VS/Israel - Iran [#28]: Centraal Topic

quote:

Op dinsdag 9 maart 2010 17:47 schreef DeParo het volgende:

[..]

Je hebt nooit vermeld wat de echte reden is waarom jullie Iran hebben verlaten.
Maar goed, bevestig me maar, het is treurig dat je qua niveau steeds dieper en dieper wegzakt.
Ik kan je voeten namelijk al bijna zien.

quote:

Op dinsdag 9 maart 2010 17:54 schreef AryaMehr het volgende:

[..]

De echte reden? Maakt dat wat uit dan?

quote:

Op dinsdag 9 maart 2010 17:16 schreef AryaMehr het volgende:

[..]

Omdat ik een ware intellectueel citeer?

quote:

World Citizen: Fears that Iran Wants to Trigger Mideast War

Frida Ghitis | 11 Mar 2010

As the United States steps up its campaign to impose economic sanctions on Iran, fears are growing in Washington and in the Middle East that Iran will try to trigger a new war in the region in order to shift attention from its nuclear activities, throw the U.S. and its allies off balance, and put Israel on the defensive.

Few people, if any, envision Iran launching a direct attack. Rather, the concern is that Tehran will manage to stir up trouble in Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, or even Syria, in order to spark a new confrontation between Israel and one of its Iran-allied neighbors. Even if the most likely scenarios do not include initial involvement by Iranian forces, at least not directly, the possibility that Tehran could join the fray cannot be discounted. And given the unpredictability of armed conflict and the level of tension between the U.S. and Iran, the possibility of eventual American involvement, while unlikely, is not out of the question.

The first high-ranking official to give voice to the worries that have now started spreading in the region was White House National Security Adviser Jim Jones. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post in late January, Jones predicted a series of events that, one might argue, are coming to pass.

"As pressure on the regime in Tehran builds over its nuclear program," Jones made the case, "there is a heightened risk of further attacks against Israel or efforts to promote renewed violence in the West Bank." Jones said that Iran, under pressure from domestic opponents and international critics, would likely "lash out" against Israel through Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Some go as far as to argue that Iran wants to invite an attack against its nuclear stockpiles on Iranian soil. That speculation grew out of Tehran's puzzling decision on Feb. 14 to move almost all of its enriched uranium, in the presence of United Nations inspectors, to an above-ground plant in full view of spy satellites -- and bomber pilots. As one official reportedly described it, it was "as if a bull's eye had been painted on it."

The idea that Iran would want to start a war on its own soil is most definitely a minority view. The more likely setting is a clash between Israel and one or more of Iran's allies. Tehran would favor this, because it would occupy and degrade the fighting resources of the Jewish state and inevitably heat up anti-Israel sentiment.

In order to make it happen, Iran and its friends need a flashpoint, and Israel is clumsily providing a regular supply, with its frequent announcements of new building projects in the West Bank and Jerusalem. There is such an abundance of irritants that anyone interested in starting a new war would find no shortage of excuses.

Jones offered his warning as one more reason for Israelis and Palestinians to restart negotiations -- perhaps persuasively so. After all, a stalled peace process offers Iran one more opening to stir up simmering resentments.

Jones is not alone in his concerns, and recent events have added credibility to his views. Worries about a new outbreak of war are being openly discussed not only in the U.S., but also in Israel and Lebanon. And there is talk in Israel that concern over an all-out conflagration was part of the reason why Israel may have decided to take the risk of eliminating Hamas' Mahmoud al-Mabhouh last January. Mabhouh was a key player in the smuggling of weapons from Iran into Gaza.

If it is true that Tehran wants to light a fuse to ignite the Middle East, Ahmadinejad may have brought a book of matches to a recent meeting of Tehran's backers in Syria. In late February, the Iranian president traveled to Damascus for a four-way meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas' Khaled Meshal. The editor of the pan-Arab daily Al-Quds al-Arabi called the gathering "a war council."

Only days earlier, the Iranian government reported that Ahmadinejad had phoned Hezbollah's Nasrallah and advised him to prepare for a confrontation with Israel. "The level of readiness should be to such an extent," the Iranian president reportedly told the Hezbollah chief, "that if [the Israelis] ventured upon repeating their past mistakes, they will be finished off." In the case of war, Ahmadinejad reportedly said, "the Iranian nation will stand side by side" with those fighting Israel.

