Nuclear Iran: If You Can't Beat Them – Infiltrate

By Liam Bailey

The Iranian nuclear standoff is akin to a snowball rolling down a hillside, ballooning with every tumble in rhetoric. What seems clear is this: Iran will not halt nuclear enrichment as a perceived national right to nuclear power, no matter how much the U.S. ramps up the rhetoric and threats - or the UN its sanctions.

Not even negotiations will stop Iran on its pathway into the nuclear club. All the West can do is try minimizing the risk of nuclear weapons development.

But how? I’ll return to this point in a moment

Only a few weeks ago, after the first U.N. sanctions were leveled, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took great pleasure in announcing that Iran's enrichment had proceeded to "an industrial scale." The E.U., Australia, France and Russia, have cast doubt on the claim, But the likelihood of increased U.N. sanctions and the probable American response are merely increasing Iranian determination.

Faced with the likelihood of American military action, Iran has only hinted that it may suspend its enrichment program to allow negotiations to be conducted in good faith.

To this day, nobody knows whether Iran speaks the truth when saying the nuclear program is for civilian power purposes only. However, given hard-liner Ahmadinejad's world view - specifically his rhetoric of wiping Israel off the map, their regional tussle for hegemony, and Israel's sizeable nuclear arsenal - I’m forced to admit that if Iran's enrichment does reach an "industrial level", an Iranian nuclear bomb may be less than a year away.

This changes nothing. Iran's enrichment cannot be halted with the current Western approach, whether a weapons program exists or not. According to many analysts, even air strikes would only delay the process, and in doing so guarantee Iran's resurgent nuclear program focuses on developing weapons.

An invasion may succeed. At their recent meeting the UN put the military option on the table, but given conditions in Iraq, it’s unlikely that anybody would willingly send their forces there. Probably the U.S. would have to go it alone again. But the U.S. military is already overstretched, and given Hezbollah's skinning of Israel's nose in their summer war in Lebanon, the U.S. faces the humiliation of an Iranian defeat in addition to fierce domestic opposition.

So, what should be done? The first thing is removing the precondition for talks. As Iran's Mohammad Saeedi, the deputy head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation, told the ISNA news agency: "We have a superior position. We have passed the stage of setting conditions for talks. We believe that other parties should move forward based on new realities.

The reality: Iran is already enriching uranium, creeping towards industrial level, and Russia is assisting by building them a nuclear reactor, although their assistance currently appears to hang in the balance. Why would Iran stop enriching uranium to enter talks on their stopping enrichment?

President Bush can butt heads with Ahmadinejad till he's blue in the face, and coax the UN to do the same, but only until he admits that Iran is holding all the cards.  His only option is threatening or using military force. The latter is an option that nobody (bar American Neocons and Israel) wants to see.

Even if the precondition is removed and leads to negotiations on Iran's nuclear program, it is still highly unlikely that enrichment will halt. Although the release of the 15 British sailors and marines shows that Iran can be successfully negotiated, a civilian nuclear power program is their national right as a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty.

And - the pomp and ceremony of Iran's latest announcement indicates that Ahmadinejad is instilling a sense of national pride into advances into the nuclear club. No amount of nuclear power generated by a Russian nuclear reactor, or uranium enriched outside Iran, will replace that pride.

Put simply. Neither threats, negotiations nor air strikes have any real chance of stopping enrichment, and an invasion would be disastrous for the Middle East - a region with more than enough conflict already.

I believe that negotiations should focus on ensuring a high level of Western assistance to Iran, reaching industrial level enrichment, and from there building a civilian nuclear power program. This could involve a large number of the UK and International Atomic Energy Agency's top nuclear scientists, and an equal number of "understudies". If the U.S. was excluded from the negotiations, as it was with the successful hostage diplomacy, then Iran's trust could be secured. With that, Iran is more likely to exhibit its program to observers.

With Iran already enriching uranium and advancing somewhat alarmingly, and with the low likelihood of stopping its program short of an invasion, cooperation leading to infiltration by Western interests may be the answer.

Mideast Peace -- Now or Maybe Never

Liam Bailey

There are those who believe that all Israel seeks is to live in peaceful coexistence with its Arab neighbours. Others believe Israel is completely driven by Zionism and its overtures of finding a peaceful solution is nothing more than empty rhetoric.

Regardless, few can deny the Palestinians have suffered, perhaps worse, from the occupation – from the thousands of Palestinians killed during Israel's occupations, incursions, air-strikes, and operations in unoccupied or previously disengaged areas, to the thousands of Palestinians forced to live in abject poverty by the Israeli enforced financial blockade since 2006, not to mention the thousands forced from their homes by all the above.

Nor can anyone deny that the neighbouring Arab states are perhaps as much to blame for the Palestinians suffering. After all, if, instead of going to war they had accepted the U.N. General Assembly (G.A.) partition plan in 1947, the Arabs of Palestine would have had far more land than they would happily settle for now and there would scarcely be any Palestinian refugees. Of course Israel may have attempted to gain land by going on the offensive, but would have surely received no support for an offensive war, without which they would almost certainly have failed miserably. Either way things would probably have been far better for present day Palestinians. But what's done is done and what is needed is a solution.

