|
During a well-publicized interview in 2002, Samantha Power reflected on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. She advocated a diversion of funds committed by the US Administration to Israel—for its defense needs—to the Palestinian Authority. She called for a US military intervention aimed at imposing a solution on the Palestinian question. She appeared to portray the Palestinians as victims of Israeli oppression.
In a radio interview in 2008, she doubled down on her extreme leftist’s views, responding to a question by complaining that "So much of it is about: 'Is he going to be good for the Jews?" In a 2011 interview with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, she seemed to have changed course. Boteach reported that “Samantha Power seemed genuinely and deeply pained by the perception that she was not a friend of Israel.” She rationalized her 2002 comments by explaining that she was asked to respond to a “thought experiment”, a trick question— “what she would advise an American president if it seemed that either party in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were moving toward genocide”—and that she stumbled, nose-diving into that trap. Had she had more media experience, she should not have responded. She alluded to the fact that her words were taken out of full context. Given the multi-colored picture painted above, the question of whether or not Ms. Power’s new appointment is “good for the Jews” is not a trivial one. Still, the answer, in my opinion, is fairly obvious. Samantha Power’s earlier views concerning Israel will not be pertinent to her job in the UN. Here is why. The UN ambassador is merely a messenger. He or she serves at the pleasure of the president of the US. Although ambassadors write their own speeches, they follow talking points consistent with US policy determined by the president. Regardless of their brilliance or points-made, speeches in the UN do not sway opinions. All ambassadors follow voting choices inspired and determined by their bosses, the top leaders, the true policy makers in their country. Ethics and justice are as dead as Latin. Politics and venal national interests rule the roost in the UN. Samantha Power will follow directions, passed on to her by President Obama when it comes to voting choices and dealings with other diplomats, regardless of her personal preferences or emotional brainwaves. And when it comes to the president, we have witnessed a dramatic evolution in his attitude toward the Jewish state in general, and concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. When President Obama took office in 2009 he believed that Israel was at fault for the unending stalemate in the “Peace Process”; he believed that the Arab countries and Iran could be won over by his show of respect and admiration to the Muslim world. By 2013, he appears to have learned a lesson. He understands the reality of the situation. He does not merely say that he is a true supporter of the Jewish state; he delivers, and he does so with unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation, significant financial support, perseverance before an extensive anti-Israel lobbying consensus in the UN Security Council, while employing the US Veto power time and again to stop bullying the Jewish State. But above all, we must remind ourselves that leaders go through a life changing reality check once they assume power. On their campaign trail, or while in the political Opposition Party, they stick to popular ideals; they advocate solutions that make their supporters and potential voters feel good. They do so with no consideration or understanding of political, economic and national security constraints. It’s easy and trendy when the buck stops somewhere else. Samantha Power was not representing her country when she was making her unfortunate remarks. She could afford articulating “shoot from the hip” ideals as advocated repeatedly by the extreme left; she represented no one else but herself. When, all at once, her words and actions might stand for her country, her boss rather than her own naive ideologies, she would become increasingly more responsible, more self-scrutinizing, more educated about the actual realities of the Middle East. I would not lose sleep, not even for a moment, as a consequence of Samantha Power’s elevation to the job of the next US ambassador to the UN. Biography Avi Perry is the author of “72 Virgins”—a popular thriller about a countdown to a terror attack on US soil. He is currently a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN). He served as an intelligence expert for the Israeli government and was a professor at Northwestern University. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories distinguished staff member and manager, and a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to UN International Standards body. He is also the author of “Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks.” For more information, visit www.aviperry.org.
1 Comment
The incoming elections in the US and the flashy rhetoric by Republican presidential candidates have stirred the question of nuclear Iran into the front page. The Muslim Gulf states and Israel have added to the rumbling; they have sustained their pressure on the US administration, urging it to act, to stop Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. The Obama Administration has warned Iran: “pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable; the US would use all means in its disposal, including force if necessary, to neutralize Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.” But to no avail.
