Should Iran attack Israel or vice versa?

TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY : Should Israel take out Iranian nuclear weapons sites in retaliation for Iran's supplying Hezbollah?

By John B. Quigley

The answer is NO
COLUMBUS, Ohio - One of the more persistent rumors in the Middle East is that Israel may bomb Iran's nuclear power facility. And that the United States would give Israel a wink and a nod.

Israel's invasion of Lebanon has moved the rumors from the back burner to the front. One theory of Israel's motive in Lebanon is that it wants to provoke Iran into action that would provide a pretext for going after Iran's nuclear facility. Whereas President Bush points his finger at Syria for Hezbollah's capture of two Israeli soldiers, Israel points its finger at Iran.
For the United States, Iran is perceived as even more of a threat than previously because of our own invasion of Iraq and the consequent rise to power of the Shities in Iraq. That development has given Shites' Iran new stature in the region.

One awkward aspect for Israel is that it itself has nuclear weaponry at its Dimona facility and refuses to acknowledge it to the international community. Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, so it is not under the inspection obligations that it accuses Iran of violating. Of any country, Israel has the shakiest grounds for criticizing Iran.

Iran would have more grounds to take out Dimona than would Israel to take out Iran's facility. Not that that would be lawful, either. But the rationale would be more plausible. ...
>>> Continued@ Grand Forks Herald

Empire: war and propaganda

John Pilger
July 2006

The US role in supporting Israeli's military assault on Lebanon falls into a pattern of imperial tyranny, where history is rewritten to suit America�s needs while Europe stands cravenly by. John Pilger provides a personal assessment from Washington.

The words "invasion" and "controversial" make only fleeting appearances; there is no hint that the "great mission" has overseen, since 1945, the attempted overthrow of 50 governments, many of them democracies, along with the crushing of popular movements struggling against tyranny and the bombing of 30 countries, causing the loss of countless lives. In central America, in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan's arming and training of gangster-armies saw off 300,000 people; in Guatemala, this was described by the UN as genocide. No word of this is uttered in the Grotto. Indeed, thanks to such displays, Americans can venerate war, comforted by the crimes of others and knowing nothing about their own. ...
>>> Continued @ New Statesman

Mideast Conflict Boosts Chances of Iran-US Showdown

Analysis by Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Jul 19 (IPS)

The week-old Israeli-Hezbollah conflict is likely to boost the chances of U.S. military action against Iran, according to a number of regional experts who see a broad consensus among the U.S. political elite that the ongoing hostilities are part of a broader offensive being waged by Tehran against Washington across the region.

While Israel-centred neo-conservatives have been the most aggressive in arguing that Hezbollah's Jul. 12 cross-border attack could only have been carried out with Iran's approval, if not encouragement, that view has been largely accepted and echoed by the mainstream media, as well as other key political factions, including liberal internationalists identified with the Democratic Party.

As was the case with Iraq, the only dissenters among the policy elite are the foreign policy "realists", who argue that this administration, in particular, has made a series of disastrous policy errors in the Middle East -- especially by providing virtually unconditional support for Israel and invading Iraq. They also include regional specialists like Norton, who maintain that the depiction of Hezbollah, for example, as a mere proxy for Iran -- let alone the notion that Tehran was behind the Jul. 12 attack -- is a dangerous misreading of a much more complex reality. These forces have been arguing for some time that Washington should engage Iran directly on the full range of issues -- from Tehran's nuclear programme to regional security -- that divide. But the current crisis, and Israel's and the neo-conservatives' success in blaming Iran for it, is likely to make this argument a more difficult sell. �

>>> Continued @ IPS

US hawks smell blood

By Jim Lobe

07/19/06 "IPS" -- -- WASHINGTON

- Seeing a major opportunity to regain influence lost as a result of setbacks in Iraq, prominent neo-conservatives are calling for unconditional US support for Israel's military offensives in Gaza and Lebanon and "regime change" in Syria and Iran, as well as possible US attacks on Tehran's nuclear facilities in retaliation for its support of Hezbollah.

In a Weekly Standard column titled "Our war", editor William Kristol called Iran "the prime mover behind the terrorist groups who have started this war", which, he argued, should be considered part of "the global struggle against radical Islamism". He complained that Washington recently had done a "poor job of standing up and weakening Syria and Iran" and called on President George W Bush to fly directly from the "silly [Group of Eight] summit in St Petersburg ... to Jerusalem, the capital of a nation that stands with us, and is willing to fight with us, against our common enemies". "This is our war, too," said Kristol, who was also a founder and co-chairman of the recently lapsed Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Echoed Larry Kudlow, a neo-conservative commentator, at the Standard's right-wing competitor, the National Review: "All of us in the free world owe Israel an enormous thank-you for defending freedom, democracy and security against the Iranian cat's-paw wholly owned terrorist subsidiaries Hezbollah and Hamas. ...

>>> Continued @ IPS

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief for Inter Press Service.

