Iran Next Target, Warns Israeli Diplomat

A SENIOR Israeli diplomat has warned that Israel is ready to launch a military offensive against Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.

In an interview with The Age, Dan Gillerman, who was Israel’s permanent representative at the United Nations from 2003 until last September, said time for diplomatic efforts to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear capability might have already expired.

“The world cannot afford to live with a nuclear Iran,” Mr Gillerman said. “I hope diplomacy will work, but I’m not sure we have the time for diplomacy to work.

“Israel has made it very clear that it will not live with a nuclear Iran and I believe that Israel has the ability and the capacity to make sure it will not happen.”

Mr Gillerman, who will visit Australia later this month, said two clocks were running with respect to Iran: “There is the technological clock of Iran and there is the diplomatic clock, and I think the Iranian clock is running much faster.”

Detailed military plans to bomb Iran’s nuclear enrichment plant have long been on the table of Israeli military commanders. Outgoing Defence Minister Ehud Barak is believed to have requested US support for a military strike last May, but the plans were aborted after then-president George Bush declined to endorse them.

Last June, Israel carried out military exercises over the Mediterranean involving more than 100 F-16 and F-15 fighters in what was interpreted as a rehearsal for an attack on Iran’s nuclear plants. At the time, The New York Times reported that as well as sending a warning to Tehran, the exercise was intended as a message to the US that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium faltered.

On Tuesday, the man likely to lead Israel’s next government, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, made a reference to Iran in his victory speech. He said: “Israel is facing an Iranian threat, from afar and from near. The nuclear threat and the terror threat … it will be up to us to deal with this, and we will be able to deal with these two challenges successfully.”

Israel has carried out two strikes on suspected nuclear sites over the past 30 years. In 1981, its jets bombed Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak, and in September 2007, Israeli aircraft bombed a structure in Syria that was alleged to have housed a nuclear reactor.

Any new attack against Iran would be much more complicated, with the country’s uranium enrichment plants spread across many sites. Iran’s comparatively sophisticated military and its distance from Israel would present further complications for military planners and risk setting off a full-scale war.

Mr Gillerman said the world could not afford to underestimate the seriousness of the Iranian threat. “We have a very extreme, radical fundamentalist regime there with a president (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) who denies the Holocaust while preparing the next one, and has vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the map. My advice to the rest of the world is to listen to him very carefully and take him at face value.”

Informationclearinghouse

Advertisements

Hillary, Tzipi to Stop Iran Enrichment

Clinton-Livni

Clinton-Livni

Israel’s daily Haaretz said Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and the new US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made the deal during a phone conversation on Thursday.

The report added that they also agreed to take joint measures to halt Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Clinton officially gained the control of the US State Department on Thursday.

The US, Israel and their European allies accuse Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signatory Iran of developing a nuclear program for military purposes. Tehran says it only seeks civilian applications of the technology.

Last week, Clinton said that the Obama administration would pursue ‘an attitude toward engagement (with Iran) that might bear fruit’.

Germany’s Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier also said, in a Thursday letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Berlin is ready to aid the Obama administration in resolving issues such as the Iranian nuclear standoff.

Insight-info

American people back Iran`s right to enrich uranium: Chomsky

Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky

Noam Chomsky lashed out at western media reports saying Tehran was “defying the world” over its nuclear program.

“That’s a funny definition of the ‘world’. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), for example which is the majority of countries, endorses Iran’s right to enrich uranium,” said Chomsky.

“Now nobody thinks they have the right to develop nuclear weapons, however that’s different issue. But the majority of the (American) population agrees (on Iran’s right to enrich uranium),” he added.

Iran has repeatedly stressed that having nuclear arms would be against its Islamic teachings and laws.

The distinguished 80-year-old professor emeritus of linguistics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) said, “Public opinion here overwhelmingly holds that Iran should have the right to develop nuclear energy…”

Chomsky reaffirmed also that Iran was “of course entitled to uranium enrichment as a member of the NPT.”
The US scholar made clear that most Americans reject the Iran policy of President George W. Bush.

“With regard to Iran, a substantial segment of pretty mainstream opinion has been harshly critical of the confrontational approach and has called for negotiations and diplomacy,” Chomsky said.

He added there could have been a US-Iranian “rapprochement for the last 10 years.”

“It did not happen because of the extremism of the Bush administration was simply directed at making relations harsher, more bitter, militarizing them and that’s why the Bush administration even antagonized allies,” Chomsky said.

Asked whether the US-Iranian estrangement could finally end, he pointed to the possibility of a “working relationship” between both adversaries.

full article: www.insight-info.com

1835: theatre or diplomacy?

United Nations Security Council

Transforming diplomacy to showing off, action to presentation, and pressure to protecting honor are the most important yard sticks of the present age. The issue of resolution 1835 shows all of these. Yesterday morning, the Security Council of the United Nations issued a resolution against Iran. The writers confessed to the fact and the text showed that it was only an emphasis of previous resolutions and that there was nothing new in it. After the resolution was passed, the American who seemed excited immediately tried to clarify the purpose of the P5+1 from this move so that no misunderstanding could remain. Rice, in the first minutes after the resolution was passed, told Reuters that Iran should recognize that the P5+1 is still strong. After her other foreign ministers made similar statements explaining the reasons behind the resolution. David Miliband, who has always been severely against Iran, told a French news agency that this resolution shows that the will of six powers in the world in regards to the Iranian nuclear program has not weakened. Frank-Walter Steinmeier showed his views in a prettier and clearer statement. The press in New York wrote narrated him saying that there was no new sanctions in the resolution against Iran, but it was a move made so that Iran would not become happy over the differences that arose in the P5+1.

Allow me to start the discussion by asking a question: What message should Iran take from the resolution? America, and apparently all of the six nations of the group, want Iran to take the message that the internal differences of the six nations was really a mistake in calculations made by Iran and that all of these countries are united in preventing a nuclear Iran. The recent debates in regards to Georgia and other issues, whatever they are, do not make any difference in relation to Iran. They are still firm in whatever was previously written in resolutions drafted by the Security Council of the United Nations. But, the truth is that 1835 can, in no way, relate such a message. Rather, the opposite. Just as many political analogists in Tehran conclude, the issuing of this resolution and the words that the western politicians said in regards to explaining their actions all show that Iran made the correct calculations. 1835 is nothing but a small Band-Aid placed over the deep wounds of differences that the P5+1 have. It is interesting that western politicians said that their purpose was to prevent Iran from becoming happier. It was a way of coming together despite differences and showing how they will react to Iran not hiding their differences which are clearer than the sun.

If we go a little bit back in the past the issue will become clearer. After the latest developments in Georgia where the west and Russia stood up, face to face, for the first time after the Cold War, the cooperation of the P5+1 felt a shock in regards to Iran. Some Russian and European sources wrote in the first days that the first sacrifice of this situation, before Georgia, will be the P5+1’s efforts for cooperation in quelling Iran’s nuclear program. A few days after the fighting the analysis was seen in almost all of the world’s media that great diplomacy has ended and Russia will not longer continue its cooperation with the west, including in regards to Iran’s nuclear program. Inside Iran, although America’s efforts to create divisions in the Caucuses were rebuked, but nobody believed that the problems in Georgia would take Russia out of the western camp and make them join with Iran. Almost all people inside Iran believed that Russia has always dealed with Iran and will continue to do this. They benefit from this and this is exactly what happened. Meanwhile, it is not necessarily because of Russia’s resistance, rather it is mostly because of the successful and effective resistance of Iran that the pressure on Iran has increased and sanctions of become more severe. The Georgia issue was only a small aid to this process.

full article: www.insight-info.com