Mostrando postagens com marcador Mossad. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Mossad. Mostrar todas as postagens

domingo, 17 de julho de 2016

Netanyahu and Son Investigated for Using False Passport, Money Laundering Via Panama Account


July 16, 2016, Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם http://www.richardsilverstein.com (USA)


Winston Churchill said after one of the earliest Allied victories during WWII: this is not the end, not even the beginning of the end.  Rather it’s the end of the beginning.  I think we’re more advanced in the case of Netanyahu.  We may have just entered the beginning of the end of his seemingly endless reign over Israeli politics.

Israeli social media has lit up with news of a new investigation of Bibi Netanyahu, his son Yair, and the PMO’s former chief of staff, Ari Harow.  This story has not yet been reported by an Israeli mainstream publication and

segunda-feira, 3 de setembro de 2012

FORMER MOSSAD CHIEF, HALEVY, IS IRAN CONTRARIAN

September 3, 2012, Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם http://www.richardsilverstein.com (USA)

by Richard Silverstein



NOTE: My web host, Hostgator, suspended my site for what seems like the tenth time over the weekend. These stoppages are agonizing and inexplicable to me. I apologize for the inconvenience to you.

Former Mossad chief, Ephraim Halevy, has–unlike some relatively new converts to the cause like Benny Gantz, Tamir Pardo, Yuval Diskin and Meir Dagan–been an Iran contrarian for years. While opposed to Iran attaining a nuclear weapon, he never believed it would be an existential threat to Israel. He never believed attacking Iran was a viable method for stopping Iran’s nuclear program. Although not opposed to sanctions, he never believed that any single method like a strike or sanctions could work absent real diplomatic engagement.

In that sense, Halevy is a throwback to a more pragmatic era in Israeli intelligence work. His assessments were not ideological like so much of which emanates from today’s Israeli political leadership. If any intelligence operative could be said to be operating out of a set of values, rather than political blinders, it would be someone like Halevy. Not that I mean to romanticize him, because Israeli cloak and dagger has had a strong element of amoral skullduggery no matter who was running it. But Halevy, today, does seem almost quaint in his strict adherence to humility and apolitical pronouncements.

That’s why his interview in Haaretz is so important. Unlike his colleagues who are a more rough and tumble lot, Halevy doesn’t seek to demonize anyone. Not Netanyahu nor the Iranians. More than anything he appears to want to present rational, reasonable alternatives to those who’ve gotten caught in the thicket of their own delusions:

“What I have to say is complex…I do indeed argue that a nuclear Iran does not constitute an existential threat to Israel. If one day we wake up and discover that Iran has nuclear weapons, that does not mean the start of the countdown to the end of Israel’s existence. Israel need not despair. We have deterrent capability and preventive capability. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, Israel will be able to design a true operational response that will be able to cope with that. We will be able to prevent a Hiroshima in Tel Aviv and we will prevent a Hiroshima in Tel Aviv; so we must not talk about a Hiroshima in Tel Aviv, because prophecies like that are self-fulfilling.

Halevy cuts to the quick of the Netanyahu rhetoric in this powerful critique of the Churchillian pretentions of the prime minister:

The true Churchillian way is not to talk about the possibility of a second Holocaust, but to ensure that there will be no holocaust here. I was a boy in Britain during the Blitz. I remember vividly Churchill’s speeches blaring from the radio. He did not talk about the possibility that Britain might not survive. On the contrary: even in the direst straits he said that Britain would have the upper hand. He promised that whatever happened, come what may, in the end Britain would win. Anyone who purports to be Churchill needs to talk like Churchill and project self-confidence.

“I am absolutely appalled when I hear our leaders talking as though there were no Israel Defense Forces and as though there were no State of Israel and as though Auschwitz is liable to be repeated. As I see it, the message we should be conveying to the Iranians − and to ourselves − is that we will be here in any event and in any scenario for the next two thousand years.

I’ve noted in my own posts that the ultranationalist line of reasoning posits an Israel that is eternally threatened, eternally beset by Jew-hating genocidaires. Theirs is an Israel constantly on the brink of annihilation. You cannot build a state on such negativity. You cannot build a future when you anticipate the worst.

Churchill believed in England as a real nation and in England as an eternal value. He could never foresee either being wiped out. Nor would he ever allow his own personal pride or his faith in his country even to hint that it might. This is where Bibi differs. He lacks such self confidence either because he knows somewhere deep down that his cause is profoundly flawed or because Jewish history has so warped him that he cannot ever imagine an Israel safe, secure and at peace with its neighbors.

Halevy also warns against the false “bomb or bombing” dichotomy:

“Going to war is an absolute and irreversible act that entails high costs. Accordingly, before using force, we need to exhaust all the other possibilities. To the best of my knowledge and to the best of my assessment, the other possibilities have not yet been fully exhausted. Some of them have not even been tried. The simplistic equation of bomb or bombing led to a mistaken focus on bombing as the only response to the bomb. But the truth is that a situation is possible in which there will be both bombing and a bomb. A situation is also possible in which there will not be a bomb without bombing…

“I also think that it is right to create a bombing capability and threaten with a bombing capability. But what I am suggesting is to step out of the box now and stop thinking in binary terms, and…stop the Iranian nuclear project without engaging in an all-out war. Because an attack on Iran is liable to foment a generations-long war with Iran, it is our duty to do all we can to prevent a bomb and prevent bombing and resolve the crisis creatively.”

In the following passage, the former Mossad director does something unthinkable in the current overheated environment. He suggests actually trying to understand the psychology of Iran’s leaders and the nation. I know: it’s hopelessly reasonable and common-sensical and so will never be respected by any policymakers either in Israel or the U.S. The more’s the pity, as war will bring the devastation of which he warns, while engagement would bring a positive outcome for both sides. All the more reason for the extremists on both sides to choose to ignore principled thinkers like Halevy:

“What we need to do is to try and understand the Iranians. The basic feeling of that ancient nation is one of humiliation. Both religious Iranians and secular Iranians feel that for 200 years the Western powers used them as their playthings. They do not forget for a moment that the British and the Americans intervened in their internal affairs and toppled the regime of Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953. From their perspective, the reason why, to this day, there is no modern rail network and no modern oil refineries in Iran is that the West prevented that. Thus, the deep motive behind the Iranian nuclear project − which was launched by the Shah − is not the confrontation with Israel, but the desire to restore to Iran the greatness of which it was long deprived.

“I believe that if the West could find a way to propose to Iran alternative methods to acquire that sense of greatness, Iran would forsake the nuclear road. If Iran were offered trains and oil refineries and a place of honor in regional trade, it would consider this seriously. You say carrots? The carrots offered to Iran until now were not big enough.

…If Israel had adopted a creative, active policy, and if the international community had held up to the Iranians a far richer package of threats and enticements, I think there would have been a chance to dissuade the Iranians from embarking on the dangerous road they have taken.

…”If instead of focusing on a military solution, Israel were to succeed in mobilizing the international community for complex and sophisticated political-economic action, I believe that the results might be surprising.”

The tragedy for Israel at this stage of it’s tenuous existence is that this man, who represents intelligence and balanced discourse on this subject, is ignored by virtually anyone who has real power.

Netanyahu in all his monomaniacal megalomania treats U.S. politics as if it were his personal plaything, rather than something that involved the fate of the nation. He naively believes he can play off a supposedly hostile American president against a pliantly pro-Israel Congress. He even imagines that he may serve as the decisive force in bringing a victory for Mitt Romney. All this would be merely delusional if it were merely his own fate in the balance. But when it’s the nation’s fate too, then it becomes an even more serious matter:

it is clear that he [Halevy] is very worried. He does not like Netanyahu’s intervention in U.S. politics, and he is apprehensive about the interface that has been created between the Iranian issue and the U.S. elections this November. He thinks that Israel must on no account be perceived as having contributed to the election of one candidate or torpedoed the candidacy of another. His evaluation is that a combination of a Holocaust-influenced frame of mind and the desire to promote the election of the next American president is dangerous.

…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.

Here is a final bit of supremely lucid, and therefore utterly irrelevant to current decision-makers, analysis:

“What I recommend is trying to calm the Iranian-Israeli conflict and not escalate it. It is possible that, in the end, we will have no choice and will be forced to attack…But before venturing on such an extreme and dangerous action, I suggest making a supreme effort to avoid it. We must not hem the Iranians in and we must not push them into a corner. We have to try to give them an honorable way out. It’s always worth remembering that the greatest victory in war is the victory that is achieved without firing a shot.”

Bless the fact that Israel has such intelligence among it’s citizens, but curse it for ignoring them.

domingo, 2 de setembro de 2012

Ataque a Irán pondría en peligro a Israel, afirma magistrado

2 septiembre 2012, Prensa Latina http://www.prensa-latina.cu (Cuba)

 
Tel Aviv (PL) -- Un ataque a Irán pondría en peligro el futuro de Israel, afirmó Eliyahu Winograd, un exmagistrado de la Corte Suprema de este país en entrevista con la radio castrense difundida hoy.

Sobre Israel caería una lluvia de cohetes disparados no sólo desde Irán, sino por el Hizbolá (Partido de Dios, en árabe) y no parece que el país tenga suficientes refugios ni máscaras antigases para enfrentar tal contingencia, dijo Winograd, presidente del comité que elaboró un crítico informe sobre la guerra de 2006 contra El Líbano.

