Is this How the Israel-Iran War Begins?

Probably. Expect the second front in the north to open up sooner than later. Marching as to... - R.O.

Is this How the Israel-Iran War Begins?

Iranian Official: 'Big War' means Islamic Messiah's arrival

The 'Mahdi' is the prophesied Shi'ite Islamic "Messiah". As the article below explains, 

"Shi’ites believe that at the end of time great wars will take place, and Imam Mahdi, the Shi’ites’ 12th imam, will reappear and kill all the infidels, raising the flag of Islam in all corners of the world."

If anyone had any doubts as to why the Iranian Regime is seeking nuclear weapons, those doubts should be cast aside after reading this news story. When the highest-ranking Iranian military official ties the probable war with Israel (and the U.S.) to the reappearance of the Islamic Messiah, the world should take notice, and fast. The article quotes Iran's Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi, who stated, 

"Since we are in the era of The Coming, this war will be a significant war.”

This kind of dialogue is not part of an action movie, nor a work of fiction, but rather this represents the underlying narrative that is truly driving forward the present day, real life Iran-Israel nuclear crisis. When Israeli leaders (such as Prime Minister Netanyahu) read/hear these stories, how can they not take the Iranians 100% seriously when the Iranians declare that they seek Israel's literal destruction? No other nation on earth, except Israel, faces such a persistent, pernicious threat from an enemy (and enemies) on nearly every border. These are enemies who believe it is their duty to Allah to carry out acts of martyrdom. As Vahidi stated,

“The Islamic republic is going to create a new environment on the world stage, and without a doubt victory awaits those who continue the path of martyrs. … we can defeat the enemy at its home and our nation is ready for jihad. Martyrdom has taught us to avoid wrong paths and return to the right path. Martyrdom is the right path, it’s the path to God.”

Israel is already (arguably) the most virulently hated nation on earth. For the President of the United States to then tell Israel not to attack Iran, while simultaneously failing to set any 'red lines' on Iran's nuclear weapons program, represents the height of arrogance and is a dangerous sign of non-commitment.

Israel's unilateral military precedents are explicit and numerous: when Israeli leaders declare a threat to be existential, they have acted, every single time. Will the West truly abandon the world's only Jewish State at this perilous time? If they do, and Israel acts against Iran, the riots seen after the release of the anti-Islamic movie will pale in comparison to the vitriol and violence that will be aimed at Israel. The world's military response against Israel may be exponentially worse, mark my words.

We live in disturbing times, and the world is sleepwalking into cataclysmic war. Check out the video at the end of the article for more unnerving proof. - R.O.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran Official: 'Big War' means Mahdi's is coming
By: Reza Khalili

For the first time, Iran’s highest-ranking military official has tied the reappearance of the last Islamic messiah to the regime being prepared to go to a war based on ideology.

“With having the treasure of the Holy Defense, Valayat (Guardianship of the Jurist) and martyrs, we are ready for a big war,” Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said, according to Mashregh news, which is run by the Revolutionary Guards.

“Of course this confrontation has always continued; however, since we are in the era of The Coming, this war will be a significant war.”

Shi’ites believe that at the end of time great wars will take place, and Imam Mahdi, the Shi’ites’ 12th imam, will reappear and kill all the infidels, raising the flag of Islam in all corners of the world.

Vahidi became the Revolutionary Guards intelligence officer after the 1979 Islamic revolution and later was promoted to chief commander of the Quds Forces. He is on the Interpol most-wanted list for the Jewish community center bombing in Buenos Aires in 1994 that killed 85 and injured hundreds.

Vahidi also played a major role in the 1996 Khobar Tower bombing in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. servicemen.

Speaking at a mosque in remembrance of the martyrs who died in service to Iran, Vahidi stated that, “The Islamic republic is going to create a new environment on the world stage, and without a doubt victory awaits those who continue the path of martyrs. … we can defeat the enemy at its home and our nation is ready for jihad. Martyrdom has taught us to avoid wrong paths and return to the right path. Martyrdom is the right path, it’s the path to God.”

Vahidi said Iran’s enemies would have taken action in Syria in the past couple of years if they had the capability. Iran is a much more formidable power than Syria, he said, and concluded that Tehran can easily wipe out the “Zionist regime” of Israel.

Several U.S. officials, including Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have called the officials of the Islamic regime “rational actors.”

Meanwhile, a Revolutionary Guards report quoting the head of the Guards’ public relations, Ramezan Sharif, revealed that Iran has military assets in several countries.

The presence of Quds Forces in Syria and Lebanon, Sharif said, is with the goal of supporting the Islamic nations and for the special situations that exist in those countries.

Sharif said Iranian presence is based on international laws and that, “Currently the Revolutionary Guards has presence in 15 countries, among them Syria and Lebanon, while the Iranian military also has presence in some other countries.”

As revealed recently, terrorist assets of the Islamic regime have been put on high alert for attacks on Israeli and U.S. interests. This extends from the Middle East to Africa, Latin America and the United States.

In a report Thursday in the Washington Times, Kevin L. Perkins, deputy director of the FBI, told a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that the agency considered Iran’s assets a “serious threat.”

“Quds Forces, Hezbollah and others have shown they both have the capability and the willingness to extend beyond that (Middle East) region of the world and likely here into the homeland itself,” he testified.

Guard commanders have openly stated that they have recruited assets from Latin America and even some from European countries to avoid suspicion by intelligence agencies and will target America should it get involved militarily against Iran.

Reza Kahlili translated this Iranian video about Islamic prophecies of a coming messiah and the destruction of Israel:

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and author of the award-winning book “A Time to Betray” (Simon & Schuster, 2010). He serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and the advisory board of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI).

With Iran Talking Genocide, Obama Must Show Courage

THE most important reason to stop Iran. A timely piece by Goldberg. - R.O.

With Iran Talking Genocide, Obama Must Show Courage
By: Jeffrey Goldberg

Sept. 3, 2012

The U.S. has often been feckless in its response to genocide. In the years leading up to World War II, and even during the war itself, it didn’t do nearly what it could have to offer refuge toEurope’s Jews and to thwart Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution, although much later we did build some excellent museums commemorating the event.

Our words since then have sometimes rung hollow. “Never again,” the slogan goes, but, as David Rieff once said, in actual practice “never again” has meant, “Never again will Germans kill Jews in Europe in the 1940s.”

The writer Ron Rosenbaum, in an essay for Slate that I mentioned last week, asks the question: How much discussion about the Holocaust is too much? Why does he raise this now? Because we’re approaching a pivotal moment in the continuing drama surrounding Iran’s nuclear progress -- and that means the U.S. may once again find itself in a position to confront the threat of genocide.

The rulers of Iran, who deny the historical reality of the Holocaust even as they dream of annihilating Israel, may in the very near future possess the ability to build nuclear weapons and to immunize their nuclear program from outside intervention. Rosenbaum argues eloquently that it isn’t neurotic or hysterical or parochial to worry that a regime that seeks the annihilation of Israel may be gaining the means to achieve it.

Civilized people have condemned the Iranian rhetoric, of course, most recently Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary- general (who nevertheless granted the Iranian regime legitimacy by attending an international conference in Tehran last week). But Rosenbaum is surprised, as I am, that more people don’t seem to grasp the urgency of keeping nuclear weapons away from a regime that openly threatens genocide.
Clear Pattern

With a few exceptions, the American response to genocide, and to threats of genocide, has followed a clear pattern over the years, one characterized first by indifference and timidity, then paralysis, and ultimately regret. The pattern was set by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration, and in particular by his State Department, which reacted with depraved indifference to the gathering threat in Europe.

Postwar history is strewn with similar examples. In the late 1980s, the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush not only did nothing to stop Saddam Hussein’s attempted genocide of the Kurds -- a slaughter that employed chemical weapons -- but even supported Saddam in his war against Iran. It was only when he invaded Kuwait that we took notice. Talk about dispiriting: Genocide didn’t bother us, but a threat to the smooth flow of oil did.

