Israel – Bombing Syria 9/6/2007 + Iranian Plans

Including Hillary Clinton's Repeated Bashing of the Bush Administration for "Being Soft on Iran" + Israel's Bombing Syria 9/6/2007 and Israel's Iranian Plans. These three postings include (1) Pat's original proposal of this topic, (2) the careful analysis on 9/18/2007 by the former Editor of the Jerusalem Post of what happened when Israel bombed Syria on 9/6/2007 (a subject about which nobody in the U.S. or abroad was saying anything, and about which very little continues to be said) and (3) the "Face the Nation" transcript for 10/28/2007 of Sen. Armed Services Chair Carl Levin (D-MI) and Minority Member Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for which Moderator Bob Schieffer said in his introduction: "The foreign-affairs focus of the major Presidential candidates, both Democrat and Republican, seems to have swung from Iraq to Iran. On the Republican side, Guiliani, Romney, et. al., seem to be competing to provide the most emphatic sound bite that they will stop at nothing to insure that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. While Hillary is acting as if she already has the nomination and is already waging a general-election campaign in which she appears to be just as belligerent/militant toward Iran."
Post Reply
Pat
Site Admin
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:11 pm

Israel – Bombing Syria 9/6/2007 + Iranian Plans

Post by Pat »

We have had on our list of possible topics for both the September and October meetings: (1) The Iranian Nuclear Program; (2) The Israeli-Palestinian Imbroglio; and (3) Osama bin Laden’s Fatwa to Nuke 10 Million Americans which the Founding Dean of Harvard’s Kennedy School, when the fatwa was only for nuking 4 million Americans, explained was the number of Arabs ObL has calculated have been killed either by the U.S. or by Israel for whose actions he holds the U.S. responsible.

(Please see “October Meeting – Possible Topics (historical)" on this bulletin board.)

I would like to propose a somewhat different topic that bears on all of these previous proposals.

Though it also bears on – Nuclear Non-Proliferation.

What does a nation state and U.N. member do to protect itself from nuclear attack?

Please note that Article 51 of the U.N. Charter authorizes the use of force in self defense which, as mentioned in Al Gore’s “Assault on Reason” (p. 167), is generally interpreted to include pre-emptive action in response to an imminent threat.

PLEASE CONSIDER THAT AYATOLLAH KHOMEINI (IRAN’S CHIEF CLERIC) CONSTANTLY BRAGS THAT ISRAEL IS A “ONE BOMB STATE” MEANING THAT IT CAN BE DESTROYED BY ONE NUCLEAR BOMB.

AN EQUALLY-INTERESTING ITEM IS THE FOLLOWING OP-ED ARTICLE BY THE FORMER EDITOR OF THE JERUSALEM POST. IN THE OP-ED ARTICLE, HE (1) DEDUCES THAT ISRAEL’S 9/6/2007 BOMBING OF SYRIA WAS MOST LIKELY TARGETING NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AND (2) STATES IN PAR. 8 THAT ISRAEL IS PLANNING TO ATTACK IRAN’S NUCLEAR FACILITIES (WHICH, THOUGH NOT MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE, WOULD PRESUMABLY INVOLVE 50-60 SIMULTANEOUS COMMANDO RAIDS SINCE THAT IS THE NUMBER OF IRANIAN SITES THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN OUT AND MOST OF THEM ARE BURIED TOO DEEPLY FOR CONVENTIONAL BOMBING TO BE EFFECTIVE).



***********
Osirak II?
By BRET STEPHENS
Former Editor of the Jerusalem Post (please see paragraph 2)
OpEd Column – Wall Street Journal – September 18, 2007

In the late spring of 2002 the American press reported that Israel had armed its German-made submarines with nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. In Israel, this was old news. It was also headline news.

"Washington Post: Israeli subs have nuclear cruise missiles," was how the Jerusalem Post, of which I was then the editor, titled its story of June 16. It wasn't as if we didn't previously know that Israel had purchased and modified the German subs for purposes of strategic deterrence. Nor did we delight in circumlocutions. We simply needed the imprimatur of a foreign source to publish items that Israel's military censors (who operate as if the Internet doesn't exist) forbade us from reporting forthrightly.

So it's more than a little telling that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz chose, in the wake of an Israeli Air Force raid on Syria on Sept. 6 dubbed "Operation Orchard," to give front-page billing to an op-ed by John Bolton that appeared in this newspaper Aug. 31. While the article dealt mainly with the six-party talks with North Korea, Mr. Bolton also noted that "both Iran and Syria have long cooperated with North Korea on ballistic missile programs, and the prospect of cooperation on nuclear matters is not far-fetched." He went on to wonder whether Pyongyang was using its Middle Eastern allies as safe havens for its nuclear goods while it went through a U.N. inspections process.

