Israel prods Americans into war with Iran

Israel prods Americans into war with Iran
Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:45:03
By Dex A. Eastman, Press TV, Tehran



http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=62413&sectionid=3510303



As the clash between the US and Israel on the one hand and Iran on the
other reaches a critical level, the powers that be have been
desperately at work spinning a web of deception that may take the
already war-exhausted Americans into the military conflict of the
century, a confrontation that could eventually escalate into World War
III.

"They will not close it... They will not be allowed to close it,"
declared Vice Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff at a Monday press conference
in Bahrain.

The closure by Iranians of the Strait of Hormuz constitutes an "act of
war" and would "not be an action against the United States but against
the international community", continued the commander of the US Navy
5th Fleet.

But little did the respected Vice Admiral know that the morally
bankrupt echelons in Washington and the siege-mentality-enduring
people of means had plans for him and his fleet.

PAX AMERICANA

The scheme gained momentum, perhaps, on May 21, when Haaretz reported
that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert suggested in an over-lunch
conversation with US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in Israel that a naval
blockade be imposed on Iran.

"The present economic sanctions on Iran have exhausted themselves," an
under-fire Olmert told the Democratic heavyweight Pelosi, who was
joined by 12 bipartisan Members of Congress.

According to the Israeli newspaper, the desperate-to-be-redeemed prime
minister proposed two possible courses of action during the meeting:
first, the imposition of a naval blockade on Iran using a US fleet,
and second to prohibit the entry of Iranian aircraft, businesspeople
and top officials at all world airports.

"Iranian businesspeople who would not be able to land anywhere in the
world would pressure the regime," opined the corruption-scandal-
implicated politician.

While Nancy Pelosi on May 22 denied having any such conversation in
Israel, that same day the notorious Resolution 362 found its way into
the US Congress.

Present at the luncheon in Israel, bill sponsor Democrat Gary Ackerman
demonstrated his unwavering support for the principles of Zionism, as
the bill indirectly puts into play the controversial requests of the
Israeli premier.

The bill's key section "demands" that the president, among other
things, make strenuous efforts, "prohibiting the export to Iran of all
refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements
on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or
departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all
Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's
nuclear program".

Considering that Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution
says "Congress shall have power to ... declare war" but does not
specify how legislation text should be worded to be considered a
"Declaration of War", Resolution 362 can, and probably will, be
construed by an already power-abusive President George W. Bush and his
team of lawyers as a congressional "demand" for imposing a naval
blockade on Iran.

Resolution 362 is, thus, a supposedly innocent way on the part of
America of provoking hostility by necessitating the imposition of a
blockade on all ships "entering and departing Iran… [and] prohibiting
the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products".

While a naval blockade may be seen as acceptable to US politicians, it
constitutes an act of war for Iran and will lawfully justify a
response from Tehran.

The Western media will then plaster the headline America under attack!
on the front page of all newspapers; Washington will portray Iran's
defense as an act of aggression and will easily manage to convince
Americans that a swift victory is achievable by waging all-out war on
the country under the pretext of the War on Terror.

But how does Israel ensure that a piece of legislation of such caliber
is approved?

Lobbying began! The most powerful Zionist lobby, American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), convened on June 2-4 and declared
its full-throated support for the bill, the approval of which has
become its chief legislative priority. Some 80 Congressmen co-
sponsored Resolution 362 in the three-day period.

On June 4, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was pressing for his
cause in America, attempting to drum up further US support for "the
need to vanquish the Iranian threat".

"We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat,"
said Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert after his 90-minute meeting
with President Bush in the White House.

"I left with a lot less questions... regarding the means, the
timetable restrictions and American resoluteness to deal with the
problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat
and the need to vanquish it and intends to act on the matter before
the end of his term in the White House," heralded he whose mission had
been accomplished.

A member of Olmert's delegation said the same day that Tel Aviv and
Washington had agreed to cooperate in case of an attack by Iran,
asserting that "the meetings focused on 'operational matters'
pertaining to the Iranian threat."

The annual AIPAC policy conference and Olmert's trip to the White
House had, indeed, gone well. Congress once again capitulated to the
humiliation of falling in line with the demands of the Israeli lobby.

As of July 1, House Resolution 362 (and the Senate version Resolution
580), known as the 'Iran War Resolution', enjoys 220 co-sponsors in
the House and 32 in the Senate and will be put to vote in the coming
days.

