LA Times: Israel Is Weighing All Options to Deter Iran

[quaoar]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israeliran22oct22,1,400466.story?coll=la-home-headlines

By Laura King, Times Staff Writer

JERUSALEM -- Increasingly concerned about Iran's nuclear program, Israel is weighing its options and has not ruled out a military strike to prevent the Islamic republic from gaining the capability to build atomic weapons, according to policymakers, military officials, analysts and diplomats.

Israel says it would much prefer a diplomatic agreement to shut down Iran's uranium-enrichment program, but if it concluded that Tehran was approaching a "point of no return," it would not be deterred by the difficulty of a military operation, the prospect of retaliation or the international reaction, officials and analysts said.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his top aides have been asserting for months that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a clear threat to Israel's existence. They have repeatedly threatened, in elliptical but unmistakable terms, to use force if diplomacy and the threat of sanctions fail.

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the Yediot Aharonot newspaper last month that "all options" were being weighed to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability. The army chief of staff, Moshe Yaalon, declared: "We will not rely on others."

[tlcandie]

1. Well, let's hope it's more weighing of ALL options

than the US did going into Iraq.

[wurzel]

2. This may be the "October Surprise"!

[Eloriel]

16. Yup -- and you're not the first one who's thought of that

Want to know what Rummy's been up to?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2524517#2524555

[wurzel]

45. That's right he has gone underground lately.

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. I am confident the consideration is mutual

[livinbella]

4. The world has 10000% more reason to attack israel than Iran

this is insane, I do not support that bastard Sharon

[LiviaOlivia]

7. LOL. Let's kill Jews, huh?

Are you sanctioning Jew-icide?


All killing is wrong. Get that thru your stupid cruel head!!

[Voice_of_Europe]

43. Pavlov..

I think you're acting ona trained reflex here...

The guy didn't say "kill Jews"... he meant that Israel gives much more reason to be disarmed and sanctioned than Iran.

Israel HAS nuclear weapons
Israel is in an ongoing civil war and destabilizing the region.

Iran was rather peaceful since the Iraq-Iran war some 20(?) years ago.
They might have a loud rhetoric but they're not the ones who fly daily helicopter attacks against civilians.

I'm trying not to take sides here but to try and tell you that the holocaust is 60 years ago and today's Israel is armed to the teeth and not peaceful at all.
I don't blame them after all what happened to Jews during the last century...

But as you said...
All killing is wrong. And Israel is quite effective at it...

[VegasWolf]

48. Well spoken and quite articulate point!!

New Information Shows Bush Indecisive, Paranoid, Delusional

[GainesT1958]

8. I suuure don't like him, either...

But if SOMEBODY strikes Iran in the next two weeks, better THEM than US!:scared:

B-)

[mitchtv]

5. all options but the right one

peace with Palestine

[Fozzledick]

6. They tried that

Arafat rejected it.

[funnymanpants]

10. Nope, never have

The myth that Araft rejected it has been debuned about a thousand times. Negotiations continued after the last intifida all the way up unti Taba, when Sharon was elected and broke them off. Not Arafat.

The Israelis have never ceased building settlements in the occupied teritories. They did not stop after Olso. They did not stop after the intifada. So they have never seriously considered peace.

[okieinpain]

12. bs, arafat blew it. He passed up his last great chance, and played

right into the hands of racist. he should have took the deal that clinton worked to get for him, but tried to bluff and look who's losing.

on the deal with isreal, this very well maybe the october surprise, an attack by isreal, will diffently bring a response from iran, and the fanatics in the region would get the holy war that they are seeking.

[Voltaire99]

17. By "fanatics in the region," do you mean...

...the occupation army that has despoiled Iraq, killing thousands of civilians?

Meanwhile, no serious person believes Israel wanted a Palestinian state, or that Clinton brokered any kind of meaningful deal. Bantustans do not a state make.

[The Magistrate]

21. That Is All Right, Mr. Voltaire

No serious person believes the political leadership of Arab Palestine is willing to accept the existance of Israel as a legitimate state, and only persons who are not serious at all imagine President Clinton did not make a good faith effort to reach a reasonable compromise settlement between the two sides. Arafat would have been far wiser to have accepted the deal on the table in the summer of 2000: his choice to begin a further round of violence at the end of that summer has proved an unmitigated disaster for the people of Arab Palestine.

As for the body of this discussion, there will be no attack by Israel on Iran within the next two, or even the next three, weeks. Very likely, there will not be any such attack at all, entertaining though many find the thrill of contemplating such a thing to be.