The latest hope for peace is the revitalization of the 2002 Saudi initiative. The Arab League rarely speaks with one voice, but it is currently, to re-offer the most comprehensive peace package ever to Israel and therefore the best chances of future security. As it is this time being offered as a platform for negotiation rather than an easily rejected ultimatum, and given the current growth of Shiite Iranian influence in the region, as well as the world's focused attention on ending one of its longest running and most brutal occupations, if the Saudi initiative doesn't bring peace I find it hard to see what will.

For a start the rare Arab unity presents the opportunity to offer Israel normalized relations with all Arab (League) states, which was never considered possible before 2002 and has been called a "political revolution". The initiative also offers a possible compromise on the refugee issue.

Israel cannot grant full right of return because it would drastically change Israel's demography and it would no longer be a safe-haven for the world's Jews. Although the initiative mentions the implementation of U.N.G.A. Resolution 194, demanding all Palestinian refugees be (granted full right of return) allowed to return to their homes in what is now Israel, and those not wanting to return be given suitable compensation, it also suggests finding "a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem." As the initiative was originally offered as an ultimatum, Israel, with no room for negotiations on a just solution, was scared away by the mention of Resolution 194. Now that the initiative is being offered as a basis for negotiations hopefully a "just solution" can be found quickly.

If Israel craves normalized relations with all surrounding Arab states and the Palestinians within, this is the offer for them. And it couldn't have come at a better time, when Israel needs friends like it never has before to stand against Iran. The Arab's too, being of Sunni faith are seeking to unite against the possible domination of the region by Shiite Iran, and my enemy's enemy being my friend, a peaceful alliance with Israel suddenly may not seem too distasteful. Therefore negotiations, for perhaps the first time, should stand on firm ground with all parties wanting the talks to find a resolution to the conflict. Nonetheless negotiations will be difficult.

The Arab initiative demands a Palestinian state on the land taken by Israel in the 1967 war, another demand to which Israel cannot capitulate. Israel has built settlements on the land and other fixtures near its borders. Therefore, for the future security of all Israelis it is widely agreed that a land swap will be necessary, giving back land equivalent to that taken in 1967. The Arab's also demand that the new Palestinian state's capital be east Jerusalem, which has previously stuck in Israel's throat, but hopefully, in the new light of mutual determination to find an agreement, these previously in-traversable obstacles to peace can be ironed out through negotiations. A new issue for negotiations to deal with will be the security wall Israel has been building since 2002.

That said, if an agreement were to be reached on the Saudi initiative: the Palestinians were granted a state with east Jerusalem as its capital, on land equal to that taken in 1967, and the Palestinian refugees were offered a home in the new state or suitable compensation, Israel and its surrounding Arab states should enjoy a future of security and peaceful coexistence. Negotiations could secure an agreement on the wall being torn down after an agreed period of Israeli security.

With circumstances bringing all Arab states together in seeking an agreement with Israel and for the first time Israel just as eagerly seeking unity with the Arabs, it's now or never.

Israel Not Facing Existential Threat

I wrote this article Feb 11 2007, all earlier articles, except those below can only be viewed at War Pages on Wordpress.

Israel Not Facing Existential Threat

Israel, the U.S. and others are exaggerating the threat from a nuclear Iran.

By Liam Bailey

I received an e-mail from Israeli newspaper, Haaretz daily with the subject line: Stand up to --Ahmadinejad. Inside was an advertising banner with the subject line above a picture of an exuberant Ahmadinejad speaking into a microphone. The banner linked to a two minute video by Aish.com, [Aish HaTorah, a yeshiva in the Old City of Jerusalem].

The Video

It is actually a slideshow. It starts with a picture of Adolf Hitler. Followed by a gruesome picture of tens of undernourished adult males, one standing, the rest lying in what I can only describe as a wall of pigeon-hole bunks. I assume it was taken in a liberated concentration camp. The narrator says: "Imagine you could have stopped Hitler in 1938." another wall of pigeon holes, this time much smaller filled with human skulls. "Imagine you could have stopped him, but didn't."

Showing Ahmadinejad above the quote, "Israel must be wiped off the map," the narrator announces: "Today a new Hitler is on the world stage calling for the destruction of the state of Israel." The narrator falls silent for the display of two more pictures of Ahmadinejad above the quotes: "The Zionist regime is a dried up and rotten tree which will be annihilated with one storm" and: "The Elimination of the Zionist regime will be smooth and simple."

Ahmadinejad's Intentions and Israeli Lies

The first quote about Israel being wiped off the map is a matter of international debate. Some analysts say Ahmadinejad has never made such a statement, that it is an intentional mistranslation by Israel or their supporters to overstate the danger from Iran. If they are right and only the latter two quotes can be accredited to Ahmadinejad, he is not alone in wanting Zionism to be eliminated, which doesn't necessarily mean exterminating Jews or obliterating Israel. In my recent interview with Israeli author and academic Ilan Pape, he said: "Israel has to be de-Zionised to a point before any genuine reconciliation can be attempted." He was talking about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

The Hitler/Ahmadinejad Comparison

Whether Ahmadinejad said "Israel must be wiped off the map" or not, the comparison to Hitler and the holocaust is a blatant misrepresentation of one of the world's most horrific acts. In 1938 the world was a different place, not least in the perception of Jews. 1938 was in an era when stereotypes were treated as fact and taught to children. Discrimination was accepted, in some cases even expected of people. Jews were stereotypically evil, greedy and devious and persecuted because of it.