ISRAEL PAVES THE WAY FOR WAR

In early June, perhaps coinciding with Olmert's trip to the US, Israel
conducted a military maneuver over the eastern Mediterranean and
Greece in what Pentagon officials have suggested to be in preparation
for a war with Iran.

Over 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s partook in the exercise, which
spanned some 900 miles, roughly the distance between their airfields
and a nuclear enrichment facility in the central Iranian city of
Natanz.

An Israeli politician familiar with the Air Force initiative said that
Iranians should "read the writing on the wall . . . This was a dress
rehearsal, and the Iranians should read the script before they
continue with their program for nuclear weapons."

On June 6, reportedly a day after the unpublicized exercise ended,
Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz, who hopes to succeed Olmert
as the next prime minister, described a war with Iran as "unavoidable"
and threatened to wage war on Iran if the country fails to halt its
nuclear activities.

His tactless remarks, while tacitly justified by the media as an
attempt to win approval for future elections, have sparked a war of
words between Tehran and Tel Aviv and have somewhat benefited Israel
in its portrayal of Iran as a threat before the docile US Congress to
secure the approval of Resolution 362.

Iran almost instantly urged UN Security Council action against Israel,
saying the inaction of the United Nations over Israeli atrocities has
emboldened Tel Aviv to such an extent that it now publicly threatens
Iran in flagrant violation of the UN Charter.

"Iran's Armed Forces have reached a pinnacle of their military might
and if anyone is to take such measures (attacks Iran), the response
will be excruciating," responded Iranian Defense Minister Brigadier
General Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar.

Israel later played down the threats but fired back by using a harsher
rhetoric suggestive of a nuke attack on Iran. "We must tell them: If
you so much as dream of attacking Israel, before you even finish
dreaming there won't be an Iran anymore," Israeli Infrastructure
Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer told the Israeli public radio June 7
without elaborating on why he believed Tehran would ever attack Tel
Aviv.

"Iran should know the price it will have to pay when it begins to
think concretely about attacking Israel," he continued in a direct
attempt to represent Tehran as the aggressor.

Israel later ramped up its anti-Iran "operational" activities. On June
10, Israeli sources revealed that Tel Aviv had set up an 'Iran
Command' within its Air Force as part of preparations for a war on the
Islamic Republic.

The Command was said to be directed at improving coordination among
Israeli ballistic missiles and air and missile brigades that deploy
the Arrow and Patriot missile systems. That very day, Congress threw
more of its weight behind Israel.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki commented on the issue. He
argued that Israel "lacks legitimacy" and has already been defeated
not by "a modernized army" but by "a resistance group" in its 33-day
war against Lebanon, suggesting that Tel Aviv should not be taken
seriously.

REPAIRING THE BUSH IMAGE

Exposed to fierce criticism because of his feckless attitude before
9/11 as well as his deplorable performance in handling the
unconstitutional invasion of Iraq, a frowned-upon George W. Bush
admitted to The Times on June 11 that his gun-slinging rhetoric had
made the world believe that he was a "guy really anxious for war".

While defending his decision to invade Iraq, the man infamous for his
use of such phrases as "bring them on" and "dead or alive" said,
"Look, I think that in retrospect, you know, I could have used a
different tone."

His confession that people saw him as "you know, not a man of peace"
signaled a shift in the Bush administration policy on Iran.

Comments were made less often about the option of launching a military
strike on Iranian nuclear sites and, when mentioned, the word
"diplomacy" was almost always integrated into the same sentence in one
form or another.

"All options remain on the table if diplomacy fails to get Iran
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to abandon Iran's uranium-enrichment
program," said Bush in a June 15 interview with the Observer.

However, the president's rhetoric grew more intense as he became more
inclined to associate Iran to the War on Terror.

"My message would be: Stop fooling around with the Iranians and stop
harboring terrorists," said Bush on June 14.

"I would like to say one thing about the Iranian demand for civilian
nuclear power, it is a justifiable demand… Iranians must understand
all options are on the table however," said Bush on June 16 in London
in clarification of the price of "civilian nuclear power".

Israel and the White House have even lent a helping hand in improving
the Bush image. A June 13 report published by DEBKAfile, a website
believed to have links with the Israeli military and intelligence
agency, stated that Bush is clearly bidding farewell to the option of
a military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

"They can either face isolation or they can have better relations with
us all. No third option, of a punishing military strike, was
mentioned," the website reported.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino also touched on the issue.

"President Bush believes that we can solve this issue (Iran's nuclear
program) diplomatically, and that everyone's preference is to solve it
diplomatically, not just here in the United States but with our allies
and certainly with Israel," she claimed June 25.

