Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 58

Thread: Upcoming Israel-Iran conflict

  1. #21
    Administrator Aryan_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Pakistan England
    A nation of 4 million can not do squat to Iran. They need assistance from America. Israel's leaders for Muslim blood know no bounds.

  2. #22
    Senior Moderator Superkaif's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Leeds, United Kingdom
    UK Pakistan

    War Against Iran: Netanyahu Might Be First Israeli Prime Minister Thrown Out

    War Against Iran: Netanyahu Might Be First Israeli Prime Minister Thrown Out Of The Office By A Military Insurrection?

    Will the IDF Attack Iran Following an Order from Netanyahu? “Seruv” in Hebrew means “REFUSAL”

    Taking the Decision

    Will Israel’s Prime Minister sign an order to attack Iran? There are a lot of speculations in the Hebrew media on this issue. Before answering it, one must consider Netanyahu’s decision making process.

    On June 13, 2012, Israel State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss published his report on the Israeli government’s behavior in the events related to Gaza’s Freedom Flotilla of May 2010.

    The Prime Minister turned out to be rather clumsy and incompetent to the extent of causing an unnecessary disaster. In the comptroller’s words: “The decision making process regarding the dealings with the Turkish flotilla led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and under his responsibility was found to include essential and significant flaws.”

    “Despite the fact that information concerning the Turkish flotilla began accumulating at the beginning of 2010, and despite the recognition by the prime minister that it represented an irregular event, the decision-making process was done without proper coordination,” the comptroller added.

    The report discloses that the working meetings between Netanyahu and his Minister Defense—Ehud Barak—were held without any preparation or documentation of the event. “It wasn’t clear which decisions were made during the meetings, decisions that were, on any account, not summed in writing.”

    The most important sentence said by the State Comptroller was “in reality, the Prime Minister made the decision as the way to deal with the Turkish Flotilla based on the discussion held in this forum, and based on the recommendations of his friends.”

    In other words, the Israeli Administration and its laws mean little to Netanyahu; he will take significant decisions just after consulting his mysterious friends. He may declare war on Iran without any preliminary signs.

    The War Declaration

    Netanyahu can sign an order to begin an attack on Iran at any moment and claim fair game, saying that in fact the war had already been declared. On July 23, 2012, Associated Press reported the results of the Burgas bomber autopsy; not for the first time in that affair, the findings didn’t fit the initial official declarations.

    Five days before, a suicide bomber attacked a bus transporting Israeli tourists at the Burgas Airport in Bulgaria. The bus driver and five Israelis were killed; over thirty people were injured. Trying to find a way out of the embarrassment, the discrepancy is now explained by assuming the existence of an accomplice.

    Yet, Israel doesn’t care about the facts; Netanyahu needs an excuse to attack Iran. Within hours of the violent event, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had blamed Iran and Hezbollah, justifying his brilliant conclusion on the fact that it had occurred on the anniversary of the 1994 AMIA bombing in Argentina, which was blamed by Netanyahu’s predecessors on Iran and Hezbollah.

    Now, we see that not only are Netanyahu’s deductive powers defective, but also that the evidence doesn’t follow the Israeli narrative. Supporting this, Bulgarian Foreign Minister said “We’re not pointing the finger in any direction until we know what happened and complete our investigation.” Obsessive in his attempts to incriminate Iran, Netanyahu had triggered a different event.

    During the press conference that he gave after the attack, Netanyahu said “Israel will demand a heavy price from those who dispatched the terrorists. Israel would not be defeated.” “We’ll fight Iranian terror, we’ll fight it with great force,” he added.

    In order to make clear that this position was shared by the government, Foreign Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that Iran is the world’s largest state sponsoring terror and that Israel would respond “with force and precision against those who plan and execute such attacks.” “We have no intention to forgive and forget,” he said and included Hezbollah in the threat by adding: “Hezbollah knows that we don’t make empty threats.”

    In fact, this is a quite legal declaration of war on Iran by Israel.

    There are several ways of declaring a war, a topic that is regulated by the Hague Convention (III) of 1907 on the Opening of Hostilities. The most obvious one is by a speech or the issuing of a formal document. However, that seldom happens; most ongoing wars have never been formally declared.

    A well-known example is the German invasion of Belgium during WWI, which violated the abovementioned convention since it states that hostilities must not commence without explicit warning. This is relevant here because what Netanyahu did in his speech was to deliver such a war warning, though justifying it on unproven claims.

    He had put Iran in a position to legitimately claim that Israel declared war on it and thus enabled it to take defensive measures. Self-defense from an external attack is a type of war allowed by the UN Charter. In other words, we already have a formal war. Netanyahu may decide on its first battle.

    Does the IDF Support the War?

    On April 25, 2012, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz gave a rare interview to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. As it invariably happens in recent years when Israeli leaders are interviewed, a possible war between Israel and Iran was at the center of the interview.

    Oddly enough, the general admitted that Israel is bluffing Iran; this interview sums up to several others given recently by Israeli leaders into a very disturbing picture. I made the complete analysis in previous articles, thus I’ll skip it here.

    However, the situation is simple. Leading Israeli politicians support war with Iran. Leading Israeli security services personnel oppose it. This is very odd. In the Israeli (and Western) reality, one expects the opposite: generals want war, politicians want industrial silence. Is this additional incongruence a sign of Jewish wisdom, or something else?

    The hint to the truth is in the deed itself. General Gantz cannot give a free interview. IDF officers must get an approval for such an event; in the case of the IDF’s chief general, the approval must be given by the Minister of Defense himself. It is unlikely that Ehud Barak would have given such an approval without asking what General Gantz was planning to say on the issue of a war with Iran.

