Mossad chief’s statement removes Iranian nuclear threat (Will the ‘Atlantic’ report it here?)

I’ve missed this important story entirely. But last week Meir Dagan, the head of the Israeli Mossad, pooh-poohed the Iranian threat in a briefing with journalists by saying that the Iranians wouldn’t have a bomb for many years. The statement has pulled the rug out from under Netanyahu’s feet– and not just his. It has made Jeffrey Goldberg look even more like a pliant stenographer to Netanyahu (as Roger Cohen labelled him) in his willingness to pipe Netanyahu’s urgency about the alleged threat and urging to the U.S. to take action. Remember, The Atlantic ran Goldberg’s alarmist piece, “The Point of No Return,” last September.

Didi Remez reports that Dagan’s defection has enraged Netanyahu. He picks up Sever Plocker from Yediot:


Plocker, hardly a knee-jerk leftist… explains the drama:

‘[With] Dagan, a suspicious super-cautious individual who routinely prefers to err on the side of pessimism…The Iranian nuclear threat died. It keeled over. Because, if the director of the State of Israel’s Mossad is prepared to risk saying that Iran won’t have even a single nuclear bomb “at least until 2015,” that means that Iran is not going to have a nuclear bomb. Period.’

He also helps us understand Netanyahu’s fury:

‘For more than a decade, Israel has been living under the thickening cloud of the Iranian nuclear bomb. The military, economic and even the social agendas in Israel have been directly influenced by it. The election of Netanyahu as prime minister (and Barak’s joining the coalition) were explained by the need to place at the head of the state and the security establishment people who would be capable of leading the people and the army in this decisive year in dealing with Iran. From time to time, in light of the foolish things that the two of them have done, public opinion was asked to be forgiving of them because of the weight of the Iranian threat that lay on their shoulders.’

Recall that Goldberg’s piece was published in the U.S. but written from the heart of the Israeli security establishment (by a former Israeli soldier, now a U.S. journalist). And the demurrals had to published in Israel by the likes of Noam Sheizaf (an Israeli journalist who has refused to serve in the occupation)… Crazy world.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 179 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. hophmi says:

    So two people disagree on a security matter.

    Is this supposed to be a groundbreaking development?

    • Kathleen says:

      “two people”

      The head of Mossad.

    • Potsherd2 says:

      It’s just confirmation of what we all know: BYahoo is determined to use any lies in order to destroy Iran.

      • Kathleen says:

        You know that is what is so upsetting. Even here at Mondoweiss people come on make totally false statements about Iran having a nuclear weapons program, or wanting to “wipe Israel off the map” I call them liars and those comments are not allowed up. But people can come here and repeat absolute lies about Iran. But you can not call them liars, demand evidence to back up what they are saying. And the “liar” comment is monitored…but the lies are not.

        We are talking about lies here. Lies about want Iran is and is not doing. We are talking about the potential taking of lives in Iran based on lies just like in Iraq. I hope Phillip and Adam start calling out these folks instead of allowing them to come here and repeat hogwash that is absolutely deadly.

        • Chaos4700 says:

          That’s why I left for a bit, Kathleen, and why I still keep asking myself why I even bother coming back here. On the upshot, I’ve ceased wasting time hoping to see some massive sea change in the American Jewish community regarding the support, financial or otherwise, of ethnic cleansing, torture and colonial imperialism.

    • MarkF says:

      Nope, not groundbreaking. Sad though when one (Bibi) is the type of guy that sold us that Saddam was gooing to send folks here to detonate suitcase nukes in our cities.

      We can certainly trust his arguments over those who aren’t lying. And he was still elected after such lies? Says a lot about the Israeli electorate. Guess I should’t cast stones though. We bought those lies.

      So thanks to Dagan we’re safe here in the U.S. from Iranian suitcase nukes?

    • MRW says:

      Is this supposed to be a groundbreaking development?

      No. Proof of lies.

    • when SIXTEEN US agencies concurred in the 2007 NIE that Iran was NOT pursuing nuclear weapons, Israel went into overdrive in its attempt to discredit the SIXTEEN agencies.

      What’s the magic number, hophmi? How many does it take to convince Israel that it is reacting ILLEGALLY, immorally, and irrationally? How many more Americans, Iraqis, Palestinians, and Iranians have to die before Israeli bloodlust is sated?

  2. Kathleen says:

    “The Iranian nuclear threat died. It keeled over. Because, if the director of the State of Israel’s Mossad is prepared to risk saying that Iran won’t have even a single nuclear bomb “at least until 2015,” that means that Iran is not going to have a nuclear bomb. Period.’ ”

    Hey we know facts on the ground do not matter. Bill Kristol, Ledeen, Goldberg, Rep Gohmert, Senator Liebermann, Boxer, Barney Frank, Weiner you know those “liberal” Reps keep repeating all sorts of unsubstantiated claims about Iran. And with the “liberal” media you know Terri Gross, Rachel Maddow, Robert Siegel and all the rest allowing these unsubstantiated claims about Iran not only to be repeated but often repeating the claims themselves….the stovepipe keeps channeling the endlessly repeated claims about Iran.

    With Washington Journal channeling most of their guest from right wing think tanks on this issue. The push to take out Iran is far from being over.

    Reuel Marc Gerecht (blood thirsty) etc pushing hard
    THE WAR PARTY PUSHES OBAMA FOR EVEN MORE IRAN SANCTIONS
    link to raceforiran.com
    The first issue of The Weekly Standard for 2011 includes an article by Reuel Marc Gerecht and Mark Dubowitz, entitled “The Logic of Our Iran Sanctions: Accelerate Them Now”. Gerecht and Dubowitz are both affiliated with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and are prominent voices in neoconservative circles focused on Iran. We highlight their current article because it seems highly indicative of the direction in which America’s ongoing Iran policy debate is likely to go in 2011: toward pursuit of even “tougher” sanctions, including measures intended to terminate non-U.S. purchases of Iranian oil. And, when that doesn’t work, we’ll give war another chance.

    Gerecht and Dubowitz open by offering what might seem like a certain measure of praise for President Obama:

    “More aggressively than any president since Jimmy Carter, Obama has used sanctions against the Islamic Republic. The White House and the State Department have deployed a ‘coalition of the willing.’ Washington has assiduously avoided punishing any major European, Russian, or Chinese transgressor of U.S.-mandate sanctions; rather, the administration has chosen to encourage compliance by underscoring the common threat of an Iranian bomb while suggesting that an American economic hammer, wielded by an increasingly pugnacious Congress, will eventually come down on malefactors.”

  3. Kathleen says:

    Great and important catch Phil. Thanks

  4. Kathleen says:

    Will be taking this piece for a ride around the blog world. Over at Race for Iran and a couple of other places. Important Phil

  5. eee says:

    Dagan is a great man. All he is saying is that his efforts have been very successful. He did many things to delay the Iranian bomb including most probably Stuxnet. That appears to have been very successful.

    • Walid says:

      “Dagan is a great man.”

      eee, Dagan is an assassin; nothing great about that except maybe for some Israeli fans.

    • Danaa says:

      Al Capone was a great man too – in his own way. And successful – in his own way, again. And many have taken notes , like the Russian ruffian oligarchs, eg, Khodorevsky, now a prisoner of conscience, right?. They too shall some day be declared “great man”.

      My own favorite “Great Man” of all times is Attila the Hun, followed by Ginghis Khan. These guys have definitely accomplished great things for their people. But for humanity? maybe not so much…

      But who is quibbling?

    • Shingo says:

      All he is saying is that his efforts have been very successful.

      No what he is saying is that there is no nucealr wepoans program and that the leaders in Tel Aviv and Washington have been lying. Stuxnet didn’t delay a bomb because no bomb was being made.

      • yonira says:

        Not really following your logic here Shingo. He estimated there wouldn’t be a nuclear weapon in Iran until 2015. Where did you get the idea that he said there was no nuclear weapons program.

        Stuxnet delayed the enrichment of uranium which is needed in the production of nuclear weapons.

        • annie says:

          He estimated there wouldn’t be a nuclear weapon in Iran until 2015.

          no he didn’t. he said they would be unable to develop a nuclear bomb before 2015.

          there is a difference.

        • Shingo says:

          Where did you get the idea that he said there was no nuclear weapons program.

          The IAEA and all 16 US intelligence agencies say so.

          Stuxnet delayed the enrichment of uranium which is needed in the production of nuclear weapons.

          Iran already has adequate stockpiles of LEU, which is what they need to power their Buhsr reactor.

        • yonira says:

          Annie,

          Acquiring the technology, the materials, and the delivery system is a process. Dagan said they wouldn’t have that capability until 2015. To say Dagan doesn’t believe they are working on it is inaccurate.

          Dagan concluded his term saying Iran was still far from being capable of producing nuclear weapons and that a series of malfunctions had put off its nuclear goal for several years. Therefore, he said, Iran will not get hold of the bomb before 2015 approximately.

        • annie says:

          To say Dagan doesn’t believe they are working on it is inaccurate.

          gee yonira, if someone here said “Dagan doesn’t believe they are working on” a nuclear bomb then you might have a point.

          i think we are discussing the implications of what he said, not what he didn’t say.

        • Shingo says:

          Acquiring the technology, the materials, and the delivery system is a process. Dagan said they wouldn’t have that capability until 2015.

          Except hat Israel has been making the same claim since 1984 Yonira, which means that there never was a nuclear weapons program.

          I suspect that the whole STUXNET thing is a gimmick to claim credit for sabotaging something that never existed to begin with. No one has even produced a shred of evidence of Iran having a nuclear weapons program, even after decades of trying.

        • annie says:

          either way yonira i don’t want to play rhetorical games w/you. i think the point (which is why bibi was pissed) is that there is no nuclear treat from iran and the earliest date there might be would be 4 years down the road.

          take the last word.

        • yonira says:

          I totally agree with that Annie.

      • hophmi says:

        Please point out where in Dagan’s statement, or any of the analysis of it, you see the claim that no nuclear weapons program exists in Iran and that Stuxnet had no effect. Otherwise, you’re just engaging in wishful thinking.

        • annie says:

          Please point out where in Dagan’s statement, or any of the analysis of it, you see the claim that no nuclear weapons program exists in Iran

          who says there is a nuclear weapons program?

        • hophmi says:

          Forget it, Annie. It’s not worth it. You’d have to be blown up to believe Iran has a nuclear program.

        • annie says:

          hyperbole much hophmi. btw..did you notice

          From time to time, in light of the foolish things that the two of them have done, public opinion was asked to be forgiving of them because of the weight of the Iranian threat that lay on their shoulders.

          bwwwwaaahhhh

        • hophmi says:

          You’re right, Annie. There’s no nuclear program. The Americans, the French, the Europeans, the entire Arab world – they all agree on a lie.

          Like I said, you’d have to be blown up to believe there’s a threat.

        • marc b. says:

          You’d have to be blown up to believe Iran has a nuclear program.

          Iran is permitted to have a civilian nuclear program, and recently released diplomatic cables between the US and Turkey show that those countries believe that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapons program as of February 2010. so clearly you don’t know sh*t from shinola. from now on when you write ‘nuclear’ please spell it in the manner befitting your intelligence: that’s ‘nucular’, just like g.bush the smaller would say when he was warning us of Iraq’s ‘nucular’ weapons program.

        • annie says:

          just fork out the intel that says the weapons program exists, sans our little lying special friend. US intel please?

        • Shingo says:

          You’d have to be blown up to believe Iran has a nuclear program.

          No you’d just have to be someone who relies on evidence. Even the US claims that Iran hasn’t decided whether to pursue nukes or not, which means they don;t have one.

        • Shingo says:

          There’s no nuclear program. The Americans, the French, the Europeans, the entire Arab world – they all agree on a lie.

          Did you wake up with a hole in your head today Hophmi? The Americans say there is no nuclear weapons program and so does the IAEA.

          Why are yo so determined to be made a fool of a second time after the Iraq WMD fiasco?

        • Shingo says:

          Please point out where in Dagan’s statement, or any of the analysis of it, you see the claim that no nuclear weapons program exists in Iran

          You could try reading Plocker’s post.

          “Because, if the director of the State of Israel’s Mossad is prepared to risk saying that Iran won’t have even a single nuclear bomb “at least until 2015,” that means that Iran is not going to have a nuclear bomb. Period.”

        • yonira says:

          Did you wake up with a hole in your head today Hophmi? The Americans say there is no nuclear weapons program and so does the IAEA.

          sources, on the no nuclear weapons programs, not Hophmi’s hole.

        • Shingo says:

          sources, on the no nuclear weapons programs, not Hophmi’s hole.

          Evidently you never heard of he 2007 NIE, which concluded there wasn’t one.
          Or the testimony of Dennis Blair in 2009 that there wasn’t one.
          Or the 2010 Intelligence Threat Assessment Report that maintained there wasn’t one.

          How many IAEA Reports do you want me to mention that maintain that Iran is not diverting any nuclear material from their civilian program?

        • hophmi says:

          “Did you wake up with a hole in your head today Hophmi? The Americans say there is no nuclear weapons program and so does the IAEA.”

          Yada, yada, yada.

          link to businessweek.com

          It must be the one that doesn’t exist.

        • Shingo says:

          Yada, yada, yada.

          Of course,. Clinton’s track record is spotless right Hophmi?

          In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

          It must be the one that doesn’t exist.

          When a known liar repeats the same like, it kinda does.

        • RoHa says:

          You really expect me to believe what a politician says?

        • the facts are that the only folks who have done ‘blowing up’ have been Israel and US.
          Not Iran.

          Iran never even threatens to ‘blow up’ Israel, but Israel threatens Iran routinely with the fear of being blown up.

          Iran has the right to enrich uranium. If, as you say, Israel disrupted that capability — and right — via Stuxnet, then Israel acted illegally. Which gives to Iran the right to call out Israel for the rogue state it is, and which demonstrates to the world that Israel has no regard for the rule of law.

          In other words, Israel delegitimizes itself. Thank you for admitting this in your comment at 4:24 pm 01-10-2011, yonira.

        • hophmi says:

          “Evidently you never heard of he 2007 NIE, which concluded there wasn’t one.
          Or the testimony of Dennis Blair in 2009 that there wasn’t one.
          Or the 2010 Intelligence Threat Assessment Report that maintained there wasn’t one.”

          Sigh. From the 2007 NIE: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons
          program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. . .

          Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.”

          link to dni.gov

          Again, they must have halted the program that never existed. So the NIE does not conclude that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program. It concludes that it has halted its nuclear weapons program.

          The 2009 testimony of Dennis Blair says the same thing – that Iran has not RESTARTED its nuclear weapons program. Not that there is no nuclear weapons program.

          “Or the 2010 Intelligence Threat Assessment Report that maintained there wasn’t one”

          2010 Intelligence Threat Assessment Report: “The Iranian regime continues to flout UN Security Council restrictions on its nuclear program. There is a real risk that its nuclear program will prompt other countries in the Middle East to pursue nuclear options.”

          What was that? “Nuclear program” Again, it must be the one that doesn’t exist.

          “Iranian leaders undoubtedly consider Iran’s security, prestige and influence, as well as the international political and security environment, when making decisions about its nuclear program.”

          OMG, there’s that word “program” again. I can’t imagine what it’s referring to.

          link to dni.gov

        • Shingo says:

          blockquote> OMG, there’s that word “program” again. I can’t imagine what it’s referring to.

          I wish for once you tried to engage your intellect rather than your lizard brain.

          The prior NIE on Iran had already claimed the existence of a nuclear weapons program, even though it was authored by the same liars who produced the 2002 Iraq NIE. You know, the one cl;aiming WMD and nukes in Iraq?

          Anyway, the 2007 NIE had to accept the previous NIE as the existing position and could not contradict it for political reasons. Needless to say, the 2007 NIE it doesn’t even try to present evidence that there was ever a nuclear weapons program in Iran. The word “halted” is probably a term that Dick Cheney and co fought tooth and nail to replace ended.

          The 2007 NIE was actually completed in 2006, but Dick Cheney held it up for over 12 months, trying desperately to pressure the intelligence community to change it to suit policy.

          Now as far as the program, what did it involve Hophmi?

          Were Iran enriching uranium? No, because they only began doing that in late 2004.

          Were they producing denotation devices? No, because Iran don;t have any.

          Were they producing delivery systems? No, because to this day, Iran don;t have a missile capable of delivering a nuke.

          Were they pursuing nukes? No, because as the US government admits, Iran have not even made the decision to acquire nuclear weapons.

          It’s clear that Iran never had a nuclear weapons program.

        • hophmi says:

          “Anyway, the 2007 NIE had to accept the previous NIE as the existing position and could not contradict it for political reasons. ”

          Uh-huh. It’s a conspiracy. You don’t have facts, so you turn to pure speculation.

