.
Stuxnet rattled Iran but atom work goes on-report
(Dawn.com) Feb. 18, 2011 – The risk of the row escalating into a military conflict appeared to recede when the departing head of Israeli espionage agency Mossad said Iran, the Jewish state’s arch-foe, might not have a nuclear weapon before 2015. But that was later contradicted by the new head of Israel’s military intelligence, who said sanctions had not held up Iran’s nuclear programme and it could produce bombs within two years.
Israel and the United States have not ruled out military action if diplomacy fails to resolve the dispute.
House prohibits diplomacy with “Iran Threat Reduction Act of 2011”
Does Iran Need Four More Years to Develop Nukes?
(Newsweek) Jan. 20, 2011 – Ex-Mossad chief Meir Dagan says yes, but is criticized by Israeli hawks who say it could happen as early as this year.
By going public with the 2015 estimate, Dagan has made it more difficult for Netanyahu to press the case for an attack–whether with his own cabinet, with officials in Washington, or with the Israeli public.
« click
Netanyahu’s reaction offers another clue. The newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported last week that the Israeli leader was furious with Dagan. When asked about the matter during a news conference, Netanyahu appeared to dismiss the assessment. “I think that intelligence estimates are exactly that–estimates. They range from the best case to the worst case.”
Dagan, Ofer and Israel’s Growing Iran Credibility Gap
(Informed Comment by Juan Cole) June 9, 2011 – The Iran meme has crashed and burned inside Israel on two other scores, as well. First, Netanyahu appears to have forced out Meir Dagan, the head of the Israeli spying agency Mossad, whose departure coincided with that of the chief of staff, the head of domestic intelligence, and other key security officials. Dagan, having become a civilian, promptly went public, lambasting Netanyahu for refusing to make peace with the Palestinians while it was still possible.
Dagan went on to accuse Netanyahu and his Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, of grossly exaggerating the threat from Iran, calling a strike on that country “stupid idea that offers no advantage.” He warned that it would provoke another rocket attack on Israel by Lebanon’s Hizbullah, and perhaps by Syria as well- i.e. it could lead to a regional conflagration.
The back story that has emerged in the Israeli press is that Barak, who is a notorious war-monger and adventurist, had gotten Netanyahu’s ear and pressed for a military strike on Iran. Dagan and all the other major security officials stood against this foolhardy plan, and managed to derail it. But Dagan is said to be concerned that virtually all the level heads have gone out of office together, and that Netanyahu and Barak may now be in a position to revive their crazy plan of attacking Iran.
From the Wonderful Folks Who Brought You Iraq
(Vanity Fair) March 2007 – In a clear reference to the Islamic Republic and its sometime ally Syria, Bush vowed to “seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies.”
Already, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on the war in Iraq. Tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people have been killed. Countless more are wounded or living as refugees. Launched with the intention of shoring up Israeli security and replacing rogue regimes in the Middle East with friendly, pro-Western allies, the war in Iraq has instead turned that country into a terrorist training ground. By eliminating Saddam Hussein, the U.S.-led coalition has sparked a Sunni-Shiite civil war, which threatens to spread throughout the entire Middle East. And, far from creating a secular democracy, the war has empowered Shiite fundamentalists aligned with Iran.
Netanyahu, Neocons and the Bush Wars
On July 8, 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s newly elected prime minister and the leader of its right-wing Likud Party, paid a visit to the neoconservative group in Washington, D.C. The Netanyahu also made one significant addition to “A Clean Break.” The paper’s authors were concerned primarily with Syria and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, but Netanyahu saw a greater threat elsewhere. “The most dangerous of these regimes is Iran.”
Two days after meeting with Perle, the prime minister addressed a joint session of Congress with a speech that borrowed from “A Clean Break.” He called for the “democratization” of terrorist states in the Middle East and warned that peaceful means might not be sufficient. War might be unavoidable.
Ten years later, “A Clean Break” looks like nothing less than a playbook for U.S.-Israeli foreign policy during the Bush-Cheney era. Many of the initiatives outlined in the paper have been implemented–removing Saddam from power, setting aside the “land for peace” formula to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon–all with disastrous results.
Nevertheless, neoconservatives still advocate continuing on the path Netanyahu staked out in his speech and taking the fight to Iran.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
