Israeli and US generals in intense discussions.
By Ted Belman
The Israel Herald has a long but interesting article, U.S. and Israeli militaries discuss attack on Liberty in which it links a current discussion on the USS Liberty with a possible attack on Iran. It speculates,
-
So where does the Liberty fit in? What discussions could have possible brought the Liberty attack to the fore? If indeed Israel is planning an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, could it be that the U.S. has warned the Jewish state it would not tolerate a repeat of what happened to the Liberty? What other explanation could there be for discussing an incident both governments have long tried to forget?
I think this is a weak theory but have none to replace it with. It could have been a matter of talking over old times without anything more than that. Nothing is said to indicate the tenor of the talks. The author is just speculating and from my understanding of the facts, he is not terribly informed or accurate.
But more important is the discussion on Iran. We are advised,
-
Why Mullen was in Israel at all remains a mystery, and the fact that he spent two days there is even more surprising. Not only that but this week’s visit to Israel was the second since December by the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs. Further it followed a visit to Israel last week by two four-star U.S. Generals. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead, was in Israel for high-level talks with his Israeli counterpart, Vice Admiral Eliezer Marom. It was their third meeting in eight months. Around the middle of last week Gen. William S. Wallace, commander of the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, landed in Tel Aviv. He was there as the guest of OC Ground Forces Command Maj.-Gen. Avi Mizrahi. In contrast to Roughead’s visit, which was covered by the media, the Israeli military refused to answer questions about the Wallace visit.
It makes for interesting reading indeed.
Here’s and interesting documentary from VPRO Backlight the Netherlands. I don’t see anyone mention it on this site.It’s on youtube but also available as a download - opensource public domain.
http://www.archive.org/details/EndgameAFutureScenarioforIsrael
Comment by Max — July 6, 2008 @ 8:15 am
Vote for McCain; impeach Olmert; get the Pentagon plans in order; work with Israelis to destroy Iran, Syria, Hizbollah, Hamas - transfer Palestinians to Arabia; let the Jews build the Third Temple on the Temple Mount by international decree - then the peace process can move forward.
I would call giving Iran back to good and decent Iranians a plausible solution.
Comment by sunstartmf33 — July 6, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
Obama also bows in the dirt - therefore, when he’s got mud all over his face, take a snap shot and tell the whole world: Here’s one muddy American pie!
Comment by sunstartmf33 — July 6, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
To bomb Iran or not to bomb Iran. That is the question that pre-occupies us.
Comment by sunstartmf33 — July 6, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
In 1967, US President Johnson was so preoccupied with the Vietnam War and protest in the US, that he couldn’t offer Israel any substantive help against the imminent Egyptina-Syrian threat. Israel was forced to act on its own, in a pre-emptive strike. The situation is similar today: Bush’s hands are tied by election-year politics, and Israel may well have to unilaterally act against the Iranian threat.
The problem with the USS Liberty was that it was a spy ship, and the US was not candid with Israel about its location or mission. No doubt, there are many “Liberties” among the enormous US armada deployed around the Middle East today, and the US has been even less candid with Israel than in 1967 — in fact, at times we act flat-out like Israel’s enemy. The danger of a repeat of the “Liberty” affair, possibly magnified, is very great unless Washington changes its tune.
The big difference between now and 1967, is that the Israeli leadership is far less competent and far less committed to the survival of the nation than it was then. Just as Israel was cowed by the Americans into letting Sadaam Hussein bombard it with SCUDs during Gulf War I, without lifting a finger in retalliation, I think Olmert & Co. will be cowed into letting Iran become an existential threat. Israel is threatened by Iran, not the US; and the American government will not sacrifice its own agenda, both internal and external, to help save Israel: The events of the 1990s clearly demonstrate this. With this in mind, I think Mullen was in Israel primarily to put Olmert and his other running dogs in line: Israel is not to attack Iran before the US Presidential election; and it can do so afterwards only in a limited manner, according to American instructions.
Remember 1956, which was also an election year. Not only did Eisenhower thwart Israel’s interests then, but those of the British and French as well. It was no surprise, then, that those nations — who had supported the US in Korea — refused to lend a hand to us during the Vietnam War.
Ultimately, Iran must be attacked, massively, or the world is in grave danger; and the longer we put it off, the more danger we are in. I do not like playing the “prophecy” game; but if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons, Turkey (Gog) will ally itself with them in a formiddable alliance a la Ezekiel 38; and just as that prophecy predicts, Israel will have to use it’s “Sampson” option, and the invading armies will suffer the plague of their eyes melting in their sockets (i.e. a massive nuclear attack).
Is this what the Americans and Israelis want? If not, then I would expect them to be acting differently than they are; but as the prophecy says, God will “put hooks in the jaws” of the Turks and Iranians, and lead them into a suicidal confrontation they really don’t want. A victorious Israel could then confiscate the nuclear fuel of its enemies, and supply its energy needs for the prophesied seven years. I really don’t relish this scenario, but it seems to be the one that all involved are committed to.