El Hizbolá es la única agrupación libanesa a la cual se le permitió conservar sus armas tras el fin de la guerra civil entre 1975 y 1990 y se ha anotado resonantes éxitos militares contra las tropas israelíes en el sur del país, entre ellas el rechazo a la penetración militar en 2006 a que alude Winograd

La estructura política (israelí) no consultó bien con la dirección militar la preparación de la campaña libanesa, determinó el informe de la Comisión Winograd.

El veterano magistrado se preguntó si el primer ministro Benyamín Netanyahu y el titular de Defensa israelíes, Ehud Barak, tiene en cuenta las lecciones aprendidas tras lo que describió como "la segunda guerra de El Líbano".

De no ser así, estamos en problemas, dijo el entrevistado, quien aseguró que tanto los órganos de seguridad israelíes, Mossad y Shin Bet, como los altos mandos castrenses desaconsejan un ataque contra la República Islámica iraní.

Teherán ha reiterado que una agresión en su contra resultará "devastadora" para Israel, después de trascendidos sin confirmación oficial, según los cuales Tel Aviv elaboró un plan basado en un ataque cibernético previo a sendos golpes coheteriles y de la aviación de combate contra instalaciones nucleares iraníes.

A mediado de la semana que culmina hoy, Estados Unidos anunció la disminución de su papel en unas maniobras militares conjuntas con el ejército de Tel Aviv en la cual participarán misiles y otros medios de combate ultramodernos.

quinta-feira, 3 de maio de 2012

Ex-chefe de segurança critica premiê de Israel e ação contra Irã

28 de Abril de 2012, Vermelho http://www.vermelho.org.br (Brasil)

Em um pronunciamento sem precedentes, o ex-chefe do Serviço de Segurança do governo israelense, Shin Bet, ridicularizou a figura do primeiro-ministro Benjamin Netanyahu e advertiu que um ataque de Israel ao Irã pode "acelerar dramaticamente" o projeto nuclear iraniano.

Em um encontro com dezenas de pessoas nesta sexta-feira (27), Yuval Diskin, que foi chefe do Shin Bet entre 2005 e 2011, disse que não confia em Netanyahu nem no ministro da Defesa, Ehud Barak, e que não gostaria que "essas pessoas" conduzissem Israel para uma ação "da dimensão de uma guerra com o Irã".

Ainda não está claro se Diskin sabia que o encontro estava sendo gravado, mas rapidamente o vídeo com seu pronunciamento começou a ser divulgado por redes sociais na internet e, algumas horas depois, as duras criticas que fez aos lideres do país se tornaram manchete dos principais veículos de comunicação.

Diskin ridicularizou Netanyahu e Barak, chamando-os de "messias de Akirov e Keisaria", em referência aos bairros luxuosos onde o premiê e o ministro da Defesa possuem propriedades. "Eu os vi de perto, e posso dizer a vocês que eles não são messias", afirmou, questionando a imagem que tanto Netanyahu como Barak tentam criar de si mesmos como "salvadores do povo de Israel".

Em termos duros, Diskin fez ataques pessoais aos principais líderes do país. "Sabemos que cachorros que latem não mordem. Infelizmente tenho ouvido latidos demais ultimamente", disse o ex-chefe do Shin Bet. Diskin afirmou que os lideres do país apresentam ao público um "quadro incorreto sobre a questão iraniana, tentando criar a impressão de que se Israel não agir, o Irã terá uma bomba atômica".

"Eles se dirigem a um publico tolo ou ignorante, dizendo que, se Israel agir, o Irã não terá a bomba, mas isso é incorreto", afirmou Diskin.

"Muitos analistas dizem que uma das consequências de um ataque israelense pode ser uma aceleração dramática do projeto nuclear iraniano. O que os iranianos fazem hoje devagar e silenciosamente, (depois de um ataque) terão legitimidade para fazer muito mais rápido", afirmou.

Escândalo
As declarações de Diskin, um dos mais respeitados militares israelenses, criaram um escândalo no país. O vice-primeiro ministro, Silvan Shalom, declarou que tem "muito respeito por Yuval Diskin, que foi um ótimo chefe do Shin Bet". "Porém seu pronunciamento foi um erro, coisas assim não precisam ser ditas", acrescentou Shalom.

O ministro dos Transportes, Israel Katz, qualificou as palavras de Diskin como "grosseiras e inadequadas".

Diskin não é o primeiro militar importante em Israel que critica o plano, atribuído a Netanyahu e Barak, de atacar as instalações nucleares do Irã. No ano passado, o ex-chefe do Mossad, Meir Dagan, qualificou o plano como "estúpido".

Na semana passada o chefe do Estado-Maior do Exército israelense, general Benny Gantz, também fez um pronunciamento que foi interpretado como discordância ao plano de ataque ao Irã. Gantz afirmou que não acredita que o Irã vá produzir armas nucleares.

Segundo o general, o governo iraniano é "racional e sabe que seria um erro enorme produzir armas nucleares". Gantz também afirmou que as sanções econômicas contra o Irã "começam a dar resultados". (Fonte: BBC Brasil)


segunda-feira, 30 de abril de 2012

Former Shin Bet Chief, Diskin Loses Confidence in Netanyahu, Barak Leadership


27 April 2012, Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם http://www.richardsilverstein.com (USA)

Former Shin Bet director Yuval Diskin told an Israeli audience that he had no confidence in the leadership of Bibi Netanyahu or Ehud Barak:

“My major problem is that I have no faith in the current leadership, which must lead us into an event on the scale of war with Iran or regional war,” Diskin told the “Majdi Forum,” a group of local residents that meets to discuss political issues.

“I don’t believe in either the prime minister or the defense minister. I don’t believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings,” he added.

Diskin deemed Barak and Netanyahu “two messianics – the one from Akirov…and the other from…Caesarea,” he said, referring to the residences of the two politicians.

“Believe me, I have observed them from up close… They are not people who I, on a personal level, trust to lead Israel to an event on that scale and carry it off. These are not people that I would want to have holding the wheel in such an event,” Diskin said.

“They are misleading the public on the Iran issue. They tell the public that if Israel acts, Iran won’t have a nuclear bomb. This is misleading. Actually, many experts say that an Israeli attack would accelerate the Iranian nuclear race,” said the former security chief.

Considering that this was the fellow who ran Israel’s domestic security services during the entire reign of the current government, I’d say his dismissal of Netanyahu’s judgment and leadership is, or should be, a lightning bolt for Israelis. What’s more, Meir Dagan, the former Mossad chief has already voiced almost precisely the same views. Until now, Diskin had maintained a discreet public silence on the issues though it was common knowledge that he joined Dagan in opposing an Iran attack. This latest salvo will (hopefully) open the floodgates of criticism even farther.

Also, considering that neither the prime minister or defense minister are religious, attributing messianic motives to both should also be a warning. What is any leader, let alone one who doesn’t profess religious beliefs, doing falling back on such wild-eyed notions to govern national policy? Why does any leader believe his actions will save not just Israel, but the entire Jewish people?

These are the thoughts of megalomaniacs, not national leaders. And if they are national leaders they will lead to national catastrophe, rather than national salvation.

quarta-feira, 11 de abril de 2012

A GUERRA DOS EUA-ISRAEL AO IRÃO: O MITO DE UMA CAMPANHA LIMITADA

8 abril 2012, Resistir.info http://www.resistir.info (Portugal)
http://www.resistir.info/petras/petras_05abr12.html

por James Petras

A crescente ameaça de um ataque militar dos EUA-Israel ao Irão baseia-se em vários factores incluindo: (1) a história militar recente de ambos os países na região; (2) pronunciamentos públicos de líderes políticos estado-unidenses e israelenses; (3) ataques recentes e em curso ao Líbano e à Síria, aliados importantes do Irão; (4) ataques armados e assassínios de cientistas e responsáveis de segurança iranianos por grupos terroristas e/ou afectos sob controle dos EUA ou da Mossad; (5) o fracasso das sanções económicas e da coacção diplomática; (6) escalada de histeria e exigências extremas ao Irão para por fim ao enriquecimento de urânio de uso legal e civil; (7) “exercícios” militares provocatórios nas fronteiras do Irão e jogos de guerra destinados a intimidar e a um ensaio geral para um ataque antecipativo; (8) pressão poderosa de grupos pró guerra tanto em Washington como em Tel Aviv incluindo os principais partidos políticos israelenses e a poderosa AIPAC nos EUA; (9) e finalmente o National Defense Authorization Act de 2012 (um orwelliano decreto de emergência de Obama, de 16/Março/2012).

A propaganda de guerra estado-unidense opera ao longo de dois trilhos: (1) a mensagem dominante enfatiza a proximidade da guerra e a disposição dos EUA de utilizarem força e violência. Esta mensagem é destinada ao Irão e coincide com anúncios israelenses de preparativos de guerra. (2) O segundo trilho tem como objectivo o “público liberal” com um punhado de “académicos reconhecidos” marginais (ou progressistas Departamento de Estado) a subestimarem a ameaça de guerra e argumentarem que decisores políticos razoáveis em Tel Aviv e Washington estão conscientes de que o Irão não possui armas nucleares ou qualquer capacidade para produzi-las agora ou no futuro próximo. A finalidade deste contra-vapor liberal é confundir e minar a maioria da opinião pública, a qual opõe-se claramente a mais preparativos de guerra, e fazer descarrilar o explosivo movimento anti-guerra.

