Op-ed in Atlanta Jewish Times says the slaying of the president may be an effective way to thwart Iran’s nuclear program.
By Chemi Shalev
NEW YORK – The owner and publisher of the Atlanta Jewish Times, Andrew Adler, has suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu consider ordering a Mossad hit team to assassinate U.S. President Barack Obama so that his successor will defend Israel against Iran.
Adler, who has since apologized for his article, listed three options for Israel to counter Iran’s nuclear weapons in an article published in his newspaper last Friday. The first is to launch a pre-emptive strike against Hamas and Hezbollah, the second is to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and the third is to “give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.”
U.S. President Barack Obama taking the stage to speak at the 71st General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism. Photo by: Reuters
Adler goes on to write: “Yes, you read “three correctly.” Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence.Think about it. If have thought of this Tom-Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?”
Adler apologized yesterday for the article, saying “I very much regret it; I wish I hadn’t made reference to it at all,” Adler told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. And in an interview with Gawker.com, Adler denied that he was advocating an assassination of Obama.
The op-ed in Atlanta Jewish Times.
The American Jewish Committee in Atlanta last night issued a harsh condemnation of Adler’s article, saying that his proposals are “shocking beyond belief.”
“While we acknowledge Mr. Adler’s apology, we are flabbergasted that he could ever say such a thing in the first place. How could he even conceive of such a twisted idea?” said Dov Wilker, director of AJC Atlanta. “Mr. Adler surely owes immediate apologies to President Obama, as well as to the State of Israel and his readership, the Atlanta Jewish community.”
Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League, also blasted Adler on Friday, saying “There is absolutely no excuse, no justification, no rationalization for this kind of rhetoric. It doesn’t even belong in fiction. These are irresponsible and extremist words. It is outrageous and beyond the pale. An apology cannot possibly repair the damage. Irresponsible rhetoric metastasizes into more dangerous rhetoric. The ideas expressed in Mr. Adler’s column reflect some of the extremist rhetoric that unfortunately exists — even in some segments of our community — that maliciously labels President Obama as an ‘enemy of the Jewish people.’ Mr. Adler’s lack of judgment as a publisher, editor and columnist raises serious questions as to whether he’s fit to run a newspaper.”
He may have dropped out of the race, but Perry understood what is happening in Turkey, while the USA still considered Turkey a friend.
Atty. Nitzana Darshan-Leitner
The writer is an Israeli attorney and the executive director of Shurat HaDin, Israel Law Center, an NGO combating the terrorist organizations and the regimes that support them through lawsuits in courtrooms around the world. Shurat HaDin seeks to bankrupt terror groups and grind their criminal activities to a halt – one lawsuit at a time.
► More from this writer
In the wake of Gov. Rick Perry’s withdrawal from the Republican presidential race, pundits will argue over the reasons for his rise and fall. But one thing is for certain: Gov. Perry was the only candidate who told the truth about Turkey’s support for anti-Israel Islamic terrorists
Perry was roundly criticized after he remarked, in the January 17 candidates’ debate, that Turkey “is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists.” The State Department called Turkey “a stalwart ally” of the United States that “plays a very positive and constructive role in the region.” The New York Times, in what was supposed to be an objective news report, asserted flat-out that Perry’s statement was “inaccurate” and characterized Turkey’s governing party as “moderate.” Huffington Post columnist Dorian de Wind mocked Perry as an “uninformed Texas cowboy.”
But within hours, Gov. Perry’s critics were left with more than a little egg on their faces as the foreign minister of Iran, the world’s leading terrorist state, arrived in Turkey for a visit aimed at furthering strengthening the already-friendly relations between the two countries. Iranian Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Salehi announced in Ankara that trade between his terrorist regime and Turkey, which had been just $5-billion annually in the past, hit $15-billion in 2010 and will reach $30 billion by 2015. Salehi, by the way, has met his Turkish counterpart, Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, no less than eleven times in the past twelve months. How is that “positive and constructive”?
The truth about Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his government is that they have become experts at playing both sides of the fence–making “moderate” noises when Western ears are listening, while collaborating with Islamic terrorists and terrorist regimes whenever they can get away with it.
Thus while the United States has been struggling to find ways to stop Iran’s nuclear development, Erdogan has been defending the Iranians. During his visit to Tehran, the terror capitol of the world, in October 2009, he denounced Western sanctions against Iran as “arrogant.” He declared that anyone who criticizes Iran’s nukes should first give up their own nuclear arms. “We shared this opinion with our Iranian friends, our brothers,” Erdogan told reporters. Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad reciprocated by praising Erdogan for his “clear stance against” Israel.
In December 2010, Erdogan traveled to Libya –Moammar Gaddafi’s Libya– to receive the “Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights.” Erdogan was not the least bit embarrassed to accept such an award from one of the world’s worst human rights abusers and terror-sponsors. He told reporters that relations between Turkey and Libya were “growing,” and that there was “much Turkish investment” in Gadaffi’s Libya. Three months later, the U.S. was leading the NATO assault on Turkey’s Libyan friends.
Turkey’s support for the Hamas terrorists has been consistent, passionate, and unequivocal. The Turkish government sponsored the May 2010 flotilla that was intercepted while attempting to bring prohibited materials to the Hamas regime in Gaza. Erdogasn’s claim that the flotilla participants were peaceful civil rights activists crumbled as the whole world watched the chilling YouTube video of the Islamic extremists on board trying to beat an Israeli soldier to death with baseball bats. Other Israeli soldiers were stabbed and nearly drowned. Erdogan said it was the Israeli soldiers who were “terrorizing” the Muslim baseball players.