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[funnymanpants]

24. Try using logic

>>No serious person believes the political leadership of Arab Palestine is willing to accept the existance of Israel as a legitimate state, and only persons who are not serious at all imagine President Clinton did not make a good faith effort to reach a reasonable compromise settlement between the two sides

This means nothing in logical terms. I could say "no serious person would vote for Kerry," and of course most people would strongly object. When one uses rhetorical phrases like "no serious person," it is because he has no facts.

[The Magistrate]

28. Your Instruction On The Subject Is Eagerly Awaited, Sir

"I'm going home now. Someone bring me some frogs and some bourbon."

[funnymanpants]

29. What?

You are even making less sense than before.

[DuctapeFatwa]

30. I think the whole world would love to see both US and Israel become

legitimate states, but recognize with so much money at stake, it's not likely.

[The Magistrate]

33. They Are As Legitimate As Any Others, My Friend

The whole business is not a wholesome one, after all, and the very concept of law for nations arose only long after the things were in place, and began as merely recognizing how they had always conducted themselves....

"A nation is a group of people united by a mistaken view of history and hatred for their neighbors."

[DuctapeFatwa]

34. Others have more of a claim than the US. I won't even include the

weapons depot in the Levant, take that away and you have a gaggle of Euro-colonialists waving a scrap of paper stamped New York by an entity whose every other scrap of paper they spit on.

Rule of law would be a good first step toward a legitimate claim to statehood, as would protecting the citizenry, a task which is most efficiently accomplished by refraining from aggression, and as in the case of naughty pyromaniac children who have demonstrated they are not yet mature enough to handle matches responsibly, disarmament.

Once that done, we work on Accepting That You Do Not Own the World, giving yourself permission to Not Own the World, and learning new skills for living in it peacefully.

[The Magistrate]

35. Well, Sir

Off the top of my head, then, barely a handful of candidates for the title of legitimate state on your terms comes to mind. Most all in existence defy a variety of laws, both international and their own, as it suits them, and most all of them have at some point in the past, and not always the distant past, engaged in extremities of violence, and are camped on ground once belonging to someone else. To my view, legitimacy is merely recognition the thing exists, and can be presumed to continue existing; it is not particularly a warrant of good behavior....

"It is odd that the doctrine of Original Sin should find so little favor in the modern era, as it is perhaps the one item of Christian dogma susceptible of emperical proof."

[DuctapeFatwa]

37. LOL Magistrate, I don't know whether to answer you with Descartes or

John Calvin, so, as I usually do when caught in such a dilemma -

"Debating imperialism is a bit like debating the pros and cons of rape"

Arundhati Roy

[The Magistrate]

38. Have A Pleasant Evening, My Friend!

"Even in child-beating, there is the gentleman's way, and the cad's way."

[DuctapeFatwa]

39. Indeed. Even in the defiling of peanut butter. Rest well

The world will be just as disinclined to listen to either one of us tomorrow. :)

[Violet_Crumble]

54. Damn. Everything I've learnt has just been turned upside down...

Mind you, I'm told regularly I should be more serious about things, so I expect the paper I'm writing on the breakdown of the peace process will be returned with a big whopping F on it...

Here's what this apparently not serious person believes:

The Israeli leadership has never at any point agreed to an independent and viable Palestinian state. The furthest that's been gone in that direction is acceptance that there should be a mini-state under Israeli control with limited sovereignty...

The Palestinian leadership has accepted the existance of Israel (within the 1967 borders) as a legitimate state, first implicitly in the late 1980's, and then very openly and publicly in the early 90's...

What you said about Clinton would be true if the idea of a 'reasonable compromise' is one where Israeli demands were the 'reasonable compromise' and any ground given by Israel from that point was a 'painful concession'...

There was no 'deal on the table' in 2000. The Israeli position was never presented on paper, which is what tends to happen with serious proposals....

Also, while Arafat should take the blame for a lot of things, blaming him for starting the Intifada is wrong. Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount was the flashpoint, and when Sharon's plans became known, both Arafat and the US both asked Barak to stop him from doing it because they were all aware of where the provocation would lead. Unfortunately, Barak chose to see what Sharon was going to do as a domestic political protest against him, and not as aimed at the Palestinians, so he let it go ahead....

Violet...

[funnymanpants]

23. No, he didn't

The best deal that Israel offered was apartheid. Israel refused to remove the settlements during the negotiations, which means any Palestinians state would have been swiss cheese. No one would have accepted this.

See what US envoy Malloy said about this.

Araraft didn't try to bluff. If you have proof, please show it. What happend is that Sharon marched on the Temple mount, igniting riots by the Palestinians. The Israels responded by shooting the rioters dead. Over 100 Palestinians were killed the first month, leading to UN SC 1322, which condemned Israel for excessive use of force.

