All indications are that Israel is preparing for a Pre-emptive strike on Iran. Italy's PM, Silvio Berlusconi said it will probably happen soon. From an American liberal, anti-war activist's perspective, this is simply a continuation of the Neo-Conservative strategy for a "redrawing of the geopolitical map" of the middle east.
Documentation from 2001-2003 indicated that the long-term strategy was for changes in the regimes of Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Iran and eventually, Saudi Arabia.
Gen. Wesley Clark said that after Iraq, Syria and Lebanon would be addressed and then after 5 years (around 2008) Iran would be attacked. Now that Syria and Iran have a mutual defense pact (with Lebanon, it can be assumed), and Turkey/Israeli relations have soured, it looks like the attack on Iran may happen sooner than later.
The first half of this diary is a compilation of information from the intertubes regarding Israel's preparing to attack Iran.
It will be followed by commentary.
Italian PM: Israel ‘will probably react preemptively’ on Iran Sunday, June 27th, 2010 -- 10:38 pm
That's entirely possible, according to a report from Israel which cites Silvio Berlusconi as telling reporters at the G8 summit in Toronto, "Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power, [so] the members of the G8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react preemptively."
He added that the G8 nations "absolutely believe" Israel will attack Iran, according to Haaretz.
on Saturday, Bahrain stated that Israel was moving their planes out of turkey and placing them in Georgia and Azerbaijan in preparation for an Iranian Strike
Preparations are underway to launch the military attack from Azerbaijan and Georgia, reports our sister paper Akhbar Al Khaleej, quoting military sources.
Israel was, in fact, training pilots in Turkey to launch the strike and was smuggling planes into Georgia using Turkish airspace, they said.
However, Turkey was unaware of Israel's intention of transferring the planes to Georgia, the sources said.
The unexpected crisis between Israel and Turkey following an Israeli commando raid on an aid flotilla bound for Gaza Strip hit Israeli calculations.
note: this move may be because Turkey has recently closed its airspace to some Israeli military flights
According to historical documentation, the Sunni Block of Arabs are just as threatened by Iran as the Israelis
Saudis: Green Light for Israeli Attack on Iran Ryan Mauro - Front Page Magazine, June 22nd, 2010
The Iranian regime does not just seek the destruction of Israel, but seeks to overthrow the pro-American Sunni Arab regimes, ushering in an era of Shiite dominance of the region. These Arab countries, despite their public denials, are wishing for the very scenario that the Obama Administration is trying to prevent: An Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. And there are growing signs that such a strike is being prepared for.
“Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia secretly back an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Saudis are particularly active in coordinating with Israel since their oil interests are at stake in a major war,” Klein said.
recall the green light was given last year
Saudis give nod to Israeli raid on Iran July 5, 2009
The head of Mossad, Israel’s overseas intelligence service, has assured Benjamin Netanyahu, its prime minister, that Saudi Arabia would turn a blind eye to Israeli jets flying over the kingdom during any future raid on Iran’s nuclear sites.
The reason for this discussion beginning in December of 2009 was because of a leaked document that "proved" that Iran was preparing for a test of a nuclear weapon trigger device.
The response to this document was a mutual preparation for war on both sides, with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the U.S., and the G-8 on one side and Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Hamas on the other.
In addition to the negotiation of strategy, the U.S. is intractable in this upcoming war with Israel receiving 1.2 billion dollars of u.s. military equipment "on loan" in case the Israel military needs it for a protracted campaign, (or the u.s. has to come in and use it themselves)
Preparations Underway Israel, June 6, 2010
Israel recently approached the United States with new requests for security-related purchases, Haaretz has learned. The requests included Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM ) bombs for the Israel Air Force, as well as a significant expansion of the emergency stores held by the U.S. army in Israel.
The priority list reflects the security threats the defense establishment believes Israel will face in the next few years, i.e. the eventuality of a prolonged war, which would necessitate using the IAF widely to attack many targets, along with ensuring enough spare parts and supplies.
Israel also requested JDAM bombs, seeking to significantly increase the number of such munitions already in its arsenal. The JDAM bombs have been used increasingly in recent operations, including in the Second Lebanon War in 2006 and Operation Cast Lead in 2008.
Israel is also seeking to increase the amount of gear held by the American army in their emergency stores in Israel by 50% - from $800 million to $1.2 billion. The Obama administration placed the stores in Israel in December, as part of a number of steps to improve U.S. assistance to Israeli security. To date, $600 million worth of American emergency equipment has been placed in Israel.
The American stores hold rockets, bombs, aircraft ammunition and armored vehicles, along with other weapons. The gear fully matches equipment already used by the Israel Defense Forces and is cataloged upon arrival to ensure quick and easy access at a time of need, pending permission from the United States. The American move has a dual purpose: bringing military equipment closer to areas in which Americans might need to fight, and assisting the U.S. ally should the need arise.
In addition, it appears that 12 U.S. and Israeli military ships have used the Suez Canal to cross in to the Red Sea.
Report: U.S., Israeli warships cross Suez Canal toward Red Sea June 19, 2010 Egypt opposition angered at government for allowing the fleet of more than 12 ships to cross Egyptian manned waterway, Al-Quds Al-Arabi reports.
According to eyewitnesses, the U.S. battleships were the largest to have crossed the Canal in many years, Al-Quds reported.
Egyptian opposition members have criticized the government for cooperating with the U.S. and Israeli forces and allowing the ships' passage through Egyptian territorial waters.
-----------------------
Commentary:
The historical context of this buildup to war from a U.S. citizen's perspective is linked entirely to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The end game of this attack began in December of 2010 upon the finding of a mysterious document confirming the Iranian nuclear bomb program:
Confidential intelligence documents obtained by The Times show that Iran is working on testing a key final component of a nuclear bomb.
The notes, from Iran’s most sensitive military nuclear project, describe a four-year plan to test a neutron initiator, the component of a nuclear bomb that triggers an explosion. Foreign intelligence agencies date them to early 2007, four years after Iran was thought to have suspended its weapons programme.
Compare this to the Nigerian Uranium (Forgeries) Documents that were used to justify the invasion of Iraq.
The Niger uranium forgeries are forged documents initially revealed by Italian Military intelligence. These documents purport to depict an attempt by the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq to purchase "yellowcake" uranium powder from Niger during the Iraq disarmament crisis.
On the basis of these documents and other indicators, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom asserted that Iraq had attempted to procure nuclear material for the purpose of creating what they called weapons of mass destruction, referred to as WMD, in defiance of the United Nations Iraq sanctions.
From the perspective of the Iraq war, the attack in Iran has a feel of continuity of strategy. As was posited early in 2003 by the same architects of the Iraq war.
Original Flag Proposed for Iraq by the Iraqi Coalition Government
This flag was proposed and then rejected by the Iraqi Coalition Government. It symbolizes Blue borders, (a dark blue associated with the American Flag) on either side of a (Sunni Arab Yellow) band all under an light-blue Crescent. The light blue color is identified by people in the middle east as associated with israel flag. This flag design was obviously rejected and was likely never supposed to become a real flag but rather was used for intimidation of Iran with U.S. Military occupational forces in Afghanistan and Iraq (both sides of Iran).
Opposition to this flag was based on these color selections by the coalition government.
This article is perhaps the most concise in describing how regime change in Iran was part of the original work-up to war by the Neo-conservatives in the Bush Administration.
Is Iran Next? The Pentagon neocons who brought you the war in Iraq have a new target SEPTEMBER 28, 2004
Shortly after 9/11, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith began coordinating Pentagon planning for an invasion of Iraq. The challenge facing Feith, the No. 3 civilian in the Defense Department, was to establish a policy rationale for the attack. At the same time, Feith’s ideological cohorts in the Pentagon began planning to take the administration’s “global war on terrorism,” not only to Baghdad, but also to Damascus and Tehran.
In August it was revealed that one of Feith’s Middle East policy wonks, Lawrence Franklin, shared classified documents—including a draft National Security Presidential Directive formulated in Feith’s office that outlines a more aggressive U.S. national security strategy regarding Iran—with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Israeli officials. The FBI is investigating the document transfer as a case of espionage.
note: as a result of the espionage, Franklin, a former United States Department of Defense employee, pled guilty to several espionage-related charges and was sentenced in January 2006 to nearly 13 years of prison which was later reduced to ten months house arrest.
The original Neo-Conservative agenda regarding the Invasion of Iraq was posited by Gen. Wesley Clark
In November 2001, Gen. Wesley Clark, who had recently retired from his post as head of the U.S. Southern Command, learned from a general he knew in the Pentagon that a memo had just come down from the office of the secretary of defense outlining the objective of the "take down" of seven Middle Eastern regimes over five years.
The plan would start with the invasion of Iraq, and then go after Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, and Sudan, according to an account in Clark's 2003 book, Winning Modern Wars. The memo indicated the plan was to "come back and get Iran in five years."
and furthered by Arnaud de Borchgrave in the Washington Times
When this writer first heard from prominent neoconservatives in April 2002 that war was no longer a question of "if" but "when," the casus belli had little to do with WMDs. The Bush administration, they explained, starkly and simply, had decided to redraw the geopolitical map of the Middle East. The Bush Doctrine of pre-emption had become the vehicle for driving axis of evil practitioners out of power.
President Bush made clear Sunday the U.S. was justified in toppling Saddam irrespective of elusive WMDs.
The liberation of Iraq, in the neocon scenario, would be followed by a democratic Iraq that would quickly recognize Israel. This, in turn, would "snowball" -- the analogy only works in the Cedar Mountains of Lebanon -- through the region, bringing democracy from Syria to Egypt and to the sheikhdoms, emirates and monarchies of the Gulf.
And so, the redrawing of the Geopolitical map of the middle east was always about regime change in Iran, Syria and (the ultimate goal) of the Saudi Arabian family.
for whatever reason, the continuity of the Neo-conservative strategy of perpetual war and global military domination continues, according to plan.
but will the fact that Syria is still a viable military power, that Lebanon did not succumb to the Israeli military in their attack in 2007 and that Turkey has soured on Israel change what the eventual outcome will be?