Is Washington Planning a Military Strike?

December 30, 2005
Spiegel-Germany

Recent reports in the German media suggest that the United States may be preparing its allies for an imminent military strike against facilities that are part of Iran's suspected clandestine nuclear weapons program.

It's hardly news that US President George Bush refuses to rule out possible military action against Iran if Tehran continues to pursue its controversial nuclear ambitions. But in Germany, speculation is mounting that Washington is preparing to carry out air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear sites perhaps even as soon as early 2006.

German diplomats began speaking of the prospect two years ago -- long before the Bush administration decided to give the European Union more time to convince Iran to abandon its ambitions, or at the very least put its civilian nuclear program under international controls. But the growing likelihood of the military option is back in the headlines in Germany thanks to a slew of stories that have run in the national media here over the holidays.

The most talked about story is a Dec. 23 piece by the German news agency DDP from journalist and intelligence expert Udo Ulfkotte. The story has generated controversy not only because of its material, but also because of the reporter's past. Critics allege that Ulfkotte in his previous reporting got too close to sources at Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the BND. But Ulfkotte has himself noted that he has been under investigation by the government in the past (indeed, his home and offices have been searched multiple times) for allegations that he published state secrets -- a charge that he claims would underscore rather than undermine the veracity of his work.

According to Ulfkotte's report, "western security sources" claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission.

DDP also reported that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan have been informed in recent weeks of Washington's military plans. The countries, apparently, were told that air strikes were a "possible option," but they were given no specific timeframe for the operations.

In a report published on Wednesday, the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel also cited NATO intelligence sources claiming that Washington's western allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. Of course, Bush has publicly stated for months that he would not take the possibility of a military strike off the table. What's new here, however, is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year.

Links to al-Qaida?

According to DDP, during his trip to Turkey, CIA chief Goss reportedly handed over three dossiers to Turkish security officials that purportedly contained evidence that Tehran is cooperating with Islamic terror network al-Qaida. A further dossier is said to contain information about the current status of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Sources in German security circles told the DDP reporter that Goss had ensured Ankara that the Turkish government would be informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened. The Turkish government has also been given the "green light" to strike camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran on the day in question.

The DDP report attributes the possible escalation to the recent anti-Semitic rants by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose belligerent verbal attacks on Israel (he described the Holocaust as a "myth" and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map") have strengthened the view of the American government that, in the case of the nuclear dispute, there's little likelihood Tehran will back down and that the mullahs are just attempting to buy time by continuing talks with the Europeans.

The German wire service also quotes a high-ranking German military official saying: "I would be very surprised if the Americans, in the mid-term, didn't take advantage of the opportunity delivered by Tehran. The Americans have to attack Iran before the country can develop nuclear weapons. After that would be too late."

Despite the wave of recent reports, it's naturally difficult to assess whether the United States has any concrete plans to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. In a January 2005 report in the New Yorker, US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh claimed that clandestine American commando groups had already infiltrated Iran in order to mark potential military targets.

At the time, the Bush administration did not dispute Hersh's reporting -- it merely sought to minimize its impact. In Washington, word circulated that the article was filled with "inaccurate statements." But no one rejected the core reporting behind the article. Bush himself explicitly stated he would not rule out the "option of war."

How great is the threat?

So is the region now on the verge of a military strike or even a war? In Berlin, the issue is largely being played down. During his inaugural visit with US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Washington last week, the possibility of a US air strike against Iran "hadn't been an issue," for new German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung, a Defense Ministry spokesman told SPIEGEL ONLINE.

But the string of visits by high-profile US politicians to Turkey and surrounding reports are drawing new attention to the issue. In recent weeks, the number of American and NATO security officials heading to Ankara has increased dramatically. Within a matter of only days, the FBI chief, then the CIA chief and, most recently, NATO General Secretary Jaap De Hoop Scheffer visited the Turkish capital. During her visit to Europe earlier this month, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also traveled to Turkey after a stopover in Berlin.

Leading the chorus of speculation are Turkish newspapers, which have also sought to connect these visits to plans for an attack on Iran. But so far none of the speculation has been based on hard facts. Writing about the meeting between Porter Goss and Tayyip Erdogan, the left-nationalist newspaper Cumhuriyet wrote: "Now It's Iran's Turn." But the paper didn't offer any evidence to corroborate the claims.