BlandOatmeal
Comment by BlandOatmeal — July 7, 2008 @ 4:39 am
Recently, I suggested that the US Administration had reached a separate peace agreement with Iran. According to the US-Iran peace deal, Iran would wind down its support for Iraqi guerrillas, and the US guaranteed it won’t bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities. Iran made good on its promise, and allowed the US Administration a tactical PR victory of reduced casualties in Iraq. The US Administration waited with fulfilling its part of the game until after the Annapolis peace show. Refusing to attack Iran over its nuclear program earlier would have likely derailed Israeli commitment to the Annapolis peace parley.
Immediately after the Annapolis, in the highly unusual move the US Administration allowed for publication of unclassified summary of the US intelligence report which asserts that Iran wound down its nuclear program… in 2003, and now “only” enriches the uranium to weapons grade. The absurd report still suggests that Iran “may” produce a nuclear weapon before 2015. Still more ridiculously, the report suggests that Iran needs several more years to produce enough nuclear material for a bomb. In fact, Iran’s 3,000 centrifuges produce enough fuel for two bombs in a year, and Russian-built Bushehr reactor allows Iran to harvest enough plutonium for a nuclear bomb in just four months. Such harvesting only requires the Iranians to stop the reactor for three weeks - not something they would hesitate to do even at the expense of reducing power supply to the national grid.
The US intelligence on nuclear developments is laughable: it missed the crucial developments in Pakistani, North Korean, Libyan, and Syrian nuclear programs. Israel intelligence estimates that Iran will have nuclear bomb by the late 2008 or 2009. Iran has nuclear-able ballistic missiles, and all the technology for producing nuclear warheads from Pakistan and North Korea.
The US Administration tolerated Pakistani nuclear weapons. The US-North Korea’s nuclear arrangement amounts to scam: North Korea merely shut down its reactor,and recentlydestroyed a smoke stack filter, (easily replaced)and transferred the technology to third countries. They remain ready to revamp its nuclear program at any moment. The US Administration similarly has no problem with Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. The US stand-off with Iran over the nuclear issues meant only to push Iran to negotiate on Iraq. America will continue pushing for the empty sanctions against Iran, but not attack its nuclear facilities. The US Administration sold Israeli security for Iranian help in Iraq.
The US also persuaded Kurds to refrain from openly ceding from Iraq, and Iraqi government – from dismantling the Kurdish de facto state. Even if all the major Iraqi groups root out the terrorists, the groups would still have plenty of opportunities to fight among themselves.
Iraq’s mirror is Lebanon: a religiously fragmented state oscillating between fragile, frightful balance and bloody chaos. The Iraqi situation is made worse by the low probability of its government doing away with terrorists completely. As Israeli example shows, even a few dozen killed are still a big deal when media inflate the stories. Iraqis are happy now with decrease in violence, but in a year of quiet they would adjust their expectations and view even small terrorist acts as signs of growing instability.
The big problem facing Israel is the Blow back. What could and then would Iran do in retaliation. This is seldom discusses in most comments, of analysts and political and military commentators.
BlandOatmeal, be careful you just might get what you hope for! According to Jewish Mystics re: Gog u Magaog, The Muslims will war with the Christians, not the Jews who are promised to survive this end Days war of wars.
Comment by yamit82 — July 7, 2008 @ 6:30 am
Huh? What I hope for, is that:
1. the Israelis will demand and get a government and political system that actually looks after their national interest, and
2. the United States will realize that its own strategic interests are essentially the same as Israel’s: We are in the same war, against the same enemy.
As for the Zohar, it was written in the Middle Ages by a Spanish Jew, and — as many rabbis have noted — is absolute nonesense.
Comment by BlandOatmeal — July 7, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
The way I view this is that the Muslims will destroy or neutralize any outside help that Israel would be able to call upon. Once the support system is destroyed, Israel will be in extreme dire straits, and make a pact of peace with the death-cultist moon worshipers (whose very religion demands that such peace be broken as soon as feasible).
This means the destruction or neutralization of the West and that is why , IMHO, the West has no Biblical role to play in the events at the End Days. You see the Muslim leader, with his new Caliphate, conquering Jerusalem, attempt to annihilate the Jewish nation.. and then be stopped by God Himself.
This is a chilling bit from Revleation, which expands on the beast allegories in Daniel. My comments in brackets:
Comment by VinceP1974 — July 7, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
BlandOatmeal, Funny that when it serves your purposes, you quote or invoke rabbinical opinion but all other times you decry them as agents of the devil( my words your meanings) You can’t have it both ways! That’s common technique of most Christian fundamentalists, I am finding out.
Since you refute the Holy Zohar, Lets see how you refute Zechariah 8:20-23
If you have any problem understanding this, I will send you a hundred commentaries on it to enlighten you.
Comment by yamit82 — July 7, 2008 @ 11:14 pm