"Israel’s former security chief slams leaders on Iran stance; Says Netanyahu, Barak shouldn’t be trusted on policy" by Dan Perry and Diaa Hadid | Associated Press, April 29, 2012
JERUSALEM - The former head of Israel’s Shin Bet security agency has accused the country’s political leaders of exaggerating the effectiveness of a possible military attack on Iran, in a striking indication of Israel’s turmoil over how to deal with the Iranian nuclear program.
Yuval Diskin said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak - who have been saber-rattling for months - have their judgment clouded by “messianic feelings’’ and should not be trusted to lead policy on Iran. Diskin, who headed Shin Bet until last year, said a strike might actually accelerate the Iranian program.
Shin Bet addresses security in Israel and the Palestinian Territories only and is not involved in international affairs.
The implication being what, his opinion is not credible?
Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. Israel, like the West, believes that Tehran is developing weapons technology, but there is intense debate over whether international economic sanctions accompanying the current round of negotiations might prevent Iran from developing a bomb, or whether at some point a military strike should be launched.
It's a subtle point, but the phrasing makes it seem as if Israel is behind the West rather than leading it.
Diskin’s comments deepened the sense that a rift is growing between the hawkish Netanyahu government and the security establishment over the question of a strike - and Netanyahu allies quickly rushed to his defense.
In Israel, security figures carry clout well into retirement. Although they frequently pursue political careers, Diskin had been seen as relatively apolitical, perhaps lending his words even greater weight.
“I don’t have faith in the current leadership of Israel to lead us to an event of this magnitude, of war with Iran,’’ Diskin said at a public meeting Friday, video of which was posted on the Internet the next day and quickly became the lead news item in Israel.
“I do not believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings,’’ he continued. “I have seen them up close. They are not messiahs, these two, and they are not the people that I personally trust to lead Israel into such an event.’’
Diskin said it was possible that “one of the results of an Israel attack on Iran could be a dramatic acceleration of the Iran program. . . . They will have legitimacy to do it more quickly and in a shorter timeframe.’’
Several members of Netanyahu’s coalition issued statements questioning Diskin’s motives and suggesting that in effect he had allied himself with Israel’s dovish opposition.
The prime minister’s office called the former Shin Bet chief’s remarks “irresponsible,’’ while Barak’s office accused Diskin of “acting in a petty and irresponsible way based on personal frustration’’ and “damaging the tradition of generations of Shin Bet leaders.’’
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman also took a swipe at Diskin: “If you do not trust the prime minister and not the defense minister, you should have resigned and not waited for the end of your term.’’
The fact that they are attacking one of their own for offering his frank opinion speaks volumes.
Further complicating the picture is the widely held suspicion that Israel’s threats may actually amount to a bluff of historic proportion that has if anything been effective in compelling the world to boycott Iranian oil and isolate its central bank. From that perspective, criticism such as Diskin’s, based on a literal approach, could be construed as simplistic and self-defeating.
Israeli security officials have taken issue with the political leadership on several issues: whether sanctions will make a strike unnecessary, whether a strike will be militarily effective, and whether Israel should strike unilaterally if it cannot gain American approval.
Diskin’s speech - in which he also attacked the government for not actively pursuing peace with the Palestinians - came days after the country’s current top military commander, Lieutenant General Benny Gantz, also seemed to disagree with the country’s leadership on the likelihood that Iran will pursue a nuclear weapon.
Gantz told The Associated Press this week that Iran is seeking to develop its “military nuclear capability,’’ but that the Islamic Republic would ultimately bow to international pressure and decide against building a weapon. The key to that pressure, he said, were sanctions and the threat of a military strike.
One of the first criticisms voiced by a security figure came last summer from Israel’s recently retired spy chief, Meir Dagan. He called a strike against Iran’s nuclear program “stupid.’’
That's never stopped dickhead world leaders before.
--more--"
"Israeli leaders’ views divided on Iran’s weapons’ plans; Top general voices doubt Tehran will join nuclear club" by Daniel Estrin | Associated Press, April 26, 2012
JERUSALEM - Israel’s military chief said in an interview published Wednesday that Iran will ultimately decide against building a nuclear weapon - putting him at odds with Israel’s more pessimistic prime minister.
Major General Benny Gantz told the Haaretz daily that he believes that diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions, along with Israel’s determination to strike if it deems it necessary, will deter Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons.
“I don’t think [Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei] will want to go
the extra mile,’’ he said. “I think the Iranian leadership is composed
of very rational people.’’
He said this year would be critical in determining whether Iran decides to take the final steps needed for a weapon.
