The myth and reality of Ze'ev Schiff analysis: political economy behind attacking Iran now
Critical review of:" Israel Urges U.S. Diplomacy on Iran" by Ze'ev Schiff
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Ze’ev Schidd is the so-called dean of Israeli defense correspondents and columnists. He wrote a historic analysis for Carnegie Endowment reportedly attacking the notion that Israel, rather than the oil lobby is pushing the US to take military action against Iran’s nuclear program.
According to Ze’ev Schidd “Sometimes a country has to take a slap in the face in order to wake up to the changed reality around it. That's what happened to Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, in which 2,600 were killed, and in the Al-Aqsa Intifada, which claimed more than 1,000 victims. Now Israel has gotten an s lap during the war with Hezbollah. It is unfortunate that each time, the searing of Israel's consciousness involves losses, destruction and suffering.” Haaretz.com August 11, 2006
Russia is building Iran a small but powerful space-based early warning defense grid that can destroy guide missile and laser guided bombs. This grid is designed to piggyback onto both the existing Russian and emerging Chinese space-based defense systems. The grid will allow Iran to deploy a new generation of Russian and Chinese GSP weapon systems on land, sea and air. The Sinah-1 satellite is a critical interlock element of the new Iran national defense grid.
Once the Iran grid move to the next level of construction, only the US Space Command, not Israel will have the weapon systems necessary to destroy it. Iran is integrated into the Chinese grid, it will be impossible to destroy without destroying part of the Chinese grid, which will be an act of war against China.
The window of opportunity for an Israeli 1967 air strike on Iran’s 12 nuclear sites will be closed.
This emerging reality, not the events on the ground in northern Israel is driving the oil lobby critical path toward an attack of Iran. Ze’ev Schiff and other critical segments within the Israeli defense journalists are fully aware of this emerging reality and its implication on Israeli national security.
Many and Israelis and Americans are shock to learn from senior Israeli generals that Israel and the US Space Command had the military means to push to the Litani River and seal off southern Hezbollah resistance fighters and end the missile attacks on Israeli cities weeks ago. The public debate about the failure of the Israeli military to protect the national security of Israel is centering on the Bush administration Iran nuclearization policy vs. the real national security of Israel and Lebanon.
While the world ponders the missing details of the United States/French draft UN Security Council resolution that would bring a full cessation of hostilities but enable Israeli forces to stay in Lebanon until deployment of a French led international peacekeeping force is deployed. The UN resolution itself and other evidence is surfacing cease-fire has little to do with the political reality of Hezbollah or Israel and all to do with the need to destroy the emerging Iran missile and nuclear threat to the western oil lobby.
The draft UN Security Council resolution de facto sets the terms for an Israeli no fly zone and continued bombing of the state of Lebanon, not the task of disarming of Hezbollah. Critically missing from the resolution is the key issues of stopping the resupply of Israel by the United States and Hezbollah by China, the return of the two Israeli soldiers, a prison exchange, humanitarian aid, air and antimissile defenses that will protect Lebanon cities from both Israel and Hezhollah air and missile attacks.
The critical economic issue of who is going to fund the reconstruction of the three billion dollar of destruction to the Lebanon economy is not on the table.
The French lead rapid-reaction troops are not designed and lack the military means to protect southern Lebanese’s towns and cities from Israeli attack either from the air, ground or sea.
Critical but missing from both plans is clear details on the upgrade of the Lebanon army to the point of being able to engage and defend the state of Lebanon it people against either the Israeli or Hezbollah forces.
Reviews of public domain evidence suggest the military move by Israel back in move into Lebanon was made in Washington and New York months before July when the crisis became hot.
According to Patrick Dvenny in the winter issue 2006 of Middle East Quarterly Hezbollah Strategic Threat to Israel. "As Israel and Its closest ally the United States consider some form of confrontation with Iran, Tehran’s Hezbollah card raises many question: would an Israeli government be willing to risk a high level of damage in order to accomplish the goal of crippling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure? There was no other reason offered by the author for allowing a massive missile attack by Hezbollah on northern Israeli towns and cities.
Since early July, over 3,500 manufactured or designed Chinese missiles have fallen on Israelis towns and cities. This Israeli provoked Hezbollah missile attack has opened both Israelis and Americans public to idea of the immediate need to address the Iran missile production now, and not wait until later Iran goes nuclear. The problem is the western media has not been able to connect Iran nuclear threat and Hezbollah small missiles in the minds of a critical political segment of Americans. Hezbollah public relations management of Qana and other Israeli mistakes has made making the connection very difficult.