          “It’s clear that Iran never had a nuclear weapons program.”

          Again, you are contradicted by the report and by Blair’s testimony. When you’re contradicted, you make up fanciful explanations to explain the contradiction.

        • Shingo says:

          Uh-huh. It’s a conspiracy. You don’t have facts, so you turn to pure speculation.

          No, it’s a fact that the 2007 NIE presented no evidence of the existence of a nuclear weapons program.

          Again, you are contradicted by the report and by Blair’s testimony.

          No because Blair’s testimony simply stated that the 2007 NIE conclusions remained valid.

          You’re so desperate to hang onto your paranoia and hysteria.

        • Kathleen says:

          the IAEA, the NIE on Iran have provided not hard evidence that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. Period. Until you back up what you keep repeating (Lies) about Iran then your lies are just that lies

    • Potsherd2 says:

      Like murdering Iranian nuclear scientists.

      Lemme guess, eee – that would be one of those justified evils, right?

    • Kathleen says:

      Clinton killed people in Iraq with the sanctions. Scott Ritter and others have said that both the Clintons clearly knew there were no WMD’s in Iraq.

      Scott Ritter’s “Target Iran” is a must read

      • Kathleen says:

        Oh Hillary said this. The Senator who voted for the Iraq war resolution knowing that Iraq had no WMD’s. Would never vote for this warmonger who is beholden to the I lobby. She has serious amounts of blood on her hands
        “U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dismissed on Sunday Israeli assessments of delays in the Iranian nuclear program and called for more work on sanctions to bring Tehran to heel.

        Clinton, on a tour of Gulf Arab countries to shore up support for pressure on Iran, arrived in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates. She will also visit Dubai, Oman and Qatar on the five-day trip.

        She dismisses the Mossad chief. The I lobby here in the states far more radical than the Mossad chief. Telling

        • what’s even worse re Clinton’s vote FOR Iraq war is that she advised then-candidate John Kerry to support the war as well.

          Kerry’s brother had been running his campaign; Clinton wedged her people in, and pressed the “Clinton/Israel” brand onto Kerry’s otherwise independent style. A shame — and we see the outcome.

          Clintonistas are doing the same thing with what is left of Obama independence.

        • annie says:

          “The timeline is not so important as the international effort to try to ensure that whatever the timeline, Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons,” Clinton told reporters on her plane as it arrived in Abu Dhabi.

          “I don’t know that it gives much comfort to somebody who is in the Gulf, or who is in a country that Iran has vowed to destroy, that it’s a one-year or a three-year timeframe.”

          make that 4 plus years hilary

        • Kathleen says:

          Was simply astounding that they did not take Durbins lead. This brutal vote will always hold her back no matter what she does. Former weapons inspector said many times that both the Clintons knew very well that Iraq had given up on nuclear weapons that during the 90′s they had been dismantled and neutered. Hillary knew this. She continues to take orders from the I lobby. Enough

        • Kathleen says:

          “or who is in a country that Iran has vowed to destroy,”

          She is such an f—king liar. Iran has never ever vowed to destroy Israel. She is a ruthless warmonger for Israel. Sickening just sickening. Repeating the I lobbies lies

        • hophmi says:

          “Iran has never ever vowed to destroy Israel.”

          No, it has just called it an “enemy of Islam”, “little Satan”, a regional “cancer”, an “illegal state”, “a parasite”, said “Israel should be wiped off the map (their translation)/”Israel should vanish from the pages of time (subsequent translation)”, given support to Hamas and Hezbollah, and held a Holocaust-denial conference.

          They’re clearly Israel-lovers. It’s sickening how much they love Israel.

        • annie says:

          and israel has said bad things about iran, shall we hold it to the same standards?

        • Shingo says:

          said “Israel should be wiped off the map (their translation)/”Israel should vanish from the pages of time (subsequent translation)”

          Iran never said Israel should be wiped off the map. Israel should vanish from the pages of time is not a subsequent translation but the correct one.

          All Iran was doing was calling for regime change in Jerusalem, the say way that Israel is calling for regime change in Tehran.

          Yes they’ve given support to Hamas and Hezbollah. so what? The US supports Israel.

        • Potsherd2 says:

          Don’t sanctify Durbin, Kathleen. He’s up to his oxters in debt to the Lobby.

        • Potsherd2 says:

          All those things are true, hophmi. No one has ever said Iran loves Israel, nor does it have any reason to.

          The question is whether Iran constitutes a threat to Israel, which it does not.

        • Potsherd2 says:

          and israel has said bad things about iran, shall we hold it to the same standards?

          According to eee, Iran has the right to attack Israel. It would be a justified evil.

        • Kathleen says:

          He voted against the war in Iraq . He is not part of the Schumer, Lieberman, Ros Lehtinen, Boxer, Barney Frank, Gohmert team pushing for a confrontation with Iran. I will give him both of those

        • hophmi says:

          The claim was that Iran has never vowed to destroy Israel.

          And also, the moon is made of green cheese.

        • Kathleen says:

          Israel and the I lobby threaten Iran daily

        • Shingo says:

          The claim was that Iran has never vowed to destroy Israel.

          And also, the moon is made of green cheese.

          Why do you waste time with your infantile and snide remarks when you could just as easily produce evidence Hophmi?

        • Kathleen says:

          Some proof. Links

        • RoHa says:

          All those add up to “Israel should be destroyed”, but not to “we promise to destroy Israel”.

          If Israel were found lying in a pool of blood in the library, head bashed in with a silver candlestick, then Inspector Grey would certainly be justified in taking a hard look at Iran (after Miss Scarlett, of course), but he would not be able to claim in court that Iran “vowed to destroy Israel.”

        • So what if it did. Did not Israel vow to destroy all its enemies calling them “Amalek” and succeeded in doing that to Iraq?

        • MRW says:

          They’re clearly Israel-lovers. It’s sickening how much they love Israel.

          There’s no requirement or need for anyone, or any country, to love Israel. To present that as a negative is stupid and ridiculous.

        • MRW says:

          The claim was that Iran has never vowed to destroy Israel. And also, the moon is made of green cheese.

          Cite the proof.

        • Kathleen says:

          Iran never ever said anything about “wiping Israel off the map”

  6. annie says:

    can someone screen shot coteret’s page, i don’t know how to. 972 is down. i wonder how many non hebrew sites are carrying this story.

    • Tuyzentfloot says:

      If you want the actual content it’s better to save the page as html, but if you want a screenshot: there should be a button called Prnt Scrn on your keyboard. If you press it (and sometimes you need to use an extra modifier button CTRL or Fn) then the screenshot is in your clipboard. Then open mspaint, paste the screenshot and save.

      • annie says:

        thanks, i already have the url..i want to screen shot the page in case the story gets sunk . i have a mac keyboard i am not seeing a print screen on my keyboard. my understanding of computers is .01

        i miss read the story tho so it is probably not important. it was plocker who wrote

        One of the most historically important statements to have been made in the past ten years in the State of Israel made headlines in the Israeli media on Friday for a single day. It elicited a few reactions and a few brief analyses — and disappeared.

        i thought perhaps it was remez.

        i read a couple days ago bibi was pissed at mossad for fouling up the hamas assassinations in dubai and how bibi wanted to replace him.oh well, brain not totally functioning today..but i read it. anyway..i wonder if this is dagan’s payback.

        • Sumud says:

          annie – there’s a few ways to do screen grabs on a mac.

          1. using keyboard shortcuts press shift + apple + 3 and you should hear a shutter sound, and a screen shot will be saved on your desktop.
          2. Using the built-in application called “Grab”. It’s normally in the Applications/Utilities folder, you can always find it easily by doing a spotlight search from the top right of your screen (magnifying glass icon).

          Grab is useful if you can’t remember the keyboard shortcut, but also because from the capture menu you can capture the whole screen or just a window (eg a browser window).

        • annie says:

          oh wow, i just saw this and tried it! it worked sumud! this is what i wanted to do. i found grab inside utilities and clicked on it but it didn’t do anything. thank you. i will ask my friend to help me. i’m not very good w/downloading things and getting them to work. i’ve signed up for some lessons actually. thanks again…. everyone..really.

        • Sumud says:

          glad that helped annie :-)

          With Grab, once you open it you have a series of menus at the top of the screen as interface (left-to-right):

          Apple icon – Grab – File – Edit – Capture – Window – Help

          Click on Capture then choose to grab screen, window, selection etc.

    • Colin Murray says:

      I use Web2PDF Converter to save articles of note.

    • MRW says:

      Annie, get a free PDF creator and you can copy any Web site. I use Adobe Acrobat Pro, but there are open source programs all over.

      As a matter of fact, one of the best for the Mac and it’s free is SKIM.
      link to skim-app.sourceforge.net

      Download and install. Then when you want to capture a page, “Print” it and in the lower left of the screen you will see a tab that says PDF with a triangle beside it. Click on that and scroll down until you see “Open PDF in Skim.”

      Skim will open and you will see the page you wanted to save. Now, save it to someplace on your computer. When you get proficient, use the wiki on the sourceforge (the owner of the program) site to tell you how to do extraordinary things with the program.

      • MRW says:

        The other thing you can do, annie, is choose Safari -> File -> Save As -> and select web archive as your format.

      • MRW says:

        Also, check out the free Instapaper.

      • Sumud says:

        Hiya MRW. Actually, the print-to-PDF function is built in to every mac, if you can print from the application you can print to PDF.

        In the print dialog box at bottom left you have a pop-up that says by default “PDF”. Click on it and you get the option to “save as PDF”, “save as postscript” etc. You have less control than using the Adobe software but for casual users it’s very easy to use..

        I use instapaper (iOS) for reading long documents (and a little for archiving but not much), it’s great.

        • annie says:

          oh this is making more sense. when i click grab the options appear above. ok, i don’t want to fill up the comment section w/this boring stuff but thanks again.

        • Sumud says:

          aah I see. I responded above about Grab but you’ve worked it out, well done.

        • annie says:

          one more question. i selected this conversation and grabbed it and ‘named it’. now where can i find it again? where might my computer have stored it? it is not on my desktop w/the other snapshot.

        • Sumud says:

          annie ~ hmm, the default position is in your Documents folders but I think the application remembers where you last saved a file. If it’s not in Documents folder either do a spotlight search (magnifying glass on screen top right) for the title, or do another grab using Grab, then when you hit Apple – S to save it, note the location where Grab suggests you save it, your previous grab will have been saved there…

        • MRW says:

          Sumud,

          You have less control than using the Adobe software but for casual users it’s very easy to use..

          But you have more safety using Mac’s version than Adobe’s PDF. Apple PDF (via Preview) doesn’t compromise the system. Adobe’s PDF can. An APB went out within the last 10 days about it. Skim is safe as well.

  7. annie says:

    I’ve missed this important story entirely.

    by all of 2 hrs or what? gee phil, remez just published it today. do you mean wapo and nyfishwrap didn’t follow up on the hebrew press? wonders never cease.

    get this twittered!

  8. hophmi says:

    You didn’t miss the story. You misreported the story. The story is that Dagan is leaving the Mossad and is claiming that his efforts to slow down the Iranian nuclear program were successful.

    That means that Iran is trying, and Israel is doing what it can to make their attempts unsuccessful so they don’t have to go to war with Iran.

    This also means that your repeated attempts to claim that Israel was pushing war with Iran are completely wrong. They’ve been trying to avoid it.

    And as usual, you are crying wolf about the story being kept out of the Western press. Here it is in the Wall Street Journal:

    link to online.wsj.com

    As you’ll note, Dagan is not the only big name to be revising the estimates in recent weeks.

    As you’ll also note, there is little here to support Sever Plocker’s notion that the Iranian threat is completely dead, though it is at least postponed for a while and perhaps on the road to being dead.

    • annie says:

      your repeated attempts to claim that Israel was pushing war with Iran are completely wrong. They’ve been trying to avoid it.

      you crack me up.

    • Shingo says:

      You didn’t miss the story. You misreported the story. The story is that Dagan is leaving the Mossad and is claiming that his efforts to slow down the Iranian nuclear program were successful.

      That means that Iran is trying, and Israel is doing what it can to make their attempts unsuccessful so they don’t have to go to war with Iran.

      This also means that your repeated attempts to claim that Israel was pushing war with Iran are completely wrong. They’ve been trying to avoid it.

      And as usual, you are crying wolf about the story being kept out of the Western press. Here it is in the Wall Street Journal:

      link to online.wsj.com

      As you’ll note, Dagan is not the only big name to be revising the estimates in recent weeks.

      As you’ll also note, there is little here to support Sever Plocker’s notion that the Iranian threat is completely dead, though it is at least postponed for a while and perhaps on the road to being dead.

  9. lysias says:

    Dagan is a lame duck. It was reported and denied back in June that Netanyahu had refused to grant Dagan an extension of his term as Mossad chief, but then in November Dagan’s replacement was announced. (All of this, it was rumored, was because Dagan had already expressed himself too honestly about how Israel was losing the propaganda war.)

    The replacement has still not been approved by the necessary committee, but Dagan, as a lame duck is free to honestly express his opinions. And one suspects he may resent Netanyahu at least a little bit.

  10. Kathleen says:

    The head of the IAEA, the NIE on Iran have never presented any hard evidence that Iran is enriching uranium above the level that they are legally able.

    Israel should sign the NPT and open up to international inspections. Call your Reos demand that the U.S. push Israel to sign the NPT…

  11. Sounds strangely familiar to what was noted in Dr. Norman Finkelstein’s critque of Michael Oren’s book, “Six Days of War”
    .

    In this regard it also bears notice that Oren cites the premonition of Quartermaster General Mattityahu Peled that “the Egyptian threat had to be eliminated at once if Israel were to survive” but not Peled’s subsequent admission that this posture had been a “bluff,” and he quotes statements by IDF chief of operations Ezer Weizman that “We must strike now and swiftly.we must deal the enemy a serious blow, for if we won’t other forces will soon join him,” and “All the signs indicate that the Egyptians are ready to strike. We have no option but to attack at once,” but not Weizman’s later acknowledgment that actually “there was no threat of destruction” and the Egyptians would have “suffered a complete defeat” even if they “attacked first.” [....] Far from panicking on the eve of the June war, the “IDF under Rabin” was – in the words of Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld – “at the peak of its preparedness,” “confident in its power” and “spoiling for a fight and willing to go to considerable lengths to provoke it.”

  12. irishmoses says:

    Atlantic’s Goldblog has this from Goldberg about Iran today. Jeffrey Goldberg has really come around in the last two weeks. He deserves some slack here. When probably the most influential pro-Zionist media guy starts questioning the insanity, that is an earthquake. The old labels need to be set aside for a bit to see where he ends up. Slamming him for past acts right now seems like a poor tactic.

    “A Major Victory for President Obama on Iran
    By
    Jeffrey Goldberg
    Jan 10 2011, 7:24 AM ET
    With Iran, you never really know what’s what (remember the National Intelligence Estimate a few years ago telling us that Tehran had stopped developing nuclear weapons?) but I think it is fair to say that the combination of sanctions and subterfuge has definitively set back Iran’s nuclear program by at least one and perhaps as many as four years. As I said, all of this is provisional, and it is perhaps true, as some critics have it, that the outgoing Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, who is telling anyone who will listen that Iran is back on its heels, is letting his personal opinions about the efficacy of a military strike against Iran color his intelligence analysis, but I really don’t think so. Dagan, those who know him tell me, is too invested in the survival of Israel and the Jewish people to politicize intelligence in this way. In any case, Dagan’s recent statements have led to an unlikely scenario in which the American secretary of state sounds tougher on Iran than the head of the Mossad. But Iran can do that to people.

    Much credit in delaying Iran goes to the unknown inventor of Stuxnet, the miracle computer virus, which has bollixed-up Iran’s centrifuges; much credit goes to the Mossad and the CIA and the Brits and God knows who else, who are working separately and in tandem to subvert the Iranian program, and a great deal of credit must go to, yes, President Barack Obama, who has made stopping Iran one of his two or three main foreign policy priorities over the past two years. He did the difficult work of pulling together serious multilateral sanctions against Iran; he has convinced the Israelis — at least he has partially convinced some Israelis — that he has placed the prestige of his presidency behind this effort, and that he sincerely and deeply understands why it is in no one’s interest to see Iran with a bomb, and he has supported, in ways that I only know the most general way, some very hard-edged counterproliferation programs, programs whose existence proves, among other things, that he is capable of real and decisive toughness.

    What all this means is that the West — in combination with Iran’s own incompetence — has created a bit of breathing space for itself. David Ignatius:

    The delays in the Iranian program are important because they add strategic warning time for the West to respond to any Iranian push for a bomb. U.S. officials estimate that if Iran were to try a “break out” by enriching uranium at Natanz to the 90 percent level needed for a bomb, that move (requiring reconfiguration of the centrifuges) would be detectable — and it would take Iran one to two more years to make a bomb.

