Israeli President Shimon Peres has stated in an interview for La Figaro, according to a Jerusalem Post article, that Israel would use all available "non-military" options should sanctions fail to convince the Iranians to halt their nuclear program.
One wonders what those other ‘non-military’ options could be. The article goes on to note: “When asked if Israel would on its own to prevent Iran from going nuclear, the president responded with an emphatic, ‘not a chance’.”
Now, Shimon is a crafty politician who has been around for years and one needs to carefully analyse the language and words that he carefully and selectively uses. Look at the second part of the quote first. It’s pretty straight forward. He’s not saying that there is a ‘fat chance’ of Israel ‘preventing Iran from going nuclear’; he’s merely saying they wouldn’t do it on their own. So, if they won’t do it on their own, who else is there?
There are no prizes for guessing.
What then are these mysterious ‘non-military’ options that he is talking about? That’s a bit harder, but demonisation via the use of fear, lies and propaganda springs to mind and Peres wastes no time in making good use of these non-‘military options’ in the interview with La Figaro as he goes on to say: "We are talking about a world problem. It is a fact that Iran possesses long-range missiles, which make it not just a problem for Israel."
So what if Iran has long-range missiles? So does Israel’s ally the US. Israel also has a small submarine fleet that is missile-capable. Iran is quite entitled to have long range missiles. Why is that any more of a problem for the world than anyone else’s long range missiles?
The reality is; Peres’ statement says more about his own self-righteousness than what he would like the world to believe is Iran’s intentions. Peres is inferring that Iran has some kind of death wish whereby it’s prepared to sacrifice itself as a nation in order to destroy Israel. This, of course, is pure nonsense. One should not be in too much of a hurry to forget that Israel has the ultimate weapon, the very same kind of weapon that it is accusing Iran of trying to obtain.
The Jerusalem Post article goes on to say: ‘Peres also accused Iran of trying to increase its influence in the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq’. It would seem that its OK for Israel to have influence over its ally, the US, to the point where the US will supply arms and weapons to the Israelis as they try to wield their influence in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, a country they occupied for years, but it’s not OK for the Gazans, the Lebanese and the Syrians to seek an alliance with Iran.
It is this, of course, that is at the core of Israel’s propaganda and rhetoric; an Iran governed by a regime that is supportive of the Palestinian cause is an anathema to Israeli ambitions for a Greater Israel that ultimately includes the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, south Lebanon, the Shebaa Farms and the Golan Heights.
The world should bear in mind that it is the US that is on dirt that does not belong to them in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is Israel that is on dirt that does not belong to them in the West Bank. It is Israelis that continually raid dirt that does not belong to them in the Gaza. It is Israel that is on dirt that does not belong to them in the Golan Heights and the Shebaa Farms. It is Israel that has twice attacked south Lebanon.
And it is Israel and the US and their warmongering neoconservative supporters that are itching to attack Iran – not the other war around.
AUSTRALIANS AT WAR
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment