THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY is a compelling factual history of neoconservatism and its influence on US Foreign Policy in the Middle East during the first decade of the twenty-first century. Click on image above for details.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006


A US pre-emptive attack on Iran is out of the question now, but will Israel start war on its own hoping that the US will support them once war is underway?

The signals coming out of Israel over the last few days with regard to it’s position on Iran have become clear and almost explicit – Israel is gearing up to make a pre-emptive attack against Iran, and possibly Syria.

The recent demise of Republican power in Congress after the mid-term elections and the recommendations of the influential Iraq Study Group[1] under the co-chair of James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton about having both Iran and Syria involved in negotiations to find a resolution to the turmoil in Iraq, has all but ruled out the US being involved in any pre-emptive attack against Iran. However, it would not preclude US involvement if the Israelis were to instigate an attack to which Iran retaliates with an attack on both Israeli and US interests in the Gulf or if Israel asks for US assistance if, say, Iran attacked the Israeli homeland with missiles.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the press on board his jet as he was on his way to the US that “…Iran must understand that if they do not accept the request of the international community, they’re going to pay dearly.” An Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mohammad Ali Hosseini, is reported to have responded: “If Israel takes such a stupid step and attacks, the answer of Iran and its Revolutionary Guard will be rapid, firm and destructive and it will be given in a few seconds.”[2] Such a ‘rapid, firm and destructive’ response would undoubtedly draw the US into the conflict.

On Monday, 13 November, Olmert met with Bush for 50 minutes of private talk as well as other talks with their senior staff present. Bush spouted his usual rhetoric after the talks saying that Iran should ‘give up its nuclear ambitions’, that the ‘world should unite with one common voice’ and that Iran should be ‘isolated if it does not respond’ and that there would be ‘economic isolation’. But, while Bush fell short of threatening to take military steps to stop Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, Olmert was less conciliatory saying: “ Iran needs to understand that there will be consequences for not agreeing to a compromise”, adding ominously that: “I can’t say what the consequences will be…”[3] Olmert went on to say that he was willing to give the idea of talks between Iran and the US on the subject of uranium enrichment a go but, since Iran is unlikely to give up its enrichment program, Israel will not be holding its breath on the outcome of such talks.

In other indicators of Israel’s impatience to bring on the final confrontation with Iran, Tzipi Livni, Israel’s Foreign Minister, also visiting the US, told an audience of the United Jewish Communities General Assembly in Los Angeles that Iran was less than two years away from reaching what she termed the ‘point of no return’, a point, she said, where Iran did not actually have nuclear weapons but where Iran no longer needed outside help in order to produce a nuclear weapon. She added, however, “Iran denies the Holocaust and seeks the weapons to perpetrate one. If the promise of ‘Never Again’ supersedes the price of oil then the time for international indifference and hesitation in the face of the Iranian threat has long passed.”[4]

The Israeli military is also making noises about being prepared for ‘full-scale war’ against both Iran and Syria. An Israeli military official has said that: “The challenge from Iran and Syria is now top of the Israeli defense agenda, higher than the Palestinian one.”[5]

It is now all but impossible for Bush to be part of a pre-emptive attack on Iran, but the changed circumstances in the US now leaves Israel, knowing the US are no longer able to act, free to take matters in to their own hands.

If Olmert and Livni have received the assurances they need from Bush that, if push comes to shove the US will come to the Israelis aid once they have got their war underway, then one need ask not so much ‘if’ Israel will attack Iran but ‘when’.

[1] ‘Iraq Study Group’, United States Institute of Peace, November 2006. Available online: Accessed 14 November 2006.
[2] Aluf Benn, ‘Olmert hints at possible military action against Iran”, Ha’aretz, 13 November 2006. No longer available online. Hard copy accessed 13 November 2006.
[3] Herb Keinon, ‘Bush: Nuclear Iran ‘very destabilizing’’, Jerusalem Post, 13 November 2006. Available online: Accessed 14 November 2006.
[4] Amir Mizroch, ‘Livni to ‘Post’: Iran nearing the point of no return’’, Jerusalem Post, 13 November 2006. Available online: Accessed 14 November 2006.
[5] ‘Israel must prepare for full-scale war’, Jerusalem Post, 12 November 2006. Available online: Accessed 13 November 2006.


Bob Coker said...

