Truthful Lies
There is little doubt that much of what is said by Israeli and American sources on Iran is misinformation, a repetition of the Dodgy Dossier and the Weapons of Mass Destruction lies that led to the Iraq War in 2003. Iran poses a singular problem to Israel and America, a problem which is not related to the strength of explosive charges.
The Islamic Republic of Iran never attacked any other country. Unlike America, (see American Led Apocalypse) they do not base their wealth on the Business of War
. The eighteenth largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity (PPP) is based on mining, manufacturing, and agriculture, with 45% of the Iranian government’s budget coming from oil and natural gas revenues. In order to keep its profitable oil business going, Iran needs peace. Thus, it is unlikely to attack any other country in the future. Yet, American and Israeli journalists keep claiming otherwise in increasingly hysterical tones. Needless to say, these two economies are based almost solely on the Business of War.
Iranian Missiles | Israeli Defense Ministry Acknowledged Defeat
These attacks on Iran are done in such a wild fashion, that sometimes I have the feeling Western journalists are running amok randomly along and across a conceptual matrix covering the options being promoted by their political warlords. There is a large list of accusations against Iran, reports of clandestine western attacks on Iran, of Western spies in Iran, of assassination of nuclear scientists, of Iranian technological breakthroughs, and… just name it. On February 2010, I even reported on an American Weather Balloon aimed at finding out Iran’s plans regarding its nuclear fuel. Fear Creation and the Art of Make Believe are the names of the Western game. The Israeli angle may be a bit different, including a Wag the Dog element, in which the “tail” (Israel) is attempting to wag the “dog” (USA) into attacking Iran, as some say was done in the Iraq War.
These lies (or partial lies, we probably will never know) are aimed not only for internal consumption by the Western electorate, but also towards Iran. Some of them are a clear attempt to create fear among Iranian leaders in a desperate attempt to deter them from continuing the development of their society. This is odd. Why would the West care about a proven peaceful society? Is that for the compulsive need by Western, 1984-oriented societies in having an enemy? Is Iran the perfect enemy of the West because it is peaceful and thus can be safely provoked to death? Are the coward Western generals attacking because they know there would be no military attack in response? This claim is less ridiculous than it sounds at first; in Armageddon’s Trigger I showed an impressive–yet partial–list of Israeli failed casus belli provocations during 2011.
Interesting as it is, there is more to Western hatred toward Iran than its being a perfect enemy. The moral rhetoric of Iran is what scares the pagan West, not its weapons. If the Western electorate awakens from its long coma and understands the West is still basing itself on the pillage of others, revolution would follow.
The fall of the Western countries may take place after their citizens realize their governments are still responsible for worldwide evil. 500 years later, the Conquistadores are still here, their metal helmets having been replaced by hedge funds in the City. Hysterical to delay the end of this pleasant empire, Western media obscures the role of morals (they reduce it to sexual morals, and then dismiss the topic).
When was the last time you heard a Westerner official truly assessing “goodness?” American officials talk about the “financing of the war,” as a relevant parameter in the consideration of their next rape of humanity. That’s evil. Unknown to most Westerners, Iranians are invariably concerned about good and evil; this is addressed on official policy papers. They have their own and legitimate view on the topic, in sharp contrast to the pragmatic, golden calf-oriented West. Thus, the Iranian political discourse cannot be accepted by Washington and Tel Aviv. That discourse may melt their golden calf.
So, what are a few honest lies, if they lead to a shiny golden calf in Zurich’s underground vaults? After having clarifying that, let’s go to war.
 Lovis Corinth | Der geblendete Simson
|
Are White-Lies Honest-Lies?
Today, January 14, 2012, the Wall Street Journal succumbed to the War on Iran hysteria. It reported that American officials are becoming increasingly concerned that Israel will strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. According to the report, the US wants to give sanctions more time. The US army is reportedly preparing for a range of possible responses to an Israeli strike on Iran, including attacks by pro-Iranian Shiite militias against the American Embassy in Iraq.
The report also claims the US has moved a second aircraft carrier strike group to the Persian Gulf region and keeps 15,000 soldiers in Kuwait on stand-by and has accelerated arms transfers to American allies in the Persian Gulf region. President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta have sent a series of private messages to Israeli leaders warning them about the consequences of a strike on Iran.
This is impressive. I am sure there is no need to mention references here to the truly astounding number of reports describing the shape of the planned Israeli attack on Iran. For years now, one can find descriptions of stopovers of the Israeli Air Force in Georgia, and of its crossing of Turkish (not viable anymore) or Syrian airspace. I even found a report with pictures of Israeli Navy boats in Poti, Georgia, which were somehow related to this attack.
On June 2010, Israel leaked to the press that they had permission from Saudi Arabia to use their air space to attack Iran. This was immediately denied by the Saudis, who said it was an Israeli hoax to cover their real plans, to attack from the Republic of Georgia, which is closer to Iran’s northern border.