Still, Iran keeps its macho talk loud and condescending. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has just issued a warning—Iran will not cave in to pressure; progress toward a nuclear bomb (he did not say “nuclear bomb”, but he definitely implied it) will not be brought to an end, no matter what sanctions the Americans or the EU impose on the Islamic Republic. The Ayatollah is serious. Although macho talk in the Islamic Middle East is a standard adopted by all militant Islamic leaders, the Iranian government is flexing its muscles, flaunting its sharp teeth. It believes that economic sanctions will hurt, but not as much as caving in to American demands. In a culture where false honor precedes anything that moves under the sun, where life without “honor” is far worse than death, where honor killing is a religious diktat, caving in to economic sanctions is equivalent to an unconditional surrender. And surrendering to the “Great Satan” merely because life is a little tough is inexcusable, dishonorable behavior; it is treason that merits the death sentence. The loud rhetoric from all sides has been underlined by considerable measures on the ground. The US has been and is about to keep on amassing a war machine in the Persian Gulf and on several islands within reach of Iran. American, British and French warships and aircraft have been acting around the Persian Gulf and around Saudi air bases respectively, while the Saudis have reinforced their anti-missile defense gear and their delivery facilities around Saudi oil fields and along the Persian Gulf respectively. Israel has been readying itself for war on all fronts. It has recently conducted large-scale military exercises, both defensive and offensive in nature, including the drafting of reservists under projected heavy missile bombardment of every town, road and base, as well as a large scale parachuting by over a thousand paratroopers, signaling a willingness to engage ground-troops on foreign soil in addition to relying on its air force and its rockets. Iran has not been sitting idle either. They have announced the start of a three-week exercise in southern Iran and the Strait of Hormuz under war settings. They seem to brace for a noteworthy retaliation with the objective of blocking the flow of oil out of the Gulf. In addition, they have been concocting terror attacks on soft Jewish and possibly other civilian targets throughout the world. The American Administration is working hard at softening its seeming aim by masking its military buildup with wishful talking points. US Defense Secretary Panetta’s recent implications concerning Israel’s imminent attack plans are part of a grand-scale deception strategy. They have been designed to refocus the Iranians on the most suspicious front rather than the one that would deliver the ultimate blow—the US military. It is obvious that if Israel embarks on a preemptive strike on the Iranian nuclear project, Iran will try to retaliate. Retaliation will not be limited to hitting Israel. The Revolutionary Guards will attempt to attack American interests throughout the Middle East, thus provide a pretext for an American involvement in a large scale “defensive” war against Iran—a war that would be supported by the American public due to its defensive nature, a war that would boost Obama’s standing in the eyes of the American people, shortly ahead of the elections. The scenario above may not necessitate an Israeli opening (of hostilities) since the Iranian regime is stuck in a macho syndrome, which blinds their rational reasoning. They will miscalculate. They may initiate hostilities against US interests in the Persian Gulf in order to lay bare the risk associated with any American attempt to force them into submission by aggressive economic means. They do not believe that the US would retaliate by initiating an all-out-war in response. They view the US and President Obama as paper tigers. The Ayatollah will repeat the same mistake that Hezbollah had committed in 2006 when they kidnapped dead Israeli soldiers before Israel responded with an all-out-war they had not anticipated and had not wished for. There is little doubt that a war with Iran can be avoided. There is high likelihood that the US will lead the effort even if Israel initiates the campaign. There is little doubt that the US is hard at work preparing for war in the Persian Gulf. There is high likelihood that Iran will provide the American people with a sizzling justification by provoking the US and invite a massive retaliation. There is no doubt. 2012 will see to a new Gulf war. This time, the Ayatollah will be the one to pay the price. _ On 1/9/2012 I wrote in http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Article.aspx?id=252675) that Iran would launch a Pearl Harbor type “surprise” attack on the US navy in the Persian Gulf, and that attack would serve as a justification and a pretext for a retaliatory move by the US military against the Iranian regime.
