'US ready to strike Iran on Good Friday'
By JERUSALEM POST STAFF AND AP
The United States will be ready to launch a missile attack on Iran's
nuclear facilities as soon as early this month, perhaps "from 4 a.m.
until 4 p.m. on April 6," according to reports in the Russian media on
Saturday
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1173879220977&pagename=JP...
----------
Let's not forget those sneaky Syrians!
IDF, government preparing for possible Syrian strike on Golan Heights
By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent
Check out this incredibly lame denial from Israel's Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert:
"The Syrians, according to their statements and those of others
recently," Olmert said, "appear to be saying that there is an American
plan to attack Iran in the summer, and at the same time, and in
coordination with Israel, to also attack Syria and Lebanon."
"I can tell you that there is no such plan that we know about, and in
any case, there is no reason for the Syrians to prepare for such an
eventuality. There is always concern that when one side prepares for
war, and the other side is preparing to counter the other side's
preparations, then the first side interprets the preparations of the
other side as if it is the manifestation of its fears, and the
situation goes into a spin, and control is lost.
"We have no intention to attack the Syrians," Olmert said, "we prefer
to make peace with the Syrians, but it is a fact that the army is
carrying out very intensive training in all systems, all branches, all
units, in all areas, and it will continue doing so as part of its
annual plans, and it will be ready for any eventuality - including the
possibility of what is called miscalculation ... But we take into
account everything, and hope that the things that should not happen,
do not happen."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/844754.html
yeeeahhhhh..... right..............
-------------
This might make more sense -
Brits Drive World War III Provocations in Gulf
by Jeffrey Steinberg
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/3414brits_in_gulf.html
A growing number of American, Russian, Arab, and Israeli specialists
are convinced that the world has moved ominously closer to a global
confrontation, to be triggered by an American or Israeli/American
attack on Iran, that could come in the immediate days or weeks ahead,
and almost certainly by the end of the year.
The view that the world is "a sneeze" away from a strategic showdown
in the Persian Gulf gained significant strength on March 23, when 15
sailors and Marines from the British Navy ship HMS Cornwall were
arrested by the Iranian Navy, after they sailed into contested waters
in the Gulf while conducting a search operation on an Iranian merchant
ship.
Perfidious Albion
The role of the British in the fueling of a global showdown inside the
Persian Gulf cannot be ignored or underestimated, except at grave
risk. American military strategists interviewed by EIR expressed
astonishment at the way that the British Navy had apparently bungled
the search incident and the engagement with the Iranian Navy. But
given Britain's century-long presence as a colonial power in the
greater Southwest Asian region, its still meticulous intelligence
mapping of factions and clans in every corner of the Arab and Persian
world, and its tradition of naval power projection, it is hard to
easily conceive of the incident as merely the foolish blunder of a
"declining power"—as opposed to a calculated move to turn up the heat,
and then leave it to the Americans to directly confront Tehran.
The incident gravely escalated the level of tensions between Iran and
the Western powers, at the very moment that the U.S. Navy was
conducting live manuevers in the Persian Gulf waters, just outside
Iranian territory, involving two carrier groups; and the United
Nations Security Council was unanimously passing a new series of
admittedly weak sanctions against Iran over its alleged nuclear
"weaponization" program.
Did the British intentionally "blunder" into an incident that had the
potential to be the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident setting off a chain-
reaction of events leading to general war?
While no definitive answer can be given to that question at this time,
several U.S. analysts took careful note of an article that appeared in
the March 17, 2007 edition of The Economist in a special report
celebrating the 50th anniversary of the European Union. The article
revealed the state of mind of a significant faction within the City of
London-centered Anglo-Dutch financial oligarchy, for which The
Economist speaks. Under the title "The European Union at 100—Is the
Best Yet To Come?," the anonymous author engaged in a game of
futurology about the global strategic alignment in 2057, the year that
the EU turns 100:
"The EU is celebrating its 100th birthday with quiet satisfaction.
Predictions when it turned 50 that it was doomed to irrelevance in a
world dominated by America, China and India, proved wide of the mark.
A turning point was the bursting of America's housing bubble and the
collapse of the dollar early in the presidency of Barack Obama in
2010." The spin-meister author went on to report a massive expansion
of the EU, including Israel, Palestine, and Russia, and the ultimate
success of the euro as a leading global currency. At the end of the
day, Europe had re-emerged as the leading global power, with the
United States a crumbling and isolated basket case.
