strike against Iran isn't on the horizon, senior Israeli politicians have begun openly discussing the possibility of a military option — either alone or with other countries.
(Remember in 2001 when Bush([search]) claimed that a plan for the invasion of Iraq([search]) hadn't crossed his desk? Leaked documents prove that this was a similar LIE.)
Such a mission would be far more complicated than the 1981 Israeli airstrike that destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor. It would require heavy precision bombs that can blast through underground bunkers, aircraft to bombard multiple targets and possibly ground commandos to make sure weapons materials are destroyed, experts say.
(Not to mention, there is no Iranian nuclear site to attack ...)
"It's not a target that you can find on the map, send two F-15s and solve it," said Itamar Yaar, deputy head of Israel's National Security Council.
Both the United States and Israel refuse to say whether a strike plan is in the works.
(But it's pretty clear that this has been going on for quite some time now. In this light, would not an Iranian attack on either country be "pre-emptive" ... ?)
Hard feelings between Israel and Iran date to just before Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, when the Israelis joined the United States in siding with the Shah of Iran before he was deposed.
Partly because of that, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, the Ayatollah Khomeini, called Israel the "Little Satan," saving the term "Great Satan" for the United States.
Israel points out often that Iran is the only member of the United Nations that publicly calls for destruction of another member. Israel's animosity toward Iran stems not only from the Iranian leadership's anti-Israel statements, but also its support of armed groups such as Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.
Tensions between the countries have mounted recently amid growing concern about Iran's atomic program.
Tehran says its nuclear program is to generate electricity, not make bombs. But Iran's plans announced this month to build more nuclear power plants and to purchase 30 Tor-M1 surface-to-air missiles from Russia have raised fears.
(Those, of course, are anti-aircraft missiles, purchased in anticipation of an Israeli/US attack. The AP's choice to omit this information is glaring.)
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" in October also set off alarms. Since then, the Iranian leader has also said the Jewish state should be moved to Europe and called the Holocaust a myth.
Both Israel and the U.S. say diplomatic options should be exhausted before any military action is contemplated.
(But of course, they also said this about Iraq, and they have taken active steps to hinder diplomatic actions taken by both the UN and EU.)
But Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon recently said the ability to take out Iran's nuclear program by force "of course exists." One of his political rivals, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, went further, saying he would support a pre-emptive raid on Iran.
(Even if Iran had a million nukes, this would not justify an attack. ONly a known plan to attack Israel would classify their preparations as "pre-emptive". Current plans are aggressive and illegal.)
Israeli Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz said last Sunday that he didn't think diplomatic pressure will be enough to keep Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb and a military solution might be necessary.
"Who is the one to implement it? That is another question that I'm not going to answer. 'When?' is another question that I'm not going to answer. But there are options worldwide," he said.
Some experts argue that a military strike wouldn't be feasible because of a lack of good intelligence on targets; the existence of multiple atomic installations scattered throughout Iran, some underground or bored into mountains; and the country's increasingly sophisticated defense systems.
(And the fact that no weapons program exists. It's been suggested that Israel/the US would use nuclear weapons, in order to destroy the proof that there was no such program.)
But others say the capability exists with a combination of precision missiles, bunker-buster bombs, airpower and elite ground forces to penetrate the most difficult sites.
The United States — with cruise missiles that can deliver high-explosive bombs to precise locations and B-2 bombers capable of dropping 85 500-pound bombs in a single run — could take on the task, experts said.
(They could also slaughter a lot of innocent men, women, and children, experts say.)
Whether Israel could is an unanswered question. However, the country already has received about half the 102 American-built F-16I warplanes it ordered with extra fuel tanks to enable them reach Iran.
Israel signed a deal with Germany to build two more Dolphin submarines capable of firing atomic missiles at Iran. Israel already has three Dolphins, a key deterrent to any future nuclear confrontation.
(Also a key piece of equipment in any nuclear arsenal. The AP really doesn't see the hypocrisy inherent in this piece?)
Israel is widely considered to already possess nuclear weapons, though it refuses to confirm or deny it.
(The proof has long existed. The AP's inability to research this point is also glaringly obvious.)
Last week, Israel successfully tested its Arrow missile defense system against a missile similar to Iran's Shahab-3, which could possibly carry a nuclear warhead to Israel or several U.S. military installations in the Middle East.
(And vice-versa ...)
David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, said any strike on Iran would be fraught with pitfalls. But a successful one would have to be a "bolt out of the blue" to prevent Iran from moving its uranium centrifuges, a key component for enriching uranium used to make nuclear bombs.
He also said ground commando raids probably would be necessary to ensure that hidden tools used for atomic purposes are destroyed.
