“According to Army Radio, the US has reportedly pledged to sell Israel materials used to produce electricity, as well as nuclear technology and other supplies.”
This information appeared as the lead article in yesterday’s Haaretz. The article went on to say, “Israel’s Army Radio reported on Wednesday that the United States has sent Israel a secret document committing to nuclear cooperation between the two countries . . .
“Other countries have refused to cooperate with Israel on nuclear matters because it has not signed the NPT [Nuclear Proliferation Treaty], and there has been increasing international pressure for Israel to be more transparent about its nuclear arsenal.”
In fact, Israel’s nuclear plant/arsenal was built in the Negev with the help of the French in 1956, and has been maintained by Israel to this day. It contains an estimated 200 to 300 nuclear warheads.
Haaretz added that “Army Radio’s diplomatic correspondent said the reported offer could put Israel on a par with India, another NPT holdout which is openly nuclear-armed but in 2008 secured a U.S.-led deal granting it civilian nuclear imports.” And thanks to the fact that previous President George Bush would not sign the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty on behalf of the US, as well.
Haaretz said that “During Tuesday’s meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama, the two leaders discussed the global challenge of nuclear proliferation and the need to strengthen the nonproliferation system.” This is certainly a laudable action if it’s true.
“They also discussed calls for a conference on a nuclear-free Middle East, which was proposed during the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NTP) review conference in New York and which Netanyahu said he would not take part in because it intends to single out Israel.” Was Netanyahu’s reference to New York a reference to the UN? Certainly, the city itself has the largest Jewish population outside of Israel?
In any case, “Obama informed Netanyahu that, as a co-sponsor charged with enabling the proposed conference, the United States will insist that such a conference have a broad agenda to include regional security issues, verification and compliance and discussion of all types of weapons of mass destruction.” Here, here, for President Obama.
Again, “Obama emphasized the conference will only take place if all countries ‘feel confident that they can attend,’ and said that efforts to single out Israel would make the prospects of such a conference unlikely.”
Well, why would Israel be singled out? Could it be for its repeated offers to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities? Or for Menachim Begin’s leveling Iraq’s newly built nuclear facility in 1981 with US F-15s and F-16s. Fortunately, there was no nuclear material in it at the time, but it remains the only time any nation has bombed a nuclear facility.
Despite that unpleasant history, “The two leaders agreed to work together to oppose efforts to single out Israel at the IAEA General Conference in September.”
Certainly, we wouldn’t want Israel to feel victimized. Especially in the way Jeff Gates recently described its victimization of the Egyptians in the 1967 War in his article, Bibi back at the White House – the consistency of Israeli duplicity comes ever more clearly in focus. It turns out, according to Gates, that “Israel was neither under attack nor under threat of attacks as its leadership has since conceded. Air raid sirens were just props in the stagecraft of waging war by way of deception.”
Gates also pointed out that “Though the US has been deceived with stunning consistency for more than six decades, a mid-east course correction remains possible. If this latest president can concede to himself that his political career is a product [of] those complicit at this deceit, he may yet emerge as the transformative leader that his supporters once hoped he would be.” How true.
Haaretz reported that “Obama emphasized that the U.S. will continue to work closely with Israel to ensure that arms control initiatives and policies do not detract from Israel’s security, and ‘support our common efforts to strengthen international peace and stability.’”
Ironically, “Dan Meridor, Netanyahu’s deputy prime minister in charge of nuclear affairs, said Obama’s endorsement was not new but that its public expression — two months after Washington supported Egypt’s proposal at a review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — was significant.”
Perhaps some old wounds can be licked, seeing how, as Gates writes, “In the  war’s first few hours, the ‘victimized’ Israelis destroyed the Egyptian Air Force while its aircraft was still on the ground.” So who is the real victim?
But Meridor went on to say that, “Obama’s statement ‘was without a doubt a special and significant text. It was important for us, and it was important for the region.’”
