The United States and Israel are considering the possibility of a joint “surgical strike” against Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to a Foreign Policy report by David Rothkopf published Monday.
While Israel and the U.S. still don’t entirely agree on the “red line” which would trigger a military response, the report said that the Israelis are now suggesting a more limited attack than was previously debated.
Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official and international relations expert, quoted a source said to be close to the discussions, which claimed that a small-scale attack is currently viewed as the most likely military option. Such strike, the source said, is likely to only take a few hours and would be conducted by air, using bombers and supported by drones.
In order to send the Iranian nuclear program back many years, such an attack could be carried out in a joint U.S.-Israeli operation, or by the U.S. alone. The report claims Israel would not be able to carry out this kind of attack on its own
editor:against the wall
Just remeber the ones calling for war never have fight the war they so desire.This piece is one the worst zionist shilled propaganda your likly to find
by Reza Khalili
Despite the statement by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel’s red line on Iran’s illicit nuclear program could be reached by next spring, Iranian officials are adamant that war is close.
In analyzing Mr. Netanyahu’s recent speech to the United Nations General Assembly, an Iranian nuclear policy strategist boasted to state media outlet irannuc.ir that Mr. Netanyahu’s red line is based on the current enrichment process to the 20 percent level at the Fordow nuclear facility. A recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report shows Iran has 90 kilograms of 20 percent enrichment, needing just 130 kilograms of such material for a nuclear bomb, which the Israelis conclude will happen by next spring.
“The first important fact is that Netanyahu has assumed that the speed of 20 percent enrichment by Iran remains the same till next year, but if the speed of such conversion then is changed, the timeline for such capacity will change, too,” said the unnamed strategist, hinting that Iran could obtain the needed material for the bomb sooner than Israel expects.
The Aug. 30 IAEA report showed Iran has doubled the number of centrifuges at its Fordow facility deep within a mountain to more than 2,000, and work continues unabated at the 20 percent enrichment level. Meanwhile, over 10,000 centrifuges at the Natanz facility are enriching to the 3.5 percent level with enough low-enriched uranium for six nuclear bombs, should Iran decide to enrich further. According to a source within Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Iran has already armed some of its ballistic missiles with chemical and biological warheads, to use against Israel should Israel attack.
Revolutionary Guard commanders in recent weeks have warned Iranians that the possibility of war is real. The guards’ chief commander, Mohammad Ali Jafari, said war will break out, and should Israel attack Iran, it will be destroyed. Javad Estaki, another guard commander, recently stated, “The enemy has always threatened us and we consider [the probability of] military confrontation at 100 percent . There are signs that the threat is real, we are ready and the people should be ready, too.”
The radical leaders of the Islamic regime are worried on two fronts as they speed up their nuclear bomb program: They fear an attack on their nuclear facilities before they complete their nuclear bomb goals and internal uprisings due to deteriorating economic conditions.
As the regime prepares for both scenarios, the West must tighten the screws on Iran’s economy with even harsher sanctions, thereby bringing about critical mass for a new Iranian revolution before the regime becomes nuclear-armed.
The Revolutionary Guard, in fear of a break in communications in case of war and internal chaos, has set up command-and-control centers in 31 provinces, acting under the orders of 10 operational bases, with orders to confront any enemy aggression (foot soldiers) and suppress civilian riots.
Thousands of units have been formed within the Revolutionary Guards and Basij paramilitary forces to maintain order and attack protesting civilians.
A recent Intelligence Ministry memo warned Iranian officials that deteriorating economic conditions from international sanctions greatly increase the possibility of an uprising and urged them to take appropriate action.
The once-secret report, according to the Iranian Internet site Kaleme, the official site of the Green movement, specifically warned of riots by hungry masses on the outskirts of major cities across Iran.
The government’s economic commission has concluded that the country will run out of foreign currency reserves in the next six months and that inflation plaguing the Iranian currency will see another steep rise, reports showed.
Last week, the Iranian currency reached a historic low in which one U.S. dollar was equivalent to 39,000 Iranian rials. The commission expects the exchange rate on the open market to increase to more than 67,000 rials. The exchange rate before sanctions on Iranian oil and banks took effect July 1 was about 12,000 rials.
