Skip to main content

Dangerous sabre rattling.....with a message?

The news that Israel engaged in some military manoeuvres earlier this month - flagging something to Iran and others? - has led to this announcement, as Reuters reports:

"The chief of the United Nations nuclear watchdog said in remarks aired on Friday that he would resign if there was a military strike on Iran, warning that any such attack would turn the region into a "fireball".

"I don't believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time ... it would make me unable to continue my work," International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamad ElBaradei told Al Arabiya television in an interview.

"A military strike, in my opinion, would be worse than anything possible. It would turn the region into a fireball," he said, emphasising that any attack would only make the Islamic Republic more determined to obtain nuclear power.


"If you do a military strike, it will mean that Iran, if it is not already making nuclear weapons, will launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons with the blessing of all Iranians, even those in the West."

The New York Times reported on Friday that U.S. officials said Israel carried out a large military exercise this month that appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. The newspaper said Israeli officials would not discuss the exercise."


Meanwhile, on the same subject, The Nation reports:

"The stunning display of air power by Israel in early June, unannounced but widely noticed by intelligence services worldwide, means that Israel has officially signed on to John McCain's presidential bid.

By sending more than a hundred F-15s and F-16s across Greece and the Mediterranean in a practice mission for a large-scale attack on Iran, the Israelis have upped the ante dramatically. The New York Times, which reported the action, quotes a Pentagon official who said that it was all about sending messages:

"They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know," the Pentagon official said. "There's a lot of signaling going on at different levels."
But the most important message is to the American political system. McCain has made a point of his willigness, even eagerness, to escalate the crisis with Iran. And while Barack Obama has said repeatedly that he won't take the threat of military action off the table, he's challenged McCain over the Arizonan's refusal to talk to Iran.

So Israel is challenging Obama, too."

Comments

Anonymous said…
This is an indication that America, before the end of presidential term for Bush, would like to engage in another war and leave its people and the world at large into more peril situation.
And if Israel thinks bombing on Iranian nuclear facilities would make them feel any safer they would better think twice before taking such a stupid action. Iran is neither Syria nor Iraq where the Israel can accomplish the mission in one shot. Retaliation from the Iranian would be severe and unthinkable and Israel will be lost into another unpopular war.
Anonymous said…
i say if isreal attacks then they should fight iran themselves cause they will bring it on themselves. i bet bush is pushing for isreal to attack and would have no problem sending troops and billions of u.s. dollars to support a war against a country who hasn't envaded another country in how long? how about taking care of things at home and quit breaking our country and stop letting our troops die for something that has nothing to do with american freedom. the last thing we need or the world needs is another war! unite for peace

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...