And Haaretz writes, “Israel neither confirms nor denies having nuclear weapons under an ‘ambiguity’ strategy billed as warding off foes while avoiding public provocations that can spark regional arms races.” An “ambiguity strategy; how ambiguous is that?
Perhaps as Haaretz concluded, “The official reticence, and its [Israel’s] toleration in Washington, has long aggrieved many Arabs and Iranians — especially given U.S.-led pressure on Tehran to rein in its nuclear program.”
That pressure comes as sanctions. As Shamus Cooke reports, Obama’s New Iran Sanctions: An Act of War. Cooke writes, “When the UN refused to agree to the severe sanctions that the U.S. wanted, Obama responded with typical Bush flair and went solo. The new U.S. sanctions against Iran — signed into law by Obama on July 1st — are an unmistakable act of war.” That’s a pretty heavy-handed response from the man bearing an olive branch for Israel and not wanting to “aggrieve” Tehran.
The New York Times responded, “If fully enforced, Iran’s economy will be potentially destroyed.” The Times outlined the central parts of the sanctions: “The law signed by Mr. Obama imposes penalties on foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or assist Iran with its domestic refining capacity. It also requires that American and foreign businesses that seek contracts with the United States government certify that they do not engage in prohibited business with Iran.” (July 1, 2010). Does that really make sense?
Cooke writes, “ . . . as Iran must import the majority of its oil from foreign corporations and nations, since it does not have the technology needed to refine the fuel that it pumps from its soil. By cutting this refined oil off, the U.S. will be causing massive, irreparable damage to the Iranian economy — equaling an act of war.
“In fact, war against Japan in WWII was sparked by very similar circumstances. Franklin Delano Roosevelt spearheaded a series of sanctions against Japan, which included the Export Control Act, giving the President the power to prohibit the export of a variety of materials to Japan, including oil. This gave Roosevelt the legal stance he needed to implement an oil embargo, an obvious act of war. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor simply brought the war out of the economic realm into the military sphere.” Right you are, Mr. Cooke.
“Iran is facing the exact same situation. Whereas the Obama administration calmly portrays economic sanctions as ‘peaceful’ solutions to political problems, they are anything but. The strategy here is to economically attack Iran until it responds militarily, giving the U.S. a fake moral high ground to ‘defend’ itself, since the other side supposedly attacked first.” So, starve Iran of refined oil and wait for the desired response. That’s clever.
But the bad news doesn’t stop there. According to the New York Times, “The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, placing special ships [war ships] off the Iranian coast and antimissile systems in at least four [surrounding] Arab countries, according to administration and military officials.” (January 30, 2010).
The very same article says that U.S. General Petraeus admitted that, “ . . . the United States was now keeping Aegis cruisers on patrol in the Persian Gulf [Iran’s border] at all times. Those cruisers are equipped with advanced radar and antimissile systems designed to intercept medium-range missiles.” Iran, as well as the whole world, knows full well that “antimissile systems” are perfectly capable of going on the offensive — their real purpose.
The capper, Cook writes, is that “Iran is completely surrounded by countries occupied by the U.S. military, whether it [is] the mass occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the U.S. puppet states that house U.S. military bases in Arab nations (not to mention Zionist Israel, a U.S. cohort in its war aims against Iran). Contrary to the statements of President Obama, Iran is already well contained militarily.” This is truly mind-boggling.
As stated by Cooke, “It remains to be seen how closely U.S. allies will follow the new oil sanctions; they will be under tremendous pressure to do so. The European Union has already signaled that it will follow Obama’s lead.”
But then, what really is Obama’s lead? Leading Israel to the non-nuclear proliferation table while driving Iran to war to save itself from ruin? I’m confused. Won’t this further aggravate conditions in the Middle East? Isn’t this walking towards the brink of all-out war between Middle East nations and the already war-straddled US? Is there no end to the machinations, the waste of blood and money? And how does Israel keep US policy in its pocket on behalf of this insanity?