Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Sunday, January 07, 2007

Iran: Isreal Plans War Crimes Against Non-Imminent Threats

The Israeli bluff to use nuclear weapons against non-imminent threats in Iran could be viewed as a reasonable basis for Iran and foreign fighters to pre-emptively attack Israel.

The US Congress should review these issues and compel Israel stand down from its planned war crimes. American inaction could be viewed as a legal basis for foreign fighters to expand their combat operations against US interests.

As with Iraq, the Israeli threats are likely to precipitate the instability the US-Israelis are supposedly fighting, raising questions about the American and Israeli legitimacy, sovereignty and governance.

* * *

The Sunday London Times reports Israel has threatened to attack Iran with nuclear weapons and two Israeli squadrons are prepared to attack Iran’s nuclear program sites.

This note discusses the implications of this threat, outlines why the threats may backfire, and calls on Congress to review these issues before the situation spirals out of control.

Summary: Big Disconnect

Recall, Iran offered access to the various facilities; there's no basis for the Israeli targeting. Rather, once Israel has supposedly targeted the sites, there's nothing stopping the IAEA from visiting these targets.

Israel cannot argue, on the basis of ignorance or "lack of information" that Iran may be doing something: Israel and others have the means to know with precision -- are these targets linked or not linked with an imminent threat.

Because Iran is offering access to any of the sites that Israel is supposedly targeting, there's no reason for Israel or anyone to use military force when they could visit the sites; and review whether the facility was or was not linked with an imminent threat.


There is another motive for the timing of the information related to Isreal's nuclear attack plans in Iran.

A. Isreal not 100% serious

Israel is relying on accusations, not evidence or real threats, as was done prior to the Iraq invasion, to illegally plan for and threaten illegal use of nuclear weapons against a non-imminent threat.

B. Iran is not an imminent threat

The Iranian openness substantially outweighs the Israeli assertion -- without evidence, or supporting visits -- that there might be an imminent threat from Iran. No credible argument can be made that an Iranian "threat" is "imminent" when Iran is open to having that alleged threat examined to show otherwise.

C. Isreal concerned about disclosure

The Isreali denial to be a legal defense strategy against charges of war crimes planning against a non-military threat in Iran.

D. Credible Source

The report about the Israeli plans to illegally attack Iran to be credible, warranting review and monitoring. [Times discusses previous reports related to Israeli nukes here; Kudos on source credibility here; while doubts raised here ]

* * *

Larger Picture

We judge the Israeli threat against Iran to be a bluff in the context of timing related to another objective. The goal isn’t to direct attention at Iran, but to incite world opposition to the proposed action, and give the American government information to present to Congress. The objective isn’t to convince Congress that something should or shouldn’t be done, but to overwhelm Congress with information, distract them from US government illegal activity, and convince the Congress the US government needs more tools to combat the foreign threats.

The aim of the US Government is to use the world reaction to the planned Israeli strike against Iran as a smokescreen to justify hiding covert activities outside the CIA, and transfer them to DoD and other non-CIA entities. The aim is to thwart Congressional oversight, reduce Congressional time and focus on the real war crimes, and convince Congress that there is a big problem.

We judge Israel is engaged in this training to deliver nuclear weapons, but is not as serious about performing this objective as might be suggested. However, if the world does not sufficiently oppose these planned illegal activities, Israel could be induced to implement the plans.

These threats are illusory. The Israeli threat of force is not credible. The planned attack on Iran is not lawful. All world opposition to the United States and Israel is reasonable. Israel has the means to deliver nuclear weapons, but appears to underestimate the world reaction to both the possibility that nuclear weapons might be used; and the expected backlash not just against Israel but the Untied States.

* * *

The appropriate world reaction is to call the Israelis on the bluff. Once Israel targets a non-military targets unrelated to an imminent threat, the world will rightfully view Israel as out of control.

Iran is not an imminent threat. Israeli use of nuclear weapons against a non-imminent threat is not lawful. World reaction, regardless whether the US government hopes to incite it or not, is reasonably opposed to the Israeli action.

