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.

Monday, September 21, 2009


One needs to ask; why are Israel and the US insisting that Iran has a nuclear weapons program when neither can provide any evidence whatsoever that it does? And, even if Iran did have a nuclear weapons program, why are Israel and the US so fearful of it?

If Iran, indeed, did have a nuclear weapons program, it would only be able to produce two to three warheads. While two or three, or even just one warhead would be enough to destroy Israel, one would need to ask; why would Iran risk such a move considering that, even if it succeeded in destroying Israel, Iran itself would be destroyed within hours, or possibly even minutes, in retaliation by the US. Furthermore, an Iranian nuclear attack against Israel would not just affect Israel disastrously, but would almost certainly cause considerable and lasting damage to the Palestinians in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and Israeli Arabs and also possibly Syria and Lebanon, all of who are Iran’s allies.

Part of Israel’s, and to a lesser extent, America’s, rhetoric opposing a nuclear armed Iran is that Iran is a state that is prepared to accept the risk of annihilation of itself if it is for what they consider to be the greater good. This, however, remains only rhetoric since there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Iran, its people, its theocratic leaders or its political leaders, would be prepared to risk annihilation over Israel. Yet, despite this, Israel continues to vocally claim that Iran is an ‘existential threat to Israel’.

The ‘existential threat’ claim is based on the Israeli claim, a false claim that has been exposed and noted elsewhere, that Iran’s President has threatened to ‘wipe Israel of the map’. This rhetoric continues to be perpetuated despite having been totally discredited by scholars.[1] It continues, nonetheless, to have a hold on the public at large in the West who are not inclined to pursue or even be aware of any scholarly rebuttals and refutations preferring instead to continue to accept with little debate or question the Western mainstream media’s deliberate perpetuation of the ‘wipe Israel off the map’ meme.

If then Israel and the US are aware of the fact that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, yet persist in continuing with the rhetoric and propaganda that it has, then one needs to ask why are Israel and the US going to such lengths to convince the world that Iran does have a nuclear weapons program. One also needs to ask; do Israel and the US really believe that Iran is willing to destroy itself in order to destroy Israel? Furthermore, one should also need to ask; why would Iran be prepared to go to such lengths.

It has been claimed that Iranian leaders have alluded to self-annihilation or, at least, care little about self-preservation.[2] This assumption is based almost entirely on the words of Ayatollah Khomeini who told his audience in a speech in Qom in 1980 shortly after the American hostage taking incident: “We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.”[3] While it is true that historically Iran has been prepared to make significant sacrifices in times of war, it has only done so in pursuit of victory rather than in the face of certain defeat. During its long war with Iraq through the 1980s, Iran sacrificed thousands of her young who died clearing minefields in preparation for advances on their enemy.[4] However, sacrificing an entire nation, one of the world’s oldest civilisations, in order to bring justice to Palestinians and Arabs in and around Israel, one of the world’s youngest nations, would not possibly be in Iran’s interests.

So, given that Iran is unlikely to attack Israel even if Iran did have a nuclear weapon, and considering, furthermore, that Israel actually does have many nuclear weapons, why are Israel and their neoconservative supporters in the US and elsewhere so intent and persistent in this rhetoric of Iran being an ‘existential threat’ to Israel?

The answer lies in Zionism’s long term objectives of creating a Greater Israel. The main forces that stand between the Zionists and their objectives are Hezbollah in Lebanon who have defended their country against attack from the Israelis on several different occasions, and Hamas who have struggled to defend and regain the Palestinian lands that have been taken from them by the Israelis. Both of these Arab and Palestinian entities are supported by Iran via Syria. Without Iran’s support, both Hezbollah and Hamas would not be able to sustain their resistance to Israel’s aggression and ultimate aims.

