The answer lies in Zionism’s long term objectives of creating a Greater Israel. The main forces that stand between the Zionists and their objectives are Hezbollah in Lebanon who have defended their country against attack from the Israelis on several different occasions, and Hamas who have struggled to defend and regain the Palestinian lands that have been taken from them by the Israelis. Both of these Arab and Palestinian entities are supported by Iran via Syria. Without Iran’s support, both Hezbollah and Hamas would not be able to sustain their resistance to Israel’s aggression and ultimate aims.It would appear that the first option -- the nuclear weapons story -- has been seriously compromised by the NIE findings coming up persistently and in really obvious places like Newsweek. You know, where people will actually see it. But that does seem to narrow things down to 1) war with Hamas/Hezbollah or possibly, 2) false flag 9/11-type event. And as Lataan points out, Israel and the US have some joint military exercises planned for next month in which they will simulate missile attacks on Israel from Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Gaza. What could possibly go wrong?
However, Israel is not able to simply attack Iran; world opinion simply would not support such a blatant act of aggression. In the past, whenever Israel has decided to launch an attack against its enemies, Israel has always managed to find a casus belli that Western governments have been able to accept. The Israelis have always been able to manipulate events in such a way as to allow the world to believe that Israel is the victim rather than the aggressor. With the careful use of propaganda distorting the true nature of events coupled with outright lies and the occasional false flag or ‘psychological’ operation, Israel has been able to control the Western mainstream medias presentation of news via its influence on the owners of the mainstream media so that it favours Israel.
The only way that Israel can effectively and permanently cut Iran’s influence on Hezbollah and Hamas is for Israel to bring about regime change in Iran. In order to bring about regime change one of two things need to happen; either the country needs to be invaded and its government toppled, as happened in Iraq, or the government toppled by internal forces. Since it would be logistically impossible for Iran to be invaded as Iraq was, the only alternative is to have the government toppled by other means.
...The US and Israel have only one option left and that is to attack Iran’s military and government institutions with such force that the government capitulates and bows to the demands of the US via the UN – demands that would include ‘regime change’. In order to make such an attack the Israelis and the US will require a casus belli that would be supported by public opinion. Iran’s so-called nuclear weapons program, it is hoped, will be that casus belli.
An alternative casus belli could be that evidence, manufactured or otherwise, shows that Iran is substantially supporting Hamas and/or Hezbollah to a level that is a threat to Israel....Since such a scenario could not be realised without a trigger casus belli such as a war with either Hamas and/or Hezbollah in which it can be shown that Iran is involved, Israel will first need to find some reason to launch an attack against one or the other or both.
And he also addresses Brzezinski's recent interview, where he suggests US planes would shoot Israeli planes out of the sky before letting them strike Iran. But Brzezinski also said this about Russia, his least favorite country:
The Russians have their own interests in Iran, which are far more complex than the simplistic notion that the Russians want to help us with Iran. The Russians have a complicated agenda with Iran. They also know in the back of their heads that if worse came to worse—and I am not saying they are deliberately promoting the worst—but if worse came to worse, which is an American-Iranian military collision, who would pay the highest price for that? First, America, whose success in ending the Cold War the Russians still bitterly resent. And we would also pay a high price in Iraq, Afghanistan, and massively so with regards to the price of oil. Second, who would suffer the most? The Chinese, who the Russians view as a long-range threat and of whom they are very envious, because the Chinese get much more of their oil from the Middle East than we do, and the skyrocketing price would hurt them even more than us. Third, who would then be totally dependent on the Russians? The West Europeans. And fourth, who would cash in like crazy? The Kremlin.So looks to me that he is tilling the ground to blame things on Russia, should "worse come to worse." I also noticed that somebody dragged old Gorbachev out of storage to talk about democracy and throw a few spitballs at Putin.
Gorbachev said: "I believe that Prime Minister Putin's raising of the subject of 2012 is premature. Moreover, in this conversation, everything came down to 'we'll sit down and reach an agreement'. But if an agreement is to be reached with anyone, it is with the electorate, with the people. But the people were absent from this conversation. I do not think this is right."But hey, it's not too early to talk about 2012 in *this* country.
It is beginning to look a lot like 2012 -- or in some respects, like 2008 again -- as potential Republican presidential contenders gathered in Washington this past weekend for the annual Values Voters Summit. The gathering is hosted by the political action arm of the conservative Family Research Council.I mean, why would you even worry about Iran? We're talking about Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney again, already. Aren't you excited? Don't worry about Iran. Don't worry about Iran's Advanced BioWar program. The future is all roses, kid.
On Saturday, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee finished first among conservative voters in a straw poll ballot, winning 170 votes out of the 597 cast. Mitt Romney, Huckabee’s former rival for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, came in a distant second with 74 votes.
The large number of Iranian/Syrian/Hezhollah/Hammas rockets and missiles, capable of delivering radiological, chemical, advanced biological, and fuel-air explosives on Israel and American forces in the Middle East is a check-mate or MAD designed to prevent the next stated goal of the neo-con agenda, the destruction of Iran and Syria, from taking place. It is designed to appeal to the logical mind of Israeli and American leaders ~ don't try to destroy us because we can return the favor (perhaps using different technology but nevertheless horribly effective). The same type of MAD between NATO and the old Warsaw Pack that kept both from engaging in World War III for duration of the Cold War. So why is this MAD not working now?Yeah, so, click through for his answer.