“We’re in a period when something must happen: Either Iran takes its nuclear weapon to a civilian footing only or the world, perhaps we, too, will have to do something. We’re closer to the end of the discussions than the middle,’’ he said.
So Israel's leadership knows Iran isn't building a bomb, huh?
Gantz’s comments contrasted with much tougher statements by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who complained in an interview Tuesday with CNN that international sanctions have not changed Iran’s behavior.
Have I mentioned how sick I am of his war-mongering?
The sanctions “are certainly taking a bite out of the Iranian economy, but so far they haven’t rolled back the Iranian program or even stopped it by one iota,’’ he said. Nuclear centrifuges are “spinning as we speak. So if the sanctions are going to work, they better work soon,’’ he said.
You have been warned, world.
Israel and much of the West think Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. But differences have emerged on how to deal with the issue.
The United States and other major powers have imposed economic sanctions while opening a dialogue with Iran. Netanyahu expressed skepticism about the talks, saying Iran is trying to buy time as it pushes a weapons program, while hinting that Israel would be ready to attack Iran’s nuclear installations.
Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to its very existence. Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.
I've come to dismiss what he says, sorry.
--more--"
"Israeli denies any promise to rule out attack on Iran" April 18, 2012|By Aron Heller
JERUSALEM - Defense Minister Ehud Barak of Israel said Tuesday his country has never promised the United States it would hold off from attacking Iran while nuclear talks were taking place.
The comments, in which Barak said a diplomatic push to reach a compromise with Iran was a waste of “precious time,’’ further exposed a rift between Israel and the United States over how to deal with Iran and its nuclear program....
Barak said the talks needed to yield quick results.
“It requires a few direct meetings where all the demands are put on the table. There you can see if the other side is playing for time, drawing it out through the year, or if indeed the other side is genuinely striving to find a solution,’’ he said....
His comment is so laughable because that is Israel's standard negotiating posture vis-a-vis the Palestinians.
Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and says it does not seek a bomb.
Somehow that sentence of a message is drowned out by the endless war-drumming propaganda of my paper.
--more--"
"Netanyahu said to favor attack on Iran; Israeli officials hint at strike but support uncertain" November 03, 2011|By Dan Perry and Josef Federman, Associated Press
JERUSALEM - An Israeli official said yesterday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to persuade his Cabinet to authorize a military strike against Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program - a discussion that comes as Israel has successfully tested a missile believed to be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead to Iran.
North Korea's piece of crap falls into the sea and the world is screaming wolf, but.... sigh.
It remained unclear whether Israel was genuinely poised to strike or if it was saber-rattling to prod the international community into taking a tougher line on Iran.
Honestly, I AM TIRED of being JERKED AROUND and MANIPULATED by ISRAELI ASSHOLES, 'kay?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Israeli leaders have long hinted at a military option, but they always seemed mindful of the practical difficulties, the likelihood of a furious counterstrike, and the risk of regional mayhem....
Which leaders are you talking about because the current crop seem a bit "messianic." And if anything that seems to be what is the Zionist globe-kicker plan!
Israeli leaders have said they favor a diplomatic solution, but recent days have seen a spate of Israeli media reports on a possible strike, accompanied by veiled threats from top politicians....
The government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing sensitive internal deliberations, told the Associated Press that the option is now being debated at the highest levels.
The official confirmed a report yesterday in the daily newspaper Haaretz that Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak both favor an attack but do not yet have the support of a majority of Cabinet ministers. The official also said Israel’s top security chiefs, including the heads of the military and Mossad spy agency, oppose military action....
--more--"
"Iran nuclear report concerns US; Officials see case for imposing new sanctions" November 08, 2011|By Matthew Lee, Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The possibility of a US strike is considered remote, however....
President Shimon Peres of Israel said in an interview published Sunday that while Israel had not made a final decision, “the possibility of a military strike on Iran is more likely to be realized than the diplomatic option.’’
An Israeli government official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing sensitive internal deliberations, said the option is now being debated at the highest levels and that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak favor military action. But the country’s security chiefs oppose the operation.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov of Russia said yesterday that a possible Israeli strike against Iran would be a “serious mistake’’ with “unpredictable consequences.’’
What he is saying is Russia, China, and Pakistan are going to come down on the side of Iran and are going to rollback the EUSraeli empire, at which point the empire will resort to the only weapons it has left: nuclear weapons.
**********************
Iran’s response to a military strike is a matter of speculation, but US military officials have assumed Iran could retaliate with attacks on Israel or other US allies within easy reach, such as Turkey. Iran could also encourage violence against US interests by proxy militias such as Hezbollah....
And World War III will be on!