While the Patrick Dvenny scenario was still academic in winter issue of 2006 of the Middle East Quarterly, it appears it was already being operationialized in New York and Washington. In July of this year the scenario was transformed from academic to operational reality in Israel.
At the core of this oil lobby policy is the notion that if Iran is able to create a credible nuclear deterrent to Israel, that Saudi Arabia, other oil producing countries would no longer fear western multinationals oil companies and their political control would dissipate. A new political economy of the Middle East oil production would be centered on export to China, and Asia not the North America or western Europe.
Without a sole powerful nuclear retaliatory threat in Israel and a degraded Iran missile threat, the western oil lobby would be force to rely on the United States and European Union nuclear deterrent. Americans and Europeans governments who are to slow in reponsing to oil lobby needs for political/military threat in the region.
The augmentation and modernization of the Iranian capability poses a significant threat to the hegemony of western oil companies of Middle East oil. The national security of Israel, Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco are secondary concerns to the control of oil.
Americans are misled into believing that Israel, rather than the oil lobby, is using the crisis in Lebanon in order to push the United States to joint them in taking military action against Iran’s nuclear program for national security reason. Few Americans understand that it is not in Israel strategic objectives to induce the US to attack Iran, in order to put an end to the country’s nuclear program for the oil lobby.
In your article-“Israel Urges US Diplomacy on Iran”. You maintain it is not true that Israel is pressuring the US to attack Iran to point of saying that this idea of an Israeli led attack -“may even be founded on deliberated lie”. While Israel would be a frontline state of a war with Iran, is it not true, Mr. Schiff, that Saudi Arabia oil fields are far more strategic important and easier militarily for Iran to attack than Israel.
A missile attack by Iran on Israel’s military industrial infrastructure as a retaliation is less likely or do able than an massive Iran attack on near by American Persian oil fields, should the United States decide to use force against Iran. As of this writing only potential way Iran has to reach Israel would be Russian or Chinese sub-based cruise missiles and or JL-3 Chinese ICBMs which are not in the country. It is a known fact that Israel is far more concern about the collapse of the Iraqi central government and the real prospect of civil war, than a nuclear or non-nuclear missile attack from Iran. The possibility of a pro-Iran in Iraqi is more troubling than the nuclearization of Iran.
You said in the same article—“the theory that it would be possible to live with an Iranian nuclear…Just as the West has practically come to terms with the nuclear activity of North Kora, it (West) would also come to terms with the existence of Iranian nuclear weapons.” is in point of fact part of real Israel strategic thinking.
It’s a military reality that Iran would not use nuclear weapon against Israel out of fear of total annihilation, mush as China fears annihilation from both Russia and the United States. The real Israel fear is an Iranian nuclear armed Hezbollah acting as proxy for Iran political agenda. The nuclearization of Hezbollah would allow Iran, Syria and China the same political freedom from direct political responsibility for an nuclear attack on Israel, as the US enjoys with any Israeli nuclear on a Arab nation.
Also in your article “Israel Urges US Diplomacy on Iran” you suggest the US engage directly with Tehran and repair the American-Russian track. Do you think the America-Chinese track is more strategic to Israel concern about Iran and Hezbollah nuclearization, than the America-Russian track, given the strategic need China has for increasing amounts of Middles East oil in general and Iranian oil in particular. You state… “Israel regards an Iranian nuclear threat as a threat to it very survival”…but article is silence on growing interdependency of Iran’s ICBM program on Chinese deigned and import missiles.
Where do you think is the place to discuss scenarios for a regional nuclear power like Israel would find the military means outside the United States to stop the Chinese nuclearization of Iranian submarines with cheap nuclear tipped cruise missiles. What preparations is Israel making for this change in regional power?
The emerging movement of Iran into near space is framing the political economy of the region, not the events on the ground in northern Israel are driving the oil lobby critical path toward an attack of Iran.
Ze’ev Schiff and other critical segments within the Israeli defense journalists are fully aware that Israeli national security was lost in the weeks before July 12, 2006 to the fears of the oil lobby. This emerging reality and its implication on Israeli national security will be surface in the critical debates about the conduct of the war...
