April 15th, 2012 Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם http://www.richardsilverstein.com (USA)
To enter into the world of the Iran-P5+1 nuclear negotiation is like scurrying down a rabbit hole and finding that words mean precisely what Iran’s enemies wish them to mean–nothing more or less. In other words, before the talks began the NYT’s Steven Erlanger could write that western intelligence was attempting to parse the “dense fog” of Ayatollah Khamenei’s utterances on the nuclear question. Meaning, of course that Barack Obama and Bibi Netanyahu have consistently been crystal clear in their every statement on the subject.
The fact that a subsequent second meeting has been scheduled for May means, again according to Erlanger’s anti-Iran perspective, that Iran passed a test that it engaged “seriously” in the first meeting: A senior American official at the talks emphasized that this meeting was about testing Iran’s seriousness.
Not a hint of the possibility that it is Israel and the U.S. whose sincerity may be doubted or that they too have something to prove. It is objectionable to paint Iran as the sole bad guy. There is more than enough blame to go around.
I have written here for months, if not years, that as long as the onus is put solely on the Iranians, they are always the ones whose seriousness is doubted, or who have something to prove–talks will fail. Such notions are racist at their heart. For every claim of perfidy or backtracking we can blame Iran, we can find two such examples from Israel and the U.S. The notion that non-western wannabe nuclear states are always the ones who engage in fraud or deceit is offensive and false.
Erlanger even raises a claim offered by that most notorious of references, “some analysts,” who raise the offensive religious claim that Iran would use deliberate lies as an approved part of its Shiite theological tradition during negotiations. Such claims are worthy of Daniel Pipes but not of a serious newspaper. Especially since Erlanger doesn’t even bother to offer a source for this claim.
Israeli leaders and war hawk analysts repetitively warn of Iran’s lying and reneging on such commitments. To hear them tell it, Iran never met a negotiation it didn’t sabotage, and it is the most untrustworthy interlocutor known to the world today. While the motives and actions of the west, of course, are pure as the driven snow.
On a related matter, yesterday the Times reported that Iranian Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, who lives in exile and is no friend of the regime, attacked the notion that economic sanctions were either an effective or moral tool in their use to bring Iran to its knees and its senses regarding its nuclear program. She said the only people harmed by this would be the vulnerable common folk, certainly not the leadership.
Mostrando postagens com marcador nuclear. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador nuclear. Mostrar todas as postagens
domingo, 15 de abril de 2012
segunda-feira, 2 de abril de 2012
100 IRANIAN MISSILES WILL PENETRATE DEFENSES, HITTING ISRAELI TARGETS AFTER FIRST-STRIKE
March 29th, Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם http://www.richardsilverstein.com (USA)
Gareth Porter does some excellent reporting during his current trip to Israel, where he’s meeting Israeli military and intelligence figures concerning a possible Israeli attack on Iran. He focuses on the lack of Israeli psychological preparation or awareness of the danger they face from an Iranian counter-strike after Israel’s pre-emptive attack.
Neve Gordon reported in Al Jazeera English that Israel assassinated the leader of the Gaza PRC a few weeks ago in order to deliberately provoke a Gaza missile barrage. Bibi wanted to test the Iron Dome missile system in the expectation that its success would further reassure Israelis and his doubting cabinet members, who must vote to approve war, that Israel will remain protected from rockets in the event Iran is attacked. I have a Truthout story being publishing tomorrow that will cover more of this ground.
Arrow 3 Missile (IDF)
Porter notes that Iron Dome will not protect Israel from Iranian missiles. The Arrow system is designed to shoot down the medium and long-range projectiles that Iran would launch. An Israeli missile expert notes that in testing, the Arrow has achieved an 80% success rate (the rate would be lower in battlefield conditions). Iran has around 450 missiles capable of hitting Israel. That means that over 100 missiles would get through Israel’s protective shield. Even if we factor that some of the 450 might be destroyed before launching by Israeli aircraft and that some of the missiles will land harmlessly and miss their target, that still leaves a very significant number that will get through. These are not Qassams we’re talking about. These are missiles packed with lethal warheads that will kill many and cause huge amounts of damage.