Hezbollah has already warned Israel that a new war would see the Jewish State fighting not only Hezbollah, as in 2006, but the Hezbollah-Syria-Hamas-Iran bloc. Nasrallah has been sharpening the blades of his rhetorical swords, warning Israel that the next war could see Hezbollah's rockets reaching Israel's major urban centers and strategic locations, such as Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion airport and the country's major ports.

Hezbollah has vowed to retaliate against Israel for the 2008 killing of Imad Moughniyah, a top operative in the organization, which it blames on Israel. But the truth is that it's easy to find a way to start a war in the Middle East. In 2006, Hezbollah triggered one by infiltrating Israel and killing a number of Israeli soldiers in an operation to kidnap two others.

Inside Israel and the West Bank, every day offers an opportunity for resentment, anger and violence. When the Israeli government announced a controversial decision to designate as Jewish Heritage Sites the Cave of the Patriarchs and Rachel's Tomb -- historical sites located in the West Bank -- Hamas issued a call to launch a new Intifada against Israel. The call was answered with disturbances in Hebron.

After Friday prayers in Jerusalem last week, Hamas' wish appeared to be turning into reality, when clashes erupted into pitched battles.

Tensions have increased with Syria, as well. A war of words broke out last month between Israel's fiery Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and his Syrian counterpart. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to calm the situation, but Ahmadinejad wants the sparks to continue flying.

Israel does not want a war now. Indeed, it is so concerned about a miscue leading to war that it decided to alter the long-planned Firestones 12 military exercise, canceling the part that included maneuvers along the Syrian border lest Damascus confuse the exercise with the kind of Israeli attack that Iran claims is imminent.

Experience of the Middle East has proven time and again that war can break out almost by accident, even when no one wants one to start. If a key player does want a war, it may prove impossible to prevent.

quote:

Final destination Iran?

Published on 14 Mar 2010

Hundreds of powerful US “bunker-buster” bombs are being shipped from California to the British island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for a possible attack on Iran.

The Sunday Herald can reveal that the US government signed a contract in January to transport 10 ammunition containers to the island. According to a cargo manifest from the US navy, this included 387 “Blu” bombs used for blasting hardened or underground structures.

Experts say that they are being put in place for an assault on Iran’s controversial nuclear facilities. There has long been speculation that the US military is preparing for such an attack, should diplomacy fail to persuade Iran not to make nuclear weapons.

Although Diego Garcia is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, it is used by the US as a military base under an agreement made in 1971. The agreement led to 2,000 native islanders being forcibly evicted to the Seychelles and Mauritius.

The Sunday Herald reported in 2007 that stealth bomber hangers on the island were being equipped to take bunker-buster bombs.

Although the story was not confirmed at the time, the new evidence suggests that it was accurate.

Contract details for the shipment to Diego Garcia were posted on an international tenders’ website by the US navy.

A shipping company based in Florida, Superior Maritime Services, will be paid $699,500 to carry many thousands of military items from Concord, California, to Diego Garcia.

Crucially, the cargo includes 195 smart, guided, Blu-110 bombs and 192 massive 2000lb Blu-117 bombs.

“They are gearing up totally for the destruction of Iran,” said Dan Plesch, director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London, co-author of a recent study on US preparations for an attack on Iran. “US bombers are ready today to destroy 10,000 targets in Iran in a few hours,” he added.

The preparations were being made by the US military, but it would be up to President Obama to make the final decision. He may decide that it would be better for the US to act instead of Israel, Plesch argued.

“The US is not publicising the scale of these preparations to deter Iran, tending to make confrontation more likely,” he added. “The US ... is using its forces as part of an overall strategy of shaping Iran’s actions.”

According to Ian Davis, director of the new independent thinktank, Nato Watch, the shipment to Diego Garcia is a major concern. “We would urge the US to clarify its intentions for these weapons, and the Foreign Office to clarify its attitude to the use of Diego Garcia for an attack on Iran,” he said.

