. Part 2 of 2 How not to push Iran Lula has hit the Middle East at a crucial juncture - just as Netanyahu's government has decided to build more settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, even to the detriment of crucial US support on the Iranian front. Ironically, it's on the economic front, rather than geopolitics, that Brazil is managing to seduce the Israeli establishment. Israel signed a free-trade agreement (FTA) with Mercosur [1] - the fifth-largest bloc in terms of gross domestic product in the world - much to the chagrin of Palestinians, who identify the FTA as a powerful boost to the Israeli military-industrial complex. And this when it is clear that Brazil is strictly in favor of a viable Palestinian state according to the 1967 borders. This FTA carries a key strategic provision - it allows the transfer of weapons technology to Mercosur members. Thus weapons responsible for the repression in Gaza will soon be available in South America. On a parallel front, bolstering Brazil's role as mediator, Israeli President Shimon Peres personally suggested to Lula that Brazil could make two visits - by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and by Netanyahu - coincide on Brazilian soil. Assad goes to Brazil this year, and this week Netanyahu also accepted an invitation. A tropical, informal Syrian-Israeli summit might be ideal to break the ice. Lula and Netanyahu have adopted a bilateral system of meetings between heads of state and top ministers every two years. By what about the US in all this? An official US-Brazil strategic agreement is also now in place, implying two foreign minister-level meetings a year, one in the US, one in Brazil. Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim has a very close relationship with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. On her recent visit to Brazil, Clinton pressed both Lula and Amorim to support tougher sanctions on Iran. The refusal was polite but firm. Clinton was left to complain at a press conference about how Iran is "using" Brazil, Turkey and China to evade sanctions. Amorim for his part is always fond of remembering the Iraqi disaster: "I was an ambassador at the UN during the critical moments of deciding about Iraq. And what we saw was a big mistake." Lula could not be more specific: "It is not wise to push Iran against the wall. I want for Iran what I want for Brazil: to use nuclear energy for peaceful ends. If Iran goes beyond that, then we will not agree with it." Roughly, that's the same position as China's. Lula and Obama had seemed to be in synch on Iran, starting from their meeting on the sidelines of a Group of Eight plus five meeting in L'Aquila, Italy, nine months ago. Then, Obama even encouraged the Brasilia-Tehran dialogue, as long as Brazil pressed on Iran the commitment to a strictly civilian nuclear program. That's exactly what Lula told Ahmadinejad when they met in Brazil. It is the Obama administration's position that has substantially hardened. Brazilian diplomats insist that Ahmadinejad never closed the door to negotiations. In discreet, bilateral diplomatic talks, US officials even admit to their Brazilian counterparts that Ahmadinejad himself is not inflexible, nor is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In a February 19 speech at the naming of an Iranian destroyer, Khamenei once again denied that Iran was after nuclear weapons and stressed that they were illegal according to Islamic law because they killed large numbers of innocent civilians. The problem has been amplified by much American and European media hype. Defusing the sanctions drum rolls, even Clinton, in a moment of candor during her South American trip, was forced to admit that sanctions could take "several months" to be adopted, if at all. Even before Clinton's visit, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki had already admitted to Brazilian media on the record that Brazil could be a "bridgeâ between Iran and the US/European Union front, because of its "realist" position. Mottaki does not see Brazil as a "mediator" - but rather as "acting to facilitate consultations", as Tehran does not believe that any country should speak for its (Tehran's) own interests. Neither did Brasilia explicitly ask to be a mediator. Mottaki has revealed he's developing substantial "telephone diplomacy" with Amorim. Tehran obviously sees the benefits of establishing a dialogue channel to the industrialized West via a key developing country. The BRICS as the new superpower Lula's strategy of trying to position himself as a "bridge" should be especially welcomed as the Iranian dossier reaches a crucial stage at which hardline factions within the US/EU/Israel are doing everything to disregard any intelligence that doubts Iran is building a nuclear bomb; there have been systematic attempts to "fix" intelligence to suggest that they are (echoes of Iraq?) Lula stepping into the arena also means one more instance of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China) acting as a new rival superpower to an increasingly disoriented "full spectrum dominance" US. None of the BRICs is in favor of isolation of, not to mention an attack on, Iran. This is the case as long as they believe that Iran, according to all available evidence, is nowhere near a nuclear weapon, and an attack would inevitably accelerate nuclear proliferation in the Persian Gulf. The BRICs also know that the US and Iran are able to collaborate on thorny dossiers - such as over Afghanistan. That leaves the strategic