Iran: A Bridge too Far?

[multi]

Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington
Timesonline

ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility using low-yield nuclear “bunker-busters”, according to several Israeli military sources.

The attack would be the first with nuclear weapons since 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Israeli weapons would each have a force equivalent to one-fifteenth of the Hiroshima bomb.

Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open “tunnels” into the targets. “Mini-nukes” would then immediately be fired into a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.

“As soon as the green light is given, it will be one mission, one strike and the Iranian nuclear project will be demolished,” said one of the sources.

The plans, disclosed to The Sunday Times last week, have been prompted in part by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad’s assessment that Iran is on the verge of producing enough enriched uranium to make nuclear weapons within two years.

Israeli military commanders believe conventional strikes may no longer be enough to annihilate increasingly well-defended enrichment facilities. Several have been built beneath at least 70ft of concrete and rock. However, the nuclear-tipped bunker-busters would be used only if a conventional attack was ruled out and if the United States declined to intervene, senior sources said.

Israeli and American officials have met several times to consider military action. Military analysts said the disclosure of the plans could be intended to put pressure on Tehran to halt enrichment, cajole America into action or soften up world opinion in advance of an Israeli attack.

Some analysts warned that Iranian retaliation for such a strike could range from disruption of oil supplies to the West to terrorist attacks against Jewish targets around the world.

Israel has identified three prime targets south of Tehran which are believed to be involved in Iran’s nuclear programme:

• Natanz, where thousands of centrifuges are being installed for uranium enrichment
  
• A uranium conversion facility near Isfahan where, according to a statement by an Iranian vice-president last week, 250 tons of gas for the enrichment process have been stored in tunnels
  
• A heavy water reactor at Arak, which may in future produce enough plutonium for a bomb

Israeli officials believe that destroying all three sites would delay Iran’s nuclear programme indefinitely and prevent them from having to live in fear of a “second Holocaust”.

The Israeli government has warned repeatedly that it will never allow nuclear weapons to be made in Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has declared that “Israel must be wiped off the map”.
Continued..


Israeli General Says Lobby Needs to Work on Democrats and Newspaper Editors So that Bush Can Attack Iran
In a stark statement published on Saturday Brigadier General Oded Tira observed, "President Bush lacks the political power to attack Iran. As an American strike in Iran is essential for our existence, we must help him pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party (which is conducting itself foolishly) and US newspaper editors. We need to do this in order to turn the Iranian issue to a bipartisan one and unrelated to the Iraq failure."

Because of the dramatic loss of political power of the Bush-Cheney administration, General Tira urges the Israel Lobby to, "turn to Hillary Clinton and other potential presidential candidates in the Democratic Party so that they support immediate action by Bush against Iran."

In another move designed to strengthen Bush politically, General Tira urges the Israel Lobby to exert its influence on European countries so that, "Bush will not be isolated in the international arena again."

As if all of that Israel-lobbying in America and Europe were not enough, General Tira proposes an even more aggressive political tactic, "We must clandestinely cooperate with Saudi Arabia so that it also persuades the US to strike Iran. For our part, we must prepare an independent military strike by coordinating flights in Iraqi airspace with the US. We should also coordinate with Azerbaijan the use of airbases in its territory and also enlist the support of the Azeri minority in Iran. In addition, we must immediately start preparing for an Iranian response to an attack."

Based on the urgency of General Tira's extraordinary pleas, it is immediately apparent that he has been shocked by the turn of political events inside America. By this time, he has learned from official US sources that the long-anticipated attack against Iran has been shelved because of tectonic shifts in American politics.

Apparently, General Tira did not realize that President Bush has become the most deeply unpopular president in American history and that it was his subservience to the dictates of the Israel Lobby and its demands for wars against Iraq and Iran that led him into the political prison where he now finds himself isolated and impotent.

http://today.az/news/politics/34565.html

[multi]

Did the US Just Start a War with Iran?
By rumpole

Last night, Bush threatened action against Iran and Syria. According to this story by the AP, american forces have already arrested individuals and confiscated computers and documents in what Iran is calling a diplomatic mission. The US Army says otherwise.

If the Army is lying, then it's disturbing news. Diplomatic missions (and even sometimes consulates) are sovereign territory--in this case, the sovereign territory of Iran. That is an act of aggression, and it's the kind of thing that can escalate in a big hurry, unless Congress does something fairly quickly.

