Was Israeli raid a dry run for attack on Iran?

[babylonsister]

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,330752083-119093,00.html

Was Israeli raid a dry run for attack on Iran?

Mystery surrounds last week's air foray into Syrian territory. The Observer's Foreign Affairs Editor attempts to unravel the truth behind Operation Orchard and allegations of nuclear subterfuge
Peter Beaumont
Sunday September 16, 2007

Observer
The head of Israel's airforce, Major-General Eliezer Shkedi, was visiting a base in the coastal city of Herziliya last week. For the 50-year-old general, also the head of Israel's Iran Command, which would fight a war with Tehran if ordered, it was a morale-boosting affair, a meet-and-greet with pilots and navigators who had flown during last summer's month-long war against Lebanon. The journalists who had turned out in large numbers were there for another reason: to question Shkedi about a mysterious air raid that happened this month, codenamed 'Orchard', carried out deep in Syrian territory by his pilots.

Shkedi ignored all questions. It set a pattern for the days to follow as he and Israel's politicians and officials maintained a steely silence, even when the questions came from the visiting French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner. Those journalists who thought of reporting the story were discouraged by the threat of Israel's military censor.

But the rumours were in circulation, not just in Israel but in Washington and elsewhere. In the days that followed, the sketchy details of the raid were accompanied by contradictory claims even as US and British officials admitted knowledge of the raid. The New York Times described the target of the raid as a nuclear site being run in collaboration with North Korean technicians. Others reported that the jets had hit either a Hizbollah convoy, a missile facility or a terrorist camp.

Amid the confusion there were troubling details that chimed uncomfortably with the known facts. Two detachable tanks from an Israeli fighter were found just over the Turkish border. According to Turkish military sources, they belonged to a Raam F15I - the newest generation of Israeli long-range bomber, which has a combat range of over 2,000km when equipped with the drop tanks. This would enable them to reach targets in Iran, leading to speculation that it was an 'operation rehearsal' for a raid on Tehran's nuclear facilities.

Finally, however, at the week's end, the first few tangible details were beginning to emerge about Operation Orchard from a source involved in the Israeli operation.

They were sketchy, but one thing was absolutely clear. Far from being a minor incursion, the Israeli overflight of Syrian airspace through its ally, Turkey, was a far more major affair involving as many as eight aircraft, including Israel's most ultra-modern F-15s and F-16s equipped with Maverick missiles and 500lb bombs. Flying among the Israeli fighters at great height, The Observer can reveal, was an ELINT - an electronic intelligence gathering aircraft.

more...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,330752083-119093,00.html

[truedelphi]

1. You used the "I" word

Expect Immediate Moderate deleted function of entire topic.

next time, edit so that OP states only that an Unidentified country did Blah Blah Blah

[babylonsister]

2. Iran is a very valid topic - I'm not inviting an argument, so I don't

see what the problem would be. But I get your drift.

[The Magistrate]

4. This Seems, Ma'am, To Transcend The Normal Sort Of Grouse

At least potentially.

'The Guardian' is a most respectable journal.

[babylonsister]

6. Thanks, The Magistrate. I was hoping so, too. nt

[H2O Man]

8. It is a tense time

throughout that region. It is a shame that the United States is not able to provide some stability, because we do have people with the experience and ability to help. But the Bush administration is not up to the task.

[babylonsister]

9. Yes, if we had someone, anyone! with an ounce of diplomacy in

this admin, the situation wouldn't be so tense. I wonder where Ms. Rice has gone to, though she hasn't been real effective imo. I guess this is the perfect set-up for the warmongers in the wh; they don't find using diplomacy helpful to their grand scheme.

[H2O Man]

10. Condi ....

"Even the president's father had confided that he was unhappy with Rice. 'Condi is a disappointment, isn't she?' the former president had offered, adding, 'She's not up to the job'."
-- Bob Woodward; State of Denial; page 420

There are qualified and capable people, and I do not think that there are only democrats who coul make a huge difference. However, no one associated with the Bush-Cheney administration cam help. They are only capable of doing harm. Right now, it is intentional.

[CGowen]

11. Aren't there new shoes out or something?

http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/552381,CST-FTR-lifeshoes12.article

[CGowen]

12. Telegraph claims Rice has caved in

Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.

...


A State Department source familiar with White House discussions said that Miss Rice, under pressure from senior counter-proliferation officials to acknowledge that military action may be necessary, is now working with Mr Cheney to find a way to reconcile their positions and present a united front to the President.

The source said: "When you go down there and see the body language, you can see that Cheney is still The Man. Condi pushed for diplomacy but she is no dove. If it becomes necessary she will be on board.



....


Miss Rice's bottom line is that if the administration is to go to war again it must build the case over a period of months and win sufficient support on Capitol Hill.

The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult "meaningfully" with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen.

....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/16/wiran116.xml

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[malaise]

3. Frightening indeed n/t

[madrchsod]

7. lighting up the radar

israel is checking the newest russian radar across the area. the russians are checking out the newest nato/us radar in europe and the far east...the neocons have restarted the cold war... will the next president continue to back the escaltion in the middle east or reverse the policy? i`m not holding my breath that any canidate on either side will ever have the guts to say no more

[Tom Joad]

13. Israel (or Bush) could attack Iran, kill hundreds of thousands, and not expect

a major congressional leader of either party express any dissent.
Why that is i will leave up to you..

That would be up to grassroots people who support peace over war.

[babylonsister]

14. Jeeze. When you put it that way, that's even more frightening.

And true, sadly.

[cali]

15. No it's not true. In fact it's kind of silly.

Many, many dems (the majority) voted against the IWR and have spoken out for years against the war. I can't see them remaining quiet should bush bomb Iran. Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Sanders, etc.

edited to add: yes, I know Kerry voted for the IWR, but in the light of his recent statements, I believe he'd speak up loudly should bushco attack Iran.

[babylonsister]

16. Not silly; I truly wonder who they'd throw their support behind should

Israel decide to bomb Iran? I can hope they would speak up loudly, but so many in Congress support Israel that it might not be in anyone's interests to fight it. I just don't know. I wish we didn't even have to consider it myself.

[Tom Joad]

22. I could'nt get in a carpool lane if every US Senator who said something

about Israel's monstrous actions in Lebanon last summer hopped in my car -there were none, the only helpful action is Diane Feinstein has introduced a bill to ban the use of Cluster bombs, but she did not directly say anything about the US-sponsored Israeli war on the people of Lebanon)
Kucinich and a handful of others spoke out in the House. Lonely crowd.

Must have been like fighting against the Vietnam war way back in the mid-60's. or speaking for sanctions against South Africa like Dellums did in the 70's... it takes a while for people to catch on.

[JackRiddler]

20. After the Senate 97-0 vote in favor of war on Iran, you shouldn't be so sure.

Sorry if you missed the news described in the following article, but it's a fact that Lieberman on behalf of the regime floated in July the idea of attacking Iran - and got a a 97-0 approval from the Senate!

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/09/05/3630/
Published on Wednesday, September 5, 2007 by Huffington Post

Iraq, Israel, Iran
by David Bromwich

(snip)

Last Tuesday, when the mass media were crammed to distraction with the behavior of a senator in an airport washroom, few could be troubled to notice an important speech by President Bush. If Iran is allowed to persist in its present state, the president told the American Legion convention in Reno, it threatens “to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.” He said he had no intention of allowing that; and so he has “authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran’s murderous activities.” Those words come close to saying not that a war is coming but that it is already here. No lawmaker who reads them can affect the slightest shock at any action the president takes against Iran.

Admittedly, it was a showdown speech, reckless and belligerent, to a soldier audience; but then, this has been just the sort of crowd and message that Cheney and Bush favor when they are about to open a new round of killings. And in a sense, the Senate had given the president his cue when it approved, by a vote of 97-0, the July 11 Lieberman Amendment to Confront Iran. It is hardly an accident that the president and his favorite tame senator concurred in their choice of the word “confront.” The pretext for the Lieberman amendment, as for the president’s order, was the discovery of caches of weapons alleged to belong to Iran, the capture of Iranian advisers said to be operating against American troops, and the assertion that the most deadly IEDs used against Americans are often traceable to Iranian sources–claims that have been widely treated in the press as possible, but suspect and unverified. Still, the vote was 97-0. If few Americans took notice, the government of Iran surely did.

That unanimous vote was the latest in a series of capitulations that has included the apparent end of resistance by Nancy Pelosi to the next war. After the election of 2006, the speaker of the house declared her intention to enact into law a requirement that this president seek separate authorization for a war against Iran. On the point of doing so, she addressed the AIPAC convention, and was booed for criticizing the escalation of the Iraq war. Pelosi took the hint, shelved her authorization plan, and went with AIPAC against the anti-war base of the Democratic party.

[Tom Joad]

21. some people have their heads in

the sand. naivety is sweet. if you're 17.

Of course i was exaggerating just a bit. Kucinich, barbara lee, and a maybe a few dozen others will say something. But considering that now only 70 members of the House are refusing to fund the occupation of Iraq, and everyone repeating the lines of bushboy (every option is "on the table") i don't trust them at all.

It depends on us.

[babylonsister]

24. Thank you for finding that! I knew I had read this awhile ago, or

a similar article, so thanks for reinforcing my pov, and fears. I think this article just might be one to bookmark as there surely will be a need for future reference.

[lovuian]

17. Yes it was to test Russian weapons

and it doesn't seem like they worked

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[goforit]

19. This is so scarey!

[Tom Joad]

23. I was listening to Daniel Ellsberg yesterday... and it is scary

but we must act. we must organize.

We just have to act like we can really make a difference. I think the world has already been saved several times because of the action of people opposed to war (nixon's action's could have been worse... he would have used nukes, but he was afraid that the thousands and thousands who protested outside the white house gates might just as well climb over them if he did so)

[BadgerLaw2010]

25. No. This has been gone over before. Iran's program is not some pinpoint target.