Report: Iran Attack Postponed Until Spring 2013

Unsuccessful war simulation has given Israelis cold feet

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com

Israel’s plan to attack Iran has been postponed until spring 2013 following a war simulation that showed Iran could kill 200 Americans with a single missile strike, according to a report by senior Haaretz correspondent Amir Oren.

“At 8:58 P.M. on Tuesday, Israel’s 2012 war against Iran came to a quiet end. The capricious plans for a huge aerial attack were returned to the deep recesses of safes and hearts. The war may not have been canceled but it has certainly been postponed. For a while, at least, we can sound the all clear: It won’t happen this year. Until further notice, Israel Air Force Flight 007 will not be taking off,” writes Oren.

According to the report, a war simulation conducted by the U.S. Central Command found that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would immediately be followed by an Iranian missile launch that would kill 200 Americans, a price deemed not worth paying by U.S. generals.

During the same meeting, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak also acknowledged that Israel would not act alone in striking Iran before the U.S. presidential elections in November, according to Oren, meaning that, “For all intents and purposes, it was an announcement that this war was being postponed until at least the spring of 2013.”

Israel Committed to Attacking Iran in June

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com

In an exclusive report, Jerusalem-based DEBKAfile reports that both Israel and the United States are on the same page in regard to launching an attack on Iran.

“American and Israeli intelligence evaluations of the state of Iran’s program are in accord – contrary to the impression gained from Obama administration officials,” DEBKA-Net-Weekly reported on March 22. “Both are of one mind on the imperative to paralyze that program even by force if Iran refuses to give up its pursuit of a nuclear weapon.”

On Friday, it was reported that the United States, European allies and Israel agree that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. “Tehran does not have a bomb, has not decided to build one, and is probably years away from having a deliverable nuclear warhead,” the National Post reported. Despite this evidence, the Israeli government has decided to attack Iran.

According to DEBKAfile, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in a radio interview on Thursday that if Israel is resolved to attack Iran, it will have to do so within three months. In February, it was reported that Israel would carry out an attack in June and would use Saudi Arabia as its base.

DEBKAfile claims Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has convinced a majority of his Security and Diplomatic Cabinet of the urgency of an attack. “He is now backed by the two deputy prime ministers, the defense, foreign affairs, interior and finance ministers, while Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor and Minister without Portfolio Benny Begin are unconvinced. Netanyahu can therefore go ahead and safely put the military option to the vote in the cabinet for the first time,” DEBKAfile reports.

‘UN now a war-making organization’

RT

Iran is at the top of the agenda at the UN Security Council meeting underway in New York right now. Strong statements have been made by the US, accusing Iran of supplying weapons to Syria. But Russia has criticized the US sanctions, calling them unilateral. For more on this, RT talks to American lawyer and professor of international law at the Geneva School of Diplomacy, Dr. Alfred de Zayas, from Geneva.

 

 

The Real Threat From Iran

John Glaser
Antiwar

The conflict with Iran is framed as a conflict over nuclear proliferation. So important is it, we are told, that Iran does not get nuclear weapons, that we could risk war and death and suffering and trillions of dollars to prevent it.

But the story gets bizarre after we find out that U.S. intelligence has repeatedly concluded with high confidence that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons and has demonstrated no intention to do so. Even the supposedly controversial IAEA report found that there was no evidence Iran had enriched uranium beyond the 20 percent threshold and in fact no evidence that Iran had diverted any nuclear material for a clandestine weapons program.

So why the aggressive posture towards Iran? Why have we heaped the harshest set of economic sanctions in the world on Iran – which Columbia University Professor Gary Sick has called “an act of war”? Why do we have Iran militarily encircled with military bases and client states? Why have we supported Israeli proxy terrorism on Iranian soil? Why is it that not a week goes by without an explicit threat of preventive attack on Iran? It can’t be for the nuclear weapons program: it doesn’t exist.

In the years following the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which brought the current rulers to power, the framing of the conflict with Iran was quite different. It’s true, U.S. and Israeli officials have been falsely claiming an Iranian nuclear bomb is right around the corner since the early 1980s. But the conflict was framed more with the Islamist movement and the possibility that it might spread across the region, changing the governments throughout the Middle East.

In a secret memo written in 1982 to the National Security Council, this framing was recognized. But it was taken an important step further.