In 1994, President Bill Clinton did virtually nothing to stop the murder of 800,000 Rwandans (although he later expressed very feelingly his remorse at not intervening)

But it isn’t just our elected leaders who respond inadequately to genocide. The news media play a role, too. Here’s one recent example. Last month, the Washington Post published a lengthy article exploring Iraqi attitudes about the future after the final U.S. troop withdrawal from their country earlier this year.

“In dozens of interviews this summer across Iraq, many people said that their lives were safer and more prosperous under Hussein and that the U.S. invasion was not worth the price both countries have paid,” wrote the reporter, Kevin Sullivan.

This struck me as odd. Many Iraqis, particularly members of the Sunni Arab minority that ruled the country until Saddam’s ouster, regret the U.S. invasion, and many in the Shiite majority certainly regret the bungling and negligence that followed. But how do Kurds feel?
Elision of History

Kurds make up about 20 percent of the Iraqi population, and they were the group most victimized by Saddam’s Baathist regime. As many as 4,000 Kurdish villages were eradicated by his army; dozens of those villages were attacked with chemical weapons. Thousands of innocents were tortured. There is broad agreement in the international human-rights community that the anti- Kurdish campaign amounted to genocide.

The American invasion meant that Iraq’s Kurds were finally free from the threat of further slaughter. For this reason, it’s not easy to find a Kurdish Iraqi who opposed Saddam’s overthrow. But nowhere in the article is this mentioned. In fact, nowhere in the article is a Kurdish Iraqi even quoted. My point is not to pick on Sullivan, who’s an intrepid reporter. It’s to note that this elision of history in a prominent newspaper is symptomatic of a collective unwillingness to fully grapple with a mass murder we could have prevented.

The U.S., under Barack Obama’s administration, is now in a position to upend this unfortunate history. Yet we feel insufficient urgency to blunt the Iranian regime’s openly stated genocidal intentions, and we do embarrassingly little to stop the mass slaughter of thousands of mainly Sunni Syrians by their country’s minority Alawite rulers.

It is true that the continuing massacre in Syria doesn’t yet rise to the level of genocide. It is also true that Obama’s passive response makes it more likely that one day it will. In Iran, Obama’s promise to use all means necessary to prevent the regime from getting nuclear weapons -- to forestall the possibility of a future genocide -- may also one day soon be put to the test.

Sometimes, we turn away from issues that seem insoluble or that raise doubts about our humanity. But turning away always -- always -- makes things worse.

(Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for The Atlantic, is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Iranian regime slammed by UN Secretary General at Iran's NAM Summit

Kudos to the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for speaking harshly against Iran, in Iran, at the Non-Aligned Movement Summit today. Earlier this week Ban faced sharp criticism for even attending the NAM Summit in Iran because his attendance was seen as legitimizing the Iranian government and its many provocative statements. 

However, quite unexpectedly, Ban used the NAM forum to publicly call out the Iranian government by authoritatively stating global objections to Iran's behaviour - objections which the West has been raising for many years. Ban even specifically defended Israel's existence, too, uttering the very name, "Israel", which Iranian government representatives are forbidden from using (preferring instead their pejorative and geographically abstract term "Zionist regime").  

Here are some of Ban's bold, necessary and critical comments against the theocratic Iranian regime. We need more of this from the rest of the world. Iran's nuclear program must be stopped. Faster, please. - R.O.

Tehran, 30 August 2012 - Secretary-General's remarks to the High-Level Segment of the 16th Non-Aligned Movement Summit

UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon

"And from this platform – as I have repeatedly stated around the world -- I strongly reject threats by any member state to destroy another or outrageous attempts to deny historical facts, such as the Holocaust.

Claiming that another UN Member State, Israel, does not have the right to exist, or describing it in racist terms, is not only utterly wrong but undermines the very principles we have all pledged to uphold."

and...

"Assuming the leadership of the NAM provides Iran with the opportunity to demonstrate that it can play a moderate and constructive role internationally. That includes responsible action on the nuclear programme which is among the top concerns of the international community.

This concern has been demonstrated in repeated Security Council resolutions, including under Chapter VII authority, calling for transparency and full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

For the sake of peace and security in this region and globally, I urge the Government of Iran to take the necessary measures to build international confidence in the exclusively peaceful nature of its nuclear programme.

This can be done by fully complying with the relevant Security Council resolutions and thoroughly cooperating with the IAEA.

I urge, also, constructive engagement with the P5+1 to quickly reach a diplomatic solution."

Legal Case for Syrian Military Intervention?

Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter discusses "action with respect to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression." The story below is the first time the United Nations has discussed Iran breaching Chapter 7 with respect to the Syrian rebellion. Interesting development... - R.O.

UN points finger at Iran over arms supply to Syria

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=282195

UNITED NATIONS - Iran appears to be supplying Syria with weapons, the United Nations said on Wednesday, as the 17-month conflict that began as a popular uprising against Syrian President Bashar Assad slides deeper into civil war.

The UN accusation backs charges by Western officials that Iran is providing funds, weapons and intelligence support to Assad in his bid to crush the opposition. Syrian rebels also say Tehran has sent Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah fighters.

"The Secretary-General has repeatedly expressed his concern about the armsflows to the two parties in Syria, which in some cases appear to violate resolution 1747 passed by this council banning arms exports under Chapter 7 authority," UN political affairs chief Jeffrey Feltman told the UN Security Council.

Resolution 1747 bans arms exports by Iran under Chapter 7 of the UN charter, which allows the Security Council to authorize actions ranging from diplomatic and economic sanctions to military intervention.

The resolution was passed in response to Iran's defiance of UN demands that it halt its nuclear enrichment program. Iran rejects allegations by Western nations and their allies that it is developing nuclear weapons.

"Both the government and the opposition are focusing on military operations and the use of force, with government forces using heavy weapons on population centers," Feltman told the Security Council during a regular briefing on the Middle East.

"The Syrian people are suffering grievously from the appalling further militarization of this conflict," he said.

The United Nations has said more than 18,000 people have died and some 170,000 people have fled the country as a result of the fighting in Syria. UN aid chief Valerie Amos said last week that up to 2.5 million people in Syria needed aid.

A UN Security Council panel of independent experts that monitors sanctions against Iran has uncovered several examples of Iran transferring arms to Syria's government. Damascus has accused Qatar and Saudi Arabia of arming rebels determined to topple Assad's government.

Taking Iran at its (nuclear) word

Brilliantly unnerving stuff from Jonas. - R.O.

George Jonas: Taking Iran at its (nuclear) word
George Jonas, National Post
Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2012

Criminals confess. They often confess before they perpetrate. They tell us what they’re going to do before they do it, whether in politics, in crime, or in criminal politics.

We rarely listen.

Perhaps “confess” is the wrong word, because it implies admitting guilt, whereas in politics it’s usually a declaration of pride. Some try to be cagey, but most extremists and fundamentalists announce their plans and programs openly. They tell us how they’ll take charge, assume power, change the law, develop the weapons, appoint the judges, restore the moral foundation, get rid of the king, the shah, whoever, the money-changers, the foreigners, the lot. They will rule the land, and make sure we get into paradise.

Extremists telegraph what’s coming. Why not? They think it’s good. They like it. Some tell it in campaign speeches, some offer it in books. It was possible to discern the Gulag in the pages of Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto as early as 1848 — and discerning people did.

Stalin perpetrated first, confessed later. His not-so-short Short Course in the History of the Soviet Communist Party (Bolshevik) was a retrospective by the time it appeared in 1939, but Mussolini’s Fascist Manifesto published in 1921 was still prospective, as was Hitler’s Mein Kampf in 1925. Who says Benito and Adolf gave no warning? They hissed, spat and rattled long before they struck.

