+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-Deep-Politics-Forum)
+--- Forum: War is a Racket (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/Forum-War-is-a-Racket)
+--- Thread: Engineering Consent For Attack On Iran (/Thread-Engineering-Consent-For-Attack-On-Iran)
Engineering Consent For Attack On Iran - Bernice Moore - 07-11-2011
Engineering Consent For Attack On Iran
IAEA: Iran Had Model of Nuclear Warhead
By Associated Press
The UN atomic agency plans to reveal intelligence this week suggesting Iran made computer models of a nuclear warhead and other previously undisclosed details on alleged secret work by Tehran on nuclear arms.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29636.htm
Engineering Consent For Attack On Iran - Bernice Moore - 10-11-2011
IAEA Study as Pretext for War on Iran
[URL="http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=iqnuv6bab&v=0012Q4V8GYbFiTpQziT0y_PHtiA1TunorEIrlfS6dcUJuBHBp0yoGmwmoQnISRwVu29poWIDvD5alf4_7Ja2U3wfEWbf9WXrGR6OGYA1OiYcFzZifavLiWQgA%3D%3D"]
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=iqnuv6bab&v=0012Q4V8GYbFiTpQziT0y_PHtiA1TunorEIrlfS6dcUJuBHBp0yoGmwmoQnISRwVu29poWIDvD5alf4_7Ja2U3wfEWbf9WXrGR6OGYA1OiYcFzZifavLiWQgA%3D%3D[/URL]
Engineering Consent For Attack On Iran - Peter Lemkin - 10-11-2011
Bernice Moore Wrote:IAEA Study as Pretext for War on Iran
[URL="http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=iqnuv6bab&v=0012Q4V8GYbFiTpQziT0y_PHtiA1TunorEIrlfS6dcUJuBHBp0yoGmwmoQnISRwVu29poWIDvD5alf4_7Ja2U3wfEWbf9WXrGR6OGYA1OiYcFzZifavLiWQgA%3D%3D"]
http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?llr=iqnuv6bab&v=0012Q4V8GYbFiTpQziT0y_PHtiA1TunorEIrlfS6dcUJuBHBp0yoGmwmoQnISRwVu29poWIDvD5alf4_7Ja2U3wfEWbf9WXrGR6OGYA1OiYcFzZifavLiWQgA%3D%3D[/URL]
Many on the left and right, even ultra-hawk military types have said that an attack on Iran - even a limited one destroying all of their 'nuclear' facilities could trigger off [in a few days] something between nuclear exchange in the Middle East alone [hardly trivial] to a full-blown WWIII..... It is madness and both the USA and Israel, with UK backing/cheerleading seem headed toward this madness!.
So much for sovereignty of nations. Its OK for S.A. to have had nukes and for Pakistan - even for N. Korea....but it is a no-no for Iran [if they even have any], as they are on top of oil and that oil [the USA thinks] is ours!....not theirs! Sick! Stop the Empire, before it stops life on this Planet. It has already destroyed most of the polity and peace inside and out of our crumbling nation.
Engineering Consent For Attack On Iran - Christer Forslund - 11-11-2011
War Clouds Form over Iran By Wayne Madsen
URL of this article: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27584 Global Research, November 10, 2011 Strategic Culture Foundation
Quote: Israel's all-powerful lobby in Washington, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), an organization composed of Israeli collaborators, infiltrators, and outright traitors to the United States, is steamrolling through the House of Representatives H.R. 1905, which would prohibit the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, members of the U.S. Foreign Service, or any special envoy from engaging in any sort of diplomatic contact, official or unofficial, with any member or agent of the government of Iran. Only when the President informs the requisite committees may he proceed with engaging on diplomatic contact with Iran. Israel has de facto control over the foreign affairs committees of Congress, so any White House notification of the need to contact Iranian officials would be instantly transmitted to Binyamin Netanyahu's office in Jerusalem and Israel would then circumvent any U.S.-Iranian contact. AIPAC, with its resolution, is further making the United States a vassal of the Jewish state.
Israel's strategy is to make certain that its plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities and, perhaps other targets, meet no opposition from diplomatic circles in the United States... Israel has placed its own interests well beyond and in contravention of those of the United States.
Faced with the prospect of an Israeli attack on Iran, backed by Saudi Arabia Israel's secret ally in the region has had ripple effects across the Middle East and Asia.