The error is if the Israelis, who are not serious about using nuclear weapons against Iran, decide to implement their plan after being called on their bluff. As with Iraq, the error is to believe the accusation of wrongdoing is sufficient to justify Israeli military force.

* * *

Congress can reasonably expect the Administration to rely on the Israel threat against Iran as a catalyst for increased NSA reports of foreign fighter preparations. Congress should not be fooled. It is reasonable and lawful for foreign fighters to mobilize and plan combat operations against Israeli targets. All preparations for combat should be expected.

Rather, Congress has a duty to lawfully threaten the use of force against Israel if it uses nuclear weapons, especially against a non-imminent threat in Iran.

Congress also has a duty to lawfully compel Israel and Iran to agree to cooperate to resolve the Palestinian issue; and compel the Israelis to work with Syria and Iran to jointly fight real extremists.

Israel cannot rely on what may or may not have happened in WWII. The threats of 2007 can be taken on their own as sufficient basis for world combatants to lawfully target the Israeli government and Israeli civilians who provide material support for the planned war crimes in Iran.

More broadly, the problem for the Israelis is that their action is seen as an extension of US policies. America and Israel are already isolated. The world reasonably opposes what are illegal efforts.

If Israel chooses to use nuclear weapons, no American should be surprised if Israel and American civilians are targeted. Although illegal under the laws of war, foreign fighters will view the American and Israeli civilian passive acceptance of these war crimes as illegal green lights to the American and Israeli to wage illegal warfare. Foreign fighters can be reasonably expected to broaden their list of targets to include American civilians.

The rude lesson is that these events are preventable. Regardless the number of nuclear weapons America and Israel uses, foreign fighters around the globe will know for centuries that the Israelis chose to use nuclear weapons without there being an imminent threat. Israel no longer has any legal or moral foundation to argue over what did or didn’t happen in WWII. Rather, the world will rightfully see, even if the combat takes generations, that Israel should be rightfully removed from the map.

* * *

Today’s’ problem stems from an unworkable Israeli approach to the Palestinian issue. Rather than accept a just settlement, the Israelis are viewed as abusing power, not being reasonable, and threatening the use of nuclear weapons.

The scale has turned decidedly against Israel.

* * *

Legal Issue: Disproportionate threat of force against non-imminent threat

It is a war crime for Israel to threaten disproportionate force against a non-military target. Iran and the world community may lawfully organize to pre-emotively attack Iran and the United States for engaging in planned or threatened war crimes.

The Israelis have made assertions that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. If Israel has enough information to target specific Iranian sites, it cannot point to any transfer of data to the IAEA outlining the specific targets which are supposedly related to nuclear weapons. Even if Iran were developing nuclear weapons, Iran has signed nothing that would legally bind it to inaction.

Israel has no legal standing to use nuclear weapons against a non-imminent threat; nor can the world community legally sanction or impose punishment on Iran for doing what it is legally permitted to do.

Rules of Evidence: Admissibility of statements contrary to interests

Israel’s threat to use disproportionate force against a non-imminent threat is contrary to the Israelis interests and actionable. Israel should know that making such a threat would amount to an imminent threat, one which Iran and others may legally respond.

It is not in the interests of Israel to do things that are war crimes; or say things which would amount to a war crime unless they were true – planning to use military force against a non-imminent threat. Even if Israel is bluffing, the public statement by Israel can be introduced by Iran as a basis for Iran to demand the Security Council take action. If Iran does not get a satisfactory response, but Israel remains committed to this threat, Iran may legally work with all world nations to lawfully contain the imminent threat against Iran.

___ Does Israel understand that its statements can be introduced at The Hague?

___ Does Iran realize that Israel’s refusal to cooperate could be a legal foundation for Iran to request UN Security Council Action?

___ Do the US and Israeli government understand that Iran may legally work with all nations to contain this imminent threat from Israel – the planned use of nuclear weapons against a non-imminent threat in Iran?

___ Does The Hague understand that Israel would not admit to war crimes planning unless it were true; or that the threat would be communicated with the intent, regardless the legality, the threatened use of nuclear weapons against a non-military target, is imminent?

