Israel’s recently approved order of 1000 GBU-39 bunker buster bombs has put the prospect of an attack against Iran firmly back on the front burner after having been shoved to the back while the Georgia affair and the current financial meltdown in the US dominated the news.
While no one can be really sure of what’s going on behind the scenes in the US and Israel, it certainly seems as though there is a convergence of circumstances that indicate that there are some moves afoot for the US and/or Israel (more likely ‘and’ rather than ‘or’) to strike not just Iran militarily, but also Hizbollah in Lebanon, Syria and possibly Hamas in the Gaza as well.
The GBU-39, while comparatively not a particularly big bomb carrying only some 23 kgs of high explosive, is, nonetheless, a very sophisticated weapon. Launched from height the bomb is capable of gliding to its target which, if the launch height is high enough and the weather conditions are right, can be up to 100 kms away. It is guided to its target via a GPS assisted inertial navigation system and is said to be accurate to within 8 meters. It can also penetrate reinforced concrete up to 1.8 meters thick. A thousand of these bombs will do a lot of damage, especially when used in conjunction with Israel’s other munitions and ordnance arsenal.
Apart from the order for these bombs there are other factors that tend to indicate that something is in the offing – not least of which is senior retired ultra neocon warmonger David Wurmser’s ’assurances’, published today in the ‘Jerusalem Post’, that Bush will not attack Iran before his term finishes in January. Considering Wurmser’s involvement in the weaving of the web of lies that led to the invasion of Iraq one can easily understand why Wurmser’s words should be treated with extreme scepticism; there is nothing like trying to lull your enemy into a false sense of security.
It also seems that there is a lot of wheeling and dealing going on behind the political scenes in Israel itself with the right-wing Zionists jockeying for position in a post-Olmert Israel. Regardless of who gets the thumbs up for the Kadima leadership, it seems that Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu together with the ultra right Shas party are scheming to snatch government away from Kadima to form a new rightwing coalition to be initially headed up by Netanyahu.
Netanyahu is one of the regions most dangerous politicians and is unlikely to hesitate to attack Iran and any of Israel’s other enemies given any opportunity – especially if he becomes Prime Minister. Netanyahu is also a great friend of vice-president Dick Cheney who is also known to want to bomb Iran and take on Israel’s other enemies. But, even if either Tzipi Livni or Shaul Mofaz of Kadima are able to maintain a coalition government, the likelihood of an attack against Iran is will be increased as both these leaders are known to be less hesitant than Olmert was. Furthermore, once the change has been made, regardless of who it is, the so-called ‘peace process’ with Abbas of Palestine will, for whatever it has been worth, end as none of the alternative potential Prime Ministers are interested in continuing with negotiations.
The Israeli hawks are coming to power and the bombs are virtually ‘off the shelf’ and ready to use. Russia will not support further sanctions against Iran (much to the relief of some rightwing Zionists who now see no point in delaying an attack against Iran; which, in turn, makes one wonder what the Georgia thing was all about in the first place), and, of course, time is simply running out. There’s unlikely to be an attack against Iran with Obama in the White House so the big question now is; can they take the risk of waiting to see if McCain gets up?
Unfortunately for Iran, the Middle East, Americans and the entire world, the warmongers seem to have everything aligned and in place to ensure that the world in the very near future will not be a better place because of them.
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.
1 comment:
Theres an arms export law in the US that says weapons bought from US cant be used in external wars by the countries that purchase them..... this was first reported on after the War against Lebanon:
'Israel Violates US Law With Attack on Lebanon
by Thalif Deen
Israel is in violation of U.S. arms-control laws for deploying U.S.-made fighter planes, combat helicopters, and missiles to kill civilians and destroy Lebanon's infrastructure in the ongoing six-day devastation of that militarily weak country.
The death toll, according to published reports, is over 200 people – mostly civilians – while the economic losses have been estimated at about $100 million per day.
"Section 4 of the [U.S.] Arms Export Control Act requires that military items transferred to foreign governments by the United States be used solely for internal security and legitimate self-defense," says Stephen Zunes, professor of politics at the University of San Francisco.
"Since Israeli attacks against Lebanon's civilian infrastructure and population centers clearly go beyond legitimate self-defense, the United States is legally obliged to suspend arms transfers to Israel," Zunes told IPS.
Frida Berrigan, a senior research associate with the Arms Trade Resource Center at the World Policy Institute in New York, is equally outraged at the misuse by Israel of U.S.-supplied weapons.
"As Israel jets bombard locations in Gaza, Haifa, and Beirut, killing civilians (including as many as seven Canadians vacationing in Aitaroun), it is worth remembering that U.S. law is clear about how U.S.-origin weapons and military systems ought to be used," Berrigan told IPS.
She pointed out that the U.S. Arms Export Control Act clear states that U.S. origin weapons should not be used for "non-defensive purposes."
"In light of this clear statement, the United States has an opportunity to stave off further bloodshed and suffering by demanding that its weaponry and military aid not be used in attacks against Lebanon and elsewhere, and challenging Israeli assertions that it is using military force defensively," she added. '
etc
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/deen.php?articleid=9325
Brian
Post a Comment