agenda of the proverbial elephant in the room - Israel - on the table. So it's time for the BRICs to call Israel's bluff. If the Netanyahu government in Israel can humiliate both Obama and Biden on expanded Israeli settlement in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, it's fair to assume it could ignore the pleas of the chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, Mike Mullen, who has warned that an attack on Iran would be a "big, big, big problem for all of us". Israel (as well as Washington) may simply want regime change in Iran by any means necessary. Israel may go nuclear - using bunker-busting tactical nukes to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel may be ready to unleash preventive war - a staple of Israeli policy fully adopted by the George W Bush administration. And Israel certainly counts on the US for logistical and political support. Lula hasn't gone that far. But his positioning contains the embryo of all these thorny questions with which the BRICs should confront Israel. Then the whole world will know which tale is really wagging the dog. *** Note 1. Mercosur or Mercosul (Spanish: Mercado Comun del Sur) is a regional trade agreement between Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Venezuela. Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). .
. March 19, 2010 SouthAmerica: About 12 postings were just erased from this thread for some reason - if any of these postings were one of my postings I will repost it ASAP. .
. March 24, 2010 SouthAmerica: Article published on Brazzil magazine about Lulaâs trip to Israel. The article was published as an editorial on a major newspaper in Brazil: O Estado de S. Paulo Lula's Pharaonic Dream of Bringing Peace to Middle East Leads Him from Futility to Absurdity. - Written by O Estado de S. Paulo - Tuesday, 16 March 2010 http://www.brazzil.com/component/co...-him-from-futility-to-absurdity.html#comments ⦠This time, the proverbial good luck of President Lula seems to have deserted him. .
. March 26, 2010 SouthAmerica: The Jewish Lobby in the United States is turning the United States into a Banana Republic at the speed of light. The American people still think the United States is a superpower. But then comes the big question: Why a supposed superpower let a single lobbying group (the Jewish Lobby) highjack its government and dictate policies over and over again that are completely against the self-interest of the United States in the short and long-term? And at the same time make the United States look like shit to the rest of the world. Is this a smart superpower or just a former superpower that is in complete free fall and following the same path into total collapse like the former Soviet Union? How PATHETIC the United States has become in the eyes of the rest of the world? As the article said: ââ¦a giant hall crammed with 7,500 very powerful people regimented by a very powerful lobby - plus half of the United States Senate and more than a third of the congress - basically calling in unison for Palestinian and Iranian blood. â¦Only 10 days after scolding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for 43 minutes over the phone, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed up at AIPAC spinning the usual platitudes. â¦publicly humiliated US Vice President Joe Biden went to Tel Aviv University and told his audience he is ... a Zionist.â ⦠AIPAC arm-twisted members of the US Congress to sign a letter to the White House calling for the US to bypass the United Nations Security Council and unilaterally sanction Iran. And AIPAC also urged lawmakers to pass with no comments the annual US$3 billion US aid to Israel. This means the new made-in-USA F-35 fighter jets Israel buys will be basically financed by US taxpayers. ⦠After all, the Democratic Party depends heavily on very wealthy Jewish - and Zionist - donors for a chunk of its budget." ***** Middle East March 26, 2010 Asia Times (Hong Kong) âObama squeezed between Israel and Iranâ By Pepe Escobar The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual show in Washington would hardly be out of place in a Quentin Tarantino movie; picture a giant hall crammed with 7,500 very powerful people regimented by a very powerful lobby - plus half of the United States Senate and more than a third of the congress - basically calling in unison for Palestinian and Iranian blood. The AIPAC 2010 show predictably was yet one more "bomb Iran" special; but it was also a call to arms against the Barack Obama administration, as far as the turbo-charging of the illegal colonization of East Jerusalem is concerned. The administration has reacted to the quarrel with a masterpiece of schizophrenic kabuki (classical Japanese dance-drama) theater. Corporate media insisted there was a deep "crisis" between the unshakeable allies. Nonsense. One just has to look at the facts. Only 10 days after scolding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for 43 minutes over the phone, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton showed up at AIPAC spinning the usual platitudes. At least she talked about a "change of facts on the ground" in Palestine and stressed the current status quo is untenable. Netanyahu for his part apparently told Clinton in private (and later Obama as well) that Israel would take "confidence-building measures" in the West Bank, but would continue anyway to build settlements like there's no tomorrow. When Clinton switched to Iran demonization mode, she was met with universal rapture. The Obama