Netanyahou exige d’Obama que les bombardiers américains rayent l’Iran de la carte. La raison invoquée est toujours la même:
– Benjamin Netanyahou, avril 2009
Pour comprendre ce que Netanyahou veut vraiment dire, il faut inverser les rôles, en regardant dans le miroir du judaïsme.
– Le professeur militaire israélien Martin Van Crevel (2 février 2003)
L’Option Samson: s’ils vont en enfer, ils nous y entraînent avec eux
4 avril 2009
This story has been updated on Jeffrey Goldberg’s blog in response to some controversy that it generated.
In an interview conducted shortly before he was sworn in today as prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons—and quickly—or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities itself.
“The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told me. He said the Iranian nuclear challenge represents a “hinge of history” and added that “Western civilization” will have failed if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
In unusually blunt language, Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.”
History teaches Jews that threats against their collective existence should be taken seriously, and, if possible, preempted, he suggested. In recent years, the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has regularly called for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” and the supreme Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, this month called Israel a “cancerous tumor.”
But Netanyahu also said that Iran threatens many other countries apart from Israel, and so his mission over the next several months is to convince the world of the broad danger posed by Iran. One of his chief security advisers, Moshe Ya’alon, told me that a nuclear Iran could mean the end of American influence in the Middle East. “This is an existential threat for Israel, but it will be a blow for American interests, especially on the energy front. Who will dominate the oil in the region—Washington or Tehran?”
Netanyahu said he would support President Obama’s decision to engage Iran, so long as negotiations brought about a quick end to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. “How you achieve this goal is less important than achieving it,” he said, but he added that he was skeptical that Iran would respond positively to Obama’s appeals. In an hour-long conversation, held in the Knesset, Netanyahu tempered his aggressive rhetoric with an acknowledgement that nonmilitary pressure could yet work. “I think the Iranian economy is very weak, which makes Iran susceptible to sanctions that can be ratcheted up by a variety of means.” When I suggested that this statement contradicted his assertion that Iran, by its fanatic nature, is immune to pressure, Netanyahu smiled thinly and said, “Iran is a composite leadership, but in that composite leadership there are elements of wide-eyed fanaticism that do not exist right now in any other would-be nuclear power in the world. That’s what makes them so dangerous.”
He went on, “Since the dawn of the nuclear age, we have not had a fanatic regime that might put its zealotry above its self-interest. People say that they’ll behave like any other nuclear power. Can you take the risk? Can you assume that?”
Netanyahu offered Iran’s behavior during its eight-year war with Iraq as proof of Tehran’s penchant for irrational behavior. Iran “wasted over a million lives without batting an eyelash … It didn’t sear a terrible wound into the Iranian consciousness. It wasn’t Britain after World War I, lapsing into pacifism because of the great tragedy of a loss of a generation. You see nothing of the kind.”
He continued: “You see a country that glorifies blood and death, including its own self-immolation.” I asked Netanyahu if he believed Iran would risk its own nuclear annihilation at the hands of Israel or America. “I’m not going to get into that,” he said.
Neither Netanyahu nor his principal military advisers would suggest a deadline for American progress on the Iran nuclear program, though one aide said pointedly that Israeli time lines are now drawn in months, “not years.” These same military advisers told me that they believe Iran’s defenses remain penetrable, and that Israel would not necessarily need American approval to launch an attack. “The problem is not military capability, the problem is whether you have the stomach, the political will, to take action,” one of his advisers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told me.
Both Israeli and American intelligence officials agree that Iran is moving forward in developing a nuclear-weapons capability. The chief of Israeli military intelligence, Major General Amos Yadlin, said earlier this month that Iran has already “crossed the technological threshold,” and that nuclear military capability could soon be a fact: “Iran is continuing to amass hundreds of kilograms of low-enriched uranium, and it hopes to exploit the dialogue with the West and Washington to advance toward the production of an atomic bomb.”