The memo goes on to explain that any interruption in the flow of oil “if prolonged for months, would result in a fall in world-wide economic output comparable to the Great Depression of the 1930s in the U.S.” It says “whoever is in control of the Gulf’s” oil, “is in a position to have a very large political as well as economic influence in the world.” Iran’s war with Iraq at the time raised concerns in Washington that a possible Iranian victory could lead it to “exert influence” over Iraq and Kuwait and even Saudi Arabia. “We may soon be faced with a situation,” the memo continues, “in which a significant portion of the oil supplies to the West are heavily influenced by Iran or by political forces hostile to the West or by forces unable or uninterested in maintaining the flow of oil.”

Power and influence in the Middle East, and thus the world, was of primary interest in 1982. The same was true in 1954, as a  Top Secret National Security Council briefing explained, “the Near East is of great strategic, political, and economic importance,” as it “contains the greatest petroleum resources in the world” as well as “essential locations for strategic military bases in any world conflict.” And the same is true now.

The aggressive postures, military encirclement, and constant threats of attack make much more sense when framed in the terms actually employed by those who craft our foreign policy, instead of the politicians’ pretext of nuclear weapons proliferation, which is fabricated in the case of Iran, as best we know. Iran is a would-be powerhouse in the region, that must be subdued. Hegemony is ours, not Iran’s or anybody else’s. “Blood for Oil” has become a trite framework for thinking about U.S. policy towards the Middle East; it is dismissed out of hand as not useful for the analysis. Less useful, even, than an imaginary nuclear weapons program.

Polls Indicate No Israeli or U.S. Consensus Favoring Military Attack on Iran

Richard Silverstein
Tikun Olam

As Bibi Netanyahu heads to Washington for yet another in an endless series of consultations of dubious utility with Barack Obama, followed by yet another appeal to the worshipful multitudes at Aipac’s national conference, it’s important to note that opinion polls both in the U.S. and Israel confirm there is no consensus within either country supporting war against Iran.

In the NY Times report on Bibi’s coming visit, Zalman Shoval falsely claims:

“Public opinion polls in America are about 50-50 on whether America should take a role in an eventual military operation against Iran. This is not the main element in a decision, but it will have some influence on the candidate, who happens to be president.”

Here are some recent U.S. poll findings on the subject.  A February 2012 CNN poll finds that only 17% of Americans favor a U.S. attack now, while 60% favor sanctions with no military attack now.  22% favor taking no action at all.  In a February Pew survey, 64% of Americans said that sanctions will not work.  58% said they would favor military action if it was the only way to prevent Iran from getting a bomb.  30% said they opposed a strike even if meant Iran got a nuclear weapon.

A 2010 CNN survey found only 36% favored a military attack if sanctions did not work, while 39% favored no military action.  71% of those polled believe (falsely) that Iran already has nuclear weapons.

A Pew poll in January 2011 said that 50% of Americans favored taking a “firm stand” against Iran, while 40% favored avoiding a military conflict.  A November CBS survey found that only 15% of Americans favored military action against Iran now, while 55% believed that Iran could be contained by diplomacy, rather than force.

Now for Israeli public opinion: Shibley Telhami’s latest University of Maryland poll of Israeli public opinion finds that only 19% favor an attack that is against the will of the U.S.  42% would favor an attack with U.S. support.  34% oppose a strike regardless of whether there is U.S. support.

22% believe that if Israel did attack it would delay the Iranian nuclear program by more than five years.  Even the most hawkish Israeli generals and politicians claim it will delay the program by a year or possibly two.  11% believe it would accelerate the Iranian WMD program, which is what a number of analysts suspect will happen.

27% of Israelis believe that if Israel did attack against the U.S.’ wishes, the latter would join the war against Iran nonetheless, while 39% believe the U.S. would support Israel diplomatically but not militarily.

29% of Israelis believe, against the explicit guarantee of hawks like Ehud Barak and Moshe Yaalon, that a war would take “months.”  22% believe it would last “years,” a particularly grim finding.

44% of Israelis believe an attack by their country would strengthen the Iranian regime.

While Israelis are evenly split in their preference between Obama and Romney as future president, they favor Obama by 33% to 18% over Rick Santorum.  They even favor Obama over Newt Gingrich (32% to 25%), which is surprising considering that Sheldon Adelson’s Yisrael HaYom, Israel’s most popular daily, is shilling for Gingrich virtually every day in its pages.