The devaluation in Iranian currency caused riots in downtown Tehran, as hundreds of merchants marched on Parliament in protest of the collapsing currency and the Islamic regime’s financial support of Syria’s government under Bashar Assad. Riot police violently clamped down on protesters. The government will also have problems in making payrolls for its employees and related institutions. Employees could lose 50 percent of their pay.
Western leaders believe that by early next year, economic conditions will force regime leaders, fearing a revolt from within, to change course and negotiate. The Islamic regime is preparing for the worst and racing to the finish line to acquire the bomb, believing that it will become invincible once it does so
JERUSALEM — Israeli forces on Friday killed an American man who had earlier shot dead one person in a seaside hotel packed with tourists, police said.
Police surrounded the Leonardo Club hotel in the Red Sea resort city of Eilat after the man “grabbed a weapon from a security guard and shot a hotel worker,” police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld said. The hotel employee later died.
The gunman barricaded himself in the hotel kitchen, and fired at law enforcement officers. He was shot dead by members of a military counter-terrorism squad, a military source told Reuters.
Police later confirmed to NBC News that the American had been shot dead.
Authorities said the shooting did not appear to be related to terrorism or to be otherwise politically motivated.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Army Radio the incident “appears to be an internal dispute.”
Report: Victim worked as chef The gunman, who was not immediately named, was a 23-year-old from New York, Israel’s Haaretz newspaper reported. The newspaper named the shooting victim as Armando Abed, 33, an Israeli who was working as a chef at the hotel.
An Israeli hotel guest, Aviram Sela, said he tried to wrestle the gunman to the ground before he started shooting, as terrified tourists dived for cover behind a sofa in the hotel lobby.
Soldiers secure the area near the site of a shooting incident at a hotel in the Red Sea resort town of Eilat, Israel, on Friday.
“We saw him beating the guard and grab his weapon and the magazine,” Sela told Israeli television, adding that the gunman then took aim at a member of his family.
Shooter ‘a normal guy’ Haaretz, citing Israeli police sources, said the gunman was taking part in a program called “Oranim.”
The program is designed to bring Jews to Israel for employment and education, Oranim head Ofer Gutman said, according to Haaretz.
“He was a normal guy,” Gutman told The Associated Press. “There was nothing that indicated what would happen in the end.”
Gutman told the AP that the man was working in the hotel and was also taking a university course on hotel management. His work at the hotel was terminated earlier this week, Gutman said, without elaborating.
Eilat, on the border with Egypt and Jordan, has been a target of militant attacks in the past, and has come under rocket fire from Egypt’s Sinai in the past several months. The city is currently crowded with both foreign tourists and Israelis on a seven-day Jewish religious holiday.
NBC’s Lawahez Jabari, Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
editors note:I think a Jewish spribg is coming soon
OCCUPIED JERUSALEM: Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said Thursday he believes “the Arab Spring will be followed by a Persian Spring,” with international sanctions against Iran leading to renewed domestic unrest.
“The Arab Spring will be followed by a Persian Spring, instability is spreading in Iran, and not just in Tehran,” Lieberman told Israeli military radio.
“There is no doubt that the protest movement will be strengthened by the approach of the Iranian presidential elections next summer,” he added.
“The Iranian regime is reaching a critical point. International sanctions will not convince the leaders of the country to renounce their nuclear program, but what is important is that the Iranian people have begun to realize that they are not ready to be sacrificed to satisfy the revolutionary and fanatic ambitions of their leaders,” the minister said.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s rivals claim that economic mismanagement is the main cause of the currency crisis. He blames Western sanctions but insists Iran will make no concessions on its nuclear program.
Lieberman called on Western governments to act to help opposition activists who rose up against the regime when Ahmadinejad was re-elected in 2009 and the most prominent of whom remain under house arrest.
“This time, the West must help the movement, facilitating its communications, giving money and mobilizing international organizations like the U.N. Security Council, the European Union and other bodies,” Lieberman said.
