Obama_Sucks
Educating The Uneducated
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2008
- Posts
- 1,496
As if 'change' were really on its way to the White House, Israel has been desperately at work to demonstrate that it would accept no other approach toward Iran than that of a hawk.
In an apparent attempt to forewarn the next US administration that Israel is both capable and willing to use unilateral force against Iran, officials in Tel Aviv along with the Israeli military have been using a familiar rhetoric over the past couple of weeks.
The threatening language was also employed in the second quarter of the year 2008 when an Israeli request for a green light to bomb Iran was rejected by US President George W. Bush.
The prospect that Barack Obama would "engage in aggressive personal diplomacy" with Iran in a bid to resolve the controversy surrounding its nuclear activities never provoked such a storm in Tel Aviv in 2007.
Since his historic victory in the US presidential elections, however, upper Israeli echelons have gone out of their way to welcome the president-elect by raining down on the unborn administration a series of dangerous recommendations.
"We don't rule out any option [on Iran]. We recommend others don't rule out any option either," Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in reference to Obama just three days after the November 4 elections.
The words of advice were followed by further Israeli warnings to the team of American 'moderates'.
"It is of the utmost importance that we keep up our coordination against the Iranian threat because time is not on the side of the moderates," Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni warned Vice-President-elect Joe Biden in a telephone conversation on November 10.
The Israeli objective, according to Ehud Barak, was to persuade both eastern and western countries to set aside their differences and form a united front against Iran -- before engagement in any "aggressive personal diplomacy" can occur.
"We are not pleased with the current Russian stance toward Tehran," Barak warned in a November 12 interview with Russia's Vremia Novostei.
The Israeli army brass, at the same time, were tasked to spread the word that should the so-called political and diplomatic measures fail to counter the threat Tel Aviv perceives to be generated from Tehran, the Israeli Armed Forces would be left with no choice but to act on their own and target the nuclear facilities in Iran.
In order to retard Iran's nuclear progress, "We are ready to do whatever is demanded of us," Israeli Air Force (IAF) commander Major General Ido Nehushtan told Spiegel in an interview published on November 17.
Asked about the probability of a military strike should UN Security Council sanctions fall short of forcing Tehran into suspending its program, Nehushtan slyly responded that although Tel Aviv officials are the ones who declare war, the Air Force is prepared to say good riddance to Iran.
And the Israeli general appears to be telling it as it is.
The IAF conducted a strenuous 'dress rehearsal' for a potential strike on the Iranian sites in June. Over one hundred F-15 and F-16 fighters, tactical bombers, refueling planes and rescue helicopters enacted a scenario in which the warplanes would fly over into Iran, bombard various targets, and return home.
And thanks to the lame duck Bush White House, the Israeli Air Force, which is firmly believed to be armed with advanced nukes, has recently been equipped with various models of US-made guided bomb units. The bombs are brought into play when a target is located deep underground -- such as the Iranian nuclear site in Natanz.
On November 19, Reuters reported that in a rare display produced for select news crews, an Israeli squadron of F-16i "Sufas" demonstrated air power that could be sent into Iran.
Known as the backbone of the IAF, the F-16i is a specially-designed multi-role strike aircraft estimated to be capable of flying a round trip of approximately 1,040 miles (1,640 kilometers) -- a distance which would allow the fighter to attack targets within Iran without refueling.
"We are prepared and ready to do whatever Israel needs us to do and if [an attack on Iran] is the mission we're given then we are ready," said Colonel Amon, who commands the Negev Squadron of F-16i "Sufas".
The hawkish remarks and the pace of Israeli preparations perhaps indicate that senior Israeli commanders and analysts are desperate to make the case that, contrary to Western contentions such as the ones of the Pentagon, Israel is militarily capable of obliterating the Iranian nuclear program.
Tel Aviv insists that a nuclear Iran would be the harbinger of doom for Israel and has long lobbied for a harsh international approach toward the country.
Tehran officials say they seek only the civilian applications of the technology, a claim that has not been refuted by the UN nuclear watchdog.
Why therefore does the West so stubbornly support Israel in its quest to forbid Iran its nuclear rights in line with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?
The answer is clear. The Israeli lobby has become so powerful that an Israeli war on Iran over its uranium enrichment program would definitely drag many Western countries into a war with Tehran.
As the presidency of Barack Obama draws near, the breakneck pace of Israeli preparations and the new tactics they have employed in their game of manipulation illustrate a growing desperation in Tel Aviv.
A well-known Israeli politician and former Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, Lieutenant General Moshe Ya'alon, revealed on November 17 that an Israeli attack on Iran would not be limited to the country's nuclear sites but would also entail targets tied to the Tehran government.
Ya'alon, who is said to be seeking to become the next Israeli defense minister, said a full-scale war with the country would pave the way for 'regime change' in Iran.