    Similarly, it is unlikely that General Gantz would utter an opinion contrary to the one of his boss without getting previous approval from Barak.

    In other words, we are not witnessing inner wars in the Israeli leadership, but a conscious effort to create disinformation on the plans of the State of Israel. The sharp inversion of the typical roles (warring generals, cautious politicians) is a further attempt to create confusion.

    All the generals speaking on the issue were highly questionable. “The military option is the last chronologically, but the first in terms of its credibility. If it’s not credible it has no meaning. We are preparing for it in a credible manner. That’s my job, as a military man,” said General Gantz in that interview.

    This is a remarkably vague statement, especially by his inexplicable need to incessantly repeat the word “credible.” Judging his words from the point of view of a Hebrew speaker, such a statement is highly dubious. I wouldn’t buy anything from this man; he probably means Israel will not attack Iran, but wants Iran to believe it will. This may explain the flood of war articles published in Hebrew media since then.

    One of them analyzed possible strategies for conducting the initial attack on Iran. It claimed the attack would be made by air, oddly omitting the missile war option, which is more probable. “One hundred reserve pilots will be recruited and trained,” the article said with confidence. “They will not know what their targets are until the last moment,” it kept scaring the Hebrew-speaking audience. The scenario makes sense.

    The IDF prefers to send reserve forces first, while keeping back its regular units—which are better equipped—prepared to deal with emergencies. Moreover, in The Cross of Bethlehem I described the techniques used by senior IDF officers to mislead junior ones regarding war plans; this article referred to the same methods.

    Then, the article ended with a vague reference regarding the possibility that most pilots will die in action. This is what triggered my alarms; the article was attempting a very unusual manipulation of public opinion. Suddenly, General Gantz unreliable words got a new significance. What if…

    Unbearable Price

    We don’t know who Netanyahu’s friends are; yet, we can confide in their being belligerent. Savagely so. Netanyahu sees in a war with Iran an option to bury Israel’s social problems for another generation and an opportunity to enter history standing on his own pedestal.

    Yet, the price will be horrible. There is little doubt that if a war begins it will soon deteriorate into a missile war. On August 16, 2012, Matan Vilnai—Israel Home Front Minister—told Hebrew media that “fighting would be on several fronts, with hundreds of missiles fired at Israeli towns and cities.”

    In other words, following the destruction of a significant percentage of Israel’s air force in the initial strike on Iran, much of the country civil and military infrastructure will be destroyed in the following retaliation. Netanyahu may get a marble pedestal in the Temple of Mass Murderers, but in the process he may destroy the chance of current military leaders to inherit a viable country once they leave the army and turn to politics.

    Some generals may not like Netanyahu’s game. They also want a marble pedestal! What can be done?

    Relatively far from the headlines, there is a refusal movement in Israel. “Yesh Gvul” is Hebrew for “there is a limit,” (in colloquial English one would say “enough is enough”) and the name chosen by a movement founded during the 1982 Lebanon War.

    It began by calling to refuse IDF service in Lebanon and expanded afterwards to service in the Palestinian Occupied Territories. “Seruv” is Hebrew for “refusal;” thus soldiers refusing military tasks are known as “seruvnikim,” the parallel to “refuseniks.” Their selective refusal is a form of “civil disobedience” and is open to military and civil charges.

    The best known document issued by this informal movement is known as “The Officers Letter.” Issued in 2003, it calls to refuse service beyond the Green Line and “to refuse to control, expel, hunger, and humiliate an entire people” (referring to the Palestinians).

    One of the reasons this movement is allowed to operate from within Israel is its tiny size. Nine years after the letter was issued, less than a thousand soldiers signed it. Few are tried and jailed for refusal. If possible, confrontation is avoided by sending this reserve soldiers to backline tasks. Thus, they support the state, while opposing its actions.

    This type of behavior may provide a new twist in the thickening plot. Netanyahu may sign an order to attack Iran. Then, a small group of senior officers—those holding relevant powers—will refuse the order, claiming loyalty to the State of Israel, but not to Mr. Netanyahu.

    In a dramatic television broadcast—Israeli army can take over Hebrew media in emergency situations—they will tell to the people that they won’t be part of the absolute destruction of the state. Such an insurrection is unlikely to happen en masse.

    There is no way the entire IDF General Headquarters (the body comprising all the major generals, and the lieutenant general running the army) will be able to plan such an event without information being leaked to the government.

    However, such a level of cooperation is not necessary. What counts here is the reputation of the refusing generals, their charisma to lead people into their new and brave camp, and their capability to stop critical paths used for the attack.

    Such a limited action may stop a brutal war. Yet, it won’t stop Netanyahu from getting his marble pedestal, though only for being the first Israeli Prime Minister to be thrown out of office by means of military insurrection.

    The 4th Media » A War Against Iran: Netanyahu Might Be First Israeli Prime Minister Thrown Out Of The Office By A Military Insurrection?

  3. #23
    Forum Administrator bilalhaider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Pakistan Pakistan
    Netanyahu urges international "red lines" to stop Iran

    JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu urged world powers on Sunday to set a "clear red line" for Tehran's atomic programme that would convince Iran they were determined to prevent it from obtaining nuclear arms.

    Netanyahu's remarks suggested a growing impatience with Israel's main ally, the United States, and other countries that have been pressing him to give diplomacy and sanctions more time to work and hold off on any go-it-alone strike on Iran.

    Recent heightened Israeli rhetoric has stoked speculation that Israel might attack Iran before the U.S. elections in November, believing that President Barack Obama would give it military help and not risk alienating pro-Israeli voters.