administration will "not accept a nuclear-armed Iran"; is working on sanctions "that will bite"; and the leadership in Iran must know there are "real consequences" for not coming clean with their nuclear program. The demonization seemed to turn Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into a paradigm of wisdom. Khamenei remarked this week, "If they are extending a metal hand inside a velvet glove, we won't accept it." Israel rules, Washington follows AIPAC arm-twisted members of the US Congress to sign a letter to the White House calling for the US to bypass the United Nations Security Council and unilaterally sanction Iran. And AIPAC also urged lawmakers to pass with no comments the annual US$3 billion US aid to Israel. This means the new made-in-USA F-35 fighter jets Israel buys will be basically financed by US taxpayers. No surprises here. This is a congress that backed Israel's assault in Gaza in late 2008 and condemned the Goldstone Report on Israeli atrocities in that conflict by a vote of 334 to 36. After all, the Democratic party depends heavily on very wealthy Jewish - and Zionist - donors for a chunk of its budget. Just one day after Israel's Interior Minister Eli Yishai announced the building of 1,600 exclusively Jewish apartments in East Jerusalem (part of a planned, non-negotiable 50,000 which will block it from becoming the capital of a Palestinian state and prevent Palestinian residents of the city from traveling to the West Bank), publicly humiliated US Vice President Joe Biden went to Tel Aviv University and told his audience he is ... a Zionist. He added, "Throughout my career, Israel has not only remained close to my heart but it has been the center of my work as a United States Senator and now as vice president of the United States." Of course it does not matter that General David "I'm positioning myself for 2012" Petraeus, chief of US Central Command, told the US Senate Armed Services Committee that the Israeli-Arab conflict "foments anti-American sentiment due to a perception of US favoritism for Israel". Even though "perception" may be the understatement of the millennium, as a potential Republican presidential candidate Petraeus knows he will be in deep trouble with the Republican hardcore Christians and with the Christian-Zionist fringe. When Obama, as a presidential candidate, addressed AIPAC on June 3, 2008, he said, "We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran ... I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything and I mean everything." Obama even pulled a Netanyahu avant la lettre and declared, "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." At AIPAC this week, Netanyahu said the Israelis were already building in Jerusalem 3,000 years ago and will continue to do so. Even without referring to Israel's religious supremacist and colonialist approach to Jerusalem for these past few decades, historian and Middle East expert Juan Cole at his blog "Informed Comment" demolished Bibi's claim. For instance, "Adherents of Judaism did not found Jerusalem. It existed for perhaps 2,700 years before anything we might recognize as Judaism arose. Jewish rule may have been no longer than 170 years or so." Cole points out that Muslims, Egyptians, Romans, Iranians and Greeks have the greatest claim on the city. All in all, it's no wonder Stephen Green, in Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations with Militant Israel, a book published in 1984, had already noted how "since 1953, Israel, and friends of Israel in America, have determined the broad outlines of US policy in the region. It has been left to American presidents to implement that policy, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, and to deal with tactical issues." Free-for-all Zionism Former Moldovan bouncer turned Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is basically a spokesman for Zionist settlers and a million immigrants from the former Soviet Union. He can tell the German weekly magazine Der Spiegel that "Iran is threatening the whole world" and still get away with it. No wonder multitudes across the developing world - and not only Muslim lands - increasingly deplore Zionism policies of occupation/colonization, targeted assassinations, Lebensraum (living space) and degrading Palestinians. But crisis? What crisis? Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies could not have put it better. "Someone seems to have told the Obama administration that a series of polite requests equals pressure. It doesn't. Real pressure looks like this: 'Please stop settlements.' Answer: 'No.' 'Then, you know that [the] $30 billion that [former president George W] Bush arranged for you from US tax money, and we agreed to pay - you can kiss that goodbye.' That's what pressure looks like." It won't happen. This "crisis" between Tel Aviv and Washington is a non-event. On the other hand, no one knows exactly whatever hardball Obama and Netanyahu played behind closed doors for three-and-a-half hours in Washington. Did Netanyahu "spit into Obama's eye", according to Israeli Labor Party member Eitan Cabel? Or was this was just more kabuki designed to obscure a not-so-silent drive towards an attack on Iran - where once again fresh American blood will be spilled to placate a non-existent "existential threat" to Israel? *** Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007) and Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge. His new book, just out, is Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LC26Ak01.html .