Others rattled and struck simultaneously. Chairman Mao’s ideas bundled into a little red book became available in English in 1964, and the Ayatollah Khomeini’s instructions emerged in a little green book in 1985.

Unbeknownst to me, I had observed some of Khomeini’s fatwas. He instructed believers not to consume the nasal secretions of camels, for instance. I never did. He also expected followers of the Prophet not to relieve themselves upon the graves of believers unless, of course, they meant it as an insult to them. Doing it on purpose was fine, but not willy-nilly, as it were.

If the little green book came out today, my first reaction would be, “Listen to this, isn’t Mark Steyn funny” — but in 1985, Steyn wasn’t yet publishing political satire. The insights really did come from Iran’s spiritual leader. But while snacking on nasal impurities appeared to me in the same light as it did to the founding father of the Islamic Republic — and he also impressed me with his wise restraint on the matter of graveside micturation — the idea of his regime as an appropriate custodian of nuclear weapons would have struck me as premature.

But that was in 1985. In 2012, is there a nation unqualified to have the same weapons as North Korea? Be serious.

It’s not as if we’re selling Iran a bomb, some decision-makers are saying. They’re making one for themselves. What other qualifications do you need? If, say, France can have a bomb, why can’t Iran? France is a sovereign country, so is Iran; France is a republic, so is Iran; France has had a Napoleon in its history and Iran hasn’t had a Xerxes since it was Persia. So, what’s the difference?

Well, perhaps it’s that France’s current leaders aren’t threatening their neighbours with annihilation. Iran’s leaders are. Threatening annihilation isn’t a confidence builder even on its own, let alone in conjunction with a taste for nasal secretions that requires fatwas to curb.

The threats aren’t new. The syndicated columnist Clifford D. May tells of a private discussion 12 years ago between José Maria Aznar, the former Spanish prime minister, and Iran’s current supreme leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khomenei. The theocrat explained to the shocked Spaniard that “the mission of the Islamic Revolution always has been and always will be to rid the world of two evils: Israel and the United States.”

May reports that when Aznar was asked whether Khomenei meant “a gradual historical process involving the collapse of the Zionist state, or rather its physical-military termination” his unhesitating reply was, “He meant physical termination through military force.”

Okay, here are our options.

(1) We can believe the supreme leader of Iran didn’t say what Spain’s former prime minister thought he said.

(2) We can believe the supreme leader didn’t mean whatever he did say.

(3) The supreme leader may say and mean whatever he likes, but we can believe he isn’t really a supreme leader, and nobody carries out his commands.

(4) The supreme leader is the supreme leader and he means what he says, but we can believe that if we stand firm he’ll blink, and if he doesn’t, hell, it’s just a nuclear war and we’ll win it anyway, and

(5) if worst comes to worst, we can say Uncle, admit our transgressions, reveal ourselves as little Satan and Satan respectively, and trust that the supreme leader will be merciful.

I don’t think so. There’s a sixth option. The time to look for hidden agendas is when people seem nice. Read between their lines, by all means. But when they’re nasty, read the lines. A fellow who says he’s out to destroy you is out to destroy you. Believe him.

National Post

Israel: Diplomacy with Iran has "failed"

This is the first time an Israeli Minister (Danny Ayalon) has gone on the record to say that diplomatic talks with Iran have "failed." Hugely significant statement, one certainly only made with the approval of Prime Minister Netanyahu. While many times in the past Israel has made threats that it was prepared to take "action" against Iran, this is the first time that Israeli leaders have asked the international community to declare that diplomacy has run its course - implicitly stating that the time for military action has in fact finally arrived. If Ayalon's statement were to be accepted, there are of course very few alternatives to stopping Iran short of targeted air strikes in conjunction with massive cyber attacks against Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure. Intriguing and foreboding development... - R.O.
UPDATE (16/08): Now Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S., has also gone on the record stating that diplomacy has "failed". This is now officially the Israeli government's public position.


New York Times: Israeli Minister Asks Nations to Say Iran Talks Have Failed
By JODI RUDOREN
Published: August 13, 2012

JERUSALEM - Amid intensifying Israeli news reports saying that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is close to ordering a military strike against Iran's nuclear program, his deputy foreign minister called Sunday for an international declaration that the diplomatic effort to halt Tehran's enrichment of uranium is dead.

Referring to the Iran negotiations led by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany, the minister, Danny Ayalon, told Israel Radio that those nations should "declare today that the talks have failed." After such a declaration, if Iran does not halt its nuclear program, "it will be clear that all options are on the table," Mr. Ayalon said, not only for Israel, but also for the United States and NATO.

Asked how long the Iranians should be given to cease all nuclear activity, Mr. Ayalon said "weeks, and not more than that."

The comments came after a frenzy of newspaper articles and television reports over the weekend here suggesting that Mr. Netanyahu had all but made the decision to attack Iran unilaterally this fall. The reports contained little new information, but the tone was significantly sharper than it had been in recent weeks, with many of Israel's leading columnists predicting a strike despite the opposition of the Obama administration and many military and security professionals within Israel. Articles in Sunday's newspapers also examined home-front preparedness for what experts expect would be an aggressive response not just from Iran but also its allies, the militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas.

"Lord help us, would you just do it already and be done with it?" wrote Ben Caspit, a columnist for the newspaper Maariv, referring to the Israeli leadership. "When one looks around the impression received is that it isn't only in Israel that they aren't being taken seriously any longer, but the world refuses to get worked up over them either."

"Maybe they'll bomb Iran in the end just to prove that they're serious," Mr. Caspit added.

Mr. Netanyahu and his top ministers have been saying for weeks that while the sanctions against Iran have hurt its economy, they have not affected the nuclear program, which Iran's leadership insists is for civilian purposes. On Sunday, Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom called on the United States to enact "even more extensive and even more comprehensive sanctions which could overwhelm the Iranian regime and possibly even topple it, or bring it to make the decision to abandon the nuclear program."

The mixed messages from Mr. Shalom and Mr. Ayalon came two days after Mr. Netanyahu called Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general of the United Nations, and urged him not to go to Iran for a meeting scheduled for the end of this month of the so-called nonaligned nations (countries that were not allies of either the United States or the Soviet Union during the cold war).

"Even if it is not your intention, your visit will grant legitimacy to a regime that is the greatest threat to world peace and security," Mr. Netanyahu told Mr. Ban, according to a statement released by his office Friday night. "Not only does it threaten countries throughout the Middle East, not only is it the greatest terrorism exporter in the world, but it is impossible to exaggerate the danger it presents to Israel."

"Mr. Secretary General, your place is not in Tehran," Mr. Netanyahu added.

At a cabinet meeting on Sunday, Mr. Netanyahu seemed to be trying to rebut the Israeli newspaper articles questioning domestic preparedness as he bid farewell to the current home-front defense minister, who is becoming ambassador to China.

"There has been a significant improvement in our home-front defense capabilities," Mr. Netanyahu said, according to a transcript released by his office. "One cannot say that there are no problems in this field because there always are, but all of the threats that are currently being directed against the Israeli home front pale against a particular threat, different in scope, different in substance, and therefore I reiterate that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons."

Ahmadinejad calls for annihilation of Israel

(Does the world need any more reason to stop Iran's nuclear weapons program immediately? The Iranian regime is not only insane; it's demonic. Israel continues to make noise about an impending unilateral strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. While the United States has made recent declarations of its willingness to use military force to stop Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamian Netanyahu remains openly and publicly skeptical. Historic precedents suggest overwhelmingly that when the Israelis say they will stop a threat, they mean it. Is the world ready for some fireworks? [For further proof, check out Iran's game of denial and deception.]  - R.O.)

Ahmadinejad calls for annihilation of Israel

By JOANNA PARASZCZUK
08/02/2012 15:49

In Ramadan speech to ambassadors from Islamic countries, Iranian president calls Zionism “plight of world history,” says liberating Palestine would solve all the world’s problems.


