Southwest Asia News Digest
Israeli Strike Against Iran Behind Franklin Case
According to the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, one of Pentagon Iran desk officer Larry Franklin's key Israeli interlocutors, Naor Gilon, the number two diplomat in Israel's Washington embassy, has been the key "liaison with the Bush Administration in light of a forthcoming operation in Iran." Written by Ha'aretz's leading security correspondent, Amir Oren, after meeting with officials from the office of Doug Feith, Franklin's boss, the article states that one of the Bush Administration's options against Iran, is to have Israel attack its nuclear sites. He writes that the foundation has been laid for this attack, first by the Clinton Administration's delivery of F-15I bombers. Second, "The Bush Administration will complete the task by agreeing to give Israel air-to-surface munitions" which could destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.
The above-mentioned Naor Gilon is no ordinary Israeli diplomat. Prior to his posting to Washington in 2002, he served as director of the Division for Strategic and Military Affairs, in the Center for Policy Research at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where Iran is a major area of concern. According to the Los Angeles Times, Gilon, while serving at the Israeli UN mission between 1997 and 2000, functioned as a liaison for the AnanIsraeli military intelligence.
Franklin, a reserve Colonel in the U.S. Air Force, had made several trips to Israel over the last decade, and especially since he began working in Feith's office. The same journalist Amir Oren revealed that last December, Franklin and his co-worker, neoconservative Harold Rhode, were in Israel to attend a security conference at the Herzliya conference center. Among those they met was Uri Lubrani, Israel's last ambassador to Iran, who has been a key Israeli operative in implementing Israeli policy toward Iran for over three decades. While ambassador to Iran, one of his subordinates was Ya'acob Nimrodi, who, as the Mossad station chief in Tehran, was advising the Shah's secret police. In the 1980s, Nimrodi became a key player in the Iran/Contra operation, selling millions of dollars worth of weapons to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Lubrani backed this policy since it kept Iraqis and Iranians killing one another. Lubrani then became the "coordinator of Israel's government activities in Southern Lebanon," where he was one of he key architects of Israel's so-called "security zone" on Lebanese territory.
Following Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, Lubrani has been an adviser to the Israeli Ministry of Defense on questions dealing with Iran, Hezbollah, and Syria. As a leading advocate of a hard-line policy against Iran, he has served as one of the key liaisons between Israel and the neocons. Many of his trips to Washington have gone unreported, but in July 2002, he was in Washington meeting Bush Administration officials on the question of Iran's alleged weapons of mass destruction program. It has been said that shortly after his departure, the Bush Administration dropped all pretenses of holding a "dialogue" with Iranian reformers. In May of 2003, he attended a major conference on Iran sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and the Hudson Institute, the two high temples of the neocons in Washington. Speaking alongside the notorious Michael Ledeen of Iran/Contra fame and anti-Islamic operative Bernard Lewis, Lubrani raved that since the 1980s, Iran has been waging a war against the U.S. and Israel. Lubrani praised the inclusion of Iran in Bush's "Axis of Evil," declaring, "I hope to God the U.S. finds a way to deal with this situation with the force it deserves."
The back and forth between neocons and Israelis continued with the announcement that U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton, the top neocon in the State Department, will be going to Israel en route to the International Atomic Energy Agency meeting, where Iran will be at the top of the agenda.
Likudniks Lead U.S. To Target Syria
On Sept. 2, the Bush Administration pushed through the UN Security Council a resolution demanding that Syria withdraw its troops from Lebanon and that Hezbollah be dismantled. China and Russia abstained from the vote.
The resolution was motivated by the right wing in the U.S. and Israel, who want to reignite an Israeli invasion and/or civil war in Lebanon. It was also sponsored by France. The U.S. claimed that Syria was interfering in the Lebanese Presidential elections by pressuring the government to change its Constitution to allow President Emile Lahoud, allegedly a favorite of Syria, to be reelected for another three-year term. The Lebanese government protested the U.S. move as an interference in their internal affairs, and the Parliament voted to change the Constitution, and reelect Lahoud.
U.S., Israel Used Disinformation Hysteria To Push Vote Against Syria
The timing of the vote on the UN resolution against Syria, which was drafted and sponsored by the U.S., was strongly influenced by the deliberate disinformation spread by top Israeli officials about the bloody Hamas double-suicide bus bombing on Aug. 31. Almost instantly, top Israeli figures linked the bombers to Syria. By the end of the weekafter the UN vote had passedIsrael admitted Syria had no role in the Hamas bombing.
But in fact, one of the suicide bombers had been interviewed in April 2004 by the Shin Bet internal security service, for a job as an informant. Although it is not known whether the bomber accepted the offer, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office did confirm that such a meeting took place.