Instead, the paper noted that the meeting between the CIA chief and Erdogan lasted longer than an hour -- an unusual amount of time, especially considering Goss had previously met with the head of Turkey's intelligence service, the MIT. The Turkish media concluded that the meetings must have dealt with a very serious matter -- but they failed to uncover exactly what it was. Most media speculated that Erdogan and Goss might have discussed a common initiative against the PKK in northern Iraq. It's possible that Goss demanded secret Turkish intelligence on Iran in exchange. Regardless what the prospects are for a strike, there's little chance a US air strike against Iran would be launched from its military base in the Turkish city of Incirlik, but it is conceivable that the United States would inform Turkey prior to any strike.

Skepticism in Ankara

Until now the government in Ankara has viewed US military activities in the region at best with skepticism and at worst with open condemnation. At the beginning of 2003, Ankara even attempted to prevent an American ground offensive in northern Iraq against the Saddam regime. A still-irritated Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly blamed military problems in Iraq on the fact that this second front was missing.

Two weeks ago, Yasar Buyukanit, the commander of the Turkish army and probable future chief of staff of the country's armed forces, flew to Washington. After the visit he made a statement that relations between the Turkish army and the American army were once again on an excellent footing. Buyukanit's warm and fuzzy words, contrasted greatly with his past statements that if the United States and the Kurds in northern Iraq proved incapable of containing the PKK in the Kurd-dominated northern part of the country and preventing it from attacking Turkey, Buyukanit would march into northern Iraq himself.

At the same time, Ankara has little incentive to show a friendly face to Tehran -- Turkish-Iranian relations have long been icy. For years now, Tehran has criticized Turkey for maintaining good relations with Israel and even cooperating with the Israeli army. Yet despite those ties to Israel, Ahmadinejad's recent anti-Israeli outbursts were reported far less extensively in Turkey than in Europe.

Still, Erdogan has been demonstrably friendly towards Israel recently -- as evidenced by Erdogan's recent phone call to Ariel Sharon, congratulating the prime minister on his recent recovery from a mild stroke. In the past, relations between Erdogan and Sharon have been reserved, but recently the two have grown closer. Nevertheless, Turkey's government has distanced itself from Sharon's threats to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon on his own if nobody else steps up to the task.

The Turkish government has also repeatedly stated that it opposes military action against both Iran and Syria. The key political motivation here is that -- at least when it comes to the Kurdish question -- Turkey, Syria and Iran all agree on one thing: they are opposed to the creation of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. But if the United States moves forward with an attack against Iran, Turkey will have no choice but to jump on board -- either as an active or passive partner.

It's a scenario that has Erdogan and his military in a state of deep unease. After all, even experts in the West are skeptical of whether a military intervention against nuclear installations in Iran could succeed. The more likely scenario is that an attack aiming to stop Iran's nuclear program could instead simply bolster support for Ahmadinejad in the region.

The Holy Trinity: Anti-Semitism, Holocaust and Israel

January 2, 2006
by: Yamin Zakaria

"If you say it is true that you (Germany) massacred and burned six million Jews during the Second World War, if you committed this massacre, why should the Palestinians pay the price?" (Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

The logic in the above statement is flawless; unable to refute the argument, the Western leaders responded with emotional outbursts. If they were to pose the same question to their masses at home, they would see that a significant section of their population hold the same viewpoint as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The context of his remark reminded me of the courageous boy 1, who publicly stated that the Emperor has no clothes, while everyone else remained silent in a state of ‘denial’ or due to ‘fear’.

Similarly, a climate of fear has been generated by the stigma of being labelled as anti-Semitic; thus, many remain silent while witnessing Zionist crimes. Even anti-war movements and those on the political left have been affected. They have labelled the Iraq war, as a war for oil, but the fear of being charged with anti-Semitism, has prevented the Iraq war from also being called a war for Israel. The Zionist entity has undeniably been one of the main beneficiaries of this invasion. Needless, to say that many of the US policy makers, who were architects of the Iraq war, are all pro-Zionist Jews (Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle etc.)

For some, it is a combination of fear and a desire to display their anti-Semitic credentials, so they refrain from criticising Zionist crimes, and in return they gain other forms of benefits. There are those who have willingly gone into a state of denial, refusing to recognise the Zionist crimes and the legitimacy of Palestinian resistance; they do not require any form of intellectual justification in their mind for their dogma. In a state of denial they continue to believe that Zionism is clothed with democracy and human rights, while in reality it stands naked like the Emperor in the den of racism and brutal oppression.

Like Fascism and Nazism, Anti-Semitism is a European phenomenon. For centuries Europe persecuted the Jews, resulting in the regular massacres and pogroms. On the contrary, the Muslims have provided the greatest level of security and hospitality to the Jews. Can anybody cite an event in Islamic history that was fuelled by hatred for the Jews? Before anyone shouts about the only incident from a 1500 year history, i.e. the punishment given to the Jews of Banu Quraydah 2, this was given for their crime of treachery and not for their Jewish identity.

