Hard to believe, but the Jerusalem Post is reporting that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) are ready to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities:
IAF [i.e., Israeli Air Force] pilots have completed their mission training and fighter jets have been prepared for an Israeli attack on Iran, the British Sunday Times reported.
The article reported that “the elite 69 strategic F-15 I squadron” had been equipped with weapons that will be tested in combat for the first time, and that two missile submarines were on standby: one in the Persian Gulf and the second in Haifa Bay.
The Times also said that special IDF forces would be helicoptered into Iran to take out targets that could not be destroyed in an air strike. […]
Col. [res] Ze’ev Raz, the former IAF pilot who led the Osirak mission, was quoted by the Times as saying, “What we now have is a lot of targets, which makes the operation much more difficult.”
Raz believes an aerial assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities is possible. There are many things that the IAF has done over the past few years that the public is not aware of, and it has made many important advances in mid-air refueling. Israel can strike the Iranian nuclear program, Raz said on Israel’s Channel 1 TV’s Politika program last week.
Here’s the link to the Sunday Times article cited by the Jerusalem Post’s story. Here’s what the Sunday Times’ report has to say about Israel’s readiness to proceed with this attack:
Before the massive stroke that left him in a coma, Sharon had declared: “Israel will not accept a nuclear weapon equipped Iran.” He had quietly ordered the Israeli Defence Forces to be ready to launch airstrikes against nuclear sites in the Islamic republic if necessary.
“The whole issue is now with the Americans,” said an Israeli defence source. “Once we get the green light, we’re ready.” […]
Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud party, has backed the destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities, although Olmert’s Kadima party looks the more likely election winner.
At the Hatzerim air base on the edge of the Negev desert, the elite 69 strategic F-15 I squadron is ready to attack. Months of preparations have been completed and the young pilots have finished training for the long-haul flights that will be necessary to reach Iran and back without refuelling.
My speculation follows two paths. One, Bush is playing good cop to the bad cop Israel, in essence informing Iran that it may not be able to control it’s ally from taking independent action, in order to convince Iran to back off its nuclear ambitions and scale back it’s nuclear program to one in accord with UN and IAEA protocols.
The other path I see is a much darker one. Bush really is ready to drum up an attack against Iran, and due to the over extension of our forces in Iraq, is willing to allow Israel (no doubt with some unpublicized assistance from our forces in the Gulf) to do the heavy lifting. It may even be possible that the Saudis and other Sunni Arab states will give their unoffical acceptance to this plan, even if officially they will condemn Israel’s action. It’s well known that Egypt and the Saudis are uncomfortable with a non-Arab, Shi’ite state such as Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.
As for Bush, his motivations for any attack are likely infuenced by what he and his advisors hope would be a boost to his domestic political fortunes. After all, blowing up “Islamofascists” has worked well for him in the past. Would he care about the possible consequences to our relations with Europe, and other Islamic countries like Pakistan? Or that any attack against Iran (whether executed by US forces or Israeli) would engender increased risks for our soldiers in Iraq? I doubt it.
at Daily Kos
Looks like they found a good time to break out an old bin-laden tape.
yeah, but he’s calling for a truce with the US. Bizarre.
Here’s a link to the al jazeera transcript.
Here’s a quote:
“In response to the substance of the polls in the US, which indicate that Americans do not want to fight Muslims on Muslim land, nor do they want Muslims to fight them on their land, we do not mind offering a long-term truce based on just conditions that we will stick to.
“We are a nation that Allah banned from lying and stabbing others in the back, hence both parties of the truce will enjoy stability and security to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan, which were destroyed by war.
“There is no problem in this solution, but it will prevent hundreds of billions from going to influential people and warlords in America – those who supported Bush’s electoral campaign – and from this, we can understand Bush and his gang’s insistence on continuing the war.”
Addressing Americans again, he said: “If your desire for peace, stability and reconciliation was true, here we have given you the answer to your call.”