But why would an outgoing neocon president with nothing to lose
suddenly shift policy and claim to push for diplomacy with Iran? Is
there any other way to make an Iranian retaliation against the peace-
loving American forces blockading the Persian Gulf look more innocent?
Could it be that an apparently unknowing Bush will one day justify a
possible provocation by saying we tried diplomacy but to no avail?

ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE

"We will not allow Iran to close it," threatens Vice-Admiral Kevin J.
Cosgriff of the 5th Fleet. "The US Navy has been in the region for 60
years and will be here for decades to come."

He was responding to remarks made by commander of the Islamic
Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC), Major General Mohammad-Ali Jafari, who
was asked whether Tehran would consider closing the strategically
vital Strait of Hormuz waterway if it were attacked.

"When a country comes under attack, it naturally uses all its
capacities to confront the enemy," said the Iranian commander.

It does seem silly, however, and somewhat insane that despite the
cavernous archives of Washington acts of aggression against sovereign
nations, their countless years of meddling in Iran, their coup d'état
against Mossadeq, their support for the oppressive Shah, their
unapologetic downing of passenger flight 655, their long-time support
for and funding of terrorist groups such as the Mojaheddin Khalq
Organization (MKO) and Jundullah in hopes of destabilizing the country
and their cruel efforts to arm late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein with
weapons of mass destruction to use against Iranian and Iraqi
civilians, an American Vice Admiral even has the gall to say that an
Iranian attempt to protect their sovereignty against a gang of
aggressor countries attacking them in violation of the UN Charter
would be considered by the world as an act of holding 40 percent of
world oil "hostage" by "a single country".

Yes, indeed, America does have a 60-year history of brazen imperialism
in the Middle East and "will be here for decades to come". That must
be why Bush says the Iranian threat must be dealt with.

A military strike on Iran will not be the easy hit-and-run job
Americans expect it to be, though. According to US Vice-Admiral
Cosgriff, it will be "pretty disastrous," with "echoes and
aftershocks" reverberating throughout the region.

As waves of US and Israeli fighter jets scream over the country,
Iranian missile defense systems will load the skies, downing an
overwhelming number of high-tech aircraft. According to Western media
outlets, while the violators will be able to accomplish parts of their
mission, there is the prospect of retaliatory attacks on US military
bases and American forces stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. If
correct, scores of US soldiers may be vanquished in a relatively short
time.

Sharp-shooting pilots will dice with death to repel US warships and
kamikaze missions may commence against US naval forces in the Persian
Gulf. The military will respond to Israeli airstrikes with missile
attacks never seen before in Israel.

Harking back to the eight-year war imposed upon Iran by a US-backed
Saddam (1980-88), the spirit of the sovereign nation that has never
accepted foreign domination will be revitalized. The American
strategists will be thoroughly bewildered by the courageous missions
carried out by those who love Iran despite its hardships.

As with the US-led siege on Iraq and Afghanistan, demonstrators will
take to the streets all around the world; Washington will be the scene
of violence as the White House justifies the move under the guise of
the War on Terror.

Opposition to the war will be evident in Arab countries throughout the
already volatile Middle East and some nations may intervene, wreaking
further havoc. The ensuing battles could easily close the 21-mile
Strait of Hormuz chokepoint, cutting crude exports from the oil-rich
Persian Gulf.

As the war of attrition continues, it has been suggested by
international analysts that Latin American countries that have long
suffered because of US interference may halt oil exports to the US in
condemnation of the aggression, thus triggering massive oil spikes.

According to predictions by Rice University economists, oil prices may
surge to $200 a barrel in the next year which would mean Americans
will have to pay $6.64 per gallon for gasoline. Pundits, however, say
a war on Iran will double or triple crude prices.

The already weak US economy could, if the war persists, assume the
burden of $10-a-gallon gasoline and could plunge into an unprecedented
depression. The fuel shortage will prompt an increase in biofuel
farming. Hundreds of millions worldwide could have nothing to eat;
high fuel prices would lead to a surge in farming costs and may
further deepen the food crisis. Riots could ensue. The world will
never be the same.