Iran has faced increasingly tough sanctions, championed by Washington, over its nuclear program, which Israel and much of the international community believe masks a weapons drive.
Israel, the sole if undeclared nuclear power in the Middle East, says a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an existential threat to the Jewish state and that it reserves the right to take military action to prevent Tehran from obtaining weapons capability.
Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Oct-05/190210-israeli-minister-persian-spring-on-its-way.ashx#ixzz28QXNf66W (The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)
Maryam sometimes thinks about what would happen if there were a military attack on her city’s uranium-conversion facility.
The plant lies on the outskirts of Isfahan, the historical city that she calls home.
“It scares me, of course, even though I don’t have any information about the likely impact on people like us,” says the 55-year-old.
Now a new report is trying to answer that question.
Experts believe the Isfahan uranium-conversion facility — which contains an estimated 371 metric tons of uranium hexafluoride — is one of the four Iranian sites likely to be targeted if Israel or the United States were to decide to take military action in an effort to delay or cripple Iran’s nuclear program.
The University of Utah’s Hinckley Institute of Politics and the NGO Omid for Iran teamed up to produce a study that concludes that a military strike on the facility could have tragic consequences for Maryam and thousands of other residents of her centrally located city, which has a population of 2 million.
It’s unlikely that Maryam would die as an immediate result of such a bomb attack. But she could be among the estimated up-to-70,000 people who would be killed or injured after being exposed to toxic plumes released as the result of such strikes. They would reach the city within an hour.
Such a scenario would mean that the people of Isfahan could experience a catastrophe similar to the gas leak in Bhopal or the nuclear meltdown at Chornobyl, says Khosrow Semnani, the author of the report, which is titled, “The Ayatollah’s Nuclear Gamble.”
“People’s skin could be burnt [when coming in contact with the plumes], they could become blind, their lung could be destroyed, their kidneys could be damaged, and in the future they could face other health problems such as skin cancer and [other forms] of cancer,” Semnani says.
The report analyzed the impact of preemptive conventional strikes on four key nuclear sites: Isfahan’s uranium conversion facility; Natanz’s fuel-enrichment plant; Arak’s heavy-water plant; and Bushehr’s nuclear power plant.
Workers at those sites — who include scientists, workers, support staff, and soldiers — would be among the first victims of a bombing campaign. The report estimates that the casualty rate at the sites would be close to 100 percent.
“According to our estimates, the number of casualties of the bombing of the four sites would be about 5,000 people,” Semnani says. “If the bombing would include more than those four sites, then the immediate casualty [count] would be up to 10,000 people.”
The report warns that the grim scenario could be magnified by the lack of readiness on the part of Iranian authorities, who have a poor record of disaster management and who lack the capacity to handle deadly radioactive fallout in the aftermath of a strike on its nuclear sites.
Afshin Molavi, an Iran expert and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, says the study fills a gaping vacuum in Western discussions about military strikes on Iran, which often ignore the human cost of such actions.
“People talk very callously about the prospect of military strikes, and they frame it in the geopolitical fallout, the geo-economic fallout, what will happen to the oil price and all of these issues. But nobody has ever talked about the humanitarian consequences of a military strike on Iran,” Molavi says. “Those humanitarian consequences are grave, so I think this report fills a very important vacuum. It needs to be read by policy makers at the highest levels in Western governments; it needs to be read in Israel; it needs to be read all over the world.”
Greg Thielman, a former senior U.S. intelligence official and an expert with the Arms Control Association, says the study is a worthwhile exploration that gives color to “a very dry and bloodless discussion of what attacking Iran would be.”
He does say, however, that he doesn’t think the United States or Israel would attack Bushehr, because it’s not of critical concern to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — the UN nuclear watchdog that has access to the site.
“I would note also that it is against the Geneva Convention to attack civilian nuclear power plants,” Thielman says, “and that’s another reason why I think the U.S. and Israel would think twice about it, because it is clearly contrary to international law to do that.”
David Albright, a former UN weapons inspector and the president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) in Washington, says he doesn’t believe that a military attack on Bushehr is likely.