    It is important to remember that Iranian intentions are unchanged, until proven otherwise, and it is also important to remember that technical difficulties are surmountable, but it is definitely fair to say that the zero hour is not yet here. I spoke with one of the Israeli officials I quoted in my article last year about the coming confrontation between Israel and Iran, and he put the chances of an Israeli strike on Iran in the next year at less than 20 percent — and he was one of the Israelis who felt, in the spring of last year, that it would be necessary for Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities by the end of 2011. “People have very different opinions inside the defense establishment,” he said, when I reached him, “but it’s clear to all analysts that the virus and the sanctions are working better than we thought.”

    • annie says:

      Jeffrey Goldberg has really come around in the last two weeks. He deserves some slack here.

      i disagree. he’s just getting in front of the news (which is there is no iran threat) so the first time people hear about the ‘no threat’ they hear it w/the framing of:

      I think it is fair to say that the combination of sanctions and subterfuge has definitively set back Iran’s nuclear program

      instead of

      Netanyahu is furious with outgoing Mossad Director Meir Dagan because of the briefing Dagan gave journalists last Thursday.

      which was pulled from the hebrew press. whereas logically if the drumbeat we hear from goldberg (and yonira: “The story is that Dagan is leaving the Mossad and is claiming that his efforts to slow down the Iranian nuclear program were successful.” ) iow: “wow, we’ve been successful” was true bibi would be popping champaign. why’s bibi pissed? because the truth is out of the bag..again. just like the nie report the neocons went apeshit about few years ago.

      they are just all on message. notice goldberg: “Much credit in delaying Iran goes to the unknown inventor of Stuxnet”, now notice eee: “He did many things to delay the Iranian bomb including most probably Stuxnet. That appears to have been very successful. “

      this is called framing. had goldberg broken this news on friday with the report of bibi being pissed i’d be more inclined to believe you but there was no news broken then when dagan met w/journalists, it was delayed and spun and then released.

      there is no threat. that’s the news.

      • eee says:

        Annie,

        Do you really not see that several people saying the same think means that it makes sense to several independent people, not that there is some conspiracy? I assure you, I did not see what Goldberg wrote before what I wrote. It is just common sense. Even the Europeans admit that Iran is a threat. Why would they be lying? Why exactly would Israel be lying for that matter? Are we preparing an “Iranian land grab”?

        • annie says:

          i didn’t say it didn’t make sense. i just said it was on message, as usual.

        • eee says:

          Being on message requires some “conspiracy” some collaboration, some organization. And there just isn’t any. We are not on message, we are saying things that we believe in and it happens that many people think the same.

        • annie says:

          whatever. listserves are not usually defined as ‘conspiracy’. did you read about the heavy emphasis on messaging during the gaza massacre?

        • annie says:

          Being on message requires some collaboration, some organization

          here: Israel project hiring

          Duties will include maintaining a clean and updated online contact database of activists and journalists (adding/updating/deleting records, etc…), reviewing all website pages for accuracy and currency, working with content owners to revise content using our Kintera-based CMS, and if needed format TIP pieces to send them out and post them on our website. Additional duties could involve working with graphic, video and audio files, maintain/expand TIP’s presence on blogs, and social networking and video-sharing websites, and help maintain an updated Activist section on TIP’s website.

          Monitors and provides input on personnel policies, procedures and practices to ensure that they meeting both the intent and spirit for which they were created.

          Ability to maintain strict confidentiality – essential

          Detail oriented, organized; ability to handle a fast-paced, rapidly-expanding environment where priorities change frequently

          Interns will work according to an individually arranged schedule. You will research background information, write short papers and fact sheets, assist with media events, conduct extensive research on the Internet and update our website. Most projects will focus on Iran and its nuclear program. (that one is listed under “STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS INTERNS”

          under the section :”Director of Research and Content – Iran

          note:

          REPORTS TO: Under the direct supervision of the Executive Director of Global Affairs, the Director of Iran Research and Content manages overall story research, written content and multimedia. Manages two full-time associates, respective interns and media fellows, if applicable.

          RESPONSIBILITIES:

          1. Story Research – Manages story research/writing/publication processes of press materials produced on Iran. Manages writing assignments of Associates and interns and media fellows, if applicable.

          2. Content – Writes and manages content, including writing, framing and fact checking of:

          1. Press materials (press releases, press kits, etc.)
          2. Expert sources lists
          3. Intern materials
          4. Web content

          3. Multimedia – Manages multimedia/web content produced published and distributed.

          4. Experts – Manages large databank of expert sources on Iran in coordination with staff. Confirms that details are current in experts’ sourcebook and on website, and experts receive messaging.

          5. Polls and Messaging – Supports Global Affairs messaging work related to Iran.

          # Supports communication efforts as needed. Including:

          1. Provides relevant support for TIP’s Global Affairs unit.
          2. Helps develop and manage media interviews and background briefings;
          3. Moderates conference calls with leaders and journalists;
          4. Provides presentations to diverse groups on core Iran issues.

          Experience creating content/writing materials on the Middle East, Iran, and Islamic terrorism.

          enough organization/collaboration for ya?

        • annie says:

          crickets eee?

        • Kathleen says:

          Israel should sign the Non Proliferation Treaty. Open up to international inspections. That would change the dynamics in the middle east. But Israel gets to play by different rules because they are “special” Such a crock of shit

          World leaders have sent letters to the IAEA for decades about the threat that Israel poses to peace in the middle east. Decades

          Israeli nuclear capability threat to peace in the middle east

          link to docs.google.com

          link to docs.google.com

        • straightline says:

          Haven’t we been through this with hophmi – keep up eee. Most European countries (independently?) agreed with the US that Iraq had WMDs too. The exception then was France which had a different shade of government than the current one. Why would Israel be lying? Please!

        • Kathleen says:

          Bull. European countries did not agree that Iraq had WMD’s The Bush administration did not get that kind of support. That is another myth.

          He did get that kind of support from Blair

    • eljay says:

      >> … it is in no one’s interest to see Iran with a bomb …

      Given that existential threats have been and continue to be made against Iran, I suspect that it is in the interest of Iranians to see Iran with a bomb. Nice, though, of Goldberg to reduce Iranians to the status of “no one”.

      • yonira says:

        What are these existential threats eljay?

        • annie says:

          define ‘nothing is off the table’

        • eljay says:

          >> What are these existential threats eljay?

          I’ll pretend that you’re being facetious, because it’s unlikely that you have failed to hear the threats emanating from at least two nuclear-armed nations, calling for military strikes and bombing campaigns against Iran. Such actions would threaten Iran’s current existence – they are existential threats.

          Oh, right, none of that is nearly as bad as the supposed threat made by one Iranian man who is in no position to implement it.

          Keep up the good victimhood work. And don’t forget to “Remember the Holocaust!” (I’m sure you won’t.)

        • yonira says:

          I will not forget the genocide of my ancestors eljay, I would appreciate if you wouldn’t mock their deaths though.

        • eljay says:

          >> I will not forget the genocide of my ancestors eljay, I would appreciate if you wouldn’t mock their deaths though.

          I don’t mock the deaths of the victims of the Holocaust. I mock the cheapening of a tragic event in human history by people who have used it – and who continue to use it – as an excuse and a justification for all sorts of hatred and hateful activities. When they stop, I will gladly stop, too.

        • Kathleen says:

          “Oh, right, none of that is nearly as bad as the supposed threat made by one Iranian man who is in no position to implement it.

          This is bull. Iran has never threatened Israel. When, where? Some proof please. So many lies are being repeated here is it tough to take

        • RoHa says:

          The use of the Holocaust as a moral bludgeon has had an interesting result here.

          http://www.shoah.org.uk

          Gilad Atzmon writes about it.

          link to gilad.co.uk

          He makes the point ” We are actually witnessing an acceptance of an astute universalising of the holocaust as carrying a humanist message for all of us. We can see a deeper understanding of the true moral meaning of that historical event.

          Surely we need to stand up against all forms of ethno-centric homicidal policies.”

          And I particularly like his last two sentences.

          “I really wonder why so many Jews insist on grounding their identity politics on suffering and being hated by others?

          For clearly, one must admit that being loathed is not exactly something to brag about.”

        • eljay says:

          >> This is bull. Iran has never threatened Israel. When, where? Some proof please. So many lies are being repeated here is it tough to take

          I didn’t say Iran threatened Israel. I said ” … the supposed threat made by one Iranian man who is in no position to implement it.”