(But he didn't provide any evidence to support the empty allegations, made in order to again feign a justification for an illegal invasion.)
Israeli analyst Gerald Steinberg said it wouldn't be necessary to get "100 percent of the targets" to set back Iran's nuclear program. A limited operation to disrupt power supplies, block access to sites or remove components could be enough.
(WHAT PROGRAM!!!???)
He said Iran has learned lessons from Israel's 1981 strike against the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad, dispersing nuclear sites, putting facilities underground and improving defense.
"But 25 years have passed since then, and the offensive capabilities of the armies involved have also advanced," he added.
Albright warned that any strike, especially one that leaves some nuclear capabilities intact, probably would strengthen Iran's resolve to aggressively pursue atomic weapons.
He said Iran would most likely retaliate by making "life miserable for the United States in Iraq" and by launching attacks against Israel through proxies such as Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas.
(Life is already miserable for the US in Iraq, and why shouldn't they retaliate against Israeli/US Aggression?)
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/12/17strikingiran.html
Professor, mathematician, and computer scientist says that the triad of evil is America, Britain, and Israel.
He is part of SPINE, (Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven), a loose association providing scientific evidence that 9-11 was government operation.
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmithInterviewsDewdney.html
Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse
by William Clark
RELATED NEWS:
The End of The Oil Standard...
Top oil groups fail to recoup exploration costs...
The Countdown for the Peak of Oil Production has Begun – but what are the Views of the Most Important International Energy Agencies...
Staring down the barrel of a crisis...
How to deceive friends and influence people: Oil crisis lies...
“This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous...Having said that, all options are on the table.”
– President George W. Bush, February 2005
http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html
Bush Says Iraq War Is Good for Israel
http://www.forward.com/articles/7020
By Steven Gutkin
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Saturday, December 17, 2005
JERUSALEM — Israel is expanding its arsenal to deal with what it now views as the greatest potential threat to its existence: a nuclear attack by Iran.
(Or at least, that is its cover story. The fact is that Iran has no nuclear program, nor are they threatening any such thing. Interesting to note how the tightly-controlled Western media interprets recent events. The only ones rattling the sabre are Israel, Britain, and the United States under PNAC.)
It has acquired dozens of warplanes with long-range fuel tanks to allow them to reach Iran and signed a deal with Germany for two submarines reportedly capable of firing nuclear missiles.
Former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he'd support a pre-emptive raid on Iran.
(That should read "Illegal, Aggressive Attack". Propoaganda Points again for the AP.)
Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be 'wiped off the map.'
(However, if you examine what he said, he did not mean this in any military sense. He meant that such an Apartheid, Racist, Militant country should not exist. But reforms, such as those being demanded by a majority of Israelis, could change this paradigm.)
Though Israeli security officials say a strike against Iran isn't on the horizon, senior Israeli politicians have begun openly discussing the possibility of a military option — either alone or with other countries.
(Remember in 2001 when Bush([search]) claimed that a plan for the invasion of Iraq([search]) hadn't crossed his desk? Leaked documents prove that this was a similar LIE.)
Such a mission would be far more complicated than the 1981 Israeli airstrike that destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor. It would require heavy precision bombs that can blast through underground bunkers, aircraft to bombard multiple targets and possibly ground commandos to make sure weapons materials are destroyed, experts say.
(Not to mention, there is no Iranian nuclear site to attack ...)
"It's not a target that you can find on the map, send two F-15s and solve it," said Itamar Yaar, deputy head of Israel's National Security Council.
Both the United States and Israel refuse to say whether a strike plan is in the works.
(But it's pretty clear that this has been going on for quite some time now. In this light, would not an Iranian attack on either country be "pre-emptive" ... ?)
Hard feelings between Israel and Iran date to just before Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, when the Israelis joined the United States in siding with the Shah of Iran before he was deposed.
Partly because of that, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, the Ayatollah Khomeini, called Israel the "Little Satan," saving the term "Great Satan" for the United States.
Israel points out often that Iran is the only member of the United Nations that publicly calls for destruction of another member. Israel's animosity toward Iran stems not only from the Iranian leadership's anti-Israel statements, but also its support of armed groups such as Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.
Tensions between the countries have mounted recently amid growing concern about Iran's atomic program.
Tehran says its nuclear program is to generate electricity, not make bombs. But Iran's plans announced this month to build more nuclear power plants and to purchase 30 Tor-M1 surface-to-air missiles from Russia have raised fears.
(Those, of course, are anti-aircraft missiles, purchased in anticipation of an Israeli/US attack. The AP's choice to omit this information is glaring.)