However, Israel is not able to simply attack Iran; world opinion simply would not support such a blatant act of aggression. In the past, whenever Israel has decided to launch an attack against its enemies, Israel has always managed to find a casus belli that Western governments have been able to accept. The Israelis have always been able to manipulate events in such a way as to allow the world to believe that Israel is the victim rather than the aggressor. With the careful use of propaganda distorting the true nature of events coupled with outright lies and the occasional false flag or ‘psychological’ operation, Israel has been able to control the Western mainstream medias presentation of news via its influence on the owners of the mainstream media so that it favours Israel.

The only way that Israel can effectively and permanently cut Iran’s influence on Hezbollah and Hamas is for Israel to bring about regime change in Iran. In order to bring about regime change one of two things need to happen; either the country needs to be invaded and its government toppled, as happened in Iraq, or the government toppled by internal forces. Since it would be logistically impossible for Iran to be invaded as Iraq was, the only alternative is to have the government toppled by other means.

Iran is a country almost four times the area of Iraq and has 2.3 times as many people as Iraq. The US and their Western allies are hard pushed to contain Iraq properly even today and could therefore not possibly invade and then contain Iran. The US and their Western allies are also very much committed in Afghanistan as well. Recent elections in Iran showed that, despite the upheavals of the disputed elections, the present regime remains safely in power. The upheavals also demonstrated that, while there is internal disagreement and squabbling over domestic and economic issues, the people of Iran are still overwhelmingly loyal to the theocratic state and, more importantly, fully supportive of Iran’s nuclear power generation program.

The US and Israel have only one option left and that is to attack Iran’s military and government institutions with such force that the government capitulates and bows to the demands of the US via the UN – demands that would include ‘regime change’. In order to make such an attack the Israelis and the US will require a casus belli that would be supported by public opinion. Iran’s so-called nuclear weapons program, it is hoped, will be that casus belli.

An alternative casus belli could be that evidence, manufactured or otherwise, shows that Iran is substantially supporting Hamas and/or Hezbollah to a level that is a threat to Israel. Since it is now virtually impossible for the US to unilaterally launch an attack against Iran, particularly after the IAEA and their own NIEs have not been able to show that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, it is now left to Israel to launch a unilateral attack that must not be seen to involve the US which the US can then join on the basis that a fait accompli has been established and the US has no alternative to but to come the aid of its ally, Israel.

Since such a scenario could not be realised without a trigger casus belli such as a war with either Hamas and/or Hezbollah in which it can be shown that Iran is involved, Israel will first need to find some reason to launch an attack against one or the other or both. Israel’s well proven ability to covertly provoke its enemies suggests that this scenario has been attempted before when in 2006 Israel launched attacks against both Hamas and Hezbollah on the pretext that these groups had first captured Israeli soldiers which became Israel’s casus belli, when in fact, as has been shown, it was Israel that provoked the captures in the first place that ultimately led to these one-sided wars, and then again in 2008/2009 when Israel wrongly accused Hamas of breaking a ceasefire which was used as an excuse to massively and indiscriminately bomb and kill Gazans in an effort to enrage Hezbollah and Iran into reaction and thus provide a casus belli for Israel to launch an attack against Iran. Such a massive escalation would, in the turmoil that followed, provide an opportunity for Israel to invade and permanently occupy both south Lebanon and the Gaza Strip and also the West Bank while the US completed the military strike against Iran to effect regime change.

Regime change in Iran is also very much in America’s interest as well. Iran is strategically well placed to cause havoc to the Middle East oil trade. It is also able to support insurgent militias in both Iraq to Iran’s west and Afghanistan to Iran’s east.