I was amazed to see the numerous (practically viral) editorials and blogs that cited this part of my article, claiming that the use of quotes around the word: “surprise” carried the implication that the US would manufacture an “incident” (I am using quotes again) where the Iranians would appear to have initiated an attack on a US warship, except, the US would initiate a provocation, inviting that attack. No! I did not try to convey the above interpretation. You guys were all wrong! The Iranian regime is stuck in a macho syndrome. It blinds their rational reasoning; it prevents the Mullahs from breaking off their quest for nuclear weapons even in the face of severe sanctions. The regime’s rhetoric has raised the temperature in Persian Gulf by having the Revolutionary Guards issue multiple threats against the US and its allies. Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz; they would not allow US carriers to re-enter the Gulf; they would continue to develop their nuclear capability—all pose crossings of red lines, inviting a massive retaliation by the US. The latest incident in the Gulf where Iranian gunboats approached an American ship without having any shots fired is a first in a series of non-violent close encounters. The Iranians are playing a dangerous game. They are experts in setting up deceptive mirages, conditioning American misconceptions with regard to the Ayatollah’s true intentions. The Iranians will continue approaching American ships, then seem to blink by shifting direction, moving away, until the Americans learn the fake drill, letting down their guard. Then and only then, the Iranians will be able to draw near—sufficiently close for a deadly strike on a key American warship. American warships presence in the Persian Gulf is the only “provocation” required for the Iranian Mullahs to feel provoked. They have already confirmed that assertion. There is no need for a conspiracy on the part of the US. American military presence or Israel’s existence are sufficiently provocative in the eyes of these bullies. Some people say that the Iranians are not crazy enough to start a war on the US. I disagree. The Iranians will miscalculate. They do not believe that the US would retaliate by initiating an all-out-war in response. They view the US and President Obama as paper tigers. The Ayatollah will repeat the same mistake that Hezbollah had committed in 2006 when they kidnapped dead Israeli soldiers before Israel responded with an all-out-war they had not anticipated and had not wished for. In today’s world where proportionate responses to aggression rule the roost of the politically correct universe, the Iranians will expect a limited American response, confined to local retaliation and accompanied by loud rhetoric from political opportunists. They will not anticipate the actual reaction because they will not understand the boiling rage they have been affecting in the US since the hostage crisis in the 1970’s. They will not understand the determination of the American government to see to it that the Persian Gulf does not fall under their control. They will fail to realize that their big-headed quest for nuclear weapons is a bloody red line that a president on the verge of elections may not be able to overlook. My prediction in my previous article: “2012 will see to a new war. This time, Iran will initiate it” is NOT a wishful thinking; it is a logical inference of an unpleasant reality where the Iranian regime will be successful in bringing about its own demise due to its own miscalculation. _ Watching the New Year Sunday Talk Shows on US TV, the experts were all of the opinion that neither the US nor Israel will embark on attacking the Iranian nuclear facilities in 2012. I tend to agree. Neither the US nor Israel will initiate an attack on Iran. Still, I believe that these experts were off by a million miles.
Iran, just like Nazi Germany in the 1940’s, will take the initiative and “help” the US president and the American public make up their mind by making the first move, by attacking a US aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, trying to sink it. The Iranian attack on an American ship will serve as a justification and a pretext for a retaliatory move by the US military against the Iranian regime. The target at that time would not be Iran’s nuclear facilities. These would turn out to be an addendum. The US would retaliate by attacking Iran’s navy, their military installations, missile silos, airfields. The US would target Iran’s ability to retaliate, to close down the straits of Hormuz. The US would then follow by targeting the regime itself. Elimination of Iran’s nuclear facilities? Yes. This part would turn out to be the final act, the grand prize. It might have been the major target had the US initiated the attack. However under this “Pearl Harbor” scenario, where Iran had launched a “surprise” attack on the US navy, the US would have the perfect rationalization to get it done right, to put an end to this ugly game. Unlike the latest Iranian people’s attempt at revolution, this time the US would not stay away, rather, it would go public, openly calling for the Iranian people to join in with the US in working to overthrow the corrupt Islamic fundamentalist regime. And the Iranian people would respond in numbers. Spring would reemerge, and the Iranian people would join the rest of the Middle East—this time with the direct support of the US. The greatest irony behind this most significant episode in 2012 is that the Iranian regime would effect their own demise. Attacking the US navy in the open seas is equivalent to carrying out a suicide bombing. The Iranian government has become bolder by the day. Their hubris has been mounting as a result of the world’s inability to bring to an end their quest for nuclear weapons. If the Revolutionary Guards achieve that final step, and demonstrate their nuclear capability, their bullying conduct would swell beyond their geographic region. It would grow to be catastrophic. The responsible world understands that the Ayatollah must be stopped, but the US, the EU, Israel are in no mood to instigate a military confrontation for fear of its negative economic impact due to a potential closing of the straits of Hormuz and one more bloody war engulfing Israel and its neighbors. Iran’s mullahs understand the world’s anxiety and its lack of resolve when it comes to confront them militarily. The Iranian government is blinded by its own ability to intimidate, to call the shots, to ignore warnings. What the Iranians fail to realize is that some of the lines they are about to cross are red—bloody red. 2012 will see to a new war. This time, Iran will initiate it. This time the US will respond. This time the Iranian regime will bring about its own demise. This time the Iranian Spring will bear fruits. This time the Iranian nuclear cloud will evaporate before it rains down on the infidels. _ It’s April 1st, 2012.