--more--"
"Attack on Iran is not imminent, Israel says" December 02, 2011|By Daniel Estrin, Associated Press
JERUSALEM - Israel does not want to take military action against Iran over its nuclear program, but at some point may have no other option, the defense minister said yesterday.
At this point, Israel does not intend to launch a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities but it retains the option as a “last resort,’’ Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Israel Radio.
“We don’t need unnecessary wars. But we definitely might be put to the test,’’ he said....
Now that's chutzpah!
Barak said that he hoped that sanctions and diplomacy would pressure the Iranian leadership to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program but that he does not expect that to happen.
Israel, like the West, suspects that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb, despite Tehran’s insistence that its nuclear program is designed to produce energy.
Israel says a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten the Jewish state’s survival, citing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s repeated references to Israel’s destruction, Iran’s arsenal of ballistic missiles, and its support for militant groups that fight Israel.
You misquoted Ahmadinejad, and he's on his way out anyway, so.... sigh.
The United States, as well as some security experts in Israel, have loudly opposed the prospect of an Israeli military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities because of its potential for touching off retaliation against Israel and a broader, regional conflagration.
But Barak suggested that Israel might not alert world powers before embarking on a strike.
“Israel is a sovereign state and it is the government of Israel, the Israeli Army, and security forces who are responsible for Israel’s security, future, and survival,’’ he said.
Mysterious blasts, computer viruses, and assassinations have disrupted Iran’s nuclear program, and there has been speculation of Israeli involvement.
Yeah, Stuxnet sabotage and a campaign of terror is okay when the Israel or the empire does it.
Barak would not comment on that possibility, but said, “Any delay, be it divine intervention or otherwise, is welcome.’’
--more--"
Did I mention I was sick of the mixed messages, too?
"Israelis say time to strike against Iran is running out; Tehran moving nuclear program underground" by Amy Teibel | Associated Press, January 31, 2012
JERUSALEM - Israeli officials are quietly conceding that new international sanctions targeting Iran’s suspect nuclear program are constraining Israel’s ability to take military action, and a window of opportunity is closing as Tehran moves more of its installations underground.
The officials say Israel must act by the summer if it wants to effectively attack Iran’s program.
You can't say they didn't warn us.
“We must not waste time on this matter,’’ Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said yesterday. “The Iranians continue to advance [toward nuclear weapons], identifying every crack and squeezing through.’’
In comments last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Barak called for even tougher sanctions and warned that time is running out for the world to stop Iran’s weapons program.
“We are determined to prevent Iran from turning nuclear,’’ he said. “It seems to us to be urgent, because the Iranians are deliberately drifting into what we call an immunity zone where practically no surgical operation could block them.’’
A key question is how much damage Israel, or anyone else, can inflict, and whether it would be worth the risk of a possible counterstrike.
Israel has been a leading voice in the international calls to curb Iran’s nuclear program. It believes a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten its survival, citing Tehran’s calls for the destruction of the Jewish state and its support for anti-Israel militant groups.
Israeli leaders say they prefer a diplomatic solution. But - skeptical of international resolve - Israel refuses to rule out the use of force, saying frequently that “all options are on the table.’’
Leading Israeli defense officials believe that the time to strike, if such a decision is made, would have to be by the middle of this year.
Complicating the task is the assessment that Iran is stepping up efforts to move its work on enriching uranium - a critical component of bomb making - deep underground. Iran’s enrichment site near Qom, for instance, is shielded by about 300 feet of rock.
A team of UN nuclear inspectors is in Iran this week, and the findings from the visit could greatly influence Western efforts to expand economic pressures on Tehran over its uranium enrichment.
Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi, attending an African summit in Ethiopia, offered yesterday to extend the visit of the UN inspectors and expressed optimism their findings would help ease tensions.
Good luck with that.
The European Union this month decided to stop importing oil from Iran - weeks after the United States approved, but has yet to enact, new sanctions targeting Iran’s Central Bank and, by extension, its ability to sell its oil.
And you wondered why gas prices were going up?
Somewhat paradoxically, the new economic sanctions the United States and Europe are imposing - while meeting a repeated Israeli request - have emerged as an obstacle to military action.
Whatever it takes to stop a war.
An Israeli strike would risk shattering the US-led diplomatic front that has imposed four additional rounds of sanctions on Iran and jolt the shaky world economy by causing oil prices to spike.
Western leaders have made it clear they care about Israel more than you.
Plus, Iran could unleash its arsenal of missiles capable of striking Israel. Still, officials say, if Israel feels no alternative but to take military action, it will do so.
--more--"
Related:
"There is a “strong likelihood’’ that Israel would strike Iran in April, May, or June."
