What unnerves me right now is that allegedly the Israelis and the Iranians are going hardcore into this tit-for-tat assassination cycle. The Iranian scientists and military officers, the Israeli diplomats and now you have an Iranian captured in Thailand with enough explosives to blow up every Israeli diplomat in the region. I would be content to let them kill each other if it weren't for the fact that they're dragging a lot of countries, not just the United States, into this cycle.

2/14/2012 5:22:05 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/15/us-europe-eye-risky-unprecedented-penalty-for-iran-over-pursuit-nuclear-weapons/

i know its fox, but interesting read nonetheless.

2/15/2012 12:17:22 PM

Can Obama avert war with Iran?

Quote :

"Washington, DC - President Barack Obama has finally begun in recent months to signal to Israel that the United States would not get involved in a war started by Binyamin Netanyahu without US approval. If it is pursued firmly and consistently through 2012, the approach stands a very good chance of averting war altogether. If Obama falters, however, the temptation for Netanyahu to launch an attack on Iran, indulging in what one close Israeli observer calls his "messianism" toward the issue of Iran. Netanyahu, like every previous Israeli prime minister, understands that an Israeli strike against Iran depends not only on US tolerance, but direct involvement against Iran, at least after the initial attack. In May 2008, his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, had requested the approval of George W Bush for an air attack on Iran, only to be refused by Bush. Netanyahu apparently feels, however, that he can manipulate right-wing Israeli influence on American politics to make it impossible for Obama to stay out of an Israeli war on Iran. He has defied the Obama administration by refusing to assure Washington that he would consult them before making any decision on war with Iran. Would US back Israeli attack on Iran? The Obama administration's warning signal on the danger of an Israeli attack began flashing red after Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta came back empty-handed from a trip to Israel in September. US officials then came up with a new strategy for pulling Israel back from the precipice of war by letting Netanyahu know that, if the US were denied a full role in coordinating military policy toward Iran, it would not come to Israel's aid in such a war. The first step in the strategy came when Panetta was answering questions after a talk at the Saban Centre of Brookings Institution on December 2. He not only expressed clear disapproval of an Israeli attack as counter-productive - something the administration had avoided in 2009 and 2010 - but went on to indicate that the US was concerned that it "could possibly be the target of retaliation from Iran, striking our ships, striking our military bases". Initial hint by the US Without saying so directly, that remark hinted that the US would take steps to avoid that situation, if necessary. It was evidently aimed at planting the seed of doubt in Netanyahu's mind that Obama would be willing to respond to Iranian retaliation against Israel in the event of an Israeli strike. The next move came five weeks later, when Panetta, on CBS news "Face the Nation", made the initial hint even clearer. Panetta was then asked what the US would do if Israel were to strike Iran, despite the refusal to consult the US in advance. Panetta said, "If the Israelis made that decision, we would have to be prepared to protect our forces in that situation. And that's what we'd be concerned about." The Israelis could easily discern that Panetta really saying the US would not retaliate against Iran unless its own bases or ships in the region were hit by Iran. Given Panetta's statement a month earlier suggesting concern that Iran might retaliate against US forces, that answer could also be regarded as a signal to Iran that the US was prepared to decouple from an Israeli war with Iran. Although publicly there was studied silence from Jerusalem, that Panetta hint elicited a formal diplomatic protestfrom Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren. And Israel still showed no sign of softening its defiant policy of unilateralism on Iran. Then Obama approved an explicit expression of the same message to the Israelis. According to the account circulating among senior officers close the Joint Chiefs, on January 20 the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, told Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak that the US would not defend Israel if it launched an attack on Iran that had not been coordinated with the US. But Netanyahu had already put into effect his own counter-strategy, which is to use the influence of the Israeli lobby in Congress help the Republicans against Obama in the presidential election and to maximise the pressure on Obama to support an Israeli attack on Iran. Last December, Netanyahu's supporters in the US lobbied the US Congress to pass economic sanctions against Iran focused squarely on Iran's crude oil exports and Central Bank. The Obama administration strongly opposed the legislation. Obama's Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner wrote a letter to the Senate warning that the proposed sanctions would cause a spike in world oil prices, thus risking further deterioration of the global economy. In the end, the Obama administration was forced by Congressional action to adopt the sanctions. But the sanctions on Iran's crude oil sector would only go into effect six months later, as would the EU cutoff of its imports of Iranian oil adopted in January. So the Obama administration had a six-month window for negotiations with Iran on its nuclear programme. How could it maximise the pressure on the Iranians to reach an agreement within six months? The obvious answer was to bring back an old theme in Obama policy - using the threat of an Israeli attack to gain diplomatic leverage on Tehran. In order to maximise that leverage, the Obama administration sought to portray Israel as poised to attack sometime between April and end of June. 'Zone of immunity' That time frame for an Israeli attack was created entirely by the Obama administration. Ehud Barak had not suggested that the attack would come before the end of June. On the contrary, discussing in a CNN interviewlast November when Iran would reach a "zone of immunity" - the point at which it would have so much of its uranium enrichment programme protected in well-protected facilities that it couldn't be destroyed by an attack - he had said, "It's true that it wouldn't take three years… probably three-quarters, before no one can do anything practically about it…" Inside Story - Will Israel attack Iran? A story leaked by Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta to Washington Post columnist David Ignatius last week said Panetta believing there was a "strong likelihood" that Israel would attack sometime between April and the end of June. What appeared on the surface to be an expression of US alarm about a strike coming so soon was actually an effort to put pressure on Tehran to make new concessions on its nuclear programme before the sanctions take effect. Instead of characterising Netanyahu's posture as irrational and reckless, Ignatius chose to depict the official view of a short and relatively painless war with Iran without the slightest hint that it is rejected out of hand by Israeli intelligence and military leaders. Ignatius was presumably prompted by Panetta to characterise it in a way that would make the Israeli threat more credible to Iran. What really gave away Panetta's intention to pressure Iran, however, was the fact that he used Ignatius to warn Iran that, if it retaliated against Israeli population centres, the US "could feel obligated to come to Israel's defence". That warning clearly undercut the painstaking efforts the Obama administration had made over the previous two months to signal to Netanyahu that Israel would be on its own if it attacked Iran without prior US agreement. The sudden reversal in Obama's policy dramatically illuminated the deep contradictions built into its policy. On one hand, Obama has been pursuing a course aimed at avoiding being drawn into an Israeli war with Iran, which both Obama and the military leadership consider as against vital US interests. On the other hand, Obama believes he needs a deal with Iran to demonstrate both to Israel and to the US public that he is succeeding in inducing Iran to retreat from its present stance on its nuclear programme. The belief was supported by the conventional wisdom in the US national security state that Iran can only be brought to the table with an acceptable position through pressure. It is also in line with bit of conventional wisdom: that no Democratic President can afford to openly decouple the US from Israeli security - especially in relation to Iran. The contradiction between the two elements of Obama's policy toward Iran went unnoticed in the US. But the real meaning of the leak was certainly understood in Iran as well as in Israel. There is still time for Obama to repair the damage and to return to the policy he had begun developing in December. But unless Obama warns Netanyahu publicly that an attack against US wishes would indeed mean he is on his own, the chances of deterring him and avoiding war with Iran will be sharply reduced."

