By OLIVIER GUITTA | Middle East Times, Sep 8, 2008
Almost a year ago to the day, in a totally surprising move, the Israeli Air Force bombed a suspected nuclear facility in Syria. Interestingly, over the previous summer, Israel had reportedly warned the George W. Bush administration. Despite opposition from U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Israel moved to eliminate what it believed was an imminent threat.
Since Iran is a much bigger threat than Syria was and since the diplomatic efforts and sanctions have led almost nowhere, the question is not if Israel will strike but rather when. One of the people convinced of this outcome is French President Nicolas Sarkozy who on Sept. 4 from Damascus, of all places, warned Iran: “Iran is taking a major risk by continuing the process of seeking nuclear technology for military ends, because one day, no matter which Israeli government is in power, one morning we will awake to find Israel has attacked.”
While some pundits and analysts classify this kind of statement in the psychological warfare/bluff game, the truth is quite different. Interestingly Iran dismissed Sarkozy’s statement and a deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards, Nour Ali Shoushtari boasted that “the enemy does not dare attack Iran, as it knows that it will receive fatal blows from Iran if it ventures into such a stupid act.”
But in reality, Iran should not take these warnings lightly because time and again Israel has proven in its short history that it will not tolerate a deadly threat.
In a recent appearance at the Washington Institute for Near East policy, deputy Israeli Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz‘s speech and body language could not be clearer especially when he repeated several times, talking about Iran’s threat: “Israel will not allow a second Holocaust.”
At this point in time it seems like Israel is left with the least desired option: the military one.
The main reason for this is the total failure of the international community to pressure Iran to give up its quest for a nuclear weapon. In fact after five years of official non-stop negotiations and three U.N. sanctions, Iran has advanced unopposed its military nuclear program.
While some view that Iran has fooled the international community, it is rather the West that has accepted to be fooled. Indeed by not succeeding in applying real tough sanctions on Iran, the world has come to the point where Iran is ever so close to have access to a nuclear bomb.
It is no secret as to what could force Iran to give in: crippling its oil-based economy. In fact, 85 percent of Iran’s revenue comes from exporting oil and at the same time Iran imports 40 percent of its gasoline. Sanctions that would include banning import of Iranian oil and exporting of gasoline to Iran will never pass because of a Russian and/or Chinese veto. Also the passing of a fourth round of U.N. sanctions against Iran is very unlikely especially since the recent Georgian crisis, Russia will block anything the West will suggest and even more so when it is a condemnation of its Iranian ally.
The solution around this would be for Western navies to block the Strait of Hormuz and not allow any oil to flow in and out of Iran. While this would have very negative impact on the oil market in the short run if the blockade just lasts a few days and Iran caves in, then the world could have averted a new war.
A small price to pay, isn’t it? But since this suggestion seems unlikely to be followed anytime soon, Israel is going to be left with the only choice, that of a military strike against Iran.
Now as to the timing? First, the timing of a new incoming Israeli prime minister is going to have a clear impact on when the strike will occur. But what is sure is that like in all military operations, the element of surprise is crucial so the longer Israel waits, the more prepared Iran will be. Interestingly, experts are placing the risks of an Israeli attack on Iran by January 2009 at anywhere between 0 and 30 percent.
That clearly leaves Israel with a potential opportunity to surprise everyone including most importantly the mullahs’ regime in Tehran. Taking a contrarian view, the ideal time for a strike would be in the transition period in the United States between Nov. 4 (the election of a new president) and Jan. 20 (his entering office).
But depending on who is elected, the odds are not the same. In fact, if Dem. Sen. Barack Obama wins, the likelihood of an Israeli strike during the transition is significantly higher, maybe up to 70 percent, than if Rep. Sen. John Mc Cain becomes president because of Obama’s and Joe Biden‘s appeasing views on Iran and less favorable to Israel.
In this eventuality, it would make more sense for Israel to strike while the more favorable President George W. Bush is still in office.
—
Olivier Guitta, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant, is the founder of the newsletter The Croissant (www.thecroissant.com).
Poll shows many still doubt 9/11
September 11, 2008More than 50 per cent of people reject the official belief that the attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 9, 2001, were carried out by al-Qaeda, a new survey has revealed.
The findings, released late on Wednesday, suggest that the official version of events – that the attacks, which killed more than 2,900 people and sparked the US so-called “war on terror”, were carried out by al-Qaeda – is still a long way from being generally accepted.
Only 46 per cent of respondents named al-Qaeda, while 25 per cent said they did not know and 15 per cent said the US government was behind the attacks.