How plausible is this scenario? The usual suspects in the nonproliferation crowd reject it as some kind of trumped-up neocon plot. Yet based on conversations with Israeli and U.S. sources, along with evidence both positive and negative (that is, what people aren't saying), it seems the likeliest suggested so far. That isn't to say, however, that plenty of gaps and question marks about the operation don't remain.

What's beyond question is that something big went down on Sept. 6. Israeli sources had been telling me for months that their air force was intensively war-gaming attack scenarios against Syria; I assumed this was in anticipation of a second round of fighting with Hezbollah. On the morning of the raid, Israeli combat brigades in the northern Golan Heights went on high alert, reinforced by elite Maglan commando units. Most telling has been Israel's blanket censorship of the story -- unprecedented in the experience of even the most veteran Israeli reporters -- which has also been extended to its ordinarily hypertalkative politicians. In a country of open secrets, this is, for once, a closed one.

The censorship helps dispose of at least one theory of the case. According to CNN's Christiane Amanpour, Israel's target was a cache of Iranian weapons destined for Hezbollah. But if that were the case, Israel would have every reason to advertise Damascus's ongoing violations of Lebanese sovereignty, particularly on the eve of Lebanon's crucial presidential election. Following the January 2002 Karine-A incident -- in which Israeli frogmen intercepted an Iranian weapons shipment bound for Gaza -- the government of Ariel Sharon wasted no time inviting reporters to inspect the captured merchandise. Had Orchard had a similar target, with similar results, it's doubtful the government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert -- which badly needs to erase the blot of last year's failed war -- could have resisted turning it into a propaganda coup.

Something similar goes for another theory, this one from British journalist Peter Beaumont of the Observer, that the raid was in fact "a dry run for attack on Iran." Mr. Beaumont is much taken by a report that at least one of the Israeli bombers involved in the raid dropped its fuel tanks in a Turkish field near the Syrian border.

Why Israel apparently chose to route its attack through Turkey is a nice question, given that it means a detour of more than 1,000 miles. Damascus claims the fuel tank was discarded after the planes came under Syrian anti-aircraft fire, which could be true. But if Israel is contemplating an attack on Tehran's nuclear installations -- and it is -- it makes no sense to advertise the "Turkish corridor" as its likely avenue of attack.

As for the North Korean theory, evidence for it starts with Pyongyang. The raid, said one North Korean foreign ministry official quoted by China's Xinhua news agency, was "little short of wantonly violating the sovereignty of Syria and seriously harassing the regional peace and security." But who asked him, anyway? In August, the North Korean trade minister signed an agreement with Syria on "cooperation in trade and science and technology." Last week, Andrew Semmel, the acting counterproliferation chief at the State Department, confirmed that North Korean technicians of some kind were known to be in Syria, and that Syria was "on the U.S. nuclear watch list." And then there is yesterday's curious news that North Korea has abruptly suspended its participation in the six-party talks, for reasons undeclared.

That still leaves the question of just what kind of transfers could have taken place. There has been some speculation regarding a Syrian plant in the city of Homs, built 20 years ago to extract uranium from phosphate (of which Syria has an ample supply). Yet Homs is 200 miles west of Dayr az Zawr, the city on the Euphrates reportedly closest to the site of the attack. More to the point, uranium extraction from phosphates is a commonplace activity (without it, phosphate is hazardous as fertilizer) and there is a vast gulf separating this kind of extraction from the enrichment process needed to turn uranium into something genuinely threatening.

There is also a rumor -- sourced to an unnamed expert in the Washington Post -- that on Sept. 3 a North Korean ship delivered some kind of nuclear cargo to the Syrian port of Tartus, forcing the Israelis to act. That may well be accurate, though it squares awkwardly with the evidence that plans for Orchard were laid months ago.

More questions will no doubt be raised about the operational details of the raid (some sources claim there were actually two raids, one of them diversionary), as well as fresh theories about what the Israelis were after and whether they got it. The only people that can provide real answers are in Jerusalem and Damascus, and for the most part they are preserving an abnormal silence. In the Middle East, that only happens when the interests of prudence and the demands of shame happen to coincide. Could we have just lived through a partial reprise of the 1981 Israeli attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor? On current evidence, it is the least unlikely possibility.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com

Pat
Site Admin
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 3:11 pm

US Military Action Against Iran

Post by Pat »

Editorial Comment:

The foreign-affairs focus of the major Presidential candidates, both Democrat and Republican, seems to have swung from Iraq to Iran. On the Republican side, Guiliani, Romney, et. al., seem to be competing to provide the most emphatic sound bite that they will stop at nothing to insure that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. While Hillary is acting as if she already has the nomination and is already waging a general-election campaign in which she appears to be just as belligerent/militant toward Iran.