. March 27, 2010 SouthAmerica: I wonder if the United States will ever wake up and realize that its close association with Israel goes completely against the short and long-term self-interest of the United States as a nation. The longer the American people take to realize that fact the more costly it will be for the United States as a nation in terms of US dollars, prestige, and influence around the world. The best thing the Obama administration can do regarding US foreign policy it is to distance the United States from Israel, and stop funding that country and its non-sense. The United States continued funding of Israel year after year is one of the reasons that peace it will never be achieved in the Middle East â the continued US funding of Israel is a major incentive for Israel to sabotage any type of potential peace deals regarding that part of the world. Israel got addicted to the gravy train that comes from the United States year after year, and Israel will do anything to keep the gravy train coming on a regular basis in the future. I wonder is Americans are smart enough to figure out that simple fact. Basically you donât need to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out â the gravy train from the United States is a major incentive for Israel to keep that mess in the Middle East going on in the future until Americans wake up and realize that the key to Middle East peace is to cut 100 percent any military and financial aid to Israel. ***** March 26, 2010 âNetanyahu pressed to resist US amid anger at treatmentâ By Tobias Buck in Jerusalem Financial Times (UK) Benjamin Netanyahu returned to Israel on Thursday to face pressure from his coalition partners to resist the demands of the US and widespread public concern over the prime ministerâs treatment at the hands of his foremost ally. One Israeli columnist remarked that Mr Netanyahuâs reception at the White House had been fit for the âpresident of Equatorial Guineaâ. Another said President Barack Obamaâs administration had treated him no better than âthe last of the wazirs from Lower Senegalâ. The Israeli prime minister dismissed suggestions of a big rift and even claimed to have found a âgolden wayâ to revive the chances of peace while preserving Israelâs essential interests. In truth, however, Mr Netanyahu is approaching precisely the dilemma that so many predicted from the day he took office last year. Unless the US backs down, Mr Netanyahu will be compelled to make a stark choice between keeping the support of the Obama administration or placating his rightwing coalition partners at home in Israel. The issue at the heart of this crucial divide is the fate of occupied East Jerusalem. The US administration wants Mr Netanyahu to guarantee there will be no more announcements of construction in Jewish settlements there. This demand reflects the long-held Palestinian view that settlement growth creates facts on the ground that make a Palestinian state â with East Jerusalem as its capital â less viable by the day. Mr Netanyahu, for his part, has made clear to Washington that settlement construction will continue in East Jerusalem, which Israel â unlike the rest of the world â regards as part of its sovereign territory. That stance arises both from the prime ministerâs firmly held beliefs and his instinct for political survival. Offering concessions on East Jerusalem would quite simply âput his coalition at stakeâ, according to Dore Gold, the president of the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs and a former foreign policy adviser to Mr Netanyahu. That assessment is widely shared in Israel and reflects the presence of far-right and religious parties in the ruling coalition, which regard Jerusalem as even more of a red line than does Mr Netanyahu. Ministers from his own Likud party also called on the prime minister to stand firm against the US. âHow did we get to the point that building in Jerusalem has turned into a stumbling block? If we blink now, we will lose everything, and when that happens, the government will collapse,â Silvan Shalom, the vice-prime minister, told Israeli radio. Perhaps the biggest uncertainty for Mr Netanyahu is how the rift with Mr Obama will play out among Israeli voters. On the one hand, pollsters say Israelis have always wanted their leader to enjoy good relations with the US â a fact that may count against the prime minister. Others argue, however, that the White Houseâs treatment of Mr Netanyahu may provoke a backlash against the Obama administration: âNo one likes to see their prime minister mistreated and humiliated in such a way â no matter what people think of Netanyahu,â one Israeli official said on Thursday. Mr Gold agreed: âThe people of Israel saw how their prime minister was addressed and I donât think that gave them much comfort. âHow the prime minister is addressed and treated affects how the people of Israel feel they are treated,â he said. The most recent polls, released before Mr Netanyahuâs meeting with Mr Obama this week, showed that a majority of Israelis considered the US presidentâs treatment of Israel âfair and friendlyâ. At the same time, they showed that most voters regarded Mr Netanyahu as the best leader for Israel. Unless the two sides can resolve their differences fast, at least one of those findings is all but certain to change. .