Photo: REUTERS/Raheb Homavandi

In a speech published on his website Thursday, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the ultimate goal of world forces must be the annihilation of Israel.

Speaking to ambassadors from Islamic countries ahead of ‘Qods Day’ (‘Jerusalem Day’), an annual Iranian anti-Zionist event established in 1979 by Ayatollah Khomeini and which falls this year on August 17, Ahmadinejad said that a “horrible Zionist current” had been managing world affairs for “about 400 years.”

Repeating traditional antisemitic slurs, the Iranian president accused “Zionists” of controlling the world’s media and financial systems.

It was Zionists, he said, who were “behind the scene of the world’s main powers, media, monetary and banking centers.”

“They are the decision makers, to the extent that the presidential election hopefuls [of the USA] must go and kiss the feet of the Zionists to ensure their election victory,” he added.

Ahmadinejad added that “liberating Palestine” would solve all the world’s problems, although he did not elaborate on exactly how that might work.

“Qods Day is not merely a strategic solution for the Palestinian problem, as it is to be viewed as a key for solving the world problems,” he said.

He added: “Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of the Zionist regime in order to pave the way for world justice and freedom.”

The Iranian president said that Israel reinforced “the dominance of arrogant powers in the region and across the globe” and that Arab countries in particular – he cited Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, Syria and Turkey – were affected by Israel’s “plots.”

Ahmadinejad, who has called the Holocaust a myth, has previously called for Israel’s annihilation, in a 2005 speech in which he used a Persian phrase that translates literally as “wiped off the page of time.”

Iran Preparing Islamic Messiah's "Special Forces"

(Truly terrifying stuff. Is the West prepared to stop Iran's delusional messianic terrorist regime? Israel appears to be. You couldn't write a better thriller script. - R.O.)


IRAN PREPARING MAHDI’S SPECIAL FORCES

Army of operatives planning for terror, destruction of the West

07/30/2012

by REZA KAHLILI

The Quds Forces, a special Iranian unit of thousands of operatives tasked with exporting Iran’s Islamic revolution, are being told to step up preparations for terrorism for the coming of the last Islamic messiah and the destruction of the West.

Ali Saeedi, the Iranian supreme leader’s representative to the Revolutionary Guards, emphasized during a Friday sermon in Tehran that the Islamic republic must directly confront America so that the necessary environment is created for the reappearance of Mahdi, the Shiite’s 12th imam, who will kill all infidels and raise the flag of Islam in all corners of the world.

“In three points of history, God directly confronts the will of unruly humans in which, of course, the Right will overcome the False,” Saeedi said, according to the Sepah News, the Guards’ official publication. “The first point in history was during the era of pharaoh, the second era was Bani Abbas, and the third is our current era in which it seems that God has willed us to enlighten the world with the coming of Imam Mahdi.”

Saeedi, “Many of the signs [necessary] for the coming have taken place during the previous years; however, the main sign will take place right before the coming.”

There are five levels of readiness that have to be prepared for the coming, he said: “Individual readiness, the readiness for creating the environment, systematic readiness, the readiness in the region and the international readiness. This means Occupy Wall Street must take place, the Americans must lose hope with the Democratic Party and others, and lose faith in the U.N., while at the same time the unraveling in the Middle East, which was not ripe before, must have taken place before the coming.”

This is the first time a high-ranking Iranian official has stated on the record that the Quds Forces are not only involved in the region, but also internationally for a final confrontation with the West.

“The Revolutionary Guards are one vehicle for preparation for the coming, and in the current Islamic Awakening [the Arab Spring] in the region and on international arena, the Quds Forces play a major role in preparing the readiness of the human force needed for such an event,” Saeedi said. “The chief commander of the Guards and the supreme leader’s representative are tasked for preparing the individual readiness, regional readiness as well as international readiness for the coming.”

In another Guards’ weekly publication, Sobhe Sadegh, a front-page analysis explains that the opening of Iran’s geopolitics and the empowerment of its Islamic power are a reality in which Iran’s influence has expanded not only in the region, but also in Africa, Latin America, Eastern Asia and even in Europe and America.

As was the fall of socialism and the Eastern bloc, the analysis promises, so will be the fall of the capitalism and liberal democracy.

The analysis refers to the statements of the founder of the Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini:

• “I say with all certainty that the 21st century will be the century of Islam.”
• “I say with all certainty that Islam will conquer all key entrenchments of the world.”
• “I say with all certainty that Islam will defeat all world powers.”
• “I say with all certainty that the 21st century is the century where the oppressed will be victorious over the oppressors.”

While the Quds Forces have recently expanded their operations in shipment of explosives to Latin America, Africa and other places in the world, and at the same time have put terror cells on high alert for terrorist acts, the Islamic regime in Iran has expanded its nuclear program in which over 11,000 centrifuges are now running at two facilities, increasing its enriched uranium stock.

As of the last report in May by the IAEA, Iran had enough enriched uranium for six nuclear bombs, and despite all negotiations and recent sanctions, the Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, announced days ago that there will be no turning back from the nuclear path.

Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for a former CIA operative in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and the author of the award-winning book, A Time to Betray. He is a senior Fellow with EMPact America, a member of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security and teaches at the U.S. Department of Defense’s Joint Counterintelligence Training Academy (JCITA).

1948, 1967, 1973 ... 2012?

Israel Hayom | 1948, 1967, 1973 ... 2012?
The decision that will change everything

There are those who deem this critical argument that is being waged now as “the campaign of our lives,” and there are indeed various signs which attest to the fact that the moment in which a decision on the Iranian issue must be made is fast approaching.

Nadav Shragai

A ballistic missile is launched in a demonstration of Iranian military might. | Photo credit: Reuters

<< 1 2 >>

In a country where there is never a dull moment, the media this week pushed the really critical issue of Iran off the front pages.

The real debate is happening behind closed doors. In simple Hebrew, the dilemma comes down to three words: p’tzatza o’ haftzatza (“An [Iranian] A-bomb or an [Israeli] bombing campaign”) but the reality is not that simple. In fact, it is far more complex. Defense Minister Ehud Barak says that Israel is currently “at the point in which security challenges are likely to become no less fateful than the challenges that stood before the founding fathers at the establishment of the state; no less fateful than the challenges that stood before the state’s leaders in the period leading to the start of the Six-Day War; no less fateful than the challenges that stood before the decision-makers who were called upon to lead in the days leading up to and during the Yom Kippur War.”

There are those who deem the critical argument that is being waged now as “the campaign of our lives,” and there are indeed signs attesting to the fact that the moment in which a decision on the Iranian issue must be made is fast approaching.

It is possible that we are talking about a matter of months. The public is not well-versed in the details, and perhaps it should be this way, but a concise summary of this dilemma is testament to the difficulty of this issue.

On the one hand, we have the alarming signals that are ringing louder as the prospect of a nuclear Iran becomes more real. Iran currently possesses 7,000 kilograms of enriched uranium up to 3.5 percent and 160 kilograms of enriched uranium up to 20%. To manufacture an atomic bomb, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his friends need enriched uranium of up to at least 90%.

If the Iranians decide to make a sprint — which they have done in the last few months — they could enrich uranium up to 90% within a matter of months. Leon Panetta, the American secretary of defense, confided to Israeli officials his fear that this January could mark the Iranians’ “finish line” in their race to attain the bomb.

In the last three months, Iran has enriched 700 kilograms of uranium. Since the current government came to power, the number of centrifuges capable of enriching uranium in Iran has doubled from 5,000 to 10,000. The technological mishap which slowed down the centrifuges caused by the Stuxnet computer virus has already been rectified.

There is almost wall-to-wall agreement that a nuclear Iran would render our lives here a living hell while posing a real threat to the existence of the State of Israel. The recent assessments even predict an arms race that would proliferate throughout the region. In response to Iran’s going nuclear, other Muslim countries such as Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia would make every effort to get their own atomic weapons.

