Trending Topics:

‘Get ready to fight Iran,’ Washington Post warns in URL

on 50 Comments
Video 12 0 00 11 56
Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, outside the King David hotel

The Washington Post URL (the internet address for the piece) gives this piece away: “Get ready to fight Iran.” I wonder if that is a subversive act by a Washington Post editor. When the actual headline of the story is, “5 steps Obama can take to avert a strike on Iran.”

The piece is by Amos Yadlin, the head of Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies. Listen to him lecturing the President about US interests in the pages of the Washington Post! Obama must come to the Knesset! Notice him counseling belligerence and propaganda!

Only by framing a nuclear-armed Iran as an impermissible threat to the national interests of the United States and its allies in the Persian Gulf can President Obama bridge this gap between Israeli creed and need. He must convince Israel, Iran, Russia and even Saudi Arabia that the U.S. military option is credible and effective.

A gesture directly from Obama could do it. The U.S. president should visit Israel and tell its leadership — and, more important, its people — that preventing a nuclear Iran is a U.S. interest, and if we have to resort to military action, we will. This message, delivered by the president of the United States to the Israeli Knesset, would be far more effective than U.S. officials’ attempts to convey the same sentiment behind closed doors….

First, Obama should notify the U.S. Congress in writing that he reserves the right to use military force to prevent Iran’s acquisition of a military nuclear capability. This would show the president’s resolve, and congressional support for such a measure is likely to be strong…

Second, Washington should signal its intentions via a heightened U.S. military presence in the gulf, military exercises with Middle East allies and missile defense deployment in the region. Media coverage of these actions should be encouraged.

PS: Yadlin’s institute is where Hirsh Goodman works. Goodman is the husband of NYT correspondent Isabel Kershner)

More warmongering from the rightwing site, Israel National News, reporting on a story in the Sheldon Adelson newspaper. Again: this paper is owned by the man who is giving all that money to Romney. Is that a story? What is happening to the American agenda? 

President Barack Obama, Congress and the American people would support Israel if it carried out a pre-emptive attack on Iran, Michael Oren, Israeli Ambassador to the United States, told Yisrael HaYom Sunday.

He told the Hebrew-language newspaper that he does not feel there is any pressure on Israel from the U.S. government not to act against Iran, which last week loudly proclaimed it wants to eliminate the State of Israel.

…”The Americans have listened to the Iranian leaders who want to destroy Israel,” Oren said in an interview with the newspaper during a short stay in Israel. “It is clear that the Americans are asking themselves, ‘What would we do if were in their place?'”

Oren is convinced that “if Israel decides to act against Iran, we will win wide support among the American people” and that the Obama administration “will continue to recognize our right to defend ourselves.” He added that an Israeli attack would not ruin American-Israeli relations.

Note that Abe Foxman agrees. He says that the duty of the New York Times is to put itself in Israel’s shoes.

Israel is our ally, with existential dangers facing it if Iran should gain a weapon. Putting oneself in Israel’s place should be the first order of business in trying to understand and comment on the situation. Unfortunately, this perspective was completely absent from your editorial.

Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is senior editor of and founded the site in 2005-06.

Other posts by .

Posted In:

50 Responses

  1. annie on August 19, 2012, 11:40 am

    obama’s job is not to “bridge this gap between Israeli creed and need”. and Putting oneself in Israel’s place should NOT be the first order of business.

    we’re americans! get over it!

    • CloakAndDagger on August 19, 2012, 2:20 pm

      X 1000 !

    • MRW on August 19, 2012, 6:55 pm

      This is even worse in its primary arrogance, annie:
      “He must convince Israel, Iran, Russia and even Saudi Arabia that the U.S. military option is credible and effective.”

      Notice, however, the mention of Russia. Putin was there over a month ago. Did he tell Netanyahu to cease and desist? Ditto Saudi Arabia: it said last week that it would not allowed Israeli planes to fly over SA without US permission. We already know Russia and China are united on the issue. Interesting what this guy gives away.

  2. piotr on August 19, 2012, 11:41 am

    Clearly, to save the planet, we must raise gasoline prices from about 1 dollar/liter to 2 or 3. Much work to be done on domestic American front.

    But one element that most commentators (and all Israeli commentators) ignore is tht there is a growing impatience in Asia with USA trying to dictate what Asians should do, especially if this is due to Israeli prodding. My prediction is that the current “crippling level” of sanctions is in the process of collapsing. The escalation of sanctions and threats gives opposite effect when it increasingly looses rational outlook. And the escalation of military (and commercial) threats contributes to that.

    • MRW on August 19, 2012, 7:24 pm

      Baloney, Piotr: “Clearly, to save the planet, we must raise gasoline prices from about 1 dollar/liter to 2 or 3. Much work to be done on domestic American front.” You’re not going to convince Americans of this. CO2 is now the lowest in 20 years. Natural gas is plentiful. Extraction techniques and reclamation laws, however, antediluvian. That’s reparable with new science. Nobody can take anything out of the ground in Alberta, where the Oil Sands are, without returning the ground to the same or better condition in which they found it under penalty of jail and fines. That includes one gallon of well-water, an ounce of uranium, a gallon of natural gas, an ounce of gold, or a barrel of oil…or coal. It is the only place in North America where they have a law like that (for over 50 years) and it is so strict now that oil producers spend at least six months after drilling approval getting the provincial government to approve their reclamation plans, putting up the dough for the eventual reclamation, and providing insurance that it will be done.