The missile expert, Uzi Rubin, says that Iran has improved its accuracy to within “meters” of the target. That means virtually all of Israel’s major infrastructure including power generation, air and seaports, political command and control facilities (the Knesset), and military bases (and the Kirya) would be hit. Add to this, the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah rockets would likely be falling as well. Even with the success of Iron Dome, a significant number of these rockets would get through, adding even more damage. Rubin tellingly says:
”I’m asking my military friends how they feel about waging war without electricity.”
I’m wagering that the Iranian response would give Israelis the shock of a lifetime, putting it mildly. Thousands will die, and as Meir Dagan said, Israel will not be the same country physically or psychologically afterward. Nor has Israel ever had to fight a war under such circumstances. It has never really had an adversary (save in 1948 and possibly 1973) who could put up a real fight and even take the fight to Israel itself.
On a related note, the Israeli right-wing media is full of stories complaining about Mark Perry’s terrific Foreign Policy expose of Israel’s shady dealings in Azerbaijan, which have likely led to an agreement to use its airspace and airfield as part of the plan to attack Iran. These media outlets seem to be in high dudgeon (Dan Margalit in Yisrael HaYom says the Americans are “shooting at Israel”) that the Obama administration is using Mark and others to relay its extreme discomfort and displeasure with Israel’s machination both in Azerbaijan and relating to a strike on Iran itself. The Jerusalem Post headline reads:
U.S. Leaks on Iran Meant to Prevent Israeli Strike
The columnist kvetches about Perry’s report:
There was something off-putting about the whole tone of the piece, as if the bad guy in this story were not Iran, for trying to acquire nuclear weapons, but Israel…
These…stories are…fed by sources intent on sending a clear message: Do not attack.
Gee, whadaya know? The U.S. has the chutzpah to worry about Israel throwing a lit match onto the tinderbox that is the current Middle East, and there’s something “off-putting” about that. As if our job and the job of the rest of the world is simply to understand Israel’s motives and interests and then get out of the way.
I find it humorous that Israel’s prime minister and defense minister are entitled to leak like a sieve to Israeli and world media about their war plans and yet the U.S., chas v’chalilah, has a hidden agenda when it does the same. No one, after all is allowed to have hidden agendas except Israeli prime ministers intent on attacking their neighbors.
Gareth Porter does some excellent reporting during his current trip to Israel, where he’s meeting Israeli military and intelligence figures concerning a possible Israeli attack on Iran. He focuses on the lack of Israeli psychological preparation or awareness of the danger they face from an Iranian counter-strike after Israel’s pre-emptive attack.
Neve Gordon reported in Al Jazeera English that Israel assassinated the leader of the Gaza PRC a few weeks ago in order to deliberately provoke a Gaza missile barrage. Bibi wanted to test the Iron Dome missile system in the expectation that its success would further reassure Israelis and his doubting cabinet members, who must vote to approve war, that Israel will remain protected from rockets in the event Iran is attacked. I have a Truthout story being publishing tomorrow that will cover more of this ground.
Porter notes that Iron Dome will not protect Israel from Iranian missiles. The Arrow system is designed to shoot down the medium and long-range projectiles that Iran would launch. An Israeli missile expert notes that in testing, the Arrow has achieved an 80% success rate (the rate would be lower in battlefield conditions). Iran has around 450 missiles capable of hitting Israel. That means that over 100 missiles would get through Israel’s protective shield. Even if we factor that some of the 450 might be destroyed before launching by Israeli aircraft and that some of the missiles will land harmlessly and miss their target, that still leaves a very significant number that will get through. These are not Qassams we’re talking about. These are missiles packed with lethal warheads that will kill many and cause huge amounts of damage.
The missile expert, Uzi Rubin, says that Iran has improved its accuracy to within “meters” of the target. That means virtually all of Israel’s major infrastructure including power generation, air and seaports, political command and control facilities (the Knesset), and military bases (and the Kirya) would be hit. Add to this, the fact that Hamas and Hezbollah rockets would likely be falling as well. Even with the success of Iron Dome, a significant number of these rockets would get through, adding even more damage. Rubin tellingly says:
”I’m asking my military friends how they feel about waging war without electricity.”
I’m wagering that the Iranian response would give Israelis the shock of a lifetime, putting it mildly. Thousands will die, and as Meir Dagan said, Israel will not be the same country physically or psychologically afterward. Nor has Israel ever had to fight a war under such circumstances. It has never really had an adversary (save in 1948 and possibly 1973) who could put up a real fight and even take the fight to Israel itself.
On a related note, the Israeli right-wing media is full of stories complaining about Mark Perry’s terrific Foreign Policy expose of Israel’s shady dealings in Azerbaijan, which have likely led to an agreement to use its airspace and airfield as part of the plan to attack Iran. These media outlets seem to be in high dudgeon (Dan Margalit in Yisrael HaYom says the Americans are “shooting at Israel”) that the Obama administration is using Mark and others to relay its extreme discomfort and displeasure with Israel’s machination both in Azerbaijan and relating to a strike on Iran itself. The Jerusalem Post headline reads:
U.S. Leaks on Iran Meant to Prevent Israeli Strike
The columnist kvetches about Perry’s report:
There was something off-putting about the whole tone of the piece, as if the bad guy in this story were not Iran, for trying to acquire nuclear weapons, but Israel…
These…stories are…fed by sources intent on sending a clear message: Do not attack.
Gee, whadaya know? The U.S. has the chutzpah to worry about Israel throwing a lit match onto the tinderbox that is the current Middle East, and there’s something “off-putting” about that. As if our job and the job of the rest of the world is simply to understand Israel’s motives and interests and then get out of the way.
I find it humorous that Israel’s prime minister and defense minister are entitled to leak like a sieve to Israeli and world media about their war plans and yet the U.S., chas v’chalilah, has a hidden agenda when it does the same. No one, after all is allowed to have hidden agendas except Israeli prime ministers intent on attacking their neighbors.
quinta-feira, 29 de março de 2012
‘ISRAEL BOUGHT AN AIRFIELD CALLED AZERBAIJAN’
28 March 2012, Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם http://www.richardsilverstein.com (USA)
(Photo: Shimon Peres in Azerbaijan, Israeli Alexander on path to Middle East empire)
Mark Perry has published another powerful expose of covert Israeli intelligence activities against Iran. This segment in his series deals with Azerbaijan, a subject I’ve written about here after the recent announcement of a $1.6 billion arms deal between Israel and that nation. Perry expands and amplifies the story, revealing that Israel may use Azerbaijan as a “forward aircraft carrier” in its offensive against Iran. Perry’s sources are high level U.S. military and intelligence officials.
One of the logistical nightmares of an attack on Iran is getting Israeli planes to and from their target, a flight of 2,000 miles. The IAF simply doesn’t have the refueling capability that’s required. Thanks to Perry, we’ve just learned one of the ways Israel plans to eliminate the problem:
…Four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers say that the United States has concluded that Israel has recently been granted access to airbases on Iran’s northern border. To do what, exactly, is not clear. “The Israelis have bought an airfield,” a senior administration official told me in early February, “and the airfield is called Azerbaijan.”
Though the country’s foreign minister recently dismissed the notion that his country would serve as a base for an attack on any other country, Perry writes:
…Even if his government makes good on that promise, it could still provide Israel with essential support. A U.S. military intelligence officer noted that Azeri defense minister did not explicitly bar Israeli bombers from landing in the country after a strike. Nor did he rule out the basing of Israeli search-and-rescue units in the country. Proffering such landing rights — and mounting search and rescue operations closer to Iran — would make an Israeli attack on Iran easier.