On the other hand, there is the price that Israel would pay — namely, an Iranian threat to retaliate against any Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities — by launching rockets at Israeli cities. The projected number of casualties is vague, although it is expected to include “hundreds of deaths.”

There are also threats that a number of other fronts are liable to heat up as a result of an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Hezbollah, which is based in south Lebanon, possesses an arsenal of 60,000 rockets capable of hitting any point in the north. It also has a few thousand missiles that are capable of reaching the center of the country, and hundreds that can threaten towns in southern Israel.

In the Gaza Strip, Hamas continues to grow stronger. It and other armed organizations possess some 8,000 rockets, a few of which could reach central Israel. The rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and, more importantly, the recent events in Syria, make the Iranian story even more complex. For Israel’s decision-makers, there are other factors that come into play. If Israel decides to strike Iran, it could find itself under assault on a number of fronts.

Attack as long as it’s possible

Over the past year, Israel and the West have developed a strategy that Haaretz journalist Ari Shavit calls “the third way” — a combination of economic sanctions and covert activity. The problem is that the third way does not eliminate the Iranian threat. It simply postpones it to a later date. There is a growing sense among members of the Israeli establishment that this option has been all but exhausted.

Professor Yehezkel Dror (83), a member of the Winograd Commission which probed the decision-making process up to and during the Second Lebanon War, had firsthand access to two Israeli prime ministers (Yitzhak Shamir and Shimon Peres). His expertise lay in the planning and decision-making process in the diplomatic, security, and public spheres. Behind the scenes, he helped craft a number of strategic processes of great importance for the State of Israel.

A few weeks ago, Dror authored a policy paper on behalf of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. In short, Dror came out in favor of an attack on Iran, adding that he recommended combining a military offensive with a regional diplomatic overture for peace. The position articulated by Dror — who is renowned as one of the world’s foremost thinkers in the field of administrative science and policy doctrine thanks to many years of research which he devoted to the topic of decision-making processes, policy planning, statesmanship, defense doctrine, and Jewish policy — rocked the establishment.

Dror’s views, which have at times been critical of the manner in which sensitive decisions are made in Israel, carry great weight. Up to a year ago, Dror believed that Israel could live with a nuclear Iran. He thought Israel’s deterrent capability and the threat of a nuclear second strike was enough to make Iran think twice before attacking. Now he thinks differently.

“A sometimes expressed view is that initiating a preventive war is morally wrong, all the more so when one cannot be sure that without it a harsh war is sure to occur in the future,” Dror writes. “However, this view, though honorable, is primitive and should be rejected. It lacks understanding of the nature of policy as a tool that, by nature, must deal with the future, which is never certain; and it does not give any weight to the important value of preventing pain in the future. Furthermore, such a view clings to what is ‘certain,’ ignoring what ‘may come’ even when very likely or very significant, thus further negating every effort to influence the future, which is always contingent and uncertain.”

“The possession of nuclear weapons by Iran poses serious dangers to Israel because of the real possibility that the rulers of Iran may use them, directly or indirectly, against Israel,” he writes. “There also exists the likelihood that Iranian nuclear weapons will cause nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, further increasing the danger. Hopefully, international sanctions will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or the U.S. will launch a pre-emptive attack if necessary. But Israel cannot leave the future of its national security to the uncertain decision making of others. If Iranian advances towards construction of a nuclear weapon are not halted, Israel will have no choice but to attack Iranian nuclear and military facilities while they are still vulnerable.”

The professor acknowledges that while one can expect a violent reaction from Iran in the case of an Israeli attack, assessments of the damage should not be exaggerated. “Even pessimistic assumptions about the scope of Iranian retaliation make it clear that the expected damage to Israel will be less, by many orders of magnitude, than the destructive potential of an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel,” he writes.

Dror’s arguments stirred up a firestorm, with many wondering whether it was possible to place the public’s faith in the hands of the current leadership. Just a few years ago, Dror said that Israel’s leaders were problematic and mediocre. Now, he posits: “If we cannot trust our leadership with regards to an attack against Iran, we cannot trust them also in the event that they refrain from taking a decision for such an attack.”

“The decision to refrain from attacking bears consequences and repercussions to the same extent as deciding to attack,” Dror told Israel Hayom. “Both of these decisions are far-reaching. So it’s irrelevant if I trust [the leadership] more or less. My personal tendency is to trust the current leadership. These are serious people who have plenty of experience. I don’t know, but I am convinced that they are doing very thorough staff work on this issue.”

In contrast with the criticism that others interviewed for this article have expressed regarding the public nature of the discussions surrounding the Iranian nuclear issue, Dror actually welcomes the debate. “On the one hand, as someone who filled a number of senior positions in the defense establishment, I told myself that once I left these positions I wouldn’t conceive of criticizing the government,” he said. “On the other hand, if those same people think that this is a dangerous decision, it is their duty to say so. As long as they don’t reveal classified information, it is their right.”

Still, Dror makes clear that public opinion is not a factor in his thinking. “The public knows nothing, and it has no factual basis to judge these things, and it is also impossible to present the public with all the facts on this issue,” he said. “So its opinion has no weight in my mind.”

Dror also doesn’t shy away from taking political considerations into account. “People at the time thought that taking action against the Iraqi nuclear reactor was motivated by electoral considerations,” he said. “I worked in Shamir’s office, and I also got to know Begin. I think that this is slanderous. On the Iranian issue, I believe that the aspects are weighed independent of political considerations, and the decision will be taken purely with the best interests of the future of the State of Israel in mind. Other factors, if they exist, will be particularly marginal, and they will not make the difference.”

Fact-checking and agreement

Dror is one of a number of public figures from whom we sought comment this week in an effort to examine the decision-making process during two other critical periods in Israel’s history — the days leading up to the Six-Day War and the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor — and to compare them with the critical juncture in which Israel currently finds itself as it relates to the Iranian nuclear issue.

Yeshayahu Gavish served as GOC Southern Command in 1967. He remembers well the tremendous pressure that the generals placed on the government to start the war after the Egyptians closed the Straits of Tiran and essentially cut off Israeli shipping to Africa and the east. Gavish acknowledges that he is not privy to sensitive information today, though he does note that at the time the key question was gauging the risk.

“Under these circumstances, you have to take into account, among other things, if you go with a pre-emptive strike or if you absorb an enemy blow,” he said. “In the Yom Kippur War, we didn’t hit them with a pre-emptive strike. In the Six-Day War, we saw this as the right solution. The question is not just risk assessment, but who is doing the assessment. In 1967, the generational gaps between the ministers and the generals were especially significant. The generals were young, 40-year-old men who were experienced in warfare. The ministers, almost all of them, were not born in the country, and they were relatively older.”

“We had to convince the government that there was no other solution,” he said. “Ben-Gurion was adamantly against the war, and he really had a moderating effect on Yitzhak Rabin, who was chief of staff at the time. I remember the major fear among the ministers who kept asking me whether I was certain of victory, and how we could be so certain we would succeed. They had serious concerns, but the argument was not public. The awareness of the importance of guarding defense secrets was much higher in those days. Today the excessive preoccupation and discussion of the Iranian issue doesn’t contribute to a weighty, serious discussion, in my opinion. Another key factor which we had to deal with then — and I assume that this is the case today as well — is the position of the U.S. Abba Eban, who was foreign minister at the time, thought that the U.S. would oppose our plan. It was only after Meir Amit returned from abroad that it became clear this wasn’t exactly the case.”

Shlomo Nakdimon, a journalist and renowned researcher, chronicled the decision-making processes in his book about the Six-Day War (“Towards the Zero Hour”) and the bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor (“Tammuz in Flames”). He, too, notes the importance of the debate that unfolded between the generals and the politicians in those days.

“One of the generals, Ezer Weizman, even threw his ranks down on the desk of the director-general of the Prime Minister’s Office,” he said. “The other generals, among them Ariel Sharon and Avraham Yoffe, lobbied hard, while Levi Eshkol, who wanted to exhaust all diplomatic options, told them: ‘Patience, children.’”