Vital, undisputed intelligence have been pointing to the sorry reality that Iran is merely two-months away from having assembled a nuclear bomb. US presidential elections are only seven months away. If Iran is left unchallenged and becomes a nuclear power, Obama and the democrats will go down in history as the great cowards who let it come to pass. The Republicans will make sure of that before winning the race to the White House. Not to be concerned. Obama is motivated and so is his team. The Israeli government is ready. Let’s go! The Iranians have amassed most of their air defenses all around their nuclear installations. Their early warning systems have also been geared toward alarming in the event of an approaching attack on these sites. Hezbollah and Hamas are on a standby mode. Just in case, they would retaliate with a non-stop missile barrage on all major Israeli cities, including Jerusalem. So what if some Palestinian Arabs become martyrs? It’s good for moral… The buzz is in the air since the US has moved one more aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf. The price of oil has skyrocketed already. Russia and the rest of the oil exporting countries are laughing their way to the banks. Day 1: It’s D-Day. A pre-dawn coordinated attack by US and Israeli forces has just been launched. But wait... Iranian nuclear sites are left untouched. Where are they hitting? The reports are sneaking back in to Jerusalem and to the Pentagon. The Iranian navy has been sunk; the Iranian long range missiles have been destroyed on the ground; the Iranian air force and airfields have been damaged beyond repair. The mullahs and their Revolutionary Guards have lost their ability to retaliate. The straits of Hormuz will remain open to oil traffic; however, no container ships are ready to set sail as of yet. In midday, Hezbollah and Hamas launch rocket attacks on Israeli cities, and the Israeli air force is busy taking them out; Lebanon’s infrastructure is merely devastated. Both Hezbollah and Hamas are crying foul; they want the Israelis to stop while they keep carrying their rocket attacks. Israeli reserves are called in. They are amassed along the Lebanese, the Golan Heights and along the Gaza border with Israel. It’s still quiet along the Israeli-Syrian border, but it could turn ugly at any moment. Day 2: It’s leadership day. Iranian command and control, Revolutionary Guards headquarters and training camps including major outposts, as well as top political and military leadership—are all targeted. It’s a slow but crucial day. On the Israeli front, rocket fire continues; Israeli air and ground forces continue their push; Israeli citizens bear severe consequences, but the attacking Arabs are the ones calling for the UN and Russia to intervene. Day 3: Finally, Iranian nuclear sites are in the crosshair of US command. Iranian air defenses in and around these sites are being disabled by American stealth bombers and cruise missiles. At the same time bunker buster bombs are hitting the underground nuclear facilities. Massive explosions can be heard many miles away. The Israeli air force is on the go over Lebanon and Gaza. Israeli tanks and armored vehicles cross into both territories. Tel Aviv, Haifa and the rest of Israel are under rocket attacks, but no missiles are getting off from Iran itself. Missiles, air and ground war keep going. Gaza is surrounded and is under siege. The Hamas leadership is nowhere to be seen. Hezbollah has been successful in launching a single long range missile that was intercepted in midair. Hezbollah bases in Southern Lebanon have been run over by Israeli military. Day 4: Iranians are crowding the streets in Teheran. The Iranian Spring is on its way. Rocket fire from Gaza has been diminishing considerably. Egypt intervenes diplomatically, trying to arrange for a seize fire. The Gaza strip is cut in half and the Southern Philadelphia corridor has been taken over by the Israeli military. The Israeli Military has been seen in the outskirts of Gaza. Rocket fire from Lebanon is still significant. Day 5: Russia has been quiet all throughout the campaign. It has enjoyed the resulted high price of oil, then why hurry? However, the end is near, and Iran will survive. Russia needs this weighty trade partner. Time has come for some blaring rhetoric. The UN has been working hard to impose a cease fire between Israel and Hezbollah. Efforts are underway and it looks like a day or two before final signatures. Day 6: It’s relatively quiet along the Israeli borders. A cease fire has been arranged between all warring parties in Israel’s vicinity. Iran is embroiled in a full scale uprising. It looks and sounds like a civil war. The nuclear cloud has been whited out; the Revolutionary Guards have been demoralized; the Iranian nation has been trying to reap the fruits of freedom, taking it away from the dictatorship of the religious militants. Day 7: The sun still rises in the East. It’s a new spring day. Life will be beautiful one day soon. _ In his latest speech at the Brookings Institute, US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta offered Israel his words of wisdom. “Just get to the damn [negotiating] table, reach out and mend fences with the Palestinians, or risk facing even greater isolation. If the gestures are rebuked, the world will see those rebukes for what they are, and Israel’s moral standing will grow even higher.”