      Moreover, tell that to the 600 million Indians who just lost electricity, the majority of whom want out of grinding poverty.

      It’s mahvellous how the developed countries, now that they are developed, are dictating to the emerging nations what they can and cannot have in the way of growth, electricity, water, and basic amenities.

      I love what we do here. Do-gooders galore screaming about an environment very few can define accurately beyond parroting a scientist’s quote in the NYT. We must have our wind turbines and solar panels to assure ourselves that we are taking care of the planet, absolve our consciences. Right. With wind turbines and solar panels which so far are leaving catastrophic radioactive waste–truly devastating–with people in far-flung countries that we don’t care about. Fossil fuels don’t produce lakes of thorium waste.

      And before I get any lectures, read James Hansen’s little known (at the time, peer-reviewd unlike his last effort) PNAS paper in 2000, in which he and four other scientists wrote this:

      A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero.

      • Keith on August 19, 2012, 10:23 pm

        MRW- “CO2 is now the lowest in 20 years.”

        Here you go again! According to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography Mauna Loa Observatory, CO2 concentrations rose from about 315 ppm in 1958, to 390.49 in July 2010, 392.59 ppm in July 2011, and 394.49 in July 2012. The graph has a consistent upward slope. What is your source for your latest outrageous misrepresentation?

        “Nobody can take anything out of the ground in Alberta, where the Oil Sands are, without returning the ground to the same or better condition in which they found it under penalty of jail and fines.”

        This sounds like industry PR which you seem to prefer to environmentalist objections. Canada and Alberta have been turned into a petro-state, no application for tar sands exploitation has ever been turned down, reclamation virtually non-existent. “Reclamation in the tar sands now amounts to little more than putting lipstick on a corpse. Unless Alberta and Canada soon address the pace, effectiveness, and transparency of reclamation, a rich forest will become an impoverished industrial park littered with salts, grass, polluted water, and spindly trees.” (“Tar Sands,” Andrew Nikiforuk, 2010, p111) Tar sands also consume large amounts of fresh water and natural gas for processing. Here is a link to a Sierra Club video on your ‘eco-friendly’ tar sands.

        I have run out of time or I would have more to say.

      • MRW on August 20, 2012, 12:30 am

        @Keith, it’s been all over the news.

        AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low
        By KEVIN BEGOS | Associated Press – Fri, Aug 17, 2012

        PITTSBURGH (AP) — In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal..–finance.html

      • MRW on August 20, 2012, 12:58 am


        “reclamation virtually non-existent. “Reclamation in the tar sands now amounts to little more than putting lipstick on a corpse.”

        No one–I mean, NO ONE–who has ever set foot in Alberta to investigate what’s going on up there in Fort McMurray would call it the ‘Tar Sands’. No one. Unless that person is 70 years or older, in which case he or she is forgiven, you only call it the Oil Sands. You may think that’s a minor thing, but it’s how armchair critics sitting 3,000 miles away are soused out. You are corrected quickly.

        Ever see what the Oil Sands looked like when they started? Huge landscapes of charcoal grey sand?

        Reclamation non-existent? Every oil company must keep every tree they take out of the ground (especially if they came from the boreal forest) in protected areas and tend to them, even if it takes two decades.

        Here is a photo of one of the reclaimed mines in 2008. I can’t find the photo of the new community with hiking and bike paths and the community with housing, hospitals, and commerce, reclaimed in 1991 that is remarkable considering what it had once looked like:

        On March 19, 2008, Syncrude Canada Ltd. received a reclamation certificate for 104 ha of land known as Gateway Hill, approximately 35 km north of Fort McMurray. Syncrude applied for a reclamation certificate in 2003. In March 2004, after Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (SRD) and AENV completed a technical review, Syncrude was required to provide more information. AENV asked for additional information on the depth of reclamation cover materials, wildlife habitat use, and drainage volumes for runoff. SRD asked for a survey plan to delineate reclaimed land from mining areas.

        From “The Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel: Environmental and Health Impacts of Canada’s Oil Sands Industry,” pg 169

      • MRW on August 20, 2012, 1:00 am


         From “The Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel: Environmental and Health Impacts of Canada’s Oil Sands Industry” 438 pages (look it up)
        December 2010

        Alberta was the first province in Canada to legislate land reclamation in 1963. Reclamation was initially associated with oil and gas activities, such as well sites and pipelines, but was broadened to cover mines, including oil sands mines. AENV required conservation and reclamation plans prior to granting of approval for development of an oil sands mine. In 1978, requirements to salvage and store soil were introduced. In 1993, EPEA and the Conservation and Reclamation (C&R) Regulation were enacted to replace previous legislation. ERCB has a responsibility to consider reclamation under its public interest mandate so the ERCB works with AENV on reclamation issues with the proponent, and both agencies seek to make decisions that are consistent with each other.

