---

I en artikel i Jerusalem Post kan man læse følgende artikel, som giver
en ganske anden historie om forholdet mellem Israel og Iran, end der
sædvanligvis ses:

=
Iran? Hardly Israel's problem alone

Amir Taheri, THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 14, 2006

As the world ponders what to do about Iran's nuclear ambitions some
talking heads claim they have found the perfect solution.

This "perfect solution" is simple: Israel attacks the Islamic Republic,
destroys as much of its nuclear infrastructure as possible, and sets the
Iranian bomb project back by a decade during which a more responsible
regime emerges in Teheran.

This perfect solution would please the Europeans because it would remove
the spotlight from their appeasement policy which is, at least in part,
responsible for the crisis. They would be able to shake their heads in
an "I-told-you-so" gesture toward the mullahs, recall the beauties of
"soft power" and feel glum about their ability to stand above dirty
games played by "immature powers" such as the Islamic Republic and
Israel.

The Americans would also be happy.

It is clear that, not only they do not have a policy on Iran but are
also unable to agree to diagnose the problem. With Iraq still a "work in
progress," the Bush administration is loath to suggest another regime
change, especially in a mid-term election year.

The club of the happy will also include the Arab states which, although
shaking in their sandals at the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran, are
practicing kitman (dissimulation) to hide their true feelings or, worse
still, are throwing in a red herring in the shape of proposals for "a
Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction."

Who else will be happy? Well, Russia will certainly not be unhappy. By
the middle of this century Iran will have a larger population than
Russia. Iran also harbors a deep-felt hostility, generated by bitter
wars with Russia and loss of territory to the Tsars, toward its neighbor
across the Caspian Sea. A nuclear-armed Islamic Iran would emerge as an
even stronger player in the new version of "The Great Game" in Central
Asia and the Caucasus.

In the words of Hassan Abbasi, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's strategic
guru, Russia is a "fading power" while the Islamic Republic is a
"rising" one.

THE LIST could continue. All this means that a great many countries have
a direct interest in preventing Iran from going nuclear. It also means
that none is prepared to dirty their hands to ensure that Iran doesn't
get the Bomb. Hence all the talk about Israel taking "surgical action"
on behalf of the "international community."

The truth, however, is that in any list of countries that might be
subjected to Iranian nuclear bullying, if not attack, Israel would not
appear in the top slot.

The reason for this is simple. Israel has a small air space to defend
and is well-equipped, partly thanks to its Arrow 2 missile-killers, to
destroy missiles launched from Iran.

Teheran could, of course, supply a nuclear device to its terrorist
agents in Lebanon and the West Bank. But the nature of the terrain and
the fact that most Palestinians and Lebanese live in close proximity
with the Israelis would mean killing large numbers of people in Lebanon
and the Palestinian territories as well.

Ever since the mullahs seized power 27 years ago, they have developed an
anti-Israeli discourse as virulent as that of Hamas and other
Palestinian radical groups. That discourse, however, is partly prompted
by the regime's desire to hide its Shi'ite identity so that it can claim
the leadership of radical Islam, both Shi'ite and Sunni.

IN FACT, Israel and Iran, regardless of who rules in Teheran, have
common strategic interests. Imagine if Israel had not appeared on the
map in 1947-48. The energy generated by the pan-Arab nationalist
movement, which dominated Arab politics in the post-war era, would have
been directed against two other neighbors: Turkey and Iran.

To a certain extent, that did, actually happen, despite the fact that
Israel became the principal target of Arab nationalistic rage. Even
today the Arab League claims that the Turkish province of Iskanderun is,
in fact, "usurped Arab territory." The league also regards the Iranian
province of Khuzestan as "occupied Arab land," and insists on
re-labeling the Persian Gulf as "Arabian Gulf."

League members are also committed to "liberating" three Iranian islands,
located in the Strait of Hormuz, that are claimed by the United Arab
Emirates.

PAN-ARAB nationalism is not the only threat Iran faces. A more deadly
threat - an existential one - to use a fashionable term, comes from Arab
Sunni Islamism. It was Arab Sunni Islamism that destroyed the Shi'ite
holy shrines in Iraq in 1802, and returned last month to do so again in
Samarra. The same movement is behind the murder in cold blood of several
thousand Iraqi Shi'ite men, women and children since 2004.

To Arab Sunni Islamists, Iranians are gabrs (Zoroastrians) while
Shi'ites, including Arab ones, are rafidis (heretics) who must be
"re-converted" or put to death.

Both pan-Arab nationalism and pan-Arab Sunni Islamism are as much mortal
foes for Iran as they are for Israel. Neither Israel nor Iran will be
safe unless the twin monsters are defeated and the Arab states
democratized.