…The U.S. intelligence and diplomatic officials told me they believe that Israel has gained access to these [Azeri] airbases through a series of quiet political and military understandings. “I doubt that there’s actually anything in writing,” added a senior retired American diplomat who spent his career in the region. “But I don’t think there’s any doubt — if Israeli jets want to land in Azerbaijan after an attack, they’d probably be allowed to do so. Israel is deeply embedded in Azerbaijan, and has been for the last two decades.”
Perry notes that Azerbaijan’s rampant corruption has allowed Israel to exploit the situation to its advantage. In return for military hardware and joint production deals, Israel gets these landing rights, the right to place sophisticated listening posts targeting Iran on Azeri soil, and maybe even the right for its assassins to use Azeri territory on their way to and from Iran to assassinate nuclear scientists. If this reminds you of a Graham Greene or John Le Carre novel, it should. The only difference is that the characters’ features are more Middle Eastern and the languages spoken are different.
Perry raised an interesting historical note about a mysterious joint Israeli-Romanian military exercise about two years ago. There were rumors that it was meant as a preparation for an Iran operation though it was hard to see how a war game exercise in central Europe would connect to attacking Iran. But here’s the answer:
This officer pointed to a July 2010 joint Israeli-Romanian exercise that tested Israeli air capabilities in mountainous areas — like those the Israeli Air Force would face during a bombing mission against Iranian nuclear facilities that the Iranians have buried deep into mountainsides. U.S. military officers watched the exercises closely, not least because they objected to the large number of Israeli fighters operating from airbases of a NATO-member country, but also because 100 Israeli fighters overflew Greece as a part of a simulation of an attack on Iran. The Israelis eventually curtailed their Romanian military activities when the United States expressed discomfort with practicing the bombing of Iran from a NATO country, according to this senior military intelligence officer.
This same senior U.S. military intelligence officer speculated that the search and rescue component of those operations will be transferred to Azerbaijan — “if they haven’t been already.”
The issue of drones has become a hot one as well with the Iranian downing of a U.S. drone a few months ago. Israel has apparently been quite busy exploiting its drone capabilities to spy on not just Iran, but likely Turkey as well:
The centerpiece of the recent arms deal is Azerbaijan’s acquisition of Israeli drones, which has only heightened Turkish anxieties further. In November 2011, the Turkish government retrieved the wreckage of an Israeli “Heron” drone in the Mediterranean, south of the city of Adana — well inside its maritime borders. Erdogan’s government believed the drone’s flight had originated in the Kurdish areas of northern Iraq and demanded that Israel provide an explanation, but got none. “They lied; they told us the drone didn’t belong to them,” a former Turkish official told me last month. “But it had their markings.”
All of this equals a major projection of Israeli power right into the heart of two of the region’s major Muslim powers, Turkey and Iran. Frankly, it reminds me of the history of U.S. interventionism around the world–in Central America (1950 and 70s), Latin America (1960s and 70s), Asia (1960s and 70s), and now the Middle East (1990s and 2000s). All of this aggressive projection of American power for objectives and values almost impossible to quantify, has led us to much grief. It can only lead Israel to a similar fate. What the Middle East does NOT need is Israeli air bases on Cyprus and Azerbaijan. It does not need Israel doing its level best to rile up regional powers like Turkey and Iran.
It is precisely belligerent acts like this which convince the nations of the area that they need nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Israel doesn’t mess around. If it wants something, it gets it. If it doesn’t want you to do or have something, it’ll do its damndest to stop you, or barring that to make you pay for your defiance. Israel makes the neighborhood even tougher than it is or has to be. Under such conditions, it’s no wonder Iran might feel the need to explore a nuclear option.
A modified version of the old saying–be careful what you wish for because you might get it–holds true in this situation. The more threatening Israel’s policy becomes, the more likely there will be a major and possibly/likely uncontrollable escalation that would lead to a shooting war. Wars in the region tend not to be short or containable (viz. Iraq and Afghanistan), especially when there are so many proxies and allies on one side or the other. In other words, there’s enough kindling in the Middle East to burn the whole place down three times over. In this environment, do we really want Israeli F-16s careening across the skies enforcing a Pax Israeliana?
