Why Israel Should Now Battle with Iran

On 3rd September, London’s Sunday Times speculated that Israel has been planning a war against Iran and Syria, following the recent bout of conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon. The report made a serious and viable claim on Israeli military strategy: “The conflict with Hezbollah has led to a strategic rethink in Israel. A key conclusion is that too much attention has been paid to Palestinian militants in Gaza and the West Bank instead of the two biggest state sponsors of terrorism in the region, who pose a far greater danger to Israel’s existence, defence insider’s say.”

A number of insiders in the Israeli defence establishment clarified the importance of their plan: the significance of Iran and Syria to the Israeli defence force is now above concerns for the Palestinian territories, Iran’s developed nuclear programme represents a heightened threat to Israel, the recent Tehran military pact signed between Syria and Iran in June to defend against Israeli threats is another direct regional threat to Israel, and there has been an ongoing alignment of Hezbollah and Iranian military interests to work together against Israel should the US attempt to intervene in the region. Although I tend to agree with the Times report, and believe that Israel is on the brink of another 1973 Arab-Israeli war, the article was based on a few emaciated bones of contention, which need to be properly fleshed out.

Tel Aviv can be guaranteed to find confident partners in both America and Europe, if a pre-emptive defence strategy were to be initiated against Tehran. To be certain, Israel will find a world of willing countries to support its pre-emptive defence policy against Iran – on 31st August, its Islamic government rejected a joint international request (again) from 15 nations to halt uranium enrichment. The international consensus is that Iran has only sought to enrich uranium for the purposes of creating nuclear weapons. The UN, authorities in Washington and most members of the EU have indicated not only their tense position but also hinted at the likelihood of sanctions on the Iranian government. Whether it be overtly or silently, the US could back a successful Israeli mission in Iran. In fact, Israel would officially prefer the US to lead the military strategy against Iran.

Although it is also clear that Iran was a major state sponsor of Hezbollah arms, Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan, has not confronted Iran’s president on the issue since the initial assertion of UN Resolution 1701, fixing the ceasefire peace between Israel and Hezbollah. The fact that neither Annan of the UN, or Javier Solana representing the EU, have not issued diplomatic ultimatums to Iran on its nuclear problem, has concerned many independent nations, trembling at the aggressive Islamic foreign policy of Tehran. However, the only reason that the UN and EU have chosen not to confront the country’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, with regards to supplying arms to Hezbollah is less to do with ignoring the reality of Lebanon in July and more to do with the avoidance of poking the rotweiller with a sharp stick.

Israel’s perception of Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme is not equalled to its threat in Europe. Tehran’s nuclear programme is a direct threat to Israel – mirroring Ahmadinejad’s voice “that the Zionist thorn in the heart of the Islamic nations must be removed” – and the direct tensions are peaking for Israeli defence strategists. Chief of the Israeli air force, Major General Elyezer Shkedy, has been assigned to commander of the “Iran front.” A Former Air Force Colonel and Military Analyst, Uri Dromi, told The Sunday Telegraph: “It’s natural that Shkedy is nominated to this role, because the air force is Israel’s only force that can reach and sustain a military operation against Iran.”

If the tensions do rise against Iran, Israel can be confident to find support of its military actions through a variety of independent nations, whether they move with or without the UN. Since Tehran appears to not be declaring its intentions for nuclear enrichment, Europe, the US and the UN must go by the rule of past experience: assume the worst case scenario. Israel can justify its actions simply by demonstrating that Iran has directly declared to wipe Zionist Israel clean off the map on more than one occasion and “we all know” that it is covertly brewing nuclear weapon capabilities behind the backs of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Reading between the lines, Kofi Annan’s words conceal the true concerns of the diplomatic community. Annan reported to the British press that the Iranian leader “agrees with me that she would do everything to strengthen the territorial integrity of Lebanon, the independence of Lebanon and work together for the reconstruction of Lebanon.” This was ‘blanket response’ number one.

Annan also told news agencies, “I have just had very good and constructive discussions with Mr. Larijani [Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator]. As you can imagine we discussed the nuclear issue and many other issues of concern to Iran and to the United Nations.” This was ‘blanket response’ number two.

The European press have grown tired of reporting on Annan’s comments – they are nothing more than characterless civil speeches, concealing the true problem that there is some deeper problem entrenched within the Iranian government that makes every diplomat come over with a cold silence (and therefore, blanket responses). Hence, it seems important to continue to read between the lines of Annan.