(Disclaimer: only permanent diplomatic missions (embassies) are foreign territory. Consulates, "temporary" diplomatic missions, may be subject to differing domestic laws, and consular employees do not have the same level of immunity as diplomats. If they're involved in funding insurgent attacks, the Iranian government is in a pickle, because the immunity only extends to those acts taken in the course of official duties. Put more simply, if Iran wants deniability, they'll have to disown the consular folks that were arrested. There's a lot more that needs to come out about this story, but in light of the constantly beating war drums in the speech last night, it's scary as hell.)

http://warrenreports.tpmcafe.com/blo..._war_with_iran

[RDixon]

Congress just told Condi in plain english: Bush can NOT start a war with Iran without their approval. (Condi has never read the constitution)

Bush, being the pigheaded fool that he is, will anyway.

Impeachment will soon follow.

Along with much weeping and gnashing of teeth on faux news.

PS. It will be a double impeachment with both Bush and Cheney getting tossed from office at the same time and perhaps even into prison.

No chance in hell of president Pelosi pardoning them.

[Mazer]

In 2000 the Democrats got away with accusing Bush of doing what they were themselves attempting to do. If they try to steal the presidency a second time their legitimacy will be called into question far more often and with far more incredulity than what Bush has faced since he took office. This is why Pelosi will never allow an impeachment resolution come to a vote. They might kick Cheney out on trumped up charges, but not Bush, and especially not both at the same time.

Impeach Bush and you can look forward to an other 12 years of a congress controlled by the Republicans.

[RDixon]

Originally Posted by Mazer

Impeach Bush and you can look forward to an other 12 years of a congress controlled by the Republicans.

If Bush once again ignores the constitution and ilegally starts another war he not only should, but will be impeached.
It has absolutely nothing at all to do with party affiliation.
It is pretty simply spelled out in the constitution.
The power to make war resides solely in the congress.

As for the ramifications or consequences, I think the new polls after his big surge speech show that the american public is sick and tired of Bush and his croney admin. so, if anything it would be more detrimental to the democrats to not impeach.

[JackSpratts]

i'm not sure certain members of a supreme court installed by the father of the stooge they appointed president (and whose ties to the familly extend even deeper) is the group that can withstand an impeachment challenge if it came to that, but believe me the 2000 baker coup is the last thing preventing the dems from proceeding with the trial.

i'll say this however, unlike clinton if bush does stand before the house the senate verdict will also be guilty - if unlike nixon he's stupid enough to hang in that far.

i mean, i know he's stupid enough, but there is this low-class strain of clever opportunism that served him until now. that's probably no longer up to the task, but in any event it's bush inc i'm referring to.

- js.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by RDixon

If Bush once again ignores the constitution and ilegally starts another war he not only should, but will be impeached.
It has absolutely nothing at all to do with party affiliation.
It is pretty simply spelled out in the constitution.
The power to make war resides solely in the congress.

The Dems don't care about the Constitution either. They'll weigh the two years of a stolen presidency against the dozen or more years of a legitimately elected congress and they'll come to the same conclusion I have. It doesn't mean they won't make an attempt, it only means they won't allow an impeachment to succeed.

As for the ramifications or consequences, I think the new polls after his big surge speech show that the american public is sick and tired of Bush and his croney admin. so, if anything it would be more detrimental to the democrats to not impeach.

Politicians care only slightly more about their constituents' opinions than they do about the rule of law, but the Dems already know they can ride the wave of Bush's unpopularity through a decade of de facto control without impeaching the man. What's more they can maintain and even widen their influence without keeping their get-out-of-Iraq promises, if they play their cards right. Anything they can do to remind people of the Vietnam war, they're sure to do. If they're very smart they'll draw this war out as long as possible before making sweeping resolutions that make them out to be the saviors of America. That's how politicians think, and Democrats are politicians. They may share your beliefs but that doesn't mean they're really interested in serving them.

As long as the machine can make people believe Bush is the bad guy—the only bad guy—the Democrats will have carte blanche. Promise everything, achieve nothing; it doesn't matter as long as you get reelected.

[multi]

no..It seems Bush is being controlled by Klingons