        Conditions associated with operator liability, after reclamation is certified, are described in EPEA and associated regulations. For an oil sands mine, operator liability for reclamation ceases upon issuance of a reclamation certificate. For an oil sands processing plant, operator liability for reclamation ceases 25 years after issuance of a reclamation certificate. For all sites, the operator remains liable for contamination in perpetuity. Financial security issues for reclamation are discussed in Section 11.3.

        Page 74.

      • MRW on August 20, 2012, 1:06 am


        The Pembina Institute in Calgary Alberta is a much better environmental organization vis-a-vis the Oil Sands, and they don’t use the Oil Sands as a sentimental and self-righteous funding mechanism from their perch in Ottawa (mainly). They have been at it longer, they have skin in the game (they live there) and they watch the province like a hawk. If you’re going to reference an environmental organization, at least reference one whose sole raison d’etre is the Oil Sands. AND they’ve been at it for decades.

      • quercus on August 20, 2012, 7:09 am

        @MRW. You are not reading what is written. It says the “amount of carbon dioxide being RELEASED into the atmosphere …..” That may in fact be true as power plant operators have changed from burning to coal to other sources of fuel. HOWEVER, the article is SILENT on the amount of CO2 gases expressed as ppm that are PRESENT CURRENTLY in the atmosphere. The last number I heard was 320 ppm. Way, way, back in about 1960 the Club of Rome predicted in its book “The Limits to Growth” that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere would reach 280 ppm about the year 2000.

        While we are on the subject of our beautiful, little, planet, each of you should read the book “Too Smart for Our Own Good” by Craig Dilworth.

      • Keith on August 20, 2012, 1:30 pm

        MRW- Had you said that US CO2 emissions were the lowest in 20 years, my reply would have been so what? Between outsourcing to China, etc, and an epic recession, this is no big deal. But you didn’t say that. You implied that overall CO2 concentrations were at a reduced level. They are not. In fact your linked article makes clear that “Coal and energy use are still growing rapidly in other countries, particularly China, and CO2 levels globally are rising, not falling.” And since tar sands (what oil industry flacks call oil sands, although the goopy slop more resembles tar than oil) production emits considerably more CO2 than conventional oil, developing this unconventional oil exacerbates the problem. As it stands, overall CO2 emissions are wildly in excess of those reduced levels required to stabilize the climate.

        A couple of comments about your Jim Hansen quote. First, what is the point? Unless you are a climatologist engaged in research, discussing a particular paper concerning potential consequences in the reduction of non-CO2 forcings is pointless. As the paper states: “If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero.” So what? This was written in 2000, what has transpired since? Have non-CO2 emissions been dramatically reduced? If you want to keep abreast of recent developments, I suggest following the RealClimate: Climate science from climate scientists website-

        Getting back to Hansen, you are aware that he was arrested protesting the Keystone pipeline project? He feels that Keystone and tar sands development would be the final nail in the coffin of climate stability. He proposes a refundable carbon tax at the pump, similar to what I would recommend and generally in line with piotr’s suggestion. I prefer to call it a surcharge, a steep charge for consumption returned per capita, a penalty for carbon use rewarding carbon conservation. We need to dramatically increase the price at the pump, while lowering the price of a barrel of oil. Of course, it won’t happen, and yes, global warming, perhaps catastrophic global warming, is a virtual certainty. Hardly a reason for celebration, MRW.

      • Keith on August 20, 2012, 2:17 pm

        MRW- “The Pembina Institute in Calgary Alberta is a much better environmental organization vis-a-vis the Oil Sands….”

        The author of the book “Tar Sands” which I reference approvingly quotes from the Pembina Institute. How long have you been following their reports? Not too long, I suspect, since their slide show on oil sands myths contradicts much of what you say. Check it out at the link here Also, I wouldn’t be so quick to discount the mainstream environmental organizations like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, I suspect that their motivations and data are better than the oil companies and the Harper government. Do you think that the Sierra Club video I linked was false?

        And from a PhD who teaches courses on energy systems and socio-ecological sustainability: “Oil shale and oil sands are also inefficient in terms of net energy as compared to petroleum. Oil sands are already being exploited as conventional oil supplies decline, but they won’t make up for conventional petroleum. What’s more, mining and processing of oil sands requires the utter destruction of ecosystems that are ravaged by strip mining, uses large amounts of fresh water, and releases large quantities of carbon dioxide, thereby exacerbating climate change. Is this a direction that we really want to go?”

      • Keith on August 20, 2012, 3:00 pm

        MRW- “From “The Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel: Environmental and Health Impacts of Canada’s Oil Sands Industry” 438 pages (look it up)
        December 2010”

        This would be funny if not so serious. Remember the Pembina Institute you recommended to me? What was their reaction to this report?

        “EDMONTON, AB — Simon Dyer, policy director and Jennifer Grant, oilsands director of the Pembina Institute made the following statements in response to the release of the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel findings on Environmental and Health Impacts of Canada’s Oilsands Industry:

        “Today the scientists of the Royal Society of Canada confirmed that there are many serious gaps in the environmental assessment, regulation and monitoring of Canada’s oilsands industry,” said Simon Dyer.