He says the number of casualties would depend on how the attacks are planned and conducted: “If they attack all the [conversion lines] — you have six in Isfahan and you’d expect more — they may not attack and they choose to cripple the site without trying to destroy the uranium hexafluoride.”
The human cost of a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities hasn’t been ignored by Western analysts alone. It’s also not a topic of discussion in Iran, where the state media largely focus on how the country would retaliate in case of attack.
“Ninety-nine percent of these people are not even aware of the horrifying scenario” that could await them, Semnani says.
By Thomas Grove
Israel’s “go-it-alone” option to attack Iran’s nuclear sites has set the Middle East on edge and unsettled its main ally at the height of a U.S. presidential election campaign.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu exudes impatience, saying Tehran is barely a year from a “red line” for atomic capacity. Many fellow Israelis, however, fear a unilateral strike, lacking U.S. forces, would fail against such a large and distant enemy.
But what if, even without Washington, Israel were not alone?
Azerbaijan, the oil-rich ex-Soviet republic on Iran’s far northern border, has, say local sources with knowledge of its military policy, explored with Israel how Azeri air bases and spy drones might help Israeli jets pull off a long-range attack.
That is a far cry from the massive firepower and diplomatic cover that Netanyahu wants from Washington. But, by addressing key weaknesses in any Israeli war plan – notably on refuelling, reconnaissance and rescuing crews – such an alliance might tilt Israeli thinking on the feasibility of acting without U.S. help.
It could also have violent side-effects more widely and many doubt Azeri President Ilham Aliyev would risk harming the energy industry on which his wealth depends, or provoking Islamists who dream of toppling his dynasty, in pursuit of favour from Israel.
Yet despite official denials by Azerbaijan and Israel, two Azeri former military officers with links to serving personnel and two Russian intelligence sources all told Reuters that Azerbaijan and Israel have been looking at how Azeri bases and intelligence could serve in a possible strike on Iran.
“Where planes would fly from – from here, from there, to where? – that’s what’s being planned now,” a security consultant with contacts at Azeri defence headquarters in Baku said. “The Israelis … would like to gain access to bases in Azerbaijan.”
That Aliyev, an autocratic ally of Western governments and oil firms, has become a rare Muslim friend of the Jewish state – and an object of scorn in Tehran – is no secret; a $1.6-billion arms deal involving dozens of Israeli drones, and Israel’s thirst for Azerbaijan’s Caspian Sea crude, are well documented.
Israel’s foreign minister visited Baku in April this year.
But a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable from 2009 quoted Aliyev, who succeeded his father in 2003, describing relations with Israel as “like an iceberg, nine tenths … below the surface”.
That he would risk the wrath of his powerful neighbour by helping wage war on Iran is, however, something his aides flatly deny; wider consequences would also be hard to calculate from military action in a region where Azerbaijan’s “frozen” conflict with Armenia is just one of many elements of volatility and where major powers from Turkey, Iran and Russia to the United States, western Europe and even China all jockey for influence.
Nonetheless, Rasim Musabayov, an independent Azeri lawmaker and a member of parliament’s foreign affairs committee, said that, while he had no definitive information, he understood that Azerbaijan would probably feature in any Israeli plans against Iran, at least as a contingency for refuelling its attack force:
“Israel has a problem in that if it is going to bomb Iran, its nuclear sites, it lacks refuelling,” Musabayov told Reuters.
“I think their plan includes some use of Azerbaijan access.
“We have (bases) fully equipped with modern navigation, anti-aircraft defences and personnel trained by Americans and if necessary they can be used without any preparations,” he added.
The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama has made clear it does not welcome Israel’s occasional talk of war and that it prefers diplomacy and economic sanctions to deflect an Iranian nuclear programme that Tehran denies has military uses.
Having also invested in Azerbaijan’s defences and facilities used by U.S. forces in transit to Afghanistan, Washington also seems unlikely to cheer Aliyev joining any action against Iran.
The Azeri president’s team insist that that will not happen.