Countries in Asia are scrambling to join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as full members. Confronted by a belligerent United States, NATO, and Israel intent on toppling the governments of Syria and Iran, the economic, cultural, and de facto collective security pact that comprises Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan announced after its prime ministers' summit in St. Petersburg that SCO would soon be opening its doors for full membership for Pakistan, Iran, and India. The Asian nations want to freeze the United States out of interference in Asia.
Ahead of the St. Petersburg summit, Russia and China strongly warned the West against any military attack on Iran. The words being used in international diplomacy are reminiscent of the Cold War era, however, it is the West that is playing to role of the aggressor, albeit an aggressor led around by Israel and its intelligence spies and assets embedded in the upper echelons of governments in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, and within the United Nations hierarchy.
Even America's vassal state of Afghanistan, eager to break free of the bonds of NATO and Washington, has attained observer status in SCO. Recent comments by the deputy commander of NATO training in Afghanistan, U.S. Army Major General Peter Fuller, that the Afghan government leadership is erratic, ungrateful, and isolated from reality because President Hamid Karzai said Afghanistan would side with Pakistan in an American war on Pakistan, resulted in Fuller's firing. Fuller's comments also resulted in Karzai asking for observer status in SCO as American aggression against the Muslim world and opposition to sovereignty for Palestine has seen Washington's standing around the world plummet.
Another nation where the CIA, Pentagon, has their agents creeping and crawling, Mongolia, is also a SCO observer. There are also SCO "partners in dialogue" -- nations that could attain SCO observer or membership status in the future. Partners in dialogue nations include Belarus, Sri Lanka, and one that should worry Tel Aviv and Washington, Turkey, a NATO member. Moscow and Ankara agree that Turkey should eventually become a full SCO member. Turkey has close historical and cultural links with the Turkic nations of central Asia and with many of the autonomous Turkic republics of Russia, including Tuva, Bashkortostan, and Adygeya.
Turkey has grown tired of Israeli interference in its internal and external affairs, as witnessed by the vicious and bloody Israeli attack on the Turkish Gaza aid vessel, the Mavi Marmara; Mossad support for Kurdish PKK terrorist attacks in Turkey; and covert Israeli entanglement in the Ergenekon "deep state" network in Turkey.
Iran has now seen Israel's most-open secret ally, Saudi Arabia, appoint the former Egyptian intelligence chief and close Netanyahu friend, Omar Suleiman, as an adviser to Saudi heir apparent, Crown Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, who is also the Interior Minister. The Jerusalem-Riyadh axis is being further cemented as the Obama administration is shifting 4,000 troops from Iraq to Kuwait and beefing up other U.S. military assets in Bahrain -- home of the U.S. Fifth Fleet and Qatar, United Arab Emirates, and Oman. The CIA and Pentagon have set up Predator drone bases in Djibouti, Seychelles, Ethiopia, and, reportedly, Saudi Arabia.
The president-elect of Kyrgyzstan, Prime Minister Almazbek Atambaev, has announced he wants the U.S. and NATO to leave the Manas Transit Center airbase in his country after the current lease expires in 2014. Already, Soros-funded non-governmental organization (NGO) agents in Kyrgyzstan are attempting to suggest that under the new Kyrgyz constitution, Atambaev does not have the authority to close the base. It is this type of U.S. interference in the affairs of the nations of Asia that has SCO readying an expansion of its membership to include two nations that have received direct U.S. military threats: Iran and Pakistan. Suspicion of U.S. intentions and military plans has also made Washington's request to enter SCO as a partner in dialogue a dead issue. Washington's interest in attending SCO summits as a "partner" says more about the CIA's inability to crack into the inner workings of SCO, even through erstwhile "allies" like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Mongolia, than in having any great desire to "dialogue" with SCO members and observers. After all, AIPAC and its minions have managed to jam through the U.S. House a law that prohibits any U.S. diplomatic contact with Tehran's officials.
President Obama is under tremendous pressure from the Israel Lobby during an election year to support an Israeli military strike on Iran, action that will inevitably lead the United States military in the Gulf region into war against Iran on behalf of the Tel Aviv/west Jerusalem regime. At the G-20 summit in Cannes, French President Nicolas Sarkozy was overheard telling Obama, "I cannot bear Netanyahu, he's a liar." To which Obama replied, "you're fed up, but I have to deal with him every day."