      • lysias says:

        Given how aggressive Israel has become, I don’t see what it isn’t in everybody’s interest — even Israel’s — for Iran to have nukes.

        Mutual assured destruction is probably the best way to assure peace in the Middle East.

        And a regional war in the Middle East has the potential to become a worldwide nuclear war. Even if it stays a regional war, it will do very great damage to the world economy. Something any sane person should be very concerned to avoid.

        If an Iran with nukes is the best way to avoid it, so be it.

    • I couldn’t disagree more, irishmoses. This article by Goldberg is not “Goldberg coming around; give him some slack,” this article is Goldberg gloating that Israel’s and US illegal acts against Iran are producing harmful effects in Iran.

      Iran has the right to enrich uranium. UN Sanctions CANNOT disqualify those rights. Israel and the US are acting in ways contrary to international law and NPT, and Goldberg is celebrating it. THAT is not praiseworthy, and no reason to “give him some slack.”

  13. irishmoses says:

    Here is the link to today’s Jeffrey Goldberg piece on Iran I quoted above:

    link to theatlantic.com

  14. jonah says:

    Surely Dagan knows that Stuxnet did a good work. That’s why he can state that there will be no Iranian bomb before 2015. However, the threat isn’t banned yet. Waiting for the next generation of the worm …

    • annie says:

      Stuxnet did a good work….the threat isn’t banned yet.

      sounds familiar

    • straightline says:

      There is a very simple way to prevent a computer being infected with a worm like Stuxnet – don’t connect it to the internet. I would find it amazing if Iran had connected some of its most secret computers to the internet. Other countries don’t.

      Also any country (perhaps other than the US but perhaps not even that) that uses Windows – or any other closed source system – as its operating system on a secret network that it for some reason does connect to the internet deserves to disappear from the pages of time. Stuxnet is a Windows-only worm.

      • Shingo says:

        SUXNET can be shared via a network, so even is a network is not connected to the internet, it could be affected by transfer via media like a USB stick.

        Yes, Stuxnet is a Windows-only Malrware, but as it turns out, most control sysytems are written for Windows.

        • straightline says:

          Nope – any security service doing its job will not allow a USB stick anywhere near a TS machine – only validated and encrypted CDs. And it is certainly not the case where I come from – and in the control systems that I use – that most use Windows – they all use Linux. You’d be asking for trouble to use Windows on a system like a centrifuge. But I don’t want to get into a flamewar about that too – just keep drinking the coolade.

        • Shingo says:

          I agree that Windows is not an ideal system in terms of security, but it happens to be the most popular development platform. There’s no reason why a centrifuge cannto be controlle dby a Windows based application. You needn’t try to bluff with me either straightline – I have a backfgroudn in nuclear engineering and currently work as a technical director on animated feature films and also prefer Linux.

          Windows is so full of holes that there is no guarantee that it can be protected against infection. Obviously the Israellis had comeone on the inside who introduced the Malware to the network. If it is as sophisticated as we are told, then it probably has written data to the BIOS.

        • Shingo says:

          BTW straightline,

          I have a theory that the whole STUXNET thing is a charade. There is no Iranian nuclear weapns program and no evidence of one, therefore the Israelis came up with a way to keep the presumption of guilt on the Iranians and pin a medal on it’s chest.

          That way, Israel and Washington doen’t have to explain why there is no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. There was never one to begin with, but they can fool the world into believing their ingenuity stopped it.

        • Tuyzentfloot says:

          For what’s called ‘real-time computing’, which is needed when driving apparature directly, windows has long been a no go, because you were never sure your signal would be processed at the right time. But I suspect that argument is no longer valid.

        • straightline says:

          I wasn’t bluffing you – just calling yours. Now we’re agreed – glad you’ve come round to my viewpoint.

          And I am aware of the kind of systems that security services put in place and do use control systems regularly – or rather those who work for me do. No bluffing on my part.

        • Shingo says:

          I don’t know why you insist on arguing that we were in any disagreement. Like I said, I use Linux systems every day and regard Windows as woefully inadequate, yet much to my amazement, it remains the foundation of some of the world’s largest enterprise systems, such as banks.

          The security services you are familiar with may be standard fare in your part of the world, but that doesn’t mean it’s the case everywhere. STUXNET has gained the world’s attention largely by the speed with which it appears to have infected the computer networks in Iran. Given that a Malware infection within any network would be practally instant, I have to assume that the reference to speed pertained to how quickly it was introduced to closed systems.

    • MRW says:

      I find it repellent that a country issues a worm like that as cyberwar. I mean, who teh hell does Israel think it is? There is no threat. And it does this?

      Israel denied for months it had anything to do with Stuxnet, and US journalists mocked anyone who blamed Israel for it.

    • Shingo says:

      Waiting for the next generation of the worm …

      There won’t be one. Now that the Iranians are aware of it, they simply need to move all their platforms to Linux and the game is over.

  15. Kathleen says:

    “i disagree. he’s just getting in front of the news (which is there is no iran threat)”

    Both he and Friedman.

    • annie says:

      kathleen, notice in glodberg’s article today:

      It is important to remember that Iranian intentions are unchanged, until proven otherwise, and it is also important to remember that technical difficulties are surmountable, but it is definitely fair to say that the zero hour is not yet here.

      keeps you right there on your toes. that bolded part? what i hear is: ‘until you can prove otherwise hasbarists hyperbolic allegations about iran’s alleged intentions (annihilate israel!) are unchanged.’

      • Kathleen says:

        The proof the IAEA’s conclusions 16 U.S. intelligence agencies conclusions mean nothing to the warmongers. They are going to keep pushing based on myths and inflammatory claims. We need to keep pushing back, CALL AND CONTACT OUR REPS, let them know you do not support an attack on Iran. Let them know that you want Israel to be pressured to sign the NPT.

        Bet NPR’s Robert Siegel has Goldberg on his program again. Siegel has exposed his bias over and over again by who he chooses to have on to discuss Iran. Never Flynt Leverett…never Juan Cole…Never IAEA Reps… Doing his part to promote military action

        Interesting interview
        link to antiwar.com

  16. pronomad says:

    This story was first reported in Haaretz last Friday (link to haaretz.com). Besides Dagan’s comments, what I found most interesting was the historical revisionism re Mossad under his leadership, especially this: “During his term, Dagan restored the Mossad’s reputation as an omnipotent organization whose reach extends to the ends of the earth − a myth that has contributed to Israel’s deterrence.”

    Dagan took over in 2002; since then:
    2004 — New Zealand passport scandal;
    2006 — colossal intelligence failures in the lead-up and execution of the war on Lebanon;
    2008 to date: Lebanese security and intelligence services arrest a stream of Israeli spies;
    2010 — Dubai fiasco, which is likely why Dagan’s term was not extended;

    Mythmaking in action.

  17. gingershot says:

    This is the biggest news in years –

    Israel is exposed to halogen-lit glare without a figleaf now

    PERFECT!

  18. Citizen says:

    From a geopolitical point of view arguably Iran is the most important country in the Middle East. Although it is a top oil country, oil companies over the world have had no influence at all on US foreign policy regarding Iran–since the Clinton Era, US unilateral sanctions have been written by AIPAC and enforced by the US Congress. US sanctions against Iran affect all countries having any dealings with the US. Historically, Iran has been an important country and location of civilization for over 4 thousand years. In the modern era, Iran has been attacked inside and from outside by foreigners. Future historians will show to the world the extreme stupidity of US foreign policy in the Middle East and its horrid affects throughout the world.

  19. Tuyzentfloot says:

    Here are just two ways to interpret Dagan’s statement.

    1. the nuclear weapons program is real but we defanged it and it’s going nowhere. It’s time to start working on other things

    2. We should be working on other things than the iranian weapons program. I can’t say we should have done so a long time ago because that will raise too much resistance. You can only conquer one myth at a time. So you put people at ease, confirm their other less important beliefs and use that to convince them of the one thing that matters most. So whatever the success of stuxnet, there’s an opportunity to call it a victory and quit.

    What you get is, whatever your belief is you can incorporate the new data in it . It can be spectacular how far one can stretch beliefs when the attitude is “I’m right until you can prove I’m wrong”.

    The second interpretation fits nicely with my belief that when Iraq was conquered whatever Iran had of nuclear weapons related activities no longer had reason for existing while at the same time it became risky.