A thoughtful discussion occurred on “Face the Nation” yesterday morning (Oct 28th) with Senators Carl Levin (D-Michigan and Senate Armed Services Chair) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC and Senate Armed Services Member) – which shows just how far down the road the U.S. already is on a bi-partisan war with Iran.

*************************************************************************************************

FACE THE NATION - Transcript
Sunday, October 28, 2007

MODERATOR: Bob Schieffer – CBS News

SCHIEFFER: Joining us now from Marquette, Michigan, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin. And with us from Greenville, South Carolina, Senator Lindsey Graham.

Gentlemen, welcome to both of you. Obviously no news to you that last week the Bush administration levied sweeping new sanctions against the Revolutionary Guard in Iran and Iranian banks in an effort to pressure Iran to change its policy about trying to develop a nuclear weapon.

I guess the question that a lot of people are asking, and I'll start with you, Senator Levin, does this mean we're headed toward war with Iran, if this--these sanctions don't work?

Senator CARL LEVIN (Democrat, Michigan): I hope not. I think the sanctions are the right way to go. A lot of diplomatic pressure, a lot of economic pressure. Most importantly, keep the world together against Iran. Right now we've got most of the world, I think just about every country, that does not want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. It's in no one's interest that they have it, and I think most countries, including Russia, as well as Israel, obviously, but other countries in the region are not going to stand by and just simply watch if Iran gets to a--the point where they actually are getting to a nuclear weapon. And so my belief is that we ought to dial down the rhetoric, we ought to make it clear that there's always a nuclear--excuse me, there's always a military option of Iran goes nuclear, but that we ought to just speak more softly because these hot words that's coming out of the administration, this hot rhetoric plays right into the hands of the fanatics in Iran. They like to be called an evil empire. These fanatics love to have that weapon in their hands, that the West is beating up on them and threatening them. So we should speak more softly, carry a big stick, as Teddy Roosevelt said.

SCHIEFFER: Well, Senator, you say that nobody is just standing by, including Russia. But President Putin of Russia seems to be standing by. He doesn't seem to want any part of these sanctions. And if you take what he says in public at face value, he seems to be saying that Russia could live with a nuclear-armed Iran.

Sen. LEVIN: Well, I think that--I've not spoken with Putin, but I've spoken with the Russian defense minister. And I think, also, that the Russian willingness to support sanctions and enforce the sanctions which have been adopted is an important indicator. They're not going to go quite as far as we would, because they're playing a little bit of politics, too, with Iran. But I think it is clearly--and our intelligence community thinks it is very clear that Russia will not stand by while Iran has a nuclear weapon, particularly if there is any likelihood that they could threaten its use.

SCHIEFFER: Well, do you agree with that, Senator Graham?

Senator LINDSEY GRAHAM (Republican, South Carolina): Well, I have a little different take. I think Russia's sending all the wrong signals to Iran. When the Russian president goes to Iran and does a news conference with the Iranian president, embraces him, calls for other nations not to consider attacking Iran, it sends the wrong signal. I think the United Nations efforts to sanction Iran have been pitiful because of Russian--Russia and China vetoing a resolution. The European Union has some sanctions; they're fairly weak. We're having stronger sanctions, but they're unilateral. So in this regard I agree with the following, that the diplomatic efforts to control Iran need to continue, they need to be more robust, but we're sending mixed signals. The UN is becoming ineffective when it comes to regulating rogue regimes, and Russia is sending all the wrong signals as far as I'm concerned, so I understand why the president had to do what he did unilaterally.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, let's listen to something that the president said last week. You talked about some tough rhetoric, Senator Levin. Here's one of the things the president said.

President GEORGE W. BUSH: We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.

SCHIEFFER: So Senator Graham, is he overstating the case there? Are we heading toward World War III? I think that's what people want to hear--I mean, they want to know. That's what they want to know the answer to here.

Sen. GRAHAM: Well, I think the president is dead right, that the Iranian president has told the world that he desires to destroy the state of Israel. I don't think they're making any bones about they're trying to develop a nuclear weapons program, not peaceful nuclear power. So I'm taking the Iranian president at his word. Their actions speak louder than anything else. They're clearly going down the Iranian--uranium enrichment road that would lead to weapons material and not peaceful nuclear power. So I think the president is justified in trying to wake up the world, wake up Russia, wake up the United Nations, the European Union to do something about this. If
everybody likes Israel and loves Israel as we all say we do, we need to be more aggressive. We don't need to talk softly. We need to act boldly because time is not on our side.