* * *

The US Congress needs to comprehend the brinkmanship being played, and aim not to be manipulated as it was on the even of the Iraq invasion. There are several legal issues which members of Congress need to review now with staff counsel before they are exposed to a deluge of information related to expected foreign fighter preparations to expand combat operations against the United States and Israel.

It would be preferable if the Iranians and Israelis cooperate.

____ What evidence does Israel have that Iran is doing something it is not legally allowed to do?

____ What specific targets does Israel plan to attack?

____ Does Israel understand that, if it is about to attack Iran’s non-military targets that Israel may be lawfully targeted by Iran and Iranian allies?

____ Does Israel understand that Egypt is not necessarily beholden to Israel and may revoke the peace treaties with Israel?

____ Why hasn’t the target list which Israelis are using for training being provided to the IAEA for inspection?

____ What treaty, rule, or obligation is Israel relying on that would permit the Israelis to use disproportionate force against a non-imminent threat?

____ Does Israel understand that threatening to use nuclear weapons against a non-imminent threat is a war crime?

____ Do the Israeli civilians comprehend that if they refuse to prevent illegal war crimes that foreign fighters may lawfully subject Israelis for lawful reprisal?

___ Do the Israeli civilians comprehend that they have a duty to ensure their government only uses forces when there is an imminent threat?

* * *

Consider the sites that Israel proposes to attack. If Israel has information that says Iran is doing something that is an imminent threat, then Israel needs to provide that evidence to the UN Security Council.

___ When does Israel plan to provide a list of the specific sites that Iran is supposedly doing illegal activity?

___ Why does Israel get to use nuclear weapons against a non-imminent threat?

___ Does the UN have an explanation why inspectors are not going to the Iranian sites?

___ What is the reason that the Iranian offers to the IAEA for inspection have been rebuffed?

___ Why is the IAEA requiring Iran to disprove a negative: That it is not doing something – developing nuclear weapons – that it is otherwise not prohibited from doing?

___ How can Israel credibly argue that using nuclear weapons is justified as a method to prevent Iran from developing nuclear power?

___ Why does Israel get to use what it wants to prevent others from doing?

The ruse is to believe the Israeli’s accusations about Iran, as they were about Iraq, are credible. The burden is on the Israelis, who have committed war crimes, to justify confidence why these planned operations against Iran are not similar war crimes.

* * *

The Israeli announcement is expected to generate world discussion. We judge the announcement is designed to generate information which the US government will point to as “Evidence” to Congress that the US and Israel are under siege. This is a misreading of the events.

Congress should dig into these issues and inquire about the motivations of the US and Israelis to threaten the use of nuclear weapons; and review the extent to which the US Congress is distracted by these issues from the real problem: The US war crimes in Iraq, and needed Congressional oversight.

Congress should make a finding that it is unreasonable for the Israelis to threaten the use of nuclear weapons against a non-imminent threat; and that US forces may or may not be used to pre-empt the Israeli planed attacks on Iraq.

Israeli cannot be sure of unwavering, eternal support from the United States. As with Iraq, the US Congress should communicate to Israel that it is on its own. These Congressional statements need to be in writing, and something the US intelligence community understands: The Congress will not be swayed by the reasonable reaction of the world community to the Israel threats; rather, the Congress understands the planned Israeli action would amount to a war crime and cannot be supported by the United States. Congress should discuss shutting off funding for the Israelis if they pursue an illegal policy against Iran.

* * *

The unreasonable Israeli threat against Iran should be seen as a sign of the desperation in the US and Israeli communities. As with Iraq, the US government and Israelis are relying on circular reasoning and no-evidence to rally support for illegal warfare. Unlike the post 9-11 world, the US and Israel are isolated and have suffered measurable combat losses.

Israel’s threat, even if it is not a bluff, shows the extent to which Israel fails to comprehend that there are reasonable, eternal consequences for unreasonable use of offensive weapons. The world is in a superior position: If Israel is bluffing, the non-use of force will be seen as a victory; however, if the Israelis do use force against Iran, the action will be seen as illegitimate.

The Israeli approach is most likely an effort to test to generate responses, stir world reaction, and manipulate Congress to assent to another excuse for illegal warfare. If Congress rejects the claim, the likely aim of the US government will be to transfer more covert operations out of the CIA into non-CIA control. The expected Congressional opposition is likely to be used, as was the case with Iran-Contra, as a basis to ignore the laws of war.