The Sarkozy-Obama interchange is instructive. Obama did not disagree that Netanyahu is a patent liar who will do anything or say anything to advance Israeli and global Zionist interests over all else, even to the point of lying about a bogus Iranian nuclear weapons threat to promote a military attack on Iran.
Israel, using its agents of influence in the UN delegations of the United States, Britain, Germany, Canada, Sweden, and the Netherlands, has ensured that International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Yukiya Amano has tainted his agency's report on Iranian nuclear developments in a manner that would have never been tolerated by his predecessor, Mohammed ElBaradei. Amano certainly took no interest in the fact that his own nation, Japan, was secretly producing nuclear weapons at the Fukushima nuclear complex in contravention of IAEA rules. The aftermath of the destructive earthquake in Japan laid open the secret work going on at Fukushima. Amano is perfectly willing to act as a cipher for Israel and the Israel Lobby in "discovering" IAEA violations by Iran.
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientist's "Doomsday Clock," a measure of how close the world is to nuclear war, now stands at six minutes until midnight. With the machinations of Israel toward Iran, the internal meltdown of Obama's White House staff with the demotion of chief of staff Bill Daley, and the invitation by SCO to Iran to come under the protective security umbrella of Russia and China, the clock has just jumped ahead several minutes.
Please support Global Research Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers.
Engineering Consent For Attack On Iran - Ed Jewett - 26-01-2012
War With Iran = Suicide (Mike [Rivero] at his BEST)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g67grWuDmyg&feature=player_embedded#! (15:12)
Engineering Consent For Attack On Iran - Magda Hassan - 21-02-2012
Study on a Possible Israeli Strike
on Iran's Nuclear Development
Facilities
Abdullah Toukan, Senior Associate
March 14, 2009
Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Introduction
Israeli Nuclear Weapons and Ballistic Missiles
Iran Nuclear Weapons and Ballistic Missiles Program
Timeline when Iran produces it's first Nuclear Weapon
Options to deal with Iran's Nuclear Program within the Time Frame
Iran Nuclear Targets
Mission Planning Payloads
Israeli Strike Force Required
Iran Missile Sites
Israeli Air Force: Aircraft Mission Capabilities
Scenario I: Israeli Air Force Strike against Iranian Nuclear Facilities and Ballistic Missile Sites
Strike Mission Route Profile
Mission Force Allocation
Mission Analysis
Scenario II: An Israeli Ballistic Missile Attack against Iranian Nuclear Facilities
Iranian Ground and Airborne Defense Means against an Israeli Strike
Iran Ground Based Air Defense Systems
The Environmental Damages of an Israeli Attack on the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant.
Israeli Air Defense and Ballistic Missile Defense System Vs An Iranian Retaliatory Ballistic Missile Attack using
the Shehab
Military and Political Consequences of an Israeli Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities
Suggested Steps Towards Iran
Appendix
Engineering Consent For Attack On Iran - Magda Hassan - 04-04-2012
Israeli Experts Mum on Iran Attack to Support Bibi's Bluff
By Gareth Porter
April 03, 2012 "IPS" -- A striking feature of the Israeli political landscape in recent months has been the absence of a serious debate among national security figures on the issue of the threat of war with Iran.
It is well-known that many prominent former military and intelligence officials believe an attack on Iran would be disastrous for Israel. After an initial blast at the idea of striking Iran by two former high-ranking officials last year, however, very little has been heard from such national security figures.
The reason for this silence on the part of the national security sector, just as the Israeli threat of war was escalating sharply, appears to be a widespread view among Israeli national security analysts that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's threat to attack is a highly successful bluff.
Some critics of Netanyahu's threat to go war against Iran have expressed concern about the failure of national security figures to speak out publicly against the policy. Former Jerusalem Post columnist Larry Derfner, who now blogs for the independent 972mag.com, wrote last month that there are "crowds" of former military and intelligence officials who privately oppose an attack on Iran and could slow the "march to war" by speaking to the news media.
But he complained that "Israelis aren't hearing their voices."
Yossi Alpher, a former Mossad analyst and later head of the Jaffee Center for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University, has noted the same problem. "Plenty of people are calling for public debate on the issue of striking Iran," he told IPS in an interview. "But it isn't happening."
Former Mossad director Meir Dagan launched the first attack on Netanyahu's policy by a former national security official last June, asserting that an attack on Iran would provoke a regional war and would ensure that Iran would acquire nuclear weapons.
