| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Israel's new confidence in attack on Iran nukes |
| 2006-01-13 |
| Israeli military planners have more confidence in the success of an attack on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities and have already begun sending signals to Tehran that it will not be permitted to threatened the Jewish state with annihilation, reports Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin today. The new government of acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert also wants the mullah government in the Islamic republic to understand that the incapacitation of Ariel Sharon will not leave Israel in any less state of military readiness, G2 Bulletin sources say. Yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice expressed strong U.S. support for a European move to take the issue of Iran's nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council. The secretary accused Iran of deliberately escalating the confrontation over the issue, but said the United States still hopes for a diplomatic solution. The secretary of state endorsed the European decision in a statement to reporters, saying "provocative" Iranian actions in recent days had shattered the basis for further talks between Iran and three European nations. The U.S. is certain that Iran's "civilian" nuclear program conceals an ambitious secret weapons effort. The secretary said it was premature to talk about possible U.N. sanctions or whether permanent Security Council members Russia and China, which have extensive commercial dealings with Iran, could be persuaded to support them. She plans to speak with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing as part of a far-reaching U.S. diplomatic push on the Iran issue. The secretary said since he came to power last year, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has done nothing but confront the international system on the nuclear issue with outrageous statements, the likes of which, she said, "have not been made in polite company" in many years. Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth and suggested that the Jewish state be moved to Europe. He also denied the Holocaust ever happened. Israel has no illusions about the U.N. solving the crisis. G2 Bulletin sources say a recent statement by the Israeli military chief of intelligence, Gen. Aharon Zeevi-Farkash, that March 1 would be the time limit for diplomatic means to deter Iran's plans was actually an implied warning to Iran. Sources in Tel Aviv and in several European capitals, say Zeevi's remarks were based on a military-planned timetable and a possible D-Day to take the Iranian military nuclear plant out of the picture. Gen. Dan Halutz, Israel's chief of staff and former air force commander, intentionally selected to be the first chief of staff to come from the air force, last week said there are several military means to deal with the problem. Although his statement was somewhat vague, Halutz is known for his verbal restraint. Sources say he is certain the Israeli military machine would be as effective against the Iranian project as it was in 1981 against the Iraqi Ossiraq nuclear site. Sources in Israel also believe public disclosures about the Israeli air force's "anti-aircraft imaging unit" are significant. The Israel air force magazine re-published a story in December 2005 under the title: "Know Thy Enemy." It dealt specifically with the anti-aircraft missile threat, which could be the major obstacle in taking out the Iranian system. The special unit's existence was until recently classified as top secret. Since 1996, the air force and the Rafael Weapons Development Authority have been jointly operating a unit of Soviet anti-aircraft systems similar to those in service in the Middle East. The unit, based on thorough knowledge of Russian-made systems, is instrumental in the training of Israeli air force fighter pilots on how to survive anti-aircraft and radar threats, sometimes thousands of kilometers away from base. The unit also operates weapon systems captured from Arab armies, undisclosed purchased equipment and secret computer developments of systems identical to anti-aircraft systems used by Iran, and even systems directly ordered by Iran from the Russians to protect their nuclear assets, G2 Bulletin reported. The Israelis have also received help from former Soviet or Russian anti-aircraft officers who immigrated to Israel. The air force also chose to reveal details of its cooperation with the Turkish air force including the deployment of Israeli fighter jets in Turkey and Turkish squadrons in Israel as part of a joint training program. Even Greece, which for years rejected any cooperation with Israel, recently announced its air force is also fully cooperating with the Israeli air force. This cooperation with regional air forces, especially with Turkey, which borders Iran in the east, is highly significant when mentioned in uncensored air force publications, reports G2 Bulletin. |
| Posted by:Jackal |