I completely agree with your view. There is a Biblical reference in Isaiah to the Israeli destruction of Damascus (never happenened yet) in chapter 21. Also, there is another reference to Israel controlling all territory from Nile to Euphrates. It is obvious that Israel cannot tolerate a Shi'ite state flanking Syria. This would allow arms to flow freely to Hezbollah and threaten Israel security, not to mention nuclear threat. Israel must guard it's flank and will destroy Damascus, garrison the lower 2/3 of Syria and roll to the Euphrates.

Bob Coker said...

Thats Isaiah 17.

Paul Findley said...

Someone rid me of these bothersome Zionists...

I wouldn't surprised if they have another diabolical aspect to their plan.

They hit Iran and Iran responds with a volley of missiles at Tel Aviv.

Israel then finds a way to destroy the dome of the rock. They can claim it was hit by an errant missile knocked off course by the Arrow system.

The way is then clear for these fanatics to rebuild their temple.

dingo said...

Superb commentary, Mr. Lataan. The Republican debacle in the election coupled to the sacrifice of Rummy by the Dummy means that Iran has been shoved to the back burner—at least for the moment. There was a moment of relief when it seemed the Neo-Cons and the deranged Commander in Chief would have to back down from starting yet another war.

However, the Israelis immediately turned up the rhetoric on attacking Iran themselves, and it appears all too obvious that they are obsessed with launching another war. Of course, the key will be for them to drag the U.S into it if they get in over their heads.

Many years ago I was very sympathetic to Israel because of what the Jews had suffered in Europe, and because of the social idealism, intelligence, and vision of many of the early Zionists. But now when I look at Israeli politicians, I see a gang of ruthless fanatics willing to kill any number of other people to accomplish their plans for lebensraum and total domination of the region.

It is as though they themselves are now channeling Hitler’s ghost

Don Robertson said...

Of course they have plans to bomb Iran back into the stone age, contingency plans are made up to bomb the whole world back into the stone age. That's what they do in Washington, they draw up plans that usually don't get carried out.

It's like Nixon's enemies' list everyone was so anxious about whether or not their name would be so exclusively listed.

So, does that mean they're going to roll the dice and do it?

The stakes are too high. Only a fool...

Wait a second! I'm getting a deja vu all over again.

Don Robertson, The American Philosopher
Limestone, Maine

An Illustrated Philosophy Primer for Young Readers
Precious Life - Empirical Knowledge
The Grand Unifying Theory & The Theory of Time

Anonymous said...

This article is correct, Iran is the real focus. Iraq is a diversion. As the army attacks Iraq, the US gov't erodes rights at home by suspending habeas corpus, stealing private lands, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, rigging elections, conducting warrantless wiretaps and starting 2 illegal wars based on lies. Soon, another US false-flag operation will occur (sinking of an Aircraft Carrier) and the US will invade Iran, (on behalf of Israel).
Final link (before Google Books bends to gov't demands and censors the title):
America Deceived (book)

ordinary said...

I have a question for the supposed christian-zionist. You claim to know the phrophesies and how Christ is coming to Jerusalem to free the city of the oppressors and you want to expedite what beloved Israel does in order to hasten the coming of christ. I want to know when it is obvious you have sided with evil to speed up the second coming who is going to save you "mini-me"s ?

Anonymous said...

Dont forget about another terroist attack. If a WMD is detonated on us/uk/european/israeli territory, the situation changes - ie marital law etc. This allows 'presidents' or 'prime ministers' (I use those terms only for reference, i preffer 'lying cheating criminals and fraudsters') to circumvent restrictions on acts of military agression.

Tazmanian said...

Dingo, How right you are, I too had some sympathy for what the Jews suffered at the hands of the Germans. However, that sentiment has long since evaporated after witnessing their morphing into the Zionazis we see on our tv screens everyday whilst they blithely murder Palestinians hand over fist.

Anonymous said...

Believe if Israel attacks Iran it would be a disaster and possibly the beginning of WWIII. Iran has stated it wants Nuclear power and opposes weapons. I can understand Iran's point if it wants Nuclear warheads to counter balance against Israel a country that is racist, has stolen much private land from the Palestinians and still occupies land that belongs to Syria. The only way Israel can defeat Iran is by having full US support and it will never gain full support of the American public because of what has become unknown about the destruction of Lebanon and the West Bank. Israel will say anything demeaning about the Palestinians and the Arabs. When the public official was recently killed, fingers were pointed at Syria once again. There is no proof of that, but it is possible that Israel may have been the culprit behind it.