Congress is in a position to break this cycle by openly challenging the basis for the illegal Israeli actions; and openly question why the US government should react to what are reasonable responses from the world community: Planned combat operations against Israel and the US for waging illegal warfare.

* * *

The Israelis have miscalculated. The opposition to Israel and the United States is reasonable. There is no reason for anyone to have sympathy for the Untied States or Israel. An eternal battle against Israel and the Untied States, in the wake of a threatened use of nuclear weapons against a non-imminent threat is illegal, and the world cannot credibly be convinced of its appropriateness.

Subsequent calls by US Administration officials or flag officers that combat is needed against what the expected world reaction are disingenuous. Rather, by supporting this absurd approach, the world community will be less likely to engage in dialog, and more likely to dismiss all US and Israeli statements as propaganda.

When confronted by an unreasonable threat of nuclear weapons against a non-military target, some may view Israel has having overstayed its welcome on the world stage. The scales will have turned away from Israel.

* * *

Israel should not be surprised by the world reaction. When relying on non-sense reasons to use nuclear weapons against a non-imminent threat – the world will view the use or threatened use force as being disconnected from reality, and more of the same non-sense behind the Iraq invasion.

The fatal error would be for Israel to not back down, and use the nuclear weapons. The likely world reaction will be an understandable call for an eternal battle, just as the United States wants: A generational war because the US is not willing to cooperate with Iran or Syria to face common enemies. The US and Israel are seen as having no other option but to be defiant in word, and play victim at the expected backlash against the United States and Israel.

* * *

Should Israel use nuclear weapons against a non-imminent threat, the world will point to this event as what war criminals are willing to do: Engage in more war crimes to distract attention and focus from the original abuses.

It remains to be understood how the AEI will use the expected lines of chatter to issue policy statements, or pointing to the world reaction as, “Look at the threat.” This is a manufactured crisis. Israel is not making legally defendable threats. Israel knows, or should know, that making these irresponsible threats may subject them to lawful retaliation when they could approach the issue the opposite way: Jointly agree with Syria and Iran to cooperate to fight real extremists of threat to all governments. The Israelis refuse to look in the mirror.

* * *

The proposed Israeli action tend to further erode world support for the United States and Israel, further undermining confidence in the already isolated American and Israeli positions.

The way forward is for Congress to take the lead, impeach the President, and conduct a war crimes trial against the Israeli and US commanders who are complicit with the spreading illegal activity.

Congress should send a green light to Iran: It has a green light to defend itself against Israel, and the US will not interfere with pre-emptive use of force by any nation against Israel.

All non-simmering problems can expect to be exploited. The world community knows the Americans and Israelis would rather have war than peace; and they would rather focus on common differences than on working with other nations to face real issues, unlike during WWII when differences with the Russians were put aside to face a common enemy Germany.

Congress should not response or react to the world reaction to Israel’s abuse. Rather the appropriate interpretation of Congress is to view the world reaction as understandable and appropriate, especially in light of the legally permitted Geneva standards allowing other nations to lawfully target the US and Israel for supporting and not stopping planned use of illegal weapons against non-imminent threats.

Congress should view the world reaction as what the US government hopes to incite, not as something out of the ordinary, but something the US government out of desperation hopes to spark and distract Congressional attention. The cynical objective is to persuade Members of Congress there is a threat, and distract them from the solutions involving Syria and Iran.

Congress should put the burden back on the US government, compel the Administration provide evidence of an imminent Iranian threat; or Congress should shut down funding, and call US and Israeli government officials to account at a war crimes tribunal. Members of Congress failing to take action to hold US and Israeli government officials to account could be seen as being complicit; there is no credible argument that the US Members of Congress were mislead in that they have reasonable notice what the Administration is willing to do to distract Member of Congress attention from war crimes.

Members of Congress need to meet directly with the Israelis and ask:

___ Do they realize what the Israelis are doing

___ Does Israeli understand that it will be forced to cooperate with Syria and Iran to solve the Palestinian issue

___ Do the Israelis understand that, as with the Bush approaches in Iraq, the US is not going to eternally support illegal, counterproductive, and reckless Israeli policies?

