Why Israel attacked Iran
Published in the National, June 15th.
This morning, we awoke to the news that the out-of-control and psychotic state of Israel launched a massive and unprovoked attack on Iran.
Israel said the attacks are just the beginning of a weeks or months long operation to destroy Iran’s nuclear and missile launching capabilities and to decapitate the Iranian government by killing its leaders.
Israeli Defence Minister Katz said, “We are at a critical juncture to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons that threaten our existence.”
As is usual for the rogue state, Israel attacked civilians in Tehran. Iran doesn’t deliberately go after civilians. Neither do the Houthis. Just Israel.
So we can add Iran to the list of Middle Eastern nations that Israel is currently terrorising - Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen. It’s no wonder that antisemitism is soaring around the globe.
Israel and its US puppet have loudly proclaimed that Iran is not entitled to enrich any uranium - zilch. However, there is no law prohibiting them from doing so. Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran has a right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes - for nuclear power and for the production of medical isotopes. Article 4 of the NPT states:
But as usual, Israel and the US routinely and flagrantly flout international law, making up their own rules that they expect the rest of the world to meekly follow.
It doesn’t matter that President Trump didn’t want this war to happen. Since 1948, no American president has been a free agent. Israel is calling all the shots because it owns the US government, lock stock and barrel.
The real reason Israel, the only nation in the Middle East with nuclear weapons, is attacking Iran is summarised by Douglas MacGregor, a retired US army colonel and former government official:
If you are going to buy the Israeli argument that Iran is what it was 46 years ago, and if they’re given a weapon they’re immediately going to nuke everybody in sight, well then you have to do anything and everything to stop that. But if you see Iran very differently, as it is as opposed to what the Israelis say it is, then the possibility that Iran is enriching uranium for civilian use, it should not be threatening to anybody.
I mean, where do you draw the line? Did we immediately draw the line on India and Pakistan? And to be perfectly blunt, if you look at Pakistan, you can make an argument that the place is a lot less stable and predictable than Iran - a hell of a lot. Nobody ever brings it up - it doesn’t seem to matter.
And I think we’re back to the bottom line, which is Israel wants a monopoly of control over nuclear weapons. If it doesn’t have that monopoly, that means it actually has to talk to, negotiate with and get along with its neighbours. It doesn’t want to do that. It wants the upper hand. It wants to hold that whip hand in perpetuity against everyone in the region. And if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, that breaks the impasse. That changes in their minds strategically what they can do. Their freedom of action is constrained. Our freedom of action was constrained as soon as the Soviets managed to explode a nuclear weapon. We have lived with that ever since.
He suggests an alternative to this unfolding nightmare: to make the entire Middle East nuclear-free. Everyone in the region would sign up for it - everyone, except Israel.
So here we are. May God help us.
We have a jewish problem. People need to get wise to these people. Are there exceptions? Maybe. But the rule still stands. Every war since WWI has been fought for their agenda. Every great thinker, from Tacitus to Tesla, from Suetonius to Henry Ford, from Jesus Christ to Hitler, has used the same terms to describe them. We ignore them at our peril.
It must be difficult to remain dispassionate, clinical and authoritative and still keep feelings of outrage in check but you manage it Leah. Israel claims to speak for all Jews but it doesn’t. Even its genocide of the Palestinians is only supported by half of Israelis, according to a recent poll.
It is completely impossible, for a Gentile or even a Jew, to criticise Israel without being labelled antisemitic. Anti-zionism isn’t an option either as the World Jewish Congress has declared the two to be synonymous.
Historically Semites were people from Western Asia including Muslims and Christians. Not only has the term semitic been appropriated to mean only Jews but Israeli has rolled race, religion, ethnicity and national identity into one.
Antisemitism is now a shout down, fear inducing weapon to silence the world. Anti-zionism is therefore perhaps the best delineation otherwise language and therefore commentary on these matters becomes meaningless.