| #22 Aw shit, Zen. Saw this too late to make a decent reply with any depth... and leave any time for feedback. Quickie response - and a rather different take than you may have expected, lol... I believe, I truly do, that some of Europe will awaken from their Nanny State soma and begin resisting - adequately - to stave off a takeover. There are mixed signals from each country, but some are encouraging. Oddly enough, I think economics will be the key, the clarion call that has the greatest effect. The European slide will do as much as anything. They have a huge guilt deficit over, well, about many things: anti-Semitism, repeated American assistance, and so on. They can ignore it short-term, cuz they're flush with EU twits and leaders telling them what they want to hear: everything that's wrong is somebody else's (usually those damned Americans) fault. This has always, and will always, sell well. That they lack a strong sense of survival is my greatest worry. Immigration will exacerbate the economic slide and will become the linchpin. You see it in microcosm now, but the guilt trip has held back the tidal wave, so far, as racism is the label successfully applied to any effort to shut it off. Sounds familiar, doesn't it, lol. Since we will overcome it - the idea that it isn't the knee-jerk of racism, but common sense and a prophylactic against institutional suicide will take root "over there", too, IMHO. Some will capitulate because it's the easiest route and because they've let the game run too long. No way out. I see your option C as their fate - and it will be ugly - ugly enough to accelerate defenses against it in other places. Once a weak-sister domino or two falls, I suggest that it will serve notice to all the others - who you can bet will be watching very very closely. Eventually, I expect that Islam - the ideology - will be seen for what it is: a blatant world dominion cult. It will become as reviled as Nazism. It will have to drastically reform to survive a global purge. Everywhere that there is bloodshed - that hasn't been there for generations - is, by and large, the handiwork of Islam. It can be curtailed. It should be exterminated if it will not reform so that it can co-exist peacefully. At present, it cannot. It deserves eradication. I do not believe time is on anyone's side in this - they won't get it soon enough to save themselves. Just my 10-minute type-fest take. Sorry I couldn't be more specific regards your points. Tying yours and mine (which has been brewing for some time, now) together, which I believe is not only possible, but straight-forward, would have taken another hour, lol. :-) |
| Posted by: .com 2006-01-13 23:35 |
| #21 In instance "C", I envision a more refined revolving door, much like with some portion of Hispanics in the United States whereby individuals gain fast access but are also ejected and do not obtain permanent status. As for "A", Europe's admitted propensity for nihilism may not entirely allow them to abandon strongly entrenched state (yes, state) religions. This is why I mention the onerous and quickly abused nature of dhiummitude. A whole continent is not about to drop centuries of religious practice. Let's pause to ponder just what would happen if French Islamists tried to turn Notre Dame Cathedral into a mosque. Can you say world-wide uproar? And "B". While the perceived transition between dhimmitude and actual conversion may seem imperceptible to you, please read up on dhimmi status and experience in ancient Spain. This is why I made specific mention of how empowered Muslims trend towards gratuitous displays of dominance. Once a chain of submission is initiated, it is doubtful in the extreme that Islamists could contain themselves and patiently await voluntary conversion. Zeal is everything to the Islamists and coercion would instantly accompany the slightest wavering. It is these precise weaknesses of Islam that make me wonder just how well they could peaceably manage the large scale conversion of a continent long accustomed to other worship. I also think that at some point, non-Muslim nations would make a point of going in and crippling the nuclear arsenals of any countries submitting to Muslim domination. Pakistan is the poster child for what to expect vis Islamic nuclear weapons and the proliferation of said technology. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-01-13 21:27 |
| #20 It is sad to see the old homelands (for most Americans) in Europe walking down this road to oblivion. So much history and glory, and pain. Europe is the starting location that led to our civilization, to where it is today. Here is the USA. I truly hope the US changes our immigration policies from an anti-white posture (made possibly by Ted. Really) and point it to Europe. I am sure there are 10 million good, stalwart Europeans who would love to move here if only given the chance. Think of the many European scientists and engineers who would love to innovate, which according to a study I read about today, the USA is 50 years ahead of Europe. Let is work to open the gates to Europe, get those Dassault engineers and Porsche designers here. Those with a good future and high value. Those who can appreciate all American has to offer. The hard part of this might be the lone 'holdouts' who resist dhimmitude. I am thinking UK and ...Denmark. The UK is easier with it's island status as long as there is any steel left in the British spine. Denmark is much more precarious. Virtually surrounded by countries in advanced states of d'tude (dhimmi-like behaviour), they have just begun to say "Hey, wait a minute! This is Denmark, our ancestors were Vikings and we bow to no one (well, except Germans), especially such brutal savages. Now STFU and be gone". Well, maybe not that strongly, but at least they had some cartoons which upset the always-critical muzzies. Sheesh. I just hope we get all the cool Danish furniture designers and they move to North Carolina, sparking a new age in American chairs. |