É desnecessário dizer que os pronunciamentos os instigadores de guerra “racionais” utilizam um “duplo discurso” baseado no afastamento displicente de todas as evidências históricas e empíricas em contrário. Quando os EUA e Israel falam de guerra, preparam-se para a guerra e empenham-se e provocações pré guerra – eles pretendem ir à guerra – tal como fizeram contra o Iraque em 2003. Sob as actuais condições políticas e militares internacionais um ataque ao Irão, inicialmente por Israel com apoio dos EUA, é extremamente provável, mesmo quando as condições económicas mundiais deveriam ditar em contrário e mesmo quando as consequências estratégicas negativas provavelmente repercutir-se-ão através do mundo durante as próximas décadas.

Cálculo dos EUA e Israel sobre a capacidade militar do Irão
Os decisores estratégicos americanos e israelenses não concordam sobre as consequências da retaliação do Irão contra um ataque. Pelo seu lado, líderes israelenses minimizam a capacidade militar do Irão de atacar e de prejudicar o estado judeu, o qual é a sua única consideração. Eles contam com a distância, seu escudo anti-mísseis e a protecção de forças aéreas e navais dos EUA no Golfo para cobrir seu ataque sorrateiro. Por outro lado, estrategas militares dos EUA sabem que os iranianos são capazes de infligir baixas substanciais a navios de guerra dos EUA, os quais teriam de atacar instalações costeiras iranianas a fim de apoiar ou proteger os israelenses.

A inteligência israelense é bem conhecida pela sua capacidade para organizar o assassinato de indivíduos por todo o mundo: a Mossada organizou com êxito actos terroristas além-mar contra líderes palestinos, sírios e libaneses. Por outro lado, a inteligência israelense tem um registo muito fraco quanto às suas estimativas de grandes empreendimentos militares e políticos. Eles subestimaram gravemente o apoio popular, a força militar e a capacidade organizacional do Hezbollah durante a guerra de 2006 no Líbano. Da mesma forma, a inteligência israelense entendeu mal a força e a capacidade do movimento democrático popular egípcio quando este se levantou e derrubou o aliado regional estratégico de Tel Aviv, a ditadura Mubarak. Se bem que líderes israelenses “finjam paranóia” – lançando clichés acerca de “ameaças existenciais” – eles são enganados pela sua arrogância narcisista e o seu racismo, subestimando reiteradamente a perícia técnica e o refinamento político dos seus inimigos árabes e da região islâmica. Isto é indubitavelmente verdadeiro no seu descartar displicente da capacidade do Irão para retaliar contra um planeado assalto aéreo israelense.

O governo estado-unidense agora comprometeu-se abertamente a apoiar um assalto israelense ao Irão quando ele for lançado. Mais especificamente, Washington afirma que virá “incondicionalmente” em defesa de Israel se este for “atacado”. Como pode Israel evitar ser “atacado” quando seus aviões estão a despejar bombas e mísseis sobre instalações iranianas, defesas militares e infraestruturas estratégicas? Além disso, dada a colaboração e aos sistemas de inteligência do Pentágono coordenados com as Forças de Defesa de Israel (IDF), seu papel na identificação de objectivos, rotas e aproximações de mísseis, bem como as cadeias de fornecimento de armas integradas e de munições, serão críticos para um ataque das IDF. Não há maneira de os EUA se dissociarem da guerra do estado judeu ao Irão depois de iniciado o ataque.

Os mitos da “guerra limitada”: Geografia


Washington e Tel Aviv afirmam e parecem acreditar que o seu planeado assalto ao Irão será uma “guerra limitada”, tendo como alvo objectivos limitados e perdurando apenas uns poucos dias ou semanas – sem consequências graves.

Dizem-nos que brilhantes generais de Israel identificaram todas as instalações de investigação nuclear críticas, as quais os seus ataques aéreos cirúrgicos eliminarão sem danos colaterais horríveis para a população circundante. Uma vez que o alegado programa de “armas nucleares” fosse destruído, todos os israelenses poderiam retomar as suas vidas em segurança plena sabendo que outra ameaça “existencial” fora eliminada. A noção israelense de uma guerra limitada em “tempo e espaço” é absurda e perigosa – e caracteriza a arrogância, estupidez e racismo dos seus autores.

Para se aproximarem das instalações nucleares do Irão as forças israelenses e estado-unidenses confrontar-se-ão com bases bem equipadas e defendidas, instalações de mísseis, defesas marítimas e fortificações em grande escala dirigidas pelos Guardas Revolucionários e pelas Forças Armadas do Irão. Além disso, os sistemas de defesa de mísseis que protegem as instalações nucleares estão ligados a auto-estradas, aeródromos, portos e apoiadas por infraestrutura de finalidade dupla (civil-militar), as quais incluem refinarias de petróleo e uma enorme rede de gabinetes administrativos. Por “nocaute” os alegados sítios nucleares exigirá a expansão do âmbito geográfico da guerra. A capacidade científica-tecnológica do programa nuclear civil iraniano envolve um vasto conjunto das suas instalações de investigação, incluindo universidades, laboratórios, locais de fabricação e centros de concepção. Destruir o programa nuclear civil do Irão exigiria que Israel (e portanto os EUA) atacassem muito mais do que instalações de investigação ou laboratórios ocultos sob uma montanha remota. Exigiria assaltos múltiplos e generalizados sobre alvos por todo o país, por outras palavras, uma guerra generalizada.

O líder supremo do Irão, ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declarou que o Irão retaliará com uma guerra equivalente. O Irão corresponderá à amplitude e âmbito de com um contra-ataque de resposta. “Nós os atacaremos no mesmo nível quando eles nos atacarem”. Isso significa que o Irão não limitará a sua retaliação a meramente tentar deitar abaixo bombardeiros estado-unidenses e israelenses no seu espaço aéreo ou a lançar mísseis a navios dos EUA nas suas águas mas levará a guerra a alvos equivalente em Israel e em países ocupados pelos EUA no Golfo e em torno dele. A “guerra limitada” de Israel tornar-se-á uma guerra generalizada que se estenderá por todo o Médio Oriente e ainda mais além.

A actual adoração ilusória de Israel acerca do seu elaborado sistema de defesa míssil ficará exposta quando centenas de mísseis de alto poder forem lançados de Teerão, do Sul do Líbano e bem além das Alturas de Golan.

O mito da guerra limitada: Intervalo de tempo
Peritos militares israelenses esperam confiantemente exterminar seus alvos iranianos nuns poucos dias – alguns podem pensar que num simples fim de semana – e talvez sem a perda de nem um único piloto. Eles esperam que o estado judeu venha a celebrar a sua brilhante vitória nas ruas de Tel Aviv e Washington. Estão iludidos pelo seu próprio senso de superioridade. O Irão não combateu uma guerra brutal com uma década de duração contra os invasores iraquianos abastecidos pelos EUA e os seus conselheiros militares ocidentais/israelenses só para entregar-se e submeter-se passivamente a um número limitado de ataques aéreos e com mísseis por parte de Israel. O Irão é uma sociedade jovem, bem educada e mobilizada, a qual pode utilizar milhões de reservistas de todo espectro político, étnico, de género e religioso, galvanizado em apoio a sua nação sob ataque. Numa guerra para defender a pátria todas as diferenças internas desaparecem para enfrentar o ataque não provocado israelenses-estado-unidense que ameaça toda a sua civilização – seus 5000 anos de cultura e tradições, bem como os seus avanços científicos modernos e instituições. A primeira onda de ataques dos EUA-Israel levará a uma retaliação feroz, a qual não será confinada às áreas originais do conflito, nem qualquer acto da agressão israelense acabará quando e se instalações nucleares do Irão forem destruídas e alguns dos seus cientistas, técnicos e trabalhadores qualificados forem mortos. A guerra continuará no tempo e em extensão geográfica.

Múltiplos pontos de conflito
Assim como qualquer ataque dos EUA-Israel ao Irão envolveria alvos múltiplos, os militares iranianos também terão uma pletora de alvos estratégicos facilmente acessíveis. Embora seja difícil prever onde e como o Irão retaliará, uma coisa está clara: O ataque inicial dos EUA-Israel não ficará sem resposta.

Dada a supremacia israelense-estado-unidense a longas e médias distâncias e em poder aéreo, o Irão provavelmente confiará em objectivos de curta distância. Isto incluiria as valiosas instalações militares do EUA e rotas de abastecimento em terrenos adjacentes (Iraque, Kuwait e Afeganistão) e alvos israelenses com mísseis lançados do Sul do Líbano e possivelmente da Síria. Se uns poucos misseis de longo alcance escaparem ao muito gabado “escudo anti-míssil” do estado judeu, centros populacionais israelenses podem pagar um preço pesado pela imprudência e arrogância dos seus líderes.

O contra-ataque iraniano levará a uma escalada das forças EUA-Israel, estendendo e aprofundando a sua guerra aérea e naval a todos o sistema de segurança nacional iraniano – bases militares, portos, sistemas de comunicação, postos de comando e centros administrativos do governo – muitos em cidades densamente povoadas. O Irão reagirá lançando o seu maior activo estratégico: um ataque coordenado no solo envolvendo os Guardas Revolucionários, juntamente com seus aliados entre as tropas xiitas iraquianas, contra forças dos EUA no Iraque. Ele coordenará ataques contra instalações dos EUA no Afeganistão e Paquistão com a crescente resistência armada nacionalista-islâmica.