I brought this last example because it hits the main point. The only military logic behind the disclosing of these highly detailed plans is that they are all hoaxes. Georgia is as strong a hoax as Saudi Arabia was. By using a hoax to the hoax, Israel is trying to convince us that one of them is true. I don’t buy them.
Since 2009, I have been saying Israel won’t attack Iran nuclear sites, despite all the recurring reports claiming otherwise. Iranian nuclear facilities are too scattered, in a country which is too far and too large for Israel to target accurately, even with the help of American jet planes. Moreover, such an attack would lead to the subsequent blockade of the Straits of Hormuz by Iran, and a dramatic worldwide rise in fuel prices. Israel and the USA do not want that. The attack must be of a different nature.
I can sustain my assessment on public words uttered recently by senior IDF officers. Hints on Israel’s plans would become clear then. On October 28, 2011, I analyzed the situation in Israeli Defense Ministry Acknowledges Defeat. The article followed a comment on Israel’s incapability of defeating Iran in an interview given by Major General Amos Gilad, head of the Israeli Defense Ministry’s Diplomatic-Security Bureau. The surprising comment was made in a “Friday’s Cathedra” event in Ashkelon. It was later cited by Yedihot Ahahronot, the largest Hebrew newspaper. This couldn’t have been done without the silent support of the establishment.
Gilad said that Netanyahu was the first to hear about a prediction of the Israeli intelligence services that Iran has decided to pursue the path of missiles and nuclear technologies development. He added that Netanyahu sees that as a “great threat,” and that this view is shared by Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Apparently, both support an attack on Iran.
Yet, Nahum Barnea – a leading journalist of Yedihot Ahahronot – said on that Friday that the IDF Head of Staff Beni Gantz, Mossad Director Tamir Pardo, Head of Aman (IDF Military Intelligence Corps) Aviv Cochabi and the Head of Shin Beth Yoram Cohen – in other words, Israel’s leading generals – oppose an attack on Iran. In the past Meir Dagan – Pardo’s predecessor as Mossad Director – defined such an attack as a “foolish idea.”
Gilad made then a very clear allusion to the Shahab-3, a MRBM (medium-range ballistic missile) developed by Iran. Depending on the model it can reach between 1280 and 1930 kilometers, defining every spot of Israel as a possible target. Each missile contains five warheads, each one capable of targeting a different objective. The Shahab-3B’s survivability against ABM (anti-ballistic missiles) systems such as Israel’s Arrow 2 missile is good, and it can provide precision attacks.
Theoretically, it can be loaded with nuclear heads. The flying time from Iran to Israel would be less than 10 minutes. Gilad claimed Iran has the possibility to produce hundreds of this type of missiles, though he didn’t provide more accurate information.
Thus, Israel cannot prevent the attack of high value targets such as command, control and communications centers; a massive missiles attack by Iran may collapse the Israeli Administration in a matter of hours. Following Gilad’s talk, this is official. “There is no nuclear threat right now,” he concluded this part of his talk in a sad attempt to give an upbeat tone to a lost cause.
Then he threw a bomb on the listeners: “they have the enriched uranium, they have the knowledge but they are not producing them [nuclear warheads].” “…this is a major threat to the state [of Israel]. If they will accomplish that, it would be a major revolution.” General Gilad said Iran has the knowledge to enrich uranium to the degree needed for nuclear weapons. One of the listeners then asked when will Iran produce nuclear warheads. “At the moment they decide to change the balance of power,” was the concise answer. Major General Gilad had just acknowledged defeat. Thus, in such a reality, what attack can Israel perform?
The attack of military installations is hopeless. Regardless of believing Iranian or Israeli numbers on the size of Iranian military installations, the Israeli army would be unable to perform a preemptive total destruction of Iranian military forces. Thus, such an attack would invariably lead to an Iranian answer and probable destruction of the Zionist stronghold. Even if Israel is ready for a second strike, that wouldn’t change its factual destruction. Thus, Georgia or Saudi Arabia as stopovers, are silly options.
The only chance Israel has to win such a war, is by utterly destroying the decision taking bodies of the Iranian regime. The Islamic Consultative Assembly, the Guardian Council, the Presidency, the Supreme Leader institution, the military headquarters; all must be gone so that no one would be able to block Hormuz or order the bombing of Tel Aviv.
These institutions are in Tehran. These relatively few and concentrated targets would become the target not of Israeli Air Force planes, but of Jericho-style missiles. It must be missiles, because the long fly time of planes would give the Iranian regime a much better chance of performing defensive steps. Now, this is a viable plan of war! General Gilad, do you agree?
Roy Tov, http://www.roytov.com/articles/israeliattackoniran.htm
+ +