Putin Is Furious
American intelligence sources report that Russian President Vladimir
Putin is furious at the Iranian government, for failing to appreciate
the full strategic scope of the confrontation unfolding in the Gulf,
targetted principally against Tehran. According to the sources, the
Russian leader views the unfolding showdown in the Gulf as a step
towards a much larger global confrontation, targeting Russia, China,
and India.
Putin, according to the sources, wishes to see the situation in the
Persian Gulf cooled out to avoid the military showdown that leading
hawks in the Bush Administration, led by Vice President Dick Cheney,
are out to provoke. Last November, Cheney's unscheduled trip to
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia aimed to draw the Kingdom into a long-term
showdown between Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims, exploiting King Abdullah's
and other Arab leaders' anxiety over Iran's re-emergence as a singular
regional power, in the aftermath of the United States' disastrous
invasion and occupation of Iraq.
For Putin, the old judo master, the best strategy is to "run out the
clock," avoiding giving Cheney and Bush any pretext for confrontation
before they leave office—particularly a confrontation on Russia's
southern border. Thus, his frustration with Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, who has a penchant for reacting to every Anglo-American
provocation with a predictable counter-provocation.
It is in this context that the British Cornwall incident must be
judged.
Russian Warnings of Imminent Attack
Putin's own concerns about an imminent war have been echoed,
repeatedly, in the Russian media over the past several weeks. One
sensational article by military commentator Andrei Uglanov, published
in the tabloid newspaper Argumenty Nedeli, headlined that an attack
would be launched on Iran at precisely 4 a.m. on April 6. The date is
significant because it is Good Friday in both the Orthodox and Western
churches this year. The story played up Vice President Dick Cheney's
recent AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) speech,
promising that "all options are on the table" against Iran. Uglanov
claimed that the air campaign against Iran was code-named "Operation
Bite."
On March 21, Gen. Leonid Ivashov, former head of the Russian Defense
Ministry's foreign relations department, gave an interview to RIIA
Novosti, in which he gave credence to Uglanov's warnings of an
imminent strike against Iran, stating his own conviction that an
American air attack on Iran is a done deal. RIIA Novosti reported
that, "Ivashov did not exclude that the Pentagon may use tactical
nuclear weapons." Ivashov cited the recent withdrawal of an amendment
to the supplemental Iraq War budget in the U.S. House of
Representatives, that would have mandated that President Bush come to
the Congress before any military agression of any kind against Iran,
as alarming further evidence of a war consensus in Washington.
And again on March 27, Novosti cited an unnamed Russian military
intelligence source, stating that, "the latest military intelligence
data point to heightened U.S. military preparations for both an air
and ground operation against Iran." The intelligence official said
that the U.S. Naval presence in the Persian Gulf was back to levels
that were reached on the eve of the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Indeed, on April 2, the USS Nimitz-led carrier group was scheduled to
leave San Diego, bound for the Persian Gulf, ostensibly to replace the
USS Eisenhower. By early May, the Nimitz is expected to arrive in the
Persian Gulf, thus creating the possibility of the United States
having three carrier groups in the region. The Pentagon insists that
the Eisenhower is scheduled to leave the Gulf waters prior to the
arrival of the Nimitz, but any kind of crisis could lead to the orders
being rescinded or delayed.
Furthermore, according to a well-placed Israeli source, the Russians
are not merely talking up the war danger, but are quietly airlifting
modern military equipment into Syria, in anticipation of a possible
renewed Israeli military offensive against Hezbollah positions inside
Lebanon, that would also include attacks against Syria.
The Re-Balkanization of the Balkans?
Russian President Putin's concerns over a possible global showdown in
the Persian Gulf have also been fueled by saber-rattling from London
and Washington over the Kosovo situation, along with the Bush
Administration's announced plans to place ABM equipment in Central
Europe in the future.
A report to the UN Secretary General on Kosovo's future was recently
completed by UN Special Envoy Martti Ahtisaari, calling for de jure
independence. Russia has said it will veto such a proposal if it is
presented at the Security Council.
In response, former U.S. Balkan envoy Richard Holbrooke penned a
provocative op-ed in the March 13 Washington Post, threatening that if
there is "a Russian veto in the Security Council, or an effort to
water down or delay Ahtisaari's plan, the fragile peace in Kosovo will
evaporate within days, and a new wave of violence—possibly even
another war—will erupt. Accusing Russia of "defying" the United
States, Holbrooke, who makes no secret of the fact that he covets the
post of Secretary of State if the Democrats win back the White House
in November 2008, demanded that President Bush "weigh in strongly with
Putin," warning that "if Russia blocks the Ahtisaari plan, the chaos
that follows will be Moscow's responsibility and will affect other
aspects of Russia's relationship with the West."