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/02/201221254919523390.html

2/15/2012 5:22:50 PM

I'm more nervous about Iran than I was a while back, although I still think war isn't a forgone conclusion. Actually, let me rephrase: I'm more nervous about Israel and Iran than I was.

Conspiracy theories are generally bullshit, but I can't help but wonder how the Syrian situation plays into this. At the moment, Iran is too far away from Israel to pose a direct threat in wartime, but Syria is right next door, has an axe to grind, and has been a loyal ally of Tehran for some time. Now that Damascus is on the rocks, does that make the Israelis think they can be more bold with the (frankly ill-advised) assassinations of nuclear scientists a few weeks ago? Is Israel fanning flames in Syria to give them cover for other things? And what in the fuck was Iran thinking, blowing up diplomats in countries that are irrelevant to the conflict at hand (at least as far as I know)? Are they overreacting because their butt-buddy Assad is in hot water?

If I'm in charge of Iran, my thought is to hop off the belligerence train for a while and help keep my pals in Damascus from going the way of Qaddafi. Reframe the anti-american rhetoric in terms of their imperialist designs on Syria rather than my own nuclear program. That way you're more likely to keep your ally, further your interests in Iraq, and overall build a more formidable bloc without inviting invasion. Unless Iran has reason to believe that Assad is beyond hope, in which case they might just be trying to profit off the confusion in the meantime...

Ugh. Enough stream of consciousness rambling for now. Something is going on here, but as a humble bar-back and lot attendant, I don't have the information needed to figure it out. Though I suppose if I did, I wouldn't be allowed to share it with you people.

2/16/2012 12:46:11 AM

Quote :

"And what in the fuck was Iran thinking, blowing up diplomats in countries that are irrelevant to the conflict at hand (at least as far as I know)? Are they overreacting because their butt-buddy Assad is in hot water?"

Exactly, why would Iran attack diplomats in multiple countries while they are being hit with sanctions and threats of war? Why should you trust that the news we are being fed is accurate? I don't think it was Iran. I can't be sure of that, of course, but it makes a lot more sense.

2/16/2012 9:16:12 AM

^

Quote :

"Refusing to pinpoint Iran for the Israeli car bomb blast here, India on Wednesday said it has no evidence about any individual, entity, organisation and country involved in the attack which left an Israeli diplomat critically injured. “As of today, we have no evidence to find any individual, entity, organisation and country being involved in this incident (car blast),” official spokesperson in the Ministry of External Affairs Syed Akbaruddin said."

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2896442.ece

Quote :

"Indian security and intelligence agencies are examining the similarities between the explosions in Israeli diplomat’s vehicle and the Jama Masjid shooting and blast in September 2010. Incidentally, it was the Israeli security experts here who first confirmed to the Indian agencies that use of remote control explosives in moving vehicles was common in their country and targeting Israelis across the world. It is only then that the Indian security agencies started taking the theory of a motorcyclist chasing the vehicle and sticking a remote control device to the Innova vehicle more seriously. Thus, the first and the most striking similarity between the two incidents, the use of a motorcycle by the assailants. Then, sources said, both incidents were very well-planned but could not be executed properly. For instance, in the Jama Masjid case the explosive kept in a Maruti car did not explode and similarly in Monday’s incident also it appears that the explosive was of low intensity. In fact, sources added, prima facie it appears that in Monday’s incident also, the explosive did not trigger properly as the original plan was to blast the vehicle’s fuel tank as the remote controlled device was attached close to the fuel lid. Officials associated with the investigations claim if the similarities between the two incidents as any indication to go by, then the possibility of an Indian Mujahideen module being behind the blast cannot be ruled out."

http://www.asianage.com/india/attack-similar-jama-masjid-blast-437

Quote :

"it has to be seen to be believed. It’s a perfect museum exhibit for how empty-headed American media stars uncritically recite whatever they are told by government officials, exaggerate or fabricate bad acts by the designated Enemy du Jour while ignoring and suppressing the precipitating acts of America and its client states, and just generally do whatever they can to keep fear levels and war thirst as high as possible. This is nothing short of irresponsible propagandistic trash: Sawyer begins by warning of “a kind of shadow war being waged by Iran around the world” — based on her blind acceptance of totally unproven Israeli accusations that Iran was behind three bombings yesterday in India, Georgia and Thailand, and without any mention of the constant attacks on Iran over the course of several years by the U.S. and Israel."

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/15/diane_sawyer_and_brian_ross_belong_in_a_fear_mongering_museum/singleton/


take it for what its worth...who knows what's up.


[Edited on February 16, 2012 at 9:39 AM. Reason : ]

2/16/2012 9:36:16 AM

Motorcyclists placing bombs, you say?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/report-tehran-car-bomb-kills-iranian-nuclear-scientist-1.406676

Quote :

"Iranian media reported Wednesday that a nuclear scientist was killed by a bomb placed on his car by a motorcyclist in Tehran."

Strange how the only death is in Iran. Everywhere else they misfire or are "of low intensity".

[Edited on February 16, 2012 at 9:46 AM. Reason : .]

2/16/2012 9:45:29 AM

Funny how when people say that Israel/Jews control the world, people laugh them out of the room and call them moonbats. However, we all know that's the truth.

How can you control the world? If you can control the US/POTUS, and the US/POTUS sort of controls the world, then you can control the world.

Quote :

"Then Obama approved an explicit expression of the same message to the Israelis. According to the account circulating among senior officers close the Joint Chiefs, on January 20 the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, told Netanyahu and Defence Minister Ehud Barak that the US would not defend Israel if it launched an attack on Iran that had not been coordinated with the US. But Netanyahu had already put into effect his own counter-strategy, which is to use the influence of the Israeli lobby in Congress help the Republicans against Obama in the presidential election and to maximise the pressure on Obama to support an Israeli attack on Iran. Last December, Netanyahu's supporters in the US lobbied the US Congress to pass economic sanctions against Iran focused squarely on Iran's crude oil exports and Central Bank. The Obama administration strongly opposed the legislation. Obama's Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner wrote a letter to the Senate warning that the proposed sanctions would cause a spike in world oil prices, thus risking further deterioration of the global economy. In the end, the Obama administration was forced by Congressional action to adopt the sanctions."

The snake overtly shows he can control the outcome of US election from thousands of miles away!

The snake's supporters were able to force Obama to do their bidding!

That's how you control the world.

Israelis... the worst of the human lot. The most treacherous and evil creatures ever. That's the only conclusion if you look at their actions and words (see the Israel/Palestine thread for their disgusting and evil words).

2/16/2012 9:47:24 AM

easy there, tiger.

[Edited on February 16, 2012 at 9:50 AM. Reason : ]

2/16/2012 9:48:29 AM

Truth is truth.

2/16/2012 9:50:54 AM

Israel is controlled by a radical right-wing. That doesn't make all Israeli's assholes. Let's practice a little precision, here.

2/16/2012 9:53:34 AM

lord knows I don't want to be judged based on the actions of my government.

2/16/2012 9:54:13 AM

Quote :

" I don't think it was Iran."

OK.

So your theory is that three Iranian dudes in Bangkok were coincidentally making bombs for some other purpose, and just happened to fuck up the operation the day after an anti-Iranian conspiracy framed them for other explosions?

Or were the three Iranian dudes also framed, but one of them was so pissed off at being framed he threw a hand grenade at police?

2/16/2012 10:04:12 AM

Quote :

"Israelis... the worst of the human lot."

Sorry, but it is obvious (I hope) that I didn't mean "every single Israeli".

There are Israelis fighting for the rights of Palestinians and Israeli Arabs.

Obviously, I mean the government (and pretty much any previous government), and yes, a big chunk of the population as well.

Whether that is 20%, 50%, or 90%, I don't know. But from what I know and have seen from various sources over the past 25 years, Israelis in general (> 50%?) are evil. When you displace others for your family, uproot their decades old olive and citrus trees, harass them, and prevent them from having decent lives, whether directly or indirectly, you are evil.

2/16/2012 10:08:50 AM

Quote :

"OK. So your theory is that three Iranian dudes in Bangkok were coincidentally making bombs for some other purpose, and just happened to fuck up the operation the day after an anti-Iranian conspiracy framed them for other explosions? Or were the three Iranian dudes also framed, but one of them was so pissed off at being framed he threw a hand grenade at police?"

Is it really that crazy that Israel may have agents who are citizens in Iran?

I don't have a specific theory. I'm just saying that the events are questionable and I don't believe the Iranian government was behind the attacks.

[Edited on February 16, 2012 at 10:19 AM. Reason : .]

2/16/2012 10:17:09 AM

Quote :

"Exactly, why would Iran attack diplomats in multiple countries while they are being hit with sanctions and threats of war? Why should you trust that the news we are being fed is accurate? I don't think it was Iran. I can't be sure of that, of course, but it makes a lot more sense."

In what way does it make more sense? This type of low level kinetic operation (often through a proxy) is just the type of thing that the pasdaran is known for. Heck, its not even the first time that they have targetted Israeli diplomats/citizens in seemingly random places (Argentina 92 and 94)

Couple that with the anniversary of the assassination of Imad Mughniya and I would argue that it makes more sense that this could be an Iranian backed operation.

2/16/2012 11:38:21 AM

Wouldn't be the first time Israelies tried to false-flag Arabs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

[Edited on February 16, 2012 at 11:57 AM. Reason : .]

2/16/2012 11:49:09 AM

Quote :

"In what way does it make more sense? This type of low level kinetic operation (often through a proxy) is just the type of thing that the pasdaran is known for. Heck, its not even the first time that they have targetted Israeli diplomats/citizens in seemingly random places (Argentina 92 and 94)"

Ehh that was never officially tied to the Iranian government.

Quote :

"Couple that with the anniversary of the assassination of Imad Mughniya and I would argue that it makes more sense that this could be an Iranian backed operation."

An anniversary attack perpetrated by the Iranian government makes sense to you?

[Edited on February 16, 2012 at 11:52 AM. Reason : .]

2/16/2012 11:51:53 AM

Quote :

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident"

good point. so they were potentially wrong on 3 of about 10,000 terror attempts in their entire running history as a country.

Str8Foolish - Anti-White and Anti-Jewish. Join him now and bring the caste system to the United States!

2/16/2012 12:38:33 PM

Quote :

"good point. so they were potentially wrong on 3 of about 10,000 terror attempts in their entire running history as a country."

"Potentially wrong" ? You mean they were caught 3 times trying to fake terrorist attacks on their own people or Americans after blaming them on Arabs. Sorry if I respond to these exposed lies by doubting their credibility.

Quote :

"Str8Foolish - Anti-White and Anti-Jewish. Join him now and bring the caste system to the United States!"

Lol supporter of apartheid Israel accuses detractor of advocating caste system, that's a new one.

[Edited on February 16, 2012 at 12:51 PM. Reason : .]

2/16/2012 12:41:06 PM

At this point it's no longer about stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. It's about stopping Israel from starting a preemptive war over fears that have no factual basis. It's like everyone already forgot about Iraq.

2/16/2012 12:55:17 PM

Quote :

"Ehh that was never officially tied to the Iranian government."

Neither were the US Embassy bombings in Lebanon but all arrows point one direction. Hell, the Argentines went so far as to issue warrants for Mughniya himself. The Pasdaran's bread and butter of late is waging proxy wars.

Quote :

"An anniversary attack perpetrated by the Iranian government makes sense to you?"

Why wouldn't it? It would make even more sense if this was carried out by a proxy organization given Mughniya's history.

I'm not saying I have evidence nor am I certain that what is being report is true. What I am saying is that it would make sense, based on what has been reported and given what is known of the Pasdaran, that Iran could be involved. They have the motive and the attacks fit their MO.

2/16/2012 1:01:07 PM

Quote :

"It's like everyone already forgot about Iraq Vietnam Dre"

2/16/2012 1:04:03 PM

Quote :

"At this point it's no longer about stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. It's about stopping Israel from starting a preemptive war over fears that have no factual basis. It's like everyone already forgot about Iraq."

damn straight. and when I am agreeing with Shrike, people should pay attention. Also, I'd like it if Obama got up and blasted Israel for killing Iranian scientists. But he won't, because he doesn't have the balls to stand up and do it.

2/16/2012 1:14:58 PM

because he knows that if he does blast Israel, we'll be guaranteed a Republican president next term. And if we get a Republican president, we'll be guaranteed a war with Iran.

2/16/2012 1:16:31 PM

.... and if we get a war with Iran the m00slim clerics won't get a nuke

2/16/2012 1:24:00 PM

wrong. they'll get it anyway. and we'll accelerate the bankrupting of our nation in the process so you can satisfy your bloodlust for killing brown people

[Edited on February 16, 2012 at 1:27 PM. Reason : ]

2/16/2012 1:27:00 PM

Quote :

"But he won't, because he doesn't have the balls to stand up and do it."

Correction:

But he won't, because NO US PRESIDENT has the balls to stand up and do it.

No US President, past, present, or future has the balls to stand up to and criticize Israel. How can they? How can they have balls, when Israel has got them by the balls?

Quote :

"But Netanyahu had already put into effect his own counter-strategy, which is to use the influence of the Israeli lobby in Congress help the Republicans against Obama in the presidential election and to maximise the pressure on Obama to support an Israeli attack on Iran."

Israelis don't care about the US people or government. They use the US people and governments for their own benefit, regardless of the race or political affiliation of the people/governments. YOU are their puppet.

2/16/2012 2:48:48 PM

I'd imagine that earlier presidents could have done so, but with the rise of the religious right (AKA, moonbats), that's become harder. Ike could have done it, hell, I'd say anyone up to Nixon (Southern Strategy, right?) could have done it. Then we got married to those bastards, and it's been downhill since then. Maybe Carter, but then the oil was too important.



but, seriously, you're walking a thin line talking about "Israelis" and it's only a matter of time before you slip up and say "teh JEWS!!!"

2/16/2012 5:50:26 PM

Quote :

"The poll indicates that 71 percent of the public says Iran has nuclear weapons, with just over one in four disagreeing"

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/19/cnn-poll-american-believe-iran-has-nuclear-weapons/



Nowww ... why?.... why would 71% of Americans think that Iran has WMDs, CNN?


Could it be because of this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SUS6su29SqI



[Edited on February 18, 2012 at 4:49 AM. Reason : ]

2/18/2012 4:47:34 AM

Guys! Iran is much loser to a nuclear weapon than we previously thought, donchaknow?

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/05/world/iran-may-be-able-build-atomic-bomb-5-years-us-israeli-officials-fear.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

2/18/2012 7:28:36 AM

I don't think 71% of Americans can even point to Iran on a map.

2/18/2012 10:41:42 AM

71 percent of americans couldnt point to the middle east...

2/18/2012 1:44:37 PM

Quote :

" No US President, past, present, or future has the balls to stand up to and criticize Israel. "

I take it you've never heard of Jimmy Carter.

2/18/2012 5:39:47 PM

^and as a result, Jimmy Carter wasn't even invited to the DNC in '08.

It's political suicide to question or condemn Israel in the US.

2/20/2012 1:12:52 PM

I think Jimmy Carter's penchant for being a dumbass is why he wasn't invited to the DNC in '08.

2/20/2012 1:30:21 PM

Since when was Jimmy Carter not invited to the DNC '08 convention? He screened a film he participated in the making of about Katrina and made a short appearance afterwards.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/news/stories/2008/08/26/jimmy_carter_dnc.html

How does it make sense that they would "not invite" him, but let him screen a movie and appear on stage? Sounds like some more shit made up the day after by right wing radio hosts.


[Edited on February 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM. Reason : .]

2/21/2012 9:21:31 AM

Don't let facts get in the way of your preconceptions.

2/21/2012 9:27:03 AM

^^ Carter has been most definitely cast aside by the Democrats. And its because of his views on the Israel/Palestine conflict. (I should clarify that he was invited, he just was not allowed to speak at the convention -- which is a pretty obvious slight).


http://www.forward.com/articles/14110/

[Edited on February 21, 2012 at 9:06 PM. Reason : ]

2/21/2012 9:02:12 PM

I must have missed the part in that article where they cited a non-anonymous source for this allegation in a Jewish publication about how Carter was booted because he spoke ill of Israel. Not that Jewish = Pro-Israel, but comon, is there no other source? At least one that cites a named individual?

[Edited on February 22, 2012 at 2:10 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2012 2:09:16 PM

Yeah, the Democrats hate Carter. Besides, they want a new war as badly as anyone.

2/22/2012 2:36:23 PM

Israel confirms plans to test missile system as Obama meeting looms

Quote :

"Israel is to test an advanced anti-ballistic missile system in the coming weeks, inevitably fuelling speculation about preparations for a possible military confrontation with Iran. The announcement that the first test of the Arrow 3 interceptor system would be performed "in the near future" was made as the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, flew to the US ahead of a crucial meeting with President Barack Obama at which Iran will top the agenda. Netanyahu is expected to press for a clear US commitment to military action if diplomacy and sanctions fail. The Arrow 3 test would confirm the interceptor missile's effectiveness, Itzhak Kaya, head of the Arrow missile programme at Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), said on Thursday. A number of tests would be carried out to establish its reliability. The Arrow 3 was an "improved model of the Arrow system … more capable than ever to deal with future threats", Kaya added. The test was being conducted as part of a long-term plan devised by Israel and its US partner on the Arrow missile programme, he said. The unusual advance notification of the test follows an unannounced test in November of a long-range ballistic missile that intensified speculation that Israel was preparing for a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. However, Israel has come under intense pressure from US officials in recent weeks to refrain from military action. In a tactical shift, Israel appears to be focused on extracting from the White House a clear pledge that the US will act militarily if sanctions and diplomacy fail to stop Iran's nuclear programme. Israel's president, Shimon Peres, who is due to meet Obama on Sunday, told the New York Times: "We need a total and clear commitment that the catastrophe of Iran will not create an impossible situation … You have to be decisive. You have to make a choice." Netanyahu is expected to press the US to be more explicit about threatening military action when he meets Obama in Washington on Monday. Some analysts believe Israel has deliberately talked up its threats of air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in order to push the US administration into raising its game – an approach that has already produced results on sanctions and may succeed in producing a clearer US commitment to military action in the future. In an interview with the Atlantic on Friday, Obama said: "When I say we're not taking any option off the table, we mean it. I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff. I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say." Senior US military figures also appear to have made efforts in recent days to reassure Israel with a tougher message. Norton Schwartz, the air force chief of staff, said the US military had prepared options to strike Iranian nuclear sites in the event of a conflict. "What we can do, you wouldn't want to be in the area," he told reporters in Washington. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, softened his earlier comment that an Israeli strike would not be prudent when he told a Senate panel this week that his advice to Israel had been around "the issue of time". Israel would prefer the US to be a partner in any strike on Iran, not least because of its superior military capability. Amos Yadlin, a former chief of Israeli military intelligence, wrote in the New York Times this week: "America could carry out an extensive air campaign using stealth technology and huge amounts of ammunition, dropping enormous payloads that are capable of hitting targets and penetrating to depths far beyond what Israel's arsenal can achieve." Yadlin added his voice to those urging the US administration to give Israel a clear indication of its intentions. "It doesn't help when American officials warn Israel against acting without clarifying what America intends to do once its own red lines are crossed … What is needed is an iron-clad American assurance that if Israel refrains from acting in its own window of opportunity – and all other options have failed to halt Tehran's nuclear quest – Washington will act to prevent a nuclear Iran while it is still within its power to do so." Ari Shavit, a columnist in the Israeli daily Haaretz, wrote: "If the US president wants to prevent a disaster, he must give Netanyahu iron-clad guarantees that the United States will stop Iran in any way necessary and at any price, after the 2012 elections. If Obama doesn't do this, he will obligate Netanyahu to act before the 2012 elections.""

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/02/israel-plans-test-missile-system-obama-talks



TL;DR : Israel is going to pressure a Democratic president to do their bidding and ramp up the threat before our elections. Basically, Netanyahu is going to call Obama a faggot before our elections, and force Obama to use military force in order to not appear weak on "terrorism." Republicans are going to amp up the "Iranian threat" in order to regain the white house.




[Edited on March 2, 2012 at 8:32 PM. Reason : ]

3/2/2012 8:30:25 PM

We at war yet?

3/2/2012 8:37:36 PM

^^
The pressure is pretty clear in this interview with Obama:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/

3/2/2012 8:38:46 PM

all in due time, jaZon, all in due time.

3/2/2012 8:39:18 PM

^^Greenwald breaks down that interview pretty well:

Quote :

" This: plus this: equals this: That’s the reward system in action. Goldberg twice assures everyone concerned that President Obama is “tougher” on Iran than even the Republicans were or are (Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter proudly re-tweeted Goldberg’s Toughness praise), and Goldberg then is granted “the most extensive interview [Obama] has given about the looming Iran crisis,” in which he again assures everyone that Obama Is Tough and Means Serious Business."

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/02/the_incomplete_media_debate_on_iran/singleton




[Edited on March 2, 2012 at 8:44 PM. Reason : ]

3/2/2012 8:39:59 PM

Quote :

"Goldberg"

If only I knew how to make that a crazy big 96 font size.

3/3/2012 12:15:20 PM

Obama and Netanyahu, pretending to be besties:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wHN9aiLJTYE


fuckin' sad.

3/5/2012 7:13:44 PM

^who do you admire more now?

Netanyahu being himself...
Or Obama being a hypocrite?

3/5/2012 8:44:59 PM

World War III. Let's get this show on the road bitches.

[Edited on March 5, 2012 at 9:24 PM. Reason : You're either with us or against us getting nuked into the stone age]

3/5/2012 9:23:27 PM