___ Do the Israelis understand the threatened and actual use of force, as we have seen in Iraq, are not forever supportable by the US Congress?

* * *

The world reaction to the planned or actual Israeli use of nuclear weapons should not be underestimated. The world views the problem as being the US-Israeli abuse of power which alone is fueling the problem of world instability. Given the disproportionate control of lethal weapons, foreign fighters view their use of insurgency and terrorism as legitimate.

The planned or actual use of Israeli nuclear weapons should be viewed in terms of what did or didn’t happen in WWII. The Israeli threat of use of nuclear weapons against a non-imminent threat is likely to be viewed as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor: Unjustified, unreasonable, and the basis for the world community to put aside their differences and face the common enemy: The Americans and Israelis.

Congress needs to send a simple message: The US Government needs to mange this problem, or the Israelis will be left to suffer the consequences on their own. America cannot stand by a nation that threatens to use nuclear weapons against a non-imminent threat. What did or didn’t happen in WWII is not justification for this threatened, illegal abuse of power in 2007. The Congress has a responsibility to review these issues, not let them get out of control. There is no reason to believe the US Administration claims that Israel is doing this on its own.

If the US-Israelis refuse to be reasonable, and continue to threaten to use nuclear weapons, Congress should not be surprised when the American and Israeli civilians are lawfully targeted worldwide. The aim will be to contain the perceived spreading, reckless, and irresponsible US-Israeli approach to problem solving. The world views it as having no other option.

* * *

Congress needs to call for less inflammatory remarks from the Israelis which amount to nuclear blackmail. This abuse of power is what the Founders opposed. The world is likely to unite against the US and Israeli abuses despite the threat of nuclear weapons. As with the Revolutionary War, it is legal and permissible for Iran to oppose and pre-emptively attack Israel, and work with Egypt to prevent Israel from using nuclear weapons against a non-imminent threat.

The differences between the world factions may give way to an understanding that there is a larger, common enemy: The US and Israel who must be jointly confronted on all forums.

US and Israeli efforts to inspire combatants to oppose each may be seen as signs of US powerlessness, incompetence, and further escalating the problems.

Does this mean that WWIII is starting? No, it remains that the world could be united to end US and Israeli abuses in a world wide insurgency to end the perceived abuse of uncheckable power. Congress has the power to contain this problem; if Congress chooses inaction; other nations may choose to use force where Congress refuses to have hearings.

* * *

The problem is the US and Israelis are missing an opportunity. They could use their time to work with other nations to solve problems. Unlike China who is working in Africa to create export markets, the only apparent option the US and Israel are willing to use is the continued threatened use of force against non-imminent threats.

What the world chooses to do in response should not be surprising, but is permissible under the laws of war: A military blockage of Israel; support for covert operations against the US and Israel; lawfully targeting US resources and assets which support Israeli illegal activity; efforts to isolate Israel; and developing other alliances for mutual protection against the US and Israelis. This does not need to happen.

The apparent stupidity of the American-Israeli threats over Iran reasonably undermines confidence in the US and Israeli legal systems and governance.

___ Who is in a position to stop this, but refuses?

If the US population and Israeli citizens refuses to contain this abuse, foreign fighters are likely to view US and Israelis citizens as legitimate targets – unlawful combatants.

The world views the situation as one where all reasonable options have failed to contain the US and Israel. The US and Israelis do use illegal force without imminent threats.

There should be no reason any American should be confused why US-Israeli interests are targeted. There should be no confusion why the world sells weapons to enemies of the US and Israel; why the world puts energy into undermining the US and Israel – the US and Israel are perceived as being reckless, unreasonable, and unwilling to do what they should: Comply with the laws of war.

* * *

State of War Between Israel-US and World Community

Unless Israel fully cooperate with a war crimes investigation -- into which specific Israeli squanders are planning an illegal use of nuclear weapons against non-imminent threats -- a state of war may be presumed to exist between the world and Israel. The US and Israel cannot credibly play the victim role. The world reasonably opposes this abuse and distraction.