The Turks attempted to send a second flotilla to Gaza last year, but were thwarted by the intervention of the Israel Law Center (Shurat HaDin). Flotilla organizers complained that the Center’s lawsuits and warning letters caused insurance companies to withdraw coverage of the ships, and resulted in Greek government inspections that found the boats to be unseaworthy and improperly registered.
Prime Minister Erdogan may yet try another smuggling operation to Gaza, however, because his support for Hamas has few rivals. He told PBS’s Charlie Rose last May: “I don’t see Hamas as a terror organization. Hamas is a political party. And it is an organization. It is a resistance movement trying to protect its country under occupation.” Presumably the massacre of elderly Israelis attending a Passover seder at the Netanya hotel was a political statement, and the firing of a rocket into a kindergarten in Sderot helps resist attempts by Israeli five year-olds to “occupy” Gaza
According to media reports last month, Turkey intends to give Hamas $300 million in aid. And just two weeks ago, Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh received the red carpet treatment on an official state visit to Turkey
In his famous address to a joint session of Congress in the wake of the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush declared: “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” Those who befriend Iran and finance Hamas have made it clear that they are with the terrorists.
Just as Rick Perry said.
via Perry was Right on Turkey and Islamic Terror – Op-Eds – Israel National News.
Heron UAVs helped PKK set up bases in Hatay province, Turkish intelligence report says according to ‘Today’s Zaman’
Israeli unmanned aerial vehicles seen hovering over parts Turkey have gathered intelligence for the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK), Turkey’s Today’s Zaman reported Tuesday according to Turkish intelligence agencies.
The report claimed that Israeli Heron drones helped the PKK gather information on the Hatay province, bordering Syria, to determine the locations for establishing training bases.
RELATED:
Opinion: Israel-Turkey relations and the silent revolution
Israel’s Turkish dilemma: To lead with head or heart?
Today’s Zaman failed to say whether the Turkish report implicated Israel in aiding the PKK in any specific attack, many of which result in the deaths of Turkish soldiers.
It claimed, however, that Kenan Yıldızbakan, a PKK member that organized an assault on a naval base in 2010, had visited Israel a number of times, lending to suspicions of collusion.
The PKK is considered a terrorist group by Turkey, the United States and the European Union.
The decades-long conflict between Turkey and Kurdish separatists located largely along the Turkish border with Iraq and Syria has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Kurds, and over 10,000 Turkish soldiers and police.
The Turkish intelligence report underlines the low in diplomatic relations between Israel and Turkey, which nosedived when Israel announced it would not apologize officially for the deaths of nine Turkish activists aboard the Mavi Marmara.
Turkey downgraded military, political and economic ties with the Jewish state in the wake of the diplomatic row.
via ‘Israeli drones aiding PKK activities in T… JPost – Middle East.
While the representatives of Israel, the Palestinian Authority and the Quartette (the US, EU, Russia and the UN) were recently hosted in Amman, Jordan, in an effort to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan met in Ankara with Hamas’ Prime Minister, Ismail Haniya, who openly remains committed to Israel’s destruction and opposes any peace negotiations with Israel. This does not suggest that Mr. Erdogan’s support of Hamas’ position is against Israeli-Palestinian peace, but this raises the question as to whether or not Mr. Erdogan is willing to play a constructive role in mitigating the Israel-Hamas discord or whether he will continue to shore up Hamas’ obstructionist position to the detriment of Israeli-Palestinian peace.
For Turkey to play a leading and constructive regional role, especially in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, it needs first to regain its credibility with Israel. The prudent thing to do for the Turkish Prime Minister is to openly balance his tenacious demands of Israel to modify its position toward Hamas for example, by putting an end to the blockade in Gaza. Similarly, he should equally demand that Hamas’ leadership change their posture by accepting Israel’s right to exist and renouncing violent resistance as the means by which to achieve a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Erdogan’s open-ended support of Hamas, which is mainly rooted in his Islamic affinity to the organization, as many observers suspect of being the case, places the Turkish Prime Minister in a position to persuade Hamas’ leadership to permanently abandon violence and accept a two-state solution through peaceful negotiations for its own sake. Indeed, however indispensable Hamas may be to a permanent and secure Israeli-Palestinian peace, as Mr. Erdogan clearly and correctly stated, unless Hamas accepts Israel’s reality, Hamas as an organization will eventually be marginalized even by its own followers, the majority of whom want to put an end to the debilitating conflict with Israel that has led nowhere but to more pain and suffering. Repeated polls conducted over the past year have clearly revealed a growing support for the PA while Hamas’ popularity shrinks. Hamas recognizes that it needs to change its strategy towards Israel and that Turkey can play an increasingly important role by helping Hamas’ leadership take the final leap toward peace negotiations with Israel. Such an effort on Turkey’s part is most timely because intense internal deliberations among Hamas’ leaders about the pros and cons of ending militant resistance against Israel are taking place, which also remain points of contention within the unity negotiations between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.