So far in Israel’s various attempts to provoke Iran into a confrontation, Iran has resisted, but Israel and the US still seem determined as they continue to accuse Iran of having a ‘nuclear weapons program’. As Paul Craig Roberts observes, propaganda persistence seems to be an established method these days of preparing public opinion for an inevitable event.[5]

As part of the ongoing rhetoric to provoke conflict, it has been reported that Israel will hold military exercises that simulate a response to a simultaneous missile attack from Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran.[6] Despite the fact that the reported exercises are to be joint exercises with the US, there are currently some attempts to put some distance between Israel’s aggressive rhetoric and the expectation that the US will simply allow Israel to attack Iran. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter, has even suggested the US forces should forcibly prevent the Israeli Air Force from reaching Iran to bomb Iran’s facilities.[7] The simple reality is that Israel could not possibly launch any kind of an attack against Iran without the connivance of the US. It would be impossible for Israel to launch any truly unilateral attack against Iran. Israel needs US military jet fuel and it needs US ordnance to conduct such an operation. The US does not need to forcibly prevent Israel from attacking Iran; it simply needs to refuse to supply it.

The rhetoric is far removed from the geo-political reality. When Israel launches its attack against Iran, despite all the rhetoric and propaganda, the US will be backing it all the way. It will not be shooting down Israeli aircraft overflying Iraq because they will more than likely be overflying Saudi Arabia, and, once the initial attack has been launched, the US will launch massive follow-up attacks against Iranian defence installations and its government’s institutions claiming it needed to prevent Iranian retaliatory action against Israel.

It’s not a matter of ‘if’; it’s just a matter of ‘when’ and what will be Israel’s casus belli for the initial attack?


[1] Arash Norouzi, ‘’Wiped off the Map’ – The Rumor of the Century’,, 26 May 2007. Available online:
[2] Stephen J. Sniegoski, explaining Michael Ledeen’s view in; The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel. (Norfolk, Virginia: Enigma Editions, 2008.) p. 311.
[3] Cited in: Amir Taheri, Nest of Spies: America’s Journey to Disaster in Iran. (London: Hutchinson, 1988.) p. 269.
[4] Matthias K√ľntzel, ‘A Child of the Revolution Takes Over: Ahmadinejad’s Demons’, The New Republic, 24 April 2006. p. 16.
[5] Paul Craig Roberts, ‘Threatening Iran’,, 20 July 2009. Available online:
[6] ‘IDF, US military to simulate Iran missile strike on Israel’, Ha’aretz, 20 September 2009. Available online:
[7] ‘Brzezinski: US should forcibly prevent IAF strike on Iran’, Ha’aretz, 21 September 2009. Available online:


traducteur said...

Yes, Zionism is an ideology of mass theft and genocide, and yes, the Zionists are masters of public relations, and they own most of the Western mainstream media. But can we therefore conclude that they suffer from a death wish? Iran is not defenceless.

Bibi's Lunatic Fringe said...

I've spent many dozens of hours seeking evidence that Israel has a strategic nuclear arsenal. The evidence that it doesn't outweighs the flimsy evidence that it does by a considerable margin. Their own behaviour substantiates this conclusion.

o We are told (variously & by anonymous sources plus M Vanunu) that Zion has between 200 and 400 nuclear weapons.
o Israel does a lot of complaining about existential threats.
o 200 to 400 strategic Nukes would be sufficient to deter any of the major nuclear powers - if one had the means to deliver them at short notice.
o Israel doesn't want the IAEA poking its nose into its nuclear arsenal for the same reason the US doesn't; there aren't nearly as many nukes in the US arsenal as there should be - ie nukes that US taxpayers have paid for (Private Enterprise, kick-back culture etc etc). In America's case the shortfall doesn't impact deterrence. In Israel's case, 0 strategic nukes means 0 deterrence. Israel might have obtained tactical nukes but these have limited value as a deterrent ie if Iran was attacked, tactical nukes wouldn't deter, or halt, a counter-attack.
o It makes no sense at all to have an abundance of the ultimate deterrent and then render the facts ambiguous.
A secret deterrent?
I don't think so.
o My guess is that Israel has discovered the US N-scam (and imo a similar UK N-scam) and is using the info to extract favours.
o Whatever the facts, I'm quite confident that Israel doesn't possess a nuclear arsenal worth talking about. If it did it would have told everyone.