| Posted by: Brett 2006-01-13 20:53 |
| #19 C, A, and B in order of importance. C. As their population ages and they need more young to empty their bed pans the Euros are going to have a harder time kicking their Arab habit than we will our Mexican. And they have no experience assimilating. A. The entire continent, no. But you have much more confidence in the rationality of the Euros than I. I see them as the people who brought you the French Revolution, National Socialism and Soviet Communism. They have a disproportionate share of wackos because the ones with sense migrated here. Their adoption of nihilism will leave them searching for the meaning to life. Islam will provide the answer for too many. B. When does dhimmitude turn to forced conversion? It is such a nuanced transition that the Euros will not make it clear. As to D & E, you're an optomist. Perhaps we will save the Euros before it's too late. But in any event they no longer have the will to save themselves. I expect the process to be completed by the end of the century. I don't expect it to happen with a big bang, but slowly with barely a whimper. The future of the U. S. will be in the Pacific. Why will the U. S. waste time defending a Europe that is no longer worth saving because it no longer exists? You may not like the ending, Zenster, but that doesn't make it less likely. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-01-13 20:25 |
| #18 interesting posts. An increasing sense of empowerment within Muslim factions consistently manifests in expanded illegal or contralegal activity. This lack of restraint is one of the most persistent shortcomings of Islamic radicals. YES! Their bravado is what has gotten them as far as they have come, but as always, one's greatest strength is one's greatest weakness. I think it will be a combination of this and the tech edge. Also, I think that we will start to see the mythical moderate Muslims in Muslim countries, fighting the Islamists. When all is said and done, this IS about power - not religion. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-01-13 19:58 |
| #17 option E with heavy BBQ sauce. - the tech edge will make a "final solution" almost a real possibility this time, even given muslim numbers, if there's nobody to say: stop! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-01-13 19:17 |
| #16 How about if they convert? Well, NS, how about it? Are you unable to sufficiently assess the situation whereby conclusions can be drawn? Are you? Here's a few to consider: A) Is it even likely the entire European continent would willingly convert to Islam? B) Is it more likely some attempt at forcible conversion might be imposed? C) Is simple demographic displacement going to succeed as a means to hijack long standing national governments in the region? D) Are sundry European nations eventually going to understand what awaits complaisance and, instead, begin to resolve the threat to their sovereignty by mass expulsions or deportations? E) Will Islam finally manifest as such a dire global threat that so huge a body of its Middle Eastern (or South Asian) followers are incinerated, whereby its diaspora finally comprehend the criticality of peaceful assimilation? Answers: A) Not too likely. Retention of previous religions and the penalties of dhimmitude, which become increasingly capricious in proportion to Muslim power, would most likely be too onerous. B) Possible, but such a naked display of force would also justify third party (American) intervention. C) This option remains as one of the only viably "peaceful" means. Review Israel's own "redistricting" (Gaza withdrawl), so as to understand this issue. Immigration quotas, more liberal deportation criteria and highly restrictive naturalization requirements will likely be brought into play to prevent such over-running of host nations. D) An increasing sense of empowerment within Muslim factions consistently manifests in expanded illegal or contralegal activity. This lack of restraint is one of the most persistent shortcomings of Islamic radicals. Such overstepping of bounds (as seen in Scandinavia) will sow the seeds for mass expulsions and deportations. E) This horrific scenario becomes increasingly more probable as radicals like Ahmadinejad continue to provoke even the most sedentary opponents (i.e., Europe). Quite possibly, even a single nuclear terrorist attack could trigger a Muslim holocaust. The genocidal nature of radical Islam literally guarantees this final and most gruesome alternative. So, NS, do you have any observations to contribute or does heavy lifting give you hives? I'm certainly interested in your take, .com. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-01-13 19:12 |
| #15 Been there, said that, Nimble. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-01-13 18:16 |
| #14 Worst of all, America absolutely cannot permit Europe to surrender to the Islamists. How about if they convert? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-01-13 17:49 |