"[A strike] is not the end of the game. Then, we should follow it up with a viable, sustainable military operation to target the facilities [serving] the regime's interests, and not allow the regime to rehabilitate itself. And, of course, a follow-up of political and diplomatic elements, to convince, first of all, the Iranian people, to go a different way," he said.
While Ya'alon seemed blasé about the civilian casualties that would rise from the ashes of such a plan, his proposal will surely appeal to anti-Iran sympathizers in Washington.
Regime change would undoubtedly resolve one of the biggest foreign policy challenges the United States has faced in the past three decades. And Israel is well aware of this fact.
The Iranian response, however, has raised the stakes. Tehran has warned that in case it comes under attack by either Israel or the US, it would target Israeli interests as well as American bases in the oil-rich region.
And the Iranian forces have showed their cards. The testing of medium- and long-range missiles -- such as the advanced Shahab-3 or its new Sejjil missile -- sent a lucid reminder to the White House.
Obama's promise of engaging Iranian leaders in "aggressive personal diplomacy" is now causing serious concerns among Tel Aviv officials.
With a crippled economy and an inheritance of two ongoing, unsuccessful wars, President-elect Obama is already bracing for a historically difficult presidency.
The question is whether the 47-year-old Democrat has the stomach to make his presidency even harder?
On November 23, Haaretz reported that Israeli army chiefs, in an assessment prepared for Israel's National Security Council, are fiercely pushing for a military strike on Iran before they miss a "limited window" of opportunity.
The assessment blatantly declares that -- considering the anticipated arrival of President-elect Obama in the White House -- Israel must draw up "contingency plans to attack Iran" even if it means courting a confrontation with its close ally the United States.
The president-elect will undoubtedly take the brazen warning of the annual Israeli National Security assessment seriously.
On the Iranian issue, if Obama chooses to follow in the footsteps of the incumbent president, the two countries would ultimately gravitate toward a military conflict. Such a folly, no matter the outcome, will secure a place for Obama next to Bush and Cheney.
And yet, if he chooses to reshape US dealings with Tehran, he would then have to answer to a very angry crowd in Tel Aviv. The world of politics has time and time again shown that such anger could lead to the downfall of many politicians, even a popular African-American history maker.
Notwithstanding that the real stance of the next US administration toward Tehran will not be felt until January 20, Israel is sending Obama a crystal clear message - mess with the Israeli agenda and all hell shall break loose!
As the Israelis beat the drums of war harder by the minute, time seems to be running out for Obama.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=76345§ionid=3510303
"I would not be surprised by likely Israeli plans to have Obama assassinated if he does not cooperate with his Jewish handlers (not that I support Obama in any way)"
In an apparent attempt to forewarn the next US administration that Israel is both capable and willing to use unilateral force against Iran, officials in Tel Aviv along with the Israeli military have been using a familiar rhetoric over the past couple of weeks.
The threatening language was also employed in the second quarter of the year 2008 when an Israeli request for a green light to bomb Iran was rejected by US President George W. Bush.
The prospect that Barack Obama would "engage in aggressive personal diplomacy" with Iran in a bid to resolve the controversy surrounding its nuclear activities never provoked such a storm in Tel Aviv in 2007.
Since his historic victory in the US presidential elections, however, upper Israeli echelons have gone out of their way to welcome the president-elect by raining down on the unborn administration a series of dangerous recommendations.
"We don't rule out any option [on Iran]. We recommend others don't rule out any option either," Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in reference to Obama just three days after the November 4 elections.
The words of advice were followed by further Israeli warnings to the team of American 'moderates'.
"It is of the utmost importance that we keep up our coordination against the Iranian threat because time is not on the side of the moderates," Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni warned Vice-President-elect Joe Biden in a telephone conversation on November 10.
The Israeli objective, according to Ehud Barak, was to persuade both eastern and western countries to set aside their differences and form a united front against Iran -- before engagement in any "aggressive personal diplomacy" can occur.
"We are not pleased with the current Russian stance toward Tehran," Barak warned in a November 12 interview with Russia's Vremia Novostei.
The Israeli army brass, at the same time, were tasked to spread the word that should the so-called political and diplomatic measures fail to counter the threat Tel Aviv perceives to be generated from Tehran, the Israeli Armed Forces would be left with no choice but to act on their own and target the nuclear facilities in Iran.
In order to retard Iran's nuclear progress, "We are ready to do whatever is demanded of us," Israeli Air Force (IAF) commander Major General Ido Nehushtan told Spiegel in an interview published on November 17.
Asked about the probability of a military strike should UN Security Council sanctions fall short of forcing Tehran into suspending its program, Nehushtan slyly responded that although Tel Aviv officials are the ones who declare war, the Air Force is prepared to say good riddance to Iran.
And the Israeli general appears to be telling it as it is.
The IAF conducted a strenuous 'dress rehearsal' for a potential strike on the Iranian sites in June. Over one hundred F-15 and F-16 fighters, tactical bombers, refueling planes and rescue helicopters enacted a scenario in which the warplanes would fly over into Iran, bombard various targets, and return home.
