Mossad e o Exército Israelense se negaram a criar plano de ataque contra o Irã

POR LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | 18 NOVEMBRO, 2012

Todo mundo sabe que Benjamin Netanyahu, o primeiro-ministro israelense, e o seu ministro da Defesa, Ehud Barak, mal podem esperar para bombardear o Irã. Todo mundo, também, está consciente de sua incapacidade de convencer os seus militares sobre a inevitabilidade de um ataque iraniano a Israel.

Também está claro que o governo liderado por Barack Obama não gostaria de realizar um ataque ao Irã – pelo menos não neste momento – apesar do espírito de luta mostrado por Netanyahu, principalmente ao longo dos últimos dois ou três meses. Se George Bush ou Mitt Romney tivessem sido presidentes nos últimos quatro anos, o ataque ao Irã seria teria uma melhor chance de ocorrer do que durante o tempo que Obama está no cargo.

O que não se sabia é que tanto Mossad quanto o exército israelense se recusaram a preparar um plano para atacar o Irã. O plano foi solicitado por Netanyahu, de acordo com o Canal 2 da televisão israelense. O atual primeiro-ministro pediu a elaboração de planos específicos e ainda ordenou que o país se preparasse para um ataque iminente em 2010. Mossad e o Exército, ao contrário do que Netanyahu tinha em mente, se recusaram a criar ou implementar tais planos.

Gabi Ashkenazi, então chefe de estado, e Meir Dagan, chefe do Mossad, mostraram a sua oposição aos líderes políticos e deixaram claro que um ataque ao Irã seria equivalente a uma declaração de guerra, o que eles consideravam um erro estratégico de primeira ordem.

Uvda foi o programa do Canal 2 que fez as revelações na noite de segunda-feira em Israel, segundo foi anunciado pela imprensa local. A reportagem fala de uma reunião que aconteceu em 2010 e contou com a presença de sete ministros do Executivo.

Imediatamente após a reunião e pouco antes de Ashkenazi e Dagan saíram dessa reunião, Netanyahu ordenou a elevar o nível de alerta chamado “P Plus”, o código usado para a preparação para um ataque militar iminente.

Dada a incerteza do Primeiro-Ministro, Ashkenazi e Dagan se recusaram, informou o jornal Yedioth Ahronoth. “Você pode estar tomando uma decisão ilegal em ir à guerra”, Dagan disse a Netanyahu.

O chefe do Mossad estava se referindo às implicações políticas da declaração desta suposta declaração de guerra. O fato de que Netanyahu ordenou ao exército e  Mossad a se prepararem para um ataque significa que o primeiro-ministro tentou forçar seus ministros a aprovar tal decisão e deu a si mesmo o poder de tomar decisões sobre ir à guerra sem consultar ninguém.

Uvda quis confirmar esta versão dos acontecimentos com o ministro Ehud Barak e ele os confirmou. O ministro da Defesa Barak aparentemente se distanciou de Netanyahu após a reunião por causa de sua intenção de atacar o Irã. Netanyahu disse que não iria deixar o Irã produzir uma arma nuclear.

Enquanto Teerã sustenta que suas instalações nucleares são utilizadas apenas para a energia, o Ocidente suspeita dos planos do Irã e o primeiro-ministro israelense considera uma ameaça existencial para o seu país.

No seu recente discurso à Assembléia Geral das Nações Unidas no final de setembro, Netanyahu deu a entender que o ataque ao Irã poderia esperar até a primavera ou até mesmo o próximo verão.

O primeiro-ministro calcula que, a partir deste momento, o programa nuclear do Irã poderia chegar a um ponto em que seria capaz de produzir uma bomba nuclear dentro de semanas. Washington tem se mostrado relutante até o momento em participar de aventuras militares juntamente com Netanyahu.

The Real Agenda permite a reprodução do conteúdo original publicado no site APENAS através das ferramentas fornecidas no final de cada artigo. Por favor, NÃO COPIE o conteúdo do nosso site para redistribuir ou para enviar por e-mail.