The world community may lawfully target, attack, and destroy Israel and the United States for its abuse of power; imminent threat of attack on non-military targets; and for their joint refusal to cooperate with war crimes prosecutors.

The US Administration can be expected to use this Israel threat as a distraction from their ongoing efforts to hide cover activity from Congress.

The reasonable world reaction to the Israeli-US planned illegal war crimes against Iran should be viewed by Congress as something similar to the pre-Iraq invasion: Illusory threats without valid evidence. The world is likely to view the US and Israelis as being in the wrong, more troubling in that there is a reasonable alternative which US and Israeli leaders have unreasonably rejected.

* * *

The US Congress need to take control, not defer to the President, nor remain silent about the transfer of covert operations from the intelligence community to other agencies.

The US government is hiding similarly abusive irresponsible covert operations outside the CIA. Despite losing the election to the DNC, the republicans are transferring illegal activity form where Congress, is most likely to look, much less consider.

* * *

The US-Israeli approach to Iran is a smokescreen against a war crimes investigation and Congressional oversight. This threat cannot tip a scale that has already tipped over.

The consequences for the United States are serious for the Congress to review:

___ The Chinese, note the Americans, are using their time to solve problems in Africa. Does the Congress see the missed opportunities?

___ Does Congress see that US war crimes are being repurposed as something else – something that is incorrectly diverting attention from the US to other nations?

___ Does Congress understand that other nations may point to the US-Israeli threat as evidence of failed economic planning and imprudent governance?

* * *

The world reasonably views the US and Israelis as being no better than the Roman Empire, marked by abuse and recklessness. The world reasonably opposes this bullying.

No American should be confused why the World wages combat operations against the Untied States. The world is likely to take the US principles in the Declaration of Independence to heart and apply them to the US.

The world nations are legally justified to be inspired to oppose this abuse of power as were the British Colonists in what is now the United States. The principles the Americans supposedly export can be turned on their head: American imprudence is at odds with the Founder’s intent. The world remains inspired by the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence as it moves to destroy the US and Israeli governments.

* * *

The world may united not because the US and Israelis are wrong, but because the world is justified in opposing this abuse. All arguments the US and Israelis have provided can legally be turned on their head and applied to the American and Israelis – just as we saw in the wake of the revelations of US abuses at Abu Ghraib.

Despite a demonstrated problem in Iraq, locals in the Middle East take the opposing view: Israel and the US are the problem, and they have no sympathy for any perceived whining or rationalizing from the US or Israeli governments

These issues are not historical. They are events of 2007. The world comprehends that there are reasonable reasons to take up arms against the Americans and Israelis; and that the thinking behind this combat is not extremism but self-respect. The world reaction is liked with the view that the US and Israelis government are reckless and refuse to contain this abuse; and the US-Israeli legal communities fail to understand the laws of war. US and Israeli military action, propaganda, and media messaging is not expected to have any effect, especially as the Israeli’s mushroom clouds spew debris into civilian centers.

* * *

These events are not different than the changes after the US entered Afghanistan: There were excuses to shift attention to an irrelevant area in Iraq. Despite the visible abuses of Sept 2001, the US engaged in larger abuses and saw the US arrogance.

The world reasonably wonders:

___ What else is the Israeli government planning

___ Is the Israelis are actively planning an illegal use of nuclear weapons against a non-imminent threat, why wait; why not launch combat strikes against Israel now?

The world views its position as being reasonable and that Israel and the US can be legally targeted and ultimately defeated. The World remains more committed to standing up to abuse than the US and Israel are in fully supporting the required defenses to oppose the expected world backlash against the US and Israel.

History will judge to what extent

___ The US and Israel created the conditions which justified the world in targeting the US and Israeli interests

___ The US rejected options to end this; or opposed reasonable options to compromise with Iran and Syria as was possible with Russia during WWII against Germany;

___ The US and Israel chose this unnecessary confrontation over a non-imminent threat

___ The Israeli use of nuclear weapons is illegitimate, illegal, and a prosecuted war crime

___ The abuse by the US-Israelis is a sign of their weakness

___ The threatened use of illegal force against a non-imminent threat is viewed as a reasonable imminent threat, warranting world action against the US and Israelis with the aim of lawfully destroying the US and Israeli threats to world stability and peace.