As for “Tammuz,” as the Iraqi nuclear reactor was known, Begin oversaw the portfolio from the moment he received it from his predecessor, Rabin. It was Begin who personally handled the affairs of this issue from that moment all the way until the actual bombardment. Begin left no stone unturned, even going so far as to appoint an external committee of inquiry headed by Maj. Gen. Aharon Yariv.

Coordination with the U.S., which the Israeli leadership sought to attain in each of the three cases, is certainly the common denominator. Today, Netanyahu naturally wishes to reach an accommodation with the U.S. to the greatest extent possible.

Nakdimon notes that the plan to bomb the Iraqi reactor was kept secret, while today the public freely discusses the consequences of an attack on Iran. “With regards to the Iraqi reactor, everything was under Begin’s control, and the key people who helped him were the commander of the air force, David Ivry, and the chief of staff, Raful (Rafael Eitan),” he said. “Today, Netanyahu is the minister responsible for the Mossad, and, with Ehud Barak, the defense minister, he is perfectly in synch. They are functioning flawlessly together, as if they were Siamese twins.”

“They have an outstanding group of seven ministers, three of whom have all the time in the world to devote to national security issues: Dan Meridor, Benny Begin, and Bogie Ya’alon,” he said. “They are also helped by the head of the National Security Council, Maj. Gen. Yaakov Amidror.”

This is the spearhead that will accompany Netanyahu every step of the way toward the final decision on whether to bomb Iran. It is a group that includes the chief of staff, the head of military intelligence, and the head of the Mossad. Nakdimon views the many years during which the Iranian nuclear issue was examined, the run-up to the Six-Day War, and the “nearly six-year-long” period during which the authorities carefully weighed and examined the circumstances surrounding the Iraqi nuclear reactor as a necessary time of due diligence.

Col. (res.) Ami Gluska, the author of “Eshkol, Give the Order!,” filled a number of senior positions in the military and civilian leadership. He notes that in contrast to the Six-Day War, in which the civilians held back while the generals agitated, the situation today is different. The military is holding back, while the civilians are hawkish. “Nonetheless, it is clear to all that if the government makes the decision, the army will do the deed,” he said.

Enough public chatter

One of the key figures who closely followed Begin just prior to the decision on bombing Saddam’s nuclear reactor was former minister Moshe Nissim, who today works as a private attorney and who is also an advisory member of the committee that recommends senior appointments in the civil service. He notes that disagreements over the bombardment of the reactor crossed military-civilian lines.

“The head of the Mossad, Yitzhak Hofi, was completely against,” he said. “His deputy, Nachum Admoni, was in favor. The chief of staff, Raful, was in favor. The head of military intelligence, Yehoshua Sagi, fought bitterly against it. His deputy, a former Hashomer Hatzair youth movement member Aviezri Ya’ari, was in favor. Mottke Tzipori, the deputy defense minister, opposed. Simha Erlich, a political dove, was very much in favor. Shustak Hentz was opposed.”

“Back then, there were also fears as to how the Iraqis would respond,” Nissim said. “There was a fear that Iraq would retaliate by bombing the reactor in Dimona, or by launching missiles at the civilian population, or launch a regional war. Those who opposed the plan were also concerned that Egypt may abrogate the peace treaty with Israel or that the U.S. might impose sanctions on us. The supporters, chief among them Begin and myself as well, were of the opinion that the U.S. would ‘punish’ us lightly, and that the chances for successfully carrying out the mission were quite high, and that Iraq did not possess the capability to retaliate. Obviously, the factors that one needs to take into consideration today [with regards to Iran] are much weightier.”

Nissim is incapable of understanding how public figures take it upon themselves to openly discuss the Iranian issue. He is particularly furious with former Mossad chief Meir Dagan and former Shin Bet director Yuval Diskin.

“What is going on today is an open-air market, and the statements made by Diskin and Dagan are irresponsible and they are causing immeasurable damage to Israel,” he said. “As people who occupied senior posts, they mustn’t be permitted to speak publicly.”

Deception as a tool

Gavish recalls that two hours before Israel’s opening salvo in the Six-Day War, then-Defense Minister Moshe Dayan appeared on a radio broadcast and declared that Israel had no desire for war. Gavish does not rule out the possibility that the Israeli leadership is using a similar tactic today, assuming a bellicose posture while behind the scenes spurring the U.S. and the international community to take action. “Deception is one of the tools used in this game,” he said.

In a detailed paper entitled “For a Slightly Different Mode of Thinking,” Dror raises the possibility that “it would behoove the U.S. for Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, a move which would minimize the damage to U.S. interests.”

“The U.S. will intervene after the fact in order to ‘restore the peace,’ and it will take preventative measures to ensure that Iran does not restart its nuclear program,” he wrote.

Dror adds: “Many who oppose an Israeli military strike against Iran’s nuclear installations on moral grounds, preferring to avoid exacting casualties in the present over the possibility of preventing even more massive casualties in the future, are enthusiastic supporters of taking definitive security risks in the present for the sake of a peace that is uncertain.”

Nonetheless, he says: “Mapping out a responsible policy requires avoiding this flawed line of thinking, both on a moral and a practical level, certainly when the topic at hand is one involving the fate of the nation.”

Dror recommends that “we give great weight to preventing risks in the future, even at the price of taking risks in the present.”

Barak backed up this opinion recently, saying: “Refraining from action ensures that Iran goes nuclear, and dealing with a nuclear Iran will be more dangerous than stopping it today. In other words, whoever says ‘later’ may find that ‘later is too late.’”

Is this surprising to anyone? As Iran loses it's only ally in the region and as the international community brings unprecedented pressure on Iran's nuclear weapons program, the Islamic Republic is desperately reaching out for any way to hit back. This story of subversion is one to watch, particularly after Hizbullah's terrorist attack on Israelis in Bulgaria last week. - R.O.

Dubai police chief warns of Muslim Brotherhood, Iran threat

Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:40am EDT

DUBAI (Reuters) - Dubai's chief of police has warned of an "international plot" to overthrow the governments of Gulf Arab countries, saying the region needs to be prepared to counter any threat from Islamist dissidents as well as Syria and Iran.

The comments by Dahi Khalfan, one of the most outspoken security officials in the United Arab Emirates, follow the detention in the UAE since April of at least 20 dissidents, according to relatives of the detainees and activists.

"There's an international plot against Gulf states in particular and Arab countries in general...This is preplanned to take over our fortunes," Khalfan told reporters at a gathering late on Wednesday marking the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.

"The bigger our sovereign wealth funds and the more money we put in the banks of Western countries, the bigger the plot to take over our countries...The brothers and their governments in Damascus and North Africa have to know that the Gulf is a red line, not only for Iran but also for the Brothers as well."

Most of the detainees since April are Islamists, targeted by an official clampdown amid concern they may be emboldened by the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in other Arab countries such as Egypt.

UAE Interior Ministry officials have not been available to comment on the arrests. Last week, UAE officials announced that authorities were investigating a foreign-linked group planning "crimes against the security of the state".

"I had no idea that there is this large number of Muslim Brotherhood in the Gulf states. We have to be alert and on guard because the wider these groups become, the higher probability there is for trouble," Khalfan said on Wednesday.

"We are aware that there are groups plotting to overthrow Gulf governments in the long term."