Maj. Gen. Shlomo Gazit, who was chief of military intelligence in the 1970s, also dissociated himself with the policy, declaring, "An Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear reactor will lead to the liquidation of Israel."
Like Dagan, Gazit warned that it would cause Iran to immediately decide to become a nuclear power, and he added that it would increase international pressures for the abandonment of "the territories."
Those shots across Netanyahu's bow have not been followed, however, by similar criticisms by other former military and intelligence figures.
In fact, Gazit himself appeared to backtrack from his earlier harsh verdict on the option of attacking Iran in a recent television interview.
On Russia Today on March 12, Gazit did not voice any of his previous objections to the threatened Israeli strike against Iran. Instead he emphasized the readiness of Israel to carry out a strike, even without U.S. approval if necessary, played down the cost to Israel of an Iranian response, and said an Israeli strike would result in delaying the Iranian nuclear program by "two or three years at least."
Gazit reaffirmed to IPS, however, that he has not changed his mind about the dangers to Israel attending a strike against Iran he had raised last June.
The publicly discussed reason for the absence of dissent from the national security sector is lack of information. Nathan Sharony, who heads the Council of Peace, with over 1,000 former high-ranking security officials with dovish views, told Derfner the reason exnational security officials were not speaking up was that they lack the "solid information" necessary to do so.
Gazit gave IPS the same explanation for the failure of former officials to oppose a strike against Iran publicly.
But the main reasons for opposing war with Iran do not require access to inside information. The more compelling explanation for the silence of former military and intelligence officers is that they, like journalists and other policy analysts, think that Netanyahu is probably bluffing and they perceive the bluff as working.
Retired Brig. Gen. Uzi Rubin, the former head of Israel's missile defense program, recalls being on a television program a few months ago with Ari Shavit, senior correspondent at Haaretz, on which Shavit declared, "Netanyahu is playing poker for all of us. We shouldn't call out his cards."
Shavit was suggesting that the success of the prime minister in the high-stakes poker game requires that influential Israelis not question his claims about Israel's willingness and capability to attack Iran's nuclear sites.
That struck a Rubin as a significant factor in the politics surrounding Netanyahu's policy. "People who think we shouldn't attack Iran believe Netanyahu is playing poker," said Rubin in an interview with IPS. "So they think they shouldn't speak up."
"Netanyahu speaks like he's very convinced Iran has to be stopped by force," said the former missile defense chief. "Does he mean it?" Rubin said he doesn't know the answer.
Alpher agrees. He told IPS the reason high-profile expressions of dissent by Dagan and a few others have not provoked more lively debate on Iran policy among national security figures is that "they don't want to spoil Bibi's successful bluster."
Netanyahu's bluffing on Iran has "kept the international community on edge,"Alpher suggested, and thus achieved the latest round of sanctions and heavier pressure on Iran.
Both the poker metaphor and the view that he has been successful at it have been central elements in media coverage of Netanyahu's policy in recent weeks.
While the prime minister was in Washington last month, Aluf Benn, the editor-in-chief of Haaretz, wrote that Netanyahu had "managed to convince the world that Israel is on the verge of a preemptive war" and that he is "playing poker and hiding his most important card the IDF's true capabilities to destroy Iran's nuclear installations."
Just last week, Benn's colleague, Shavit, referred to the threat to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of 2012 that he and a handful of other journalists had heard from senior officials. Shavit acknowledged, however, that "we cannot exclude the possibility that senior Israeli officials briefing us are bluffing," noting that the officials had a "vested interest" in exploiting such a threat.
One factor that may have fed the reluctance of some former military and intelligence officials to go public with criticism of the option of war against Iran is that Netanyahu has a reputation for being far less aggressive on Iran in practice than his rhetoric would indicate.
Benn told IPS there is a perception of Netanyahu as a "hesitant politician who would not dare to attack without American permission."
A former national security official who did not wish to be identified told IPS that some people who have worked with Netanyahu have said he is less decisive than former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Iran, although he personally disagrees with that assessment.
The widespread impression among the Israeli national security elite and press corps that Netanyahu's threat of war against Iran is a bluff does not guarantee that Netanyahu will not attack Iran. But it does help explain why there has not been a much bigger outcry against a war option that is widely regarded as irrational for Israel.