Steven Kull, the director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, which carried out the survey, told Al Jazeera: “Broadly what this says is that there is a lack of confidence with the United States and so people mistrust the narrative the US puts forward.”
Officially, hijackers took control of four passenger aircraft in the September 11 attacks. Two of the aeroplanes crashed into the World Trade Centre in New York and the “Twin Towers” subsequently collapsed, bringing down two other buildings nearby. The third aircraft hit the Pentagon while the fourth is said to have crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.
Kull’s organisation asked more than 16,000 people world wide “Who do you think was behind the 9/11 attacks?”, leaving the question open-ended.
Blaming Israel
While a substantial number of those polled believed the US government was in some way behind the attacks, seven per cent point the finger at Israel.
Of the countries surveyed, Egypt and Jordan had the highest percentages of people who believed Israel was behind the attack, polling 43 and 31 per cent respectively. Nineteen per cent of those polled in the Palestinian territories claimed Israel was in some way responsible.”In Muslim countries – where we’ve carried out a number of focus groups – it’s clear there is a feeling that the US had some kind of motivation, such as invading Iraq,” Kull said.
“There are also some difficulties with the idea that Muslims carried out attacks on civilians – which is widely seen as wrong and contrary to Islam… And there are plenty of people in Muslim countries who say it would have been too technically difficult [for al-Qaeda] to pull off.”
In Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, a majority 57 per cent said they did not know who was behind the attacks. Only five per cent said that Israel had been involved.
‘Conspiracy theorists’
In 2002, the US government set up the 9/11 commission, chaired by Thomas Kean, a former governor of New Jersey, to investigate the event. It published its report in 2004, concluding that the 19 hijackers were all members of al-Qaeda. It also concluded that there had been intelligence failures on the part of the CIA and the FBI, the US’s spy agencies.
But the World Trade Centre attacks quickly proved fertile ground for “conspiracy theorists” and sceptics have a wide range of alternative theories to choose from – including that US military personnel were involved in the attack or that the towers were brought down with the help of a controlled explosion.
“There are people who are saying that US soldiers were flying the planes … or people who say simply that the US government turned a blind eye to the threat or that they somehow got them to do it through some means,” said Kull.
One of the proponents of an alternative version of the events has been Willis Carto, editor of the American Free Press newspaper, which frequently points the finger of blame at Israel.
He told Al Jazeera the attacks were “perpetrated by the Israeli Mossad [secret service] in conjunction with the American government”.
“There’s no real evidence whatsoever that the official story of the planes smashing into the building was true. It’s impossible to believe that a few furtive little characters armed with box cutters who had no idea how to fly … could have manouvred the planes like this,” Carto said.
“There are so many holes in the story that no one in his right mind can believe it.”
Classroom politics
Those who expound alternative versions of the events have themselves become the targets for debunking. Loose Change, a popular series of internet videos that counters the official version of events, has itself inspired a blog called Screw Loose Change.
Reports in engineering publications have sought to counter alternative theories that say the towers could not have collapsed as they did simply by being hit by an aircraft.In 2007, research by Keith Seffen, a senior lecturer in Cambridge University’s engineering department, used analysis of an engineering model to show the tower collapse had been “quite ordinary and natural”.
The US has also seen the debate enter the university classroom. Both Ward Churchill, of the University of Colorado, and Kevin Barrett, of the University of Wisconsin, provoked a public outcry over the fact they professed to believe alternative versions of the events.
Their critics feared the academics might be tempted to bring there beliefs into the classroom. Their supporters said that even if they did, a university classroom was the place for alternative theories.
‘Structural failure’
Michael Newman, from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (Nist), which worked for several years on reports about how and why the World Trade Centre towers collapsed, told Al Jazeera the debate was unlikely to ever go away.
“Whenever we put out one of our reports, we get phone calls and emails from those with alternative views,” he said.
“And you always get a lot of interest around the time of the anniversary – it’s a part of history now.
The Nist reports say the towers’ collapse was due to “structural failure” after the aeroplanes hit them. The reports have been welcomed by building code regulators and many of Nist’s recommendations from its investigations have been adopted, but those with alternative viewpoints have continued to dispute the organisation’s findings.
“We’ve heard opinions from all sides,” Newman told Al Jazeera.
“At the end of the day, people are entitled to their own opinions and we probably won’t be able to convince them otherwise.”
Share this:
Tags:9/11, al-Qaida, Israel, Israeli Mossad, Michael Newman, official version doubted, Steven Kull, United States, World Trade Centre
Posted in Commentary, US policy | Leave a Comment »