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" in October also set off alarms. Since then, the Iranian leader has also said the Jewish state should be moved to Europe and called the Holocaust a myth.
Both Israel and the U.S. say diplomatic options should be exhausted before any military action is contemplated.
(But of course, they also said this about Iraq, and they have taken active steps to hinder diplomatic actions taken by both the UN and EU.)
But Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon recently said the ability to take out Iran's nuclear program by force "of course exists." One of his political rivals, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, went further, saying he would support a pre-emptive raid on Iran.
(Even if Iran had a million nukes, this would not justify an attack. ONly a known plan to attack Israel would classify their preparations as "pre-emptive". Current plans are aggressive and illegal.)
Israeli Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz said last Sunday that he didn't think diplomatic pressure will be enough to keep Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb and a military solution might be necessary.
"Who is the one to implement it? That is another question that I'm not going to answer. 'When?' is another question that I'm not going to answer. But there are options worldwide," he said.
Some experts argue that a military strike wouldn't be feasible because of a lack of good intelligence on targets; the existence of multiple atomic installations scattered throughout Iran, some underground or bored into mountains; and the country's increasingly sophisticated defense systems.
(And the fact that no weapons program exists. It's been suggested that Israel/the US would use nuclear weapons, in order to destroy the proof that there was no such program.)
But others say the capability exists with a combination of precision missiles, bunker-buster bombs, airpower and elite ground forces to penetrate the most difficult sites.
The United States — with cruise missiles that can deliver high-explosive bombs to precise locations and B-2 bombers capable of dropping 85 500-pound bombs in a single run — could take on the task, experts said.
(They could also slaughter a lot of innocent men, women, and children, experts say.)
Whether Israel could is an unanswered question. However, the country already has received about half the 102 American-built F-16I warplanes it ordered with extra fuel tanks to enable them reach Iran.
Israel signed a deal with Germany to build two more Dolphin submarines capable of firing atomic missiles at Iran. Israel already has three Dolphins, a key deterrent to any future nuclear confrontation.
(Also a key piece of equipment in any nuclear arsenal. The AP really doesn't see the hypocrisy inherent in this piece?)
Israel is widely considered to already possess nuclear weapons, though it refuses to confirm or deny it.
(The proof has long existed. The AP's inability to research this point is also glaringly obvious.)
Last week, Israel successfully tested its Arrow missile defense system against a missile similar to Iran's Shahab-3, which could possibly carry a nuclear warhead to Israel or several U.S. military installations in the Middle East.
(And vice-versa ...)
David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, said any strike on Iran would be fraught with pitfalls. But a successful one would have to be a "bolt out of the blue" to prevent Iran from moving its uranium centrifuges, a key component for enriching uranium used to make nuclear bombs.
He also said ground commando raids probably would be necessary to ensure that hidden tools used for atomic purposes are destroyed.
(But he didn't provide any evidence to support the empty allegations, made in order to again feign a justification for an illegal invasion.)
Israeli analyst Gerald Steinberg said it wouldn't be necessary to get "100 percent of the targets" to set back Iran's nuclear program. A limited operation to disrupt power supplies, block access to sites or remove components could be enough.
(WHAT PROGRAM!!!???)
He said Iran has learned lessons from Israel's 1981 strike against the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad, dispersing nuclear sites, putting facilities underground and improving defense.
"But 25 years have passed since then, and the offensive capabilities of the armies involved have also advanced," he added.
Albright warned that any strike, especially one that leaves some nuclear capabilities intact, probably would strengthen Iran's resolve to aggressively pursue atomic weapons.
He said Iran would most likely retaliate by making "life miserable for the United States in Iraq" and by launching attacks against Israel through proxies such as Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas.
(Life is already miserable for the US in Iraq, and why shouldn't they retaliate against Israeli/US Aggression?)
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/12/17strikingiran.html Professor, mathematician, and computer scientist says that the triad of evil is America, Britain, and Israel.
He is part of SPINE, (Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven), a loose association providing scientific evidence that 9-11 was government operation.
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmithInterviewsDewdney.html Petrodollar Warfare: Dollars, Euros and the Upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse
by William Clark
RELATED NEWS:
The End of The Oil Standard...
Top oil groups fail to recoup exploration costs...
The Countdown for the Peak of Oil Production has Begun – but what are the Views of the Most Important International Energy Agencies...
Staring down the barrel of a crisis...
How to deceive friends and influence people: Oil crisis lies...
“This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous...Having said that, all options are on the table.”
– President George W. Bush, February 2005
http://www.energybulletin.net/7707.html Bush Says Iraq War Is Good for Israel
http://www.forward.com/articles/7020
Associated Press
Comments
Display the following 21 comments