Israel should be stopped or all will be lost: Mark Glenn

PressTV

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (L) with Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

 An American author says Israel is a threat not only to the innocent people of the Middle East but the entire world and “if this evil is not stopped, all will be lost.”

“Christianity has been corrupted by Zionist interests and is now being used as a tool in infecting the rest of the world,” Mark Glenn, from the Crescent and Cross Solidarity Movement, wrote in a letter addressed to the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Glenn said the Zionists are trying to pit the Christians and Muslims against each other, in what has become the “clash of civilizations,” through corrupt media, corrupt culture, immorality, war, economic exploitation, and a whole host of other diseases.

“Their goal is obvious - to see these two peoples destroy each other so that like some vulture she can pick the carcasses clean for herself,” Glenn said.

He further asked for an extensive interview with the Iranian president on issues ranging from the Israeli plots for the Middle East and how it is trying to bring its “evil desires” about, such as war and terrorism etc., to the conspiracies that the US and Israel have committed against Iran since 1953 to the commonalties between Islam and Christianity.

Israel is widely known to be the sole possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Tel Aviv began building its first plutonium and uranium processing facility, Dimona, in the Negev desert in 1958.

Former US President Jimmy Carter said Israel has a nuclear arsenal that includes between 200 and 300 warheads. Decades of recurrent reporting and aerial footage have also established the possession of atomic arms by Israel.

Under its official policy of nuclear ambiguity, Tel Aviv neither confirms nor denies the possession of nukes and refuses to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or allow inspections of its nuclear facilities.

“I am convinced that if the Christian world were made aware of the fact that their enemies are NOT the Muslims but rather the Zionists who have all but destroyed their religion and culture, that we will be able to eventually get a rope around the neck of this animal where it could be thrown back into the cage where it belongs,” Glenn concluded. 

USA and Romania target missile defense against Russia

Pravda

The elements of the U.S. missile defense system will appear at the former Soviet military base in the Romanian town of Deveselu in some five hundred kilometers from the base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. This was stated by President Traian Basescu, who stressed that the two states have already agreed on everything.

"We have chosen and agreed upon the former air base Deveselu as the site for the deployment of a missile defense system," Basescu stated in a Romanian television broadcast. According to him, approximately 200 American troops would be stationed there, but if necessary their number will increase to 500. They will be supported by radar complex "Aegis", the center of operational control and missile defense batteries, and mobile batteries with interceptor missiles "Standard-3".

Which country is located not far from this military facility? The distance from the base to the Black Sea coast is approximately eight hundred kilometers, but the base of the Russian fleet in Sevastopol is closer - approximately five hundred kilometers. Foreseeing Russia's discontent, Basescu repeated what has in recent years become nearly a spell: "the ABM Treaty is not directed against Russia."

Strictly speaking, the decision to deploy the elements of the U.S. missile defense system in Romania was not a surprise. Even last year, President Basescu said that in his country there will be three batteries of a new missile defense system with 24 launchers. He also noted that the Romanian authorities were ready to deploy the "ground medium-range interceptor missiles that will be in a state of alert by 2015."

The missile defense elements in Romania will be a part of a new American missile defense elements expected to be placed in close proximity to the Russian borders. The U.S. has already agreed with Poland to deploy anti-missile complexes "Patriot" on the Polish territory. They will be placed on combat duty in the town of Morong, less than a hundred kilometers from the main base of the Baltic Fleet in Kaliningrad region. In addition, some elements of the missile defense may appear in Bulgaria.

Back then Russia has expressed its dissatisfaction with the behavior of the United States. American ambassador in Moscow John Byerly responded that the missile SM-3 interceptors were needed in Romania to defend against medium-range missiles, and Russia is not threatened. Americans, Romanians, Poles and Bulgarians replied in the same spirit. Meanwhile, the AMD was progressing.

In April, U.S. Assistant Secretary Philip Gordon said that the missile defense system in Eastern Europe will be deployed in four stages. First, by the end of this year the existing missile defense system - such as weapons control system of sea-based Aegis - will be deployed on the Black Sea and Baltic Sea. By 2015 Romania will host a more powerful version of the interceptor missile SM-3 (marine and land-based) and new RLM to protect a given area from the ​​missiles of near and medium range.