American officials argue that Iran has not crossed the “technological threshold”; the director of national intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, said recently that Israel and the U.S. are working with the same set of facts, but are interpreting it differently. “The Israelis are far more concerned about it, and they take more of a worst-case approach to these things from their point of view,” he said. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, recently warned that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities would undermine stability in the Middle East and endanger the lives of Americans in the Persian Gulf.
The Obama administration agrees with Israel that Iran’s nuclear program is a threat to Middle East stability, but it also wants Israel to focus on the Palestinian question. Netanyahu, for his part, promises to move forward on negotiations with the Palestinians, but he made it clear in our conversation that he believes a comprehensive peace will be difficult to achieve if Iran continues to threaten Israel, and he cited Iran’s sponsorship of such Islamist groups as Hezbollah and Hamas as a stumbling block.
Ya’alon, a former army chief of staff who is slated to serve as Netanyahu’s minister for strategic threats, dismissed the possibility of a revitalized peace process, telling me that “jihadists” interpret compromise as weakness. He cited the reaction to Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza four years ago. “The mistake of disengagement from Gaza was that we thought like Westerners, that compromise would defuse a problem—but it just encouraged the problem,” he said. “The jihadists saw withdrawal as a defeat of the West … Now, what do you signal to them if you are ready to divide Jerusalem, or if you’re ready to withdraw to the 1967 lines? In this kind of conflict, your ability to stand and be determined is more important than your firepower.”
American administration sources tell me that President Obama won’t shy from pressuring Netanyahu on the Palestinian issue during his first visit to Washington as prime minister, which is scheduled for early May. But Netanyahu suggested that he and Obama already see eye-to-eye on such crucial issues as the threat posed by Hamas. “The Obama administration has recently said that Hamas has to first recognize Israel and cease the support of terror. That’s a very good definition. It says you have to cease being Hamas.”
When I noted that many in Washington doubt his commitment to curtailing Jewish settlement on the West Bank, he said, in reference to his previous term as prime minister, from 1996 to 1999, “I can only point to what I did as prime minister in the first round. I certainly didn’t build new settlements.”
Netanyahu will manage Israel’s relationship with Washington personally—his foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, of the anti-Arab Israel Beiteinu party, is deeply unpopular in Washington—and I asked him if he could foresee agreeing on a “grand bargain” with Obama, in which he would move forward on talks with the Palestinians in exchange for a robust American response to Iran’s nuclear program. He said: “We intend to move on the Palestinian track independent of what happens with Iran, and I hope the U.S. moves to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons regardless of what happens on the Palestinian track.”
In our conversation, Netanyahu gave his fullest public explication yet of why he believes President Obama must consider Iran’s nuclear ambitions to be his preeminent overseas challenge. “Why is this a hinge of history? Several bad results would emanate from this single development. First, Iran’s militant proxies would be able to fire rockets and engage in other terror activities while enjoying a nuclear umbrella. This raises the stakes of any confrontation that they’d force on Israel. Instead of being a local event, however painful, it becomes a global one. Second, this development would embolden Islamic militants far and wide, on many continents, who would believe that this is a providential sign, that this fanaticism is on the ultimate road to triumph.
“Third, they would be able to pose a real and credible threat to the supply of oil, to the overwhelming part of the world’s oil supply. Fourth, they may threaten to use these weapons or to give them to terrorist proxies of their own, or fabricate terror proxies. Finally, you’d create a great sea change in the balance of power in our area—nearly all the Arab regimes are dead-set opposed to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. They fervently hope, even if they don’t say it, that the U.S. will act to prevent this, that it will use its political, economic, and, if necessary, military power to prevent this from happening.”
If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, Netanyahu asserted, Washington’s Arab allies would drift into Iran’s orbit. “The only way I can explain what will happen to such regimes is to give you an example from the past of what happened to one staunch ally of the United States, and a great champion of peace, when another aggressive power loomed large. I’m referring to the late King Hussein [of Jordan] … who was an unequalled champion of peace. The same King Hussein in many ways subordinated his country to Saddam Hussein when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990. Saddam seemed all-powerful, unchallenged by the United States, and until the U.S. extracted Kuwait from Saddam’s gullet, King Hussein was very much in Iraq’s orbit. The minute that changed, the minute Saddam was defeated, King Hussein came back to the Western camp.”