| #13 Isn't it interesting how history repeats itself? Thank you, 2b. One of my closing points is that WMDs have changed the political landscape in ways that Europe simply seems unwilling or unable to comprehend. In reality, history is not repeating itself. While previous arms build-ups were solved by large-scale conflicts, this sort of conflict resolution no longer applies in an age of WMDs. One single nuclear assault can do so much harm that even vanquishing the aggressor does no good to repair the devastating damage done. Allowing inevitable conflict to occur no longer acts as a pressure vent valve. We have migrated into an age of pre-emption. Countries that do not have the foresight or contingency planning to understand and act against the threat of rogue regimes and nuclear proliferation will be laid to waste. Europe is so blinded by its own presumed diplomatic brilliance that it cannot see what awaits at the end of this blind alley they are navigating. Each year draws these procrastinating nations into a decision-tree whose branches decrease exponentially. The alternatives slam shut with alarmingly greater frequency as one progresses down this futile avenue of negotiation from a position of increasing weakness. Europe simply does not comprehend this and it will be their doom. Societal disruption, car-b-ques, skyrocketing rape statistics, terrorist atrocities all provide ominous portents of what is soon to come. Still, none of this is taken seriously because last century's negotiating strategies have yet to be exhausted. Iran has ZERO interest in pursuing negotiating strategies, save towards the end of being a delaying tactic. Europe refuses to admit this, as it would invalidate its precious self-image. Ergo, we have the gruesome spectacle of a continent willingly bending its neck to the sword. Worst of all, America absolutely cannot permit Europe to surrender to the Islamists. The existing nuclear arsenals alone prohibit this. The economic imbalances and potential for crimes against humanity also preclude it as well. Should we be forced, FOR A THIRD TIME, to rescue Europe from itself, I will advocate restoring it as a protectorate of America without any say in its government until pervasive democracy is put in place. At some point the insanity has to end. Ahmadinejad has provided a plethora of reasons why it is Iran's aspirations that must be vanquished. Just because Europe cannot realize this is no reason to restrain ourselves from halting a disaster in progress. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-01-13 17:25 |
| #12 Never wish for war. That said, this sounds like a real "don't make us come over there!" moment. |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-01-13 17:17 |
| #11 good post, Zenster. Isn't it interesting how history repeats itself? Russia assists the buildup of an enemy, that even a blind sheik can see they will eventually need to face (must be that ridiculous "give your an enemy a knife so he won't get a gun" philosophy that someone shared with us previously). Europe talks of appeasement and dithers, wasting the opportunity act in a position of power. Africa is used to flank the greater powers. etc. Americans offer asstance, but then someone strikes at our homeland for assisting our allies. Then we get mad and round up a posse and hunt them down and hang em' high until Main Street is peaceful once again. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-01-13 13:31 |
| #10 just how the hell can the worlds suppossedly smartest goverments not see this for what it is???? Shep, a large part of it is simply, MONEY. Much of Europe continues to sell commodities and technology to Iran. Given America's prohibition of exporting to this oil-rich nation, it leaves a mountain of petro-dollars to be spent elsewhere. To date, Europe has rarely shown any compunctions with respect to taking up slack with pestilential regimes like Saddam's. I refer you to the Oil for Palaces scandal for a solid object lesson. Similarly, Russia and China are so dependent upon Iran for the hard currency (or oil) they crave that, they too, think nothing of sacrificing regional (if not global) security for the sake of the BILLIONS that flow into their coffers. While China may be, to an extent, more immune to the burgeoning terrorist threat, Russia is most certainly NOT (see Beslan). Yet, both of these countries' economys are so pressed for hard cash that they cheerfully overlook the destabilizing ramifications of Iran's nuclear aspirations. Europe is pretty much the same story. They are also blinded by their own self-acclaimed prowess at "nuanced negotiation" which, as you have clearly noticed, is worth squat. Still, between the hard cash and their overweening desire to play a superpower role in Finally, the prolonged dithering has shown itself for the intensely damaging diplomatic boodoggle that it really is. As always, WMDs have changed the political landscape forever. The old price of temporary military buildups, to be cured by subsequent conflicts, no longer applies. While the Europeans still rely upon this outmoded model of conflict resolution, rogue nations like Iran go about assembling a nuclear arsenal that will pose an incredible threat to the entire region. This fazes the Europeans not a whit because their own political models do not even predict the sort of mayhem that Iran promises to bring to the table. The cash continues to flow and everyone remains fat and happy until the warheads begin to rain down. This has been Europe's old model and not much seems to have changed except for how dire the consequences of their inaction are. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-01-13 13:07 |