        “To date Governments’ attempts to address the deficiencies highlighted by the Royal Society panel have been ineffective, with a much greater emphasis on expanding oilsands development rather than on ensuring the environment and Canadians are protected,” said Jennifer Grant.

        “The Alberta and Federal governments have already approved a doubling of oilsands developments. All new approvals should be halted until the shortcomings are addressed and independent monitoring systems and environmental limits are put in place,” said Simon Dyer.

        Here is a link to Climate Action Network Canada’s report “The Tar Sands’ Long Shadow”

      • RoHa on August 20, 2012, 12:07 am

        “CO2 is now the lowest in 20 years.”

        I don’t know where you get this from. It seems as though the US production of CO2 has declined, but the global production of CO2 continues apace.

        However, the global temperature graph has remained flat for about fifteen years, which strongly suggests that the fashionable CO2 + water vapour feedback theory of global warming is false. The proponents of that theory are trying to find epicycles to make the theory true.

        In the meantime, we can be glad that more plant food is being produced.

        “With wind turbines and solar panels which so far are leaving catastrophic radioactive waste”

        The production of the high-powered magnets for wind turbines is certainly leading to lakes of toxic waste in China.

      • Keith on August 20, 2012, 3:21 pm

        MRW- “Moreover, tell that to the 600 million Indians who just lost electricity, the majority of whom want out of grinding poverty.”

        What is this, stand-up comedy? A caricature of white man’s burden? We are exploiting bitumen sands in order to help our brown brothers in India? $115 per barrel of dirty, carbon intensive oil is going to benefit poverty stricken Indians? Even the oil industry flacks don’t make this ludicrous claim. Hey, I have an idea. Why not help Canada’s First Nation peoples by protecting them from the consequences of tar sands development, including massive waste of freshwater resources, pollution of existing groundwater supplies, dealing with the documented increases in cancer downstream from tar sands development, etc. In case you are unaware, future bitumen extraction will rapidly deplete Canada’s natural gas supplies creating a demand for nuclear power to make the steam to melt the bitumen in situ, creating yet more environmental problems. Perhaps you are a nuclear power advocate and see this as an opportunity?

      • MRW on August 20, 2012, 5:03 pm

        @Keith, et al.

        I’ve read all the comments, all good points made. I don’t have time today to go through each one of them.

        As for my position, it’s rather simple. Some of you might say simplistic. But it’s not. And in the interest of not overtaking this thread with a discussion that is not germane to the headline, I’ll try to keep it simple (and in keeping with Erin Brockovich’s statement today on fracking concerns on HuffPo: ‘let’s stop all the bullshit’ and find a solution.)

        We went from horse and buggies to cars/trucks almost overnight. We went from tubes to transistors almost overnight. It’s time we did that with energy. This notion that we will phase out fossil fuels and maybe make all natural gas vehicles by 2050, while we search for something new to replace all that is bogus, in my view. Make the change and make it fast.

        The government has Tesla’s machines and fuel solutions tucked away in a drawer and has had them since 1942 (whenever he died). He produced free wi-fi from NYC to Paris until JP Morgan shut him down. His fuel rods that would power Long Island (still stuck in the ground there) using energy from the cosmos. Why aren’t we using it? In 1957 Yang and Lee got an instant (as in three months) Nobel Prize in Physics for proving it was possible–except read what they got it for and you’re left blank–and yet knowledge of what they did has been banned from every graduate-level electronics text book. No one knows. So enterprising kids have no idea of the discovery. They not only proved it, but a scientist by the name of Wu did the practicum that proved it shortly thereafter. The oil companies buried it.

        CO2 ppm at 380/390 doesn’t bother me. Crops love it, and CO2 follows temp, it doesn’t lead it. (One of Gore’s big lies.) It’s 600 ppm under the forest canopy in British Columbia right now (BC is nothing but trees in the interior) according to Hadi Dowlatabadi, Canada Research Chair and Professor of Global Change at UBC. (About 25 minutes in: . . . a fascinating solid discussion by scientists not advocates.)

        In the last two weeks, Hansen tried to make the case that the recent droughts were caused by global warming with his non-peer-reviewed PNAS paper “The Perception of Climate Change”. He chose the day we landed on Mars to announce it, and create panic. NOAA scientist Dr. Martin Hoerling panned it immediately. From the NYT (August 6, 2012): Dr. Hoerling contended that Dr. Hansen’s new paper confuses drought, caused primarily by a lack of rainfall, with heat waves. “This isn’t a serious science paper,” Dr. Hoerling said. “It’s mainly about perception, as indicated by the paper’s title. Perception is not a science.”
        Cliff Mass, principle Investigator at The Mesoscale Analysis and Forecasting Group at the Univ of Washington, took him to task as well.
        Another meteorological scientist, Dr. Pat Michaels, produced the Palmer Drought Severity Index and overlaid over GISTEMP data from Hansen’s paper and showed there was absolutely no correlation, and declared him “simply wrong.”
        Hansen is turning out to be one of the mad Cardinals in the Vatican circa 1600 AD declaring that the sun revolves around the earth.

        It’s all too much agita for me. For Hansen to go from his 2000 paper to his most recent proclamations demands that he pony up with facts that pass peer-review.

        You cherry-picked from the summary of the Royal Society paper. It’s nearly 500 pages long and I know you didn’t read it overnight. I read the whole damn thing. Last summer I called up the scientist from Guelph and asked him why there was such a discrepancy between what was being reported in the press and what was in the actual meat of the paper. He said because no one read it. I told him I did. He said then you’re probably one of the six who did. He wrote Chapter 7 if I remember correctly. This paper was in response to press accusations that effluvium from the Oil Sands was creating cancer in indigenous people 250 miles downstream, among other accusations. The Royal Society found there were lapses in protecting the environment (the Canadian regulatory limits are far more stringent than ours, which I was confirming with the Guelph scientist) but that none of the accusations were accurate as stated. It took them 14 months to write that thing because they tested each accusation with actual experiments.

        As for nuclear power, I know zip about it other than that our legacy machines are deadly when they break down. I’ve heard there are recent solutions that do not produce radioactive waste and that are safe. Therein the sum total of my knowledge on nuclear energy.

      • Keith on August 20, 2012, 8:16 pm

        MRW- I agree that it is time to break it off and agree to disagree. Well, almost time. I simply can’t resist a few quick comments on your last comment.

        “…and CO2 follows temp, it doesn’t lead it. (One of Gore’s big lies.)

        In the natural global warming process, solar activity initiates a slight warming effect which causes CO2 to naturally be emitted by the oceans as a consequence of the slightly warmer temperatures (colder water absorbs more CO2). This, in turn, greatly amplifies the impact of this natural phenomenon. The solar forcings, by themselves, account for a relatively small part of the total temperature increase. Adjusting for this lag, there is a high correlation between CO2 concentration and global warming. Currently, the solar phase is actually in a cool period. The rapid increase in CO2 concentrations are anthropogenic in nature, clearly not a consequence of solar activity. As such, anthropogenic global warming is a consequence of human activity increasing the concentration of heat trapping greenhouse gases. All of this has been analyzed and discussed, there is no conspiracy of climatologists misleading the world. There is a reason they refer to greenhouse gases as ‘greenhouse gases.’ And you had better believe that currently, increased CO2 concentrations are leading the warming.

        “CO2 ppm at 380/390 doesn’t bother me. Crops love it.”

        This is global warming denial boilerplate. Current concentrations of CO2 will cause increased global warming. Period. Further increases will cause additional warming. Period. This is a serious issue which you deniers make light of. As for crops, a general rule of thumb is that plants and animals do best under those conditions in which they evolved. Rapid changes to CO2 concentrations and to climate will have far reaching negative repercussions, including ocean acidification and corral reef loss. This is not to be taken lightly.

        “Hansen is turning out to be one of the mad Cardinals in the Vatican circa 1600 AD declaring that the sun revolves around the earth.”

        Are you channeling Alexander Cockburn, a fine political analyst and global warming ignoramus? Let us begin by noting that Pat Michaels is a well known warming ‘skeptic,’ and distorter of facts. I provide a link to Realclimate which discusses this.

        “There have been been some critiques of Hansen et al. worth addressing – Marty Hoerling’s statements in the NY Times story referring to his work (Dole et al, 2010) and Hoerling et al, (submitted) on attribution of the Moscow and Texas heat-waves, and a blog post by Cliff Mass of the U. of Washington. *

        *We can just skip right past the irrelevant critique from Pat Michaels – someone well-versed in misrepresenting Hansen’s work – since it consists of proving wrong a claim (that US drought is correlated to global mean temperature) that appears nowhere in the paper – even implicitly. This is like criticising a diagnosis of measles by showing that your fever is not correlated to the number of broken limbs.”

        “The government has Tesla’s machines and fuel solutions tucked away in a drawer and has had them since 1942 (whenever he died)….His fuel rods that would power Long Island (still stuck in the ground there) using energy from the cosmos. Why aren’t we using it?”

        Clearly a conspiracy of immense proportions, what other explanation could there be?

  3. Mndwss on August 19, 2012, 11:48 am

    Who is that scary guy with the funny tiny little turban/raghead hat in the picture outside King David hotel?

    Could it be an Iranian with a hat made of Semtex?

    No… Iranians would probably have a top hat with room for a nuke!

    And guys with tiny little hats would never ever blow up King David hotel…

  4. Taxi on August 19, 2012, 12:02 pm

    Right yeah and if Obama doesn’t do the ‘must’ zio shopping list, what the heck are they gonna do about it? Fire him? Fire on him? Well what the heck what?????????

    Who the eff are these ridiculous people?! And how come Phil Weiss has such a knack for finding them?

  5. Stephen Shenfield on August 19, 2012, 12:22 pm

    I wanted to check the full text of speeches in which Iranian leaders supposedly threaten to destroy Israel, but it ain’t easy. The hasbara network disseminates selected extracts but never full texts. Even the Wikipedia article on the subject quotes only these extracts and refers exclusively to Israeli sources. I checked the English-language sections of the sites of Iranian embassies in various countries, but they too are of no use.

    Nevertheless, it is possible to draw some plausible inferences. None of the statements cited is ever a direct threat by Iran to initiate an attack on Israel. (If such direct threats were made, surely the lobby would broadcast them far and wide.) Iranian leaders do often say that if Israel attacks FIRST Iran will destroy Israel in retaliation. That is another matter entirely. They also say that “it is necessary to destroy” the Zionist state, but (it seems to me) without ever putting Iran forward as the agent that will accomplish this. The agent is described in vague terms like “the world’s Moslems and freedom lovers.” What role Iran is perceived as playing in achieving the goal is unclear — perhaps the full texts would throw some light on this, if they can be found anywhere.

    • MRW on August 19, 2012, 5:47 pm

      They are in overseas texts. translated into other languages, and in my view, not allowed to be printed in full on these shores so that Americans can make up their own minds.

    • subconscious on August 20, 2012, 5:11 am

      @ Stephen Shenfield
      You can see the video of Ah.’s 2012 Quds day speech along w/ real-time translation, as presented by IRI’s PressTV, at
      A condensed version of the speech is posted in Persian at Ah.’s website at
      and also in English at
      But, as seen from comparing sizes, the English version is a highly redacted version of the Persian one.

      Besides whatever he says about removing the Zionist entity, he makes a couple of other noteworthy references. The Persian version at his site reads (also in the video),
      “Dr. Ahmadinejad named the Zionists as deviant humans who are only after power and wealth and domination over others, and by referring to their 2000 year old record in creating mayhem in the world stated that: in contemporary times, it’s been at least 400 years that a small number of Zionists have afflicted the human society with turbulence and the heaviest of damages which cannot be completely rectified.”
      And further down,
      “It’s been several hundred years that nations have been in conflict with the Zionists and it’s been about 100 years that nations have been imprisoned in a direct and complete manner at the hands of the policies and management of world Zionism.”

      What exactly does he mean by referring to the 2000, 400 and “several hundred” years history of the Zionists? I think the most plausible interpretation is that he’s making a Protocol-of-the-Elders-of-Zion type of reference, namely that a clique of Jews has been acting as enemies of mankind for hundreds or thousands of years. This comes at the heels of the recent speech by his Vice President, Rahimi, at an international venue in which he referred to Zionists and the Talmud as enemies of mankind to benefit the Jews:

      • subconscious on August 20, 2012, 8:31 am

        And as for specific plans for settling the Israel-Palestine conflict, Ahmadinejad said, “Even if 80% of this land is given to the Palestinians, the remainder portion that is given to the Zionists, is again a danger; establishment of 2 states means a historic opportunity for their own [the Zionists’] reconstruction. Acceptance of 2 states means wasting 100 years of resistance, and whoever accepts this matter should know that he’s not in line with the nations but is at the opposite pole to the nations.”
        While the IRI categorically rejects the 2 state sol’n, it has repeatedly voted in favor of such proposals at the UN and other international venues over the past several years.

  6. Kathleen on August 19, 2012, 12:23 pm

    “would be far more effective than U.S. officials attempts to convey the same sentiment behind closed door” U.S. officials have repeated OUT LOUD their support for Israel and what Israel might do over and over again. OUT LOUD OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

    Micheal Oren speaking for the American people is as absurd as it gets. The tide has shifted on the American people allegedly supporting Israel no matter what they do. People questioning this everywhere in the U.S. some out loud (listen to the shift in callers on Washington Journal over the last 10 years on this topic..huge shift) and still a great deal of talk in quiet settings. Far more discussion about Israel’s illegal expansion of settlements, threats against Iran, dragging the U.S. into supporting illegal activities on campuses, churches etc etc. Micheal Oren does not speak for the American people. Period. Much of what Oren says are lies. Total lies

    • CloakAndDagger on August 19, 2012, 2:22 pm

      Michael Oren should surrender his US passport.

      • Citizen on August 19, 2012, 8:24 pm

        @ CloakAndDagger
        The state of Israel does not allow dual citizens to represent it overseas. He gave up his US citizenship for that job; prior thereto he held various officer positions in the IDF/Israeli government, but never gave up his US citizenship and nobody asked him to, or even suggested it. If Israel law allowed it, he’d probably be Israeli ambassador to US with dual citizenship.

        His wife moved to Israel and raised their kids there–don’t know if they are dual citizens.

      • CloakAndDagger on August 19, 2012, 9:39 pm

        Good. One down.

      • CloakAndDagger on August 19, 2012, 10:13 pm

        Good article on VT about Jerusalem Post criticizing Netanyahu as American king maker:

    • MRW on August 19, 2012, 5:50 pm

      ‘still a great deal of talk in quiet setting”

      Yeah, that’s where it’s going on once people make sure that Jews aren’t present so that they won’t be offended, and the speakers won’t be attacked for even discussing it.

  7. Kathleen on August 19, 2012, 12:25 pm

    Orders from Abe Foxman for the NYBT’s.

  8. ColinWright on August 19, 2012, 2:11 pm

    “…PS: Yadlin’s institute is where Hirsh Goodman works. Goodman is the husband of NYT correspondent Isabel Kershner)…”

    These guys are a little obvious. Rudoren’s predecessor was married to some species of Israeli as well, wasn’t he? And then his son joined the IDF?

    The New York Times really doesn’t seem to be exactly seeking out reporters who are likely to be very balanced. In fact, one might even suspect they are seeking to ensure the opposite.

  9. ColinWright on August 19, 2012, 2:14 pm

    “… Putting oneself in Israel’s place should be the first order of business in trying to understand and comment on the situation…”

    Laughing out loud. That’s my Abe! He’s actually a pretty funny guy.

    • Citizen on August 19, 2012, 8:28 pm

      @ ColinWright
      I’m sure abe and bibi and AIPAC et al put themselves in Iran’s place, as well as Obama’s, as their first order of business in trying to understand and comment on the situation.

    • piotr on August 20, 2012, 8:24 pm

      This is actually puzzling. Wouldn’t an attack on Iran distract IDF from its chief responsibilities, like evicting villagers in West Bank, chopping trees and bloodying noses of uppity young natives? IDF has most sophisticated and expert village bullies in the world, but somehow leaders dream of repeating the Battle of Gaugamela.

  10. sciri21 on August 19, 2012, 3:20 pm

    Abe Foxman is a fraud and a despicable person. Does he really think that the role of the NYT should be to serve the Israeli government?

    • pabelmont on August 19, 2012, 4:17 pm

      Foxman really thinks it’s HIS role to tell NYT (and us) that serving Israel is their role. He gives orders, oddly, out loud. (Couldn’t our imperial masters talk more quietly? What’s the matter with “behind closed doors”? Jeez Louise!

      Actually, by giving the orders “out loud”, Foxman shows that he believes he has permission from those who operate “behind closed doors” to talk that way. In 1930s, Jews were afraid of their own shadows, a widely despised and discriminated-against minority, not the powerhouse of today, and they did not protest even the Holocaust loudly.

    • ColinWright on August 19, 2012, 10:00 pm

      sciri121 says: “Abe Foxman is a fraud and a despicable person…”

      Naw. Alan Dershowitz, for example, is a fraud and a despicable person. Abe Foxman is a clown.

  11. sciri21 on August 19, 2012, 3:23 pm

    “Putting oneself in Israel’s place” is a euphemism for uncritically propagating Israeli government talking points

  12. MRW on August 19, 2012, 5:56 pm

    Oren is convinced that “if Israel decides to act against Iran, we will win wide support among the American people” and that the Obama administration “will continue to recognize our right to defend ourselves.” He added that an Israeli attack would not ruin American-Israeli relations.

    I’d like to know how he thinks he knows that.

  13. Don Bacon on August 19, 2012, 9:29 pm

    Obama has repeatedly made it clear that Iran is a threat and that “all options are on the table” and he hasn’t done it “behind closed doors.” Obama: “America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable.”

    Hey, I say go for it if the Zionists wish to end their experiment. Iran is ready:
    TEHRAN – If Israeli military threats against Iran take place the “best opportunity will be provided for the disappearance of this fake regime from the scene of the world and hurling it into the dustbin of history,” an Islamic Revolution Guard Corps (IRGC) commander warned on Saturday.

    Iran can put a hurt on the USA also.

    • Citizen on August 20, 2012, 5:24 am

      @ Don Bacon
      How much of a hurt? Iran sends 2% of what the US spends on its military, and its population is only around 80M. Biggest harm is price at the pump.

  14. Patrick on August 19, 2012, 11:39 pm

    “[Oren} told the Hebrew-language newspaper that he does not feel there is any pressure on Israel from the U.S. government not to act against Iran …”

    Well that’s not the view in Israel. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, with Secretary Panetta sitting next to him, recently stated that Israel is militarily incapable of ending Iran’s nuclear program. This is being seen in Israel as a slap in the face to Netanyahu and Barak, intended to put them both firmly in their place.,2506,L-4269041,00.html

  15. Walid on August 20, 2012, 10:11 am

    From the reportage I saw of Israeli TV last week, 2 stations were having a heated debate about an article in Maariv on the real threat to Israel’s existence coming from Hizbullah and NOT from Iran. I had to rely on a translation but the big fuss was about Hizbullah’s capability of hitting Israel’s petrochemical and biochemical industries at Haifa, especially Haifa’s massive amonia reservoirs that could kill tens of thousands and not the mere 300 or 500 people that the Israeli military is predicting. The Israeli guys were equally spooked about the prospect of Hizbullah hitting Dimona. In a nutshell, the TV programs and the YNet article said that Israel’s threat wasn’t really Iran but Hizbullah that was capable of raining thousands of missiles on all parts of Israel. But maybe the Americans aren’t spooked by little Hizbullah and why Israel keeps harping on Iran.

    From Ynet:

    Official: Hezbollah attack more dangerous than Iran missiles

    In wake of ongoing debate over possible Israeli attack on Iran, security assessments indicate that biggest threat to Israel is not Islamic Republic’s missiles but rather Hezbollah’s ability to fire rockets at Israel

    Attila Somflavi Published: 08.06.12, 11:07 / Israel News

    The continuous debate over a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities has sparked further discussion about the major security threats Israel currently faces.