One of Iran’s goals, Netanyahu said, is to convince the moderate Arab countries not to enter peace treaties with Israel. Finally, he said, several countries in Iran’s neighborhood might try to develop nuclear weapons of their own. “Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons could spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The Middle East is incendiary enough, but with a nuclear arms race it will become a tinderbox,” he said.
Few in Netanyahu’s inner circle believe that Iran has any short-term plans to drop a nuclear weapon on Tel Aviv, should it find a means to deliver it. The first-stage Iranian goal, in the understanding of Netanyahu and his advisers, is to frighten Israel’s most talented citizens into leaving their country. “The idea is to keep attacking the Israelis on a daily basis, to weaken the willingness of the Jewish people to hold on to their homeland,” Moshe Ya’alon said. “The idea is to make a place that is supposed to be a safe haven for Jews unattractive for them. They are waging a war of attrition.”
The Israeli threat to strike Iran militarily if the West fails to stop the nuclear program may, of course, be a tremendous bluff. After all, such threats may just be aimed at motivating President Obama and others to grapple urgently with the problem. But Netanyahu and his advisers seem to believe sincerely that Israel would have difficulty surviving in a Middle East dominated by a nuclear Iran. And they are men predisposed to action; many, like Netanyahu, are former commandos.
As I waited in the Knesset cafeteria to see Netanyahu, I opened a book he edited of his late brother’s letters. Yoni Netanyahu, a commando leader, was killed in 1976 during the Israeli raid on Entebbe, and his family organized his letters in a book they titled Self-Portrait of a Hero. In one letter, Yoni wrote to his teenage brother, then living in America, who had apparently been in a fight after someone directed an anti-Semitic remark at him. “I see … that you had to release the surplus energy you stored up during the summer,” Yoni wrote. “There’s nothing wrong with that. But it’s too bad you sprained a finger in the process. In my opinion, there’s nothing wrong with a good fist fight; on the contrary, if you’re young and you’re not seriously hurt, it won’t do you real harm. Remember what I told you? He who delivers the first blow, wins.”
Benjamin Netanyahu Returns to Power in Zion;
Looks to Finalize 1996 Plans for ‘Greater Israel’
The world’s most dangerous visible public figure — Benjamin Netanyahu — has reemerged as Israel’s prime minister, a post he previously held from 1996-1999. Although his nation boasts of being a democracy, in actuality it is a pathocracy, which is defined as “a small pathological minority which rules over a particular society.”
Netanyahu is perfectly suited to lead such a criminal organization. His father, Benzion, was a supporter of Ze’en Jabotinsky, who is known as the father of modern Jewish terrorism. Referred to as “Wolf,” Jabotinsky founded Revisionist Zionism, from which the militant Irgun terrorist group emerged. Irgun became one of the deadliest organizations in Israel, responsible for the Deir Yassin Massacre, as well as the King David Hotel bombing (where, as is their modus operandi, they tried placing the blame for this attack on Arab terrorists).
Netanyahu is no stranger to cloak-and-dagger operations. Serving in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) from 1967-1972, he eventually became a captain in the Sayeret Matkal elite commando unit, which is the enforcement arm of Israel’s intelligence service. After becoming chairman of the extremist Likud Party in 1993, Netanyahu ran for prime minister against Shimon Peres in 1996. A considerable distance behind in the polls only weeks before the election, a string of violent “suicide bombings” suddenly propelled him to victory.
As the first of several “self-fulfilling prophecies,” Netanyahu repeatedly warned the Israeli people that Arab fanatics would attack their country.
Such tactics have become Netanyahu’s trademark. It appeared he was also clairvoyant in regard to 9-11. Damien McElroy of the Telegraph wrote that Bibi “claimed to have forecast the destruction of the Twin Towers by Islamic terrorists in 1995.” Could this prediction simply be attributed to an astute worldview, or that Israeli agents played a central role in the attacks on New York City and the Pentagon? It also appears that close friend and WTC complex owner Larry Silverstein and his two children have the same powers, because none of them showed up for work on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.