10 Reasons to Keep an Eye on AIPAC

Medea Benjamin
Antiwar

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is one of the most powerful lobby organizations in the country. On March 4-6, AIPAC will hold its annual policy conference in Washington, D.C. The speakers include Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Barack Obama, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Republican candidate Newt Gingrich, and a host of other powerful politicians.

AIPAC has tremendous clout, but its influence has been disastrous for U.S. foreign policy and U.S. democracy. Here are 10 reasons why AIPAC is so dangerous.

1. AIPAC is lobbying Congress to promote a military confrontation with Iran. AIPAC — like the Israeli government — is demanding that the United States attack Iran militarily to prevent Iran from having the technological capacity to produce nuclear weapons, even though U.S. officials say Iran isn’t trying to build a weapon (and even though Israel has hundreds of undeclared nuclear weapons). AIPAC has successfully lobbied the U.S. government to adopt crippling economic sanctions on Iran, including trying to cut off Iran’s oil exports, despite the fact that these sanctions raise the price of gas and threaten the U.S. economy.

2. AIPAC promotes Israeli policies that are in direct opposition to international law. These include the establishment of colonies (settlements) in the Occupied West Bank and the confiscation of Palestinian land in its construction of the 26-foot-high concrete “separation barrier” running through the West Bank. The support of these illegal practices makes it impossible to achieve a solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict.

3. AIPAC’s call for unconditional support for the Israeli government threatens our national security. The United States’ one-sided support of Israel, demanded by AIPAC, has significantly increased anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East, thus endangering our troops and sowing the seeds of more possible terrorist attacks against us. Gen. David Petraeus on March 16, 2010, admitted that the Israel-Palestine conflict “foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel.” He also said that “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the [region] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world. Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support.”

Iran cuts off oil supplies to Britain, France

RT

The move was confirmed by the country’s Oil Ministry, with the spokesman saying that Iran will be “selling its oil to new customers”.

The decision is not expected to have a big impact, as France only bought three percent of its oil − 58,000 barrels a day − from the Islamic republic last year, and Britain buys less than 1 per cent.

But it was seen as a warning shot to other EU nations that are bigger consumers of Iranian oil, including Italy, Spain and Greece. The latter would be the most affected, should Iran go ahead with the cuts, as crisis-hit Greece gets more that 30 percent of its oil needs from the Islamic Republic.

As a whole, the bloc currently buys about 18% of Iran’s oil exports. Iran is the world’s 4th largest oil supplier, with China, India and Japan its largest buyers.

Earlier this month, Iran’s Oil Minister threatened to cut the Republic’s oil exports to “some” European countries. “We have our own customers … The replacements for these companies have been considered by Iran,” Nikzad said.

News of Iran cutting supplies to 6 EU member states caused a lot of concern in Europe – and in world’s markets, with the price of Brent oil jumping above $120 a barrel.

The move to cut supplies to France and Britain appears to be a response to the European Union decision to ban Iranian oil imports. The ban was introduced as a part of ongoing economic sanctions designed to force the Islamic Republic to give up its controversial nuclear program.

The measures have hit Iran’s economy hard, but Tehran has remained defiant and simply responded by ramping up its nuclear activities.

Last week, Iran said it had installed another 3,000 centrifuges to increase its uranium enrichment capabilities.

The Ongoing War on Iran

“Long embargoes kill more people than brief wars”

Patrick Cockburn
Counterpunch

Likud Logo. Wikipedia.

The way in which the growing confrontation with Iran is being sold by the US, Israel and West European leaders is deeply dishonest. The manipulation of the media and public opinion through systematic threat exaggeration is similar to the drum beat of propaganda and disinformation about Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction that preceded the invasion in 2003.

The supposed aim of imposing sanctions on Iran’s oil exports and central bank, measures officially joined by the EU, is to force Iran to abandon its nuclear program before it reaches the point where it could theoretically build a nuclear bomb. Even Israel now agrees that Iran has not yet decided to do so, but the Iranian nuclear program is still being presented as a danger to Israel and the rest of the world.

There are two other menacing parallels between the run-up to the Iraq war and what is happening now. The purported issue is the future of the Iranian nuclear program, but, for part of the coalition mustering against Iran, the real purpose is the overthrow of the Iranian government.