The irony here is that even if Israel lays perfect groundwork logistically, it still may not succeed. The Congressional Research Service reported today that Iran has done such a thorough job of dispersing its centrifuge workshops that Israel can’t possibly locate them all and that doing substantial damage to this part of their nuclear program is difficult. The document estimates Israel may only set back Iran by a relatively short period of time after such an operation:
A former official said the same day that Iran probably could rebuild or replicate most centrifuge workshops within six months, the researchers said.
Such a failure would leave the region in the same situation it is now (or worse): with Iran conducting nuclear research (possibly openly and for weapons production), Israel seeking to ever expand its sway in the region. All that awaits is for the next chance to perform “root canal” or “mow the grass”–for these enemies to have a go at each other. Next time, presumably with even more lethal weapons and more dangerous allies/proxies fighting alongside them. To paraphrase an old TV commercial: Is this any way to run a region? You bet it’s not.
Israel deserves to be a small country that offers much to the world. But does it deserve to be an aircraft carrier in the Middle East? Sparta on the Jordan? I say No. And the only party, if any, which can reign in this megalomania is the U.S. Barack Obama has shown little willingness to do so in his characteristically vacillating way. But there may come a point at which the guns have fired, the missiles have launched, and all we’ll be able to do is count the bodies on either side. Then it will be too late. Obama will’ve had his chance to turn things around and missed it. All because he didn’t have the toughness to face down Bibi and Barak.
quarta-feira, 15 de fevereiro de 2012
Irã não é uma ameaça para Israel, diz historiador israelense
13 Fevereiro 2012, Vermelho http://www.vermelho.org.br (Brasil)
As comemorações pelo 33º aniversário da Revolução Iraniana, que tiveram início no último dia 1º, se encerram neste sábado (11) em um momento em que o país é cada vez mais pressionado pela comunidade internacional para que encerre seu “suposto” programa nuclear.
Nesse cenário, as relações com Israel se tornam cada vez mais delicadas à medida que os dois lados ameaçam garantir a segurança nacional por meio de ações militares.
Na comunidade internacional, os israelenses fazem lobby para que a ONU (Organização das Nações Unidas) adote sanções cada vez mais agressivas contra o Irã, atingindo, principalmente, sua economia e sua produção de petróleo.
Apesar da tensão entre os dois países, Martin van Creveld, historiador pela Universidade Hebraica de Jerusalém, especialista em estratégia militar e Ph.D pela London School of Economics, afirma que o Irã está longe de ser uma ameaça a Israel.
Para ele, as declarações de Teerã buscam atrair o apoio árabe na região. No entanto, mesmo afastando a possibilidade de uma ação militar iraniana, van Creveld não descarta que Israel pode dar o primeiro passo.
Acompanhe a entrevista:
Opera Mundi: Diante deste cenário que envolve acusações e ameaças de ambas as partes, qual é a real situação das atuais relações entre Irã e Israel?
Martin van Creveld: O Irã tem dois inimigos principais. O primeiro são os Estados Unidos. Assim com as Guerras de 1991, 1999 e 2003 [Golfo, Kosovo e Iraque] mostraram, ninguém nunca sabe qual será o país que o próximo presidente dos EUA irá atacar com bombas e/ou invadir. Se os iranianos estão realmente tentando construir uma bomba o mais rápido possível – e isso não é nada certo – então o principal objetivo norte-americano é deter essa ameaça.
O outro rival do Irã é a Turquia. Após o desaparecimento do Iraque [da geopolítica internacional] e do enfraquecimento da Síria, um vácuo de poder se abriu. Ele atinge desde a costa nordeste do Mediterrâneo até o Golfo Pérsico. Tanto o Irã quanto a Turquia querem dominar essa área. Os dois países têm cerca de 80 milhões de pessoas e são potências regionais.
Comparado com esta luta titânica, Israel é pequeno e não tem importância. Para o Irã, fazer todos os tipos de ruído anti-israelense é muito útil para puxar a opinião pública árabe na Síria e no Iraque para seu favor.