A few years later, good fortune once again followed Netanyahu to London when he was supposed to be participating in a forum at the Grand Eastern Hotel during
the 7/7 bombings. But only minutes before this “surprise” attack, the Israeli embassy forewarned him that a catastrophic event was imminent.
More recently, Netanyahu delivered another “prophecy”— al Qaeda would blow up the purported burial place of Jesus if Israel surrendered control of Jerusalem. He has also unequivocally stated he will prevent Iran from possessing nuclear weapons by any means necessary. If Israel releases missiles on Iran, WWIII could be upon us. Or, as Netanyahu — who coined the term “War on Terror”— explained, “This will incur a chain reaction we can’t even envision. We will witness an escalation of religious conflict above and beyond the regional conflict we have now.” Netanyahu continued. “If we move out of even one piece of Jerusalem, Hamas moves in, and Iran would have a base to attack us in the heart of our capital.
Unfazed by these threats, the Jerusalem Post reported on April 26, 2007 that Iran’s deputy interior minister, Muhammed Baqer Zolqadr, said that “his country would attack Israel and American targets throughout
Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, David Wurmser, and Robert Lowenberg; the manifesto mapped how “Israel can gain the opportunity to transform the Middle East by escalating situations begun by Israeli aggression, covertly and openly, and bring in American intervention to facilitate the ultimate Zionist plan of conquest by methods of black propaganda and ‘divide and conquer’ strategy.” (Wake Up From Your Slumber website: source).
Netanyahu again “foresaw” what the future would hold. Israel would initiate a decades-long war via the 9-11 false-flag terror attacks; then remove Saddam Hussein from power in 2004. Next, Syria would be provoked two years later by targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon. Lastly, a genocidal invasion against Hamas and the Palestinian people was initiated in 2008.
To grab the reins of power, he had to join forces with Avigdor Lieberman’s extreme Arab-hating Yisrael Beitenu Party. A former member of the militant Kach group, which the State Department listed as a terrorist organization in 1994; Lieberman has been referred to as “Israel’s Hitler.” An example of his views can be found” in this March, 2002 quote: “If it were up to me, I would notify the Palestinian Authority that tomorrow at 10 in the morning, we would bomb all their places of business in Ramallah.” Because his party’s votes were necessary for Likud to win, Netanyahu made Lieberman the world if Tehran were attacked over its nuclear program.” He added, “We are prepared to fire tens of thousands of missiles every day.”
When contemplating this holocaust, one can’t help but be reminded of a 1996 report entitled A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm. Masterminded by neo-cons and Zionists such as his deputy prime minister and foreign affairs minister, which is akin to pouring kerosene on a bonfire. Considering Netanyahu’s past behavior, the world should expect to see more Israeli violence and expansionism to fulfill their Clean Break strategy. With firm backing from a psychopathic, Zionist elite that has historically used warfare to resuscitate depressed economies, is a showdown in the Middle East inevitable? According to Benjamin Netanyahu, “It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs. Believe him [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] and stop him. This is what we must do.
Everything else pales before this.” Said Martin Van Creveld, Israel’s military historian: “We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. . . . We have the capability to take the world down with us, and I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under ».
Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include 9-11 Evil: The Israeli Role in 9-11 and Phantom Flight 93 and Other Sept. 11 Mysteries Explored. He was the co-founder of the WING TV Network.
WTC owner Silverstein is a close friend of Benjamin Netanyahu, who (along with Mossad agents) has a habit of being at the crime scene when terror attacks are about to occur, and whose father Benzion was both a disciple of Abba Ahimeir of the Revisionist Maximalism Jewish fascist ideology and was the secretary of Ze’ev Jabotinsky who at one time (1937) was commander of the Irgun, a Jewish terrorist group responsible for atrocities such as the 1946 King David Hotel bombing which killed 91 people and wounded 46. Remember how terrorism had helped Netanyahu’s career prior to 9/11, when he was “unexpectedly” elected Israeli Prime Minister in 1996 after a wave of “suicide bombings” shortly before the elections.