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Ze’ev Schidd is the so-called dean of Israeli defense correspondents and columnists. He wrote a historic analysis for Carnegie Endowment reportedly attacking the notion that Israel, rather than the oil lobby is pushing the US to take military action against Iran’s nuclear program.
According to Ze’ev Schidd “Sometimes a country has to take a slap in the face in order to wake up to the changed reality around it. That's what happened to Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, in which 2,600 were killed, and in the Al-Aqsa Intifada, which claimed more than 1,000 victims. Now Israel has gotten an s lap during the war with Hezbollah. It is unfortunate that each time, the searing of Israel's consciousness involves losses, destruction and suffering.” Haaretz.com August 11, 2006
Russia is building Iran a small but powerful space-based early warning defense grid that can destroy guide missile and laser guided bombs. This grid is designed to piggyback onto both the existing Russian and emerging Chinese space-based defense systems. The grid will allow Iran to deploy a new generation of Russian and Chinese GSP weapon systems on land, sea and air. The Sinah-1 satellite is a critical interlock element of the new Iran national defense grid.
Once the Iran grid move to the next level of construction, only the US Space Command, not Israel will have the weapon systems necessary to destroy it. Iran is integrated into the Chinese grid, it will be impossible to destroy without destroying part of the Chinese grid, which will be an act of war against China.
The window of opportunity for an Israeli 1967 air strike on Iran’s 12 nuclear sites will be closed.
This emerging reality, not the events on the ground in northern Israel is driving the oil lobby critical path toward an attack of Iran. Ze’ev Schiff and other critical segments within the Israeli defense journalists are fully aware of this emerging reality and its implication on Israeli national security.
Many and Israelis and Americans are shock to learn from senior Israeli generals that Israel and the US Space Command had the military means to push to the Litani River and seal off southern Hezbollah resistance fighters and end the missile attacks on Israeli cities weeks ago. The public debate about the failure of the Israeli military to protect the national security of Israel is centering on the Bush administration Iran nuclearization policy vs. the real national security of Israel and Lebanon.
While the world ponders the missing details of the United States/French draft UN Security Council resolution that would bring a full cessation of hostilities but enable Israeli forces to stay in Lebanon until deployment of a French led international peacekeeping force is deployed. The UN resolution itself and other evidence is surfacing cease-fire has little to do with the political reality of Hezbollah or Israel and all to do with the need to destroy the emerging Iran missile and nuclear threat to the western oil lobby.
The draft UN Security Council resolution de facto sets the terms for an Israeli no fly zone and continued bombing of the state of Lebanon, not the task of disarming of Hezbollah. Critically missing from the resolution is the key issues of stopping the resupply of Israel by the United States and Hezbollah by China, the return of the two Israeli soldiers, a prison exchange, humanitarian aid, air and antimissile defenses that will protect Lebanon cities from both Israel and Hezhollah air and missile attacks.
The critical economic issue of who is going to fund the reconstruction of the three billion dollar of destruction to the Lebanon economy is not on the table.
The French lead rapid-reaction troops are not designed and lack the military means to protect southern Lebanese’s towns and cities from Israeli attack either from the air, ground or sea.
Critical but missing from both plans is clear details on the upgrade of the Lebanon army to the point of being able to engage and defend the state of Lebanon it people against either the Israeli or Hezbollah forces.
Reviews of public domain evidence suggest the military move by Israel back in move into Lebanon was made in Washington and New York months before July when the crisis became hot.
According to Patrick Dvenny in the winter issue 2006 of Middle East Quarterly Hezbollah Strategic Threat to Israel. "As Israel and Its closest ally the United States consider some form of confrontation with Iran, Tehran’s Hezbollah card raises many question: would an Israeli government be willing to risk a high level of damage in order to accomplish the goal of crippling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure? There was no other reason offered by the author for allowing a massive missile attack by Hezbollah on northern Israeli towns and cities.
Since early July, over 3,500 manufactured or designed Chinese missiles have fallen on Israelis towns and cities. This Israeli provoked Hezbollah missile attack has opened both Israelis and Americans public to idea of the immediate need to address the Iran missile production now, and not wait until later Iran goes nuclear. The problem is the western media has not been able to connect Iran nuclear threat and Hezbollah small missiles in the minds of a critical political segment of Americans. Hezbollah public relations management of Qana and other Israeli mistakes has made making the connection very difficult.