    "I believe the truth must be stated: The international community is not placing a clear red line for Iran and Iran does not see international resolve to stop its nuclear programme," Netanyahu told his cabinet.

    "Unless Iran sees this clear red line and this clear resolve it will not stop moving forward with its nuclear programme, and Iran must not have nuclear weapons," he said, repeating his view that sanctions so far have not curbed Tehran's atomic ambitions.

    Although Netanyahu did not single out Obama in his criticism, Israeli officials have said they hope for stronger language from the president about possible U.S. military action.

    Obama, who has had a frosty relationship with Netanyahu, has insisted he will not allow Iran to build atomic weapons and that all options are on the table.

    Israel's popular YNet news website described the prime minister's latest comments as a stinging rebuke of Obama. In a U.S. election year, Republican candidate Mitt Romney has also sharply criticised Obama's handling of Iran as not being tough enough.

    And in another sign of a rift with Washington, Israeli officials voiced disappointment over recent remarks by the United States's top general signalling reluctance to intervene on Israel's behalf if it attacked Iran.

    Tehran says it is refining uranium to fuel a planned network of nuclear power plants so that it can export more of its oil and gas. The United States and its allies accuse Iran of a covert bid to develop the capability to make nuclear bombs.

    Israel, believed to have the only atomic arsenal in the Middle East, views a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to its existence.


    General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, has suggested Washington would not be drawn into conflict with Iran should Israel attack.
    "I don't want to be complicit if they choose to do it," Britain's Guardian newspaper quoted him on Friday as saying.

    Gilad Erdan, Israel's environment minister, said on Israel Radio that Dempsey's remarks "were definitely not to our liking". Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said the general's choice of words "was not the best".

    Israeli officials have said Israel has yet to decide on whether to attack Iran, amid divisions within its security cabinet and warnings by military and security chiefs that a strike would have only a limited effect.

    Netanyahu has said he will speak out about what he termed the dangers Iran poses to the world in an address this month to the U.N. General Assembly in New York. He is also expected to meet Obama during his visit, but no announcement has been made.

    A senior Israeli official told Reuters last week Netanyahu would seek a firm pledge of U.S. military action if Iran did not back down on uranium enrichment. Such a promise could dissuade Israel from attacking Iran alone, Israeli officials have said.

    A United Nations report said on Thursday Iran had more than doubled the number of centrifuges in its fortified bunker at Fordow since May, despite Western pressure and threat of Israeli attack. The new machines are not yet operating, the report said.

    "The report confirms what I have been saying for a long time, international sanctions are a burden on Iran's economy but they are not in any way delaying the advancement of Iran's nuclear programme," Netanyahu told his cabinet.

    "The Iranians are using the talks with the world powers to win time and to advance their nuclear programme," he said.

    An Iranian general said that if Israel were to strike Iran, Israeli officials would be the target of retaliation, Iranian media reported on Sunday.

    "In case of Israel's military attack against Iran, the officials of (Israel) will be among the first victims of such an attack," Mohammad Ali Assoudi, a brigadier general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, told Iran's English-language Press TV.

    His broadcast remarks gave no details, but Press TV paraphrased him as saying Israel's policies had induced hatred of its officials among residents of the occupied territories.
    Iran has undertaken large-scale military manoeuvres this summer and unveiled upgrades to weapons it says are defensive, including what it said was a more accurate short-range missile.
    Netanyahu urges international "red lines" to stop Iran - Yahoo! News UK

  4. #24
    Administrator Aryan_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Pakistan England
    Usual drama from Netanyahoo. This is the same guy that Zarkosy said was a liar.
    The Following User Says Thank You to Aryan_B For This Useful Post: Iranzamin

    Last edited by Aryan_B; 9th October 2012 at 17:27.

  5. #25
    Senior Member Red Crow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Pakistan Pakistan
    Israel want to continue its domination in the region.I think Israel will never allow nuclear weapon in Iran. May be Israel will convince the west for limited war, and Israel will try to sabotage the infrastructure of concerned sites.

  6. #26
    Member Iranzamin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Iran Iran
    Israel is too small to handle Iran, it might do underground sabotage, but never ever they dare to strike in the open like they do with their surrounding neighbours, coward zionists

  7. #27
    Member einsjam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Pakistan Australia
    doesnt matter much..both countries have repressive theocratic regimes

  8. #28
    Forum Administrator bilalhaider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Pakistan Pakistan
    Iran to complete the bomb in 10 months

    WASHINGTON: Iran could produce enough weapons-grade uranium to make an atomic bomb within two to four months and then would need an additional eight to 10 months to build the device, experts said Monday.

    The authors of a new report on Iran’s nuclear program say Tehran has made progress in its uranium enrichment effort but that the United States and UN weapons inspectors would be able to detect any attempt at a “breakout” — at least for the moment.

    The report, released by the Institute for Science and International Security, offers estimates on uranium stockpiles and enrichment rates based on figures from inspections of Iran’s program by the UN watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

    To amass the 25 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium needed for one nuclear weapon, Iran “would require at least 2-4 months,” the report.

    To reach that goal, Iran would have to draw on its uranium enriched to 3.5 percent as well as stocks of 20 percent enriched uranium, it said.

    The report appears roughly in line with the US government’s view that once Iran made a decision to make a bomb, Tehran could be months away from generating sufficient amounts of weapons-grade material and then additional months would be required to construct a device.

    The findings confirm comments made to AFP last month by one of the authors, David Albright, a leading expert on Iran’s nuclear project.

    Once Iran had generated enough highly-enriched uranium, it could take about eight to 10 months to construct a nuclear weapon, Albright told AFP on Monday.

    Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said on September 11 that the United States would have about a year to take action if Iran decided to build a nuclear weapon.
    The time needed for Iran to quit the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and “dash” or “break out” to make the bomb would give the United States and its allies time to react if necessary, the report said.

    “Although Iran’s breakout times are shortening, an Iranian breakout in the next year could not escape detection by the IAEA or the United States.

    “Furthermore, the United States and its allies maintain the ability to respond forcefully to any Iranian decision to break out. During the next year or so, breakout times at Natanz and Fordow (facilities) appear long enough to make an Iranian decision to break out risky,” it said.

    But as Iran’s supply of 20 percent enriched uranium increases, the time needed to produce enough material for a bomb or bombs will decrease, it said.
    Iran’s expanding network of centrifuges could make it increasingly difficult for inspectors to spot Tehran’s progress, it said.

    “Iran may be seeking the ability to produce sufficient WGU (weapons grade uranium) faster than the IAEA inspectors could detect it,” the authors wrote.

    Despite repeated accusations from Western countries and critical findings from UN inspectors, Iran insists its nuclear program is designed purely for peaceful purposes.
    The United States is under pressure from Israel to set a precise deadline for military action but prefers for now to pursue a course of ever tighter sanctions to try to force Tehran to the negotiating table.

    Iran denies it is seeking atomic weapons, maintaining that its nuclear program is for civilian energy purposes.

    Once Iran possesses enough weapons-grade material for a bomb, it would be extremely difficult for UN monitors or outside countries to determine if Tehran had built a nuclear device, the report said.

    “If Iran successfully produced enough WGU for a nuclear weapon, the ensuing weaponization process might not be detectable until Iran tested its nuclear device underground or otherwise revealed its acquisition of nuclear weapons,” it said.

    “Therefore, the most practical strategy to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is to prevent it from accumulating sufficient nuclear explosive material.”
    Iran to complete the bomb in 10 months | DAWN.COM

  9. #29
    Administrator Aryan_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Pakistan England
    The Israelis behave like the spoiled child that the are.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Hope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Pakistan United Arab Emirates
    I dont think this is really on the cards.

  11. #31
    Senior Member Mazea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Iran Netherlands

    Iran READY for WAR against US & Israel

    ran’s Armed Forces chief of staff has dismissed US officials’ threats of military action against Iran as “political bluff”, saying the Islamic Republic is ready for the “decisive” battle against the US and Israel.

    “We are ready for the decisive war with the US and the Zionist regime [of Israel],” said Major General Hassan Firouzabadi on Wednesday.

    Iran has been planning for such a battle for years by carrying out various drills, he said, stressing that Iran’s Armed Forces are prepared to fend off any military aggression.

    The top commander warned that in case of aggression against Iran, all the US and Israeli interests will be targeted, “We warn that if our forces come under attack from any territory, we will hit all the positions which belong to that [territory],” Firouzabadi said.

    He said Iran harbors no hostility towards any of the countries in the region, but “if we are attacked from US bases in the region, we will target that place.”

    The senior commander made the remarks in reaction to US officials’ threats in recent weeks that all options, including the military one, are on the table against Iran.

    Meanwhile, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also said on Tuesday that the rhetoric of threat against the Iranian nation is “worthless and childish.”

    “On behalf of the nation of Iran, I declare with a clear voice that threatening the nation of Iran is worthless and childish since our nation has, over the past 35 years, stood up to various threats from the enemy and been victorious,” the president said in an address to a massive gathering of people celebrating the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Tehran on Tuesday.

  12. #32
    Senior Member Wattan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Pakistan Pakistan

    US adopts Israeli demand on Iran's missiles

    By Gareth Porter

    WASHINGTON - The Barack Obama administration's insistence that Iran discuss its ballistic missile program in the negotiations for a comprehensive nuclear agreement brings its position into line with that of Israel and senators who introduced legislation drafted by the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC aimed at torpedoing the negotiations.

    But the history of the issue suggests that the Obama administration knows that Iran will not accept the demand and that it is not necessary to a final agreement guaranteeing that Iran's nuclear program is not used for a weapon.

    White House spokesman Jay Carney highlighted the new US demand in a statement Wednesday that the Iranians "have to deal with matters related to their ballistic missile program".

    Carney cited United Nations Security Council resolution 1929, approved in 2010, which prohibited any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including missile launches. "So that's completely agreed by Iran in the Joint Plan of Action," he added.

    Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif not only explicitly contradicted Carney's claim that Iran had agreed to discuss ballistic missiles but warned that a US demand for discussion of its missile program would violate a red line for Iran.

    "Nothing except Iran's nuclear activities will be discussed in the talks with the [six powers known as the P5+1], and we have agreed on it," he said, according to Iran's IRNA.

    The pushback by Zarif implies that the US position would seriously risk the breakdown of the negotiations if the Obama administration were to persist in making the demand.

    Contrary to Carney's statement, the topic of ballistic missiles is not part of the interim accord reached last November. The Joint Plan of Action refers only to "addressing the UN Security Council resolutions, with a view toward bringing to a satisfactory conclusion the UN Security Council's consideration of this matter" and the formation of a "Joint Commission" which would "work with the IAEA to facilitate resolution of past and present issues of concern".

    It is not even clear that the US side took the position in the talks last autumn that Iran's missile program had to be on the table in order to complete a final agreement. But in any event it was not part of the Joint Plan of Action agreed on November 24.

    Past US statements on the problem of the Security Council resolutions indicate that the administration had previously acknowledged that no agreement had been reached to negotiate on ballistic missiles and that it had not originally intended to press for discussions on the issue.

    The "senior administration officials" who briefed journalists on the Joint Plan of Action last November made no reference to ballistic missiles at all. They referred only to "possible military dimensions" of the Iranian nuclear program and to "Iranian activities at Parchin".