O conflito inicial, centrado nos chamados objectivos militares estratégicos (instalações de investigação científica), generalizar-se-á rapidamente a alvos económicos ou o que os estrategas militares dos EUA e Israel chamam de alvos “duais civis-militares”. Isto incluiria campos de petróleo, auto-estradas, fábricas, redes de comunicações, estações de televisão, instalações de tratamento de água, reservatórios, centrais eléctricas e gabinetes administrativos, tais como o Ministério da Defesa e a sede da Guarda Republicana. O Irão, confrontada com a destruição iminente de toda a sua economia e infraestrutura (o que se verificou no Iraque vizinho com a invasão não provocada dos EUA em 2003), retaliaria bloqueando o Estreito de Ormuz e enviando mísseis de curto alcance na direcção dos principais campos de petróleo e refinarias dos Estados do Golfo incluindo o Kuwait e a Arábia Saudita, a meros 10 minutos de distância, paralisando o fluxo de petróleo para a Europa, Ásia e os Estados Unidos e mergulhando a economia mundial numa depressão profunda.

Não se deveria esquecer que os iranianos provavelmente estão mais conscientes do que ninguém na região da devastação total sofrida pelos iraquianos após a invasão dos EUA, a qual mergulhou aquela nação no caos total e devastou a sua infraestrutura avançada e o seu aparelho administrativo civil, para não mencionar a sistemática aniquilação da sua elite científica e técnica altamente educada. As ondas de assassínios de cientistas iranianos, académicos e engenheiros promovidas pela Mossad são apenas uma antevisão do que os israelenses têm em mente para cientistas, intelectuais e trabalhadores técnicos altamente qualificados. Os iranianos não deveriam ter ilusões acerca dos americanos e israelenses que procuram lançar o país na sombria era brutal do Afeganistão e Iraque. Eles não terão mais papel num Irão devastado do que têm os seus vizinhos no Iraque pós Saddam.

Segundo o general Mathis, que comanda todas as forças dos EUA no Médio Oriente, Golfo Pérsico e Sudeste da Ásia, “um primeiro ataque israelense provavelmente teria consequências calamitosas em toda a região e para os Estados Unidos ali” (NY Times, 19/3/12). A estimativa de “consequências calamitosas” do general Mathis apenas leva em conta as perdas militares dos EUA, provavelmente centenas de marinheiros em vasos de guerra ao alcance de mísseis de artilheiros iranianos.

Contudo, a mais ilusória e auto-enganosa avaliação do resultado e consequências de um ataque aéreo israelense ao Irão provém de líderes israelenses de topo, académicos e peritos de inteligência, que afirmam [ter] inteligência superior, defesas superiores e visão suprema (e também racista) dentro da “mente iraniana”. É típico o ministro da Defesa israelense, Barak, que se jacta de que qualquer retaliação iraniana na pior das hipóteses infligirá baixas mínimas à população israelense.

A visão “judeu-cêntrica” de reordenamento do equilíbrio de poder na região, a qual prevalece nos principais círculos israelenses, passa por alto a probabilidade de que a guerra não será decidia por ataques aéreos israelenses e defesas anti-míssil. Os mísseis do Irão não podem ser facilmente contidos, especialmente chegarem várias centenas por minuto de três direcções, Irão, Líbano, Síria e possivelmente de submarinos iranianos. Em segundo lugar, o colapso das suas importações de petróleo devastará a economia de Israel, altamente dependente da energia. Em terceiro lugar, os principais aliados de Israel, especialmente os EUA e a UE, serão gravemente tensionados quando forem arrastados para dentro da guerra de Israel e encontrarem-se a defender os estreitos de Ormuz, suas guarnições no Iraque e no Afeganistão e seus campos de petróleo e bases militares no Golfo. Tal conflito poderia incendiar as maiorias xiitas no Bahrain e nas províncias estratégicas ricas em petróleo da Arábia Saudita. A guerra generalizada terá um efeito devastador sobre o preço do petróleo e a economia mundial. Provocará a fúria de consumidores e a ira de trabalhadores por toda a parte quando fecharem fábricas e choques poderosos por todo o frágil sistema financeiro resultarem numa depressão mundial.

O patológico “complexo de superioridade” de Israel resulta em que os seus líderes racistas sistematicamente super-estimam suas próprias capacidades intelectuais, técnicas e militares, ao passo que subestimam o conhecimento, capacidade e coragem dos seus adversários regionais, islâmicos (neste caso iranianos). Eles ignoram a capacidade demonstrada do Irão para sustentar uma guerra defensiva prolongada, complexa e em muitas frentes e em recuperar-se de um assalto inicial e desenvolver armamento moderno adequado para infligir danos severos aos seus atacantes. E o Irão terá o apoio incondicional e activo da população muçulmana do mundo e talvez o apoio diplomático da Rússia e da China, que obviamente verão um ataque ao Irão como um outro ensaio geral para conter o seu poder crescente.

Conclusão
A guerra, especialmente uma guerra israelense-estado-unidense contra o Irão, está indissoluvelmente ligada ao relacionamento assimétrico EUA-Israel, o qual secundariza qualquer análise militar e política crítica nos EUA. Devido à configuração de poder sionista de Israel, a força militar dos EUA pode ser canalizada para o apoio ao impulso de Israel para a dominação regional, aos líderes israelenses e acima de tudo para os seus militares sentirem-se livres para entrarem nas mais ultrajantes aventuras militares e destrutivas, sabendo muito bem que em primeira e última instância podem confiar no apoio dos EUA com o sangue e as riquezas americanas. Mas depois de todo este grotesco servilismo a um país racista e isolado, quem resgatará os Estados Unidos? Quem impedirá o afundamento dos seus navios no Golfo e a morte e mutilação de centenas dos seus marinheiros e milhares dos seus soldados? E onde estarão os israelenses e sionistas dos EUA quando o Iraque for invadido pelas tropas de elite iranianas e seus aliados xiitas e um levantamento generalizado se verificar no Afeganistão?

Os decisores políticos egocêntricos de Israel desprezam o provável colapso do abastecimento de petróleo mundial em consequência da sua planeada guerra contra o Irão. Será que os seus agentes sionistas nos EUA percebem que, em consequência do arrastamento dos EUA para a guerra de Israel, a nação iraniana será forçada a por em chamas os campos de petróleo do Golfo Pérsico?

Quão barato tornou-se “comprar uma guerra” nos EUA? Por uns meros poucos milhões de dólares em contribuições de campanha para políticos corruptos e através da penetração deliberada de agentes “Israel-First”, académicos e políticos na maquinaria de fazer a guerra do governo estado-unidense, e através da covardia moral e auto-censura dos principais críticos, escritores e jornalistas que se recusam a nomear Israel e seus agentes como os decisores chave do nosso país na política do Médio Oriente, nós nos encaminhamos directamente rumo a uma guerra muito além de qualquer conflagração militar regional e rumo ao colapso da economia mundial e do empobrecimento brutal de centenas de milhões de pessoas de Norte a Sul, de Leste a Oeste.

05/Abril/2012

O original encontra-se em http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=30150

US-ISRAEL WAR ON IRAN : THE MYTH OF LIMITED WARFARE

April 5, 2012, Global Research http://www.globalresearch.ca (Canada)

By Prof. James Petras

Introduction
The mounting threat of a US-Israeli military attack against Iran is based on several factors including: (1) the recent military history of both countries in the region, (2) public pronouncements by US and Israeli political leaders, (3) recent and on-going attacks on Lebanon and Syria, prominent allies of Iran, (4) armed attacks and assassinations of Iranian scientists and security officials by proxy and/or terrorist groups under US or Mossad control, (5) the failure of economic sanctions and diplomatic coercion, (6) escalating hysteria and extreme demands for Iran to end legal, civilian use-related uranium enrichment, (7) provocative military ‘exercises’ on Iran’s borders and war games designed for intimidation and a dress rehearsal for a preemptive attack, (8) powerful pro-war pressure groups in both Washington and Tel Aviv including the major Israeli political parties and the powerful AIPAC in the US, (9) and lastly the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (Obama’s Orwellian Emergency Decree, March 16, 2012).

The US propaganda war operates along two tracks: (1) the dominant message emphasizes the proximity of war and the willingness of the US to use force and violence. This message is directed at Iran and coincides with Israeli announcements of war preparations. (2) The second track targets the ‘liberal public’ with a handful of marginal ‘knowledgeable academics’ (or State Department progressives) playing down the war threat and arguing that reasonable policy makers in Tel Aviv and Washington are aware that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons or any capacity to produce them now or in the near future. The purpose of this liberal backpedaling is to confuse and undermine the majority public opinion, which is clearly opposed to more war preparations, and to derail the burgeoning anti-war movement.

Needless to say the pronouncements of the ‘rational’ warmongers use a ‘double discourse’ based on the facile dismissal of all the historical and empirical evidence to the contrary. When the US and Israel talk of war, prepare for war and engage in pre-war provocations – they intend to go to war – just as they did against Iraq in 2003. Under present international political and military conditions an attack on Iran , initially by Israel with US support, is extremely likely, even as world economic conditions should dictate otherwise and even as the negative strategic consequences will most likely reverberate throughout the world for decades to come.