Echoing these words so that Mr. Panetta could benefit from his own wisdom would sound like this: “Just get to the damn [negotiating] table, Mr. Panetta, reach out and mend fences with al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea or even the Republican Party back in Washington, or risk facing even greater foreign policy failures, and further political deadlock at home...” Really? There are two traits which point to the core of the faulty doctrine utilized by the United States: It would appear that US President Barack Obama’s administration does not seem to comprehend the meaning of extreme ideology. Their faulty logic postulates that all humans are reasonable, rational people who could be convinced once the truth is presented in a clear, transparent form, supported by facts and reinforced by historical or scientific evidence. What Obama fails to understand is that fervent insistence on maintaining an ideology (including deep-seated religious beliefs) makes evidence, expertise or any line of reasoning irrelevant. If some people believe that they possess the absolute truth, they view those who disagree with their point of view as fundamentally wrong and misguided (in many cases they deem those who disagree with them as criminals). Evidence contradicting their beliefs becomes irrelevant, a violation. Respectful arguments not in line with their ideology are of no use. Compromise is a bad word since it shows frailty and weakness. Obama seems to understand this simple truth where it applies to his own situation concerning al Qaeda, yet he fails to apply the same logic when Israel enters the picture. Both Hamas and the Palestinians provide the same threat to Israel that Iran and al Qaeda provide to the US. These Islamic extremists are trapped inside their own ideology. Peace and compromise are deemed blasphemy. The more you concede to these adversaries the bolder their actions become. It’s a war they started; they won’t end it unless Israel is destroyed, unless the US is defeated. To their minds, it’s an all-or-nothing guiding principle where no middle ground is possible. This conclusion is supported by so much evidence that to list it would require volumes upon volumes. The second piece of faulty logic on the part of the Obama administration is the belief that compromise is always possible because both sides to a conflict or an argument always swear by a common goal like world peace or global economic growth. The president and his team believe that all people are reasonable; they all strive for the same goal of bettering the lives of their fellow citizens. Obama fails to appreciate that many of his adversaries do not share his goals, or even view them as valid points of view. If the other side wants you dead, disappeared, or even wiped off the map—even at the cost of their own wellbeing, they will never compromise since their talk concerning peace and cooperation is designed to mask their true intentions. Iran and North Korea see Obama’s attempts at compromising as a sign of weakness and stupidity (can’t this idiot see what we are up to? They must ponder). They will never admit failure of their policies. Instead, they will double down. The Palestinians will never accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. Instead, they continue to promote hate speech and glorification of terrorist murderers. They continue to fire rockets at Israeli civilians. They brainwash the young generation, employing Nazi style anti-Semitism, so that real peace will be prevented from taking root for the next century and beyond. The Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world’s Islamists do not see peace with Israel as their objective. Their only aim is to see Israel wiped off the map, whereas Israel’s objective comprises a peaceful co-existence. These two ends could never intersect. Accordingly, no compromise can take root and no negotiations around the “damn table” can bear fruit. Obama’s olive branch offer to Iran’s leaders at the commencement of his government’s rule was, and still is viewed as weakness and stupidity. Iran will not pull away from their path toward becoming a nuclear-armed superpower simply because Obama is logical and clearheaded. Their intentions collide with Obama’s. Iran does not look forward to world peace because they are lying in wait for Armageddon. It’s their crazy religious dogma and their Islamic ideology that stand in the way of any compromise or logical undertaking. _ Al-Jazeera, the Qatari-based TV news network is in the process piecing together a program titled “The day Israel crossed the nuclear threshold.” The main objective of this program is intended to expose the “truth” about how Israel satisfied its “military nuclear ambitions” while resorting to sophisticated deception, seedy lies and extortion when dealing with its supreme ally--the United States of America.