    The demand for negotiations on Iran's missile program originated with Israel, both directly and through Senate Foreign Relations Committee members committed to AIPAC's agenda.

    Citing an unnamed senior Israeli official, Ha'aretz reported Thursday that Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Yuval Steinitz had met with Sherman and senior French and British foreign ministry officials before the start of the February talks and had emphasized that Iran's missile program "must be part of the agenda" for negotiation of a final agreement.

    By early December, however, Israel was engaged in an even more direct effort to pressure the administration to make that demand, drafting a bill that explicitly included among its provisions one that would have required new sanctions unless the president certified that "Iran has not conducted any tests for ballistic missiles with a range exceeding 500 kilometers."

    Since Iran had obviously tested missiles beyond that limit long ago, it would have made it impossible for Obama to make such a certification.

    Although the bill was stopped, at least temporarily, in the Senate when enough Democratic members refused to support it, Republicans continued to attack the administration's negotiating position, and began singling out the administration's tolerance of Iranian missiles in particular.

    At a February 4 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Senator Robert Corker, the ranking Republican on the committee, ripped into Undersecretary of State Wendy Sherman, the chief US negotiator in the nuclear talks with Iran.

    After a highly distorted picture of Iran's readiness to build a nuclear weapon, Corker asked, "Why did you all not in this agreement in any way address the delivery mechanisms, the militarizing of nuclear arms? Why was that left off since they breached a threshold everyone acknowledges?"

    But instead of correcting Corker's highly distorted characterization of the situation, Sherman immediately reassured him that the administration would do just what he wanted them to do.

    Sherman admitted that the November agreement covering the next months had not "shut down all the production of any ballistic missile that could have anything to do with delivery of a nuclear weapon". Then she added, "But that is indeed something that has to be addressed as part of a comprehensive agreement."

    Sherman also suggested at one point that there would be no real need to prohibit any Iranian missile if the negotiations on the nuclear program were successful. "Not having a nuclear weapon," she said, "makes delivery systems almost - not wholly, but almost - irrelevant."

    That admission underlined the wholly political purpose of the administration's apparent embrace of the Israeli demand that Iran negotiate limits on its ballistic missiles.

    The Obama administration may be seeking to take political credit for a hard line on Iranian missiles in the knowledge that it will not be able to get a consensus for that negotiating position among the group of six powers negotiating with Iran.

    Russia's Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Rybakov clearly implied that Moscow would not support such a demand in a statement on Thursday that Russia "considers that a comprehensive agreement must concern only and exclusively the restoration of trust in a purely peaceful intention of Iran's nuclear program".

    Although US, European and Israeli officials have asserted consistently over the years that Iran's medium-range ballistic missiles are designed to carry nuclear weapons, Israel's foremost expert on the Iranian nuclear program, Uzi Rubin, who managed Israel's missile defense program throughout the 1990s, has argued that the conventional analysis was wrong.

    In an interview with the hardline anti-Iran Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control in September 2009, Rubin said, "The Iranians believe in conventional missiles. Not just for saturation but also to take out specific targets. ... Remember, they have practically no air force to do it. Their main striking power is based on missiles."

    Since 2008, the International Atomic Energy Agency has accused Iran of working on integrating a nuclear weapon into the Shahab-3 missile reentry vehicle in 2002-2003, based on a set of drawings in a set of purported Iranian documents. The documents were said by the George W Bush administration to have come from the purloined laptop of a participant in an alleged Iranian nuclear weapons research program.

    But that account turned to be a falsehood, as were other variants on the origins of the document. The documents actually came from the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK), the anti-regime organization then listed as a terrorist organization by the US State Department, according to two German sources.

    Karsten Voigt, who was the German foreign office coordinator, publicly warned about the MEK provenance of the papers in a November 2004 interview with the Wall Street Journal.

    Voigt, who retired from the foreign office in 2010, recounted the story of how an MEK member delivered the papers to German intelligence in 2004 in an interview last year for a newly published book by this writer.

    Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on the US war in Afghanistan. His new book Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, was published February 14.

    (Inter Press Service)

  13. #33
    Senior Member Felix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Israel says seized Gaza-bound rocket shipment from Iran

    JERUSALEM: The Israeli navy seized a ship in the Red Sea on Wednesday that was carrying dozens of advanced Iranian-supplied rockets made in Syria that were intended for Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip, the military said.

    It said the Panamanian-flagged cargo vessel Klos-C was boarded in international waters without resistance from its17-strong crew, and would be escorted to the Israeli port of Eilat within days.

    “It was a complex, covert operation,” military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Peter Lerner said of the seizure some 1,000 miles (1,800 km) from Israel.

    Dozens of M302 rockets were found aboard the Klos-C, a weapon which could have struck deep into Israel from Gaza and would have significantly enhanced the firepower of Palestinian militant groups such as Hamas.

    “The M302 in its most advanced model can strike over 100 miles, and if they would have reached Gaza, ultimately that would have meant millions of Israelis under threat,” said Lerner.

    Israeli television footage showed what appeared to be marines inspecting a rocket on the floor of a ship hold, with cement bags labeled “Made in Iran” in English next to it.

    Lerner said the rockets were flown from Syria to Iran, from which they were shipped first to Iraq and then towards Sudan. Had they reached the African coast, they would have probably been smuggled overland through Egypt to Gaza, he said.

    Iran had orchestrated the shipment, Lerner said, describing the process as months in the making.

    The maritime tracking site marine showed the last position of the Klos-C as the Oman Gulf on Feb 22.

    Lerner said the crew came from a number of different countries and there was no immediate indication that they knew the nature of their cargo.

  14. #34
    Senior Member ManojKumar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    India UK

    Israel halts 'weapons shipment from Iran'

    Israel says it has seized a ship carrying advanced Iranian weapons made in Syria that was heading towards Gaza.

    The Panamanian-flagged vessel was boarded by Israeli naval commandos in the Red Sea off the coast of Sudan, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said.

    They found M-302 surface-to-surface missiles that were flown to Iran before being loaded onto the ship, it added.

    Hamas, the militant Palestinian Islamist movement that governs Gaza, strenuously denied any involvement.

    It accused Israel of concocting a story to "justify the blockade" of the coastal territory.

    Israel tightly controls its border with Gaza, restricting what is allowed in for what it says are reasons crucial to its security. It also maintains a naval blockade. Egypt blockades Gaza's southern border.

    Critics say the blockade is tantamount to collective punishment.

    'Unaware of cargo'

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the shipment was a "clandestine operation" by Iran, and added that the weapons would have been used against Israel.

    The IDF said it had tracked the weapons for several months as they were flown from Damascus to Tehran and then taken to a port in southern Iran.

    From there, it added, they were placed onto a civilian vessel, the KLOS-C, which sailed to Iraq, where containers of cement were added. The ship was eventually intercepted while on its way to Sudan.

    The vessel is being brought to the Israeli port of Eilat, where the 17-member crew will be questioned and the weapons unloaded.

    IDF spokesman Lt Col Peter Lerner said the crew had appeared to be unaware of their cargo and were not suspects.

    The BBC's Yolande Knell in Jerusalem says Israeli television is showing footage of what appear to be commandos inspecting a large rocket in a ship's hold.

    The IDF noted that this was not the first ship smuggling arms that it had stopped, but that it was "distinguished by the lethality and quality of its cargo".

    News of the rockets being seized comes during the visit of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the US.

    He has been pushing for tougher international action against Iran because of its controversial nuclear programme and support for militant groups, our correspondent adds.

    Israel has accused Iran of arming groups such as Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah.

    More than 60 rockets fired from the Gaza Strip have hit Israel since the start of last year, Israel says.

    Hamas denies that it has fired any rockets since a 2012 ceasefire agreement with Israel, with other Gaza-based groups claiming responsibility.

    However, Israel says it hold Hamas responsible for any attacks from Gaza and has repeatedly launched air strikes, causing several deaths of militants and civilians.

  15. #35
    Senior Member Mazea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Iran Netherlands

    Netanyahu's Anti-Iranian Rant

    Benjamin Netanyahu's tiresome vilification of Iran has taken on the characteristics of a rote obsession that diverges farther and farther from truth, reality, and his own ostensible objective. It is as if—in pursuing his real objective of keeping Iran ostracized, preventing any U.S. agreements with it, and keeping the specter of an Iranian threat permanently overshadowing everything else he'd rather not talk about—he has been reduced to a ritual, repetitive chant of “Iran bad, very bad” and does not care whether or not reflection on what he is saying shows it to make any sense
    Outside of the anti-Americanism that is heard so widely and often, it is hard to think of any other leader or government so dedicated to heaping calumnies unceasingly on another nation, at least one not currently waging war on the heaper's country. Maybe some American Cold Warriors fixated on the Evil Empire came close. Attacks on Iran occupied most of the first half of Netanyahu's speech Tuesday to AIPAC. Haaretz accompanied a transcript of the speech with one of those graphics depicting the frequency with which particular words have been used. For the entire speech Iran was mentioned far more than any word other than Israel.

    Maybe the relentlessness of this latest iteration of the chant reflects Netanyahu's frustration over his recent failure to get the U.S. Congress to sabotage the nuclear negotiations with Iran by slapping on new, deal-breaking sanctions. Perhaps he also felt a need to amp up the attacks to bring attention back to the Iranian specter from the crisis in Ukraine.

    Falsehoods continue to flow out of Netanyahu's mouth on this subject. Maybe the technique of getting people to believe something if it is repeated often enough is working, as reflected by some of the same falsehoods coming out of the mouths of members of Congress. He referred, for example, to the need for pressure to get Iranians to “abandon their nuclear weapons program.” No: according to the U.S. intelligence community, Iran has not decided to build a nuclear weapon, and Israeli intelligence does not disagree.

    Netanyahu said that “Iran openly calls for our [i.e., Israel's] destruction.” No: the former Iranian president who once made a metaphorical statement that got mis-translated into something along that line isn't even around any more. Actually, the current Iranian government says if the Palestinian problem is resolved then it would be possible for Iran to extend formal recognition to the state of Israel.

    Netanyahu asserted that Iran “continues to build ICBMs.” No: there is no evidence that Iran is building ICBMs or even intermediate range ballistic missiles. Iran does have medium range ballistic missiles, but testing and development even of those has been quiescent lately.

    In an opening sequence in the speech in which Netanyahu referred to medical and other humanitarian aid that Israel furnishes overseas, he said that Iran doesn't do any such thing because “the only thing that Iran sends abroad are rockets, terrorists and missiles to murder, maim and menace the innocent.” No: actually Iran does provide medical and similar humanitarian aid.

    The prime minister's analytical assertions are similarly divorced from reality. In arguing for the deal-breaking, impossible-to-achieve objective of no Iranian enrichment of uranium, he said that “letting Iran enrich uranium would open up the floodgates” of “nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and around the world.” But Iran already has been enriching uranium for some time, and no floodgates have opened. Even if Iran, contrary to its current policy, were to build a nuclear weapon, they still would be unlikely to open.

