Ira Glunts has been watching Israeli TV, which is suggesting that the Obama administration is going to be very realist indeed:
On Sunday night, the main Israeli news broadcast (Mabat, Sunday
May 3) stated that according to very high level European officials, the
Obama administration has “reconciled with the idea of a nuclear Iran.”
Per this report, which was repeatedly described as troubling,
top Israeli officials also confirm the European account.
The newscast
further reported that Israeli officials say that members of the Obama
administration have expressed their willingness to accept an Iranian
nuclear weapon and have used the phrase, “better bomb than bombing.” In
other words, it is better that Iran has a bomb than the U.S. bomb Iran
, this according the Israeli newscaster. It was specifically stated,
according to this report, that the Obama administration plans not to do
anything to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
I have no idea
how reliable this report is, but I imagine it is worth watching.
Some say it is disinformation.
Today the other shoe dropped. The U.S. wants Israel in the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is the first story on Israel’s TV news tonight. They are freaked. And they are relating it to the alleged change in attitude of the Obama administration toward a nuclear Iran.
Reactions are mixed. Jerusalem Post say no problema. Dov Weisglass disagrees.
Israeli television has also had a clip of someone in military uniform who the Israeli news claimed was the Iranian Military Chief of Staff (looked like the clip was from Iran TV). The Iranian, who looked to be about 100 years old, proclaimed that if Iran was attacked by Israel, Iran would destroy Israel in 11 days. The Israeli newscaster said that this was very important because it is the first time that Iran has ever made a threat that was so specific.
Who knows what is real with these people?
I think something is happening but I don’t know what it is.
<i.if Iran was attacked by Israel, Iran would destroy Israel in 11 days. The Israeli newscaster said that this was very important because it is the first time that Iran has ever made a threat that was so specific.</i> I notice that the US tends to do this also. But after threatening a nation, if the nation responds by saying that they will retaliate, then that statement becomes a specific threat. In some cases a threat so dangerous that requires military invasion. Something like this preceded the US invasion of Panama and even Iraq to some degree. These tend to violate rules of common sense, but since the US-Israeli alliance is the most powerful force in the universe, I guess they get to make the rules of what constitutes common sense.
It is indeed disinformation. They want to mobilise public opinion and say I told you that we have to do it all by ourselves! That's what they will do im afraid. Israel will bomb Iran themselves.
RE: "I think something is happening but I don’t know what it is." MY COMMENT: The word 'mashugana' comes to mind.
What's really surprising is that more commentators don't openly consider the possibility that the Iranians already have da Bomb and they've let Israel and the US know they have it. This scenario would go a long way toward explaining Israel's public tantrums, (rare) US unwillingness to support Israeli aggression and how an oil rich country with uranium and strong Russian ties in a post A.Q. Khan world can't figure out how to knock out a nuke.
The phrase "better bomb than bombing" sounds like a fabrication on its face. No official would talk that way. Even if that is administration policy, which I doubt it is, they would say something more like this: "it's not the end of the world if Iran gets the bomb. On the other hand, if Israel bombs Iran that could set of WWIII and that would be far worse."
For the record. I wouldn't describe Channel 1's "Mabat" as the "main" newscast. It hasn't been so for years. Second, as was pointed out on all the newscasts, the suggestion by the US State Department that Israel sign the NPT has been made, openly by the past three administrations. There have even been discussions – including one yesterday with one of the scientists who was responsible for the Dimona reactory – expressing support for this position. In particular, signing the NPT would enable Israel to finally build a civilian nuclear reactor of generating electricity as well as opening up a variety of avenues for scientific research that have previously been closed.
Someone is throwing something up against the wall for a reason. This may be face-saving preparation for Netanyahu/Lieberman (N/L) … the only way N/L can get out of their campaign promises if they have to after N's meeting with Obama.
As I wrote on another thread here, Egypt's call a coupled of days ago for Israel to acknowledge its nuclear arsenal and join the NPT was no accident. That has US hands all over it.
Exactly which campaign promises were these?
Israeli settlement lebensraum continues apace–with Uncle SAm footing the bill, ignoring world progression since the days of USA & Brit Manifest Destiny, and Aryan mission, and the days of ML King, and ignoring what the whites did, with world help, to end apartheid S Africa. You readers here must see that JES49 will go to his grave loving the simple victim, Anne Frank, and hating the courageous White Rose copycat, Rachel Corrie. Take you stand.