When Hitler's views began emerging, for those who didn't hate Jews, such entrenched stereotypes made them indifferent. In short the Jews had no friends in the world capable of or willing to stop Hitler. Today the situation is very different.

No Comparison

The holocaust was a horrific and tragic occurrence. The world not even attempting to stop it pre-emptively was a disgrace. However, the world's guilt over not stopping the holocaust, even if only indirectly, led to the partitioning of Palestine for a Jewish homeland.

In its infancy Israel faced threats from the Arab countries surrounding it, who really did want to carry out a second holocaust, who really did want, and try to wipe Israel off the map. As Egypt's President announced before the Sinai war: "Egypt has decided to dispatch her heroes, the disciples of pharaoh and the sons of Islam and they will cleanse the Land of Israel....There will be no peace on Israel's border because we demand vengeance, and vengeance is Israel's death." The U.S began supporting Israel militarily in the sixties and rescued Israel from the brink of defeat by airlifting military supplies during the Yom Kippur war , the aggressors Egypt and other neighboring Arab states learned that the U.S wasn't going to let Israel be defeated.

Since then and currently Israel faces a very small threat from neighboring countries, some have signed peace accords. The others are reduced to funding internal resistance groups against Israel's occupation, none of which is anywhere near capable of wiping Israel off the map.

Let's assume Ahmadinejad does want Israel wiped off the map.

Far from having no friends, Israel is now in the "in" crowd, with the most powerful friends in the world: the U.S., U.K. and any other states wanting to stay in America's favor. With the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), perhaps the most powerful lobby in America, America's world influence and massive nuclear arsenal, Israel is one of the world’s best protected countries. If this support wasn't enough to deter anyone considering an attack, or "the destruction of Israel", Israel has a sizeable nuclear arsenal of its own, widely thought to be 200-400 active nuclear warheads. This is a significant deterrent against attack.

If Israel has 400 nuclear warheads, then Tel Aviv has the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world, bigger than China or France. Iran is years from even having one workable nuclear warhead, and depending on the size and weight of the prototype building a missile to carry it could take just as long. Thus, Israel has sufficient capabilities to defend itself, along with protection from the U.S. as No. 1 nuclear proliferator.

What's more Ahmadinejad's patriotism is the driving force behind the dramatic showdown with the U.S. and the world over wanting the country's right to nuclear power under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Israel has not ratified. His patriotism will prevent him from risking the total obliteration of his country by attacking Israel. So, Iran poses no existential threat to Israel, at least until they have the capabilities to disable the U.S and Israel. I'm sure you'll agree, that, without outside help this is many years away.

The Lies

Israeli officials know that there is no such "second holocaust" or existential threat from a nuclear Iran. As Gareth Porter reported in the Electronic Intifada:

An article in the online journal of a hard-line think-tank, the Ariel Centre for Policy Research, in August 2004 revealed that "one of the options that has been considered should Iran publicly declare itself to have nuclear weapons is for Israel to put an end to what is called its policy of 'nuclear ambiguity' or 'opacity'. The author, Shalom Freedman, said that in light of Israel's accumulation of "over 100 nuclear weapons" and its range of delivery systems for them, even if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons within a few years, the "tremendous disproportion between the strength of Israel and an emergent nuclear Iran should serve as a deterrent."

Why the Lie

You may be wondering why Israelis would want to create mass hysteria on the basis of lies, the same reason it denies Palestinian right of return, and is building a great wall around the Jewish state... Zionism's greatest fear, Israel becoming predominantly Arab.
You may be confused, Israel's Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh explained in an interview with the Jerusalem Post, saying that under the threat from a nuclear Iran:

"most Israelis would prefer not to live here; most Jews would prefer not to come here with their families; and Israelis who can live abroad will. People are not enthusiastic about being scorched." Thus the danger, Sneh elaborated, is that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would "be able to kill the Zionist dream without pushing a button. That's why we must prevent this regime from obtaining nuclear capability at all costs."

The Real Threats

Therefore, the fear is not over the existence of Israel, but over how Israel exists. I suspect Washington's war planners know the existential threat is non-existent, but have their own reasons for failing to dispel the myth. America does not want allied Israel's Middle East hegemony to end, especially not in favor of an enemy as staunch as Iran.

Israel putting such weight on their lies taking hold in the world media, has guaranteed their fears will be a reality should Iran successfully enrich uranium to weapons grade. That is why you can rest assured, if diplomacy and sanctions fail to stop Iranian enrichment, Israel will attack with or without U.S help. There is a distinct possibility that the attack will involve the use of nuclear weapons, therefore Iran is more in danger of a nuclear holocaust from Israel.