    Netanyahu seemed to dare us not to take him seriously when, in a jarringly discordant note alongside all of the alarmism about a supposedly deadly and dire threat, he tried to crack a joke to accompany his falsehood about ICBMs: “You remember that beer commercial, 'this Bud’s for you'? Well, when you see Iran building ICBMs, just remember, America, that Scud’s for you.” Hardy har har.

    Glaringly absent from the tirade was any of the perspective of a person living in a glass house who should be careful about not throwing stones. For example, along with self-congratulation for medical aid Netanyahu said Israel has provided Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, there was no mention of the misery that Israel has inflicted on people living in the same territory through a suffocating blockade and military-inflicted destruction. And alongside all of the alarums about a possible Iranian nuclear weapon there was of course no mention of Israel having the only nuclear weapons in the Middle East, totally outside any international control regime and with their existence not even admitted.

    Nor was there any real application of logic to implications for policy, given that the most important policy fixture at the moment is the nuclear negotiation. If Netanyahu's objective really were to assure prevention of an Iranian nuke—rather than assuring persistence of the issue of a possible Iranian nuke—the conclusion would be to support the negotiations rather than to try to sabotage them. Even if one believed all the calumnies, they are either irrelevant to the nuclear talks or all the more reason to hope they succeed.

    Listening to a speech such as this, it is a wonder that many Israelis condone a leader who is offering his country unending conflict and confrontation. And it is a wonder that many Americans, including ones with admiration and fondness for Israel, are influenced by him. He is not acting in the best interests of the state they admire and love, let alone in the interests of the United States. The reciter of the primitive chants of hate against Iran has a narrower objective. As Henry Siegman observes, “To say that Netanyahu is not a visionary leader is an understatement. To be sure, he is a clever tactician who knows how to stay in office. That goal, which he believes is unbreakably linked to retaining his leadership of Israel’s political right wing, trumps every other domestic and international challenge that faces Israel.”

  16. #36
    Banned alihamza's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Pakistan UK

    Re: Netanyahu's Anti-Iranian Rant

    Netanyahu will not be successful with his anti Iranian tirade, considering how Iran is coming out of international isolation.

  17. #37
    Senior Member Express's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Re: Netanyahu's Anti-Iranian Rant

    Netan yahoo is a bit rampant when you mention Iran. He gets excitable.

  18. #38
    Senior Member Mazea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Iran Netherlands

    Iran Disputes Israeli Arms Claim

    Iran accused Israel on Thursday of falsifying claims that it had seized an Iranian shipment of weapons bound for Palestinian militants in Gaza aboard a merchant ship. Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, said that Israel’s assertion, made Wednesday, was suspiciously timed, coming during a meeting in Washington of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel lobbying organization that is one of Iran’s most influential critics in American politics. The Israeli military said a Panamanian-flagged ship was seized by Israeli commandos 1,000 miles from the southern Israeli city of Eilat and was carrying dozens of Syrian-made M-302 rockets that Iran had helped to transport to Iraq, where the ship had loaded them. “An Iranian ship carrying arms for Gaza. Captured just in time for annual AIPAC anti-Iran campaign,” Mr. Zarif said on Twitter. “Amazing Coincidence! Or same failed lies.”

  19. #39
    Senior Member Jameel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Israel attacks 'hypocrisy' of international community on Iran

    Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accused the international community of "hypocrisy" over Iran.

    Mr Netanyahu spoke as the Israeli military unveiled what it alleged was a cache of Syrian-made weapons being sent by Iran to militants in the Gaza Strip.

    He criticised EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, who visited Tehran at the weekend, for her "smiles and handshakes" with Iran's leaders.

    Iran has dismissed as "failed lies" the accusation it was behind the shipment.

    A spokesman for Hamas, the militant Palestinian Islamist movement that governs Gaza, has meanwhile said it is all a "silly joke".

    'Denying the facts'

    Israel's navy seized a Panamanian-flagged vessel, the Klos-C, in the Red Sea off Sudan last Wednesday, and said it was carrying dozens of M-302 rockets, which have a range of 150km to 200km (93-124 miles).

    The weapons had been tracked for several months as they were flown from Damascus to Tehran and then taken to a port in southern Iran, it alleged. From there, it added, they were loaded on to the Klos-C, which sailed to Iraq, where containers of cement were added.

    On Monday, Mr Netanyahu said the world's apparent decision to downplay the discovery in favour of seeking improved relations with Iran was "evidence of the era of hypocrisy in which we are living".

    "The ship was organised by Iran, dispatched by Iran, financed by Iran. The missiles were loaded by Iran, in Iran," he added.

    "Now, as usual, Iran denies these facts. In fact its foreign minister calls these facts "failed lies". But it's Iran who's lying."

    The Israeli leader said he had heard only a handful of condemnations of this "murderous delivery", which was intercepted shortly before Baroness Ashton travelled to Tehran.

    "By comparison," he said, "if we build a balcony in a neighbourhood of Jerusalem, we hear a chorus of vociferous condemnation of the state of Israel from the international community."

    Mr Netanyahu has long claimed that the West is being fooled by Iran's diplomatic overtures following the election last August of President Hassan Rouhani, who was presented as a moderate.

    World powers are currently engaged in talks with Iran in a bid to convince Tehran to scale back its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.

    Speaking after meeting with Baroness Ashton in Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said a nuclear deal could come in the next four months.

  20. #40
    Senior Member Felix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Pakistan Pakistan

    Is the seizure of Gaza-bound Iranian arms at sea a bad omen for Israel?

    The intercepted weapons shipment from Iran to Gaza could signal a renewal of ties between Tehran and Hamas. If so, Iran is likely to demand that Hamas pay a price for its patronage - the resumption of rocket fire on Israel.