Ultimately, by 2020, SM-3 missiles should be improved so that they can effectively deal with missile threats of medium and long range and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Russia is the only country that has such weapons in the area. This makes the statements of the Americans and Romanians unconvincing.

It is not surprising that Russia's reaction to the statement of Romania's president was harsh. Russian Foreign Ministry noted that the U.S. is creating a missile defense system in Europe, irrespective of the US-Russian dialogue on missile issues initiated by the president Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama and the work on the project of a possible EUROPRO.

"The missile defense system that Americans are placing in Romania is designed to destroy ballistic and tactical goals," Konstantin Sivkov, a military expert and Senior Vice President of the Academy of Geopolitical Issues, commented on the American-Romanian plans for Pravda.ru. "If you look at the map of the region, the Romanian base can be used for only one goal: to keep southern regions of Russia at gunpoint and enable hitting our cruise missiles.

Missile defense elements in Romania are a part of the U.S. plan to encircle Russia with military bases. There are no other potential threats to the U.S. in this region. Turkey is a NATO member, Ukraine is actively cooperating with NATO. There are potential "hot spots" - the Crimea, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia. The Americans are arming Georgia and pulling together the forces to the region - quite probably in anticipation of worsening of the conditions in this part of the world.

Contrary to the statements of the President of Romania, the missile defense deployment is directed precisely against Russia. We could take retaliatory measures such as deploying Iskander and transferring fighter bombers in the area. However, this requires political will. The pro-Western lobby in the Russian elite is too strong, and they prefer to buy NATO weapons we do not need like "Mistral" ships. It is unlikely that we will respond to the missile defenses in full. "

The U.S. policy is clear. However, the emergence of elements of American missile defense system in Romania would not be possible without the consent of Romania itself, that many simply cannot see behind the mighty backs of the U.S. President Basescu is a pro-American politician, but he is not a "chain dog" of Washington. He was not afraid, for example, to say "no" to the recognition of Kosovo's independence. However, in terms of Russia the interests of the United States and Romania are clearly the same.

Basescu kept repeating that Moldova should again become a part of Romania. He believes that a major obstacle for this is Russia that has repeatedly complained about the Romanian great plan. For him, the elements of missile defense are an additional opportunity to put pressure on Russia to make Russia more agreeable on the issues of Moldova and Transdniestria.

In this case, the United States and Romania, as they say, found each other. Russia will have to respond not only to the Americans but also to the Romanians. There is no guarantee that it will be one and the same response. For example, the deployment of Iskander in Transnistria is unlikely to impress Washington, but would be a different story for Bucharest.

Vadim Trukhachev
Pravda.Ru

'World should focus on Israel's nukes'

Press TV

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan says the dispute over Iran's nuclear program has been resolved and the international community should focus on Israel now.

"In fact, there is no nuclear weapon in Iran now but Israel, which is also located in our region, possesses nuclear arms. Turkey is the same distance from both of them," Turkey's Star newspaper quoted Erdogan as saying on Tuesday.

"What has the international community said against Israel so far? Is this the superiority of law or the law of superiors?" he added.

Most experts estimate that Israel has between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads, largely based on information leaked to the Sunday Times newspaper in the 1980s by Mordechai Vanunu, a former worker at the Israel's Dimona nuclear reactor.

Israel, which has started several wars in the region in its 60-year history of occupation, maintains a policy of deliberate ambiguity over its nuclear weapons program and does not allow international inspectors to visit its nuclear sites.

Iran’s Uranium Deal a Serious Blow to War Party

AntiWar.com

Can Obama Still Use Third Party Enrichment Deal as Excuse for Sanctions?

by Jason Ditz, May 17, 2010

In a move that will likely drive a stake into the heart of the near-term prospects for the US-backed “crippling sanctions” against Iran, Turkey and Brazil have managed to come up with a compromise deal that provides everything the Western nations claimed to have wanted from the third-party enrichment deal in the first place.

The deal was announced last night but details were only made available this morning. According to the announcement, Iran will ship 1,200 kg of its 3.5% enriched uranium to Turkey, exactly the amount sought in the P5+1 enrichment deal, and will receive fuel rods for its medical reactor one year later, again the amount of time given in the P5+1 deal.

Though the inclusion of Turkey is a new rub, everything else about the deal seems to be designed to be verbatim to the P5+1 deal in October, which the Obama Administration has repeatedly demanded Iran sign.

Iran’s problem with the initial deal with the use of France as an intermediary, as France has previously reneged on nuclear deals with Iran and was not trusted by many in the government, who thought they might simply make off with Iran’s stockpile.

Turkey on the other hand is an incredibly inconvenient intermediary for the war party, because they are simultaneously a key US-NATO ally in good standing and have trustworthy relations with Iran. Turkey would be obligated to return Iran’s uranium if the West fails to provide the fuel rods, and could likely be trusted to do so.

As Iran has now accepted the deal, President Obama will struggle to back out of it without doing serious damage both to his international reputation and to US-Turkey relations.

Western diplomats however suggested they would attempt to do just that, claiming that the 1,200 kg is no longer sufficient because, six months later, Iran has a slightly larger stockpile of low enriched uranium. This seems little more than a rhetorical obstacle, however, as the remainder of the low enriched uranium is bound for a Russian-built nuclear power plant in southern Iran.

Iran has been attempting to produce 20% enriched uranium itself in an effort to create the fuel rods for several months, but has suggested that it will stop that higher level of enrichment if a deal emerges to give it access to the fuel rods to create badly needed medical isotopes.

1974 CIA Estimate Declared,“We believe that Israel already has produced nuclear weapons.”

unredacted

Yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu abruptly announced that he has decided not attend President Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, sending Deputy Prime Minister Dan Meridor in his place. The Washington Post reported this was due to concern over “Arab criticism of Israel’s undeclared nuclear arsenal.” Attempting to be topical, I’m reposting this 1974 CIA document in which the Agency declared, “We believe that Israel already has produced nuclear weapons.”

The Special National Intelligence Estimate, “Prospects for Further Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” was originally obtained and posted by Archive analysts Jeffery Richelson and Bill Burr. The SNIE was produced after the somewhat unanticipated 1974 Indian “peaceful nuclear explosion” and attempted to estimate the future likelihood that “candidates for the development of nuclear weapons” (including Israel, Taiwan, Japan, Argentina, South Africa, and others) would produce nuclear arsenals.

The CIA stated that it believed Israel had produced nuclear weapons because the Israeli government had acquired “large quantities of uranium, partly by clandestine means,” because of its efforts in uranium enrichment, and because it had made “a large investment in a costly missile system designed to accommodate nuclear warheads.”

Still, the CIA admitted that an Israeli nuclear arsenal “cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.” The Agency also wisely projected that Israel would maintain nuclear ambiguity: “We do not expect the Israelis to provide confirmation of widespread suspicions of their capability, either by nuclear testing or by threats of use, short of a grave threat to the nation’s existence.”

It has long been speculated that Israel maintained a nuclear weapons program. A 1999 Defense Intelligence Agency Report estimated that Israel had 60 to 80 nuclear weapons in 1999 and would have 65 to 85 by 2020. Israel, like nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, has not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

In addition to reporting the CIA’s take on Israel’s nuclear weapons program, this 1974 SNIE also warned of the further “spread of nuclear weapons,” of terrorist theft of weapons or fissile materials, and of the “acquisition of nuclear weapons by non-governmental entities.” 35 years later, these threats remain. Hopefully, President Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit will make headway confronting them.

Canceled Netanyahu trip spotlights Israel nukes

msnbc

JERUSALEM - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decision to abruptly cancel a trip to a nuclear conference in Washington spotlighted a key sore point Friday in international nonproliferation efforts: Israel's own atomic weapons.

The Jewish state wants to help lead the charge against allowing nuclear weapons to end up in undesirable hands, even when nobody doubts that Israel itself possesses them.

An Israeli official said Friday that Netanyahu called off his trip after his government received word that participants at next week's conference would "push an Israel-bashing agenda." He and other officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the government's reluctance to allow its members to speak publicly about nuclear-related issues.