Opera Mundi: É tão perigoso assim que o Irã produza energia nuclear?
MC: A energia nuclear está fora de questão. Muitos países possuem reatores, mas não têm as armas necessárias para produzi-las. A questão é: será que os iranianos irão usar a infraestrutura que possuem agora para construir uma bomba? Ninguém sabe a resposta. O que parece claro, porém, é que ninguém mais tem reservado tanto tempo para isso [questão nuclear]. Esse fato pode levantar algumas suspeitas.
Opera Mundi: O Irã é uma ameaça para Israel?
MC: Não. Relatórios internacionais apontam que Israel tem o que é necessário para transformar o Irã em um deserto radioativo em poucas horas se esta for a ordem. Os iranianos sabem disso, assim como todo mundo sabe.
Opera Mundi: O Sr. disse uma vez que o “Irã é um país perigoso, mas não para nós [israelenses]”. Para quem então?
MC: Os países que possuem razões para se preocupar [em relação ao Irã] são aqueles que fazem fronteira com o Golfo, como o Kuwait, Bahrein, Qatar, Emirados Árabes Unidos e, é claro, a Arábia Saudita. Se o Irã desenvolver a bomba, a pressão sobre esses países irá aumentar, sem dúvidas. Mas nós em Israel estamos muito longe, e salvar os árabes de seus irmãos muçulmanos não é nosso negócio.
Opera Mundi: É possível que um dos dois países inicie alguma ação militar em um futuro próximo?
MC: Dias atrás um blogueiro iraniano escreveu que a melhor defesa é o ataque e que o Irã poderia atacar Israel antes que os israelenses tomassem a primeira atitude. Esta foi a primeira vez que algo dessa forma apareceu na internet [iraniana]. No entanto, nós não sabemos quem é o blogueiro e quem ele representa, caso isso de fato aconteça.
Eu considero que um ataque iraniano, sem um motivo aparente, está fora de questão. No entanto, será que Israel atacaria o Irã agora? Se eu soubesse, com certeza não lhe diria.
Opera Mundi: Como uma forma de estrangular a economia iraniana, a comunidade internacional vem aprovando cada vez mais novas sanções contra o país. Qual é o peso dessas medidas contra o Irã? Como isso afeta a população?
MC: Difícil dizer. De qualquer forma, parece que as sanções estão tendo um impacto na economia iraniana. O dinar [moeda iraniana] está caindo feito uma pedra. Os preços dos alimentos e combustíveis subiram e parece haver uma agitação popular. Não considero impossível que, caso o descontentamento pelos aumentos cresça entre a população e o regime começar a se sentir em perigo, o homem no comando, Aiatolá Khamani, irá se livrar de Ahmadinejad para salvá-lo [regime]. No entanto, ainda não estamos nesse estágio.
Fonte: Opera Mundi
As comemorações pelo 33º aniversário da Revolução Iraniana, que tiveram início no último dia 1º, se encerram neste sábado (11) em um momento em que o país é cada vez mais pressionado pela comunidade internacional para que encerre seu “suposto” programa nuclear.
Nesse cenário, as relações com Israel se tornam cada vez mais delicadas à medida que os dois lados ameaçam garantir a segurança nacional por meio de ações militares.
Na comunidade internacional, os israelenses fazem lobby para que a ONU (Organização das Nações Unidas) adote sanções cada vez mais agressivas contra o Irã, atingindo, principalmente, sua economia e sua produção de petróleo.
Apesar da tensão entre os dois países, Martin van Creveld, historiador pela Universidade Hebraica de Jerusalém, especialista em estratégia militar e Ph.D pela London School of Economics, afirma que o Irã está longe de ser uma ameaça a Israel.
Para ele, as declarações de Teerã buscam atrair o apoio árabe na região. No entanto, mesmo afastando a possibilidade de uma ação militar iraniana, van Creveld não descarta que Israel pode dar o primeiro passo.
Acompanhe a entrevista:
Opera Mundi: Diante deste cenário que envolve acusações e ameaças de ambas as partes, qual é a real situação das atuais relações entre Irã e Israel?