You can't say the agenda-pushing mouthpiece didn't give fair warning.
"Obama says US, Israel will work together on Iran" by Associated Press | February 06, 2012
WASHINGTON - President Obama sought to assure allies and foes alike that the United States was working in lockstep with Israel....
That isn't very assuring at all.
Of course, the buzz in the blogosphere is that Israel is angry because Obama has put said no to war with Iran, at least until the AmeriKan presidential election. Whether Israel goes ahead with its false flag nuking of Chicago before then is an open question right now.
Israel’s foreign minister, Avigdor Liberman, was headed to Washington last night to discuss security matters amid signs the allies disagree over the potential attack on Iran. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to visit the United States in March....
--more--"
Related: Obama vows attack on Iran if needed
Obama pressed to get tough on Iran
Obama vows to act to keep nuclear arms away from Iran
Netanyahu, Obama take separate tacks on Iran threat
Iran accuses 15 of plotting to kill scientists
Support for a military strike against Iran has an 'if'
US faces tricky task in assessing Iran’s nuclear capability
New Year celebration shows different side of Iran
UN body tones down Iran rhetoric
"Progress signaled in UN-Tehran talks
TEHRAN - A new round of talks between Tehran and the UN nuclear agency will be held in Vienna on May 13 and 14, state TV reported Saturday in a sign of possible progress over the country’s nuclear program. The technical talks in Vienna with the International Atomic Energy Agency come in addition to negotiations with United States, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany set for May 23 in Baghdad (AP)."
Perhaps it will be an enterprising false flag instead:
"Storied aircraft carrier heads out on final deployment" Associated Press, March 12, 2012
NORFOLK, Va. - The USS Enterprise, the world’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, set out to sea Sunday on its final voyage before its scheduled decommissioning after 50 years of duty.
Sinking the carrier a la the U.S.S. Liberty would sure save a lot of money and trouble, and it would advance the agenda, cui bono?
Officials say the carrier, which was featured in the film “Top Gun,’’ left Norfolk about noon.
The ship with more than 4,000 crew members has been involved in several wars and played a prominent role in the Cuban missile crisis. It also served as a spotter ship for John Glenn’s historic orbit of Earth in 1962.
The Enterprise is heading to the Middle East on its seven-month deployment, where it will be on standby in case of conflict with Iran or piracy threats off Somalia, among other things. The ship has experience with both situations, participating in a retaliatory strike against Iran for mining the Persian Gulf in 1988 and responding last year to the hijacking of a sailing vessel by Somali pirates, during which all four Americans on board were shot and killed.
The deployment will be the ship’s 22d. After its return to Virginia in the fall, tens of thousands are expected to be on hand for a deactivation ceremony on Dec. 1 that President Obama has been invited to attend.
The Enterprise is the longest aircraft carrier in the US fleet. It is also the oldest, a distinction that brings pride as well as plenty of headaches for the ship’s crew.
The ship is effectively a small city that frequently needs repairs because of its age. It was originally designed to last 25 years, but a major overhaul in 1979 and other improvements have extended its life.
But even the best-maintained ship faces challenges as it ages, said Captain William Hamilton, the ship’s commanding officer.
Machinists in charge of fixing unexpected problems say the things that can break down range from critical air conditioner units to elevators that lift fighter jets from the hangar bay to the flight deck. Moreover, the Enterprise has eight nuclear reactors to maintain - six more than any other US carrier.
The ship often has to make its own parts when something breaks. Spare parts for much of the ship simply do not exist.
--more--"
"Iran offers possible nuclear compromise; Suggests it could reduce uranium enrichment" by Brian Murphy | Associated Press, April 10, 2012
TEHRAN — Also Monday, the US Navy said it has sent a second aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf region amid the rising tensions with Iran over the nuclear program.
The deployment of the nuclear-powered USS Enterprise along with the Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group marks one of the few times the Navy has had two aircraft carriers operating in waters near the Persian Gulf, said Commander Amy Derrick-Frost of the Bahrain-based Fifth Fleet.
The warships will patrol the Gulf’s strategic oil routes that Iran has threatened to shut down in retaliation for economic sanctions the West has imposed on it because of its nuclear program. They also will support the American military operations in Afghanistan and antipiracy efforts off Somalia’s coast and in the Gulf of Aden.
The deployment of the second carrier is “routine and not specific to any threat,’’ Derrick-Frost said. She did not say how long the Navy will keep the increased military presence in region.
--more--"
Next Day Update:
The WAR has been POSTPONED FOR NOW -- maybe!