* * *

Congress needs to send a simple message to the Israelis and the world: There are meaningful consequences for the Israelis threatened abuse of power.

Change means managing this problem based on leadership, not on the same assertions which have failed 2001-2006. The world has seen through the ruses of phony excuses, non-existence evidence, and illegal threats, then illegal warfare. The US and Israelis are in a weakened position.

Congress must be clear with the Israelis:

___ This cannot continue

___ The same abuses 2001-2006 will end

___ The US and Israelis may not hide illegal activity in departments outside the intelligence community; and those illegal programs can be revealed and exposed

___ A New Congress will not be bullied into supporting false evidence, nor will it be manipulated to support a manufactured crisis based on arbitrary timelines.

* * *

These planned Israeli actions defy reason, the law, and prudence The world need spend time trying to explain or understand this abuse of power. The action is not reasonable. Failure of the US and Israeli governments to contain this planned use of power is evidence for eternity that the US and Israelis are not civilized.

These statements are irresponsible and reckless. The planned action is an imminent threat to Iran. As was the case with Iraq, the planned and actual use of force is likely to incite the very backlash the Americans supposedly say they are trying to combat.

The way forward is to unite against extremism, not illegally threaten force to create legally defendable combat against the US and Israel. Any US government or commercial statement in the open media that the US is fighting “extremism” is disingenuous; the aim is to create extremism, then use the reasonable opposition to US-Israeli abuse as a pretext to continue abuse. As Senator Kennedy said on the eve of the Iraq invasion, the planned solution could very well precipitate the very violence the action is supposed to prevent.

The reasonable world conclusion, in the wake of this abuse of power by the US and Israelis, is that the United States and Jewish state are not needed. Rather, they must be lawfully destroyed as a threat to world peace; their destruction is consistent with the options available under the laws of war and UN Charter: All peaceful efforts to contain the US and Israel have failed; and the US has consistently put itself above the rule of law.

US administration claims that they are fighting “extremists” is a meaningless statement and excuse. They are fighting a legally defendable translational insurgency with one goal: To lawfully check and contained abusive power which the US Congress refuses to contain, check or prevent.

* * *

Israel’s statements about their planned attack on Iran amount to nuclear blackmail. This is not acceptable. The problem is the US and Israeli government.

Israel has miscalculated. Rather than inspire others to come to the negotiating tale, the world will likely do the opposite: Similarly oppose the planned Israeli use of nuclear weapons against a non-imminent threat with lawful counter strikes against Israeli and American interests worldwide.

* * *

The issue is the loss of support by the intelligence community. There are foreseeable implications of this reckless abuse of power and planning. There is no reason for anyone to support this abuse: Planned use of nuclear weapons against non-imminent threats.

The danger for the Israeli government: When the world realized the Israeli intellectuals are silent and remain complicit, they failed to stop and remain unreasonable. There is no world sympathy for the American-Israeli academic and think tank support for illegal warfare against Iran. The likes of the NeoCons and AEI are likely to be seen as complicity with the illegal war crimes planning.

The longer the AEI supports this absurd policy wholly disconnected from an imminent threat, the longer the AEI will be seen as having little credibility other than an extension of a failed NeoCon approach to world events: Use force to export principles not practiced at home. The world need not speculate what may happen, they only need to look at the examples of Afghanistan and Iraq: Even when the US violated the law and could use any amount of resources – legal or illegal – the US failed to provide stability, order, or a credibly alternative.

The AEI can be expected to continue rewriting history, and pretending that the US did not us force to illegally impose non-practiced principles. It is a matter of international criminal law to what extent personnel inside the AEI are brought to account, or adjudicated to have provided material support, guidance, and policymaking functions for the White House in their efforts to illegally transfer cover operations from Congressional review; or wage illegal warfare out of Congressional oversight despite DNC control of Congress.

* * *

World support continues to tip away from the US and Israel. These threats are more signs for the world community and foreign fighters that the US and Israelis abuse power without no regard for international law, sustainability, or world support.