U.S. must change its thinking on Iran

Trudy Rubin

As battles raged last week between Israel and Islamist groups in Gaza and Lebanon, my mind flashed back to a conversation I had with a senior Iranian official in May.
"The United States has problems in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria and Afghanistan," he said. "Iran is the one who can help (in all those places). The United States needs Iran's help, not confrontation."
When I asked what would happen if tensions between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear program led to a U.S. military attack on Iran, the official swiftly replied: "I don't think the United States is in a position to think like that." The message was clear: You Americans need us if you want to stabilize the region. But if you threaten us, we can make things much, much worse.

Flash forward to the outbreak of Mideast violence in recent days.

I recalled the Iranian's warning when fighters from the Iranian-backed groups Hamas and Hezbollah made separate incursions across Israel's southern and northern border, within two weeks of each other, to kidnap Israeli soldiers. Their timing was telling, just before the G-8 conference of the world's top industrial democracies in St. Petersburg, Russia, where the question of whether to push for U.N. sanctions against Iran was at the top of the agenda.
Suddenly, the G-8 agenda shifted from how the world community might press Iran to freeze its suspect nuclear program to how to prevent new Mideast wars from exploding.

Iran was delivering a warning to Washington via proxies, without firing a gun. ...
>>> Continued @ Centre Daily Times

Trudy Rubin is a columnist and editorial-board member for The Philadelphia Inquirer. Readers can write to her by e-mail at trubin@phillynews.com.

A Proxy War against Iran

By: Adam LeBor

Putting aside the arguments over the rights and wrongs of Israel's bombardment of Lebanon in response to Hizbollah's missile attacks, I think it's worth taking a sideways step to analyse the west's overall response to the new crisis.

The G8's even-handed approach and failure to condemn Israel's actions seems to me indicative that something important is going behind the scenes, which the mainstream media are missing. Call it a new realism, or a realisation that the struggle against Hamas and Hizbollah is also part of the war on terror. Either way, it appears that the west has apparently more or less given a green light to Israel to try and destroy Hizbollah's mini-state in southern Lebanon.
The real reason why, I think, is Iran.

Iran - and Syria - supply much of Hizbollah's weapons, and provide political support for the Shiite milita. Iranian revolutionary guards train Hizbollah fighters. Israeli military sources confirm that the Israeli boat hit last Friday off the coast of Lebanon was struck by a high-tec shore-to-sea C-802 missile, suppled by Iran, according to the Middle East analyst Tom Gross(http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000759.html).
>>> Continued @ Harry's Place

Bush Will not attack Iran

Analysis by Gareth Porter
WASHINGTON, Jun 20 (IPS)

Despite the constant invocation of a possible military attack on Iran, however, a little-noticed section of the administration's official national security strategy indicates that Bush has already decided that he will not use military force to try to prevent Iran from going nuclear. Instead, the administration has shifted its aim to pressing Iran to make internal political changes, based on the dubious theory that it would lead to a change in Iranian nuclear policy.

News coverage of the U.S. National Security Strategy (NSS) issued Mar. 16 emphasised its reference to the doctrine of preemption. But a careful reading of the document reveals that its real message -- ignored by the media -- was that Iran will not alter its nuclear policy until after regime change has taken place.

The NSS takes pains to reduce the significance of Iran's obtaining a nuclear capability. "As important as are these nuclear issues," it says, "the United States has broader concerns regarding Iran. The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom."
>>> Continued @ IPS

Iran is not defenceless in a US attack

Could Iran Defend Itself Against a U.S. Attack?
Patrick Seale
Al-Hayat
16/06/06
Iran is a formidable military power, second only to Israel in the Middle East. This is the judgement of most Western observers.Unlike Israel, however, it has been denied access to American weapons, and indeed to most Western weapons, since the overthrow of the Shah by the Islamic Revolution 27 years ago.

And, again unlike Israel, Iran has no nuclear bombs - at least not yet. Nevertheless, militarily, it is by no means backward or defenceless.Largely through its own immense efforts - and with some help from Russia, China, Pakistan and North Korea - Iran has created a powerful military-industrial complex, which employs more than 200,000 engineers, technicians and skilled workers.

According to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS), Iran today produces almost two thousand defence items, from munitions to aircraft, and from missile boats to satellites. It exports military equipment to over 30 countries, including seven in Europe.
>>> Continued@ Alhayat

Chomsky hopeful on Iran nuclear crisis

negotiated solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis is within reach

The US must take three basic steps to defuse this confrontation. The consequences of not doing so could be grim

Noam Chomsky
Monday June 19, 2006
The Guardian

The urgency of halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and moving toward their elimination, could hardly be greater. Failure to do so is almost certain to lead to grim consequences, even the end of biology's only experiment with higher intelligence. As threatening as the crisis is, the means exist to defuse it.