If you would like to contact the writer please write to
eastman@presstv.ir



---------------------------------------------------------------



AIPAC pushing US to war with Iran for Israel:



http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2007/10/re-aipac-is-pushing-us-to-w
ar-with-iran.html





Stop the AIPAC sponsored 'Iran war' legislation calling for a blockade
of Iran (to get the war with Iran going for Israel):



http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=91563




Here is the URL for the Bromwich piece about AIPAC pushing for war
with Iran for Israel:



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/congress-to-bush-and-chen_b_10
9868.html


Check out the question for Scott McClellan about how the JINSA (Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs) crowd pushed US to attack
Iraq for Israel and are now doing similar to get US to attack Iran
(how many more Americans have to die/get horribly maimed for this
perpetual war for Israel agenda?):





http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/06/scott-mcclellan-questioned-
about-neocon.html



McCain is a serving Israel first traitor to America:



http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/03/make-people-aware-subscribe
.html



Israeli threat spikes our oil prices and crashes our stock market:



http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/06/israeli-threat-spikes-our-o
il-prices-we.html





The big miscalculation on Iran




http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&section=0&article=111427&d=2&m=7&
y=2008



Subject: 'Attacking Iran will have consequences'

Date: Friday, July 4, 2008, 3:26 PM


http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=62573&sectionid=351020203


'Attacking Iran will have consequences'
Fri, 04 Jul 2008 22:09:47


Top Lebanese cleric Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah says an attack on Iran
would bring forth an all-out war with the entire Muslim world.

Fadlallah warned that a military intervention in the Islamic Republic
would spark Muslim fury in a Friday prayer sermon in Haret Hreik's
Imamayn Hassanayn Mosque.

The senior cleric condemned Washington's 'Iran war' rhetoric and
stressed that such psychological warfare will not be tolerated in the
Muslim World.

"We warn that any European or Arab country advocating aggression
against Iran will pay the price. An Iran war will not only wreck havoc
on the region but will have worldwide consequences," he said.

"Washington's support for MKO terrorists is a blatant example of US
attempts to undermine Iran's security and stability," the prominent
cleric added.

He reiterated that an attack on Iran would be interpreted as a
declaration of war on the entire Muslim world and resistance groups.

SBB/HGH



Iran: Attacking our N-sites means war


http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=62507&sectionid=351020104



Fri, 04 Jul 2008 16:38:05


The top Islamic Revolution Guards Corps commander warns that any
attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would lead to the outbreak of
war.

"Any action against Iran will be interpreted as the start of a war,"
Major General Mohammad-Ali Jafari told reporters Thursday.

He made the remarks when asked about increasing rumors of a potential
US or Israeli attack on Iran, IRNA reported.

The IRGC commander warned that Iran's response to any act of
aggression would make the invaders 'regret' their decision.

Washington has never ruled out the possibility of resorting to the use
of force against Iran over its nuclear program and reports suggest
that the Israeli regime is preparing for a unilateral strike on Iran's
nuclear sites.

This is while Washington and Tel Aviv, which accuse Tehran of seeking
a military nuclear program, claim they favor a diplomatic solution to
the standoff.

Refusing to give up its nuclear drive, Iran insists as a signatory to
the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) the country is entitled to a
civilian nuclear program.

In its most recent report, the UN nuclear watchdog conceded that there
is no link between the use of nuclear material and the 'alleged
studies' of weaponization in Iran's nuclear facilities.

MD/HGH


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------



Israel Prodding US to Attack Iran:





http://www.soldiervoices.net/svfor/showthread.php?t=1183



Saudi Paper: Prepare for Nuclear Fall-Out:



http://soldiervoices.net/svfor/showthread.php?t=1147






Hersh: Congress Agreed to Bush Request to Fund Major Escalation in
Secret Operations Against Iran:


http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/30/hersh_congress_agreed_to_bush_request







Chris Hedges: Insane to attack Iran:





http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/05/hedges-its-insane-to-attack
-iran.html


Bob Barr: Attacking Iran Highly Irresponsible & Detrimental


http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/05/bob-barr-attacking-iran-hig
hly.html





A Clean Break/war for Israel agenda:







http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/02/clean-break.html



Would it be possible (if it isn't too late to already) to conduct a
House hearing with Flynt Leverett after what he mentioned at New
America about the Bush regime perpetuating fraud over Iran (a youtube
of Flynt conveying such is daisy-chained after the initial youtube
about the disgraceful interview that '60 Minutes' did with Ahmadinejad
via the following link)?:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onNzrNEFs1E&feature=PlayList&p=181923B
27C885CDF&index=0&playnext=1



The following article appeared in the 'Daily Star' in Lebanon:


Bush could do himself a favor by heeding Iran's warnings:



http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&article_id=93662&c
ateg_id=17
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]