It’s almost as if Rumsfeld has an ear piece in both bin Laden’s and Bush’s ears, making them say what will assure war in perpetuity.
Bin Laden parrots liberal critiques of the war so that be conflating them, Bush can oppose us more effectively.
Meanwhile Bush defines victory is such a way that we cannot win, and the fight must go on.
This is a nightmare.
I dunno Boo, I think you are reading too much into this latest statement of bin Laden’s. Calling for a truce with the US so more people on both sides don’t die doesn’t really seem to me to play into Bush’s hands. Or is there some weird American gene that takes any offer of peace as a slap in the face?
truce?
We said, “we’re beating your ass, you are losing, look at all your dead soldiers…look at all the money your spending, look at the opinion polls, nan-e-nan-poo-poo pffffffffft. Hah hah. Now, either we will kill your citizens or you will cave to all our demands and we’ll call it a truce. Wink wink.”
C’mon Spiderleaf, that is like him saying “whatsa matter, mama’s boy, you afraid to keep fighting?”
Rumsfeld couldn’t have done it better.
that is ‘he said’ not ‘we said’.
It’s so much fun having a president with the emotional maturity of a 4-year-old…not.
Okay, I can see how you could read it that way. I guess I just read it as “we are starting to understand that not all Americans hate Muslims and want to kill them, so if you’d like to stop this whole escalating war, we promise to not kill you either.”
Perhaps he should offer to go stand trial in the Hague for 9/11 if Bush agrees to go for Iraq… bring two lunatics to justice and then we can all join hands and sing kumbya…
oh well, it was a nice thought.
But it makes it very easy for Bush to lump us progressive anti-administration folks with “the terrorists”. Why do we all hate Amerka?
I just don’t get how it reflects badly on liberals if Bin Lauden says it too. If he says the sky is blue is he wrong? Are people really so emotional they can’t see the nuance/truth? If Bin Lauden says the same thing as bush is bush then a terrorist? Is someone ‘bad’ never right?? Who is it we are trying to convince? The RW media and republicans will bash us no matter what. So why again do we care? Seriously, what people see is for all his talk bush can’t get Bin Lauden.
Did we not learn that if they can take a military hero and make him look like a coward, they can twist the facts anyway they want. Fussing over the fact Bin Lauden speaks more truth than our president and it reflects badly on liberals is a waste of time.
Weird repub gene, you mean!
There had been some politicians who were critical of the decision to discontinue the “reconstruction” of Iraq.
Now you know and I know that there was never any intention to reconstruct it in the first place. Disaster capitalism is not really about reconstruction, it would not make sense to blow up a country and then really reconstruct it.
But now it has the potential of becoming a US domestic political squabble, so the bin Laden tape needed some text about reconstruction.
oh, and what do you make of Chirac saying today he’d launch a nuke at any terrorist who attacked France? Why is the rhetoric ratcheting up in Europe? Here in Canuckland our PM and Layton have been calling Bush a nutbar for the last couple of weeks and yet France a country who really shouldn’t have to worry about being attacked as they were so fiercely opposed to the war is now talking about using nukes? WTF?
.
(ME Intelligence Bulletin) June/July 2004 — In recent months, the United States and France have put considerable pressure on Syrian President Bashar Assad not to interfere in Lebanon’s presidential election this fall, while encouraging Lebanese politicians to exert control over the political process. This unusual display of trans-Atlantic coordination in Middle East policy has begun to reshape political alignments in Lebanon and encourage the growth of a broad-based pro-democracy movement.
If Lebanese parliament members were able to vote freely, a constitutional amendment would not even be under discussion. Lahoud’s archenemy, Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, has a bloc of over 40 allies in the 128-member parliament (a result of the billionaire’s profligate spending in the 2000 election cycle), while another political nemesis of the president, Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, has a 14-member bloc. Since a constitutional amendment allowing Lahoud to stay in office would require the support of a two-thirds majority in parliament (and a two-thirds majority in the cabinet, which Hariri’s allies can also defeat),[1] it would not have a prayer of approval unless Syria, which continues to dominate the country militarily and politically, intervenes and instructs them to vote for it.