More than any other party, Turkey has earned the trust and confidence of Hamas by being the first to invite to Ankara Hamas’ political guru, Khalid Mashaal, more than four years ago. Even though Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by the US and the EU, Turkey has remained a vocal and ardent supporter of the organization ever since. In fact Ankara has done so even at the expense of undermining its relations with Israel, especially since the Mavi Marmara incident on May 31st, 2010 in which nine activists (eight Turks and one American-Turkish citizen) were killed by Israeli soldiers. It is at this particular juncture that Turkey is perfectly positioned to bring Hamas in-line with the Palestinian Authority due to the fact that: a) Hamas’ political base in Damascus is in tatters due to the upheaval in Syria and is seeking a new political base outside Gaza; b) Iran, Hamas’ main benefactor, is under tremendous international economic and political pressure because of its suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapons program; and c) Egypt’s Muslim brotherhood, Hamas’ political supporter, is marred in a continuing struggle with the military over power-sharing, but gave up violence long ago to get to this point–an object lesson for Hamas.
Notwithstanding the victories of Islamic political parties in the elections held in Tunisia, Morocco, and Egypt (and however encouraging that might be to Hamas), none of these parties have gained national popularity because of their pronounced hatred and animosity toward Israel. They have won because they have focused on domestic issues: their ailing economy, health care, education, and human rights. In fact, precisely because they did not resort to scapegoating Israel or the United States for their respective country’s ailments, a habitual practice of which the Arab youth is weary. Hamas knows its limitations and will not be carried away by the illusion of the ‘Islamic Spring.’ Israel will not be wished away and no party to the Israeli-Arab conflict appreciates that better than Hamas, especially following the 2008/2009 Israeli incursions into Gaza. This further explains why Hamas is seriously deliberating abandoning violence against Israel as a means by which to realize Palestinian statehood.
Mr. Erdogan himself might well think that this is the age of Islamism and further enforce the general perception, in and outside of Turkey, that he favors any organization or country with strong Islamic credentials over others, regardless of the conflicting issues involved. However, Mr. Erdogan is realistic enough to understand that Turkey’s continued economic developments and future leadership role in the Middle East depends on its ability to reconcile between the conflicting parties in the region. In particular, improved relations with Israel are one of the prerequisites to achieve that objective. Should Ankara continue to support Hamas without attempting to moderate its attitude toward Israel, Ankara will not only forsake the opportunity to lead but will be labeled as an obstructionist, especially in the eyes of the Arab-Sunni state that Turkey is trying to court, at a time when the entire region is in the process of geopolitical realignment.
Ankara can be sure that Iran will strongly and continuously encourage Hamas to hold onto his anti-Israel line under the pretext of serving the Palestinians’ cause. In fact, Iran is only looking to serve its regional ambitions and will go to great lengths to protect its national interests, especially by supporting its surrogates such as Hamas and Hezbollah in carrying out its bidding. It is time for Turkey to realize that Tehran’s and Ankara’s national interests do not coincide and that in fact, the two countries may soon be on a collision course not only over post-Bashar Assad’s Syria but over their overall regional ambitions. If Ankara considers regional stability central to its own best national interests, then Turkey must spare no efforts to wean Hamas off of Tehran. Should Turkey decide to act in this direction, it can certainly count on both the US’ and the EU’s support.
Turkey is well positioned to persuade Hamas to renounce violence which is a pre-requisite to becoming an active partner in the peace negotiations and at the same time, is able to provide Hamas’ leadership with the political cover they need to transition from a militant to a non-violent resistance movement. Once the label of being considered a terrorist organization is removed, Turkey may then invite Khalid Mashaal to move his political headquarters from Damascus to Ankara. In so doing, Ankara will not only further distance Hamas from Iran but will help legitimize Hamas in the eyes of the US and the EU. Moreover, Ankara will be in a strong position to assert itself as a significant player in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process while beginning to mend its relations with Israel.
Regional leadership is not a given and it cannot be built on divisions and discords. Turkey must earn the regional leadership role it seeks to play. There is no better time than now for Ankara to use its influence on Hamas to make a crucial contribution to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process while enhancing its leadership role in a region in transformation.
Pro-Palestinian hackers suspected of infiltrating websites of three high street banks, El Al and Tel Aviv exchange
Reuters in Jerusalem
The Tel Aviv stock exchange was targeted by hackers. Photograph: Oliver Weiken/EPA
Hackers disrupted online access to the Tel Aviv stock exchange, El Al airlines and three banks on Monday, in what the government described as a cyber-offensive against Israel.
The attacks came just days after an unidentified hacker, proclaiming Palestinian sympathies, posted the details of thousands of Israeli credit card holders and other personal information on the internet in a mass theft.
Stock trading and El Al flights operated normally despite the disruption, which occurred as Israeli media reported that pro-Palestinian hackers had threatened at the weekend to shut down the Tase stock exchange and airline websites.
While apparently confined to areas causing only limited inconvenience, the attacks have caused particular alarm in a country that depends on high-tech systems for much of its defence against hostile neighbours. Officials insist, however, that they pose no immediate security threat.
“They have demanded an apology for Israel’s defensive measures,” the deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, said on his Facebook page, alluding to the conflict with Palestinians.
“I am using this platform to send a clear message that … they will not silence us on the internet, or in any forum.”
The First International Bank of Israel (FIBI) and two subsidiary banks, Massad and Otzar Hahayal, said their marketing sites had been hacked but that sites providing online services to clients were unaffected. Israel’s third-largest bank, Discount, said it had been spared attack, but that it was temporarily shutting down foreign access to its website as a precaution.
The Tel Aviv stock exchange website could only be accessed intermittently, but screen-based trading was not hit. “There has been an attack by hackers on the access routes to the website,” said Orna Goren, deputy manager of the exchange’s marketing and communications unit. “The stock exchange’s trading activities are operating normally.”