SCHIEFFER: Well, Senator Levin, what if these sanctions don't work? Is it--is it fair to start talking about some sort of a strike against Iran? And if so, what kind of a strike would that be?

Sen. LEVIN: It's important we keep a military option on the table, but it is also important that we not play right into the hands of the same fanatic who threatens Israel by talking about attacking Iran so much. What we've got to do is let Iran know and let the world know that it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. I agree with what Lindsey said; that is Iran's goal. But by the way, when the president says that we're not going to tolerate them having the knowledge, that is too far. That is an overstatement. I don't think we can stop them from having the knowledge. What we've got to stop them from doing is acquiring a nuclear weapon. It's important that we do that, and there's two ways to do it. One is to unite the world, to have very strong sanctions, to keep tightening that rope around Iran to make sure that they don't get to where they want to go, to do everything possible to avoid it, but not just give Iran the propaganda weapon. Don't give them the can of gasoline that they want to pour onto the fire. Don't give them the weapon that they use against us that we're trying to bully them that we're trying to do dominate them. And that's what this hot rhetoric does when it's just constantly repeated, about World War III or that we're going to use a military option. Rums--Secretary--Vice President Cheney just goes way too far. The president went too far this week.

SCHIEFFER: Well, do you think the president ought to tell Vice President Cheney to kind of tone down what he's been saying here?

Sen. LEVIN: Well, lots of luck.

SCHIEFFER: Senator Levin, let me ask you this. When we discuss sanctions and put in sanctions against North Korea, we also--we also put some carrots in there. It got them to the negotiating table. The North Koreans at least say now they're ready to stop their nuclear enrichment program. But in exchange for that, we're going to give them a lot of things. Number one, fuel, oil and other kinds of aid. Should there be some sort of carrots for the Iranians here?

Sen. LEVIN: Sure they ought to be. We ought to try to figure out what combination of carrots and sticks might work. It's in everyone's interest that they not get to a nuclear weapon. Carrots and sticks are the way to do it, and it's a lot cheaper, believe me, for us to be putting in some carrots than it is to watch Iran move in the direction that they are now moving. I agree with Lindsey on that. But it's a much better alternative to keep the pressure on the Iranians, unite the world against them, don't give them the propaganda value of this heated rhetoric.

SCHIEFFER: Some carrots, would that be all right with you, Senator Graham?

Sen. GRAHAM: Yeah. At the end of the day, the Iranians are their own problem. This is not-President Bush is not the problem here. It's the Iranian regime and their rhetoric and their actions. The Russians offered to provide nuclear fuel to an Iranian reactor. That way they could not control the fuel cycle. I don't have any objections to Iran having a nuclear power plant to produce power as long as someone would control the fuel cycle other than the Iranian military. The Russians made that offer last year, and Iran rejected it. So I'm willing to help Iran have nuclear power as long as somebody controls the nuclear fuel cycle.

But we're not the problem. The president of Iran's the problem. They're killing our kids in Iraq. They're training, equipping militia in Iraq. They're funding Hezbollah. So I just want to let it be known, as far as I'm concerned, the world is not the problem, Iran's the problem. They're killing Americans in Iraq to try to drive us out. They're funding Hezbollah to attack Israel. This is a regime that's up to no good, and we need to stand up to them. And I think we need to be bolder, not quieter.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Well, we'll talk about...

Sen. LEVIN: (Unintelligible). Here's the problem.

SCHIEFFER: We'll talk about--go ahead. Go ahead, Senator.

Sen. LEVIN: Well, I was going to say, Iran clearly is the problem. The question is whether we're smart and firm in dealing with them.

SCHIEFFER: Senator Le--Senator Graham, let me start with you this time. The price of oil went to more than $90 a barrel this week just because the president said we're going to put in some sanctions. Or I think that's why most people think it took that sudden upsurge. If we should attack Iran, isn't that going to drive the price of oil just out of sight and won't that have an enormous impact on this country? And the world?

Sen. GRAHAM: Make no mistake about it--yes. Make no--make no mistake about it there are two very bad choices here. Allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon is a horrible choice. Attacking Iran militarily is a very dangerous choice with a lot of serious consequences. What President Bush is trying to do through sanctions is to create a third way. But we can't do this unilaterally. The sanctions that he's imposed against Iran's Revolutionary Guard I hope will work. But the European Union, the United Nations, Russia and China needs to stop vetoing these resolutions that would really create some bite against the Iranian desires to possess a nuclear weapons program. I want to go down the diplomatic sanctions road very, very much like the president does. But, at the end of the day, if the choice is to use military force to stop an Iranian-nuclear-armed Iran, I think it's better to use military force than it is to allow them to have a nuclear weapon. But that shouldn't be our only two choices. The third option is diplomatic efforts with sanctions that will result in a change of behavior. The sanctions we have today are not going to result in a change of behavior because the world is not united behind the sanctions as they should be.