US and Israeli Military Calculations on Iran’s Capability
American and Israeli strategic policy makers do not agree on the consequences of Iran ’s retaliation against an attack. For their part, the Israeli leaders minimize Iran ’s military capacity to attack and damage the Jewish state, which is their only consideration. They count on their distance, their anti-missile shield and protection from US air and naval forces in the Gulf to cover their sneak attack. On the other hand, US military strategists know the Iranians are capable of inflicting substantial casualties on US warships, which would have to attack Iranian coastal installations in order to support or protect the Israelis.

Israel intelligence is best known for its capacity to organize the assassination of individuals around the world: Mossad has organized successful overseas terrorists acts against Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese leaders. On the other hand Israeli intelligence has a very poor track record with regard to its estimates of major military and political undertakings. They seriously underestimated the popular support, military strength and organizational capacity of Hezbollah during the 2006 war in Lebanon . Likewise, Israel intelligence misunderstood the strength and capacity of the Egyptian popular democratic movement as it rose up and overthrew Tel Aviv’s strategic regional ally, the Mubarak dictatorship. While Israeli leaders ‘feign paranoia’ – tossing clichés about ‘existential threats’– they are blinded by their narcissistic arrogance and racism, repeatedly underestimating the technical expertise and political sophistication of their Arab and regional Islamic foes. This is undoubtedly true in their facile dismissal of Iran ’s capacity to retaliate against a planned Israeli air assault.

The US government has now overtly committed itself to supporting an Israeli assault on Iran when it is launched. More specifically, Washington claims it will come to Israel ’s defense ‘unconditionally’ if it is “attacked”. How can Israel avoid being ‘attacked’ when its planes are raining bombs and missiles on Iranian installations, military defenses and support systems, not to mention Iranian cities, ports and strategic infrastructure? Moreover, given the Pentagon’s collaboration and coordinated intelligence systems with the Israel Defense Forces, its role in identifying targets, routes and incoming missiles, as well as integrated weapons and ordinance supply chains will be critical to an IDF attack. There is no way that the US can dissociate itself from the Jewish State’s war on Iran , once the attack has begun.

The Myths of ‘Limited War’: Geography
Washington and Tel Aviv claim and appear to believe that their planned assault on Iran will be a “limited war”, targeting limited objectives and lasting a few days or weeks – with no serious consequences.

We are told Israel ’s brilliant generals have identified all the critical nuclear research facilities, which their surgical air strikes will eliminate without horrific collateral damage to the surrounding population. Once the alleged ‘nuclear weapons’ program is destroyed, all Israelis can resume their lives in full security knowing that another ‘existential’ threat has been eliminated. The Israeli notion of a war, limited in ‘time and space’, is absurd and dangerous – and underlines the arrogance, stupidity and racism of its authors.

To approach Iran ’s nuclear facilities Israeli and US forces will confront well-equipped and defended bases, missile installations, maritime defenses and large-scale fortifications directed by the Revolutionary Guards and the Iranian Armed Forces. Moreover, the defense systems protecting the nuclear facilities are linked by civilian highways, airfields, ports, and backed by a dual purpose (civilian-military) infrastructure, which includes oil refineries and a huge network of administrative offices. To ‘knock out’ the alleged nuclear sites will require expanding the geographic scope of the war. The scientific-technological capacity of the Iranian civilian nuclear program involves a wide swath of its research facilities, including universities, laboratories, manufacturing sites, and design centers. To destroy Iran ’s civilian nuclear program would require Israel (and thus the US ) to attack much more than research facilities or laboratories hidden under a remote mountain. It would require multiple, widespread assaults on targets throughout the country, in other words, a generalized war.

Iran ’s Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has stated that Iran will retaliate with a war of equivalence. Iran will match the breadth and scope of any attack with a corresponding counter-attack: ‘We will attack them at the same level as they attack us’. That means Iran will not confine its retaliation to merely trying to shoot down US and Israeli bombers in its airspace or launch missiles at offshore US warships in its waters but will take the war to equivalent targets in Israel and in US-occupied countries in and around the Gulf. Israel ’s ‘limited war’ will become a generalized war extending throughout the Middle East and beyond.

Israel ’s current delusional fetish about its elaborate missile defense system will be exposed as hundreds of high-powered missiles are launched from Teheran, Southern Lebanon and just beyond the Golan Heights .

The Myth of Limited War: Time Frame
Israeli military experts confidently expect to polish off their Iranian targets in a few days – some might think a mere weekend - and perhaps without the loss of even a single pilot. They expect the Jewish state will celebrate its brilliant victory in the streets of Tel Aviv and Washington. They are deluded by their own sense of superiority. Iran did not fight a brutal, decade-long war against the US-supplied Iraqi invaders and its western/Israeli military advisers, to just turn over and passively submit to a limited number of air and missile attacks by Israel . Iran is a young, educated mobilized society, which can draw on millions of reservists from across the political, ethnic, gender, religious spectrum, galvanized in support of their nation under attack. In a war to defend the homeland all internal differences disappear to confront the unprovoked Israeli-US attack threatening their entire civilization – its 5000-year culture and traditions, as well as its modern scientific advances and institutions. The first wave of US-Israeli attacks will lead to ferocious retaliation, which will not be confined to the original areas of conflict, nor will any such act of Israeli aggression end when and if Iran ’s nuclear research facilities are destroyed and some of its scientists, technicians and skilled workers are killed. The war will continue in time and extend geographically.

Multiple Points of Conflict
Just as any US-Israeli attack on Iran will involve multiple targets, the Iranian military will also have a plethora of easily accessible strategic targets. Though it is difficult to predict exactly where and how Iran will retaliate, one thing is clear: The initial US-Israeli strike will not go unanswered.

Given Israeli-US supremacy in long and medium range sea and air power, Iran will probably rely on short-range objectives. These would include the highly valued US military facilities and supply routes in adjoining terrain (Iraq, Kuwait and Afghanistan) and Israeli targets with missiles launched from Southern Lebanon and possibly Syria. If a few Iranian long-range missiles escape the Jewish State’s much vaunted ‘anti-missile dome’, Israeli population centers may pay a heavy price for their leaders’ recklessness and arrogance.

The Iranian counter-strike will lead to an escalation by US-Israeli forces, extending and deepening their air and sea war to the entire Iranian national security system – military bases, ports, communication systems, command posts and government administrative centers – many in densely populated cities. Iran will counter by launching its greatest strategic asset: a coordinated ground attack involving the Revolutionary Guards together with their allies among the Iraqi Shia troops, against US forces in Iraq . It will coordinate attacks against US facilities in Afghanistan and Pakistan with the growing nationalist-Islamic armed resistance.

The initial conflict, centered on so-called military objectives (scientific research facilities), will spread rapidly to economic targets, or what US and Israeli military strategists refer to as “dual civilian-military” targets. This would include oil fields, highways, factories, communications networks, television stations, water treatment facilities, reservoirs, power stations and administrative offices, such as the Defense Ministry and headquarters of the Republican Guard. Iran, faced with imminent destruction of its entire economy and infrastructure (which occurred in neighboring Iraq with the unprovoked US invasion of 2003), would retaliate by blocking the Straits of Hormuz and sending short range missiles in the direction of the principle oil fields and refineries of the Gulf States including Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, a mere 10 minute distance, crippling the flow of oil to Europe, Asia and the United States and plunging the world economy into deep depression.

It should not be forgotten that the Iranians are probably more aware than anyone in the region of the total devastation suffered by Iraqis after the US invasion, which plunged that nation into total chaos and devastated its advanced infrastructure and civilian administrative apparatus, not to mention the systematic obliteration of its highly educated scientific and technical elite. The waves of Mossad-sponsored assassinations of Iranian scientists, academics and engineers are just a foretaste of what the Israelis have in mind for Iran ’s outstanding scientists, intellectuals and highly skilled technical workers. Iranians should have no illusions about the Americans and Israelis who seek to thrust Iran into the brutal dark ages of Afghanistan and Iraq . They will have no more role in a devastated Iran than their counterparts had in post-Saddam Iraq .

According to US General Mathis, who commands all US forces in the Middle East, Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia, ‘an Israeli first strike would be likely to have dire consequences across the region and for the United States there’ (NY Times, 3/19/12). General Mathis “dire cost” estimate only takes account of the US military losses, likely several hundred sailors on warships within missile distance of Iranian gunners.

However the most delusional and self-serving assessment of the outcome and consequences of an Israeli air attack on Iran, emanates from top Israeli leaders, academics and intelligence experts, who claim superior intelligence, superior defenses and supreme (if also racist) insight into the ‘Iranian mind’. Typical is Israeli Defense Minister Barak who boasts that any Iranian retaliation will at worst inflict minimal casualties on the Israeli population.

The ‘Judeo-centric’ view of re-ordering the balance of power in the region, which is prevalent in leading Israeli war circles, overlooks the likelihood that war will not be decided by Israeli air strikes and anti-missile defenses. Iran ’s missiles cannot be easily contained, especially if they arrive several hundred a minute from three directions, Iran , Lebanon , Syria and possibly from Iranian submarines. Secondly, the collapse of its oil imports will devastate Israel ’s highly energy dependent economy. Thirdly, Israel ’s principle allies, especially the US and the EU, will be severely strained as they are dragged into Israel ’s war and find themselves defending the straits of Hormuz, their army garrisons in Iraq and Afghanistan , and their oil fields and military bases in the Gulf. Such a conflict could ignite the Shia majorities in Bahrain and in the strategic oil-rich provinces of Saudi Arabia . The generalized war will have a devastating effect on the price of oil and the world economy. It will provoke the fury of consumers and workers rage everywhere as factories close and powerful shocks throughout the fragile financial system result in a world depression.