“No third country can use Azerbaijan to perpetrate an attack on Iran. All this talk is just speculation,” said Reshad Karimov from Aliyev’s staff. He was echoing similar denials issued in Baku and from Israel when the journal Foreign Policy quoted U.S. officials in March voicing alarm that Azeri-Israeli action could thwart U.S. diplomacy toward Iran and across the Caucasus.
Israeli officials dismiss talk of Azeri collaboration in any attack on Iran but decline public comment on specific details.
Even speaking privately, few Israeli officials will discuss the issue. Those who do are sceptical, saying overt use of Azeri bases by Israel would provoke too many hostile reactions. One political source did, however, say flying unmarked tanker aircraft out of Azerbaijan to extend the range and payloads of an Israeli bombing force might play a part in Israeli planning.
Though denying direct knowledge of current military thinking on Iran, the Israeli said one possibility might be “landing a refuelling plane there, made to look like a civilian airliner, so it could later take off to rendezvous mid-air with IAF jets”.
A thousand miles separates Tehran and Tel Aviv, putting much of Iran beyond the normal ranges of Israel’s U.S.-made F-16 bombers and their F-15 escorts. So refuelling could be critical.
There is far from unanimity among Israeli leaders about the likelihood of any strike on Iran’s nuclear plants, whether in a wider, U.S.-led operation or not. Netanyahu’s “red line” speech to the United Nations last week was seen by many in Israel as making any strike on Iran unlikely – for at least a few months.
Many, however, also assume Israel has long spied on and even sabotaged what the Western powers say are plans for atomic weapons which Israel says would threaten its very existence.
A second Israeli political source called the idea of Azerbaijan being either launch pad or landing ground for Israeli aircraft “ludicrous” – but agreed with the first source that it was fair to assume joint Israeli-Azeri intelligence operations.
The Azeri sources said such cooperation was established.
As part of last year’s arms deal, Azerbaijan is building up to 60 Israeli-designed drones, giving it reconnaissance means far greater than many analysts believe would be needed just to guard oil installations or even to mount any operations against the breakaway, ethnic Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.
“With these drones, (Israel) can indirectly watch what’s happening in Iran, while we protect our borders,” legislator Musabayov said – a view shared by Azeri former military sources.
Less reserved than Israeli officials, the sources in Azerbaijan and in Russian intelligence, which keeps a close eye on its former Soviet backyard, said Baku could offer Israel much more, however – though none believed any deal was yet settled.
The country, home to nine million people whose language is close to Turkish and who mostly share the Shi’ite Muslim faith of Iran, has four ex-Soviet air bases that could be suitable for Israeli jets, the Azeri sources said. They named central Kyurdamir, Gyanja in the west and Nasosny and Gala in the east.
The Pentagon says it helped upgrade Nasosny airfield for NATO use. It also uses Azeri commercial facilities in transit to Afghanistan. But U.S. military aid to Azerbaijan is limited by Washington’s role as a mediator in its dispute with Armenia.
One of the sources with links to the Azeri military said: “There is not a single official base of the United States and even less so of Israel on the territory of Azerbaijan. But that is ‘officially’. Unofficially they exist, and they may be used.”
The source said Iran had been a main topic of talks in April with Israel’s Soviet-born foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman.
Azeri tarmac, a shorter flight from key sites in northern Iran including the Fordow underground uranium enrichment plant and missile batteries at Tabriz, might feature in Israeli war planning in less direct ways, the former Azeri officers said.
With Israel wary of its vulnerability to pressure over air crew taken prisoner, plans for extracting downed pilots may be a key feature of any attack plan. Search and rescue helicopters might operate from Azerbaijan, the sources said – or planes that were hit or low on fuel could land at Azeri bases in extremis.
Such engagement carries risks for Azerbaijan and its oil platforms and pipelines operated with international companies.
Defending against Iran is part of public debate in Baku. The United States has provided Azerbaijan with three Coast Guard cutters and has funded seven coastal radar sites as well as giving Baku other help in protecting its oil installations.
Relations have long been strained between the former Soviet state and Iran, which is home to twice as many ethnic Azeris as Azerbaijan itself. Tehran beams an Azeri-language television channel over the border which portrays Aliyev as a puppet of Israel and the West, as well as highlighting corruption in Baku.