Mossad y ejército israelí se negaron a crear plan de ataque contra Irán

POR LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | 9 NOVIEMBRE, 2012

Todo el mundo sabe que Benjamin Netanyahu, el primer ministro israelí, y su ministro de Defensa, Ehud Barak, no pueden esperar para bombardear Irán. Todo el mundo también es consciente de su incapacidad para convencer a sus fuerzas militares y de inteligencia con respecto a la inevitabilidad de un ataque iraní contra Israel.

También está claro que al Gobierno que preside Barack Obama no le gustaría llevar a cabo un ataque contra Irán — al menos no en este momento — a pesar del espíritu guerrero mostrado por Netanyahu, que ha quedado más claro durante los últimos dos o tres meses. Si George Bush o Mitt Romney hubieran sido presidentes en los últimos cuatro años, el ataque contra Irán tendría una mejor oportunidad de ocurrir de lo que ha tenido durante el tiempo de Obama ha estado en el cargo.

Lo que no sabíamos es que tanto el Mossad como el ejército israelí se negaron a preparar un plan para atacar Irán. El plan fue solicitado por Netanyahu, de acuerdo con el canal 2 de la televisión israelí. El actual primer ministro pidió la elaboración de planes concretos, e incluso ordenó al país a prepararse para un ataque inminente en el 2010. El Ejército y el Mossad, contrariamente a lo que Netanyahu tenía en mente, se negaron a crear o ejecutar dichos planes.

Gabi Ashkenazi, jefe del estado mayor entonces, y Meir Dagan, jefe del Mossad en ese momento, se pusieron de pie y mostraron su oposición a los líderes políticos y dejaron en claro que un ataque contra Irán sería equivalente a una declaración de guerra, la que consideraron un error estratégico de primer orden.

Uvdá (Hecho) fue el programa del canal 2 que hizo las revelaciones al aire la noche del lunes en Israel, según lo anunciado por la prensa local. El informe habla de una reunión que tuvo lugar en 2010 y que contó con la presencia de los siete principales ministros del ejecutivo.

Inmediatamente después de la reunión, y poco antes de que Ashkenazi y Dagan salieran de tal reunión, Netanyahu ordenó elevar el nivel de alerta llamado “P Plus”, el código utilizado para la preparación para un ataque militar inminente.

Dada la incertidumbre del Primer Ministro, Ashkenazi y Dagan se negaron, informó el diario Yedioth Ahronoth. “Usted puede estar tomando una decisión ilegal al ir a la guerra”, dijo Dagan a Netanyahu.

El jefe del Mossad se refería a las implicaciones políticas de esa supuesta declaración de guerra. El hecho de que Netanyahu ordenó al Ejército y el Mossad  preparar al país para un ataque significa que el primer ministro trató de obligar a sus ministros a aprobar tal decisión, y se dio a sí mismo el poder de decisión sobre ir a la guerra sin consultar a nadie.

Uvdá quiso confirmar esta versión de los hechos con el ministro Ehud Barak y este los confirmo. El ministro de Defensa Barak aparentemente se distanció de Netanyahu tras la reunión debido a su intención de atacar a Irán. Netanyahu dijo que había que no iba a dejar a Irá producir un arma nuclear.

Mientras que Teherán sostiene que sus instalaciones nucleares son exclusivamente utilizadas para producir energía, Occidente desconfía de los planes iraníes y el primer ministro israelí lo considera incluso una amenaza existencial para su país.

En su reciente discurso ante la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas a finales de septiembre, Netanyahu dio a entender que un ataque a Irán podría esperar hasta la primavera o incluso el próximo verano.

A partir de ese momento, según lo calculado por el Primer Ministro, el programa nuclear de Irán podría llegar a un punto de no retorno en el que el régimen de Teherán podría producir una bomba atómica en cuestión de semanas. Washington se ha mostrado reacio hasta ahora a participar en aventuras militares como los supuestos planes solicitados por Netanyahu.

The Real Agenda permite la reproducción del contenido original publicado en el sitio SOLAMENTE a través de las herramientas proporcionadas al final de cada artículo. Por favor NO COPIE contenido de nuestro sitio para redistribuirlo o enviarlo por correo electrónico.