"Analysts, US say chances of war with Iran have diminished; Israeli politics, tough sanctions cited as factors" by James Risen | New York Times, April 30, 2012
WASHINGTON - After a winter of alarm over the possibility that a military conflict over the Iranian nuclear program might be imminent, US officials and outside analysts now believe that the chances of war in the near future have significantly decreased.
Thus BEWARE the FALSE FLAG! Beware the nuking of CHICAGO by "Al-CIA-Duh" with a bomb given them by
They cite a series of factors that, for now, argue against a conflict.
I don't imagine bloggers screaming their collective lungs out has had anything to do with it.
The threat of tighter economic sanctions has prompted the Iranians to try more flexible tactics in their dealings with the United States and other powers, while the revival of direct negotiations has tempered the most inflammatory talk on all sides.
Meaning IRAN of ALL NATIONS does NOT WANT a WAR! They are BENDING OVER BACKWARDS to PREVENT ONE! They JUST AGREED to SNAP INSPECTIONS by the U.N.!
A growing divide in Israel between political leaders and military and intelligence officials over the wisdom of attacking Iran has begun to surface.
Yeah, that's why the rush to war has been slowed.
And the White House appears determined to prevent any confrontation that could disrupt world oil markets in an election year.
Yeah, well, they took their chances.
Beware the, well, you know....
At the same time, no one is discounting the possibility that the current optimism could fade.
Always a but or still in my war daily, sigh.
“While there isn’t an agreement between the US and Israel on how much time, there is an agreement that there is some time to give diplomacy a chance,’’ said Dennis B. Ross, who previously handled Iran policy for the Obama administration.
“So I think right now you have a focus on the negotiations,’’ he added. “It doesn’t mean the threat of using force goes away, but it lies behind the diplomacy.’’
The talks two weeks ago in Istanbul between Iran and the United States and other world powers were something of a turning point in the current American thinking about Iran.
Could it be America is finally breaking from the parasite of Israel?
Beware the, well, you know....
In the days leading up to the talks, there had been little optimism in Washington, but Iranian negotiators appeared more flexible and open to resolving the crisis than expected, even though no agreement was reached other than to talk again, in Baghdad next month.
US officials believe the looming threat of tighter economic sanctions to take effect on July 1 persuaded the Iranians to take the negotiations more seriously, and that in turn has reduced the threat of war.
“There is a combination of factors coming on line, including the talks and the sanctions, and so now I think people realize it has to be given time to play out,’’ one administration official said, who, like the other official, spoke without attribution in order to discuss sensitive matters. “We are in a period now where the combination of diplomacy and pressure is giving us a window.’’
Probably about a 6-month window.
In a television appearance on Wednesday, Bay State Democrat John F. Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, “I have confidence that there is a way forward.’’
Senior Iranian leaders have sought to portray the Istanbul round of negotiations as successful, which might be a sign, US officials and outside analysts said, that the Iranian government is preparing the public for a deal with the West that could be portrayed as a win for Iran.
Meaning it's a loss for the Zionist Jerk Jews.
At the same time in Israel, the conservative government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been rocked by a series of public comments from current and former Israeli military and intelligence officials questioning the wisdom of attacking Iran.
The latest comments came from Yuval Diskin, the former chief of Shin Bet, Israel’s domestic security service, who on Friday said Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak should not be trusted to determine policy on Iran.
He said the judgments of both men have been clouded by “messianic feelings.’’ Diskin, who was chief of Shin Bet until last year, said an attack against Iran might cause it to speed up its nuclear program.
Just days before, Israel’s army chief of staff suggested in an interview with the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that the Iranian nuclear threat was not quite as imminent as Netanyahu has portrayed it. In his comments, Lieutenant General Benny Gantz suggested that he agreed with the US intelligence assessments that Iran has not yet decided whether to build a nuclear bomb.
Iran “is going step by step to the place where it will be able to decide whether to manufacture a nuclear bomb. It hasn’t yet decided whether to go the extra mile,’’ Gantz told Haaretz. He also suggested that the crisis would not necessarily come to a head this year: “Clearly, the more the Iranians progress, the worse the situation is. This is a critical year, but not necessarily ‘go, no-go.’ ’’
I mean, really, beware of the false flag because they plan doesn't go ahead without it.
The divide within the Israeli establishment is significant because Israel has been threatening to launch a unilateral strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities if the United States is unwilling to do so.
Why are we going to be dragged into it?
I say let Israel handle this one on their own. They started it, they can fight it themselves. We've already waged enough wars on their behalf. Ten years ago it was Iraq that was the existential threat, blah, blah, blah, and we saw how that worked out.
--more--"
