archives

If this is the case that Iran has not decided to build the bomb, why is the U.S. government conducting economic warfare against Iran with sanctions and vigorous efforts to get other nations to cease all contact with that country’s central bank? Why is the U.S. House of Representatives attempting to stop the Obama administration from using diplomatic channels to defuse the situation? ››read more

Gareth Porter, investigative historian and journalist specializing in U.S. national security policy, discusses Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey’s warning to Israel’s government that the US would not be dragged into war with Iranby a unilateral Israeli attack; why Iran might hold the US accountable for an Israeli strike anyway, and counterattack US targets in the region; Mossad’s general agreement with the US National Intelligence Estimate on Iran (that there is no evidence Iran has decided to pursue a nuclear weapons program); and why Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak seems to think Israel isn’t ready for military action.

MP3 here. (19:50)

››read more

But even though the administration is undoubtedly concerned about that Israeli threat, the Panetta leak had a different objective. The White House was taking advantage of the current crisis atmosphere over that Israeli threat and even seeking to make it more urgent in order to put pressure on Iran to make diplomatic concessions to the United States and its allies on its nuclear programme in the coming months. ››read more

Most important, when asked whether it would be better for both Israel and Iran to have the bomb, or for neither to have it, 65 percent of Israeli Jews said neither. And a remarkable 64 percent favored the idea of a nuclear-free zone, even when it was explained that this would mean Israel giving up its nuclear weapons.Despite all the talk of an “existential threat,” less than half of Israelis support a strike on Iran. ››read more