And thanks to the lame duck Bush White House, the Israeli Air Force, which is firmly believed to be armed with advanced nukes, has recently been equipped with various models of US-made guided bomb units. The bombs are brought into play when a target is located deep underground -- such as the Iranian nuclear site in Natanz.
On November 19, Reuters reported that in a rare display produced for select news crews, an Israeli squadron of F-16i "Sufas" demonstrated air power that could be sent into Iran.
Known as the backbone of the IAF, the F-16i is a specially-designed multi-role strike aircraft estimated to be capable of flying a round trip of approximately 1,040 miles (1,640 kilometers) -- a distance which would allow the fighter to attack targets within Iran without refueling.
"We are prepared and ready to do whatever Israel needs us to do and if [an attack on Iran] is the mission we're given then we are ready," said Colonel Amon, who commands the Negev Squadron of F-16i "Sufas".
The hawkish remarks and the pace of Israeli preparations perhaps indicate that senior Israeli commanders and analysts are desperate to make the case that, contrary to Western contentions such as the ones of the Pentagon, Israel is militarily capable of obliterating the Iranian nuclear program.
Tel Aviv insists that a nuclear Iran would be the harbinger of doom for Israel and has long lobbied for a harsh international approach toward the country.
Tehran officials say they seek only the civilian applications of the technology, a claim that has not been refuted by the UN nuclear watchdog.
Why therefore does the West so stubbornly support Israel in its quest to forbid Iran its nuclear rights in line with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?
The answer is clear. The Israeli lobby has become so powerful that an Israeli war on Iran over its uranium enrichment program would definitely drag many Western countries into a war with Tehran.
As the presidency of Barack Obama draws near, the breakneck pace of Israeli preparations and the new tactics they have employed in their game of manipulation illustrate a growing desperation in Tel Aviv.
A well-known Israeli politician and former Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, Lieutenant General Moshe Ya'alon, revealed on November 17 that an Israeli attack on Iran would not be limited to the country's nuclear sites but would also entail targets tied to the Tehran government.
Ya'alon, who is said to be seeking to become the next Israeli defense minister, said a full-scale war with the country would pave the way for 'regime change' in Iran.
"[A strike] is not the end of the game. Then, we should follow it up with a viable, sustainable military operation to target the facilities [serving] the regime's interests, and not allow the regime to rehabilitate itself. And, of course, a follow-up of political and diplomatic elements, to convince, first of all, the Iranian people, to go a different way," he said.
While Ya'alon seemed blasé about the civilian casualties that would rise from the ashes of such a plan, his proposal will surely appeal to anti-Iran sympathizers in Washington.
Regime change would undoubtedly resolve one of the biggest foreign policy challenges the United States has faced in the past three decades. And Israel is well aware of this fact.
The Iranian response, however, has raised the stakes. Tehran has warned that in case it comes under attack by either Israel or the US, it would target Israeli interests as well as American bases in the oil-rich region.
And the Iranian forces have showed their cards. The testing of medium- and long-range missiles -- such as the advanced Shahab-3 or its new Sejjil missile -- sent a lucid reminder to the White House.
Obama's promise of engaging Iranian leaders in "aggressive personal diplomacy" is now causing serious concerns among Tel Aviv officials.
With a crippled economy and an inheritance of two ongoing, unsuccessful wars, President-elect Obama is already bracing for a historically difficult presidency.
The question is whether the 47-year-old Democrat has the stomach to make his presidency even harder?
On November 23, Haaretz reported that Israeli army chiefs, in an assessment prepared for Israel's National Security Council, are fiercely pushing for a military strike on Iran before they miss a "limited window" of opportunity.
The assessment blatantly declares that -- considering the anticipated arrival of President-elect Obama in the White House -- Israel must draw up "contingency plans to attack Iran" even if it means courting a confrontation with its close ally the United States.
The president-elect will undoubtedly take the brazen warning of the annual Israeli National Security assessment seriously.
On the Iranian issue, if Obama chooses to follow in the footsteps of the incumbent president, the two countries would ultimately gravitate toward a military conflict. Such a folly, no matter the outcome, will secure a place for Obama next to Bush and Cheney.
And yet, if he chooses to reshape US dealings with Tehran, he would then have to answer to a very angry crowd in Tel Aviv. The world of politics has time and time again shown that such anger could lead to the downfall of many politicians, even a popular African-American history maker.
Notwithstanding that the real stance of the next US administration toward Tehran will not be felt until January 20, Israel is sending Obama a crystal clear message - mess with the Israeli agenda and all hell shall break loose!
As the Israelis beat the drums of war harder by the minute, time seems to be running out for Obama.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=76345§ionid=3510303
"I would not be surprised by likely Israeli plans to have Obama assassinated if he does not cooperate with his Jewish handlers (not that I support Obama in any way)"
Last edited:
