EARL NASH
>>>>> “ It’s news to YOU <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
On July 11th, under the cover of a new moon, Israeli bombers will leave Tel Aviv and take the Southern route over Saudi Arabia, while other attack planes will fly in from Georgia and Azerbaijan to hit Teheran, Natanz, Esfahan and the nuclear reactor site at Bushehr.
Although not directly engaged in the attack, the United States has positioned carrier task forces inside the Persian Gulf, just offshore from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard headquarters and just outside the Straights of Hormuz. The US warships are deployed to protect troops in Iraq and Afghanistan from an Iranian counter-attack and to assure that oil tankers continue to pass through the 4-mile wide channel.
WHO: Israel
WHAT: Will attack at least four major targets in Iran.
WHEN: July 11, 2010
WHY: Israel believes that its national security is threatened by Iran's potential to build a nuclear weapon.
WHERE: Teheran, Natanz, Esfahan and the nuclear reactor site at Bushehr. The timing of the attack is dictated by two factors:
1. The cover of darkness provided by the new moon.
2. The urgency to attack the Bushehr nuclear plant before it goes into opeartion. Allowing the plant to go online would mean that an attack would then cause a "China Syndrome" melt down and cause a second Chernobyl, where radioactive clouds would travel over Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and possibly to Russia and China. The deadly radiation would rain down on US troops.
With the Russian- built plant scheduled to go online "this summer," which leaves Israel July or August to attack; waiting until August increases the risk of attacking an operational nuclear reactor.
Also, Israel now has the advantage of their improved Ofek-9 reconnaissance satellite launched on June 22..
HOW: There were SIX major attack routes, until Iran shipped sophisticated radar to Syria; now FIVE flight paths remain.
Most likely, as it has the permission of the Saudi princes, Israel will elect to take the Southern route from Tel Aviv to Teheran of the three available. [see map below]
A second flight path will initiate in Georgia and a third from Azerbaijan. [see maps below].
Following the attack:
* Iran will immediately attempt to cut off the world's critical oil supply line at the Straights of Hormuz; this could be accomplished by sinking a sufficient number of oil tankers to block the 4-mile channel.
* Iran will launch missile attacks on Israel's major cities.
* Hamas will simultaneously launch its cache of unguided missiles to cities near Gaza.
* Iran will ignite its sleeper cells in the United States and Great Britain and Europe.
* Israel will counter the counter attack with the use of its nuclear weapons on Iran.
The radiation clouds caused by the use of nukes will spread and threaten US troops, who will be evacuated to the aircraft carriers in and near the Persian Gulf.
As the radiation wafts eastward to Russia and China and other countries in Asia, alerts will be sounded in Japan and on the West coast of the US, as the radiation is swept up into the upper atmosphere.
The radiation will begin to circle the globe and poison croplands and bodies of water everywhere.
Following the attack the impotent UN Security Council will adopt the following Resolution:
A strong condemnation of the military attack by Israel.
Israel is required to refrain from future acts of threat.
A reassertion of Iran’s sovereign right and all other states to the development of nuclear technology.
A statement that Israel should immediately place its safeguards with IAEA.
Iran's entitlement to appropriate redress.
Israel will justify the attack using the self-defense doctrine, but there will have been no armed attack on Israel to constitute self-defense. Secondly, the Iranian nuclear threat was not imminent and necessary to constitute self-defense. In customary international law, anticipatory self-defense has its origins in the Caroline case. The Caroline incident represents the agreement of British and American officials, the Doctrine states “that the use of defensive force is permitted when the necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”
Therefore, rules for anticipatory self-defense are imminency, necessity, and These elements were all lacking in this case of Israel’s military attack on Iran.
Israel has a policy of nuclear ambiguity, as the country has not officially admitted to having nuclear weapons (200-300 according to Jane's and other military sources), and therefore, if it actually has these weapons, they are not under the scrutiny of IAEA as they have not signed the NPT. This will clearly be seen as a contravention under international law.
The US and UK will not condemn the attacks on Iran by Israel, as going against international law, since in 2003 the US and UK conducted a unilateral invasion of Iraq on the premise that the ruling regime had acquired WMDs which they would use on the Western world or sell to “terrorists.” The world political environment in 1981 consisted of the Western states arming Iraq to invade Iran, which had overthrown the Shah regime through an Islamic revolution, and installed an Islamic state. Legitimization of the use of force can here again be considered as only based on domestic interests.
The broad interpretation of the doctrine of self-defense to include anticipatory and preemptive strike (see; The Bush Doctrine] continues at the great advantage of powerful states. The United Nations has no major implementing authority and merely condemns countries for contravening international laws, while armed conflict and aggression continue to hurt civilians and unarmed persons. Moreover, the UNSC missed the opportunity to give a clear and definitive interpretation of legal self-defense.
Israel’s repeated acts of aggression on sovereign states even after this UNSCR render the question of enforceability of Security Council resolutions on powerful states moot and irrelevant.
To justify using force as anticipatory self-defense, a state must show a reasonable belief that an armed attack is imminent
Many countries will be outraged about Israel’s repeated acts of aggression on sovereign states even after this UNSCR beg the question of enforceability of Security Council resolutions on powerful states.
They will say that, to justify using force as anticipatory self-defense, a state must show a reasonable belief that an armed attack is imminent.
All the countries of the world will turn against Israel.
Religious zealots worldwide will claim that this is the fulfillment of their prophecies, then die.
1] United Nations Resolutions. Series 1, Resolutions Adopted by the General Assembly (KZ5006.2.D56). This twenty-four volume set includes all resolutions of the General Assembly from 1946 to 1986.Retrived from http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml on 3/5/2010.
[2] Ibid
[3] British forces crossed the Niagara River, therefore entering the United States, and preemptively attacked a U.S. vessel allegedly aiding insurrectionist movements in Canada.
[4] Peter S. Ford, S.P.,Israel's Attack On Osiraq: A Model For Future Preventive Strikes?.INSS Occasional Paper 55. (Colorado: USAF Institute for National Security Studies: USAF Academy Colorado, 2005).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Quoted in Avner Cohen, “The Lessons of Osirak and the American Counter proliferation Debate,” in International Perspectives on Counter proliferation, ed. Mitchell Reiss and Harald Muller (Washington DC: Woodrow Wilson Centre for international Studies, 1995) 85
[7] Ibid
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