The Jews in fact prospered under tolerant Islamic rule in ways that it never did in intolerant Christian Europe. Islamic Spain is one pertinent example, where the Jews become very prosperous and lived in security for centuries, until the Catholic reconquista that was followed by the genocidal – Catholic Church sponsored inquisition, which resulted in the genocide of Jews and Muslims alike. In the face of such persecution the Jews fled and were invited by the Othmania Khaleef (Ottoman State) - Bayazid II to settle in Othmania lands, notably Istanbul (where over 500 years later, the ancestors of these Jews still reside, speaking their ancestral language of Ladino) and Sarajevo (Bosnia). Even the renowned Orientalist Bernard Lewis, an ardent critic of Islam, accepts that Muslims were remarkably tolerant of their conquered subjects. Lewis’s book Jews of Islam, details the enlightened Islamic approach to Jews.

If establishing a Jewish state was some kind of atonement for the crimes of the West against the Jews, then surely this gesture should have led to the establishment of a Jewish ‘homeland’ in Europe. This point was made to Michael Gove (a British Member of Parliament, a regular contributor to the UK - Times Newspaper) as he argued for the rights of the Jews to have a homeland. But Gove clearly did not like the idea of ‘Israel in Europe’, presumably even less so inside the UK! Michael Gove is like all pro-Israeli Western journalists, who are enthusiastic about the Jewish homeland being in someone else’s territory, just like those who are enthusiastic about giving charity, using someone else’s money!

Few would admit that everything was done to ensure that a Jewish homeland was established outside of Europe and the US, in line with the real sentiments of the West towards the Jews! Thus, establishing Israel in Palestine was not atonement for centuries of anti-Semitism but simply more evidence of it. However, it is absolutely fair to reward the Jews with a homeland where they were most recently resident legally, that is prior to illegally squatting in Palestine since 1948. Now, that would be a recipe for real peace, going back to the 1947 borders and not 1967.

Michael Gove was then asked, why he scorns the Muslims for invoking religion, yet he expects the entire world to accept the legitimacy of the Biblical argument (God apparently gave the land exclusively to the Jews) as a justification for ‘Israel’ and its ethnic cleansing policy. So we as Muslims cannot invoke our religion, it would be fundamentalist to do so, but simultaneously we must accept the abrogated religious verdict from the Rabbis and the Jewish text! This type of view is beyond hypocrisy, it is plainly idiotic. Accordingly, Michael Gove looked confused, his cheeks blushed and he was lost for words. Gove did not seem keen in pursuing the debate any longer as democracy dictates that a Politician has to represent the popular opinion and not what is morally right or wrong.

Religious fundamentalists/fanatics, both Christians and Jews argue that God gave the land of Palestine to the Jews. The secularist argument is that the Jews occupied these lands before the Arabs did. Never mind who occupied the land before the Jews. Also the period of Jewish rule over this region was much smaller compared to everyone else but that is also irrelevant here, what matters is that the Jews were in Palestine before the Arabs. Of course the Palestinians would also argue that they were Arabised and their real roots go back even further before the Jews, back to the Canaanites, the original inhabitants of that land.

In any case, why is the argument of the right of the first settlers, an exclusively Jewish one? Is it because the rest of us are gentiles (Goyim) and thus, not worthy of any consideration. By this criteria the indigenous peoples of present day US and Australia have the same right to expel the European occupiers; and I wish someone would find the courage to remind the racist and nasty, pro-Israeli Americans and Australians to lead by example, by giving up their homes to the indigenous populations, next time they rant in favour of Israel’s ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

Paradoxically, the holocaust seems to be a justification for overlooking the Israeli holocaust (how many does one have to kill, in order for it to be defined as a holocaust?) against the Palestinians. If the Jews really suffered so much under the Nazis, why are they behaving like them? One would expect the traumatic experiences of the holocaust to have left a permanent mark on their psyche. Accordingly, the Jews should be at the forefront of defending other communities who are being targeted in a similar way. Instead, they are the ones constantly instigating and leading a vicious campaign in demonising the Muslims and Arabs in general, using their disproportionate representation in the Western mass media and the various Western governments. The Jews function using the garb of secularism and nationalism, in that way they conceal their identity while appearing to represent the masses of the West.