A near-meltdown seems to be imminent over Iran and its nuclear programmes. Before 1979, when the Shah was in power, Washington strongly supported these programmes. Today the standard claim is that Iran has no need for nuclear power, and therefore must be pursuing a secret weapons programme. "For a major oil producer such as Iran, nuclear energy is a wasteful use of resources," Henry Kissinger wrote in the Washington Post last year.

Thirty years ago, however, when Kissinger was secretary of state for President Gerald Ford, he held that "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals". �
>>> Continued @ the Guradian

Gary Samore: US cannot break diplomatic stalemate with Iran

Interview by: Majid Khabazan

Gary Samore said the package of proposals offered to Iran by the US and EU is unable to break the diplomatic stalemate with Iran because Tehran is unlikely to accept a full suspension of its enrichment activities as required by the proposals.

Samore, the former security aide to Clinton administration, added that Iran is not prepared to accept the full suspension. "Ali Larijani and other officials have indicated that Iran might be willing to accept some limits on its enrichment related activities, but is not willing to go back to the Paris agreement, which required the suspension on broad range of activities including centrifuges operations at Natanz and production of Hexafluoride at Isfahan," he added.

The Vice President of MacArthur Foundation told from his office in Chicago he believes that Iran will provide a counter proposal containing some kind of partial suspension. ...
>>>Continued@Fars News Agency

Washington's diplomacy-war game with Iran

Pentagon confirms Iranian directorate as officials raise new concerns about war
Larisa Alexandrovna

Current military and former intelligence officials remain concerned about a US-led strike on Iran, despite the recent appearance of diplomacy on the part of the US State Department and the offer of an incentives package to Iran.

Officials point to new developments, such as a recent meeting in Rome between an Iranian arms dealer and controversial neoconservative Michael Ledeen and the March creation of the Iranian directorate inside the Pentagon, as examples of recent events similar to the lead up with war in Iraq.

These officials also add that an as-yet uncompleted ‘Phase II’ investigation into pre-war Iraq intelligence suggests the same problems may recur when addressing Iran. They note that the Pentagon’s Iranian directorate mirrors the so-called Office of Special Plans, which played a major role in feeding intelligence to the President that bolstered a case for war. …
>>> Continued @ Information Liberation

Is new proposal to Iran enough to defuse the nuclear dispute?

New Proposal to Iran: Will It Be Enough to Defuse the Nuclear Crisis?
A report by British American Security Information Council (BASIC)
09 June 2006,
Ian Davis and Paul Ingram

This latest offer is a definite improvement on the E3 /EU offer made in August 2005, in that it is less demanding and gives clearer incentives. The fact that it appears to have the backing of the United States, Russia and China provides much needed additional authority and credibility. The softening of the US position in particular demonstrates recognition of the importance of the multilateral approach.

We argued previously that the earlier E3/EU proposal was vague on incentives and heavy on demands. If this proposal today had been offered a year ago (or better still two years ago) we could have probably avoided much of the damage to diplomatic relations between Iran and the West, and generated a greater degree of cooperation in resolving the mistrust and fear on both sides. �
>>> Continued @ BASIC

America retreat over Iran's case

Whether Ms. Rice has dramatically turned the administration around on Iran or whether she's their patsy du jour, the spin from the State Department and from the White House (echoed in the U.S. media) is that last week's agreement on a package of incentives for Iran if it were to give up uranium enrichment, along with Ms. Rice's statement to the Iranians, are indications of strong U.S. diplomacy, and even that the U.S. gaining the upper hand in its conflict with Iran. The reality is quite different.

Iran On Condi's Mind
Homan Majd
06 June 2006

... The U.S. has done as well as it can under the circumstances, but the diplomatic initiatives, spun as advances for America, are actually retreats and in some ways a defeat. Up until now, the U.S. has consistently made it clear that it desires a full Chapter 7 resolution on Iran in the Security Council (and that it might form another "coalition of the willing" if that doesn't work); Russian and Chinese objections have rendered moot a strong resolution allowing for sanctions and the use of force. The U.S. has also consistently argued that "all options are on the table"; today, according to the agreement reached with Russian and Chinese participation, some options most certainly are not, at least not with any international legitimacy, even if Iran chooses the so-called sticks over the so-called carrots.

Lastly, the U.S. has pointedly refused direct communication with Iran for almost 27 years; last Wednesday John Bolton was dialing the phone number of his Iranian counterpart at the U.N., asking if he could fax over the statement by his boss. (Mr. Bolton's subsequent remark that it was time for the Iranians to "put up or shut up" betrayed either his neo-con tendency to subvert diplomacy or his sheer idiocy. Anyone with a clue about Iranians, the culture and their language knows that the term "shut up" translates as a deep insult in Farsi, far more so than intended in English, but besides that, with the statement he was undoubtedly pained to have had to deliver to the Iranians, wasn't it the U.S. that had just chosen to "put up" rather than shut up"? ...
>>> Full article @ Huffington Post