|
02 August 2012 By Stephen
Lendman His bluster long ago wore thin.
Iranian/Israeli/Middle East analyst Meir Javedanfar
said he put himself up a tree and wants Obama to bring
him down. "It's come down to threats, threats,
threats, but we are at a saturation point." Growing numbers of Israelis
reject him for good reason. He menaces them like
others. Attacking Iran assures retaliation most
Israelis fear. It'll mean widespread destruction,
radiation contamination, and large numbers killed or
injured. His vow to go it alone is
bluster, not bite. Instead of calming things down,
inflammatory comments follow earlier ones. On August
2, the Jerusalem Post headlined "Winograd: Striking
Iran may endanger Israel's future," saying: Former Supreme Court Justice
Eliyahu Winograd opposes attacking Iran for good
reason. In 2006, he headed the Committee of Inquiry on
why Israel's Lebanon war failed. He said: "I am not convinced that the
decision-makers will implement the findings of that
report. If that is the case, we are all in big
trouble." He denounced Netanyahu/Barak
hawkishness on Iran despite strong opposition by
senior Israeli past and current officials. "All the heads of the defense
establishment, the Shin Bet, the Mossad, both former
and current, and military intelligence, everyone is
saying 'Don't attack!' " "(O)nly Barak and Netanyahu have
decided yes," or have they? Bluster often hides
intentions. Bullies usually back down when confronted.
Winograd's committee called
Israel's Lebanon war a failure. Political leaders
didn't sufficiently consult with military officials
before attacking. They left before they looked. Home Front preparedness was also
inadequate. Little attention was given then and again
now. A "rain of missiles" may follow attacking Iran.
Israel is woefully unprepared. How many Israelis will
die for Netanyahu/Barak's folly? Why should any when
peace avoids bloodshed. How much longer will they put up
with their bluster? Winograd criticized Netanyahu for
complaining about former officials expressing views
publicly. He's more vocal than anyone. "You intend to act. Sit down and
shut up. Decide secretly if you're attacking, and if
you decide to attack, attack. But what are you talking
for? So that the Iranians will be even more prepared
and ready their missiles to target us?" "You are going to endanger our
entire country, everything we have built. Both the
country physically and the economy." Opposition leader Shaul Mofaz
echoed his comments, saying: "Israel cannot act alone to
prevent the Iranian nuclear program at this time. Such
action might bring us into a very difficult war." Days earlier, Mofaz called
Netanyahu "confused, stressed out and unfocused. (He)
lost the trust of the security chiefs," Obama and
Shimon Peres. Former Mossad head Efraim Halevy fears a
generation of war if Israel attacks Iran. "We have to take into account the
possibility that if we attack Iran's nuclear
facilities, there will no longer be a political
horizon in regard to Iran or sanctions against Iran."
"We have to deploy for the
possibility that while the immediate result of the
operation will be Israel's glorification in the Sunni
Arab world, the later result will be a sharp
anti-Israeli public wave in the spirit of the Arab
Spring." "We need to understand that after
the attack, a deep Israeli complex will develop in
Iran, one that crosses parties and opinions and
communities, because we will become the symbol of
those that humiliated Iran and prevented it from
restoring its greatness." "We need to remember that we are
very much dependent on the United States and not utter
boastful slogans that we are sovereign and therefore
will take our fate into our hands." Weeks ago, former Mossad head
Meir Dagan said Israel faces no existential threat. He
criticized inflammatory warmongering and urged
changing Israeli's system. "(W)e need a prime minister," he
said," who will not be subject to political pressures
when deciding on such issues as an attack on Iran or a
peace agreement." "The State of Israel is at a
critical point in time of great challenges both
foreign and domestic. Minority groups are controlling
the state and the majority is not being heard." Former Military Intelligence head
Major General (ret.) Uri Saguy also believes
Netanyahu/Barak are heading Israel over a cliff. He
expressed outrage over their dangerous warmongering.