While the Patrick Dvenny scenario was still academic in winter issue of 2006 of the Middle East Quarterly, it appears it was already being operationialized in New York and Washington. In July of this year the scenario was transformed from academic to operational reality in Israel.
At the core of this oil lobby policy is the notion that if Iran is able to create a credible nuclear deterrent to Israel, that Saudi Arabia, other oil producing countries would no longer fear western multinationals oil companies and their political control would dissipate. A new political economy of the Middle East oil production would be centered on export to China, and Asia not the North America or western Europe.
Without a sole powerful nuclear retaliatory threat in Israel and a degraded Iran missile threat, the western oil lobby would be force to rely on the United States and European Union nuclear deterrent. Americans and Europeans governments who are to slow in reponsing to oil lobby needs for political/military threat in the region.
The augmentation and modernization of the Iranian capability poses a significant threat to the hegemony of western oil companies of Middle East oil. The national security of Israel, Turkey, Qatar, Egypt, Jordan, and Morocco are secondary concerns to the control of oil.
Americans are misled into believing that Israel, rather than the oil lobby, is using the crisis in Lebanon in order to push the United States to joint them in taking military action against Iran’s nuclear program for national security reason. Few Americans understand that it is not in Israel strategic objectives to induce the US to attack Iran, in order to put an end to the country’s nuclear program for the oil lobby.
In your article-“Israel Urges US Diplomacy on Iran”. You maintain it is not true that Israel is pressuring the US to attack Iran to point of saying that this idea of an Israeli led attack -“may even be founded on deliberated lie”. While Israel would be a frontline state of a war with Iran, is it not true, Mr. Schiff, that Saudi Arabia oil fields are far more strategic important and easier militarily for Iran to attack than Israel.
A missile attack by Iran on Israel’s military industrial infrastructure as a retaliation is less likely or do able than an massive Iran attack on near by American Persian oil fields, should the United States decide to use force against Iran. As of this writing only potential way Iran has to reach Israel would be Russian or Chinese sub-based cruise missiles and or JL-3 Chinese ICBMs which are not in the country. It is a known fact that Israel is far more concern about the collapse of the Iraqi central government and the real prospect of civil war, than a nuclear or non-nuclear missile attack from Iran. The possibility of a pro-Iran in Iraqi is more troubling than the nuclearization of Iran.
You said in the same article—“the theory that it would be possible to live with an Iranian nuclear…Just as the West has practically come to terms with the nuclear activity of North Kora, it (West) would also come to terms with the existence of Iranian nuclear weapons.” is in point of fact part of real Israel strategic thinking.
It’s a military reality that Iran would not use nuclear weapon against Israel out of fear of total annihilation, mush as China fears annihilation from both Russia and the United States. The real Israel fear is an Iranian nuclear armed Hezbollah acting as proxy for Iran political agenda. The nuclearization of Hezbollah would allow Iran, Syria and China the same political freedom from direct political responsibility for an nuclear attack on Israel, as the US enjoys with any Israeli nuclear on a Arab nation.
Also in your article “Israel Urges US Diplomacy on Iran” you suggest the US engage directly with Tehran and repair the American-Russian track. Do you think the America-Chinese track is more strategic to Israel concern about Iran and Hezbollah nuclearization, than the America-Russian track, given the strategic need China has for increasing amounts of Middles East oil in general and Iranian oil in particular. You state… “Israel regards an Iranian nuclear threat as a threat to it very survival”…but article is silence on growing interdependency of Iran’s ICBM program on Chinese deigned and import missiles.
Where do you think is the place to discuss scenarios for a regional nuclear power like Israel would find the military means outside the United States to stop the Chinese nuclearization of Iranian submarines with cheap nuclear tipped cruise missiles. What preparations is Israel making for this change in regional power?
The emerging movement of Iran into near space is framing the political economy of the region, not the events on the ground in northern Israel are driving the oil lobby critical path toward an attack of Iran.
Ze’ev Schiff and other critical segments within the Israeli defense journalists are fully aware that Israeli national security was lost in the weeks before July 12, 2006 to the fears of the oil lobby. This emerging reality and its implication on Israeli national security will be surface in the critical debates about the conduct of the war...
posted by Nubianobserver at 10:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home