Israel's official policy of "nuclear ambiguity" — neither confirming nor denying that it has nuclear weapons — has long been a cornerstone of its military deterrence. But officials and experts from various countries, in addition to one well-known Israeli whistle-blower, have all said the truth is not ambiguous at all: That Israel has dozens, perhaps hundreds, of nuclear bombs.

Muslim countries have long complained of a double standard when the West asks them to stay nuclear-free while turning a blind eye to Israel's program. Many Israelis see atomic weapons as their ultimate defense against annihilation in a hostile Middle East.

Netanyahu's announcement earlier in the week that he would be at the summit, which is supposed to focus on how to prevent terrorists from getting nuclear materials, would have made him the first Israeli prime minister to attend an international nuclear forum.

The announcement raised some eyebrows at home, with some wondering why Netanyahu would attend a meeting where the words "Israel" and "nuclear" would inevitably be uttered in the same breath.

Two ministers who asked not to be named said they had warned Netanyahu against going because of the potential for unwanted attention on Israel's nuclear program. But they said the Israeli leader insisted on going anyway because of his desire to share his expertise on nuclear terrorism — a topic about which he has spoken and written extensively.

Other Israeli officials, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Obama administration had assured Netanyahu that the assembly — attended by more than 40 world leaders — would not divert its attention to Israel. Then, a few days later, the officials said, Washington warned Israel that eight or nine Muslim nations attending the conference would in fact seek to shine a spotlight on Israel.

U.S. officials and diplomatic sources in Washington familiar with Netanyahu's decision said he opted to bow out after learning that several Muslim nations — notably Egypt and Turkey — wanted to use the summit to criticize Israel for not having signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and renew calls for a nuclear-free Middle East.

Turkey's ambassador to Washington, Namik Tan, said in an interview with The Associated Press that his country has no plans to raise concerns about Israel's nuclear program during the summit.

"We don't have any such thing in our agenda," Tan said.

The Egyptian government had no comment Friday, but it has repeatedly called for Israel to sign the NPT since 1995.

Other Muslim-majority nations that will be represented at Monday's conference include Algeria, Indonesia, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Syrian political analyst Imad Shueibi, who is close to the Syrian government, said he believed Netanyahu withdrew from the conference because "Israel does not want to be exposed in front of the international community."

"Such conferences are scandalous for them and Netanyahu's participation might force him to provide answers — which is not in Israel's interest," Shueibi said. Syria is not among the countries attending the assembly.

Instead of Netanyahu, Israel's deputy prime minister, Dan Meridor, will attend the conference — raising the possibility that Israel and Meridor could still be the target of intense criticism even in Netanyahu's absence. It was not immediately clear if President Barack Obama, the conference's host, would try to prevent that from happening.

On Friday, U.S. National Security Adviser James Jones told reporters the "Israelis did not want to be a catalyst for changing the theme of the summit."

Netanyahu's decision to call off the trip comes at a tense moment in U.S.-Israel relations. The Israeli leader's trip to the U.S. capital last month failed to iron out differences between the allies on Israeli construction in east Jerusalem, a major diplomatic row disrupting U.S. efforts to relaunch Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

One of the main reasons Israel is keen to calm those tensions is its desire to maintain strong U.S. support for its efforts to encourage decisive international action against what it sees as its biggest existential threat: a nuclear-armed Iran.

Ephraim Asculai, a former senior official with the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, said there is no comparison between Israel having nuclear weapons and Iran having them.

"There is no double standard here," he said. "Iran constantly says it wants to wipe Israel off the map while at the same time it is developing nuclear weapons. Israel has never made threats like that."

For years, Netanyahu has been leading a campaign to publicize Iran's nuclear program, charging — along with the U.S. and other Western countries — that it is meant to produce nuclear weapons. Israel has called for stiff sanctions against Iran, but at the same time has not taken the option of a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities off the table. Iran insists its nuclear program is peaceful.

Netanyahu had hoped to press his case against Iran at the Washington conference.

The most detailed evidence of Israel's nuclear weapons emerged in 1986, when a former technician at Israel's main nuclear facility leaked pictures and information to the London Sunday Times. The technician, Mordechai Vanunu, was captured and served an 18-year prison sentence in Israel.