Member states have grown considerably apathetic at the fatigued motion of the EU, or more to the point, its governance under the Finnish presidency. In this predicament, the EU backing of a US-Israeli conflict against Iran would inevitably mean a lot more feet-dragging and bickering by European nations. Chirac already criticized Solana for a delayed response to the Lebanon crisis: “Europe was insufficiently active in the Lebanese crisis, although France had recommended on a number of occasions that the high representative be given a mandate to speak out on behalf of the 25 member countries, as he is doing on the Iranian issue.”

Solana rejected the criticism, citing Kofi Annan’s words that the EU responded quickly and efficiently to the UN resolution, bringing a ceasefire to the 34-day war in the Middle East. Some member states have also felt slightly disgruntled after access to Iran’s 21-page reply to the UN requests – requiring an end to uranium enrichment – was limited to the EU-3 (UK, France and Germany) and Solana. Thus, countries such as Italy – which is meanwhile pledging 3,000 troops in Lebanon for the UN operation – will not have access to the Tehran response, apparently littered with criticisms of the IAEA. Although Europe would back Israel, through the channels of the EU, it could only offer a retarded defence force, likely to be accompanied by a major domestic interest in preventing further aggravation of a Euro-born Arab electorate.

Sad spectacle

The comments this article has received so far are a sad spectacle to see. Admittedly, this article is NOT wel organised and not wel reasoned through. It is hard to see what the author's main point is. And, his notion that Israel would be "guaranteed to find confident partners in both America and Europe" for a pre-emptive defense strategy, is rather naive and certainly wishful thinking w.r.t. Europe. But none of this justifies the spectacle of the comments received so far.

As usual, 'Invite Jesus' is incapable of sticking to the subject at hand, and makes a number of ridiculous irrelevant assertions. He can always be relied upon to illustrate that religious nutcases can be found in all major religions of the world, not just the muslim one.

And, for the umpteenth time, Mr 'Bruyns' comes to parrot the tired-old and joint naive-left and old-right mantra, according to which the massive American 'dog' is being wagged by the tiny Israeli 'tail'. Those terrible jews who are supposedly 'controlling' America! What nonsense! As long as people are willing to believe in ideologically-induced 'fairy tales', one can be sure that geopolitical understanding will be in short supply.

Beating the war drum... again

Israel is beating the war drum again after its succesfull policy to convince America to wage war in Iraq to wipe out 'terrorism' (the threat of Iraq towards Israel). I call this diplomatic feat the 'Wolfowitz'. The witz is that America pays a huge price in both money (billions of dollars) and loss of goodwill in world politics (dramatic drop in popularity) to saveguard Israel.

America will likely be drawn into another war which is not of her interest due to Israeli influence.

Reasons for war in Iran that don't involve Israel at all

The United States doesn’t need any prompting to go to war with Iran. Let me give you a list of reasons that don’t involve Israel at all.

1. The hostage crisis of November 4, 1979 gave the United States a black eye that has never been avenged.
2. The continuous fermenting of Anti-Americanism hatred in the region that began in earnest since the hostage crisis. The effect of this propaganda was evident on September 11, even if they were not directly involved.
3. The bombing of the Marine barracks has the fingerprints of Iran all over it. Another black eye that this time drew blood.
4. Suspected support of the Iraqi insurgency and sectarian violence.
5. The use of uniformed military forces in the recent Israeli-Hezbollah conflict. According to the Bush doctrine, action against Iran is now justified.
6. The potential threat of nuclear Iran threatening important oil-suppliers in the Middle East.


Empowering Iran..

There are only a few countries that are emboldening and empowering Iran. These are 'fakistan', India, Syria..

India is unique, being ruled by colonial remnants - both islamists and Christians in the ruling party are cosy and gave the Iranians a multi-million dollar energy deal despite Condi Rice's objections.

The natives of India are powerless like the natives of the Americas - American Indians. In fact, one Christian has exposed this in his touching revelation. Read about these revelations at these two sites:

By Dr C I Issac, Head of the PG Department of History, CMS College, Kottayam, Kerala. They have made India into mogulistan even after moguls were defeated by the Brits who later ruled with brutality for much longer than what the Japanese did to the Chinese.

If at all, Europe is eager to help, EU should help the natives of INDIA, AMERICAS (Mexico is facing the native vs Immigrant issue in its elections, like Bolivia and Peru) and end centuries of persecution and exploitation. Not Lenanese, Pakkis, Afghans who are laughing all the way to the bank after killing us on "savage serial mass murders" of the type thta Hindus are suffering for one more century ever since muslims invaded India 1000 years ago. Wasting our money in the the bottomless pit of afghans or pakkis makes no sense.

Helping natives of India and Latin America makes immense sense. .. That is the true Christian way of serving God in Christ as repentence or atonement for our colonial sins.