He called it "orchestrated and purposely timed
hysteria that puts the country into a state of
anxiety, artificial or not." His bottom line is that
Netanyahu/Barak can't be trusted. How can they be by
putting Israelis and others in danger. IDF chief of
staff Benny Gantz and Mossad head Tamir Pardo also
oppose war. So do Air Force head Amir Eshel,
Military Intelligence chief Aviv Kochavi, Shin Bet
director Yoram Cohen, and other top Israeli officials.
Netanyahu/Barak are increasingly isolated. On September 4, Haaretz headlined
"In the Iranian poker game, Netanyahu and Barak have
overplayed their hand," saying: The Israeli Hayom daily has close
ties to Netanyahu. In recent weeks, it's featured a
barrage of worrying reports on Iran's alleged nuclear
progress and Washington's failure to halt it. In the last few days, something
changed. On August 31, it highlighted Joint Chiefs
Chairman General Martin Dempsey's comments about
America's unwillingness to be complicit if Israel goes
it alone. The strategically timed IAEA
report got second billing. On September 1, Iran got
back page coverage. On September 3, it again made
headlines, "but only in the form of Israel Defense
Forces Chief of Staff Benny Gantz's vague statement
that the IDF can act 'anywhere, anytime.' " In other words, the daily out in
front echoing inflammatory Netanyahu comments now
backed off. "Does this indicate that (he's) seeking a
ladder to climb down from" his perch high up in a tree
and very much out on a limb? Perhaps he overplayed his hand.
Crying wolf enough times begins falling on deaf ears.
Growing Netanyahu/Barak public disapproval also
matters. So does disagreement with Washington. It's
over timing, not policy. Key is that Netanyahu/Barak talk
is bluster. Without Washington's support, attacking
Iran won't happen. Haaretz thinks inflammatory Israeli
comments damaged US/Israeli relations. Perhaps
eventually but not now. Key is what major media reports
don't say. Their common theme is suppressing truth and
full disclosure. On Iran, Haaretz is no different. The
Islamic Republic poses no Israeli or regional threat.
Its nuclear program is peaceful. Top world leaders know it. Over
100 NAM countries support it. They oppose US/Israeli
warmongering. Their agenda is peace, not conflict.
They respect national sovereignty inviolability. They know international law
prohibits interfering in the internal affairs of other
countries. It's also unequivocal against attacking
another one except in self-defense. These issues are ignored in
America's media, what's seen and read across Europe,
and what Israeli broadcast and print media report.
They're key above all others. Failure to discuss them
advances the ball for war. Doing so is reckless,
irresponsible, and complicit. It puts culpable
journalists in the same category as propagandists.
Blood will be on their hands if it's shed. Apologies won't be forthcoming
for being on the wrong side of rule of law principles,
support for what should be condemned, and failure to
do what good journalists should - their job. On September 4, Israeli intelligence officials briefed Netanyahu and security cabinet members. They do it annually or when special occasions arise. They focused on Iran, Syria, Egypt, and US/Israeli relations. The meeting was closed. Ministerial aides and advisors weren't invited. Military intelligence, Mossad and Shin Bet participated. So did Foreign Ministry representatives. A follow-up meeting is likely. Hopefully opposition to inflammatory rhetoric was stressed. Honest talk about no existential threat needs highlighting and repetition. Truth needs to be separated from what's not. Above all, avoiding potentially catastrophic war is vital. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius is no peacenik. He's hardline for direct Western intervention against Syria. His no-fly zone/safe haven advocacy means war if either or both are instituted. At the same time, he warns about attacking Iran. "I think that if there were an Israeli attack, unfortunately it could come back to haunt Israel," he said. "I am absolutely opposed to the idea that Iran would gain nuclear weapons," he said, "but I think if there was an Israeli attack," Tehran will be victimized and gain legitimacy. Britain's defense establishment Royal United Services Institute director Michael Clarke says there's "no basis in international law for preventative, rather than preemptive, war." There's no basis for either except when clear evidence shows foreign forces mobilized for attack. Israeli borders aren't threatened. Iran supports peace, not war. Its nuclear program is legal and non-military. It fully complies with NPT provisions. Those issues deserve daily headlines. Don't expect warmongering media to feature them. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War" http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening. http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour |
Add Comments