Were Iran to "destroy" Israel, at a huge human cost to itself, it would
only be realizing the dream of its own mortal enemies.

Many in Israel might not quite appreciate all this.

In Iran, however, there is a deep understanding of the nature of
regional historical and religious rivalries and enmities. This is why
there is virtually no popular support in Iran for an anti-Israeli policy
that goes beyond rhetoric or limited support for Iran's clients in
Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian territories.

There is no reason why Israel should assume a responsibility that
others, including far stronger powers, do not wish to face.
In fact, part of Israel's problems stem from the failure of its
successive leaders to steer the country clear of other people's
quarrels.

In 1956 Israel was dragged into the Suez War because Britain and France
lacked the will to conduct it alone. And when London and Paris caved in
under pressure from Washington, they didn't even show the decency of
taking into account Israel's interests.

During the Cold War, Israel took the flak for its alliance with the
United States, and, in successive wars, destroyed arsenals built by the
Soviet bloc in several Arab countries. That helped protect Washington's
Arab allies against aggression by pro-Soviet Arab powers. And that, in
turn, meant that the Soviets could not seize control of the region's
vital oil resources through proxies.

Israel, however, was rewarded by not being allowed to translate its
military victories into a political settlement that reflected its
national interests.

In 1980 Israel knocked out the French-made Iraqi nuclear weapons center,
even though the bomb that Saddam Hussein was making was to be dropped on
Teheran.

The Israeli action helped the major powers, including the United States,
avoid a catastrophic situation in a region vital to their interests.
Israel's reward was being described by Jacques Chirac, then mayor of
Paris, as "a criminal state."

To be sure, Israel should make it clear, through the channels it has
always maintained with Teheran, that if attacked it would retaliate with
double force. But it should also remind those urging it to act that the
Islamic Republic's policies, including its quest for nuclear weapons,
represent a threat not only to Israel but to many other nations in the
Middle East and beyond.

This article can also be read at
<http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395605629&pagename=JPost
%52FJPArticle%2FShowFull>

Copyright 1995-2006 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/
==

Ja, en ganske anden fremstilling end den sædvalige.

Se i øvrigt også:

<http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1139395642558&pa
gename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull>

og

<http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395675542&pagename=JPost
%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull>
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk

---

Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:

<http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395675542&pagename=JPost
%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull>

Og artiklen kan læses her:
==
The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

Officer tells 'Post': Iran's air force not a threat to IAF
Yaakov Katz, THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 26, 2006

Iran's air force does not pose a threat to the Israeli Air Force, a
high-ranking IDF officer has told The Jerusalem Post. IAF warplanes, he
said, were capable of overcoming the air defense systems of all of
Israel's neighbors.

"The Iranian air force is not a threat to the IAF," the officer told the
Post. "None of our neighbors pose an aerial threat that the air force
would not be able to deal with."

The officer stressed, however, that Teheran's race for nuclear weapons
was not exclusively Israel's problem but was a threat to the entire
Western world.

"Israel's greatest threat these days comes from Iran and their efforts
to obtain nuclear power," he said. "But this is not just our problem and
is a threat to the entire free world."

The Iranian Air Force is comprised of MiG 29 squadrons and other
warplanes, some 30 years old. Their air defense systems, which are
currently heavily deployed near the various nuclear sites, also feature
Russian SA-2, SA-5, SA-6 and shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles, according
to the Military Balance prepared by Tel Aviv University's Jaffee Center
for Strategic Studies. The Iranians also have aged USmade Hawk missiles
and have been seeking to purchase the sophisticated S-300P from Russia.

The United States, the officer said, was the preferable choice for
launching a military strike against Iran. "America is a world
superpower," he said. "And they could do it the best." But the officer
said, Israel was closely following diplomatic developments on the
Iranian issue at the United Nations Security Council. "At this stage we
believe that the US and Europeans will stop Iran and its crazy leader
[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]," he said.

Similar remarks were made two weeks ago by former IDF chief of staff
Lt.-Gen. (res.) Moshe Ya'alon who said that the IAF was capable of
carrying out air strikes against several dozen sites. At the beginning
of the month, the Post reported that Israel's Arrow 2 missile defense
system was capable of intercepting Iranian Shihab and Scud missiles.

The air force, the officer said, was continuously purchasing new
aircraft and developing new capabilities to ensure it maintained
superiority over Israel's enemies and deterred them from even thinking
of launching an attack against the Jewish state. Syria, he brought as an
example, recently abandoned attempts to build up a strong air force and
has begun investing most of its defenseallocated funds in
ground-toground missiles.

But while Israel has clearly not ruled out military action against Iran,
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the Post last week that he believed
diplomatic efforts could succeed in stopping Teheran's race for the
bomb. If sanctions expected to be imposed on Iran by the Security
Council were "extensive and decisive" they could be effective in
stopping the nuclear program.