(Reporting by Mirna Sleiman; Writing by Andrew Torchia; Editing by Pravin Char)

Dangerously Doubting the IAEA Report on Iran

My op-ed published last week in Canada's National Post, was picked up and published today in the Windsor Star. I feel my op-ed is even more prescient now, given that the U.S., UK, and Canada went ahead with unilateral sanctions against Iran's central bank, just as Israel has conspicuously gone silent about the threat posed by Iran. The unwillingness of Russia and China to further sanction Iran, or contemplate additional Security Council resolutions, may ultimately force Israel to act alone. If you haven't read the full version of my article, check it out below here. -R.O.
http://www.windsorstar.com/news/death+truth/5776603/story.html

"The Death of Truth"
By: Robert D. Onley
Published in the Windsor Star: November 28, 2011

Fallout from the misleading intelligence that led to the 2003 war in Iraq is now leading the international community into dangerous, reactive skepticism of the IAEA's damning report on Iran's now exposed nuclear weapons program.

Despite the wide-ranging report, Russia and China have already rejected the possibility of increasing sanctions against Iran, arguing on disingenuous grounds that the U.K., France and U.S. will use sanctions as an "instrument for regime change in Iran." Major news outlets are similarly casting complete doubt on IAEA claims that Iran is actively working on nukes.

While the IAEA report was indeed preceded by loud sabre-rattling from the American and Israeli political establishments, the supposed "leak" of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's readiness to conduct unilateral airstrikes certainly was no accident.

Designed to spark global discourse on Iran prior to the report's release, the leaks underscored Netanyahu's long-standing fears about the truth of Iran's "peaceful" nuclear program.

Thus the sabre-rattling should not discredit the catastrophic implications of the report, which sets out in unprecedented detail the extent of Iran's nuke program.

Some skeptics dismissively claim that Iran's research into the design of nuclear weapons is not a breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran is a signatory state and internationally bound not to "manufacture" or otherwise "acquire" nuclear weapons. However, this suggestion completely misses the point, highlighting the dangerous naivety of reactive skepticism.

The indisputable facts about Iran's nuclear weapons research are as follows. Since 2003, Iran has:

. Conducted extensive research into bomb designs and detonators

. Continued development of intercontinental ballistic missiles

. Covertly constructed numerous weapons-related facilities, notably the Fordow uranium enrichment facility - built inside of a mountain, itself inside of a military base.

Iran did so while repeatedly claiming its nuclear program is "peaceful." This blatant stall tactic deliberately impeded progress during years of nuclear negotiations with the West.

Russia and China have dismissed the IAEA report as a manufactured casus belli to attack Iran, and have painted Yukiya Amano, the IAEA head, as a pro-western dupe. Russian FM Sergei Lavrov obliquely warned the West that attacking Iran would be "a very serious mistake."

The tragic casualty in all of this misguided skepticism is the truth itself. The fact that a 25-page report from the IAEA - the one global institution tasked with preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons - can so blithely be dismissed as a lie, emphasizes the abject depravity of the international community's moral core.

A country - the Islamic Republic of Iran - with a president who openly and callously denies that the Holocaust occurred, is now at the threshold of possessing the very weaponry that could cause the Second Holocaust.

In the face of this utterly malignant, horrifying historic juncture, the world's instinctive reaction is to render the IAEA's years of painstaking intelligence-gathering not as a terrifying truth, but rather as an unremitting lie.

Beset with widespread protests, a faltering global economy and a Middle East already in turmoil, hesitation to greenlight another conflict in the region is wholly understandable and with merit.

However, for these same nations to then simply ignore the threat of another country's obtaining nukes, out of fear of causing temporary instability in the Middle East, is to abandon the world's future to the enemies of peace, destroy the NPT and spark a nuclear arms race.

Israel, the one nation most directly threatened by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, is today at its gravest geopolitical crossroads since coming into existence.

If Israel decides to undertake unilateral military action against Iran, Netanyahu must convene with the UN Security Council and reveal all of Israel's intelligence on Iranian nukes. Israel must irrefutably prove that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and thus represents a threat to the peace of the world under UNSC Article 39.

The truth on this matter cannot be left in any doubt, because the truth - about Iran's nuclear weapons program and the threat from Iran's theocratic Shia "Twelver" leadership - is Israel's only ally in the long-standing fight for its very survival as the world's sole, immovable, Jewish state.

Robert D. Onley is vice-chair of YouthCan for International Dialogue and president of the Students' Law Society at the University of Windsor's Law School.
© Copyright (c) The Windsor Star

The Death of Truth: Dangerously Doubting the IAEA Report on Iran's nukes

By: Robert D. Onley

Fallout from the misleading intelligence that led to the 2003 War in Iraq is now leading the international community into dangerous, reactive scepticism of the IAEA's damning report on Iran’s now exposed nuclear weapons program.

This ill-founded scepticism extends to American allegations last month of an Iranian government-backed plot to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States.

Despite the comprehensive, wide-ranging IAEA Report on Iran’s covert nuclear arms research, Russia and China have already rejected the possibility of increasing punitive sanctions against Iran, arguing on disingenuous grounds that the UK, France and US will use sanctions as an “instrument for regime change in Iran.”

Major news outlets across the world and particularly in the Middle East are similarly casting complete doubt on American and Israeli claims that Iran is actively working on nuclear weapons. 'The Americans are lying once again,' is the commentators’ chorus.

There is no arguing that the release of the IAEA Report was preceded by loud sabre-rattling from the American and Israeli political establishments, with leaked pronouncements that Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is allegedly preparing Israel for unilateral air strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites.

The timing of the release of these statements was certainly no accident, designed both to spark global discourse on Iran prior to the IAEA Report and concurrently to intentionally expose the Israeli government’s willingness to undertake military action.

But since his election in 2009, Netanyahu has repeatedly stated Israel’s deep existential fears about the Iranian nuclear weapons program. As such, none of his recent statements should in any way discredit the catastrophic implications of the IAEA Report, which sets out in unprecedented detail the extent of Iran’s covert nuke research and experimental nuclear detonator testing.

Some critics have been quick to point out that Iran’s research into the design of nuclear weapons is not in-and-of itself a breach of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), of which Iran is a signatory state and is thus internationally bound not to “manufacture” or otherwise “acquire” nuclear weapons. However, such a suggestion completely misses the point, and highlights the dangerous naivety of the international community’s reactive scepticism toward intelligence on Iranian nukes.

In contrast, the indisputable facts about Iran’s covert nuclear weapons research are as follows. According to the November 8, 2011 report by the IAEA, since 2003 the Government of Iran has:

1. Repeatedly, openly claimed its nuclear program is for “peaceful” purposes only, while it simultaneously…
2. Conducted covert research into nuclear weapons designs
3. Continued development of intercontinental ballistic missiles
4. Covertly constructed numerous weapons-related facilities, notably the Fordow uranium enrichment facility – built inside of a mountain, itself inside a military base – revealed by US President Obama in September 2009.

Finally, and most importantly, the Government of Iran did all of the above while blatantly obfuscating and lying about its nuclear intentions, in an obvious effort to stall for time and thus deliberately impede all hope of progress during years of nuclear negotiation efforts with Western powers (namely the P5+1).

Apparently burned by the botched intel that justified war with Iraq, Russia and China (and many in the West) have dismissed the IAEA report as a manufactured casus belli to attack Iran, and have painted Yukiya Amano, the head of the IAEA, as a pro-Western dupe.

Despite the fact that their own intelligence services likely also possess damning evidence of the Iranian nuke project, Russia and China are firmly backing Iran, with Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warning the United States and Israel that attacking Iran would be “a very serious mistake.” The West can only guess as to what this warning could mean.

The most tragic casualty in all of this misguided scepticism is the truth itself. The fact that a 25-page report from the IAEA – the one global institution tasked with protecting the planet from the proliferation of nuclear weapons – can so blithely and reactively be dismissed as a lie, emphasizes the abject depravity of the international community’s moral core.

A country – the Islamic Republic of Iran – with a president who openly, repeatedly and callously denies that the Holocaust ever occurred, is now at the threshold of possessing the very weaponry that could cause the Second Holocaust.

In the face of this utterly malignant, horrifying historic juncture, the international community’s instinctive reaction is to render the IAEA’s years of painstaking intelligence gathering on this nuclear threat not as a terrifying truth, but rather as an unremitting lie.