. Part 1 of 2 March 29, 2010 SouthAmerica: The Israeli propaganda machine has been working overtime, and it is becoming laughable their empty threats and pure BS about attacking Iran nuclear facilities. First the Israelis have lost all their credibility about attacking Iranâs nuclear facilities, and if they were planning to do it they would have carried the attack long time ago. If they did not carry the attack in the last 5 years it is because they donât have the capability to do it or they donât have the balls, because of the consequences afterwards of such an attack. The Israelis are becoming Pathetic with their empty threats, and at this point nobody is taking their Blah, blah, blah seriously other than The New York Times. No wonder The New York Times is going broke and losing its credibility. I donât know why The New York Times wasted an entire page on the Sunday March 28, 2010 on the Week in Review section with some crap about Israel attacking Iran? Maybe The New York Times donât have anything better to print on its pages anymore other than a silly simulation about an Israeli attack on Iran. It is also possible that someone at The New York Times misplaced that article when the article were published on the Week in Review section, since that article really belongs in the comics section of the newspaper. ******* August 10, 2006 SouthAmerica: Today I watched on C-Span the broadcast of a forum on US Nuclear Policy. The program brought me memories from 1983 when they did show a brief clip from the original ABC TV movie âThe Day Afterâ (1983). They did show the scene when the United States is being attacked with nuclear weapons by the Soviet Union. â¦It was interesting the presentation of the people who participated on this forum: US Nuclear Policy. One of the people who participated on this forum said that the United States and Israel were preparing to attack Iranâs nuclear sites with nuclear weapons â on a pre-emptive nuclear attack to destroy Iranâs nuclear capabilities. That person also said that such an attack would kill approximately 2.5 million people immediately, and another 11.5 million people would be exposed to high levels of radioactivity; and be affected by fallout. After a nuclear attack most people would die from the original shockwave and many more would die later from the subsequent fallout. Acting on the human body, the shock waves cause pressure waves through the tissues. These waves mostly damage junctions between tissues of different densities (bone and muscle) or the interface between tissue and air. Lungs and the gut, which contain air, are particularly injured. The damage causes severe haemorrhaging or air embolisms, either of which can be rapidly fatal. The overpressure estimated to damage lungs is about 70 kPa. Some eardrums would probably rupture around 22 kPa (0.2 atm) and half would rupture between 90 and 130 kPa (0.9 to 1.2 atm). Nuclear explosions produce large amounts of radiation and radioactive debris. Fallout is the residual radiation hazard from a nuclear explosion and is named from the fact that it "falls out" of the atmosphere into which it is spread during the explosion. It commonly refers to the radioactive dust created when a nuclear weapon explodes. This radioactive dust, consisting of hot particles, is a kind of radioactive contamination. If the United States and Israel decide to go ahead with their plan to attack Iranâs nuclear sites with nuclear weapons â the results will be catastrophic for over 15 million people. And fallout would affect many other countries in the area such as Afghanistan, India and many others. Can we rule out as non-sense a nuclear attack by the United States and Israel against Iran? Not with the kind of government leadership that we have today in the United States and also in Israel. These people have been desensitized to the violence, to exceptional human suffering that they inflict on other people and they probably would not think twice to go ahead with their plans for a nuclear attack against Iran. We are not talking about reasonable people in this case. It is possible that we are talking about people who some day will be charged with crimes against humanity. ************* Here is the info about the C-Span program about US Nuclear policy. Program broadcasted on C-Span Wednesday, August 9, 2006 at 9:22 PM. Forum: U.S. Nuclear Policy Hiroshima/Nagasaki Peace Committee Washington, District of Columbia (United States) Kodama, Shotaro - Survivor Yoshimura, Kazuhiro - Survivor Boyd, MichelleLegislative - Director, Public Citizen, Critical Mass Energy Project Royanian, Simin - Co-Founder, Women for Peace and Justice in Iran Roth, NickolasDirector (Designated), Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Research