Both the UN report and the US Mitchell report firmly reject the notion that the intifada was planned by Arafat.

Bluff indeed!

[The Magistrate]

27. You Miss The Point, Mr. Pants

Arafat neither prevented nor opposed the outbreak of violence. Sharon's act was a provocation, but rising to that provocation was criminal folly, or are you of the opinion that Arab Palestinians are incapable of self-control and reasonable action? As a political leader, Arafat ought to have stood against that outbreak, which threatened to have, and in fact has had, dire consequences for the people of Arab Palestine. It would be impossible to press seriously the argument that the people of Arab Palestine woulod not be far better off today had this last bout of hostilities never taken place. Several thousand of them would be alive, for one thing, and scores of thousands would be regularly employed and not sunk in abject penury.

[funnymanpants]

32. No, I don't miss the point

Arafat could not have stopped the so-called violence if he wanted to. The protests were as much against his corrupt leadership as against the brutal occupation.

>>or are you of the opinion that Arab Palestinians are incapable of self-control and reasonable action?

The Palestinians protested against brutality as all occupied people have done through history, including Native Americans, who were also called savages. Let me remind you that the origial stage of the protest was rock-throwing--not suicide bombers. The Israelis responded with live amunition. Who was not able to control themselves?

The Palestinians are worse off today, but that is because Israel has continued to steal land and kill them. I have a hard time blaming the Palestinians for that.

[Aidoneus]

9. In theory.. in practice, the allegedly 'deterring'..

options act more as a motivator. Who could've seen that coming? Oh right, anybody.

[daleo]

11. A strike before the U.S. election would put Kerry in a tough spot

It would take a lot of political courage to condemn it, between the war fever the Bush friendly media could whip up and the accusations of soft support for Israel (right up to accusations of anti-semitism, should he not go along, no doubt). In some ways, this is Sharon's window of opportunity, politically. An attack would not come as a surprise to me.

[Voltaire99]

18. Agreed

Sharon would have much to gain from such a pre-election strike: further containment of Iran and, if successful, the gratitude of the Bushies, for whom it would probably help cinch the election.

Not that I think Sharon cares mightily whether Bush or Kerry wins. Each is equally pro-Israel, equally dismissive of Palestinian rights. No, Sharon's interests are Sharon's interests, and he would probably see the moment as one in which the response of Washington would be even more carefully restrained than usual.

The real unknown, of course, and all that is probably staying Sharon's hand, is the fate of so many US forces in the region. An attack by Israel upon Iran could lead to war that engulfed them.

[bemildred]

13. I don't suppose leaving them alone is on the table. nt

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. not when it can be used as a political tool in our election

[bemildred]

15. True, good enemies are not to be given up lightly. nt

[seemslikeadream]

19. Sharon's Lawyer Talks to Condi Rice Every Day

October 11, 2004

An Interview with Dov Weisglass, Sharon's Lawyer
He Talks to Condi Rice Every Day
By ARI SHAVIT

In a certain sense, a superficial one, Ariel Sharon and Dov Weisglass are an odd couple. Sharon is a rancher from the western Negev, Weisglass a lawyer from Lilienblum Street in Tel Aviv. Sharon is the son of a Russian agronomist, Weisglass the son of a Polish fur merchant. Sharon is flesh of the flesh of the fighting rooted land-settlement movement, Weisglass is the embodiment of the speculator immigrant bourgeoisie. Sharon is brutal frontier Zionism, Weisglass is urban real estate Zionism.

However, in another, deeper sense, the source of the soulmates' alliance between the farmer and the lawyer is perfectly clear. Between the fighter and the fixer. Between the crass authenticity of Sharon and the wheeling and dealing of Weisglass, because when Sharon was a leper, after Sabra and Chatila, Weisglass stood by his side. When Sharon found himself in new battlefields in which he was at a complete loss (commission of inquiry, courts, hostile press), Weisglass fought his battle. When Sharon understood that the world had changed and was ruled by new mega-authorities (Aharon Barak, Time magazine, Yedioth Ahronoth), he also understood that Weisglass was the person who would know how to represent him before those new super-authorities. He understood that Weisglass supplemented him.

So that over the years the rural commander developed a growing dependence on his Tel Aviv lawyer who became a personal advocate, a family advocate, a policy advocate. The advocate who for the past 30 months has represented Ariel Sharon vis-a-vis the American mega-authority, the advocate who in the past 30 months, in his official capacity as a senior adviser to the Prime Minister , has almost single-handedly conducted the delicate relationship between the White House and Sycamore Ranch. Which is to say, between the United States of America and the State of Israel.