| #9 With all of the stories swirling lately about potential strikes against Iran, I think the fog of pre-war (speculation, disinformation, ignorance, wishful thinking) is often worse than the fog of actual war. As formidably ignorant of military logistics as I am, I certainly can't cut through it. I just trust that the people who can actually do something about Iran are doing their homework and won't be taken in by international or domestic political considerations. |
| Posted by: Xbalanke 2006-01-13 13:02 |
| #8 Security comes from having ones offenses prepared. Confidence comes from also having your defenses prepared. Since Iran can only attack with missiles and aircraft, if Israel can defeat those, the *worst* that could happen for them is a stalemate. And since they *can* inflict serious damage on Iran, even if they can't completely obliterate their nuclear program, they still win. Remember that all they are trying to do is "setback" the nuclear program by a year or two--not an impossible goal to meet. So, bet on Israel to win. Iran's goals, and their strategy to meet those goals, are far more difficult. To the point where several plans *must* work, or they lose. This is an invitation to defeat. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-01-13 11:18 |
| #7 Olmert may be even more likely to do it, to prove his cojones for the coming elections... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-01-13 10:20 |
| #6 Gen. Dan Halutz, Israel's chief of staff and former air force commander, intentionally selected to be the first chief of staff to come from the air force, last week said there are several military means to deal with the problem. Although his statement was somewhat vague, Halutz is known for his verbal restraint. Sources say he is certain the Israeli military machine would be as effective against the Iranian project as it was in 1981 against the Iraqi Ossiraq nuclear site. He speaks softly, but carries a big stick. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2006-01-13 09:52 |
| #5 good catch Jackal Bring it ON! DITTOS |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2006-01-13 09:38 |
| #4 Eventually, after all is said and done, I again foresee a Middle East Common Market, with Turkey and Iraq as its anchor states. As ridiculous as it sounds now, Israel could also be part of this economic confederation. As more and more countries in the region become true and stable democracies, the advantages of joining such an organization become irresistable. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-01-13 09:25 |
| #3 Let's roll ! |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-01-13 09:22 |
| #2 my faith in this issue being resolved peacefully is still almost nothing, the EU three as they call themselves have been absolutly blagged by Iran on this nuclear problem and havn't got a chance of getting anywhere with the mad Mullahs in terms of sorting this out. Its very disturbing that even someone such as myself with zero qualifications and no job can figure out that Iran have been blagging the world all along and have no intention of cooperating with the rest of the world on this issue, just how the hell can the worlds suppossedly smartest goverments not see this for what it is???? Incomptetance on a level and scale far beyond what was seen during the pre World War Two days when it comes to dealing with this problem. Every single lesson that should have been learnt by the Euros after World War Two has been completely and utterly trashed. I see no peacefull outcome to this thanks to this bumbling incompitance/appeasement by the world and i just hope that Israel has the courage to go through with an attack regardless of what the 'UN' or 'EU' say should be done. Time is running out rapidly, i personally can't beleive how fast the last few years watching this has past and while the T.V camera's and 'journalists' along with alot rantburgers have been transfixed on Iraq the real big challenge is only just coming to the attention of the worlds media and its mainstream viewers. The media war is in my opinion already lost thanks to the medias stunningly bad and unfair portrait of the Iraq war and thier general fawning for dictators/nut job leaders. where does that leave us then? well i think Israel will do it with overflight rights from turky and the unoffically Iraq with US permission and support, possibly operating out of forward operating bases hastily set up in the deserts and unpopulated Iraqi regions for several days to increase the tempo of operations, US eagles could secure Irqi airspace im sure from any Iranian air intruders,Israeli subs may also provide a fair few large warheads to add to the attack, perhaps hitting Iranian targets in the furthest of place,i've no idea what the missile resupply rate for the subs are but im sure they wouldnt be a one shot asset. Maybe throw in some specforces stuff on the ground front and in several days maybe a week Irans program can be put back several years if not a decade,if they retalitate then hit their Oil industry hard in a few key places and knock out all thier power too,ah while your at it kill off the goverment too. Just how far do Israel need to escalate this, to the point of wiping out the whole of Irans military or just a campaign against the nuclear facilities? that is now my biggest question. |
| Posted by: Shep UK 2006-01-13 09:16 |
| #1 North American Turkmenistan Organization (NATO). Bring it ON! |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-01-13 08:48 |