El Al said it had taken precautions to protect the company site and warned of possible disruptions to its online activity.
There was no claim of responsibility for Monday’s incidents. However, the Islamist group Hamas, which governs Gaza, welcomed the attacks as a blow against the Jewish state, which it refuses to recognise.
“This is a new field of resistance against the occupation and we urge Arab youth to develop their methods in electronic warfare in the face of (Israel’s) crimes,” aHamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said in Gaza.
The Israeli information minister, Yuli Edelstein, told a conference in Tel Aviv that the cyber-attacks were part of a wider move to smear the country’s reputation and “threaten Israel’s economic stability and security”.
“It’s another episode in the war our enemies are conducting as a campaign of delegitimisation to hit our pockets and lifestyle,” he said, in reported comments confirmed by his spokesman.
“Israel must use all measures at its disposal to prevent these virtual dangers from turning into real threats and to prevent with all its force attacks against it and its institutions. Today it’s credit card theft and toppling websites, and tomorrow it could be theft of security information and harm to infrastructure.”
Israel opened an agency to tackle cyber-attacks earlier this month. A founding member of the unit, Isaac Ben-Israel, said the country’s most vital systems were already protected, but that incidents like the ones seen recently would only increase.
“As long as the systems are not guarded, any hacker anywhere in the world can break into them and do damage,” Ben-Israel said on Israel Radio. “I believe that, done right, in a year or two, we will be able to wipe out all these hackers’ threats.”
[Author’s Note: SAY NO TO WAR ON IRAN, Spread the word, forward this article, post it on Facebook. Our objective at Global Research is to curb the flow of media disinformation, reverse the tide of war and restore World peace.]
Introduction
While the possibility of a war with Iran is acknowledged in US news reports, its regional and global implications are barely analyzed.
Very few people in America are aware or informed regarding the devastation and massive loss of life which would occur in the case of a US-Israeli sponsored attack on Iran.
The media is involved in a deliberate process of camouflage and distortion.
War preparations under a “Global Strike” Concept, centralized and coordinated by US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) are not front page news in comparison to the most insignificant issues of public concern, including the local level crime scene or the tabloid gossip reports on Hollywood celebrities.
The “Globalization of War” involving the hegemonic deployment of a formidable US-NATO military force in all major regions of the World is inconsequential in the eyes of the Western media.
The broader implications of this war are either trivialized or not mentioned. People are led to believe that war is part of a “humanitarian mandate” and that both Iran as well as Iran’s allies, namely China and Russia, constitute an unrelenting threat to global security and “Western democracy”.
While the most advanced weapons system are used, America’s wars are never presented as “killing operations” resulting in extensive civilian casualties.
While the incidence of “collateral damage” is acknowledged, US-led wars are heralded as an unquestionable instrument of “peace-making” and “democratization”.
This twisted notion that waging war is “a worthy cause”, becomes entrenched in the inner consciousness of millions of people. A framework of “good versus evil” overshadows an understanding of the causes and devastating consequences of war.
Within this mindset, realities as well as concepts are turned upside down. War becomes peace. The lie becomes the truth. The humanitarian mandate of the Pentagon and NATO cannot be challenged.
When “going after the bad guys”, in the words of president Obama, “no options can be taken off the table”. An inquisitorial doctrine similar to that of the Spanish Inquisition, prevails. People are no longer allowed to think.
Iran is a country of close to 80 million people. It constitutes a major and significant regional military and economic power. It has ten percent of global oil and gas reserves, more than five times those of the United States of America.
The conquest of Iran’s oil riches is the driving force behind America’s military agenda. Iran’s oil and gas industry is the unspoken trophy of the US led war, which has been on the active drawing board of the Pentagon for the last nine years.
While the US is on a war footing, Iran has –for more than ten years– been actively developing its military capabilities in the eventuality of a US sponsored attack.
If hostilities were to break out between Iran and the Western military alliance, this could trigger a regional war extending from the Mediterranean to the Chinese border, potentially leading humanity into the realm of a World War III scenario.
The Russian government, in a recent statement, has warned the US and NATO that “should Iran get drawn into any political or military hardships, this will be a direct threat to our national security.” What this signifies is that Russia is Iran’s military ally and that Russia will act militarily if Iran is attacked.
Military Deployment
Iran is the target of US-Israel-NATO war plans.
Advanced weapons systems have been deployed.
US and allied Special Forces as well as intelligence operatives are already on the ground inside Iran. US military drones are involved in spying and reconnaissance activities.
Bunker buster B61 tactical nuclear weapons are slated to be used against Iran in retaliation for its alleged nuclear weapons program. Ironically, in the words of US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, Iran does not possess a nuclear weapons program. “Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No.”
The risk of armed hostilities between the US-Israel led coalition and Iran is, according to Israeli military analysts “dangerously close”.
There has been a massive deployment of troops which have been dispatched to the Middle East, not to mention the redeployment of US and allied troops previously stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nine thousand US troops have been dispatched to Israel to participate in what is described by the Israeli press as the largest joint air defense war exercise in Israeli history, The drill, called “Austere Challenge 12,” is scheduled to take place within the next few weeks Its stated purpose “is to test multiple Israeli and US air defense systems, especially the “Arrow” system, which the country specifically developed with help from the US to intercept Iranian missiles.”