Producing a program of that magnitude and scope requires expert knowledge, analysis and opinions by those who are familiar with nuclear technology in general and Israel’s nuclear history in particular. The ideal, most credible program participants are Israelis who would explain, elaborate and confirm (on camera, in their own words) the assertion concerning Israel’s methods of deception, blatant lies and extortion schemes employed in Israel’s quest for nuclear arms capability. Al-Jazeera approached me for an interview on the subject, and I agreed. Right from the outset, I tried to set the record straight by arguing against the al-Jazeera’s characterization of Israel’s nuclear project as “military ambitions”. “They were not,” I claimed. “The phrase “Military ambitions” carries the implication of aggressive intentions. Israel’s intentions have not been a product of military ambitions; rather, these have been legitimate defense and deterrent needs.” Then I added. “The world doesn’t really have hard evidence that Israel possesses nuclear weapons, but regardless of whether they do or don’t,” I took a short breath before concluding, “Israel should possess these weapons of last resort.” The al-Jazeera interviewer seemed astounded. His facial expression resembled a question mark. “Nuclear weapons,” I expounded, “have not been used in wars since World War II. In today’s world the only reason for utilizing weapons of true mass destruction is when the underlying objective is genocide. And Israel is the only nation in the world that is subject to a genocidal threat.” I offerred examples. “Abd el Nasser announced in March 1965, “The liquidation of Israel will be liquidation through violence. We shall enter Palestine, not covered with sand but soaked in blood.” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been talking about wiping Israel off the map. Other Arab leaders have been echoing both leaders’ words and intentions. “No other nation in the world is facing these kinds of jeopardies,” I added. “Israel should never be caught naked if and when one of its genocide-seeking enemies possesses nuclear weapons. Israel must be able to defend itself, while possessing a compelling deterrent, making its enemies forego the use of nuclear weapons against the Jewish state for fear of massive retaliation.” The questioning moved to the issue of deception. Al-Jazeera attempted to cook the background by describing the US-Israel cooperation, stressing the alliance (including the “Atoms for Peace” project) between the Jewish state and the Americans before demonstrating how Israel “double-crossed” its most dependent ally, covering up and lying about the purpose and function of its nuclear reactor in Dimona. I rationalized. “We need to put it all in perspective.” “During Israel’s early days following its independence, contrary to common views held throughout the Arab world, the US was not Israel’s most trusted ally. In fact, the US placed Israel under an arms embargo that lasted until the late 60s. The US refused to sell high quality arms to Israel even in the face of massive buildup of Egyptian and Syrian arms caches by the Soviet Union. “France was Israel’s true and sole ally at that time, and cooperation between Israel and France on the Dimona project benefitted France as well. The French were working on designing and fabricating their own nuclear capability; they made use of Israeli patents, and got help from Israeli nuclear scientists. Furthermore, in 1956 a war broke out between Israel and Egypt. The war was joined by France and Great Britain (GB). The two countries invaded the Suez Canal after Nasser had nationalized it. The Soviets threatened France and GB with a nuclear attack should they refuse to withdraw their forces from the canal. The US, under the Eisenhower Administration applied pressure on France, GB and Israel to withdraw rather than standing up to the Soviets’ threats. France, GB and Israel felt betrayed by the Americans. “To facilitate Israel’s withdrawal from the Sinai, Eisenhower provided Israeli Prime Minister, Ben Gurion, with security guaranties including the demilitarization of the Sinai and an American direct military involvement in case Egypt attacks Israel. Both guaranties proved hollow during 1967 when the Americans under the Johnson Administration did not stop Nasser’s aggressive military buildup in the Sinai, his closing of the straights of Tiran to Israeli shipping and his announcements concerning and preparations for Israel’s bloody, imminent demise.” In