and Advocacy Moore, Carol - Member, Hiroshima/Nagasaki Peace Committee Marking the 61st anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Nagasaki, panelists talked about the consequences of U.S. nuclear weapons policy from Hiroshima to Iran. Among the issues they addressed were the safety and security of international nuclear stockpiles, the U.S. policy of preemptive attack, and on-going tensions over weapons development in countries such as Iran. After their discussion the panelists responded to questions from members of the audience. Shotaro Kodama was a survivor from Hiroshima and Kazuhiro Yoshimura was a survivor from Nagasaki who talked about their personal experiences. The presentation included a brief clip from the ABC TV movie âThe Day Afterâ (1983). Source: The United States is planning to attack Iran with Nuclear Weapons http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=67053&perpage=6&pagenumber=23 Note: Regarding this thread at the Elite Trader Forum the discussion has been going on since April 10, 2006. .
. Part 2 of 2 This article really belongs in the âcomicsâ section of the newspaper. The New York Times March 28, 2010 Section: Week in Review âWhat Ifâ â Imagining an Israeli attack on Iran. By DAVID E. SANGER In 1981, Israel destroyed Iraqâs nuclear reactor at Osirak, declaring it could not live with the chance the country would get a nuclear weapons capability. In 2007, it wiped out a North Korean-built reactor in Syria. And the next year, the Israelis secretly asked the Bush administration for the equipment and overflight rights they might need some day to strike Iranâs much better-hidden, better-defended nuclear sites. They were turned down, but the request added urgency to the question: Would Israel take the risk of a strike? And if so, what would follow? Now that parlor game question has turned into more formal war games simulations. The governmentâs own simulations are classified, but the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution created its own in December. The results were provocative enough that a summary of them has circulated among top American government and military officials and in many foreign capitals. For the sake of verisimilitude, former top American policymakers and intelligence officials â some well known â were added to the mix. They played the president and his top advisers; the Israeli prime minister and cabinet; and Iranian leaders. They were granted anonymity to be able to play their roles freely, without fear of blowback. (This reporter was invited as an observer.) A report by Kenneth M. Pollack, who directed the daylong simulation, can be found at the Saban Centerâs Web site. A caution: Simulations compress time and often oversimplify events. Often they underestimate the risk of error â for example, that by using faulty intelligence leaders can misinterpret a random act as part of a pattern of aggression. In this case, the actions of the American and Israeli teams seemed fairly plausible; the players knew the bureaucracy and politics of both countries well. Predicting Iranâs moves was another matter, since little is known about its decision-making process. âDAVID E. SANGER ***** 1. ISRAEL ATTACKS Without telling the U.S. in advance, Israel strikes at six of Iran's most critical nuclear facilities, using a refueling base hastily set up in the Saudi Arabian desert without Saudi knowledge. (It is unclear to the Iranians if the Saudis were active participants or not.) Already-tense relations between the White House and Israel worsen rapidly, but the lack of advance notice allows Washington to say truthfully that it had not condoned the attack. 2. U.S. STEPS IN In a series of angry exchanges, the U.S. demands that Israel cease its attacks, though some in Washington view the moment as an opportunity to further weaken the Iranian government, particularly the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Telling Israel it has made a mess, Washington essentially instructs the country to sit in a corner while the United States tries to clean things up. 3. U.S. SENDS WEAPONS Even while calling for restraint on all sides, the U.S. deploys more Patriot antimissile batteries and Aegis cruisers around the region, as a warning to Iran not to retaliate. Even so, some White House advisers warn against being sucked into the conflict, believing that Israel's real strategy is to lure America into finishing the job with additional attacks on the damaged Iranian facilities. 4. IRAN STRIKES BACK Despite warnings, Iran fires missiles at Israel, including its nuclear weapons complex at Dimona, but damage and casualties are minimal. Meanwhile, two of Iran's proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, launch attacks in Israel and fire rockets into the country. Believing it already has achieved its main goal of setting back the nuclear program by years, Israel barely responds. 