For Alan Mackinnon, chair of Scottish CND, the revelation was “extremely worrying”. He stated: “It is clear that the US government continues to beat the drums of war over Iran, most recently in the statements of Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

“It is depressingly similar to the rhetoric we heard prior to the war in Iraq in 2003.”

The British Ministry of Defence has said in the past that the US government would need permission to use Diego Garcia for offensive action. It has already been used for strikes against Iraq during the 1991 and 2003 Gulf wars.

About 50 British military staff are stationed on the island, with more than 3,200 US personnel. Part of the Chagos Archipelago, it lies about 1,000 miles from the southern coasts of India and Sri Lanka, well placed for missions to Iran.

The US Department of Defence did not respond to a request for a comment.

http://www.heraldscotland(...)ation-iran-1.1013151

quote:

Op woensdag 23 juni 2010 23:59 schreef Frutsel het volgende:
Er lopen twee Iran reeksen...

één over de "revolutie"
Revolutie Iran #14 - Jacht geopend op de opstandelingen!

en één over de spanningen tussen Israel, de VS en Iran...
VS/Israel - Iran [#28]: Centraal Topic

Je kan je geruchten prima in het tweede topic zetten... graag met linkje
Zonder nieuwsbericht kan NWS hier niets mee.

quote:

» Er is al 91 dagen niet in dit topic gepost. Bedenk goed of het nuttig is dit topic omhoog te schoppen!

quote:

The Israeli Air Force recently unloaded military equipment at a Saudi Arabia base, a semi-official Iranian news agency claimed Wednesday, while a large American force has massed in Azerbaijan, which is on the northwest border of Iran.

quote:

Op donderdag 24 juni 2010 00:00 schreef Japsnars het volgende:

[..]


[..]

quote:

Op donderdag 24 juni 2010 00:12 schreef paddy het volgende:

[..]

Tof is hij hè? Heb ik mijn tvp meteen

quote:

Op donderdag 24 juni 2010 00:12 schreef ender_xenocide het volgende:
Omdat mijn topic dicht moest doe ik het maar hier (kon trouwens dit topic eerst niet vinden, gezien de post hierboven snap ik waarom)

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138231
[..]

quote:

Op donderdag 24 juni 2010 10:34 schreef PhysicsRules het volgende:
Waarom was zijn bron niet goed genoeg? Haaretz meldt niets nieuws ten opzichte van Arutz Sheva.

quote:

Op zaterdag 26 juni 2010 12:41 schreef Lagrinta het volgende:
Amnesty is ook geen frisse organisatie. Rellen graag ook over zaken waar ze geen kaas van gegeten hebben.

quote:

Op maandag 28 juni 2010 01:39 schreef Kees22 het volgende:

[..]

Daar heb je wel een punt: er zijn heel goede redenen om mensne te martelen, mishandelen of te vermoorden voor de goede zaak.
Een organisatie die daar kritische kanttekeningen bij zet of er zelfs tegenin gaat, moet wel onfris zijn.

quote:

Op woensdag 30 juni 2010 21:06 schreef Lagrinta het volgende:

[..]

Amnesty mengt zich in zaken waar ze geen verstand van hebben. De zaak-Al Mansouri bijvoorbeeld. Een held in Nederland, terwijl zijn beweging geweld gebruikt, terroristische activiteiten uitvoert en ga zo maar door. En dat voor een autonome regio in Iran. Daar heeft Nederland en Amnesty helemaal NIETS mee te maken.

quote:

Op woensdag 30 juni 2010 21:06 schreef Lagrinta het volgende:
Amnesty mengt zich in zaken waar ze geen verstand van hebben. De zaak-Al Mansouri bijvoorbeeld. Een held in Nederland, terwijl zijn beweging geweld gebruikt, terroristische activiteiten uitvoert en ga zo maar door. En dat voor een autonome regio in Iran. Daar heeft Nederland en Amnesty helemaal NIETS mee te maken.

quote:

Op donderdag 1 juli 2010 01:14 schreef Ahriman het volgende:

[..]

Volgens wie gebruikt zijn beweging geweld? Volgens Iran? Nee, daar moeten we het van hebben.