Azerbaijan sees Iranian hands behind its Islamist opposition and both countries have arrested alleged spies and agitators.
Faced with an uneven balance of force, Aliyev’s government makes no bones about Israel being an ally. As one presidential aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, explained: “We live in a dangerous neighbourhood; that is what is the most powerful driving force for our relationship with Israel.”
However, Israel’s confrontation with Iran may turn out, the arms build-up in Azerbaijan, including recent Israeli upgrades for its Soviet T-72 tanks, may have consequences for the wider region and for the stand-off with Armenia – consequences that would trouble all the powers with stakes in the Caspian region.
“We keep buying arms. On the one hand, it’s a good strategy to frighten Armenia,” one of the former Azeri officers said of the shaky, 18-year-old ceasefire over Nagorno-Karabakh. “But you don’t collect weapons to hang on the wall and gather dust.
“One day, all these could be used.”
- If a bomb explodes near you with a little bang, that’s a sign it is carrying chemical or biological weapons? A loud bang means a conventional warhead.
- If an attack is chemical, you will know right away? But if it’s biological you’ll only find out after a few days.
- If it is nuclear, you should lie down and cover your head? And don’t get up when the first blast wave passes over you because it will be followed by a second wave.
All these facts are good to know if you are in Israel and war with Iran, and its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, were to break out around you.
Or if something happened with Syria, Iran’s ally, which has large stockpiles of biological and conventional weapons.
With the latest opinion polls showing that half of Israelis fear for the continued existence of their state if war breaks out with Iran, and with more than half rating the chance of such a war within a year as “medium” or “high,” the more you know about what the war would entail, the better.
Recent global events give me the distinct impression that those at the top of the pyramid of political and economic power want to see as much trouble in the world as possible. Assuming that to be the case, I find it very strange and counter-intuitive. I mean, you would think that self-interested leaders would prefer to maintain a status quo that provides them with so many privileges and luxuries that the rest of us only dream of. For them to act in ways that appear to stimulate revolutions, economic collapse and regional or global wars is extraordinary, at least to me, because it jeopardizes their position. But maybe it’s my fault for forgetting that most at the top think and feel very differently than “the 99%”, and that they have trouble with emotions that come naturally to the rest of us. When you’re motivated by thrill-seeking and a thirst for power that knows no bounds, empathy and aversion to conflict don’t exactly play a part in your worldview. Granted, they have their own psychopathic standards, but, nevertheless, something about their schemes does not sit right with me.
By now you are aware of the American-made trailer of a mysterious movie called The Innocence of Muslims that appeared on YouTube and depicted the prophet Muhammad as a murderous paedophile, and that is said to be the reason for recent riots and demonstrations across the Muslim world against the United States which resulted in the death, among others, of Chris Stevens, the US ambassador in Libya. Let us point out, first of all, that this simplistic explanation overlooks decades of imperialistic intervention of the US in the Middle East, either indirectly or directly through military involvement in Iraq, Libya and currently Syria; its support for dictators and regimes in the region notorious for the abuse of human rights, such as Israel and Saudi Arabia; and its demonization of Arabs and Muslims in general. It also ignores the very low economic and social standards of living that are common in the Middle East – and much of the world – that are a direct result of the US ‘management’ of its areas of influence. By sweeping all this history and social context under the rug, the Western audience is left to conclude that Muslims are irrational extremists.
Take Yemen as an example, the US embassy of which was one of those stormed during recent protests. Did you know that 10 million Yemenis are starving as a result of a food crisis, while 267,000 children are facing life-threatening levels of malnutrition? The US considers this hungry people threatening enough to frequently target it through drone attacks. Would that not make you feel motivated enough to riot against your aggressors at the slightest opportunity?
© Yahya Arhab/European Pressphoto Agency
Chanting “Death to America”, hundreds of protesters stormed the US Embassy in Yemen’s capital of Sana’a on Thursday.