Reports also suggest a substantial increase in the number of reservists who are being deployed to the Middle East. Reports confirm that reservist US Air Force personnel have been dispatched to military bases in South West Asia (Persian Gulf). From Minnesota more than 120 Airmen including pilots, navigators, mechanics, etc. departed for the Middle East on January 8. Reservist US air force personnel from bases in North Carolina and Georgia “expect to deploy with their units in coming months“. (See fayobserver.com December 18, 2011)
Reserve units from the US Coastguard have also been dispatched to the Middle East.(Coast Guard Reservists Head to Middle East military.com, January 5, 2012)
From these local reports, however, it is impossible to establish the overall (net) increase of US reservists from different divisions of the US military, who have been assigned to “operation Iran war”.
Army reservists from the UK are also been sent to the Middle East.
US Troops to Israel and the Persian Gulf
Israel has become a de facto US military outpost. US and Israeli command structures are being integrated, with close consultations between the Pentagon and Israel’s Ministry of Defense.
A large number of US troops will be stationed in Israel once the war games are completed. The assumption of this military deployment is the staging of a joint US-Israeli air attack on Iran. Military escalation towards a regional war is part of the military scenario:
Thousands of US troops began descending on Israel this week. … many would be staying up to the end of the year as part of the US-IDF deployment in readiness for a military engagement with Iran and its possible escalation into a regional conflict. They will be joined by a US aircraft carrier. The warplanes on its decks will fly missions with Israeli Air Force jets. The 9,000 US servicemen gathering in Israel in the coming weeks are mostly airmen, missile interceptor teams, marines, seamen, technicians and intelligence officers.
…
Tehran too is walking a taut tightrope. It is staging military’s maneuvers every few days to assuring the Iranian people that its leaders are fully prepared to defend the country against an American or Israeli strike on its national nuclear program. By this stratagem, Iran’s ground, sea and air forces are maintained constantly at top war readiness to thwart any surprise attack.
The joint US-Israeli drill will test multiple Israeli and US air defense systems against incoming missiles and rockets, according to the official communiqué. (DEBKAfile, January 6, 2012)
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has dispatched some 15,000 US troops in Kuwait. These consist of two Army infantry brigades and a helicopter unit. Moreover, the US Navy is retaining two aircraft carriers with their respective strike groups on standby in the Arabian sea, the USS Carl Vinson and the USS John Stennis. (Debka, January 13, 2012).
An impressive deployment of troops and advanced military hardware is unfolding.
In recent developments, a third aircraft carrier, the USS Abraham Lincoln, is heading towards the Arabian Sea. Britain’s Royal Navy has dispatched her newest and most advanced warship, Type 45 destroyer HMS Daring, “which has a “stealth” design to help avoid detection by radar”. France has sent its Charles de Gaulleaircraft carrier.
The Western media has barely mentioned these deployments of troops and military hardware: “The latest deployment [of US troops to Kuwait], which was ushered in without much presentation to the public, adds a huge number of troops aligned with America’s arsenal that are now surrounding Iran on literally every front” (Russia Today, US Stations 15,000 troops to Kuwait, January 13, 2012, emphasis added).
Is this massive deployment of US troops to Israel and the Gulf States related to the withdrawal and redeployment of US troops previously stationed in Iraq? The troops stationed in Kuwait will operate under the auspices of US Central Command.
War Games
US-Israel Missile defense and naval war games are being conducted simultaneously.
Meanwhile, Iran has announced that it will be conducting its own war games in the Persian Gulf in February.
Meanwhile, The Islamic Republic of Iran is also on a war footing. Iran’s Armed Forces is in an advanced stage of preparedness to defend the country’s borders as well as retaliate against a US-Israel led attack. Iran has completed a 10-day naval exercise near the Strait of Hormuz in December. It has now announced that it is planning new naval drills codenamed “The Great Prophet”, which are slated to take place in February.
Iran’s December war games involved the test firing of two long range missiles systems, including the Qadar (a powerful sea-to-shore missile) and the Nour surface-to-surface missile. “According to Iranian state news, the Nour is an ‘advanced radar-evading, target-seeking, guided and controlled missile’.” (See The Pentagon to Send US Troops to Israel. Iran is the Unspoken Target, Global Research, January 4, 20122
“Additionally, the Iranian military reportedly test-fired numerous other short, medium and long-range missiles…. Iranian authorities reported that they test-fired the medium-range, surface-to-air, radar-evading Mehrab missile.” (Ibid)
War Games
US-Israel Missile defense and naval war games are being conducted simultaneously.
Meanwhile, Iran has announced that it will be conducting its own war games in the Persian Gulf in February.
Meanwhile, The Islamic Republic of Iran is also on a war footing. Iran’s Armed Forces is in an advanced stage of preparedness to defend the country’s borders as well as retaliate against a US-Israel led attack. Iran has completed a 10-day naval exercise near the Strait of Hormuz in December. It has now announced that it is planning new naval drills codenamed “The Great Prophet”, which are slated to take place in February.
Iran’s December war games involved the test firing of two long range missiles systems, including the Qadar (a powerful sea-to-shore missile) and the Nour surface-to-surface missile. “According to Iranian state news, the Nour is an ‘advanced radar-evading, target-seeking, guided and controlled missile’.” (See The Pentagon to Send US Troops to Israel. Iran is the Unspoken Target, Global Research, January 4, 20122
“Additionally, the Iranian military reportedly test-fired numerous other short, medium and long-range missiles…. Iranian authorities reported that they test-fired the medium-range, surface-to-air, radar-evading Mehrab missile.” (Ibid)
Iranian Missile Tests
The crucial question: Is the Pentagon seeking to deliberately trigger a military confrontation in the Persian Gulf with a view to providing a pretext and a justification to waging an all out war on the Islamic Republic of Iran?