    The looming question which continues to evade Israeli intelligence regarding the Klos-C remains, for who were the Iranian weapons intended? Intel indicates that the ship was destined to unload its cargo in Sudan, where the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force would have transferred the weapons onwards, over-land.

    The arms could have been intended for Global Jihad factions, operating in the Sinai Peninsula. The Quds Force has had contact with these and other al-Qaida-linked factions for over a decade, using them when necessary to promote Iranian interests.

    Yet, more than likely, the rockets, mortars and munitions were intended for Gaza- perhaps for the Palestinian terror organization Islamic Jihad, which Tehran has sponsored for years. Still the possibility cannot be ruled out that the missiles were intended for Hamas.

    In either case, even after all the praise for a successful military operation and the precise intelligence which enabled the successful seizure of the ship on Tuesday, the revelation of such a weapons shipment is a bad omen for Israel.

    It indicates a renewal of ties between Gaza and Tehran. Indeed, it appears that the three-year gap between the Shiite regime and the Sunni organization in Hamas, which began with the civil war in Syria has been solved.

    Until the war in Syria erupted, the senior Hamas leadership sat in Damascus, while Iran supplied weapons (sent in ships to Sudan and then trucked through Egypt and Sinai to Gaza tunnels) and provided military assistance to the organization.

    With the outbreak of the war, Hamas condemned the attacks by the regime, led by the Alawite Assad family (an offshoot of the Shi'ite Muslim faction), who ruled over the largely Sunni Syrian population. In response, the Syrian regime cut support for Hamas, ordered it out of the bunkers and safe-houses it had been using, and banned the organization from the city.

    Tehran, for it's part, aligned itself with the Assad regime and ceased its financial and military aid to Hamas. For a short period, Hamas found a sponsor in Mohamed Morsi's Egypt under the Muslim Brotherhood. However, with the military takeover in Cairo following massive protests and violence against the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas was once again isolated.

    In recent months, Hamas leaders have been working to renew their old alliance with Iran and sent emissaries to achieve this. Does the capture of the Klos-C and its cargo of Iranian weapons indicate Hamas's success in healing ties with Iran?

    If this is the case, then the thawing of relations will come at a price which Hamas is apparently willing to pay. Secret talks and communications in clandestine circles indicate that Iran demands that Hamas resume the firing of rockets at Israel.

    This resumption of hostilities will not occur immediately, and Israeli capabilities to strike back and thwart attacks weighs heavily on Hamas. Hamas knows that in the next war, Israel will not be satisfied with heavy sanctions as it settled for in the previous two conflicts, in 2009 and 2012. This time Israel will seek to topple the regime. Nevertheless, as the saying goes, when the gun appears in the opening scene, the shot will be heard in the final scene.

    The time to revel in the success of Israel's operation is short-lived. According to several reports, the IDF has been operating in the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean for more than a decade, with vessels (ships and submarines) and aircraft. The navy took control of several ships which carried or were suspected of transporting weapons. The most famous being the Karine-A which Israel captured smuggling weapons in 2002.

    In recent years, reports have indicated military strikes along Sudan's coast and on ships and convoys transporting weapons which originated in Iran. These attacks have been attributed to Israel by the Sudanese government and foreign media, along with an attack on a Sudanese warehouse housing missiles.

    As it is, we can and should admire the precise intelligence obtained by Israel (with the assistance of the US whose intelligence capabilities in the Red Sea, Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf out-pace those of Israel). The fact that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu bothered to call and to thank not only the chief of staff, but also the Mossad's Chief Tamir Pardo, more than suggests the part which that organization played in obtaining information on the Klos-C. Indeed Israel's intelligence certainly used an array of assets such as HUMINT (agents on the ground), SIGINT (communications and signals monitoring) as well as the air-force (with aircraft and satellites).

    It should also be taken into account, that missiles such as those exposed in the recent operation, M-302 with a range of up to 200km and the capability to carry a warhead of more than 100 kg, are already in Gaza. The working assumption of the army and intelligence is that such shipments must have an acceptable rate of success in order to continue, where ships have managed to slip through the net and reached their destinations. After all, Intel cannot know what it does not know.

    For Israel, such missiles- in the hands of Hamas or Islamic Jihad in Gaza- are a "game-changer." Such missiles would allow terrorist organizations to launch the next missile campaign against, not only central Israel, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Dimona, but also northern Israel. The truth is, however, that such missiles have already been in the hands of Hezbollah, in Lebanon, for over a decade and were launched from Lebanon toward Haifa and Afula in the Second Lebanon War.

    Military Intelligence Chief Maj. General Aviv Kochavi, said a few weeks ago that there are about 170 thousand missiles and rockets aimed at Israel from all directions. Lebanon and Syria in the North, Iran in the East, and Gaza and Sinai in the South. The seizure of several dozen missiles, impressive as it is, as well as Israel's missile defense systems-"Iron Dome" and "Arrow" as well as the future system "Magic Wand"-do not change the facts: every military base, every airport, every strategic site, and all civilian communities, whether small or large, in Israel are within range.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Israel and the US plan to strike Iran in October…
    By Pksecurity in forum Iranian Affairs
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 2nd August 2012, 22:22
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 26th July 2012, 16:41
  3. Iran to Teach Art of Fighting to US,Israel if Attacked
    By Iranzamin in forum Iranian Affairs
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 19th July 2012, 20:28
  4. Clinton warns Iran during Israel visit
    By Jihad in forum World Affairs
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 17th July 2012, 16:07
  5. Lasting peace possible only if Israel ends occupation: Iran
    By Lord Of The Ring in forum Iranian Affairs
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 3rd July 2012, 18:31


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Join us on twitter Follow us on twitter