Bush reportedly rejected Israeli plea to raid Iran

[tiznow]

jews wanted us to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb iran

and they were pissed off over the 2007 report that said iran had suspended operations

----------------------------------------

WASHINGTON – President George W. Bush rejected a plea from Israel last year to help it raid Iran's main nuclear complex, opting instead to authorize a new U.S. covert action aimed at sabotaging Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program, The New York Times reported.


Israel's request was for specialized bunker-busting bombs that it wanted for an attack that tentatively involved flying over Iraq to reach Iran's major nuclear complex at Natanz, where the country's only known uranium enrichment plant is located, the Times reported Saturday in its online edition. The White House deflected requests for the bombs and flyover but said it would improve intelligence-sharing with Israel on covert U.S. efforts to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.


The covert efforts, which began in early 2008, involved plans to penetrate Iran's nuclear supply chain abroad and undermine electrical systems and other networks on which Iran relies, the Times said, citing interviews with current and former U.S. officials, outside experts and international nuclear inspectors who spoke on condition of anonymity. The covert program will be handed off to President-elect Barack Obama, who will deciding whether to continue it.


According to the Times, Bush decided against an overt attack based on input from top administration officials such as Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who believed that doing so would likely prove ineffective and could ignite a broader Middle East war.

Israel made the push for permission to fly over Iraq for an attack on Iran following its anger over a U.S. intelligence assessment in late 2007 that concluded Iran had effectively suspended its development of nuclear weapons four years earlier. Israel sought to rebut the report, providing evidence to U.S. intelligence officials that they said indicated the Iranians were still working on a weapon.


Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the National Security Council, declined to comment Saturday.


In an interview with The Associated Press earlier this week, Stephen Hadley, Bush's national security adviser, said he believed that Iran is the biggest challenge Obama will face in the Middle East and that more sanctions will be needed to force Tehran to forgo its nuclear ambitions and support for extremists. He said the Bush administration has been trying to "shore up and store up leverage" to bequeath to the Obama administration.
Last month, Obama suggested that a combination of economic incentives and tighter sanctions might work. Tehran rejected the proposal. Obama also has said he would pursue tough-minded diplomacy.

 

[eek.]

The main problem for Israel is it loses the ability to carpetbomb anywhere it wants if the arabs acquire a nucular capability.

The thing is, the USA won't be leaving Iraq for a long time yet so Israel no longer has any wider regional strategic risks, only local security risks.

 

[ScottL]

I wouldn't place much credence in this story.

I do believe that the CIA is trying to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program by first selling them real parts but then intermingling them with bogus ones.

 

[ScottL]

Also, Iran is behind the latest war with Israel:

Iran's Gaza Diversion by Caroline Glick
January 5, 2009, 11:39 PM

Since the IDF commenced its ground operations in Gaza on Saturday night, I have been hungrily eyeing my hat.

On Friday I argued that the Olmert-Livni-Barak government is following the same defeatist strategy in Gaza today that the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government followed in Lebanon two and a half years ago. In 2006, the government supported a cease-fire that empowered outside actors - in that case the UN and Europe - to enforce an arms embargo against Hizbullah and to act as Israel's surrogate in preventing Hizbullah from reasserting control over South Lebanon.

In the event, as government critics like myself warned at the time, these outside actors have done nothing of the sort. The European commanded UNIFIL force in Lebanon has instead acted as a shield defending Hizbullah from Israel. Under UNIFIL's blind eye, Iran and Syria have tripled the size of Hizbullah's missile arsenal. And Hizbullah has taken full control over some 130 villages along the border.

In a similar fashion, today the government is insisting on the establishment of an international monitoring force, comprised perhaps of Egyptian, Israeli, Fatah-affiliated Palestinian, American and European officials that will monitor Gaza's border with Egypt and somehow prevent weapons smuggling. Like the cease-fire deal in Lebanon, this plan does not foresee the toppling of the Hamas regime in Gaza or the destruction of its military capacity. It ignores the fact that similar, already existing, theoretically friendly monitoring forces - like the US-commanded Multi-National Force Observers in the Sinai - have done nothing to prevent or even keep tabs on weapons transfers to Hamas.

STILL, IN spite of the government's continued diplomatic incompetence, there are reasons to think that Israel may emerge the perceived victor in the current campaign against Hamas (and I will be forced to eat my hat). The first is that Gaza is relatively easier to control as a battle space than Lebanon. Unlike the situation in Lebanon, IDF forces in Gaza have the ability to isolate Hamas from all outside assistance. The IDF's current siege of Gaza City, its control over northern Gaza, its naval quarantine of the coast and its bombardment and isolation of the border zone with Egypt could cause Hamas to sue for a cease-fire on less than victorious terms.

Indeed, this may already be happening. Hamas's leaders are reportedly hiding in hospitals - cynically using the sick as human shields. And on Monday morning, Hamas's leadership in Damascus sent representatives to their new arch-enemy Egypt to begin discussing cease-fire terms. Taken together, these moves could indicate that Hamas is collapsing. But they could also indicate that Hamas is opting to fight another day while assuming that Israel will agree to let it do so.

THE SECOND reason that it is possible that Hamas may be defeated is because much to everyone's surprise, Iran may have decided to let Hamas lose.

Here it is important to note that the war today, like the war in 2006, is a war between Israel and Iran. Like Hizbullah, Hamas is an Iranian proxy. And just as was the case in 2006, Iran was instrumental in inciting the current war.

Iran prepared Hamas for this war. It used Hamas's six-month cease-fire with Israel to double both the range and the size of Hamas's missile arsenal. It trained Hamas's 20,000-man army for this war. And as the six months drew to a close, Iran incited Hamas to attack.

So too, in 2006, Iran incited Hamas to attack Israel. That war, now known as the Second Lebanon War, was actually a two-front war that began in Gaza. Ordered by Iran, it was Hamas that started the war when its forces (together with allied forces in Fatah), attacked the IDF position at Kerem Shalom on June 25, 2006 and kidnapped Cpl. Gilad Schalit. Israel fought a limited war against Iran's Palestinian proxies in Gaza for 17 days before the country's attention moved to the North after Hizbullah attacked an IDF position along the border and abducted Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser.

Israel's leaders today warn against a possible Hizbullah attack. In the North, municipalities are readying bomb shelters and air raid sirens ahead of such a possibility. Most of the IDF reservists called up over the weekend are being sent to the North ahead of a possible Hizbullah attack.

But in contrast to the situation in 2006, today Iran seems to have little interest in expanding the war and so saving Hamas from military defeat and humiliation. Speaking on Hizbullah's Al Manar television network on Sunday, Saeed Jalili, the head of Iran's National Security Council, its chief nuclear negotiator and a close advisor to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, essentially told Hamas that it is on its own.

In his words, "We believe that the great popular solidarity with the Palestinian people as expressed all over the world should reflect on the will of the Arab and Islamic countries and other countries that have an independent will so that these will move in a concerted, cooperative, and cohesive manner to draft a collective initiative that can achieve two main things as an inevitable first step. These are putting an immediate end to aggression and second breaking the siege and quickly securing humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza."

In other words, Iran's response to its great enemy's the war against its proxy is to suggest forming a commission.

There are many possible explanations for Iran's actions. First there is the fact that war is an expensive proposition and Iran today is in trouble on that score. In the summer of 2006, oil cost nearly $80 a barrel. Today it is being traded at $46 a barrel. Iran revised its 2009 budget downward on Monday based on the assumption that oil will average $37 a barrel in 2009.

Over the past several months, Iran has been begging OPEC to cut back supply quotas to jack up the price of oil. But, perhaps in the interest of weakening Iran, Saudi Arabia has consistently refused Iran's requests. To date, OPEC's cutbacks in supply have been far too small to offset the decrease in demand. And the loss of billions in oil revenues may simply have priced Iran out of running a two-front terror war.

Then too, Washington-based Iran expert Michael Ledeen from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies argued on Monday in his blog at Pajamas Media website that Iran's apparent decision to sit this war out may well be the result of the regime's weakness. Its recent crackdown on dissidents - with the execution of nine people on Christmas Day - and the unleashing of regime supporters in riots against the Egyptian, Jordanian, Saudi, Turkish and French embassies as well as the home of Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi lends to the conclusion that the regime is worried about its own survival. As Ledeen notes Teheran may view another expensive terror war as a spark which could incite a popular revolution or simply destabilize the country ahead of June's scheduled presidential elections.

THERE IS also the possibility that Iran simply miscalculated. It believed that ahead of Israel's February 10 elections, the lame-duck Olmert-Livni-Barak government, which was already traumatized by the 2006 war, would opt not to fight. This would have been a reasonable assumption.

After all, in spite of Israel's sure knowledge last summer that Hamas and Iran would use a cease-fire with Israel to increase the size of Hamas's missile arsenal and expand the range of its projectiles while building up its forces, the Olmert-Livni-Barak government agreed to the cease-fire. And then, when Hamas announced that it would not extend the cease-fire past its December 19 deadline, Defense Minister Ehud Barak sent emissaries to Egypt to conduct "indirect" negotiations with Hamas in which Israel essentially begged the terror group to reconsider.

But then Israel responded with great force and Iran was left to make a decision. And for the moment at least, it appears that Iran has decided to let Hamas go down. As far as Iran is concerned, even a Hamas defeat is not a terrible option. This view is likely encouraged by Israel's current suggested cease-fire. After all, international monitors stationed along Gaza's borders will not serve as an impediment to future Iranian moves to rebuild Hamas.

ALAS, THERE is another possible explanation for Iran's apparent decision to abandon a vassal it incited to open a war. On Sunday, Iranian analyst Amir Taheri reported the conclusions of a bipartisan French parliamentary report on the status of Iran's nuclear program in Asharq Alawsat. The report which was submitted to French President Nicolas Sarkozy late last month concluded that unless something changes, Iran will have passed the nuclear threshold by the end of 2009 and will become a nuclear power no later than 2011. The report is notable because it is based entirely on open-sourced material whose accuracy has been acknowledged by the Iranian regime.

The report asserts that this year will be the world's final opportunity to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. And, as Taheri hints strongly, the only way of doing that effectively is by attacking Iran's nuclear installations.

In light of this new report, which contradicts earlier US intelligence assessments that claimed it would be years before Iran is able to build nuclear weapons, it is possible that Iran ordered the current war in Gaza for the same reason it launched its war in 2006: to divert international attention away from its nuclear program.

It is possible that Iran prefers to run down US President George W. Bush's last two weeks in office with the White House and the rest of the world focused on Gaza, than risk the chance that during these two weeks, the White House (or Israel) might read the French parliament's report and decide to do something about it.

So too, its apparent decision not to have Hizbullah join in this round of fighting might have more to do with Iran's desire to preserve its Lebanese delivery systems for any nuclear devices than its desire to save pennies in a tight economy.

And if this is the case, then even if Israel beats Hamas (and I eat my hat), we could still lose the larger war by again having allowed Iran to get us to take our eyes away from the prize.

 

[artiesliver]

Bush reportedly rejected Israeli plea to raid Iran

--After the US abstained in the UN Security Council vote for a cease fire between the Palestinians/Israel two days earlier (Resolution 1860), reporting that he rejected the Israeli plan to raid Iran was the Bush Administration's way of trying to seem that the U.S. is not on the side of Israel. What they don't realize is that they have alienated both the Arabs and the Jews.

9 more days and this clown GWB and his band of cronies are finally gone. Can't come soon enough.

 

[nimue77]

Figureheads changing...band of cronies is not.

 

[duckhunter]

Bush reportedly rejected Israeli plea to raid Iran

--After the US abstained in the UN Security Council vote for a cease fire between the Palestinians/Israel two days earlier (Resolution 1860), reporting that he rejected the Israeli plan to raid Iran was the Bush Administration's way of trying to seem that the U.S. is not on the side of Israel. What they don't realize is that they have alienated both the Arabs and the Jews.

9 more days and this clown GWB and his band of cronies are finally gone. Can't come soon enough.

amen, brother.

 

[nhoj]

And then when Bush is gone we will have a real gangster OG Africa style drive by on the Jews.

 

[fletchisrhsm]

Mention the words Jews and here comes Scotty with an excuse or a justification or a rebuttal.

:lolBIG:

And for those of you in here thinking things will change when W leaves office, think again. Business as usual with Obama, and this is what happens when you have two party's representing the same policies.

 

[ScottL]

Mention the words Jews and here comes Scotty with an excuse or a justification or a rebuttal.

:lolBIG:

All I can say to that is

1) So What?
I don't need to make excuses for Israel. Israel needs no justification for what it is doing. If anything they waited too long. And made a mistake by leaving Gaza in 2005-06.

2) Depends on the context

Now instead of trying to find humor in what I wrote, where is your "rebuttal?"

Whether or not this story is true, let me clue you into something Fetchthejism. And what I'm about to post here I HOPE TO BE WRONG:

If allowed to obtain nukes Iran, who is now fighting a proxy war with "The Jews" through Hamas and Hez is allowed to go nuclear, Israel will be destroyed. Or "The Jews", who are fighting on the front line of a war against Islamic extremism for the rest of us [some of us can grasp that, most can't] will strike first.

The irony? Should Iran nuke Israel millions of Palestinian Arabs will be killed. It will be the first time Palestinians die that there's no world outcry.

 

[tiznow]

iran is a nobody now that oil prices have collapsed

they got plenty to deal with now on the domestic front

i'm guessin Ahmadinejad won't be reelected

they can no longer mask their failed domestic policies on the west and the jews like in recent past

ol' chavez in venezuela has his hands full too now on the domestic front

 

[ScottL]

Tiz the radical clerics run Iran, not Ahmanutjob. He's just a mouthpiece. The clerics have the same mindset as the 19 hijackers. And they are trying to obtain nukes. What should we do?

 

[tiznow]

the nuke card just a political game the actual threat is nil

chances of iran getting off a nuke before they get sent back to the stone age by israel and/or the US is essentially zero

i'd be more concerned with pakistan

 

[fletchisrhsm]

All I can say to that is

1) So What?
I don't need to make excuses for Israel. Israel needs no justification for what it is doing. If anything they waited too long. And made a mistake by leaving Gaza in 2005-06.

2) Depends on the context

Now instead of trying to find humor in what I wrote, where is your "rebuttal?"

Whether or not this story is true, let me clue you into something Fetchthejism. And what I'm about to post here I HOPE TO BE WRONG:

If allowed to obtain nukes Iran, who is now fighting a proxy war with "The Jews" through Hamas and Hez is allowed to go nuclear, Israel will be destroyed. Or "The Jews", who are fighting on the front line of a war against Islamic extremism for the rest of us [some of us can grasp that, most can't] will strike first.

The irony? Should Iran nuke Israel millions of Palestinian Arabs will be killed. It will be the first time Palestinians die that there's no world outcry.

My rebuttal is quite simple. Your a lap dog for the entire state of Israel. And here is my rub, the part where i find the humor your questioning. Where you parents fucked and where you are born are overrated. Not really that important. My parents are German, well at least my father is 1005, my mom is about half, so why do i not take offense when people bash Germany? Because i couldnt care less. I dont care much at all about what happens in Germany, becuase i live here. Also equally not important, whom your parents are in terms of race. Doesnt mean that much really. Your one of what 500 million sperm in the ejaculation some 30+ years ago in a cheap motel? Congratulations. Considering your father probably had an upwards of 10,000 orgasms...your pretty lucky, your one of a few hundred trillion. Oh yhea, so are we all. Nationalism is primitive, close minded and self defeating. So do yourself and hit that evolutinary lever one more time and see if you can catch up.

:nohead:

Fornt lines of extremism? How many of these towelheads are actually participating in this fantasy of yours? I would say less then 1% of the populous.... fear no more, the other 99% are pretty peaceful. And for the record, its all cyclical. Whoever is on top, the other religion is the terrorists. Whomever is on the bottom are freedom fighters or are doing Gods work. Its all symantics Scotty. Stick to your day job, your emotions cloud your judgement.....

 

[ScottL]

"My rebuttal is quite simple. Your a lap dog for the entire state of Israel."

I stopped reading after this. You should know better about me. And Israel.

 

[fletchisrhsm]

"My rebuttal is quite simple. Your a lap dog for the entire state of Israel."

I stopped reading after this. You should know better about me. And Israel.

Thicken up your skin boy. Creation is messy. If you want to expand your horizons you have to get your hands dirty. Read on, i think you like the cut of my jib.

 

[ScottL]

On some topics I have, but on this issue your moral compass is in tatters.

Some things are cut and dried. Arabs attack Israel because it's a Jewish State. Most of the world is silent. The Jews fight back. The world cries out. Gee, I wonder why?

Out of morality I support Israel. It has nothing to do with my religion.

I don't need to get my hands dirty.

Now go grab some antibacterial soap and scrub.

 

[Dilrod]

"Gee, I wonder why?"

prolly because Israel are barbaric bloodthirsty killers, who are different from most humans. They are inhuman satanic scumbags.

 

[Dilrod]

durk

 

[ScottL]

"Gee, I wonder why?"

prolly because Israel are barbaric bloodthirsty killers, who are different from most humans. They are inhuman satanic scumbags.

I'm sure Israel is upset that the Devil himself refers to them as Satan.