Martin van Creveld: O Irã tem dois inimigos principais. O primeiro são os Estados Unidos. Assim com as Guerras de 1991, 1999 e 2003 [Golfo, Kosovo e Iraque] mostraram, ninguém nunca sabe qual será o país que o próximo presidente dos EUA irá atacar com bombas e/ou invadir. Se os iranianos estão realmente tentando construir uma bomba o mais rápido possível – e isso não é nada certo – então o principal objetivo norte-americano é deter essa ameaça.
O outro rival do Irã é a Turquia. Após o desaparecimento do Iraque [da geopolítica internacional] e do enfraquecimento da Síria, um vácuo de poder se abriu. Ele atinge desde a costa nordeste do Mediterrâneo até o Golfo Pérsico. Tanto o Irã quanto a Turquia querem dominar essa área. Os dois países têm cerca de 80 milhões de pessoas e são potências regionais.
Comparado com esta luta titânica, Israel é pequeno e não tem importância. Para o Irã, fazer todos os tipos de ruído anti-israelense é muito útil para puxar a opinião pública árabe na Síria e no Iraque para seu favor.
Opera Mundi: É tão perigoso assim que o Irã produza energia nuclear?
MC: A energia nuclear está fora de questão. Muitos países possuem reatores, mas não têm as armas necessárias para produzi-las. A questão é: será que os iranianos irão usar a infraestrutura que possuem agora para construir uma bomba? Ninguém sabe a resposta. O que parece claro, porém, é que ninguém mais tem reservado tanto tempo para isso [questão nuclear]. Esse fato pode levantar algumas suspeitas.
Opera Mundi: O Irã é uma ameaça para Israel?
MC: Não. Relatórios internacionais apontam que Israel tem o que é necessário para transformar o Irã em um deserto radioativo em poucas horas se esta for a ordem. Os iranianos sabem disso, assim como todo mundo sabe.
Opera Mundi: O Sr. disse uma vez que o “Irã é um país perigoso, mas não para nós [israelenses]”. Para quem então?
MC: Os países que possuem razões para se preocupar [em relação ao Irã] são aqueles que fazem fronteira com o Golfo, como o Kuwait, Bahrein, Qatar, Emirados Árabes Unidos e, é claro, a Arábia Saudita. Se o Irã desenvolver a bomba, a pressão sobre esses países irá aumentar, sem dúvidas. Mas nós em Israel estamos muito longe, e salvar os árabes de seus irmãos muçulmanos não é nosso negócio.
Opera Mundi: É possível que um dos dois países inicie alguma ação militar em um futuro próximo?
MC: Dias atrás um blogueiro iraniano escreveu que a melhor defesa é o ataque e que o Irã poderia atacar Israel antes que os israelenses tomassem a primeira atitude. Esta foi a primeira vez que algo dessa forma apareceu na internet [iraniana]. No entanto, nós não sabemos quem é o blogueiro e quem ele representa, caso isso de fato aconteça.
Eu considero que um ataque iraniano, sem um motivo aparente, está fora de questão. No entanto, será que Israel atacaria o Irã agora? Se eu soubesse, com certeza não lhe diria.
Opera Mundi: Como uma forma de estrangular a economia iraniana, a comunidade internacional vem aprovando cada vez mais novas sanções contra o país. Qual é o peso dessas medidas contra o Irã? Como isso afeta a população?
MC: Difícil dizer. De qualquer forma, parece que as sanções estão tendo um impacto na economia iraniana. O dinar [moeda iraniana] está caindo feito uma pedra. Os preços dos alimentos e combustíveis subiram e parece haver uma agitação popular. Não considero impossível que, caso o descontentamento pelos aumentos cresça entre a população e o regime começar a se sentir em perigo, o homem no comando, Aiatolá Khamani, irá se livrar de Ahmadinejad para salvá-lo [regime]. No entanto, ainda não estamos nesse estágio.
Fonte: Opera Mundi
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.
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.
• 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.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)