"If the sanctions - and the Iranians are afraid of them - will be
extensive and decisive they can influence the Iranians," he said. As to
the possibility of an Israeli military strike against Iran, Mofaz said,
"Israel will defend itself."

This article can also be read at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395675542&pagename=JPost%
2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Copyright 1995-2006 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/
==

Og her vises at der ingen grund er til at Israel skal gribe ind i Iran.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk

---

Per Rønne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:

<http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1139395642558&pa
gename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull>

Og her vises hvorfor det er USA der må stoppe udviklingen af Irans
atomvåben:

==
The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

'US could wipe out Iran nukes in 2 days'
YIGAL GRAYEFF, THE JERUSALEM POST Mar. 20, 2006

Another voice has been added to those who believe that air strikes
should halt Iran's quest to develop nuclear weapons.

Gary Berntsen, the former senior CIA operative who led the search for
Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in late 2001, believes the United States
has the ability to easily destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. He said the
US could use bunker-buster bombs and other weapons to carry out the
operation.

"We can dig those things out. We can destroy them," he told The
Jerusalem Post in an interview.

"We can take care of it in a couple of days with air strikes and they
wouldn't be able to stop us," he added. "It wouldn't be difficult to
plan. They'd be some dangers but I think the United States can do it."
Berntsen, who left the CIA in June last year after more than 20 years of
service, believes it will be difficult to persuade Iran to stop its
nuclear program.

"I know the Iranians. I've worked against the Iranians for years. They
are determined to get this no matter what, and they will lie and cheat
and do whatever they have to do to get themselves a weapon," he said.

Berntsen ruled out covert action because of the scale of Iran's nuclear
program.

"This is a huge system of facilities they have. This is not going to be
a small sort of engagement. We are probably going to have to destroy 30
facilities in 30 locations. Or at least 15," he said.

Berntsen's comments came after former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle
said earlier this month that Iran's prime nuclear facilities could be
devastated in one night by a small fleet of US B-2 bombers.

In addition, Moshe Ya'alon, Israel's former chief of General Staff, said
the IDF has the capabilities to attack Iran's nuclear facilities and
could do it in conjunction with the US and some EU countries. However,
Berntsen believes Israel should not carry out any operation.

"It's better for the United States to do it. If you (Israel) do it,
we'll have all sorts of problems in the Middle East, all sorts of
countries that will align themselves with the Iranians over this.
Politically it makes more sense for the US to do it," he said.

Berntsen also ruled out a ground operation.

"This is huge country. There are 70 million people there. It's gigantic.
We don't need to be getting into something like that," he said.

However, Berntsen believes that the US should first exhaust all the
political options before carrying out a strike.

"We should do what we're doing right now. That means taking them to the
United Nations and make this 'the world against Iran,' because the
Iranians appear determined to create a weapon," he said.

"If by chance they disarm, then we can avoid this, but if they don't
disarm we will need to take care of this ourselves," he said.

"The Iranians have to know that we mean business. They will either
disarm or we will destroy their facilities. No ifs, ands, or buts. They
present a threat to peace in the Middle East. They present a threat to
Israel. We cannot accept that," he added.

Berntsen predicted that if Iran doesn't disarm, President George Bush
would carry out an attack regardless of domestic opposition.

"I think that President Bush has demonstrated that he says what he means
and he means what he says. A lot of people didn't think he would do
Iraq. This is a guy who doesn't put his finger in the air to see which
way the wind is blowing. President Bush means business.

"The problem right now is that the Iranians are going to miscalculate.
They are going to believe that because 2006 is an election year (in
Congress), and due to all this political opposition to the president
because of Iraq, they're going to think that he's weak in the knees, he
can't do it and they're not going to negotiate.

"That would be a very serious mistake for them. They're going to
miscalculate. They think he's politically weak and George Bush won't
care. He's going to do it anyway when it comes down to it," Berntsen
said.

"I believe that we'll get past the mid-term election in 2006 and then
the Iranians ought to disarm themselves or suffer the consequences," he
added.

Berntsen recently released a book called Jawbreaker, which is about the
search for bin Laden after al-Qaida's attacks on the US in September
2001. The book has been on the best-seller lists in the US but has yet
to be released in Israel.

This article can also be read at
<http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1139395642558&pagename=JPost
%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull>

Copyright 1995-2006 The Jerusalem Post - http://www.jpost.com/
==

Ja, her er tydligt tale om en mand der mener, at USA, om nødvendigt
alene, skal tilintetgøre den iranske atom-option. Muligvis allerede kort
efter det amerikanske midvejsvalg senere i år.
--
Per Erik Rønne
http://www.RQNNE.dk