The world reasonably views the US and Israelis as a joint threat to world peace and stability. US think tank comments suggesting these positions are “extremist” are absurd: They are reasonable. The US and Israelis appear to desire retaliation as an excuse to impose more abuse. It is absurd for the Israelis to appear to hope to incite an Iranian reaction. The issue is not what Iran will do, but what the world will jointly agree must be done to lawfully end what cannot be permitted to continue: Joint US-Israeli abuse of power against non-imminent threats.

The US Congress must realize that it is being manipulated on the basis of an expected world reaction to the irresponsible Israeli plan to use nuclear weapons against a non-imminent threat. The Congress needs to rebuke the Israelis and US Administration. These calculations are a pretext for the Israelis and Americans to play victim, but they are not playing a convincing role. It is time for them to exit the stage.

* * *

These issues are not a war of words, but matters of international criminal law and war crimes. Israel and the US defy the law and assert non-sense principles they are not practicing.

Israel, the United States are continuing their reckless planning and policies. Calling others extremists is invalid. Extremism applies to the American government, AEI, Israelis, and the NeoCons.

The US government’s rhetoric is not persuasive. There is no evidence of an imminent threat. The US cannot credibly call anyone extremist, especially when the evidence of US extremism mounts. Congress has yet to start the hearings. The defense is not credible.

* * *

The objective of this announcement is to distract attention from Israeli and American war crimes; confuse Congress; and mislead the public.

The US can curtail Israel. Is Israel attacks, the world may consider it a joint US-Israel attack:

___ Illegal, inappropriate use of nuclear weapons

___ Inappropriate threat of force against a non-imminent threat

___ Israel is a legitimate target for another round of attacks by foreign fighters.

The problem for the US has been it’s glacial comprehension of the 2001-2006 events: It is a transnational insurgency and revolution to check the abuse of power. It’s taken until 2007 to comprehend there has been an insurgency. There is no prospect the US will comprehend in 2007 the implications of the Israel attack on Iran: Unprovoked, illegal, and a reasonable basis for expanded combat operations by foreign fighters against US and Israeli interests. The US and Israel do not have enough allies or resources to defend themselves, further emboldening the opposition.

It is a waste of time for the US and Israelis to argue, “Oh, look at the extremists.” Look in the mirror.

* * *

US Combatant commanders should not wonder why “their massage” is not sinking in. The issue isn’t the veracity of your statements, but the illegitimacy of the governance behind these war crimes.

The US and Israel are most likely to circumvent the opposition with more absurd statements and fabricated events. The scale, already tipped over, should be expected to tip away from the US. There is no reason for any person in any nation to respond to the US and Israeli statements or non-sense related to these events.

There is no reason to have an argument or discussion with people in the US or Israel who continue to believe that illegal warfare is justified. The likes of the Administration, NeoCons, and AEI are not listening. These are not historical issues, but on the back of statements in the first days of 2007. The US and Israel refuse to wake up to reality – they are isolated, illegitimate, and have run out of lawful options to bully the world.

When the US and Israeli leaders speak, the world reaction should not be a surprise: If Israel wants war, then the world’s foreign fighters are prepared to give it to them.

The Air Force Brigadier General has no comprehension of what the problem is. No matter what the US may do to oppose these discussions, the US is again seen as illegitimate.

The US and Israeli leaders to do not appear to comprehend the legal implications of their policies. Their actions and statements are seen as irresponsible and reckless.

The US government is in no position to credibly defend the United States. The UN is excuse for the US and Israel to abuse. The Security Council is not seen as a legitimate forum to resolve these illegal threats by the Israelis.

US and Israeli support for opposition forces in Iran are jeopardized. This Israeli attack, should it occur, is likely to inspire Iranians to unite, justify an attack on US and Israeli interest, and rally Arabs to support attacks against the American and Israeli interests.

* * *

It does not matter that Saudi Arabic may support an attack on Iran. What matters is the world’s memory: That the attack was not legal, and illegitimate. Stupid war criminals can be treated like stupid idiots: Without respect.

America and Israel have no basis to complain about what could quickly unfold.