Monday, October 02, 2006



It has been a bitterly debated subject across message and discussion boards throughout Israel and the US for weeks, but this is the first actual discussion we've seen about this in the mainstream media.

That this story appeared in one of Israel's largest newspapers, Haaretz, only adds to the signficance of recent events that may lead to the US not going to war against Iran, but developing a 'new relationship' with this sworn enemy of Israel's Zionist government.

It is certainly no great secret that Israel's influence within Washington's corridors of power has been sliding in the past few years. It was the Israel-backed NeoCon crowd that demanded, and got, a War On Iraq, and since the War On Iraq has proved a costly, draining and politically devastating failure, the NeoCons are finding they just don't have the power and influence they once did.

Even though Iraq is now a democracy, and is likely to find peace and staibility within a few years, President Bush is no longer receiving top advice from NeoCon Israelis. Advisors from the former President Bush's circle of influence - Henry Kissinger, James Baker III - are now in a part of his inner circle, advising the president of what he needs to know, and what he should do next.

This is mostly why President Bush has been pushing diplomacy in solving the Iran Nuclear Crisis. That and the fact that he would face something close to a revolution within his own military if he tried to send battalions of ground forces into Iran.

From :
It is hard to believe that the following series of events, all of which took place within a short period, occurred by chance, without a guiding reason. Suddenly, despite the harsh threats voiced by the White House against Iran for trying to produce nuclear weapons, the world learned that Iran's former president, Mohammad Khatami, received a tourist visa to visit the United States. He was not invited to official meetings, but President George Bush himself approved the visa request.

Afterward, the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, received a visa for the United Nations General Assembly, and also an invitation to appear in New York before the Council on Foreign Relations. Shortly before this, the prime minister of Iraq, Nuri al-Maliki, visited Iran and held talks with its leaders. It is hard to believe that this visit by the Iraqi leader could have been made without coordination with Washington.

As though by chance, in the same week when Khatami was in the U.S., Bush invited a well-known correspondent for the Washington Post, David Ignatius, to interview him in the White House.

The interview dealt with one subject alone: Iran. And it indicated a substantive shift in Bush's approach. He did not threaten military action against Iran, he did not even mention sanctions. He made do with saying that deep concern exists in view of the desire by some of Iran's leaders to develop nuclear weapons and the possibility of their attempting to make good on their declarations about attacking Israel and threatening the U.S.

It is worth reading Bush's remarks closely in order to understand the singularity of this interview. America recognizes Iran's role "as an important nation in the Middle East," Ignatius noted on the basis of the interview, and went on to quote Bush: "I would say to the Iranian people: We respect your history. We respect your culture ... I recognize the importance of your sovereignty  that you're a proud nation ... I understand that you believe it is in your interest  your sovereign interest, and your sovereign right  to have nuclear power ... I would want to work for a solution to meeting your rightful desires to have civilian nuclear power. I would tell the Iranian people that we have no desire for conflict." Bush added that he would like to see programs for "cultural exchanges" and "university exchanges" between the U.S. and Iran.

It is not surprising that Ignatius concluded that the Bush administration is seeking a diplomatic solution to its clash with Iran over the nuclear issue. Concurrently, reports have been published about cracks that have appeared in the "iron triangle" of Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. The latter is apparently skeptical that a military option exists against Iran, should it go on developing nuclear weapons.

The conclusion from all these developments is that the current tendency in the U.S. administration is to support an attempt at dialogue with Tehran.

If an American-Iranian dialogue ensues, Israel will not be invited to take part in such talks, as it was not invited to contribute to the agreement that Washington and London worked out with Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi.
There are no shortage of Israelis who are willing to back nuclear strikes on Iran, to take out their potential nuclear weapons capability, using the pre-emptive strike by the US on Iraq as the example of how and why it should be done.

This view was widespread in the Zionist dominated Israeli media earlier in the year, and this Jerusalem Post columnist provides an example of that kind of thinking :
Despite all the skepticism, the US and Israel do have a military option in Iran: preemptive nuclear annihilation.

The US and Israel, or the US by itself, or maybe even Israel by itself, can destroy Iran and its 69 million people, probably in a matter of hours or even less, and then nobody in the world will have to worry about those crazy maniacs getting the bomb. Things would be sort of weird afterward, it's hard to say what the consequences might be, but the Iranian threat would be behind us.

But that is not the reality that Israel now faces. The US has already put the dampner on air bombing campaigns on Iran's nuclear energy facilities, and faces something like a revolt within its own military should it try and send in ground forces.

Israel has noticed this change in war plans and the same columnist spells out the new reality for those Israelis hungering for nuclear annihilation of Iran. It's not going to happen :
A country, even the US or Israel, can't just snuff another country because of what it thinks that country might do to it in the future. Some of you may be asking: "Why not?" I'd explain, but it would probably make you angry. That's just the way it is - no mushroom clouds for Iran. All you can do is dream.

Top US Intelligence Analysts Have Told Bush Ameica Must Get Used To Living With A Nuclear Iran

Iran Rejects EU Terms For Nuclear Talks

Israel Will Be Forced To Accept Same IAEA Safeguards For Its Nuclear Facilities As Iran

How Israel Is Engineering The "Clash Of Civilisations"

Zionist Regime Is Collapsing, Claims Iran's Army Chief

Israel Calls Iran Its Greatest Threat