‘Bombing Iran now is the Stupidest Idea I’ve ever Heard’

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
March 12, 2012

It doesn’t get any clearer than that. “An attack on Iran without exploring all available options is not the right way how to do it.” These is the assessment of the former chief of Mossad, Meir Dagan, Israel’s top intelligence officer, an equivalent of the head of the CIA. Rumors about its opposition to an Israeli attack on Iran have circulated the media for a while now, but it is the first time Dagan goes on television to speak clearly about what he believes is a suicide mission for Israel, a mission that won’t stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon if they really wanted one.

Former Mossad Spy Chief Mier Dagan.

In his own words, Dagan makes it clear that there are at least 3 years left to use diplomacy and sanctions in order to prevent a nuclear Iran. The former spy chief who retired from Mossad — although many believe he was fired by current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — opposes Israel’s policy of pre-emptive strikes against Iran. In a fairly edited interview given to CBS, Dagan said that the Iranian regime is a very “rational” one that understands the consequences of creating or seeking a nuclear weapon. This level of rationality, says Dagan, is not the same than the people know in the western world, but he has no doubt that the Iranians are considering all the implications of their decisions.

When asked why couldn’t the world handle a nuclear Iran, the former intelligence chief resourced to a largely debunked idea; that Iran had the intention to wipe Israel off the map. His statement refers to a quote from Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who never said such a thing. What he said, as many alternative media reported, is that the Iranian leadership wished to wipe the Israeli Regime off the map, not the Jewish people. “I think the Iranians are masters of negotiation,” said Dagan. He added that he would be concerned if for example the Europeans decided to sit down with the Iranians while easing the sanctions as a condition to have such talks.

Meir Dagan ran Israel’s top intelligence agency for over 9 years. He and his colleagues were responsible for the murder of members of Hamas and others from the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). He and his teams ran programs to provide defective equipment to Iran in order to delay their plan to enrich materials to produce nuclear energy. They were also responsible for the murder of Iranian scientists who worked directly in the nuclear enrichment program.

Dagan said Iran has no interest in keeping oil prices low, because it is their main source of income and that a nuclear Iran would not guarantee stability in the Middle East. Perhaps a nuclear Iran would not make the prices of oil go down, but it would certainly help balance the power struggle between Israel and its western allies and countries like Iran, Pakistan, Russia and China. Iran’s allies seem to echo Dagan’s advice not to attack Iran. Russia has said that it will not allow an attack on Syria or Iran and so has China. Recently, prominent Chinese officials alerted their defense organizations to prepare for an open war against the United States, in the case the government led by Barack Obama decides to support an Israeli attack on Iran.

Both Pakistan and Russia spoke publicly about their opposition to attacking Iran or Syria. The Pakistani leaders have made it clear they will side with their neighbors if Israel or the US decide to attack them. Dagan went on to say that a nuclear Iran would have it easier to create the conditions to keep an unstable Middle East in order to keep the price of oil artificially high. The question is, haven’t the United States and Israel done exactly the same — keeping the Middle East unstable — by attacking Arab countries for no reason, basing those attacks on false intelligence which is often provided by Mossad or the CIA? One thing is certain, a nuclear Iran would not be a match neither for Israel, who has more than 300 nuclear weapons, nor for the United States for the same reason. Iran would have one nuclear weapon, or a few nuclear weapons that would not be able to match neither Israel’s nor the US’s arsenals. What a nuclear Iran would definitely do is bring more stability to the region as Israel and the United States — directly or through proxy governments — would perhaps think twice before attacking the country headed by Ahmadinejad.

The former intelligence chief said that one of the ways to bring about change in Iran is to do it through proxy organizations, such as opposition, student and minority groups. He, however, denied Mossad’s involvement in any action that directly or indirectly did exactly that. No need for explanations, though. There is plenty of evidence that Mossad has elements operating in Iran who are conducting secret destabilizing operations to influence Iran’s decisions. He did say that it was Mossad’s duty to help anyone who wanted to push for regime change in Iran. Dagan emphasized that an attack on Iran this year would be reckless, especially because a military intervention would not stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, which is what Israel supposedly fears the most. “It would only delay it,” says Dagan. He says preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is a very complicated task, because unlike what many people believe, Iran doesn’t have a handful of nuclear sites, but dozens.

Although publicly Barack Obama agrees with Dagan’s opinion, in practice the US government acts very differently. The US has sent several war ships to the Gulf region, specifically to the Strait of Hormuz, an area that Iran has threatened to seal off if it is attacked either by Israel or the US military forces. “A nuclear Iran is not an Israeli problem, it’s a global problem,” said the former Mossad chief. He added that if Israel did not militarily attack Iran, he would prefer the US to do it rather than anyone else. Israel is known for unilaterally and pre-emptively attacking sites in neighboring countries such as Iran and Syria. But this time Mr. Dagan believes things may happen differently. He said that an attack on Iran in the near future will ignite a regional war like never seen before, with rockets flying over and landing on Israeli territory from north and south. Perhaps that is why Israel has recently been training to destroy incoming rockets with their new land-based defense system.The country seems to be preparing for the kind of scenario that Dagan described on his interview. “It would be a devastating impact on our ability to continue with our daily life,” said Dagan about attacks from Hamas and Hezbollah, if Israel decides to bomb Iran. “I think Israel could be in a very serious situation for quite a time,” warned Meir Dagan.

“There wouldn’t be a military attack that would halt a nuclear Iran, it would only delay it,” clarified Dagan. Although he spent most of his life carrying out terrorist attacks against Arabs, Dagan says that for him there is no pleasure or joy in killing people. He himself has a bunch of paintings in his home, where he portrays Arabs, who he says he admires a lot. “I know it will sound anti-semitic if I say that some of my best friends are Arabs, but I truly, really admire some of the qualities of the Arabs.” Despite the CBS reporter glorification of Dagan’s killings by calling them “exquisitely executed” cover missions and assassinations, Dagan said it wasn’t such a thing. Most people believe that Meir Dagan’s demise from Mossad are a direct consequence of his opposition to attacking Iran as well as for the operation Mossad carried out in Dubai to kill Iranians inside a prominent hotel. It is believed that Benjamin Netanyahu did not offer him the job once again and that this is the reason why he is speaking out in public against any military action against Iran.

Meir Dagan denies he is looking for revenge by speaking out.

U.S. Leaves Iraq in time for Israel to Air Attack Iran

By Rowan Scarborough
Washington Times
December 15, 2011

The U.S. military’s fast-approaching Dec. 31 exit from Iraq, which has no way to defend its airspace, puts Israel in a better place strategically to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Iraq has yet to assemble a force of jet fighters, and since the shortest route for Israeli strike fighters to Iran is through Iraqi airspace, observers conclude that the U.S. exit makes the Jewish state’s mission planning a lot easier.

Army Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Buchanan, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said the Iraqi military will maintain radars to monitor the country’s airspace, but it has not taken possession of American F-16s to guard that space.

“The country has a capable and improving capability to see the airspace, a viable system to provide command and control, but no system to defeat incoming air threats until it gets either the F-16s or ground-based systems or, optimally, some of both,” Gen. Buchanan told The Washington Times.

Iraq made the first payment in September for 18 F-16s that will not arrive until next fall at the earliest. This means Israel would have a theoretical window of about 12 months if it wants to fly over Iraq unimpeded by the Iraqi air force.

Retired Air ForceGen. Thomas McInerney, who advocates a U.S. strategic bombing raid to destroy Iran’s nuclear sites, agreed that Iraq’s open airspace would make it easier for an Israeli mission.

“Yes, it will be,” he said. “However, it will be much easier for Iranian forces to get to Israel through Iraq via land and air.”

Gen. McInerney said he thinks there is a good chance that Iran, stretched economically by Western sanctions and fearing threats from Israel, will launch a war against the Jewish state through Iraq.

“Our departing Iraq will be a huge strategic mistake,” he said of the Dec. 31 deadline for all U.S. forces to leave.

Iraq’s ruling Shiite majority has historic ties to Iran’s dominant Shiite society, but Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has warned Tehran against meddling in his country’s politics.

Unknown is the role of U.S. jet fighters stationed outside Iraq but within striking distance from Navy carriers in the Persian Gulf, or possibly Kuwait.

“I would hope we would jump to defend Iraqi airspace,” said James Carafano, a military analyst at the Heritage Foundation. “These are the kinds of contingency plans that ought to be put in place.”

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta, like his predecessor, Robert M. Gates, has downplayed the impact that an airstrike might have on Iran’s quest for an atomic bomb. The Islamic republic has denied that it is trying to make a nuclear weapon.

In an appearance this month at the Brookings Institution, Mr. Panetta said U.S strikes might set back the nuclear program two years and acknowledged that some Iranian targets remain elusive.

“The indication is that, at best, it might postpone it maybe one, possibly two years,” said Mr. Panetta, who also has mentioned three years as a possible delay. “It depends on the ability to truly get the targets that we’re after. Frankly, some of those targets have been difficult to get at.”

Read Full Article…

Togel178 Togel178 Togel178 Togel178 Togel178 Pedetogel Pedetogel Pedetogel Pedetogel Pedetogel Sabatoto Sabatoto Sabatoto Sabatoto Sabatoto Togel279 Togel279 Togel279 Togel279 Togel279 Togel279 Togel279 Togel158 Togel158 Togel158 Togel158 Togel158 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Colok178 Novaslot88 Novaslot88 Novaslot88 Novaslot88 Novaslot88 Judi Slot