US military strategists admit that the US Navy would be at disadvantage in relation to Iranian forces in the narrow corridor of the Strait of Hormuz:
“Despite its might and shear strength, geography literally works against U.S. naval power in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf. The relative narrowness of the Persian Gulf makes it like a channel, at least in a strategic and military context. Figuratively speaking, the aircraft carriers and warships of the U.S. are confined to narrow waters or are closed in within the coastal waters of the Persian Gulf. … Even the Pentagon’s own war simulations have shown that a war in the Persian Gulf with Iran would spell disaster for the United States and its military. (Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The Geo-Politics of the Strait of Hormuz: Could the U.S. Navy be defeated by Iran in the Persian Gulf?, Global Research, January 8, 2012)
Triggering a War Pretext Incident: Provoking Iran to “Throw the First Punch”
Is the Obama administration prepared to sacrifice one or more vessels of the Fifth Fleet, resulting in extensive casualties among soldiers and sailors, with a view to mustering public support for a war on Iran on the grounds of self-defense?
As documented by Richard Sanders, the strategy of triggering a war pretext incident has been used throughout American military history.
“Throughout history, war planners have used various forms of deception to trick their enemies. Because public support is so crucial to the process of initiating and waging war, the home population is also subject to deceitful stratagems. The creation of false excuses to justify going to war is a major first step in constructing public support for such deadly ventures. Perhaps the most common pretext for war is an apparently unprovoked enemy attack. Such attacks, however, are often fabricated, incited or deliberately allowed to occur. They are then exploited to arouse widespread public sympathy for the victims, demonize the attackers and build mass support for military “retaliation.”
Like schoolyard bullies who shout ‘He hit me first!’, war planners know that it is irrelevant whether the opponent really did ‘throw the first punch.’ As long as it can be made to appear that the attack was unprovoked, the bully receives license to ‘respond’ with force. Bullies and war planners are experts at taunting, teasing and threatening their opponents. If the enemy cannot be goaded into ‘firing the first shot,’ it is easy enough to lie about what happened. Sometimes, that is sufficient to rationalize a schoolyard beating or a genocidal war.
Such trickery has probably been employed by every military power throughout history. During the Roman empire, “the cause for war” — casus belli — was often invented to conceal the real reasons for war. Over the millennia, although weapons and battle strategies have changed greatly, the deceitful strategem of using pretext incidents to ignite war has remained remarkably consistent. (See How to Start a War: The American Use of War Pretext Incidents. Global research, January 9, 2012)
Pearl Harbor stands out as the casus belli, the pretext and justification for America’s entry into World War II.
President Roosevelt knew that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked by Japan and did nothing to prevent it. At a November 25 1941 meeting of FDR’s war council, “Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s notes speak of the prevailing consensus: ‘The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into … firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.’” (See Patrick Buchanan, Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor? Global Research, December 7, 2011).
In the wake of the attack, America was beating the drums of war, while also concealing the fact that “the FDR administration knew, but failed to act”.
“A massive cover-up followed Pearl Harbor a few days later, … when the Chief of Staff ordered a lid put on the affair. ‘Gentlemen,’ he told half a dozen officers, ‘this goes to the grave with us.’” (John Toland,Infamy: Pearl Harbor and its Aftermath, Doubleday, 1982, p. 321).
According to Professor Francis Boyle with reference to the ongoing showdown between the US Navy and Iran in the Persian Gulf: “Once again, it looks to me like what FDR did in 1941 when he sacrificed the Pacific Fleet and its men at Pearl Harbor—except for the carriers—in order to get the USA into World War II despite the fervent desire of the American People and Congress to stay out. Déjà vu all over again. Back to the Future “ (Francis Boyle, January 13, 2011, email communication to author)
In contrast to the events of November 1941, the US Congress in 2012 is broadly supportive of waging a war on Iran and the American people are, as a result of media disinformation, largely unaware of the devastating implications of a US-Israeli attack. .
Thematic Justifications: Demonizing the Enemy
Apart from the “incident” whereby the enemy is incited to “throw the first punch”, “thematic justifications” are used to demonize the enemy and justify a casus belli. WMD and regime change in the case of Iraq (2003), support to Al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks in the case of Afghanistan (2001), “regime change” and “democratization” as in the cases of Yugoslavia (1999) and Libya (2011).
The thematic justifications to wage war on Iran include the following:
1. Iran is accused of developing a nuclear weapons program,
2. Iran is a “Rogue State” which defies the “international community” and constitutes a threat to the Western World,
3. Iran wants “to wipe Israel off the map”,
4. Iran is responsible for supporting and abetting the 9/11 terrorist attacks,
5. Iran is an authoritarian and undemocratic country thereby justifying a “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) intervention with a view to instating democracy.
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States
In case of a war with Iran, NATO member states as well as NATO partners of the “Mediterranean Dialogue” including the Five GCC Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Jordan would be involved.