Israel ’s pathological ‘superiority complex’ results in its racist leaders consistently overestimating their own intellectual, technical and military capabilities, while underestimating the knowledge, capacity and courage of their regional, Islamic (in this case Iranian) adversaries. They ignore Iran ’s proven capacity to sustain a prolonged, complex multi-front defensive war and to recover from an initial assault and develop appropriate modern weaponry to inflict severe damage on its attackers. And Iran will have the unconditional and active support of the world’s Muslim population, and perhaps the diplomatic backing of Russia and China , who will obviously view an attack on Iran as another dress rehearsal to contain their growing power.

Conclusion
War, especially an Israeli-US war against Iran is indissolubly linked to the asymmetrical US-Israeli relationship, which sidelines and censors any critical US military and political analysis. Because Israel’s Zionist power configuration in the US can now harness US military power in support of Israel’s drive for regional dominance, Israeli leaders and most of their military feel free to engage in the most outrageous military and destructive adventures, knowing full well that in the first and last instance they can rely on the US to support them with American blood and treasure. But after all of this grotesque servitude to a racist ,isolated country, who will rescue the United States ? Who will prevent the sinking of its ships in the Gulf and the death and maiming of hundreds of its sailors and thousands of its soldiers? And where will the Israelis and US Zionists be when Iraq is overrun by elite Iranian troops and their Iraqi Shia allies and a generalized uprising occurs in Afghanistan ?

The self-centered Israeli policy-makers overlook the likely collapse of the world oil supply as a result of their planned war against Iran. Do their Zionist agents in the US realize that as a result of dragging the US into Israel ’s war, that the Iranian nation will be forced to set the Persian Gulf oilfields ablaze?

How cheap has it become to ‘buy a war’ in the US ? For a mere few million dollars in campaign contributions to corrupt politicians, and through the deliberate penetration of Israel-First agents, academics and politicians into the war-making machinery of the US government, and through the moral cowardice and self-censorship of leading critics, writers and journalists who refuse to name Israel and its agents as the key decision makers in our country’s Mid East policy, we head directly toward a war far beyond any regional military conflagration and toward the collapse of the world economy and the brutal impoverishment of hundreds of millions of people North and South, East and West.

quinta-feira, 22 de março de 2012

ISRAELIS SAY ‘NO’ TO IRAN WAR

20 March 2012, Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם http://www.richardsilverstein.com (USA)

Caption: 'The nation is against war with Iran'

Israelis have begun intensive social networking efforts to promote the notion that their country does not want war with Iran. There will be a mass rally on Friday, March 24th at 7PM in HaBima Square in Tel Aviv. There is also a Facebook event page, Israelis Against War with Iran. It has 764 Going currently. I wish it had more, much more. There is a Facebook group, Israelis Against the War, with 2,800 Likes. This is the statement that accompanies it:

It appears that as far as PM Netanyahu is concerned, everything’s prepared for an attack on Iran. Except for us – we’re neither prepared nor willing.

We will not agree to an irresponsible Israeli attack in Iran, leading to a war with an unknown end-date and casualty count. Polls show most of the Israeli public opposes the attack being planned by Netanyahu. Even the leading brass of the Israeli security establishment, past and present, opposes such an attack. U.S. intelligence agencies assert that Iran is not on the path attributed to it by Netanyahu (an assertion supported by the Mossad). Netanyahu, however, possibly fearing another “social summer”, appears eager to launch a war which might even give a boost to his election campaign.

Hardly anyone was surprised this week by the reports that Israel is not equipped to protect its citizens from missiles targeted at the cities. It is also not surprising that those least protected are the weaker populations of the Israeli periphery. This is exactly how much our leaders value us, when they don’t hesitate to take us on an unnecessary war that will inflame the region, supposedly for our protection. Not to worry – they’ll be safe and sound in their bunkers. The billions that this war will cost will be paid by us – in health, education, housing – and in blood.

But this week, we saw something amazing. The internet allowed us to convey messages to citizens on the other side and receive messages back from them. Messages of peace, solidarity and hope.

This exciting and refreshing dialogue leads to one clear conclusion:

We, the citizens of Israel and Iran, are not enemies. Our leaders are inciting a disastrous war – and we’re all trying to prevent it. Instead of being dragged into a regional war – we demand a solution of peace among all the region’s peoples.

This coming Saturday, March 24th, we will meet at 19:00 (7 PM) at HaBima Square in Tel Aviv – where the summer’s protests began – and march from there to Gan Meir. Together we will spell out for Netanyahu and the world: You have no mandate to take us to war with Iran.

Feel free to prepare signs such as:

“Iranians we love you”

“The people oppose war in Iran” or any other idea you might have.

There is also a blog, Israel Loves Iran, created by Israeli graphic designer Ronny Edry, which appears to be getting so much traffic it’s serving pages quite slowly. But that’s a good thing. It goes without saying the initiative has been covered by Haaretz. But it’s even reached CNN, another good sign. I hope you’ll do your part to help trend #israelovesiran on Twitter and promote it on any other social media platforms you frequent. We’ve got to stop this damn war. If the Occupy movement and Israel’s J14 Social Justice movement could move mountains, can’t we stop the F-16s?

There is one Israeli message to Iran I do not endorse. Thamar Gindin, an Israeli-Iranian who is making a powerful effort to promote peace between the two peoples, is featuring this message written by settler Rabbi Avraham Gisser of Ofra (considered a moderate figure in his community), who commends the Iranian people on Nowruz, the Iranian New Year. Here are excerpts from his statement. Reading it carefully will elicit the prejudices inherent in it:

Religious wholeness and pure belief are the lot of the free only. Enslavement and coercion are the opposite of the human spirit, and what are religious belief and observing the commandments worth if the human spirit is oppressed and humiliated?

The Jewish people are not the enemy of the honorable Iranian nation. The Iranian nation has a glorious tradition of respect for human values and struggle for freedom and equality. The common mission of the two nations is to continue striving for equality, peace, and respect for every person – man and woman, young and old. Women’s freedom is their honor. A woman’s freedom is the distinct sign of a society that chooses life and joy in life. The common enemy of both nations is any government or movement that enslaves the human spirit and humiliates the women, the weak and the different in the name of religion or in the name of any other fake ideology.

It’s more than obvious that Gisser seeks, like most pro-Israel figures trying to demonize Iran even unintentionally, to differentiate between the Iranian people and its government. The people are good. The Ayatollahs are bad. They are the “enslavers” and represent a “fake ideology.” Note there is absolutely no criticism offered of Israeli leaders or government. I ask you? Is this the sort of “conciliatory” message we need in the current environment? Compare this statement to the one from Ayatollah Boroujerdi, which Tamar publicized last Rosh HaShana, which was a truly loving, non-judgmental and inspirational one.

domingo, 11 de março de 2012

Mossad doing business with KSA: Stratfor Source

6 March2012, Cham Press شام برس http://www.champress.net (Syria)
mail@champress.net

Stratfor emails released by WikiLeaks and obtained by al-Akhbar said that the "Israeli" intelligence agency Mossad covertly assisted their Saudi counterparts with "intelligence collection and advice on Iran."

The emails, dated 2 May 2007, show discussions between Fred Burton, Stratfor's vice-president of counter-terrorism, and analysts in regards to the alleged secret Saudi-"Israeli" intelligence alliance. The email exchange also shows that Stratfor execs considered pursuing their own business relationship with the Saudi monarchy or, as Burton called them, “sleezy arsehole ragheads.”

Burton forwarded a short message to the general analyst email list which recounted HUMINT (human intelligence) on the alleged secret deal. The source claimed that Mossad offered covert assistance to the Saudis with "intelligence collection and advice on Iran." The city of Nicosia in Cyprus was cited in the email "as a primary transit hub into Riyadh." (doc-id 1227888).

Additionally, the source advised Burton that the Saudis "are playing both sides of the fence - with the jihadists and the Israelis - for fear that the US does not have a handle on either."

The source also claimed that "several enterprising Mossad officers, both past and present, are making a bundle selling the Saudis everything from security equipment, intelligence and consultation," a statement that implies an established security and business relationship between the Jewish "state" and the Saudi monarchy.

The message by Burton was additionally shared with another list that included Stratfor's president and Chief Financial Officer Don Kuykendall.

Burton inquired, "Have we got the Saudi Foreign Ministry or intel[ligence] services as sub clients? If not, [I] suggest we send Mike Parks [Stratfor employee with a history of getting clients for Stratfor], who is good friends with Prince Bandar, to sign them up. $100,000 deal is nothing to these folks. I think Les Janka also has contacts with these "...... Arabs"

The idea seemed to resonate well with other Stratfor senior staff, although there were concerns whether Stratfor's budget would cover an employee's trip to Riyadh in order to charm out a deal.

The email thread ended with Burton, typically tasteless in his humor, asking, "Either we want these "towel heads" as a client o[r] not. I can also have anybody we send to Riyadh beheaded."

The year 2007 was the year when Saudi Arabia officially reaffirmed its support for the Arab Peace Initiative.

Moreover, a New York Times report in August of that year stated that Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, was keen to be involved in the ill-fated Annapolis peace conference due to occur in the fall. In turn, "Israel" signaled its ‘openness' to the Saudi plan.

al-Akhbar Newspaper


terça-feira, 6 de março de 2012

Al-Manar: Mossad, Blackwater, CIA led operations in Homs

3 march 2012/Cham Press شام برس http://www.champress.net (Syria)

“The crisis is at its end” is no longer a relieving statement made by some political analysts, as the crisis is really close to its end. Baba Amro is now under the control of the Syrian army… and so are the armed groups of which a big number escaped to the Lebanese borders dubbing their retreat “tactical”.