The disproportionate focus on the holocaust in defence of Israel has also raised questions like: do the Jews have a monopoly over suffering; are their (Jewish) lives more valuable than others? Twenty million Soviet citizens were killed during World War Two, but that hardly gets the same level of coverage. What about the millions of Native Americans killed in North, Central and South America? What about the millions of Aboriginal peoples who were murdered by convicts from the UK, who were ‘transported’ (dumped) there illegally without a visa or an invite from the native population of Australia? This is clear evidence that the holocaust has become a political tool not a tragic event to be remembered and learnt from.

But why and how has the issue of the holocaust become so sacred within secular nations? One can invoke profanity; offend millions of Muslims and Christians using the license of ‘freedom of expression’ (such as recently in Denmark, where a national newspaper invited its readers to send in cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad to be mocked) but challenging the holocaust brings instant condemnation and even prison sentences! Questioning the holocaust is a legitimate right. This is merely a difference of opinion on an historical event. It is not inciting people to commit murder or violence. Why is ‘free speech’ not applicable in this case? Perhaps this is why the US can claim to have a monopoly over ‘free speech’ while it was bombing Al-Jazeerah! ‘Free speech’ has in fact become more absurd than telling the inmates in Camp-X-Ray or Abu-Ghraib that they are being ‘softened up’ (tortured) in compliance with the principles of Human Rights!

Disputing the figure of six million Jews being killed, leads to a frenzied response from fanatical pro-Zionist elements, they instantly label you as a ‘holocaust denier’. It is black and white, there seems to be no middle ground. In fact, it was natural to expect the holocaust figures to be initially inflated, because it was part and parcel of post-war propaganda to demonise the enemy. This figure should have been revised over the years. It was not and every effort was made to repress the revisionists by the Western powers. Listed below are three possible reasons that attempt to give some explanation of why this was done.

a) Many would point to the disproportionate power and representation of the Jews in the West that has led to issuing such intense propaganda and even laws to imprison people who question the holocaust. While that is true about the Jewish influence which has contributed to making holocaust sacred, but I would disagree that this is the sole reason, as it would imply that the Jews have absolute control of the West.

b) Israel is seen as a colonial outpost for the West, it is a symbol of Western presence in the region. A strategic ally and a base to ensure the presence of an eye and a grip over the oil-rich region. Israel also serves other functions like keeping the Arab world divided and weak. It also satisfies the US Christian fanatics, who are pining for a war of Armageddon, in that Israel is supposed to be a fulfilment of some alleged biblical prophecy. Thus, a strong support for Israel has meant that its justifications like the holocaust and anti-Semitism must remain a dogma.

c) The final reason why the allies chose to maintain the inflated figure of the holocaust was to cover up their own war crimes. It was Britain and the US that clearly committed war crimes against Germany and Japan in the latter phase of the war, by firebombing defenceless German and Japanese cities; the latter of course was even attacked with Atomic bombs. Churchill and Truman should have been in the dock at Nuremberg, facing the same charges as other Nazi war criminals. Like Bush and Blair should be on trial for the deaths of 30,000 to 100,000 Iraqis instead of Saddam Hussein.

It seems that anti-Semitism culminated into the holocaust which in turn led to the establishment of Israel; collectively, these events represent the new trinity of the Secular-Christian-Capitalist-West. This new cult is not for spiritual elevation but for neo-colonisation and ethnic cleansing. One may legitimately ask, is this ‘neo-Christianity’ preparing for the return of Prophet Jesus (A.S) or that of the anti-Christ?

Yamin Zakaria (www.iiop.org, 1/1/2006) London, UK

[1] From the fairytale story of “The Emperor’s New Suit” by Hans Christian Andersen.

[2] A Jewish which had an alliance with Prophet Muhammad (SAW) but subsequently committed an act of treachery during a battle.

Irish Anti-Zionist Insult blasted by Israel!

December 16, 2005
KISLEV 15, 5766
Jewish Telegraph

Ireland sparked a diplomatic outcry last night by refusing to back Jewish rights to a homeland.

An aide to Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern told the Jewish Telegraph that Zionism was a religious issue and refused to take a position on "an Old Testament mandate".

The Israeli government hit back, comparing the Republic to the hardline Iranian regime.

"I am very sorry that Ireland takes this position because in doing that they support [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad," blasted a senior aide to premier Ariel Sharon.

Last month Ahmadinejad told a "World without Zionism" conference that Israel should be "wiped off the map".

We are lifting the lid on these explosive comments after Mr Ahern refused to go on the record to denounce claims by former Irish minister Justin Keating that Jews have mounted a "self-serving and untruthful Zionist myth" to lay claim to Israel.

John Kennedy, a foreign policy adviser to Mr Ahern, said the Republic would recognise Israel only in its modern form and would not comment on any historical claims on the land.