SCHIEFFER: Senator Levin, let me ask you this. Exactly what is Iran's capability right now? Let's suppose that, as a last resort--and clearly you still believe that we may have to consider the military option, we can't take it off the table--if we did strike Iran militarily and they say that they would retaliate in some way, what exactly could they do?

Sen. LEVIN: They could fire missiles with at least heavy effect. They could close down the Straits of Hormuz. They probably would unleash a terrorist response around the world, a Hezbollah response perhaps with biological and chemical weapons. They don't have a nuclear weapon, but there are other weapons of mass destruction. It would be a massive response which would have, I'm afraid, terrorist support around the world. So there would be a very serious unleashing. We're involved right now in two Muslim countries and for us to kind of casually talk about moving against a third one, it seems to me, is playing right into the hands of the terrorists and the fanatics.

SCHIEFFER: When they--when you talk about firing missiles, missiles to where? Where could they deliver explosives to, Senator?

Sen. LEVIN: I think their range probably could reach--I know it could reach Israel, but it could reach Russia, it could reach other countries in the region. I don't think they have a longer range missile at this time than that.

SCHIEFFER: Let me ask you--let me just shift...

Sen. GRAHAM: Bob, could I...

SCHIEFFER: Yeah, go ahead but quickly, because I have another subject.

Sen. GRAHAM: I think one of the--one of the targets would be the Sunni Arab nations where we have bases. And the Sunni Arab nations are very much concerned about a nuclear-armed Iran. So Carl is right, a military engagement with Iran is a very dangerous thing and nobody wants to go down that road. But the sanctions that we have in place now worldwide are not--are not working, and they will never work until the world get more serious about them. And if the sanctions don't work, military operations against Iran, I believe, will be inevitable unless the world community steps up.

SCHIEFFER: I want to ask you quickly about the chances of Mr. Mukasey, the administration's nominee to be attorney general. It looked like he was off to a pretty good start with the Judiciary Committee, but he ran into a little bit of a roadblock this week over whether or not he believes waterboarding is torture.

Sen. GRAHAM: Right.

SCHIEFFER: What's going to happen on that, Senator? Can you continue to support him, Senator Graham?

Sen. GRAHAM: Well, I'm on the committee. I thought he did a good job explaining himself, generally speaking. But he was asked a specific question about an interrogation technique called waterboarding. I am convinced, as an individual senator, as a military lawyer for 25 years, that waterboarding, the technique that was described to Judge Mukasey does violate the Geneva Convention, does violate our war crimes statute and is clearly illegal under domestic and international law, and I think it would serve the attorney general nominee well to embrace that concept. He's talked around it. But you know, I want to win this war. And the way we win this war is to adhere to our values, don't adopt the enemies' values. The rule of law is something...

SCHIEFFER: Well...

Sen. GRAHAM: ...that we embrace, and so I hope he will give a direct answer to that question.

SCHIEFFER: Well, would you vote against him if he doesn't?

Sen. GRAHAM: I am urging him that he needs to come forward. If he does not believe that waterboarding is illegal, then that would really put doubts in my own mind because I don't think you have to be very--have a lot of knowledge about the law to understand this technique violates Geneva Convention Common Article III, the war crimes statute, and many other statutes that are in place.

SCHIEFFER: All right.

Sen. GRAHAM: So I do hope he will embrace that.

SCHIEFFER: And, Senator Levin, how about you?

Sen. LEVIN: Well, there's been too many mixed messages out of this administration about torture. There's been too many activities at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib which constitute torture, which constitute inhumane treatment in violation of law. This has worked very heavily against us in terms of the enemies'--our enemies'--the terrorists' use of these tactics. He is sending a mixed message in his testimony. He should not be confirmed unless he is very, very clear about these aggressive techniques which violate our laws, and violate Geneva as being totally unacceptable because the attorney general is supposed to be at the head of the Department of Justice talking about what our values are, because those values are the things that have made this country strong and powerful and attractive, and they're essential that they be maintained for our own security.

SCHIEFFER: All right. Gentlemen, thanks to both of you. We'll be back in a minute to talk some politics.

Post Reply

Return to “Is War With Iran Inevitable??? - Topic for Dec 13”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest