IACWE has talked America’s secret war with Iran for quite some time now. America tends to share a great deal with Israel and vice-versa relative to intelligence matters i.e. CIA and Mossad. We’ve talked about some of the actions America has taken against Iran HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE. Clearly – we’re engaging with Israel in a covert war against Iran…killing scientists, STUXNET, paying off terrorist groups in Iran, sabotaging Iran economically, etc. This is what we are CURRENTLY doing to Iran.
The Netanyahu/Lieberman coalition in Israel wishes dearly to attack Iran threatening to drag America into war along side with them. Politically – the Israelis have lobbied American politicians directly and through AIPAC and have made the issue of Iran very much front and center in American politics. Bottom line – Israel is trying to put President Obama in a political box and make it very politically damaging if he chooses not to take action against Iran; that’s their strategy – to manipulate the American people.
Former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy speaks to Russia Today and acknowledges that Israel is engaging in a covert war with Iran.
I think it’s important to say that we’ve been involved in what we call a clandestine war for quite some time with Iran. And what’s interesting about this war of course is that both sides have more or less preferred that the details of this war, the details of various events be not exposed to the public.
Source: Russia Today
Former Mossad chief – Meir Dagan – called a strike on Iran “the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard”:
In his first public appearance since leaving the post in September, Dagan said earlier this month that the possibility a future Israel Air Force attack on Iranian nuclear facilities was “the stupidest thing I have ever heard.”
“If anyone seriously considers [a strike] he needs to understand that he’s dragging Israel into a regional war that it would not know how to get out of. The security challenge would become unbearable,” Dagan said.
The former Mossad chief reiterated his position, saying that the “military option is the last alternative, not preferred or possible, but a last resort. Every other alternative must be weighed before the use of force.”
The Economist is against a strike on Iran:
But military action is not the solution to a nuclear Iran. It could retaliate, including with rocket attacks on Israel from its client groups in Lebanon and Gaza. Terror cells around the world might strike Jewish and American targets. It might threaten Arab oil infrastructure, in an attempt to use oil prices to wreck the world economy. Although some Arab leaders back a strike, most Muslims are unlikely to feel that way, further alienating the West from the Arab spring. Such costs of an attack are easy to overstate, but even supposing they were high they might be worth paying if a strike looked like working. It does not.
Striking Iran would be much harder than Israel’s successful solo missions against the weapons programmes of Iraq, in 1981, and Syria, in 2007. If an attack were easy, Israel would have gone in alone long ago, when the Iranian programme was more vulnerable. But Iran’s sites are spread out and some of them, hardened against strikes, demand repeated hits. America has more military options than Israel, so it would prefer to wait. That is one reason why it is seeking to hold Israel back. The other is that, for either air force, predictions of the damage from an attack span a huge range. At worst an Israeli mission might fail altogether, at best an American one could, it is said, set back the programme a decade (see article).
Source: The Economist
If Israel were to strike – they would definitely be trying to drag America into war along them. Zbignew Brzenski explains how American can prevent a war with Iran. Of course – the politics of this is going to be very ugly…
To watch the entire interview with Fareed Zakaria – click HERE.
The Israelis sent the head of Mossad to a secret meeting in Washington; they are clearly looking for permission to strike:
Unnamed US officials claim the Israeli security chief’s line of questioning to CIA chief David Petraeus ran: “What is our posture on Iran? Are we ready to bomb? Would we [do so later]? What does it mean if [Israel] does it anyway?”
Mr Petraeus told a Senate Select Committee in a public hearing broadcast live on US television last month that he had met with Mr Pardo to discuss Israel’s growing concern over Iran’s nuclear aspirations.
Source: The Telegraph
And it looks like the Israelis are getting the message…that same Mossad chief spoke publicly AFTER the meeting with the Americans contradicting Prime Minister Netanyahu’s claim that a nuclear Iran poses an existential threat; he says it doesn’t:
On Tuesday evening, Pardo addressed an audience of about 100 Israeli ambassadors. According to three ambassadors present at the briefing, the intelligence chief said that Israel was using various means to foil Iran’s nuclear program and would continue to do so, but if Iran actually obtained nuclear weapons, it would not mean the destruction of the State of Israel.
The Real News has some of the backstory on the international politics of it all:
Like us on Facebook?