Mr Kennedy said: "Support for Israel isn't premised on Zionism. Our support for Israel is that its effect in being. Zionism may be what brought it to be there, but Zionism is essentially a religious issue - a faith issue. I don't think you're going to get the Taoiseach to take a position on that."

He added: "Zionism is not part of relevant official policy here. Even within Judaism you get a division on Zionism.

"Some people support it and some people have a profoundly held theological basis to reject it. It's a theological issue, we're not going into that."

He claimed that Ireland has not been "well served" by Zionism because the migration to Israel in the 1950s and 60s had left behind a "non-viable community".

In our series of conversations Mr Kennedy also maintained: "People who say that they have an Old Testament mandate to be there in their historic homeland, we haven't addressed that issue.

"I haven't seen anyone here taking a policy position on that. Our recognition of Israel and our exchange of ambassadors is all in the modern age, it's in an age where we simply recognise Israel as effect in being, a state of the modern world, one of the community of nations."

Mr Kennedy, a civil servant who looks after non-EU foreign policy for the Taoiseach, reiterated their stance: "You can take a view on the State of Israel, quite independently of Zionism."

The two countries only established full diplomatic relations in 1975, but the Israeli government says the Irish position, exposed by the Jewish Telegraph, is unacceptable, because it denies the legitimacy of Zionism.

"It is not enough," blasted Raanan Gissin, an aide to Mr Sharon. "There is a culture of hatred that says the Jews have no right to live here as an entity. We are here as our birthright not as a conqueror."

Mossad head Meir Dagan, who was listening to our interview, pointed out: "We were here 1,600 years before the Arabs."

Mr Gissin added: "If you don't support Zionism ipso facto you are actually saying, in the logical progression, we don't support the right of the Jewish people to have a state of their own, in their own ancestral homeland.

"There's no Zionism if Jews have a state in Alaska or Uganda."

As comments by the Iranian president caused growing international revulsion this week, Mr Gissin further equated them with the Irish position we have uncovered.

He stormed: "Ahmadinejad is trying to erase Israel off the map by not recognising that Jews have a birthright.

Mr Gissin added: "We are having to teach the same lessons to Ahmadinejad and Ireland.

"It is not a religious issue and you cannot erase history. The moment you equate Zionism with Judaism you deny any aspect of national sovereignty for the Jewish people.

"That is the problem with the Arabs, they recognise the entity of Israel, but don't recognise the fact that they have an inherent right to a homeland."

"Zionism is the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. We are an ancestral tribe who have walked the face of the earth for 4,000 years. We have proof of our existence."

The Jewish Telegraph has spent a fortnight trying to obtain comments from Mr Ahern following a series of outrages in against Israel in Ireland this year.

In June the Jewish Telegraph witnessed IRA extremists targeting Israeli football fans with "Sieg heil" and "Death to Israel" taunts before a World Cup qualifier in Dublin.

And veteran politician Justin Keating wrote in last month's Dubliner magazine: "The Zionists have no right in what they call Israel."

As we went to press last night, words attributed to the Taoiseach were finally issued, which failed to address the Zionist issue.

"Ireland has excellent relations with Israel, at all levels," the Taoiseach maintained.

"We are actively committed to supporting the Roadmap for a lasting and peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Comment: The loud and recurrent statement that Israel is the original Jewish homelan;, ergo, all Jews have a right to live there is sadly in historical error. There are two branches of Judaism, Sephardic and Ashkinazi. The former are Semitic Jews who were originally driven out of Judea by the Romans 65-70 AD after they put down a bloody revolt against them. The Sephardic Jews fled to Egypt and later moved westwards into North Africa and Spain.  They are indeed Semitic Jews and their ancestors did indeed come from Judea. The Ashkinazi, on the other hand, are not Semitic. They are a Turkish tribe, the Khazars,  from the Caspian Sea area that were converted to Judaism, by force, in the tenth century.  With the subsequent collapse of the Khazar empire, these people migrated into parts of Russia and what is now Poland. A recent (1978) census taken in Israel discloses that 87% of the present Jewish occupants of Palestine/Israel are Khazars, not Ashkinazi and therefore were never occupants of the old Judea. The only rights they have for residence in Israel/Palestine is solely from the rights of infiltration and physical conquest from 1946-1948. From the time of the expulsion of the Jews in the first century, the residents of the Holy Land have  been either Christian or Muslim Arabs. To those who screech anti-Semitism about the publication of such information, the response is that this information is strictly historical and  factual, not invented, and if it is true, which it is, remember that it is the kicked dog who yelps.  Brian Harring