Around 700 Arab and Western gunmen surrendered in Baba Amro, well-informed sources told Al-Manar website, adding that “huge and critical surprises will be uncovered in the coming few days… such as the kinds of arms seized, as well as the military tactics the armed groups followed, and the sides that supervised the operations.”

The sources further assured to the news website that the security operation in Homs will be over in a maximum of five to eight days.

Weapons from Israel used for First Time in Baba Amro
For his part, Syrian expert is strategic affairs Salim Harba pointed out that Baba Amro neighborhood and the areas surrounding it were emptied from the armed groups’ organizational as well as command structures with minimum army and civilian casualties, as the area was mainly concentrated by gunmen.

Speaking to Al-Manar website, Harba said that “the captured gunmen held Arab nationalities, including Gulf, Iraqi, and Lebanese… among them were also Qatari intelligence agents and non-Arab fighters from Afghanistan, Turkey, and some European countries like France.

“The Syrian army also uncovered tunnels and equipments there,” he added, pointing out that “advanced Israeli, European, and American arms that have not yet been tested in the countries of manufacture, in addition to Israeli grenades, night binoculars, and communication systems were confiscated by the security forces.”

Harba went on saying that “communication stations where established on the Lebanese borders to oversee the military operations in Baba Amro, and to ensure contact between field commanders and a coordination office led by members of information in the Qatari capital Doha.”

He clarified that “the escape of British journalists from Homs through the Lebanese-Syrian borders was the result of this coordination.”

In parallel, the Syrian strategic expert revealed that “the communication stations were being operated by Lebanese figures; some of them were members of the Future parliamentary bloc,” and considered that “these figures worked on transforming Wadi Khaled region into a strategic depth for Baba Amro.”

Mossad, Blackwater Directed from Qatar Operations in Homs
Additionally, Salim Harba revealed to Al-Manar website that “a coordination office was established in Qatar under American-Gulf sponsorship. The office includes American, French, and Gulf –specifically from Qatar and Saudi Arabia- intelligence agents, as well as CIA, Mossad, and Blackwater agents and members of the Syrian Transitional Council.”

“Qatar has also made deals with Israeli and American companies to arm the armed groups, and Gulf countries have been financing the agreements,” he added.

The Syrian expert pointed out that “the significance of the security operation in Homs is due to the high expectations that regional and international sides had from the armed gangs in Baba Amro … they wanted Homs to be turned into a new Benghazi.”

Indicating that the operation was implemented with high professionalism and accuracy, Harba reassured that documents will be exposed at the right time.

“The authority will not reveal everything it has now… the Syrian security forces have documents and confessions that could harm everyone who conspired against Syria, and could make a security and political change, not just on the internal Syrian level, but also on the regional level,” he assured.

In the same context, Harba considered that all the conferences and meetings by what he referred to as the “enemies of Syria” were aimed at paving the way for an American initiative under a “humanitarian” title.

He concluded: “At the end, the US will submit to the Russian initiative after it realized that confrontations will only result in its defeat, and that the Syrian government is still strong enough to deal with any conspiracy.”

Israa Al-Fass
Translated by Sara Taha Moughnieh
Al-Manar



quarta-feira, 29 de fevereiro de 2012

Israel Enlists Azerbaijan as Anti-Iran Ally Through Weapons Sales, Bribes

26 February 2012, Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם http://www.richardsilverstein.com (USA)

Azerbijian on the regional crossroads of espionage and intrigue among Russia, Iran, Turkey, Iraq, the U.S. and Israel

AP reports that Israel’s leading aerospace contractor has inked a $1.6-billion deal to supply Azerbaijan with drones, missiles, and other advanced military hardware, which would be used to arm a potential frontline state in the war against Iran. Israel has used such arms deals to create intimate military and intelligence links with nations as varied as Georgia, Russia and India.

Sheera Frenkel also reported recently on Azerbaijan as a Wild West outpost. It plays a major role in the war of nerves among Iran, Israel and the west. She interviews a Mossad agent who has served years there and only set foot in the Israeli embassy once. She tells of a country riddled with spy networks working one or both sides of the street. The officials of the government seem to be available to the highest bidder. It’s a bit like a central American or Caribbean country packed with corrupt drug dealers using the country for trans-shipments of drugs and guns. Except that in Azerbaijan the drug dealers are spooks and assassins.

Iran accuses the country of being a safe harbor for the Mossad/MEK conspirators who’ve been knocking off Iran’s nuclear scientists. Though there are many Iranian Azeris living on both sides of the border, there seems little love lost among these two neighbors. Brotherly relations have become corrupted by money, power, oil and arms.

It is especially the sort of place where one side or the other will decide to make an example of Azerbaijan for its collusion with the other. If not a plot to bomb the Israeli embassy then some other suitably gory plan. Baku would be a perfect Sarajevo as a catalyst for regional war, just as the latter city was a site for the assassination that initiated World War I. The Azeris and their willing foreign co-conspirators are playing with fire and it’s only a matter of time before the conflagration breaks out with a vengeance.

quarta-feira, 15 de fevereiro de 2012

‘Political pressure mustn’t force Iran strike’

8 February 2012, Jews for Justice for Palestinians http://jfjfp.com (Britain)

Former Mossad chief Dagan kicks off new movement to enact changes to political system, decries power of minority groups.

By JPOST.Com staff

Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan on Wednesday kicked off a new movement calling for changes in the political system, saying, “We must demand that when the prime minister is making fateful strategic decisions, such as action against Iran, he will not give in to or have his hand forced by political pressure.”

Dagan, who cannot run for the next Knesset due to the cooling off period law, spoke about the vision of his new movement called “Yesh Sicui” (there is a chance) at aconference in Tel Aviv.

“The state of Israel faces great challenges, some of them from within: impossible chasms, sectoral tendencies which have minority and pressure groups controlling the state while the majority is not heard and has no way to realize its desires,” Dagan stated.

Dagan called on changes to Israel’s political system, including raising the threshold of votes needed for a party to reach the Knesset to three percent, having 50% of MKs elected in regional elections and making it mandatory that the prime minister be from the party which receives the most votes in the election.

The former Mossad chief also decried the large number of ministers in the current government, calling on the maximum amount of ministers in a government to be 16.


segunda-feira, 13 de fevereiro de 2012

Israel's Mossad trained assassins of Iran nuclear scientists, report says

9 february 2012, By Haaretzהארץ http://www.haaretz.com (Israel)

U.S. officials confirm link between clandestine Israeli operations and People’s Mujahedin of Iran activists, according to NBC News report.

Mossad officials are training Iranian dissident activists to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists, a NBC News report citing U.S. officials said on Thursday. The report noted, however, that Washington was not directly involvement in the alleged attacks.

The report by NBC News followed Iranian accusations that Israel and the U.S. had been orchestrating attacks against Iranian scientists and military officials associated with Iran's nuclear program.

These accusations resurfaced following the most recent alleged attack, as Iranian media reported last month that nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan was killed by a bomb placed on his car by a motorcyclist in Tehran.

According to the semi-official Fars news agency, Ahmadi Roshan, 32, supervised a department at Natanz uranium enrichment facility in Isfahan province.

The United States has denied involvement in the killing and condemned it. Israel has declined to comment.

Just days following the bombing, Foreign Policy, quoting U.S. intelligence memos, reported that Mossad agents posed as CIA officers in order to recruit members of a Pakistani terror group to carry out assassinations and attacks against the regime in Iran.

Foreign Policy's Mark Perry reported that the Mossad operation was carried out in 2007-2008, behind the back of the U.S. government, and infuriated then U.S. President George W. Bush.

Later, a Sunday Times report claimed that agents associated with Israel's secret services were behind Ahmadi Roshans' assassination of an Iranian nuclear scientist.

On Thursday, U.S. officials speaking to NBC news claimed that Mossad agents were training members of the dissident terror group People’s Mujahedin of Iran in order assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists, adding that the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama was aware of the operation, but had no direct link to them.

The U.S. officials reportedly confirmed the link between Israel and the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), with one official saying: "All your inclinations are correct.”

Yet another American official would only tell NBC “It hasn’t been clearly confirmed yet.” All officials in question denied any U.S. involvement.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Follow Haaretz.com on Facebook and share your views.
A Foreign Ministry comment to the story said that as "long as we can't see all the evidence being claimed by NBC, the Foreign Ministry won't react to every gossip and report being published worldwide."

The NBC report also cites a senior aide to Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as describing what he said were strong links between Israel and Iranian dissident groups.
Mohammad Javad Larijani is quoted as saying that the these relations are "very intricate and close."

"[Israelis] are paying … the Mujahedin. Some of their (MEK) agents … (are) providing Israel with information. And they recruit and also manage logistical support,” the reported quoted Larijani as saying.

