The fuss over Iraq is not about oil, nor about WMD as an eventual threat to the US --it's all about the political balance of power between Israel and its Arab neighbors and the settlement of the Palestinian question, namely, Palestinian statehood and the Jerusalem "taboo"....
Judeofascist freaks and Zionist fanatics want the sacrifice of thousands of American lives not to save the free world, not to defend America, NOT EVEN TO SECURE ISRAEL but, rather, to preserve Israel's nuclear monopoly in the Mideast --hence allowing her to deny the Palestinians their right to a viable state and the Muslims their sovereignty over East Jerusalem....
Straight from the horse's mouth:
Ha'aretz Daily Newspaper Tuesday, June 9, 1998
Swimming with the Dolphins
Israel's new Dolphin submarines, built in Germany, will add a new dimension to the nuclear arms race in the Middle East
By Yossi Melman
At the beginning of 1999, when the navy will bring into active service the first of three Dolphin submarines constructed at German shipyards, the Middle East arms race will take on new proportions. One submarine, whose construction already is complete, is now conducting exercises in the North Sea. According to official navy reports, 45 crew members will serve on the Dolphin. It is 75 meters long and is powered by diesel and electric engines. Its carrying capacity while under water ? 1,700 tons. According to the same reports, the Dolphin will be fitted with pipes for launching 10 torpedoes.
Public discourse recently has centered on the implications of the Pakistani and Indian nuclear experiments on Israel and the Middle East in general. Most experts agree that the experiments on the Indian subcontinent will spur Iran in its attempts to arm itself with nuclear weapons, and subsequently, Iraq as well. According to American and Israeli intelligence estimates, Iran will have the capability to manufacture a nuclear bomb in another five to seven years.
This served as the background for a number of media scenarios, which centered on what Israel can do to prevent additional countries from going nuclear. This was the concept that guided Prime Minister Menachem Begin in June 1981 when he ordered the Israeli Air Force to bomb and destroy the Iraqi nuclear reactor, Tamuz. Based on the prime minister's reasoning, Israel has formulated the "Begin doctrine," that Israel will not allow any country in the Middle East to lay its hands on nuclear weapons.
It is generally accepted throughout the world that Israel has had nuclear weapons for more than a quarter of a century. (A new book, soon to be published in the United States, claims that Israel already had nuclear weapons during the Six-Day War, in 1967.) Israel's nuclear monopoly gave it its deterrent ability and military-psychological edge over its enemies. The loss of the nuclear hegemony --even if it does not actually threaten Israel's existence-- certainly would threaten Israeli military superiority and its ability to dictate political conditions and settlements with the Arab world. The assumption by experts is that Israel will do everything in its power to prevent countries like Iran or Iraq from leveling the balance of terror. Consequently, there are those in the West who believe that sooner or later, Israel is likely to decide on a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear sites, to keep it from developing nuclear weapons.
A number of Israeli leaders have dropped hints in that direction, as did former Air Force commander Major General Herzl Bodinger. What is clear is that it will not be an easy task. Iran has studied the lessons of the Israeli attack on the reactor near Baghdad: its nuclear installations are scattered over a number of different sites, unlike the situation in Iraq. But it can be assumed that all the difficulties notwithstanding, Israel's air force has the operational ability, with F-16 planes, to seek out and destroy these sites.
Under the assumption that it is not possible to prevent Iran from purchasing military nuclear capability, experts estimate that the Middle East will find itself embroiled in a nuclear arms race. This could mean the development of second nuclear strike capability.
According to foreign reports, Israel has always tried not to lag behind the state-of-the-art technology, and it is among the leaders in the world in the development of scientific and technological advances. Those reports also claim that Israel has a large array of such capabilities or the technological ability to attain them. According to American intelligence estimates, Israel has about 200 atom bombs, apparently including neutron bombs as well. It has varied means of launching, from planes and missiles. According to foreign reports, Israel has Jericho ground-to-ground missiles, Gabriel sea-to-sea missiles, and at least the knowledge and ability to develop cruise missiles.
The Washington Post, in an article eight years ago, quoted American and Western European intelligence experts and strategists "who claim that submarines could give Israel second nuclear strike capability." The article stated that "if Arab forces succeed in striking the nuclear reactor at Dimona, ground-to-ground missiles and air force bases, Israel could still respond with a cruise missile launched from a submarine."
The same article quoted two experts, Paul Rogers of Bradford University in England and Seth Kraus of the Naval College of Rhode Island, who estimated that Israel already then had the knowledge and technology necessary to develop a cruise missile. The cruise missile is unique in its capability to move along a set course at a low altitude, until it hits its target. That is why it is so hard to hit or intercept.
The American and West European experts estimate that if Iran or Iraq do attain nuclear weapons, Israel will not be able to stand aside and see the foundation of its deterrence undermined. While participation in the nonconventional arms race is costly, international experience in general, and recently that of the Indians and Pakistanis, shows that occasionally countries can be drawn into such a race to attain or conserve superiority or as the result of the over-ambitiousness of policy-making bureaucrats and technocrats.
[snip]
216.239.37.100 |