“Divide et Impera”

Laura Stuart
deLiberation

Chief Collaborator - Salam Fayyad

It appears that the policy of “Divide and Rule” that has served the super-powers of the day so well since the times of Caesar and the Roman Empire, is again being put to use in the Middle East. Setting Muslim against Muslim is becoming a real possibility. Perhaps the realisation that it was fighting protracted and unwinnable wars in Muslim lands, has led the United States/Israel to consider ways of stirring up Shia against Sunni. This surely would maximise the shedding of Muslim blood with the minimum of investment and effort and, as ever, provide rich pickings for the weapons industry.

Reading an article in “The Jewish Chronicle” entitled “P.A. Share Israel’s Nuclear Iran Fears”, two issues spring to mind. The first is that the Palestinian Authority is the worst of collaborators, and wholly unfit to represent the brave Palestinian people. This much was made clear on the release of the Palestine Papers last year.

“The Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Salam Fayyad, has attacked the behaviour of Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and said that he shares Western – and Israeli – concerns with the Iranians’ nuclear project”.

How Iran Could Whip the United States and Israel Without Firing a Single Shot

Mark R. Crovelli
Lew Rockwell

Iran's flag. Wikipedia.

To the outside observer, the intensifying conflict between the United States, Israel and Iran (along with some lesser bellicose nations, like Britain) may appear like a classic “prisoner’s dilemma.” The best option for both sides seems to be to pacify their domestic constituencies by escalating the conflict, which will ensure the worst possible outcome. The Israeli right-wing government is seemingly beholden to its extremist and terrorist voting blocs, while the American government is seemingly fenced in by the Israel lobby, neoconservative candidates vying for the imperial throne, the US empire and merchants of death, and the Israeli government itself. Meanwhile, the semi-totalitarian Iranian government is seemingly obliged to “stand up” to the aggressive Americans and their “Zionist client state,” lest it be seen as “soft” or “weak” by its own citizens.

As in a classic prisoner’s dilemma, both sides are ostensibly ensuring the worst possible outcome by focusing on their own domestic political agendas at the expense of the bigger picture and saner solutions.

If this conflict did indeed represent a classic prisoner’s dilemma, we would have little reason to think that the conflict will not worsen dramatically in the future. We would have to assume that both sides would continue to escalate the conflict to a point from which it would be completely impossible to pull back. World War III would be virtually assured.

The False Flag Story and Provocations

Jim Lobe
Antiwar

Jundallah logo. Wikipedia.

By now, I’m sure most readers of this blog are informed about Mark Perry’s blockbuster story Friday on foreignpolilcy.com that describes how Israeli Mossad agents posed as U.S. spies to recruit and use members of the Jundallah group to carry out what the State Department and others have called a campaign of terror against Iran focused in particular on the largely Sunni province of Sistan va Balochistan. If you haven’t read it, you definitely should.

This story naturally raises a host of questions, among them, why Jundallah was not put on the State Department’s Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list before November 20, 2010; how much control the Mossad has exercised over Jundallah and its operations; whether Mossad may be operating another “false-flag” operation with PJAK, the Iraqi Kurdistan-based Iranian branch of Turkey’s PKK. (PJAK was designated an FTO 15 days after Obama’s inauguration, reportedly as a gesture to both Ankara and Tehran, and, as Mark reminded me Friday, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman reportedly recommended last summer that Israel begin providing assistance to the PKK in retaliation for Ankara’s decision to downgrade relations with Tel Aviv.)

And hanging over all this is the big question of why, if Washington knew of Israel’s sponsorship of one or more FTOs, particularly one as bloody-minded as Jundallah, did it not do more to discourage that relationship? Deliberately averting one’s eyes to terrorist activity is, after all, a form of complicity, particularly if you know that this terrorist activity is being done in your name.

Meanwhile, a remarkably and unusually candid discussion (for a mainstream medium) of Israel’s strategy of provocation took place yesterday with an interview by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews of former CIA officer Robert Baer and can be seen here. It runs about five minutes. Baer makes clear his view that these assassinations, about which I hope to write more later, have little to do with setting back Iran’s nuclear program in any meaningful way, but are rather designed to provoke an armed response that would increase the likelihood of a U.S. or U.S./Israeli attack.