5. IRAN SEES OPPORTUNITIES Iran, while wounded, sees long-term opportunities to unify its people - and to roll over its opposition parties - on nationalistic grounds. Its strategy is to mount low-level attacks on Israel while portraying the United States as a paper tiger - unable to control its ally and unwilling to respond to Iran. Convinced that the Saudis had colluded with the Israelis, and emboldened by the measured initial American position, Iran fires missiles at the Saudi oil export processing center at Abqaiq, and tries to incite Shiite Muslims in eastern Saudi Arabia to attack the Saudi regime. Iran also conducts terror attacks against European targets, in hopes that governments there will turn on Israel and the United States. 6. IRAN AVOIDS U.S. TARGETS After a meeting of its divided leadership, Iran decides against directly attacking any American targets - to avoid an all-out American response. 7. STRIFE IN ISRAEL Though Iran's retaliation against Israel causes only modest damage, critics in the Israeli media say the country's leaders, by failing to respond to every attack, have weakened the credibility of the nation's deterrence. Hezbollah fires up to 100 rockets a day into northern Israel, with some aimed at Haifa and Tel Aviv. The Israeli economy comes to a virtual halt, and Israeli officials, urging American intervention, complain that one-third of the country's population is living in shelters. Hundreds of thousands flee Haifa and Tel Aviv. 8. ISRAEL FIRES BACK Israel finally wins American acquiescence to retaliate against Hezbollah. It orders a 48-hour campaign by air and special forces against Lebanon and begins to prepare a much larger air and ground operation. 9. IRAN PLAYS THE OIL CARD Knowing that its ultimate weapon is its ability to send oil prices sky high, Iran decides to attack Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, an oil industry center, with conventional missiles and begins mining the Strait of Hormuz. A Panamanian-registered, Americanowned tanker and an American minesweeper are severely damaged. The price of oil spikes, though temporarily. 10. U.S. BOOSTS FORCES Unable to sit on the sidelines while oil supplies and American forces are threatened, Washington begins a massive military reinforcement of the Gulf region. 11. REVERBERATIONS The game ends eight days after the initial Israeli strike. But it is clear the United States was leaning toward destroying all Iranian air, ground and sea targets in and around the Strait of Hormuz, and that Iran's forces were about to suffer a significant defeat. Debate breaks out over how much of Iran's nuclear program was truly crippled, and whether the country had secret backup facilities that could be running in just a year or two. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/weekinreview/28sangerintrotml?scp=2&sq=Week in Review&st=cse .
. September 5, 2010 SouthAmerica: This past week as I watched on the news the latest fiasco going on in Washington regarding Israel and the Palestinians, I realized that at least the United States has provided a mediator with the right credentials for a change since Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is specialized in worthless pieces of property - Whitewater and now Israel. Like the old joke says: why is Hillary Clinton the perfect person to work on the peace deal with Israel? - Because she is specialized in dealing in worthless pieces of property. I better clarify for some readers of ET, because some of you probably don't have a clue about what I am trying to say, since you never heard of the Whitewater scandal. Whitewater scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitewater_controversy .
Nukes? Brazil doesn't even have toilet paper. Brazil had a space program and new spaceport but it was sabatoged by France when Brazil started leaning towards Islamofascism. Hilarious. It was put out of business before it could achieve its first revenue generating launch. Now that is timing. Now that brazil is in cahoots with the bad guys it is open game for all kinds of ops against infrastructure. I'll bet power substations and water projects are just going to mysteriously blow up lol. Everything will be blamed on the US of course.
hee hee, i'm thinking that South America [the op] has a problem with God, not so much the US or Israel... SA, why does Israel bother you so much?? Hee hee, my Bible says that "if a rock is thrown into a pack of dogs, the one that howls is the one that got hit"... My earnest recommendation to you is to take up all your problems with God with Him, not the rest of us...