More on this topic
• Report: U.S. believes Israel sees Iran nuclear problem 'too narrowly'
• Harsher IAEA report on Iran nuclear program expected next month

----------------------


ISRAEL, MEK AND STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR GROUPS

10 February 2012, Salon http://politics.salon.com (USA)

A new report claims that MEK is behind the assassination of Iran's scientists, and Israel funds them

By Glenn Greenwald*

One of the most under-reported political stories of the last year is the devoted advocacy of numerous prominent American political figures on behalf of an Iranian group long formally designated as a Terrorist organization under U.S. law. A large bipartisan cast has received substantial fees from that group, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), and has then become their passionate defenders. The group of MEK shills includes former top Bush officials and other Republicans (Michael Mukasey, Fran Townsend, Andy Card, Tom Ridge, Rudy Giuliani) as well as prominent Democrats (Howard Dean, Ed Rendell, Bill Richardson, Wesley Clark). As The Christian Science Monitor reported last August, those individuals “have been paid tens of thousands of dollars to speak in support of the MEK.” No matter what one thinks of this group – here is a summary of its activities – it is formally designated as a Terrorist group and it is thus a felony under U.S. law to provide it with any “material support.”

There are several remarkable aspects to this story. The first is that there are numerous Muslims inside the U.S. who have been prosecuted for providing “material support for Terrorism” for doing far less than these American politicians are publicly doing on behalf of a designated Terrorist group. A Staten Island satellite TV salesman in 2009 was sentenced to five years in federal prison merely for including a Hezbollah TV channel as part of the satellite package he sold to customers; a Massachusetts resident, Tarek Mehanna, is being prosecuted now ”for posting pro-jihadist material on the internet”; a 24-year-old Pakistani legal resident living in Virginia, Jubair Ahmad, was indicted last September for uploading a 5-minute video to YouTube that was highly critical of U.S. actions in the Muslim world, an allegedly criminal act simply because prosecutors claim he discussed the video in advance with the son of a leader of a designated Terrorist organization (Lashkar-e-Tayyiba); a Saudi Arabian graduate student, Sami Omar al-Hussayen, was prosecuted simply for maintaining a website with links “to groups that praised suicide bombings in Chechnya and in Israel” and “jihadist” sites that solicited donations for extremist groups (he was ultimately acquitted); and last July, a 22-year-old former Penn State student and son of an instructor at the school, Emerson Winfield Begolly, was indicted for — in the FBI’s words — “repeatedly using the Internet to promote violent jihad against Americans” by posting comments on a “jihadist” Internet forum including “a comment online that praised the shootings” at a Marine Corps base, action which former Obama lawyer Marty Lederman said “does not at first glance appear to be different from the sort of advocacy of unlawful conduct that is entitled to substantial First Amendment protection.”

Yet here we have numerous American political figures receiving substantial fees from a group which is legally designated under American law as a Terrorist organization. Beyond that, they are meeting with the Terrorist leaders of that group repeatedly (Howard Dean told NPR last year about the group’s leader, Maryam Rajavi: “I have actually had dinner with Mrs. Rajavi on numerous occasions. I do not find her very terrorist-like” and has even insisted that she should be recognized as Iran’s President, while Rudy Giuliani publicly told her at a Paris conference in December: “These are the most important yearnings of the human soul that you support, and for your organization to be described as a terrorist organization is just simply a disgrace”). And, after receiving fees from the Terrorist group and meeting with its Terror leaders, these American political figures are going forth and disseminating pro-MEK messages on its behalf and working to have it removed from the Terrorist list.

Given all the prosecutions of politically powerless Muslims for far fewer connections to Terrorist groups than the actions of these powerful (paid) political figures, what conceivable argument is there for not prosecuting Dean, Giuliani, and the rest of them for providing “material support for Terrorism”? What they are providing to MEK is the definitive “material support.” Although these activities (along with those of the above-listed prosecuted Muslims) should be protected free speech, the U.S. Government has repeatedly imprisoned people for it. Indeed, as Georgetown Law Professor David Cole noted, these activities on behalf of MEK are clearly prosecutable as “material support for Terrorism” under the standard advocated by the Bush and Obama DOJs and accepted by the Supreme Court in the Holder v. Humanitarian Law case of 2009, which held that even peaceful advocacy on behalf of a Terrorist group can be prosecuted if done in coordination with the group (ironically, many of these paid MEK supporters have long been advocates of broad application of “material support” statutes (when applied to Muslims, that is) and have even praised the Humanitarian Law case). If we had anything even remotely approaching equal application of the law, Dean, Giuliani, Townsend and the others would be facing prosecution as Terrorist-helpers.

Then there’s long been the baffling question of where MEK was getting all of this money to pay these American officials. Indeed, the pro-MEK campaign has been lavishly funded. As the CSM noted: ”Besides the string of well-attended events at prestigious American hotels and locations, and in Paris, Brussels, and Berlin, the campaign has included full-page advertisements in The New York Times and Washington Post — which can cost $175,000 apiece.” MEK is basically little more than a nomadic cult: after they sided with Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran, they were widely loathed in Iran and their 3,400 members long lived in camps in Iraq, but the Malaki government no longer wants them there. How has this rag-tag Terrorist cult of Iranian dissidents, who are largely despised in Iran, able to fund such expensive campaigns and to keep U.S. officials on its dole?

All of these mysteries received substantial clarity from an NBC News report by Richard Engel and Robert Windrem yesterday. Citing two anonymous “senior U.S. officials,” that report makes two amazing claims: (1) that it was MEK which perpetrated the string of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists and (2) the Terrorist group “is financed, trained and armed by Israel’s secret service.” These senior officials also admitted that “the Obama administration is aware of the assassination campaign” but claims it “has no direct involvement.” Iran has long insisted the Israel and the U.S. are using MEK to carry out Terrorist attacks on its soil, including the murder of its scientists, and NBC notes that these acknowledgments “confirm charges leveled by Iran’s leaders” (MEK issued a statement denying the report).

If these senior U.S. officials are telling the truth, there are a number of vital questions and conclusions raised by this. First, it would mean that the assurances by MEK’s paid American shills such as Howard Dean that “they are unarmed” are totally false: whoever murdered these scientists is obviously well-armed. Second, this should completely gut the effort to remove MEK from the list of designated Terrorist groups; after all, murdering Iran’s scientists through the use of bombs and guns is a defining act of a Terror group, at least as U.S. law attempts to define the term. Third, this should forever resolve the debate in which I was involved last month about whether the attack on these Iranian scientists constitutes Terrorism; as Daniel Larison put it yesterday: “If true, the murders of Iranian nuclear scientists with bombs have been committed by a recognized terrorist group. Can everyone acknowledge at this point that these attacks were acts of terrorism?”

Fourth, and most important: if this report is true, is this not definitive proof that Israel is, by definition, a so-called state sponsor of Terrorism? Leaving everything else aside, if Israel, as NBC reports, has “financed, trained and armed” a group officially designated by the U.S. Government as a Terrorist organization, isn’t that the definitive act of how one becomes an official “state sponsor of Terrorism”? Amazingly, as Daniel Larison notes, one of the people who most vocally attacked me for labeling the murder of Iranian scientists as “Terrorism” and for generally arguing that Terrorism is a meaningless, cynically applied term — Commentary‘s Jonathan Tobin — yesterday issued a justification for why Israel should be working with Terrorist groups like MEK. As Larison wrote about Tobin’s article:

In other words, Israeli state sponsorship of a terrorist group is acceptable because it’s in a good cause. . . . Because Israel is overreacting to a perceived threat from Iran, Tobin believes it is entirely defensible for Israel to partner with a recognized terrorist group. In other words, Tobin believes that terrorism is “entirely defensible” so long as it is committed by the right people and directed at the right targets. It’s as if he is going out of his way to vindicate Glenn Greenwald.

Of course, as I documented in my last book, those who are politically and financially well-connected are free to commit even the most egregious crimes; for that reason, the very idea of prosecuting Giuliani, Rendell, Ridge, Townsend, Dean and friends for their paid labor on behalf of a Terrorist group is unthinkable, a suggestion not fit for decent company, even though powerless Muslims have been viciously prosecuted for far less egregious connections to such groups. But this incident also underscores the specific point that the term Terrorism is so completely meaningless, manipulated and mischievous: it’s just a cynical term designed to delegitimize violence and even political acts undertaken by America’s enemies while shielding from criticism the actual Terrorism undertaken by itself and its allies. The spectacle whereby a designated Terrorist group can pay top American politicians to advocate for them even as they engage in violent Terrorist acts, all while being trained, funded and aided by America’s top client state, should forever end the controversy over that glaringly obvious proposition.

* * * * *

Four notes: (1) The book event I did with Noam Chomsky last November in Boston will be broadcast several times this weekend on C-SPAN; the schedule is here; (2) The New Zealand political journal Listener has an interview and profile of me and With Liberty and Justice for Some; (3) the video for two of the civil liberties events I did this week are now online: this one at Indiana University/Purdue and this one from Columbia University; and (4) I’ll be the keynote speaker at the annual dinner of the ACLU in Idaho tomorrow night; ticket information is here.

*Glenn Greenwald (email: GGreenwald@salon.com) is a former Constitutional and civil rights litigator and is the author of two New York Times Bestselling books on the Bush administration’s executive power and foreign policy abuses. His just-released book, With Liberty and Justice for Some, is an indictment of America’s two-tiered system of justice, which vests political and financial elites with immunity even for egregious crimes while subjecting ordinary Americans to the world’s largest and most merciless penal state. Greenwald was named by The Atlantic as one of the 25 most influential political commentators in the nation. He is the recipient of the first annual I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism, and is the winner of the 2010 Online Journalism Association Award for his investigative work on the arrest and oppressive detention of Bradley Manning.