Is it Dov Weisglass who brought about Sharon's reversal of policy? Is he the eminence grise who imposed on the emperor of the settlements the decision to evacuate settlements? The settlers themselves are convinced that he is. They are certain that Weisglass is a devious Rasputin who found some dark way to make the czar do things that the czar himself, by himself, would never do.
more
http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit10112004.html

[lovuian]

20. This isn't going to be a surprise this is WWIII

Iran will retaliate and our troops are very close!!!

[Voice_of_Europe]

44. World War? What world?

Smile.... only because the US is involved does not make it a World War
Try an atlas or a globus and you'll find out that the US only sits on the southern part of one among five continents...

^_^

[despairing optimist]

22. Some options: Israel goes non-nuclear itself, honors Security Council

resolutions.

How about giving peace a chance for a change? No excuses and name calling, no illegal settlements.

That'll be the day. We'll glow in the dark first.

[Minstrel Boy]

25. "White House sources also claimed they are 'terrified' that Bush

wants to start a dangerous war with Iran prior to the election and fear that such a move will trigger dire consequences for the entire world."

Says Wayne Madsen.

[lovuian]

26. Bingo!!!

And Congress let him have full authority!!!

[NecessaryOnslaught]

31. Target: Iran

"American air strikes on Iran would vastly exceed the scope of the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osiraq nuclear center in Iraq, and would more resemble the opening days of the 2003 air campaign against Iraq. Using the full force of operational B-2 stealth bombers, staging from Diego Garcia or flying direct from the United States, possibly supplemented by F-117 stealth fighters staging from al Udeid in Qatar or some other location in theater, the two-dozen suspect nuclear sites would be targeted."

"It would be difficult for Israel to strike at Iran without American knowledge, since the mission would have to be flown through American air space. Even if the United States did not actively participate with operations inside Iranian air space, the US would be a passive participant by virtue of allowing Israeli aircraft unhindered passage. In the eyes of the world, it would generally appear to be a joint US-Israeli enterprise, any denials notwithstanding. Indeed, it is quite probable that Iran would not be able to readily determine the ultimate origins of the strike, given Iran's relatively modest air defense capabilities. Thus, even if the strike were entirely of American origin, Israel would be implicated. When asked in August 2004 about Israeli threats to attack Iran, Bush's national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, declined to say whether the United States would support such action by Israel."

"On 15 July 2004 William S. Lind suggested that "an American-Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Such an attack may very well be on the agenda as the "October Surprise," the distraction President George W. Bush desperately needs if the debacle in Iraq is not to lead to his defeat in November." "

"On 18 July 2004, the Sunday Times of London reported that the Israeli Air Force had completed preparations for striking the Bushehr reactor, and would do so if Russia supplied Iran with the fuel for the facility. An Israeli defense source, who claimed that mission rehearsals had taken place, was quoted as saying, "Israel will on no account permit the Iranian reactors — especially the one being built in Bushehr with Russian help — to go critical. ... If the worst comes to the worst and international efforts fail, we are very confident we'll be able to demolish the ayatollah's nuclear aspirations in one go." "

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm

"The Israeli Air Force received the first two of 25 F-15I Ra’am (Thunder) aircraft, the Israeli version of the F-15E Strike Eagle, in January 1998, and as of early 2004 had an inventory of 25 aircraft. According to the Israeli Air Force, this aircraft has a range of 4,450 km, which equates to a combat radius of 2,225 km. Deliveries of the F-16I Sufa (Storm) began in early 2004. This heavily modified aircraft, with massive conformal fuel tanks, has a reported combat radius of 2,100 km. Probable strike targets such as Bushehr and Esfahan lie about 1,500 km from Israel."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran-strikes.htm

Iran has said it will react "most severely" to any Israeli action against its nuclear facilities, issuing the warning after Israel said the United States was selling it 500 bunker buster bombs.

Israeli military officials said Tuesday that the Jewish state will receive nearly 5,000 smart bombs, including the 500 one-ton bombs that can destroy two-yard-thick (two-meter-thick) concrete walls.

Besides the 500 one-ton killer bombs in the arms sale, Israel will get 2,500 one-ton bombs, 1,000 half-ton bombs and 500 quarter-ton bombs, the Israeli military officials said.

Israel's announcement of the purchase came after the U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible military sale to Israel worth as much as $319 million.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/09/23/iran.israel.bomb.ap/

[teryang]

46. It would be difficult to strike without American complicity

America controls the airspace in the entire area.

[w4rma]

36. Dump Bush (nt)

[Englander]

40. And the option that will be chosen willl involve the use...

of US built military hardware.

