More on the Israeli Factor vis-a-vis Iran's nuclear program
In recent months, Israel and her drumbeaters for war in the West have been making much noise in the media about how Iran has become a threat to nuclear-armed Israel. Consider, for instance, Jim Phillips who writes in the Heritage Foundation. In a January 15, 2010 article, he writes, "To mitigate the threats posed by Iran to U.S. national security and to protect U.S. interests, the United States must: Recognize Israel's right to take action in self-defence against Iran's growing threat."
Phillips continues, "Given that the United States is likely to be attacked by Iran in the aftermath of an Israeli strike anyway, it may be logical to consider joining Israel in a preventive war against Iran." He concludes, "As bad as the consequences could be if Israel launched a preventive strike against Iran-it would be far worse if the two countries fought a nuclear war, or if the United States were forced to fight a war against a nuclear Iran."
In a recent Newsweek column Richard Haass, the CFR president, called for regime change in Iran. He, too, is convinced, like other Israel-firsters, that Iran is trying to acquire the "capacity" to build a nuclear weapon. One may note his carefully worded phrase, as having the 'capacity' to build a nuke is not the same as actually building one.�But still, all such friends of Israel hate the current stalemate and want to do something about Iran, much like what they did for Iraq. Haass should have known that the Iranian opposition is strongly supportive of Iran's nuclear programme, which means that there is little chance that Iran will abandon its nuclear programme even if there is some sort of regime change, forced from outside.
Such hawkish views heard from the friends of Israel inside the USA and the Western world are not uncommon these days. As expected, the Obama administration is not immune from such pressures. On December 15, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the "Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009." It is very similar to the Senate bill. The latter extends sanctions to include companies that build oil and gas pipelines in Iran and provide tankers to move Iran's petroleum. It also prohibits the U.S. government from buying goods from foreign companies that work in Iran's energy sector. So, in effect, the Senate bill imposes sanctions on Iran's entire oil and natural gas industry.
While President Obama promised change, when it comes to dealing with Iran, sadly, his administration has not revised the stupid policy of its predecessor. That's a non-starter! Many of Obama's advisers on the Middle East are either Israeli/American dual citizens or promoters of the Israeli interest. To them, the Israeli interest takes a priority over that of the USA. As President Ahmadinejad commented last September during his trip to attend the UN General Assembly, "If Mr. Bush's policies are to be continued with new language, we will not be able to achieve much� If these policies do not change, no real change will happen."
Conveniently forgotten in this crucial debate about Iran's nuclear programme are IAEA's own findings that dispute such untruthful accusations and unsubstantiated claims.
Phillips continues, "Given that the United States is likely to be attacked by Iran in the aftermath of an Israeli strike anyway, it may be logical to consider joining Israel in a preventive war against Iran." He concludes, "As bad as the consequences could be if Israel launched a preventive strike against Iran-it would be far worse if the two countries fought a nuclear war, or if the United States were forced to fight a war against a nuclear Iran."
In a recent Newsweek column Richard Haass, the CFR president, called for regime change in Iran. He, too, is convinced, like other Israel-firsters, that Iran is trying to acquire the "capacity" to build a nuclear weapon. One may note his carefully worded phrase, as having the 'capacity' to build a nuke is not the same as actually building one.�But still, all such friends of Israel hate the current stalemate and want to do something about Iran, much like what they did for Iraq. Haass should have known that the Iranian opposition is strongly supportive of Iran's nuclear programme, which means that there is little chance that Iran will abandon its nuclear programme even if there is some sort of regime change, forced from outside.
Such hawkish views heard from the friends of Israel inside the USA and the Western world are not uncommon these days. As expected, the Obama administration is not immune from such pressures. On December 15, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the "Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009." It is very similar to the Senate bill. The latter extends sanctions to include companies that build oil and gas pipelines in Iran and provide tankers to move Iran's petroleum. It also prohibits the U.S. government from buying goods from foreign companies that work in Iran's energy sector. So, in effect, the Senate bill imposes sanctions on Iran's entire oil and natural gas industry.
While President Obama promised change, when it comes to dealing with Iran, sadly, his administration has not revised the stupid policy of its predecessor. That's a non-starter! Many of Obama's advisers on the Middle East are either Israeli/American dual citizens or promoters of the Israeli interest. To them, the Israeli interest takes a priority over that of the USA. As President Ahmadinejad commented last September during his trip to attend the UN General Assembly, "If Mr. Bush's policies are to be continued with new language, we will not be able to achieve much� If these policies do not change, no real change will happen."
Conveniently forgotten in this crucial debate about Iran's nuclear programme are IAEA's own findings that dispute such untruthful accusations and unsubstantiated claims.
Comments
Post a Comment