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States have a formidable weapons arsenal of F-15 combat planes, patriot missiles, Apache helicopters and warships (Made in America), which would be used against Iran on behalf of the US led coalition. (see The Gulf Military Balance in 2010: An Overview | Center for Strategic and International Studies)
The US has more than 30 military bases and facilities including its naval base in Bahrain, US Central command (CENTCOM) headquarters in Qatar, not to mention its military installations in Pakistan, Turkey and Afghanistan (see maps)
* US military base or facility surrounding Iran
From Washington’s standpoint, Saudi Arabia’s Royal Air Force is meant to act as a proxy for the USAF, operating on the principle of “interoperability”.
Saudi Arabia’s Air Force is equipped with the most advanced combat planes including (among others) the Eurofighter Typhoons, Tornado IDS, F-15 and F-15E Eagle fighters.
In October 2010, Washington announced its largest arms sale in US history, a $60.5 billion purchase by Saudi Arabia. These weapons although acquired by Saudi Arabia are de facto part of a US sponsored weapons arsenal, which is to be used in close coordination and consultation with the Pentagon. Large arms sales were also negotiated in 2010 with the Gulf States.
It should, nonetheless, be emphasised that there is reluctance within the ruling Saudi and Gulf States elites, to actively participating in a regional war, which would inevitably lead to Iranian retaliatory aerial attacks.
Escalation: Towards a Broader Regional War
If aerial attacks were to be launched, Iran would retaliate with missile attacks directed against Israel as well as against US military facilities in the Persian Gulf, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Iran has an advanced Russian S 300 air defense system. It is equipped with medium and long range missile capabilities: The Shahab 3 and Sejjil missiles have a range of approximately 2,000 km, enabling them to strike targets in Israel. The Ghadr 1 has a range of 1,800 km. (See Haaretz, September 28, 2009)
The war with Iran would not be limited to aerial bombardments. A land war could follow with Turkey playing a strategic military role on behalf of the US-Israel led coalition.
Turkey’s ground forces are of the order of 500,000. Iran’s are of a similar order of magnitude: 465,000 regular forces. Turkish forces would be deployed in border areas with Iran as well as in Northern Syria.
Iran’s Air Force and Navy personnel are respectively of the order of 52,000 and 28,000. (see Table below)
The Revolutionary Guards, which constitute Iran’s elite forces, are of the order of 120,000. Moreover, Iran has a significant paramilitary force of several million men and women called the Basij.
The war would also overflow into Syria (which is an ally of Iran), Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan involving the participation of Syrian ground forces as well as Hezbollah, which effectively repealed Israel’s 2006 invasion of Lebanon. In recent developments, Iran has increased its military aid to Syria and Lebanon.
In turn, Russia has a naval base in Southern Syria and military cooperation agreements with both Syria and Iran, involving the presence of Russian military advisers.
Russia is deploying warships out of its naval base in Tartus including aircraft carrying missile cruiser Admiral Kuznetsov. “The deployment … follows the US move to station the George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group” off the Syrian coastline. (See M. K. Badrakumar, Russia deploying warships in Syria – Indian Punchline, November 21, 2011)
UN Security Council Resolution 1929 (June 2010) had imposed a sanctions regime on Iran which was conducive to a temporary freeze in military cooperation between Iran and Russia, as well as with China. In recent developments, it would appear that military cooperation has de facto resumed following the rebuff by both China and Russia of the December 31, 2011 economic sanctions regime imposed by Washington.
In a scenario of military escalation, Iranian troops and/or Special Forces would cross the border into Afghanistan and Iraq.
From the three existing war theaters: Afghanistan -Pakistan (Af-Pak), Iraq, Palestine, the onslaught of a war on Iran would lead to an integrated regional war.
The entire Middle East-Central Asian region extending from the Eastern Mediterranean to China’s Western frontier with Afghanistan and Pakistan would flare up, from the tip of the Arabian Peninsula to the Caspian Sea basin.
The Caucasus and Central Asia: Competing Military Alliances
What would be the involvement of America’s “partners” in the Caucasus, namely Georgia and Azerbaijan? (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Iran War Theater’s “Northern Front”: Azerbaijan and the US Sponsored War on Iran, Global Research, April 9, 2007).
In Azerbaijan, the government has recently distanced itself from Washington, and has turned down its participation in joint military exercises with the US.
The bilateral US-Azerbaijan strategic agreement is said to be stagnating:
“Baku’s desire to not to anger Moscow would seem to preclude any possibility of Azerbaijan hosting a US military facility….” (Azerbaijan: US Military Ties with Baku Are Stagnating – Experts | EurasiaNet.org, April 25, 2011).
In contrast, the Georgian government is directly supporting America’s war effort against Iran. In recent developments, the Pentagon is sponsoring the construction of makeshift US military hospitals in Georgia to be used in the eventuality of a war with Iran. ( Readies for War On Iran: US Builds Military Hospitals in Georgia, Global Research, January 10, 2012)
“These are 20-bed hospitals…It’s an American project. A big war between the US and Iran is beginning in the Persian Gulf. $5 billion was allocated for the construction of these 20-bed military hospitals,” Javelidze said in an interview with Georgian paper Kviris Kronika (News of the Week) … The construction is mainly paid from the American pocket. In addition, airports are being briskly built in Georgia… (Ibid)
What the military hospitals project conveys is that the Pentagon has already established detailed logistics pertaining to the transfer of wounded US servicemen from the Iran battlefield to nearby military hospitals in Georgia. These advanced preparations suggest that war plans are at a very advanced stage and that scenarios pertaining to military casualties have been established.
Military Alliances: The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the CSTO
The countervailing military alliance to the US-NATO-Israel axis is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as well as the overlapping Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). The SCO includes Kazakhstan, the People’s Republic of China, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tajikistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan. The SCO includes seven former Soviet republics including Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Iran has observer status in the SCO.
Uzbekistan withdrew from the NATO sponsored GUUAM military cooperation agreement. In 2005, it formally evicted the US from the Karshi-Khanabad air base, known as K2 (U.S. Evicted From Air Base In Uzbekistan, Washington Post, July 30, 2005).
Of significance, in the Kyrgyz Republic, the new elected President Almazbek Atambayev (November 2011) stated that he intends to close down the US military base at Manas when the lease expires. (Kyrgyzstan Says United States’ Manas Air Base Will Close – NYTimes.com, November, 1, 2011)
What these developments suggest is that the former Soviet republics of Central Asia have reaffirmed their relationship to Moscow, which in turn has led the consolidation of the SCO-CSTO military bloc.
Global US Military Hegemony. Russia and China
The participation of Russia and China on the side of Iran is already de facto in view of prevailing military cooperation agreements. the transfer of weapons systems and technology to Iran, as well as the presence of Russian military advisers, training personnel, in both Iran and Syria. Moreover, Iran has Observer status in the SCO
Russia and China are fully aware that a war on Iran is a stepping stone towards a broader war. Both countries are targeted by the US and NATO. Russia is threatened on its border with the European Union, with US-NATO AMD targetted at major Russian cities. With the exception of its Northern frontier, China is surrounded by US military bases, from the Korean peninsula to the South China Sea.
Both China and Russia are perceived by Washington as a “Global Threat”. China has been the target of veiled threats by President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The recent National Defense Review announced by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, envisages an expanded defense budget, with a view to containing Russia and China.
In recent development, Russia newly appointed Deputy Prime Minister Dmitri Rogozin has warned Washington and Brussels that “Should anything happen to Iran, should Iran get drawn into any political or military hardships, this will be a direct threat to our national security,”
Spiralling US Defense Spending: The Pentagon’s “Big Dog” Ideology
Washington’s objective is to establish global military dominance. While the “war on terrorism” and the containment of “rogue states” still constitute the official justification and driving force, China and Russia have been tagged in US military and National Security documents as potential enemies:
“… the U.S. military … is seeking to dissuade rising powers, such as China, from challenging U.S. military dominance.” (See Greg Jaffe, Rumsfeld details big military shift in new document, The Wall Street Journal, 11 March 2005)
How does Washington intend to reach its goal of global military hegemony?
Through spiralling defense spending and the continued growth of the US weapons industry, requiring a massive compression of all categories of government expenditure.
Implemented at the crossroads of the most serious economic crisis in American history, the ongoing increase in defense spending feeds this new undeclared arms race with China and Russia, with vast amounts of tax dollars channelled to America’s defense contractors.
“The stated objective is to make the process of developing advanced weapons systems “so expensive”, that no other power on earth including China and Russia will able to compete or challenge “the Big Dog”, without jeopardizing its civilian economy” Michel Chossudovsky, New Undeclared Arms Race:, Global Research, March 17, 2005)
This “Big Dog” ideology, a term coined by the Pentagon, is a precondition for the “Globalization of War”. It is a diabolical agenda of enhancing America’s killing machine by dismantling social programs and impoverishing people across the US.
“[A]t the core of this strategy is the belief that the US must maintain such a large lead in crucial [military] technologies that growing powers [ Russia, China, Iran] will conclude that it is too expensive for these countries to even think about trying to run with the big dog. They will realize that it is not worth sacrificing their economic growth, said one defense consultant who was hired to draft sections of the document.” (Greg Jaffe, Rumsfeld details big military shift in new document, The Wall Street Journal, March 11, 2005)
Related Articles
The Globalization of War: The “Military Roadmap” to World War III
ONLINE INTERACTIVE READER
– by Michel Chossudovsky, Finian Cunningham – 2012-01-31
The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.
When War Games Go Live. Preparing to Attack Iran. “Simulating World War III”
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-01-08
With ongoing war games on both sides, armed hostilities between the US-Israel led coalition and Iran are, according to Israeli military analysts, “dangerously close”.
SYRIA: British Special Forces, CIA and MI6 Supporting Armed Insurgency. NATO Intervention Contemplated
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-01-07
THE WAR ON IRAN: The Deployment of Thousands of US Troops to Israel, The Integration of US-Israeli Command Structures
– by Michel Chossudovsky – 2012-01-04
ANNEX
THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN: MILITARY CAPABILITIES
Major Ports & Terminals: 3 Aircraft Carriers: 0 [2011]
Destroyers: 3 [2011]
Submarines: 19 [2011]
Frigates: 5 [2011]
Patrol Craft: 198 [2011]
Mine Warfare Craft: 7 [2011]
Amphibious Assault Craft: 26 [2011]
SOURCES:
and http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Iran
Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa. He is the Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal and Editor of the globalresearch.ca website. He is the author of The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003) and America’s “War on Terrorism”(2005). His most recent book is entitled Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011). He has taught as Visiting Professor at universities in Western Europe, South East Asia, Latin America and the Pacific. He has acted as an adviser to governments of developing countries and has worked as a consultant for the several international organizations. Prof. Chossudovsky is a signatory of the Kuala Lumpur declaration to criminalize war and recipient of the Human Rights Prize of the Society for the Protection of Civil Rights and Human Dignity (GBM), Berlin, Germany. He is also a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. His writings have been published in more than twenty languages.