[Laughing Mirror]

42. But of course, that's why we're there

What is Israel anyway but a US military outpost that you and I are religiously writing out a $16 million check for every day of the year. This will stop the day we say STOP, which might be the day our creditors foreclose on this ramshackle old plantation and start dictating the terms.

[Julien Sorel]

41. What they really want is crippling sanctions imposed on Iran,

of the sort that ruined Iraq. This is likely the beginning of the propaganda machine beginning to oil up.

The twisted domino effect language is quite pronounced:

A complicating factor in the debate over Iran is Israel's own status as an undeclared nuclear power. Israeli officials insist that their country's presumed nuclear status enhances regional stability by serving as a deterrent but say Iran's possession of atomic weapons would almost certainly trigger an arms race with rival Muslim states.

"It would break the dam, so to speak, and spill over into the whole Middle East," said Uzi Arad, director of the Institute of Policy and Strategy at Herzliya's Interdisciplinary Center. "There would be tremendous danger arising from this."

Israel has nuclear weapons and it is "stabilizing;" another country is developing a nuclear program and it is the beginning of a nuclear arms race. And Israel says, journalists write, and the public reads, this stuff with a straight face.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

47. kick

[SOS]

49. Is Iran Next?

Good article from In These Times

Is Iran Next?
The Pentagon neocons who brought you the war in Iraq have a new target...

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/is_iran_next/

[NecessaryOnslaught]

50. The answer is...

..it is decidedly so.

[AntiFascist]

51. So Zionism is at part of the root of PNAC...

Feith’s own Zionism is rooted in his family. In 1997, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) honored Dalck Feith and his son Douglas at its annual dinner, describing the Feiths as “noted Jewish philanthropists and pro-Israel activists.” The father was awarded the group’s special Centennial Award “for his lifetime of service to Israel and the Jewish people,” while Douglas received the “prestigious Louis D. Brandeis Award.”

<snip>

One Jerusalem actively courts the involvement of Christian Zionists. In May 2003, One Jerusalem hosted the Interfaith Zionist Summit in Washington, DC, that brought together Christian Zionists such as Gary Bauer of American Values and Roberta Combs of the Christian Coalition with Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum and Mort Klein of the ZOA.

<snip>

Given the depth of congressional bipartisan support for Israel and close ties with right-wing Israeli lobbying groups like AIPAC, it’s unlikely that the investigations will provide the much-needed public scrutiny of the dual and complementary agendas that unite U.S. and Israeli hardliners. Feith’s policymaking fiefdom inside and outside of government continues to drive U.S. policy in the Middle East with no evidence that these radical policies are increasing the national security and welfare of either the United States or Israel.

Personally I feel that right-wing Jews and right-wing Christians are drinking the coolaid. This will lead to suicide!

[IconoclastIlene]

52. Zealotry cannot be banned from the human psyche.

Not yet, in evolutionary terms...........or any other way; you cannot legislate civil behavior,as we all know.

[IconoclastIlene]

53. After every Jew is wiped off the face of the earth, who ya gonna call

GHOSTBUSTERS?

ha! ha! sorry I won't be around to see ya'll cannabilize yourselves in your own self righteous ways!!!

Fire and Brimstone, ya'll.

[seemslikeadream]

55. Feith family is one of Comcast's largest private shareholders

.....

Dalck Feith, now 90, owned a sheet-metal business that supplied parts for Jerrold Electronics, a firm founded by former Gov. Milton J. Shapp that made set-top boxes for cable TV. Through this connection, Dalck Feith got to know Ralph Roberts, founder of Comcast. Today, the Feith family is one of Comcast's largest private shareholders.

Douglas Feith's brother, Donald, runs Feith Systems & Software in Fort Washington, which sells computer programs that store huge numbers of documents. It has contracts with the Defense and Commerce Departments and other government agencies, as well as Comcast, AT&T, Toll Bros. and others. In the last two years, Feith family members have contributed at least $14,500 to President Bush, the Republican Party, and Sen. Arlen Specter (R., Pa.), according to campaign records.

The family also has strong ties to Israel. Feith's former law partner, Marc Zell, lives and works near Jerusalem.

This month the FBI began investigating Pentagon employee Larry Franklin, who works in Feith's organization, for allegedly passing memos to Israel. Feith has declined to discuss the probe.

James Zogby, head of the Arab-American Institute, a Middle East lobbying group, said Feith was too close to Israel's right-wing Likud Party.
more
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/

[Barkley]

56. Just What Oil Prices Need: Another Middle East Crisis!

Bombing Iran!

Where do people come up with these idiotic ideas?