Soon after the Holbrooke fit, The Economist chimed in with an
editorial, in its March 24 edition, saying "Kosovo is heading for
independence, whatever the Russians say or do."
Former Russian Prime Minster Yevgeni Primakov, now a top foreign-
policy advisor to President Putin, penned his own reply to Holbrooke
and the Brits in the Moscow News of March 23, under the headline
"Opening Pandora's Box in Kosovo?" Primakov, just back from a trip to
Belgrade, Serbia, made direct reference to Holbrooke's op-ed, writing,
"While I was in Belgrade, Richard Holbrooke made a statement,
predicting that delay in resolving the Kosovo issue would lead to more
bloodshed. 'This is not an analysis, but a scenario,' a senior Serb
government official said." Primakov went on to warn of a Kosovo
conflict triggering a renewed Balkan war, spreading to Bosnia,
Croatia, and Serbia—what Lyndon LaRouche called the "re-Balkanization
of the Balkans."
Bibi's Latest Moves
Well-placed Israeli sources within the Kadima ruling coalition party
have also warned EIR that former Likud Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu is making serious political moves to return to power, and
that he has assured Vice President Cheney that, if he takes over
again, he will be prepared to launch military strikes against both
Iran and Syria—in full coordination with Washington.
The sources warned that within weeks, the government of Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert is likely to fall. Sometime in the second half of April,
the Winograd Commission, appointed last September by Olmert to probe
the disastrous July 2006 war in Lebanon, will issue an interim report.
The report will focus on the roles of Olmert, Defense Minister Amir
Peretz, and former Chief of Staff Gen. Dan Halutz in the military
fiasco. The Winograd Commission is widely expected to call for
Peretz's resignation as Defense Minister, and to trigger such a deep
crisis that Olmert will be forced out.
According to an April 1 Jewish Telegraph Agency wire, Likud chief
Netanyahu is already negotiating with Kadima Knesset members to back
his move to stage a no-confidence vote. With 61 votes, Netanyahu would
claim the Premiership, or call for early elections.
The Israeli source reports about renewed Netanyahu-Cheney collusion
are unquestionably true. On March 12, Netanyahu was in Washington for
the annual convention of AIPAC. He used the occasion to hold a private
behind-closed-doors meeting with the Vice President, the content of
which, according to the Israeli sources, was a deal to hit Iran.
In his brief speech at AIPAC, Netanyahu resumed the theme of his 2006
speech: It is 1938, and Iran is Germany. Netanyahu railed that the
entire world is "imperiled" by Iran's quest for a nuclear bomb.
"Ahmadinejad is going for genocide, and we have to stop genocide,"
Bibi screamed, to roaring applause from the crowd. And in a not-so-
veiled threat of Israeli attacks against Iranian sites, Netanyahu
continued, "no one will protect the Jews if the Jews don't protect
themselves."
LaRouche Skeptical About Arab Peace Initiative
In an apparent counterpoint to the rising war danger in the Persian
Gulf, the Arab League convened in Riyadh, on March 28-29, and offered
a public olive branch to Israel. In his opening speech to the
gathering, Saudi King Abdullah called for regional solutions to the
manifold crises hitting the Middle East, declaring that "the winds of
hope will blow on the [Arab] nation, and then, we will not allow
forces from outside the region to determine the future." Denouncing
the U.S. presence in Iraq as "illegitimate foreign occupation," where
"ugly sectarianism threatens civil war," the King demanded justice for
the Palestinian people. The conference as a whole endorsed the 2002
Abdullah Plan, which offered a framework for peace with Israel.
The summit meeting was attended by a number of observers, including
Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, who met with 14 heads of
state and other senior officials, including the Saudi King, Syrian
President Bashar Assad, and Pakistani President Musharraf.
While the presence of Mottaki and the overall push for regional peace
and stability, on the surface, cut against the British drive to foment
a permanent Sunni versus Shi'ite conflict, LaRouche cautioned that the
prominent role of Saudi National Security Advisor Prince Bandar bin-
Sultan, the long-time Saudi Ambassador in Washington and an ally of
Cheney, led him to view the summit outcome with great reservation.
Given the forces consciously driving for war, in both London and
Washington, the actions at the summit were hardly a check on the war
drive. And with Prince Bandar in the middle of the effort, LaRouche
warned, "something stinks."
Muriel Mirak-Weissbach and Rachel Douglas contributed substantially to
this article.