So if a YouTube trailer had anything to do with rioting, it was that it provided an excuse – the straw that broke the camel’s back by adding insult to injury – rather than being the primary reason for discontent. Whoever was hoping to provoke Muslims seems to have gotten much more than they bargained for; the anger was already simmering and had manifested during the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ against local tyrants. Now it is directed against the enablers of such tyrannies.
Let’s consider the trailer itself. It is an American production but nobody knows if the movie it was supposed to be promoting even exists. If it doesn’t, then this confirms that it was created for the sole purpose of provocation and providing a simple narrative for the media to repeat. No one seems to agree on the name of the director. According to some reports, it was made by Sam Bacile, a California real estate developer, Israeli Jew and American citizen. There is also speculation that Bacile is a member of Egypt’s Orthodox Coptic Christian diaspora in the US. That suggestion seems to imply that as a Christian in Egypt he wouldn’t get along with Egyptian Muslims – in spite of the fact that Egypt is one of the most tolerant countries in the Middle East when it comes to religion. Other versions point to Terry Jones, a ‘preacher’ who has made anti-Islamic gestures in the past and who is said to have links to CIA and Mossad. The latest version is that Sam Bacile’s real name is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, and he is no director but a producer. The real director, we are told, is Alan Roberts, who has a history of making soft porn and whose real name is either Robert Brownell or Robert Brown.
Get all that? Don’t worry if you didn’t. I think that was the whole intention: to create such obscure rumours about the origins of the trailer that no one could find its real origin. That in itself should be suspicious, just as suspicious as the fact that a YouTube video managed to stand out from the rest and be spread wide enough to upset people in multiple countries. Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but there must be millions of YouTube videos tailored to insult every sensitivity on the planet, in one way or another, yet they don’t trigger mass revolt. In addition, it appears that the initial stimulus for the riots was not exactly spontaneous. We have the following from the case of Libya:
[A] U.S. counterterrorism official said the Benghazi violence was “too coordinated or professional” to be spontaneous. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the incident publicly.
Parliament speaker Omar al-Houmidan suggested the attack might have been planned, saying the mob “may have had foreign loyalties” – an apparent reference to international terrorists. “We are not sure. Everything is possible,” he said.
Another source adds:
An intelligence source on the ground in Libya told Fox News that there was no demonstration outside the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi prior to last week’s attack — challenging the Obama administration’s claims that the assault grew out of a “spontaneous” protest against an anti-Islam film.
“There was no protest and the attacks were not spontaneous,” the source said, adding the attack “was planned and had nothing to do with the movie.”
The source said the assault came with no warning at about 9:35 p.m. local time, and included fire from more than two locations. The assault included RPG’s and mortar fire, the source said, and consisted of two waves.
[...] The Libyan president also said Sunday that the strike was planned in advance.
I am not alone in suspecting that the trailer was part of an intelligence psy-op and that the attack in Benghazi was initiated by agents provocateurs, allowing for the probability that the unrest was carried on for legitimate grievances of a social, economic and political nature. Assuming this is the case, the question becomes: why would the Powers That Be deliberately bring trouble on their heads? Is it their intention to set the world on fire?
Heading for Showdown
Netanyahu, Gen. Benny Gantz
© Government Press, European Pressphoto Agency
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, left, with Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, observes an army infantry exercise taking place on the Golan Heights. Netanyahu has been publicly criticizing the Obama administration for refusing to issue a more specific ultimatum to Iran over its nuclear program.
In recent weeks we have heard Israel’s drums of war beating harder against Iran, with a few references to others on its hit list, such as Hizbollah, Lebanon and Syria. Of course, Israel likes to cry war twice a week. It’s part of its national identity to feel threatened and to threaten, and Israeli politicians have made it scaring the masses a national sport. The problem with Israel is that sometimes they do mean it. That the Israelis don’t go to war more often may simply because they don’t feel like they have the unconditional support of the ‘international community’ (the US and EU in particular). This time around, Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak’s threats sound louder than usual, which is cause for concern. After all, these people are mad men.