  20. Chaos4700 says:

    I’m… a little confused, actually. Why do we care what the head of the Mossad has to say, now that I think about it? We’re talking about an organization that, as a matter of routine, forges the passports of other nations to provide cover for their death squads that operate outside Israel or Palestine. (Inside, they can murder anyone they like, no matter how elderly or asleep they are, without fake passports.)

  21. MRW says:

    Livni behind closed doors: Iran nukes pose little threat to Israel
    Haaretz magazine details foreign minister’s throughts on Iran and on her working relationship with the PM.

    link to haaretz.com

    By Gidi Weitz and Na’ama Lanski
    Tags: Iran Tzipi Livni
    October 25, 2007

    Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said a few months ago in a series of closed discussions that in her opinion that Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel, Haaretz magazine reveals in an article on Livni to be published Friday.

    Livni also criticized the exaggerated use that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears. Last week, former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy said similar things about Iran.

  22. Patrick says:

    Not really hard to see why Netanyahu should be furious. His tactic for avoiding to doing anything about the Palestinian issue has been to invoke the threat from Iran. This, he has insisted, is an imminent existential threat, and it must dealt with before anything any kind of accomodation can be considered with Palestinians. Now even the head Mossad says that whatever threat that may exist has been put well off into the future. So it now becomes much harder for Netanyahu to use his favourite diversion to change the conversion.

    • Shingo says:

      He would be doubly furious seeing as Clinton is visiting the ME to drum u support for harsher sanctions. This won’t help her much, and would have left a healthy layer of egg on her face.

      • Walid says:

        “… He (Netanyahu) would be doubly furious seeing as Clinton is visiting the ME to drum up support for harsher sanctions.”

        Shingo, she is probably in the ME to drum up support for something else; the countries on the tour already fear Iran and don’t need a pep talk from Clinton.

        • Shingo says:

          Walid,

          The new roundof sacntions are going to be more severe and I suspect that the Wikileaks expose has put a lot fo pressure on governments like Mubarak, so it’s not going to be a shoe in for Clinton.

  23. eee,Hophini,Yonira, RoHa
    .
    Can there be anything more perverse,incendiary,racist,and murderous than this ? This is not an intent in future. It is happening.It has been happening————

    ‘American Enterprise Institute (AEI) fellow Michael Rubin wrote about how the sanctions should impact the lives of ordinary Iranians.

    In a footnote to his Commentary article titled “Iran: The Case for Regime Change,” Rubin wrote:

    While Iranian groups lobby on humanitarian grounds for the Obama administration to waive sanctions on airplane parts, citing the frequent domestic Iranian air crashes, the White House should refuse, especially since the Iranian government cannibalizes civilian planes to outfit military aircraft. Tehran is eight hours by bus from both Tabriz and Isfahan, but just an hour’s flight. Iranians, not surprisingly, prefer to take the heavily subsidized one-hour flight. But flying is not a right; it is a luxury.”
    link to lobelog.com1

    • yonira says:

      Roha,

      I didn’t know you were a zionist. welcome to the crowd.

      • RoHa says:

        yonira: “I didn’t know you were a zionist. welcome to the crowd.”

        Bit of a surprise to me, too. How do I learn the secret handshake?

    • Shingo says:

      This sick piece of work would be demanding that the US send aid immediately if that flight was carrying Israelis.

      • yonira says:

        Israelis aren’t allowed in Iran Shingo.

        • Shingo says:

          Israelis aren’t allowed in Iran Shingo.

          No, just the terrorist they are supporting. My point was that neocons like Rubin regard the lives of Iranians as far less important than Israelis.

          I’m pretty sure that if an Israeli diplomat or businessman asked, he’d be granted permission. After all, Iran did offer to normalize relations with Israel as part of the grand bargain in 2003 – which Washington rejected.

    • annie says:

      speaking of sanctions there’s a very interesing post over @ moa called Iran’s Gasoline Sanctions On U.S.-Afghanistan

      Since July 2010 the U.S. is sanctioning companies which sell gasoline to Iran. Iran responded to the long announced sanctions by increasing its gasoline production capacity by some 50% and by lowering end user subsidies. Iran’s production capacity will soon be 75 million liters per day while consumption has fallen by 13% and is now about 55 million liters per day. That leaves plenty of reserves and capacity for exports.

      In May 2010 Iran still imported some 14 million liters per day. That fell to some 8 million liters per day in July after the U.S. sanction were activated, now Iran is a gasoline exporter. The U.S. gasoline sanctions against Iran failed!

      there’s more to this story ….w/out a happy ending of course.

    • yonira says:

      I am pretty sure there are other airline manufacturers who would be more than happy to sell their goods to Iran.

      The Fokker and Tupulev are decent planes which I am sure they could get parts for directly from the manufacturer. Or better yet why not create a domestic airplane, they already have the Saeqeh fighter planes which according to PressTV is comparable to the F/18.

      I guess I believe more in Persian ingenuity than I do in this sob story.

  24. Sanctions and saboatge can work in mysterious and rather more than one unfortunate ways. Remenber what happened to the Byzantine blockade or extortions on the merchants from Europe on way to India?
    Portugal discovered a route and Europe an empire.Rest is history.

  25. straightline says:

    I don’t think others have posted this link – apologies if they have – it would be hilarious if not so important in its message:

    link to original.antiwar.com

    It seems that in some cases it is possible to go on crying “Wolf” forever and still be believed.

  26. yourstruly says:

    What would happen if Israel stopped demanding that the U.S. either strike Iran or allow the settler-state to do so? Would the U.S. go ahead anyways and make war on Iran? And if it did so, what would this say about whether or not the tail wags the dog?

    • hophmi says:

      “Would the U.S. go ahead anyways and make war on Iran? And if it did so, what would this say about whether or not the tail wags the dog?”

      Oh boy. Phil Weiss might be out of work if that happened, because he might have to admit that Israel doesn’t control American foreign policy.

      Dagan’s statement is, as usual, being read through the political prism of the reader.

    • lysias says:

      Philip Giraldi reports in his column in the February 2011 issue of The American Conservative that Israelis aided the Pentagon’s new Cyber Command’s attack on WikiLeaks’s servers late last year.

      The Pentagon’s newly launched cyber-command hacked WikiLeaks’ servers to render the site inoperable. The effort was aided by the Israelis, who are highly skilled in government-sponsored intrusion into Internet servers.

      I thought this was relevant to the question of who is the tail and who is the dog.

  27. Meir Dagan has done more than disagree with Netanyahu; he has finally accepted previous US National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs), one in 2007 and the other in 2005 that have been public since they were issued. In 2007 the NIE came right out and said Iran did not have a nuclear weapon. In 2005 the NIE said even if Iran were to pursue a nuclear weapons’ program, which was unclear, it would take at least ten years for them to build a bomb. It is difficult to say why Dagan has finally adopted this stance if he were previously so concerned about a nuclear Iran; nonetheless it is slightly comforting to read that he has done so. I rarely have confidence in the Israeli leadership — political, military, or intelligence– and my view of the Obama administration could not be more cynical. We have nevertheless to hope that there are some semi-rational heads left in DC attempting to assess the prospects for the Middle East in the next few years because it seems that for now a military strike on Iran is not in the picture. Let’s hope this remains true, not only because of the catastrophe such a strike would unleash but because it gives us a little more time to counter the prevailing mythology that Iran wants nuclear weapons and would strike Israel if it had them. Both claims are simply untrue. A New York Times article recently quoted US Admiral Mike Mullen warning America about the imminent threat of the Iranian bomb – as he sipped tea with his Israeli counterparts in Tel Aviv – a statement that is not only ignorant but dangerous given the drum-beating and war-mongering so pervasive in Washington and elsewhere. It would be nice if more people understood why Iran does NOT want nuclear weapons; what it wants is the technological capability to make one. That alone will upset the current military balance in the Middle East in which Israel alone has a first strike capability. Iran wants deterrence, and that is why “nuclear threshold” technology is important to it; it is not suicidal and understands full well that actually building nuclear weapons would mean a near instantaneous death. US’ foaming at the mouth over Iran has much more to do with the influence Iran has gained regionally — in part as a direct result of our irresponsible and lethal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In both countries the US has directly enabled pro-Iranian forces by carrying out military strategies that have left both countries devastated for years to come. Anti-American Iran ally, Muqtada Sadr, has recently joined his Shi’a counterpart, Nuri al-Maliki, in Iraq in building a coalition government (Sadr just returned from nearly 4 years in Iran pursuing Islamic studies). In Afghanistan many of the anti-Taliban forces the US is aiding are pro-Iranian as well. It is astounding how deadly, how destabilizing, and how stupid US policies have been in the region. Iran is a threat because it has managed to stay independent of the US Empire — and that is unthinkable for our long term regional goals. A few strategic and military ties with China will enhance Iran’s independence and with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization growing (Iran has observer status), the stage is being set for just these kinds of connections. One last thing, but by no means least: those Americans railing on and on about the dangers of allowing Iran to acquire weapons of mass destruction ought to look at their own history recent and past before opening their mouths again. Read the latest (Dec. 30th, 2010) reports on birth defects, infant mortality and cancer rates in Fallujah, Iraq that have skyrocketed since the 2004 US attack on that desperate city. That report, and at least six others before it, have affirmed that the effects of US weapons-of-mass destruction on Fallujah are worse than what was recorded at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ‘War Contaminants’ – such as depleted uranium, white phosphorus, and other deadly chemicals have poisoned the environment around Fallujah for decades to come. I wish everyone who has ever spoken so cavalierly about the possibility of war – with Iran or any other country – would read just one of these reports and see the pictures of babies born with congenital malformations, heart defects, neural-tube defects and worse. That is what war is “all about”. Sadly, I doubt that Meir Dagan, Benjamin Netanyahu, Mike Mullen or Barak Obama give a second’s thought to, or even know about, these lasting and horrible repercussions of war.

    • hophmi says:

      “In 2007 the NIE came right out and said Iran did not have a nuclear weapon.”

      Who said they HAD a weapon? The question has not been about whether they have a weapon. The question is whether they have the capacity to build one and how close they are to building one. The NIE, as I said above, said the the Iranian nuclear program had been on hold since 2003, and that the reason it has been on hold is international pressure.

      “Let’s hope this remains true, not only because of the catastrophe such a strike would unleash but because it gives us a little more time to counter the prevailing mythology that Iran wants nuclear weapons and would strike Israel if it had them.”

      It is no myth that Iran wants nukes. It is a complete myth to suggest that the claim is that Iran would use those nukes. The problem is not that Iran would use nukes. Iran would be finished in two seconds if it tried. The problem is that a nuclear Iran would destabilize the region and embolden terrorist organizations.

      “In both countries the US has directly enabled pro-Iranian forces by carrying out military strategies that have left both countries devastated for years to come. ”

      Afghanistan was pretty devastated before the US got there. Iraq removes the need for an Iranian “deterrent.”

      “Sadly, I doubt that Meir Dagan, Benjamin Netanyahu, Mike Mullen or Barak Obama give a second’s thought to, or even know about, these lasting and horrible repercussions of war.”

      The problem is that we doubt Iran does either.

      • Potsherd2 says:

        Iran, unfortunately, knows a great deal about the lasting and horrible repercussions of war. The Iran/Iraq war was devastating to the nation and cost it at least a million casualties.

        Unlike Israel, which always chooses to fight its wars on the soil of its neighbors, Iran knows what it means to have war at home. There is no wonder why, surrounded as it is by enemies, that Iran would want defensive weapons and a deterrent against its enemies.

        The problem is that Israel wants a monopoly on deterrence, on weapons, on force.

      • eljay says:

        >> The problem is that a nuclear Iran would destabilize the region and embolden terrorist organizations.

        A destabilized region would be bad for Iran, so it’s highly unlikely that Iran would try to destabilize it. But it makes for great propaganda.

        On the other hand, it has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that the presence of the Israel colonialist regime and the projection of American hegemony into the Middle East have been very destabilizing. Maybe you can start rallying to have these destabilizing threats resolved before you worry about what Iran’s legitimate nuclear energy program may or may not do to the region.

      • Shingo says:

        The question has not been about whether they have a weapon. The question is whether they have the capacity to build one and how close they are to building one. The NIE, as I said above, said the the Iranian nuclear program had been on hold since 2003, and that the reason it has been on hold is international pressure.

        You can’t have something that never existed on hold. The authors of the 2007 NIE weer throwing a bone to the authors fo the priovious Iran NIE, which did claim Iran had a nuclear wepoans program. The 2007 could not contradict that finding for political reasons. We saw the same politics at workd in the Duelfer Report, which referred to WMD related programs or activities, which in fact included moving scientinsts from WMD programs to non WMD programs. So if a sceinetist left his job on WMD and went to set up a falaffel stand, that would be included as a WMD related activity.

        The fact is that Iran didn’t begin enriching uranium before 2003, and the fact that the US position has settled for the positon that Iran hasn’t decided to produce nukes means there is no program and never was.

        It is no myth that Iran wants nukes.

        Actually it is, because Iran have not only expresssed no desire to have them, Kohmeni has deemed nukes to be incomptible with Islam. Furthermoe, the US position is that Iran has no decided to produce nukes, so there is no evidence they want them.

        The problem is that a nuclear Iran would destabilize the region and embolden terrorist organizations.

        That too is a myth, becasue there are at least 3 states in the region who already have nukes. Terrorist organizations have no reason to be emboldened becasue Iran woudl never given a nuke to a terrorist organization.

        Iraq removes the need for an Iranian “deterrent.”

        Yes, because we practially gave Iraq to Iran.

        • hophmi says:

          “That too is a myth, becasue there are at least 3 states in the region who already have nukes.”

          Three?

          I can see this is not worth it, because you will keep on insisting there is no program no matter what I present you with. I’m not going through another Shebaa Farms debate with you.

        • Shingo says:

          Yes 3 Hophmi. Israel, India and Pakistan makes 3, if you discount the nukes the US has in Turkey.

          I can see this is not worth it, because you will keep on insisting there is no program no matter what I present you with.

          You simply don’t understandably the topic Hophmi and that combined with your Zionist fervor to cling to the lies you’ve been fed makes you impervious to facts.

          After all, you still insist that Iran threatened to wipe Israel off the map.

          I’m not going through another Shebaa Farms debate with you.

          Yes you were wrong on that topic too.

        • hophmi says:

          India and Pakistan are not in the Middle East.

          “After all, you still insist that Iran threatened to wipe Israel off the map.”

          Yes, based on over 30 years of Iranian policy and a translation made by their own translators, I do believe that’s what Ahmadinejad meant.

          “Yes you were wrong on that topic too.”

          As in that case, you made a claim, it was wrong, I confronted you with primary source material proving you wrong beyond all doubt, and you consisted to insist you were right.

          So you’re not worth it.

        • Shingo says:

          Yes, based on over 30 years of Iranian policy and a translation made by their own translators, I do believe that’s what Ahmadinejad meant.

          What policy Hophmi? Iran has never laid a finger on Israel, nor threatened it, and FYI, the translation was not Iranian. You’ve had this explained and proven to you countless ted, but like Witty, you refuse to let go if it.

          Why is that Hophmi?Are you and Witty so familiar with victimhood that it has become a source if comfort and security for you? Are you afraid that without it, Zionism will cease to have any meaning?

          Why do you reject any suggestion that the threat is not what you’ve ben led to believe as though what should be good news is considered an attack?

           As in that case, you made a claim, it was wrong, I confronted you with primary source material proving you wrong beyond all doubt, and you consisted to insist you were right.  

          No you were wrong Hophmi and you were comprehensively refuted.

          What a selective memory you gave! Too much Ziocaine huh?

        • Shingo says:

          India and Pakistan are not in the Middle East.

          India and Pakistan are not in the region Hophmi, I didn’t say the Middle East.

      • Kathleen says:

        There is absolutely no hard evidence that Iran is enriching uranium above the level that they are legally able as signatories of the NPT. You know the agreement that Israel continues to refuse to sign

    • Tuyzentfloot says:

      The NIE said the the Iranian nuclear program had been on hold since 2003 . This is actually quite ambiguous because it says nothing about the size and intent of that program. If the intent is to have a deterrence in the form of being capable to build a nuclear weapon , then I think it’s well possible that some people got permission to do research on the subject of feasibility. And opinions may have differed on what ‘enough’ research would have meant.

      • Shingo says:

        This is actually quite ambiguous because it says nothing about the size and intent of that program.

        Exactly. As I pointed out in the example of the Douelfer Report, the term “program” is entirely meaningless. According Philip Giraldi, most if these allegations are based on documents on a “stolen laptop”, which the CIA has refused to verify as legitimate.

  28. Shingo says:

    As Justin Raimondo points out on antiwar.com:

    “When it comes to crude bigotry and religion-based divisiveness, we can always rely on King to sink to the occasion, far lower than practically anyone else. “