response to al-Jazeera’s questions concerning the American “Atoms for Peace” project I added. “Israel was working with the French (not with the Americans) on its nuclear project. The construction of the Dimona reactor started in 1953 with French help. The American “Atoms for Peace” project had nothing to do with Dimona. It was initiated in 1955, two years following Israeli-French nuclear cooperation on the Dimona reactor. In 1960, following Ben Gurion’s admission that the Dimona project was a peaceful nuclear reactor, the US under the Kennedy Administration insisted on inspections of the facility. “After some delays, the American visits took place but failed to uncover activities or materials indicative of nuclear weapons production. In the following years as more American inspections took place, the US administrations of Johnson and Nixon came to the realization that Israel might possess the means for nuclear bomb production even though the Americans had never uncovered any hard evidence proving their assumptions.” Here I added my own caveat. “The Americans main concern was not Israel’s own nuclear weapons. They worried that Israel’s nuclear project may instigate a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, that it would lead to a closer collaboration between the Soviets and their Arab clients on the nuclear issue, and that it would bring about Arabs’ dependence on the Soviet Union. The Americans finally realized that Israel would never attack an Arab country with nuclear weapons unless there was a threat to Israel’s existence. The US and Israel came to an understanding that as long as Israel had not introduced--test, announce or threaten its adversaries with a nuclear attack--the risk of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East would have been diminished. The Americans realized that a nuclear Israel may even contribute to stability due to Israel’s powerful deterrent. Consequently, US administrations starting with Johnson’s were willing to replace France as the main arms supplier to Israel. It was not an Israeli blackmail or any unreasonable political pressure that brought about stronger military ties between Israel and the US. It was the realization that a strong Israel was essential to keeping the peace, to facing up to the Soviet Union.” At this point the al-Jazeera interviewer asked about the means and the methods used by inspectors to detect efforts designed to produce nuclear weapons, and the measures taken by a nation, trying to mask these activities. I felt at home talking about Uranium enrichment process and Plutonium reprocessing. I avoided discussing details of the second part of the question other than saying that masking nuclear activities for military applications is possible. We concluded the interview with my assertion that the world should be applying a double-standard on the issue of nuclear Iran. The civilized world understands that a nuclear Israel does not hold a real threat of launching nuclear attacks on its enemies unless Israel is attacked first and it faces a potential Holocaust. On the other hand, Iran has announced its aggressive intentions; it is a terrorist state, ruled by religious fanatics who may try to engineer Armageddon to fulfill their vision of some sick and crazy prophecies. There must be a different standard when dealing with a nuclear Iran. Al Jazeera was trying to expose the double standard by demonstrating that Iran has been copying Israel’s expedition towards a nuclear weapons capability. I trust that my responses to their questions helped make clear that Iran must be subject to a different standard concerning their quest for nuclear weapons. My bottom line message was: “A nuclear Iran must not be tolerated, while a nuclear Israel needs not be feared.” The interview will be aired by al-Jazeera in the near future (no date is available at the time of this writing) after they apply their own creative editing. Dr. Avi Perry, a talk show host at PNN (Paltalk News Network) is the author of “Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks,” and more recently, “72 Virgins,” a thriller about the covert war on Islamic terror. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories distinguished staff member and manager, a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to UN International Standards body, a professor at Northwestern University and Intelligence expert for the Israeli Government. More information is available at www.aviperry.org Thursday, April 20, 2006 |
Categories
All
|
