Israel suspects Iranians already working on nuclear warhead

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said, in an interview published Saturday, that Iran is "quite advanced" in its work on atomic weapons and may already be fashioning a nuclear warhead.

"We suspect they are probably already working on warheads for ground-to-ground missiles," Barak said in an interview with The Washington Post and Newsweek magazine.

He also suggested that Iranians "probably ... have another clandestine enrichment operation beyond the one in Natanz."

The remarks were in stark contrast the conclusion of a US National Intelligence Estimate released late last year that said Tehran had abandoned its quest for nuclear weapons as far back as 2003."

more

[thunder rising]

1. Israelis are just nuts. All of them, or they would at least sometime get somebody in gov that makes

some sense.

[ingac70]

2. Israel has a hardon for WWIII....

They are where we got some of our lies about Iraqi WMD. Shitheads. :mad:

[msmcghee]

3. I thought we got the lies from Niger . .

. . or is that so "old news"?

[peacetalksforall]

6. The lies were ABOUT Niger yellow cake - the preparation and release of the lies involved

a couple of countries. A real unmasterful set-up. A real failure of a trick on us.

[msmcghee]

8. Yeah, I read about it pretty thoroughly . .

. . at the time and then I've followed Wilson's many press releases and comments since then. I don't remember anything about Israel being involved in convincing the US that Saddam had WMD's.

They were probably consulted for their opinion and any intelligence they wished to share - but opinions, even wrong opinions, are not the same thing as deliberately spreading lies as the reply above suggests. I don't remember anyone saying that Israel was behind the wrong assessments of our government - or even implicated in such a thing.

[ingac70]

10. ....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,1140459,00.html

[msmcghee]

11. Thanks for that . .

. . but conflicting stories of various intelligence agency spokespersons and politicians doesn't exactly reveal a credible narrative - unless you're just looking for a way to lay some blame on Israel for the Iraq war.

[ingac70]

12. The blame can only lie at the feet of GW Bush...

But don't think for one second Israel won't tell a big fat fib to persuade the US to take out an enemy.

[msmcghee]

18. Lies are always discovered.

And then trust is lost. I think Israel values our trust more than the temporary advantage of any lie that could be checked by US intelligence. But then I don't wear a tin hat either.

[ingac70]

20. The Mossad chief that fed us the bad intel....

Here is his vision for the Middle East....

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=568076



He's mentioned in the last paragraph of that first link I gave you as well.

Tin hats are better than blinders.

[Tom Joad]

16. the lies did not come from Niger, but you wouldn't know that, because

you know so little about the lies of this administration to push us into war with Iraq.

blaming it on the Nigerians. what a joke.

[peacetalksforall]

4. Here we go - except the plan has changed since the NIE. Instead of

us leading the attack and Israel helping - Israel is going to lead the attack and we are going to be suckered in for the benefits of Cheney and friends - profiteers.

Did the U.S. and Israel sell Iran nuclear components and secrets - OR NOT? That is the key.

From all accounts - THEY DID - SO WHY THE HXXX DO THEY GET TO ATTACK IRAN?

Folks, it's coming - Bolton talking a coupls of days ago - and now this?

[acmavm]

5. Well, when the entire Middle East comes crushing down on Israel and

it causes suffering and grief to the innocent Israelis that don't support the Zionist war criminals, who will they blame that on?

The US needs to stay completely out of this. Israel needs to go it alone. No more arms, no more money, no more anything.

[peacetalksforall]

7. And no more U.S.-Israel-Turkey-Pakistan deals for Iran to obtain the

stuff Iran needs to pull it off. Remember, they supposedly sold the secrets and components to Iran, North Korea, and (was it Libya?).

[acmavm]

9. I say NO MORE NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION DEALS with any country.

[kayecy]

13. Can someone explain to me why ......

Can someone explain to me why it is OK for Israel to develop nuclear weapons but it is not OK for Iran to do the same?

[RufusTFirefly]

14. We don't need no stinkin' NIE! Full speed ahead!

After all, we don't want the smoking gun to be... uh, uh

How did that go again?

[Tom Joad]

17. Rufus, are you starting yet another war!

Ambassador Trentino: I am willing to do anything to prevent this war.
Rufus T. Firefly: It's too late. I've already paid a month's rent on the battlefield.

Long Live Freedonia!

[RufusTFirefly]

22. Here are the plans of war:

They're as valuable as your life. And that's putting them pretty cheap. Watch them like a cat watched her kittens. Have you ever had kittens? No, of course not, you're too busy running around playing bridge.

[Adsos Letter]

15. well...if Israel really thinks Iran is close to producing a nuclear warhead

...then they are certain to strike. IF it is accurate intel it would be hard to imagine them doing anything else...unless they are willing to believe that Ahmadinejad's threats are designed simply to pander to his base, and place their faith in the willingness of the United States to turn portions of Iran into a sea of glass in response to any Iranian strikes on Israel...

That assumes, however, a willingness by Israel to absorb a potential first-strike...perhaps MAD will work in this case. :shrug:

[ingac70]

19. Israel said the same shit about Iraq in the run up...

to the US invasion. They are just trying to coax the US into more bullshit.

[Adsos Letter]

21. Israel struck Osirak when they thought it in their interest to do so...

I'm not saying they aren't trying to draw the US into supporting a strike on Iran (which would take very little coaxing in any case); what I am saying is that IF the intel is correct, Israel is likely to strike with or without overt US support.

Unless they are willing to depend upon MAD as a deterrent; otherwise, they are likely to see themselves as having to absorb a first-strike before support comes, something they are unlikely to accept.

Edit: ...it's always the spelling... :dunce: