Israel attacks Iran

Israel attacks Iran
Adrian writes Salbuchi – May 2006

In March 2005 I wrote an article which evaluated a possible future scenario of systemic crisis of the dollar entitled “Death and Resurrection of the U.S. dollar” ([1]), that would be the first in a sequence of articles designed to analyze future scenarios of economic and political crises.

Today, Graphic Translator approaches the subject of the second article in that sequence and then proposed to not refer to the following policy issues: “World / Middle East: Artificial creation of a “crisis” around Iran and Syria instigated by the United States and Israel, with the subsequent invasion of these sovereign countries and the intensification and spread of the state of war to other countries. It is anticipated the likely use of tactical nuclear weapons. Primary instigator: the government of Israel with unqualified U.S. support. & #8221;

We believe the time to evaluate the increasingly likely scenario in which this confrontation will take place, because its outcome will occur in the very near future. While the discussion seems to focus on the United States with his constant threats of military intervention – even nuclear attack – against Iran if it halts its nuclear plan, however we, unlikely that the initiative comes from the U.S. but its ally in the region, The State of Israel.

Background

The background that motivate us to assert this are multiple and are closely linked to the history of the Israeli state whose foundation in 1948 was just completed 58 years, and the tremendous influence held by international pro-Zionist organizations worldwide. This is remarkably powerful influence within the United States today is the nation whose military and economic power allows you to play the role of “arbiter of last resort” in much of the planet and, Of course, in the Middle East.

The influence of Zionist organizations and international interest also makes one feel his powerful interference in our region in general and, particularly, in Argentina, which suffered terrorist attacks against the Israeli Embassy in March 1992 and the headquarters of AMIA / CS in July 1994. Political Organizations, State, intelligence, economic and media in Israel and the United States, in collusion with officials of the Argentine government and interests of various kinds in our country, have used both criminal acts to further their geo-strategic interests in the region and the world, the detriment of the Argentine National Interest. even, in the AMIA case, been trying for nearly a dozen years – still unsuccessful – inventing an alleged “Iranian track”, obviously lacking, which has involved the Israeli Mossad, the U.S. Embassy, local governments from Menem Kirchner, to powerful lobbies ([2]) local and international Zionists and multimedia addicts System. Perhaps the most shameful symbol of this is the case of ousted judge Galeano who went so far as immoral bribe a prisoner paying u $ s 400.000 pro-Zionist funds to indict alleged connections and local, Thus, help build a local track false accusing Iran ended, Syria and Hezbollah for attacks.

The World Zionist Lobby

Not surprising at all that powerful Zionist organizations have been blatantly interfere in the internal affairs of Argentina, since not only have the power to turn state policies in our country but – what is even more dramatic – managed to do that even the United States of America.

In August 2005, the author of this article published a book entitled “WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE: dominance and survival in the New World Order” ([3]) in which addresses the problem of Anglo-American Empire-Israeli conflict and the problem of world Zionism and its influence on general, and on Argentina, particularly. turn, we have extended this theme in two articles in The Translator Figure graduates “The falsification of history as an instrument of record” (In. 36 dated 6 March 2006) and “Democracy…dead!” (In. 37 dated 19 March 2006), both available at www.eltraductorradial.com.ar. We refer the reader to this material as a supplement to the above in this Article.

A more balanced perspective

Today, the crisis deepens over Iran, presumably because of its nuclear plan, therefore becomes essential to achieve a more objective view of this topic, without the shrillness coarse, shouting and insults spread by those from the public and private spheres defend indefensible causes.

Highlight some considerations that will better understand what is really happening:

The Iranian Nuclear Program

· This program is in Debiera – and, as we shall see, is not – the main issue concerns the United States and its allies, because Iran is a nation traditionally peaceful towards other States and poses no threat to the U.S.. In modern times, while Iran is not attacked any other nation, but were repeatedly “democracies” as U.S., Britain and European powers that invaded and attacked Iran. For example, remember that during World War II, Britain and its then ally, the Soviet Union invaded Iran together (then called Persia) The 26 August 1941 to secure access to its oil to them was essential in both waged war against Nazi Germany.

· Then, after the Second World War, the secret services of Britain (MI5) and U.S. (CIA) orchestrated a coup in August 1953 shifted to the democratically elected Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mossadeq for nationalizing the oil, introducing instead the Shah Reza Pahlevi, person completely subservient to Western interests. After the revolution of the Ayatollahs in 1979 that displaced the Reza Pahlavi, Anglo-American geopolitics-Israeli maneuvered Iraq invaded Iran in 1981 thus beginning a long and bloody war between two nations that lasted almost eight years, and where the U.S. supported Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein militarily against the Iranian Ayatollahs (were the times when Saddam was the “Good” film). Clearly, Iran has been a victim and victimizer not in contemporary global conflicts, precisely the opposite situation where the U.S., Britain and Israel. That its present government has been harsh on Israel expressions merely reflect his desire to respond to the Israeli arrogance within the framework of what is described in this article.

Israel's nuclear weapons

· Today, the State of Israel is declaiming that “the world” must not tolerate the Iranian nuclear plan, knowing that “the world” in these cases refers not to the peoples and governments of the planet, but the huge decision-making power concentrated in Washington DC. Israel itself and in 1981 bombed the Iraqi nuclear plant at Osirak located (Iraq), of course without the United Nations could do absolutely nothing about it outside “deplore” this flagrant and illegal attack on Iraq's sovereignty. Israel knows that its actions are immune from prosecution provided in all global forums highs thanks, precisely, unrestricted support U.S.. It would not surprise, then, Israel decides to take the “initiative” To “resolve” unilaterally the “Iran issue”, launching a surprise attack against seven major surgical Iranian nuclear facilities, now clearly identified by the U.S. Secret Service, Israel and Britain.

· Some of these facilities make up white hard to destroy because it is deep underground complexes, hence, Israel has received nearly four years ago a thousand bombs “bunker-busters” (destroying bunkers) hands-free in the U.S. that are fit, precisely, for this type of attack. They permit Israel to launch a surprise attack with conventional weapons “bunker busters”, knowing that he has the option of launching a nuclear attack with the almost 300 atomic bombs that the United States ceded le Israel after the Six Day War of 1967. It seems systematically overlooked in the multimedia world monopoly that the only state that has weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East and that has been expressed with highly credible willingness to use them is, precisely, The State of Israel.

· Indeed, what has Israel worried Iran is the political will backed by their enormous cultural prestige in the Muslim world, not to allow Israeli Zionism use military force to shape the millennial dream of rebuilding the biblical Land of Israel: Zionist rule that would extend from the Nile to the Euphrates. Hence the priority need to annihilate Iran.

· United States, turn, oil not only needs across the region, but which is hugely concerned at the opening of the “Iranian Oil Bourse” to come into direct competition with the three major world markets that monopolize the buying and selling oil, based in New York, London and Dubai. The special feature to note is that these three markets operate almost exclusively in U.S. dollars, while the Iranian Stock Exchange will in Euros, Yuan, Rubles and other currencies unless the dollar. Thus, if the Iranian oil bourse won at world oil markets, will make the billions of petrodollars that now circulate through financial channels away from the U.S. and its interests, tend to flow to them quickly and uncontrolled. This massive flow of U.S. dollars to be something that the Argentines know too well: cause excessive inflation and currency, Unchecked, also a potential U.S. dollar hyperinflation ([4])

Israel attacks Iran

· Within this framework, can then provide for a war scenario in which Israel launched a surprise attack against Iran, destroying some or all of its nuclear facilities, which will have as an immediate response and hard insurance Iranian attack on Israel. This will immediately lead to an escalation, forcing the U.S. to intervene on behalf of its Israeli ally.

· But Iran is not Iraq, and surely the intensification of military action will lead in ways difficult to predict and that almost certainly include the use of Israeli or American nuclear weapons with unpredictable results and lead to Middle East, Europe and the United States itself. Recall that Iran has very close business and strategic relationships with Russia and China, unlike what happened with the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, this time would be active and important players.

· Today we expect an Israeli attack on Iran as a trigger for a new and catastrophic crisis in the Middle East, because the government of George W. Bush currently has no political and popular support necessary to take this initiative. Yes, instead, would have the political and popular support for military intervention “in defense of its main ally in the Middle East, The State of Israel”, once it has started the war.

· As this future scenario is likely, is remarkable to note how some of the top political analysts in the United States today are warning about the origins of this dangerous situation that has placed the U.S. in the Middle East and the world.

· for example, former National Security Advisor of President James Carter and ideologue and co-founder of the Trilateral Commission, Zbigniew Brzezinski, just said it would be sheer madness to attack Iran home. “In brief”, Brzezinski says, “an attack on Iran would be an act of political madness, that would trigger a progressive upheaval in world affairs. With U.S.. growing target of widespread hostility, the era of American dominance may have a premature end. & #8221; Then add saying “although U.S.. is clearly the dominant actor in the world today, has neither the power nor the domestic inclination to impose and maintain his will in the light of a costly and prolonged resistance. This is the lesson he learned from his experiences in Vietnam and Iraq. & #8221; Brzesinski concludes by saying that “Treat Iran with respect and in a historical perspective would help to advance that goal. U.S. policy should not be affected by the current climate of urgency ominously reminiscent of who preceded the misguided intervention in Iraq. & #8221; ([5])

The bottom line

· precisely, This “Current weather emergency” also cared for two prestigious U.S. academic John J. Mearsheimer Dept.. of Political Science at the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt, Dean of the Faculty John F. Kennedy of Government, Harvard University, who published an important essay entitled “The Israel Lobby and foreign policy of the United States”, last March.([6]) In the same, the authors demonstrate the decisive influence, excessive and dangerous for U.S. national interest organizations hold, lobbies and pressure groups who have the interests of international Zionism main objective over the U.S..

· remarkably, attention to the enormous influence of the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC – or, Political Action Committee American Israel), indicating its ability to move huge economic influences .financieras, media, policies and within government, not hesitating to point out the real fear that AIPAC requires legislators, journalists and military personnel are not subordinate. They usually end up opting for silence before attracted the ire of these forces for international Zionism “may end their careers” as described by the authors. In his important work, the authors show with copious references, taking notes and appealed sources, the great danger it poses to the United States and the world that the world's largest nuclear power (United States) appears to be headed by officials and interests that prioritize the needs of a third foreign state (Israel).

· and “WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE…” and other writings, I described this unprecedented phenomenon – at least the flagrant way in which it conducts – as a true kidnapping of the American state by forces that prioritize the interests of international Zionism and its political state, Israel. The consequences for the world, the Middle East and also for our region and country are now in sight.

· El informe impecable de Mearsheimer y Walt ha causado gran revuelo en los Estados Unidos y solo puede congratularse el gran coraje intelectual y cívico de ambos autores al haber publicado su informe en el marco prestigioso de la Faculty Research Working Papers Series de la John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, at a time when the government of his country would be to be drawn into a military adventure in Iran by the international Zionism, which probably earns in a nuclear war. Mearsheimer and Walt are doing a great service to his country's national interest. predictably, the wrath of Zionism did not wait and Mearsheimer and Walt received harsh criticism from some of the most conspicuous defenders of Zionism. Even the intellectual Noam Chomsky trozkyista, usually critical of the imperialist appetites of the neoconservatives in the U.S., could not handle his temper and he also criticized the report saying that the Israeli lobby is to blame for the disasters of American foreign policy, but rather are the major culprits oil interests, thing that Mearsheimer and Walt show convincingly that is decidedly not the case.

A few days ago the London Review of Books published a new short article by Mearsheimer and Walt in answering some of the criticism they received their test, we believe very enlightening and offer translation as an addendum to this article.

Clearly, playing cards are very strong right now that not only make the future of the Middle East but also to peace in the world. Who launched a nuclear bomb in the context of conflicts in the Middle East have opened the gates of hell will trigger a probable fourth world war.

The Gospel teaches us that it is not so much what is said and recites, but what is done. “By their fruits ye shall know them” Evangelist reminds us, and those fruits clearly tell us which nations have been invading and enslaving other peoples systematic, I can testify as tragically martyred people of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.

And if you really want to know something about using “peaceful” who make “democracies” of weapons of mass destruction nuclear, then it would be instructive to consult the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Buenos Aires, 19 May 2006 – Adrian Salbuchi

Annex:

Is it possible to maintain a civilized discussion about the role Israel plays
foreign policy of the United States?

The Storm on “EL LOBBY ISRAELI”

by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

(originally published in English in the London Review of Books)

We publish our report “EL LOBBY ISRAELI” to initiate a discussion on a topic that had become difficult to address in the United States (ver London Review of Books, 23 March). We knew it was likely that it will generate strong reactions and we were not surprised that some of our critics choose to attack our people or distort our arguments.

We also had the pleasure of receiving many positive responses as well as
balanced and profound comments that have begun to emerge in the media and the blogosphere. Clearly, mucha gente – including Jews and Israelis – believe the time has come to openly discuss the U.S. relationship with Israel. It is in this spirit that
we refer to the letters received in response to our article. We confine ourselves here to the most relevant aspects of the dispute. One of the most prominent charges against us is to pretend that we perceive the lobby as a well-organized Jewish conspiracy.

Jeffrey Herf y Andrei Markovits, for example, begin by noting that “allegations that there are powerful Jews behind the scenes, are inserted into the most dangerous traditions of modern anti-Semitism” (Letters, 6 April). That is a tradition we deplore and reject explicitly in our report. instead, we have described the lobby as a loose coalition of individuals and organizations without a central headquarters. It includes gentiles as well as Jews and many American Jews do not endorse its positions on some or all of these issues. More importantly, Israeli lobby group formed no secret, clandestine; On the contrary, is openly engaged in political activities of interest groups and there is nothing conspiratorial or illicit behavior on. thus, can easily believe that Daniel Pipes has never “Orders received” the Lobby, Leninist caricature image as does the lobby in his letter, it is one that we clearly reject.

Readers will also note that Pipes does not deny that his organization – Campus Watch – was founded with the aim of monitoring what they say, write and teach teachers and academics, so as to discourage them to engage in open discourse about the problems of the Middle East. Several authors challenge us to make mono-causal arguments, accusing us of saying that Israel alone is responsible for anti-American sentiment in Arab and Islamic world (a letter expressing the, that anti-American sentiment “exist even if Israel did not exist”), or suggesting that the Lobby has sole responsibility for the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. But this is not what we have said. We stress that U.S. support for Israeli policy in the Occupied Territories is a powerful source of anti-American sentiment, which is the conclusion arrived several academic studies and commissions of the United States Government (incluyendo a la Comisión 9/11).

But we have also noted that support for Israel just up the only reason why the U.S. position in the Middle East is now so bad. Similarly, we have highlighted clear that Osama bin Laden had other grievances against the United States outside the Palestinian issue.

However, como bien lo documenta la Comisión 9/11, This issue constitutes a major concern for him. We also said explicitly that the Lobby, itself, could not convince either the Clinton or Bush to invade Iraq. However, There is abundant evidence that the neo-conservatives and other groups within the lobby played a central role in putting together the arguments in favor of war. At least two of the letters complain that we “catalogamos” the moral failings of Israel, while paying little attention to the shortcomings of other states. We have focused on the behavior of Israel, not because we have no animosity toward Israel, but because the United States pays such a high level of material and diplomatic support.

Our objective was to determine whether Israel merits this special treatment, because it forms a unique strategic asset, or because their behavior is better than other countries. We tried to demonstrate that neither of these arguments is persuasive: Israel's strategic value has declined since the end of the Cold War and Israel does not behave significantly better than most other states in the world.

Herf and Markovits interpret us as we say that “future survival” of Israel should be of little concern to the United States. No way we said something like. In truth, hemos enfatizado que existen fuertes razones morales para la continuada existencia de Israel y nosotros creemos firmemente que los Estados Unidos debieran tomar acciones para garantizar su supervivencia en caso de hallarse Israel en peligro. Our criticism was directed at the policies of Israel and the special relationship the United States with Israel, and not the
existencia misma de Israel.

Another recurring theme in the letters received is one that states that, Ultimately, Lobby
has little importance since “Israel values inspire genuine support among the American public”. Thus, Herf y Markovits mantienen que existe un apoyo sustancial a favor de Israel entre círculos militares y diplomáticos dentro de los Estados Unidos. We agree that there is strong public support for Israel in the United Chairs, partly because it is perceived as consistent with the Judeo-Christian culture of the United States. But we also believe
esta popularidad es debida sustancialmente al éxito que el Lobby ha tenido en mostrar una imagen de Israel de una manera favorable, logrando limitar de manera efectiva la toma de conciencia y discusión pública respecto de algunas acciones menos aceptables de Israel. Oficiales militares y diplomáticos también se ven afectados por este distorsionado discurso público, pero muchos de ellos saben como ver a través de ese muro de retórica.

Se mantienen en silencio, However, because they fear that groups like AIPAC might damage their careers if they speak openly. La realidad es que si no existiera AIPAC, los estadounidenses tendrían una visión más crítica de Israel y la política estadounidense en el Medio Oriente sería
different.

Con respecto a un tema relacionado con esto, Michael Szanto contrasta la relación estadounidense-israelí con los compromisos militares estadounidenses en Europa Occidente, Japan and Korea, to demonstrate that the United States has provided substantial support to other states outside
Israel (6 April). However, does not mention that these other relationships did not depend on strong domestic lobbies. The reason is simple: these nations did not need a lobby because the maintenance of close ties with each of them was part of the strategic interest of the United States. instead, as Israel has become a strategic burden to the United States, those who provide support in the United States have had to intensify their work even more to preserve that “special relationship”. Other critics maintain that we have over-emphasized the power of the Lobby because we have ignored certain incidents such as forces “paleo-conservative groups, favor of the Arab and Islamic… and diplomatic Establishment”. Incidents such forces exist but are not even remotely the same power of the Lobby, either individually or collectively.

There are Arab-American political groups, for example, but weak, are divided, and wield far less influence than AIPAC and other organizations that have a strong and consistent message to Lobby. Probably, the most popular argument has been made on these opposing forces is Herf and Markovits's claim in the sense that the central key to U.S. policy in the Middle East is oil, not Israel. There is no doubt that access to oil from that region is of vital importance to U.S. strategic interests. But Washington is also deeply committed to supporting Israel. So the key question lies in knowing how each of those interests affect U.S. policy. We believe that U.S. policy in the Middle East is primarily energized by his commitment to Israel, not oil interests. If the oil companies and oil producing countries were the engine of these policies, then Washington would be tempted to favor the Palestinians instead of Israel.

Moreover, U.S. undeniably had not gone to war against Iraq in March 2003, and the Bush administration would not now threatening Iran with the use of military force. Although many claim that the Iraq war was intimately connected with oil, virtually no evidence to support this assumption and yes a lot of evidence indicating that due to the influence of the Lobby. Oil is clearly a major concern for policy makers outside of the United States but, except for events like the OPEC oil embargo in 1973, the U.S. commitment to Israel has not yet come to threaten access to oil. However, contributes to the problem of the United States to terrorism, complicates efforts to stop nuclear proliferation and helped involve the United States in wars like Iraq.

Unfortunately, Some of our critics have tried to mess with people associating openly racist, suggesting that we would ourselves be racist or antisemitic. Michael Taylor, for example, notes that our article has been “praised” by the leader
Ku Klux Klan, David Duke (6 April). Alan Dershowitz suggests that any of our material was taken from neo-Nazi sites on the Internet and other literature that promotes hatred (20 April). We have no control over who they liked or not liked our article, but
we regret that Duke used it to promote their own racist agenda which absolutely reject. turn, nothing contained in our letter was taken from racist sources of any kind, and Dershowitz offers no evidence to support his false statement. We provided a fully documented version of our trial so that the
reader can verify for yourself that we have used reliable sources.

Finally, some of our critics claim that some of our data, references to citations are wrong. for example, Dershowitz challenges our claim that Israel “was explicitly founded as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood brotherhood”. Israel
was founded as a Jewish state (a fact that Dershowitz does not contradict), and our reference to citizenship was concerned, Obviously, Jewish citizens of Israel whose identity is usually based on their ancestors. We have indicated that Israel has a significant amount of non-Jews (especially Arab), and point to emphasize is that many of them are relegated to a category of second-class citizens in a predominantly Jewish society.

Also referred to Golda Meir's famous statement about that “There is no thing as a Palestinian” Jeremy Schreiber and pretending we interpreted as saying that Meir was denying the existence of such people rather than simply reject the Palestinian nationality (20 April). There is no disagreement on this; we agree with Schreiber's interpretation and we quoted Meir in the context of a discussion about Israel's prolonged effort to “deny the Palestinian national ambitions”.

Dershowitz challenges our claim that the Israelis offered the Palestinians a Jewish state in the Camp David meeting in July 2000. In support of this, quoted a statement by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the memoirs of David Ross, Former U.S. negotiator. There are several competing stories about what happened at Camp David, However, many of them agree with our assertions. Moreover, Barak himself acknowledges that “the Palestinians were promised a continuous piece of sovereign territory except for a very narrow wedge that would Israel through from Jerusalem…Jordan River”.

This wedge to divide the West Bank was essential for Israel's plan to retain control of the Jordan River Valley for another six to twenty years. Finally, and contrary to Dershowitz says, there was no “second map” or map of a “final proposal at Camp David”. Indeed, explicitly stated in a note beside the map published in the memoirs of Ross “did not show any maps during the final rounds at Camp David”. Considering all these facts, No wonder the foreign minister Barak, Schlomo Ben-Ami, who was a key participant at Camp David, then admitted that “If I were a Palestinian, also had rejected the proposal at Camp David”.

Dershowitz also said that we quote David Ben-Gurion “fuera de contexto” and thus distorted their views on the need to use force to build a Jewish state in all Palestine. Dershowitz is wrong. As has been demonstrated
a number of Israeli historians, Ben-Gurion made several statements about the need to use force (o la amenaza del uso de fuerza avasalladora) to build a Jewish state in all Palestine. In October 1937, for example, he wrote to his son Amos saying that the future
Israeli state would “an outstanding military… so I'm sure we will not be bound to settle in the rest of the country, either through an agreement and mutual understanding with our Arab neighbors, or otherwise” (emphasis added). turn, common sense indicates that there was no other way to achieve this objective since it was highly unlikely that the Palestinians would give up their homeland voluntarily. Ben-Gurion was a consummate strategist and he understood very well that would have been inconvenient for the Zionists to talk openly about the need “exercise “brutal compulsion”. Citamos de un memorandum de Ben-Gurion escrito antes de la Conferencia Extraordinaria Sionista celebrada en el Hotel Biltmore de Nueva York en mayo de 1942.

then, he wrote that “impossible to imagine general evacuation of the Arab population of Palestine without applying compulsion and brutal compulsion”. Dershowitz asserts that the subsequent statement
Ben-Gurion in saying that “we should not in any way make it part of our plan”, indicates that he was opposed to transferring the Arab population and “brutal compulsion” that it would involve. But Ben-Gurion was not rejecting this policy: simply stated that the Zionists should not openly proclaim. Indeed, He said they should not “discourage other people, British and Americans who are in favor of the transfer, advocate for this course of action, but we should not in any way to transform a part of our program”.

We close with a final comment on the controversy surrounding our article. Although we are not surprised by the hostility that has led us, still disappointed with the fact that it was not paid more attention to the most substantial of our trial.
El hecho permanece de que los Estados Unidos se encuentran en serias dificultades en el Medio Oriente y que no podrá desplegar políticas efectivas si resulta imposible mantener una discusión civilizada respecto del rol de Israel en la política exterior de los Estados Unidos.

John Mearsheimer (University of Chicago) – Stephen Walt (Harvard University)

Published in London Review of Books – Letters – Vol. 28 In. 9 – 11-May-2006 – www.lrb-co-uk

__________________________________________

© The Translator Chart – allowed partial or total reproduction quoting the source.