● Hariri Killing – Chief Witness in Lebanon Retracts Accusation
“But I will not let myself be reduced to silence.”
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
I’m probably deep in tinfoil hat territory here , but it wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if these purported bin Laden tapes turned out to be fabricated by operatives working at the behest of Cheney’s office.
Clearly attempting to restimulate public fear of new Al Qaeda attacks is a recurrent theme of the VP’s gang of neocon blowhards which they use to garner support for their insane agenda.
After purging the CIA of it’s best people and then inserting Goss as Dick’s head there, it’s realistic to consider more fabrications based on the former asset, UbL.
when you say “dick’s head”, I have to assume you are using “goss[e]” in the Canadian French sense of “testicle”.
Had I known, I would have done it deliberately. It must’ve been just a stroke of luck.
Lansing State Journal
WTF is going on NOW??????????????????/
Yes, this is all quite interesting, isn’t it.
Bush’s political fortunes sinking so they gin up stories about the Al Queda and Iran nuclear threats. Of course, that’s purely speculation.
Rally round the flag! Distract everyone from the bullshit in this country! Want to believe it’s a ploy to try to save as many repub seats in the midterms as possible, but I dunno. gwb is insane!
I’m not sure how seriously to take this. Frankly, I’d be surprised if this wasn’t a standing Israeli contingency plan, and if they haven’t conducted practice manuevers to support it for years.
If I’m right, the story could be about what is in reality a “normal” training operation.
But you never know.
The JPOST has been running articles like this about once a week for a while now. It’s just saber rattling.
Not that it’s untrue. The US has a similar plan ready to be greenlighted, called CONPLAN 8022.
Meanwhile the Iranians are hopping up and down waiting for those Tor-M1’s to ship. All it takes is the wreckage of a single American or Israeli fighter jet with Iranians jumping up and down and it’s gonna be an int’l disaster for the War Party.
Pax
Did someone leave a window or door open? I feel a draft.
I’m sure that the Jerusalem Post is doing its patriotic duty by leaking Israeli military plans.
When are people going to wake up to the fact that the Israelis have been threatening to attack Iran since 1995, and have been trying to get the US to do a Desert Storm on Iran since 1992. Israeli policy is to get the US to attack Iran, because there is little prospect of the Israelis being able to do it themselves.
It is probably beyond Israeli capablilities to mount a serious, sustained and successful attack on the very distant, well-defended and dispersed Iranian facilities. They certainly cannot do the kinds of air operations that would be required to interdict Iranian retaliation.
The last time I checked, Israel did not have the capability to dematerialise its planes over Iran without passing through either Saudi, Turkish or Iraqi airspace first. Given that Iran has diplomatic relations with all 3 of these countries, whilst Israel only has normalised relations with Turkey, you might get an idea of the difficulties involved; there will certainly be no permission given to Israel by any of these nations for the use of airspace for an attack on a third party. Whilst the Israelis could just bust through, they would almost certainly lose the surprise element in trying to do so, and would face the prospect of both Saudi and Turkish opposition. There’s nothing like trying to attack Iran and having your bombers being shot down before they get there.
The US would be in flagrant breach of all UN mandates if it were to give Israel the use of Iraqi airspace, and would essentially be signing the death warrants of hundreds, or potentially thousands, of its troops that are on the ground there.
The tape should be authenticated by and independent panel of technology professionals to determine as much detail as possible to it’s production. Odds are, it’s a fake made by the agencies behind the network.
It’s all too convenient and doesn’t fit with the bin Laden profile the govt has presented so far.
Would the debate over striking Iran’s nuclear facilities be different if the case were made instead to justify it by eliminating business competitiors for electricity production in the area?
Who’s afraid of big, bad Iran