But, immediately after the bombing, Sharon's government claimed that the orders came from Hamas "headquarters" in Damascus with the approval of the Syrian government.
On the same day, Israeli Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon also threatened Syria, declaring, "Anyone who is responsible for terrorism against us should not sleep quietly. We will deal with all those that support terror, at every levelpeople in the Palestinian Authority; people in Hezbollah in Lebanon, people in the terrorist headquarters in Damascus, which operate with Syria's permission; and also the financial support and weaponry that is transferred to the organizations under Iran's auspices."
According to Jonathan Ariel, writing in the Israeli daily Ma'ariv, both the UN resolution and Ya'alon's outrageous statement were coordinated with the Bush Administration.
Similar statements were made by the Minister of Defense Shaul Mofaz and his deputy Ze'ev Boim. Yet by the end of the week, both Mofaz and Israeli military intelligence chief Gen. Aharon Ze'evi had to admit that no proof existed linking Syria to the attack.
In response, Syria Information Minister Ahmed al Hassan told a Kuwaiti newspaper that Israel's threats against Syria are intended to "create a pretext, which is rejected.... [T]hey also aim at threatening and pressuring Syria, which is taking matters seriously this time."
The spokesman for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak told the press, "There is no evidence of a link between the explosions which took place in Israel and Syria. So we consider that these threats are beyond logic."
Despite the neocons' and Sharon's cry for war, Syrian President Bashar Assad told a visiting U.S. Congressional delegation led by Rep. Darryl Issa (R-Calif), and former Ambassadors Martin Indyck and Edward Gabriel, that he would be interested in reopening negotiations with Israel.
Reflecting the fact that some Israelis do not want war with Syria, an unnamed defense source told the Israeli daily Ma'ariv that Assad is serious because, he "is between a rock and a hard place, and Israel should not ignore this. He cannot clamp down on terror after being openly and even humiliatingly rebuffed by Israel, because then he will lose whatever face he has in the Arab world. He can only change course within the framework of an agreement with Israel."
So far, Sharon has totally ignored Assad's offer.
Israel's Military Preparation for an Iranian Strike
Israel's intelligence community suffered a "severe loss" when its spy satellite Ofek-6 crashed into the Mediterranean Sea on Sept. 6, shortly after launch, reported israelinsider on Sept. 7. "This was an important launch with huge significance for our security," officials said.
The publication added that Ofek-6 was due to provide Israel with an "eye in the sky" on Iran's nuclear program and on Syria, complementing the intelligence-gathering abilities of Ofek-5, which has been operational since May 2002, and the Eros A1 satellite, which was originally launched for civilian purposes. Ofek-5 is expected to provide Israel with intelligence information from space for two more years.
The hasty attempt to launch Ofek-6 was a clear indication that war preparations timetables were indeed being brought forward, as EIW reported in Issue #36.
Writing on Sept. 7, Amir Oren, of Ha'aretz warned, "The planning failure that prevented the satellite from going into orbit could accelerate the escalation of tension between Israel and Iran and bring them closer to a military clash."
It is significant that Oren revealed that "Israel chose, rather than was forced, to launch the satellite now. A reasonable alternative would have been to warehouse the missile and satellite and wait for Ofek-5 to outlive its usefulness." Oren added that the Ofek-5 will go out of service in 2007, just at the moment the Israelis claim Iran would have a nuclear capability. The failure to have a satellite in place, since there was no second Ofek-6 to back up the one that was destroyed, "would strengthen the arguments of those in Israel proposing a preemptive launch against Iran, and at the same time the voices in Tehran worried by such a blow would call for a preemptive strike against Israel," Oren wrote.
The question is, why did Israel take a chance on launching the satellite one or two years ahead of schedule. Israeli military sources told EIR that these satellites are no more than powerful cameras, and there is no way they can discover the status of Iran's nuclear program. But, the satellites, with their power cameras are essential for locating targets to be bombed by Israeli aircraft or missiles.
The Ofek satellites are not capable of detecting the launching of Iranian missiles, since only the U.S. satellites in geosynchronous orbit at 36,000 kilometers can detect such a launch. Israel does not, and will not, for a very long time, have the capability to launch such satellites. Besides, this source added, the U.S. has agreed to warn Israel if such launches occur.
So, the source added, the launch could have been an attempt to intimidate Iran, in which case, it failed. Or, it could have been an attempt to expand the coverage of Iran from the two or three hours possible with one satellite, to five or six hours. Another possibility would be to have the second satellite passing over Syria to gather information on potential targets in preparation for a future attack.
Israel's feverish acceleration of the testingin preparation for strikes against Syria and Iranmay have been part of the reason for the failure. Furthermore, this failed launch followed two tests, back to back, of Israel's Arrow anti-ballistic missile, the second of which failed.
|