Apart from the foregoing, Israelis are notoriously spineless, as they have demonstrated on numerous occasions. Their 'boots on the ground' have been sent home in tears TWICE from Lebanon (by MEN with guts and guns) after killing women and children there. It's ludicrous to even imagine that they could win a conflict with Iran. America's conspicuously consuming military is VASTLY over-rated and is used primarily as a tool to milk taxpayers. Most of the money "spent" on its moronic wars winds up in the pockets of corporate US citizens 'close to the government' (with non combatant children and Swiss bank accounts).

Bibi's Lunatic Fringe said...

Barak has said that he doesn't regard an Iranian Nuke as an existential threat. (Via Helena Cobban)...

In a similar/related vein yesterday, after some US bluster about Israel attacking Iran, Medvedev came out and said that he had been personally assured by Israel that it would not attack Iran's nuclear facilities. That position reflects Putin's recent warning that an attack on Iran 'would not be a good idea'.

He didn't elaborate in any specific way but the Izzies would be aware that Bushir will be staffed by Russians - valuable Russians. In Georgia, last year, we saw the way Russia reacts when people kill Russians for no good reason. The Americans wouldn't dare intervene if Russia decided to physically rebuke the Parasite State for such a serious error of judgment. Thus Israel risks being Iraqified by Iran and Georgiafied by Russia.

I think people are taking the Iran bluster from Shrillary, AIPAC and other closet Zionists and neocons far too seriously. It's nothing more than a diversionary confection. And it's not devoid of amusing elements, either. Russia doesn't issue idle threats so it's amusing that Putin-Medvedev are so uncertain of Israel's insanity quotient that they deem it necessary to point out the bleeding obvious to them - just in case they really are as recklessly myopic as they appear to be.

Anonymous said...

Once aspect this analysis has overlooked, what will 1 billion of Arabs respond? This is the de factor to hold Israel and her attacking dog_ USI_ from attacking Iran. Iran has the supports of more than 1 billion Arabs. Furthermore, there are few billions Asians who will sympathize to Iranians once Israelis start killing Iranians directly or indirectly.

The whole world has known Israel's killing plans.

It's not what Iran can do to Israel that has hold off Israel's attacks on Iran. It's the asymetric responses from Iran and Iran-sympathisers. Israelis have known about this, and they are not going to commit suicide.

Bibi's Lunatic Fringe said...

To put a clearer perspective on my previous comment, here is a transcript of a Sept 15 CNN interview with Dmitri Medvedev.
It is long and covers a lot of ground.

An item of particular interest is Zakaria's 9th question and DM's reponse:

FAREED ZAKARIA: If Israel were to attack Iran, would Russia support Iran in such a conflict?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Russia can not support anybody or act in such situation. We are a peaceful state and we have our own understanding of our defense strategy. This is the first point.

The second point. We have our allies with which we have concluded one or other agreements. In case of Iran we do not have obligations of this kind. But it does not mean that we would like to be or will be impassible before such developments. This is the worst thing that can be imagined. I have already commented on this issue. Let us try together to reason upon it. What will happen after that? Humanitarian disaster, a vast number of refugees, Iran’s wish to take revenge and not only upon Israel, to be honest, but upon other countries as well. And absolutely unpredictable development of the situation in the region. I believe that the magnitude of this disaster can be weighted against almost nothing. For this reason before making decision to deliver blows it is necessary to assess the situation. It would be the most unreasonable developments. But my Israeli colleagues told me that they were not planning to act in this way and I trust them.

I could be wrong but, to me, what he is saying is that Russia has no plan, treaty, or obligation, to defend Iran if it is attacked; BUT no such plan is necessary because Israel has PROMISED him that it won't attack Iran and he TRUSTS them to keep that promise. The clear implication is that if Israel changes its mind, and breaks its promise, then Russia would be obliged to "adjust" its policy based on this new reality.
Interpreted through the lense of his earlier remark But it does not mean that we would like to be or will be impassible before such developments
that is a thinly veiled threat which only a fool would fail to take seriously.