Most of the time Israel will do its best not to go into a war that the US can fight in its place – unless it is a war against enemies who cannot afford tanks, helicopters or missiles and who are for the most part armed with homemade rockets and stones, as in Gaza or the West Bank. Regarding Iran, the Israelis would like nothing better than to see the US take it down while they watch from the sidelines. At the moment, however, Barack Obama is much more distracted by the coming presidential election and would rather not get involved in another military adventure. Indicating that Obama is not ready to go all the way, the US recently scaled back a programmed military exercise with Israel. The discourses of these nations regarding Iran’s nuclear program both fail to acknowledge that there is no evidence that it is anything other than peaceful – and if it isn’t, neither have the moral authority to criticize – however the Americans sound less aggressive than the Israelis for the moment.
Interestingly, the talk coming from Israel suggests that this time they are ready to do it alone if necessary. Whether this is just bluffing or they mean it, I find this fascinating. It’s yet another example of how our leaders seek chaos even at the risk of their own destruction. Does Netanyahu not realize that even with the most powerful army in the Middle East his tiny state is very vulnerable? There is not much space to run to in a country the size of New Jersey. How much incoming fire does he think their territory can accommodate? No matter how much damage they can inflict on others, major wars are suicidal for Israel.
I find it a bit too coincidental that in the context of this situation, in which Netanyahu lusts for blood and Obama is making him wait a little longer, Muslims are expressing their anger against the US and the media is spinning it as religious fanaticism. With great timing, and even greater hypocrisy, Netanyahu gave an interview to NBC News in which he warned of Iran’s “leadership with an unbelievable fanaticism… You want these fanatics to have nuclear weapons?” Now imagine what would happen if a (false flag) terror attack took place in the next week or two in the Western world …
Iran could launch a pre-emptive strike on Israel if it was sure the Jewish state were preparing to attack it, a senior commander of its elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying on Sunday.
Amir Ali Hajizadeh, a brigadier general in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, made the comments to Iran’s state-run Arabic language Al-Alam television, according to a report on the network’s website.
“Iran will not start any war but it could launch a pre-emptive attack if it was sure that the enemies are putting the final touches to attack it,” Al-Alam said, paraphrasing the military commander.
Hajizadeh, who heads the Guard’s aerospace division, said any attack on Iranian soil could trigger “World War III.”
“We cannot imagine the Zionist regime starting a war without America’s support. Therefore, in case of a war, we will get into a war with both of them and we will certainly get into a conflict with American bases,” he said. “In that case, unpredictable and unmanageable things would happen and it could turn into a World War III
By COLLEEN CURRY | ABC News
New ads scheduled to appear in the New York City subway system call for support of Israel in its war against “the savage,” a reference to militant Muslims.
The ads, put out by a group called the American Freedom Defense Initiative, are aimed at criticizing violent attacks perpetrated by radical Islamists, according to Pamela Gellar, the founder and director of the group.
The ads read: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”
“The point is any war on civilians is savagery. The rockets going into Israel by Gaza is savagery, blowing up buses is savagery, targeting a bus of Jewish mothers and children, savagery, Daniel Pearl, 9/11, 7/7, 3/11, are all savagery,” she said referring to terror attacks in the U.S., Britain and Spain. “I’m just restating the obvious.”
The ad comes after a series of riots in the Mideast and Africa over a movie mocking the Prophet Mohammed and as France braces for unrest after a magazine printed cartoons lampooning the prophet. Depictions of the prophet are considered blasphemy by Muslims.
Gellar said she is concerned that the violent blowback to the movie and the cartoons is squelching free speech around the world. She said that she is not worried about her ads provoking violence, and that only those who commit violent acts are responsible.
“What we’re witnessing here not just locally or nationally but internationally is the enforcement of the restriction of free speech under Sharia law. Under Sharia law you cannot criticize the prophet,” she said. “In my opinion any time is a good time to blaspheme because I am living in America and freedom of speech is not the eighth or tenth or fifteenth amendment, but the first.”
The ads were initially rejected by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs New York’s subway and train systems. MTA spokesman Aaron Donovan said that the ad failed to meet its standards, which prohibit demeaning language of any group. But those standards were ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge this summer, he said.
“Our hands are tied. The court found the MTA’s regulations on non-commercial ads violated the First Amendment,” Donovan said.