Beset with widespread protests, a faltering global economy, and a Middle East already in turmoil, hesitation to green-light another conflict in the region is wholly understandable, and certainly with merit.

However for these same nations to then simply ignore the threat of another country gaining nuclear weapons capability, out of fear of causing temporary instability in the Middle East, is to abandon the world’s future to the enemies of peace. Moreover, if Iran develops the Bomb, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will effectively be destroyed, instigating a nuclear arms race in the world’s most volatile region.

Israel, the one nation most directly threatened by the potential of a nuclear-armed Iran, is today at the greatest of geopolitical crossroads since coming into existence.

If Israel decides to undertake unilateral military action against Iran, Netanyahu must convene with the United Nations Security Council and reveal all of Israel’s intelligence on Iran's nuke program. Now is the time to irrefutably prove to the world that Iran is developing nuclear weapons and thus represents a threat to the peace and future stability of the world.

The truth on this matter cannot be left in any doubt, because the truth -- about Iran’s nuclear weapons program and the threat from Iran’s theocratic Shia 'Twelver' leadership -- is Israel’s only ally in the longstanding fight for its very survival as the world’s sole, immovable, Jewish State.
-------------------------------------------------------------
By: Robert David Onley

Is Israel about to unilaterally bomb Iran?

Two leading articles seem to suggest so.


The Atlantic Magazine has just published a long and detailed piece on the Iranian nuclear crisis, exploring in great depth exactly what an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities might look like. Click here to read "The Point of No Return".

The very fact that a magazine is running such an article should be worrying. Israel's rumoured preparations for a strike suggest the Obama administration has (at some level) told the Israelis that the United States will not stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, or at the very least, that the U.S. will not conduct air strikes to do so.

It is tragic that Israel will potentially feel it necessary to undertake such an incredibly risk-fraught mission unilaterally. The United States has always been Israel's strongest ally. In the face of Iranian intransigence and blatant deception throughout the course of negotiations on their covert nuclear program, one would think President Obama would show resolve and stand with Israel given the threat of Iran going nuclear practically any day now.

Of course Israel's greatest fear is not that Iran would be stupid enough to launch a nuclear missile at Israel, but that Iran might supply a crude nuclear device either to Hizbullah (it's proxy army in Lebanon) or Hamas (in Gaza), or even worse, to Iranian supported terrorists inside Israel. Such a crude nuke (think: pick-up truck dirty bomb) could obliterate Tel Aviv and create a nuclear wasteland with horrific consequences for both Israelis and Arabs.

But for Israel to decide to fly all the way to Iran and attempt to destroy nuclear facilities buried deep underground is arguably the single most significant decision the tiny nation will ever make. The international repercussions will be devastating for Israel, there is no question of that.

Israel's leaders are balancing two unbelievably fateful contingencies: do they allow Iran to go nuclear, hope that their deterrent capability keeps Iran at bay, and pray that Iran never supplies terrorists with dirty nuclear weapons? Or do they perform an incredibly dangerous, unpopular and globally-damaging unilateral mission to prevent Iran (and her terrorist proxies) from acquiring the very weapons that could literally wipe Israel off the map?

Today the Israeli paper Haaretz tackled this question in an excellent piece, "The Morning after the Attack on Iran". The article briefly summarizes the enormity of the present situation, the timing and the ramifications for Israel immediately after it attacks Iran.

These are perilous and incredible times, to say the least. We need to pray for Israeli and American leaders, that they will make the correct decision, that they will be wise and focused. We must also pray for the leaders of Iran, for the Islamic Regime to come clean about its nuclear weapons program, to return to sanity and join the rest of the international community in productive, transparent negotiations. Because the alternative is downright frightening - not just for Israel, but for the rest of the world.

Report: Saudi Arabia gives Israel clear skies to attack Iranian nuclear sites

By: Robert D. Onley



This week the United Nations Security Council passed the latest round of sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran. UN Resolution 1929 imposes severe restrictions on the Iranian regime's ability to conduct trade in supplies for their nuclear program. However almost immediately, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad denounced the sanctions as a "used hankerchief" and threatened to eject UN weapons inspectors from Iran's nuclear sites.

Today, The Times Online reports that Saudi Arabia --another of Iran's avowed enemies-- has given Israel "clear skies" to attack Iranian nuclear sites and stop Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia is arguably more threatened by a nuclear Iran than even Israel, but as the world's largest supplier of oil has much more economic interest at stake than Israel. Letting Israel do the "dirty work" and draw international condemnation is therefore a favourable move by the Saudi government.

Meanwhile Israel has been repeatedly threatened with destruction by the leaders in Iran. US President Obama has not ruled out American military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, possibly conducted in coordination with Israel, but appears very hesitant to shake up the Middle East worse than his predecessor. All of this puts enormous pressure on tiny Israel to conduct the largest scale unilateral pre-emptive military strike in its history.

In the past I've written here about the prospect of an Israeli unilateral strike against Iran. The consequences of such a strike will be undeniably severe for Israel and for the world, but the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran is far more troubling. The fact that the Iranian leader so flippantly dismissed the latest round of sanctions suggests that Iran's nuclear weapons program is perhaps far enough along to be unaffected; in other words, it's already too late.


How long will Israel wait for these latest sanctions to take effect? How can any nation measure the effectiveness of sanctions anyway? Iran has shown nothing but reckless disregard toward the well-founded concerns of the international community, and proved its callousness once again this week. There is no shortage of proof that the Iranian regime is racing toward nuclear weapons capability - Resolution 1929 bears that out.


The million-dollar question then is this: when will the international community (notably the United States) admit that diplomacy has failed to stop Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons? At what point will the world's leaders acknowledge that the only effective way to stop Iran is through targeted military strikes?


In the West it is almost taboo to suggest that it will be necessary to use to air strikes to stop Iran's nuclear program. Indeed after the Iraq War, Barack Obama's Cairo speech and his promises for "change" across the diplomatic spectrum, opening up another theatre in the Middle East seems like a Bush-era pipe dream. This sentiment conveniently ignores the fact that right now, under the leadership of President Obama, the U.S. Air Force is conducting more drone air strikes than ever before. The only thing that has "changed" is the volume of missiles raining from the skies over Afghanistan and Pakistan. 


Thus while many commentators are slow to admit that air strikes may be the only remaining option for stopping Iran's nuclear visions, the pragmatic reality is that the equipment to do so is already in the region and technologically is more precise than ever before.


More critical for Israel, Obama's love-to-hate ally, is the fact that a pre-emptive strike represents a viable option buffeted by successful precedents. Two nations in the Middle East have had their nuclear programs stopped short by Israel. One of them, Syria, is a proud ally of Iran. In 2007, Syria's covert nuclear reactor was destroyed Israeli jets, while back in 1981, Iraq's nuclear program was forcefully stopped by pin-point Israeli air strikes. As I covered in another piece, Israel is not afraid to take such aggressive action. 


While those two raids were surgical successes, Iran's hidden nuclear sites present a far greater challenge for the Israeli Air Force, if in fact the IAF were to conduct such a mission. However given that Saudi Arabia is now reportedly granting Israel clearance to use Saudi airspace specifically for a strike against Iran, it is patently clear that Israel is not the only nation that believes air strikes may be the only way to truly stop the Iranian Bomb. 


Saudi Arabia's decision is also a loud warning that the Iranian nuclear stand-off is shifting into a most dangerous phase. The world can certainly expect more war-gaming and posturing on all sides as the weeks progress.


All Israel needs is a green light from the US to fly over Iraq toward Iran, and the fireworks can begin. What happens after that day could be scarier still for Israel. Russia and China both have enormous economic interests in Iran and anyone who damages their vital energy lifelines could face more than just a verbal lashing. This is a most grave consideration, one which Israel's leaders know all too well as they prepare to make the most fateful decision in the Jewish State's contentious history.