    While senior security establishment officials vehemently warn against the ramifications of a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, security and government assessments indicate that the biggest threat to Israel is a deadly response from Iran’s ally Hezbollah, whose leader Hassan Nasrallah has previously warned that its missiles and rockets could strike anywhere inside the Jewish state.,7340,L-4265026,00.html

    • Taxi on August 20, 2012, 11:35 am

      Have the over-inflated zionist idiots only just found this out?

      Man they’re so utterly and helplessly buried to the eyeballs in Iran propaganda that they can’t see what’s at their (stolen) doorstep.

      • Walid on August 20, 2012, 12:52 pm

        They are in full panic mode, Taxi, the ammonia was supposed to have been moved out of Haifa Bay years ago and now the mad rush is on to relocate the stuff elsewhere. But they’re wasting their time since by their own admission, Nasrallah’s missiles can reach any point in Israel. As the saying goes, they can run but they can’t hide. Can’t be much fun being an Israeli these days.

      • OlegR on August 20, 2012, 6:06 pm

        /Can’t be much fun being an Israeli these days./

        Don’t read too much into it , the press is pumping Iran for a couple of weeks now because it sells newspapers .They will move on to something new
        in about another week.

  16. Walid on August 21, 2012, 12:29 am

    Don’t think so, OlegR, it’s been in the news for several years and it seems Israel can’t do anything about it other than worry. A judge ruled it has be relocated to the Naqab by 2015 but it will be impossible to do so the worrying will go on and on.

    From Yeshiva World:

    Vilnai Reassures – Experts Paint Worrisome Scenario
    (Wednesday, August 15th, 2012)

    While outgoing Minister of Homefront Affairs Matan Vilnai assures the nation “we are in the best situation ever” regarding homefront preparedness for missile attacks, some experts are far from being persuaded.

    In actuality, the minister’s statements are perhaps carefully worded and quite accurate as a result, for he does not state the homefront is “ready” in absolute terms, but just in relative terms as compared to the past.

    One of the fears pertains to incoming missiles fired across the border by Hizbullah into Haifa, home to major chemical plans and toxic chemical storage facilities. According to the daily Maariv, concerns are genuine and not related to chemical or biological weaponry, but to the storage of 12,000 tons of toxic gas in Haifa. The report speaks of the “blue and white threat created here, at home”, near the Port of Haifa. This threat according to report is to all the residents of Haifa and the Kraiyot.

    While Vilnai speaks of 500 deaths in a war including missile attacks from a number of fronts lasting for 30 days, experts in Haifa paint a less encouraging picture, one that speaks of “thousands of dead and injured” resulting from a missile making a direct hit on an ammonia tank. The exact number would depend on numerous factors, including temperature, wind strength and direction and other weather conditions.

    The experts point out that in past years when the situation was evaluated, addressing the 2,400 tons of ammonia leaking in the Haifa Gulf area, the death toll could reach 17,000 in addition to 77,000 casualties. Today’s scenario addresses 12,000 tons of ammonia, not 2,400! Estimates in shekels for the “health damage” from such an attack are placed at 30 billion NIS. Damage estimates to property also run in the tens of billions NIS.

    International standards call for destroying such a storage tank after 20 years of service due to its compromised state resulting from temperature variances. The tank holding the 12,000 tons of ammonia has marked its 25th year of service. According to Prof. Amos Nota of Technion, this tank should go even without war concerns. Add the missile fears to the equation and there is true cause for major concern, as he questions why the ammonia storage tank is still in service.

    The professor adds the tank has never undergone a thorough inspection because there is no storage area to place the ammonia while an inspection is conducted.

    Back in 2002, then IDF Homefront Commander Major-General Yousef Mishlev conducted an inspection of the roof of the tank, with experts determining then, a decade ago, the roof of the tank should be fortified. A committee was appointed and in 2003, that committee ordered fortification for the roof in line with the recommendation and warning from the Technion professor.

    Opponents cited that an exterior fortification would pose a hazard to incoming flights using the Haifa Airport. In 2006 IDF Homefront Commander Major-General Yitzhak Gershon announced the tank does not pose any threat.

    Regarding wartime fears the military received a commitment that in time of war, the tank will be drained to diminish the amount of ammonia being stored.

    Then came the Second Lebanon War. A report addressing the failures of the war released by the state comptroller points out that on the day the war began, as missiles were falling in that area, the ammonia tank was filled four times beyond its legal capacity. The tank was never emptied and it remained full four times past capacity throughout the war as missiles pounded Israel.

    A session of the Knesset Audit Committee in 2009 records that the Homefront Command feels the likelihood of a missile striking the ammonia tank are low, resulting in the nonfeasance regarding this matter. At the time, IDF Lt.-Colonel Hadas Ben-Dov, in charge of hazardous materials assured committee members that the military was doing its job to prepare the homefront, adding 4,000 missiles hit the area during the war and we know the results. Today, the homefront appears to be relying on the same odds.

Leave a Reply