Unintended consequences of Political and Ideological Loyalty

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | NOVEMBER 8, 2012

Is it possible that some Obama supporters do not care about the fact their children will live in servitude to the State for the rest of their lives? Could it be that they justify this horrendous future thinking that since they had to live under that system, it makes sense their children do it as well? Could it be that they see the current debt-based underdevelopment model as a way to guarantee their bribes for their elderly years? Perhaps this way of thinking is not a conscious one, perhaps it is. The fact is that blind loyalty to the party and to the ideology held by Obama brings along an endless list of unintended consequences.

Obama’s re-elections doesn’t only mean that half of the country still supports him. It also means that they agree with the policies he seeks to implement and of course with the ones he’s already imposed on the American people. This outcome gives Obama a green light to attempt to complete his agenda with the intention to “transform the United Sates”. So it is only pertinent that we review what are some of the items on that agenda.

There isn’t a better place to start than the policies and legislation that Obama has supported and enacted himself, through executive orders during the past 4 years. Since Obama has said himself that his project is work in progress, we can only expect that more the same will be brought upon Americans for the next four years. So let’s take a look at what Obama supported during his first term in office.

1. Bailouts, for ‘too big to fail’ banks, so-called stimulus packages, quantitative easing and deficit spending.
2. Sending troops to protect others’ borders and sending American taxpayer money to foreign dictators.
3. The same interventionist foreign policy from the Bush era.
4. Federal restrictions on gun ownership. Obama has pledged to ban semi-automatic weapons which are now legal.
5. The Patriot Act.
6. Spying on American citizens without warrants.
7. Indefinite detention of American citizens without charge, trial or lawyer.
8. Assassinations of American citizens or anyone else without due process.
9. Socialized Healthcare through which the State will dictate who has the right to healthcare and who doesn’t as well as how much of it can an individual get (healthcare rationing).

If there is anyone out there seeking a one sentence answer to what the future holds for the United States and the rest of the world as a result of Obama’s election, I guess that sentence would read “unlimited expansion of the federal government”. As explained by Judge Andrew Napolitano, under Obama, the government will continue to write any law, regulate any behavior and tax any event it wants. In other words the Constitution be damned.

And so will continue the political, ideological and social divides. A clear outcome of Tuesday’s election is the clear separation of the American population according to their race, age and ideological blindness. While the gaps continue to expand among social groups, nothing changed in Washington. The Democrats go to keep the White House and the Senate, while the Republicans maintained power in the House of Representatives. Can we expect anything different for the next four years? Mark my words here: there will be no long term economic recovery in the United States and little to no recovery abroad.

Although the divided Congress suggests that there will be gridlock for the rest of Obama’s term in office, one cannot forget about the power of the pen, which is a perfect tool to pass legislation that intends to advance the agenda that works for Obama’s managers. That is how Obama got away with imposing the State’s will on the People regarding healthcare, the homeland security apparatus, financial terrorism, and out of control “stimulus programs” that only resulted in higher corporate bonuses.

What many Obama supporters perhaps forgot is that he won’t have to be accountable to the voters again. He will then let lose his real identity and agenda, which he has managed to conceal to a great extent with the help of the main stream media. The “Transformation of the United States” can go on unchecked.

“Just by re-electing Obama, that means the Affordable Care Act will continue to be implemented, and that’s very important because that’s one of the most important pieces of legislation in half a century,” said Theda Skocpol, a political scientist at Harvard University.

Tuesday’s re-election empowers Obama to continue strengthening his activist government, the same that stooges like Paul Krugman support. For example, the bailout of the automobile industry will be remembered as Obama’s achievement that saved an important sector of the economy. What people who think like that ignore is that through the 2009 auto bailout, General Motors and other companies were literally paid to fire Americans and move their operations to India, China and Brazil. In other words, the 2009 auto bailout was a direct incentive given to the companies to run abroad.

So what can we expect immediately after Obama’s re-election?

1. Further deterioration of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights
2. Expansion of the powers given to the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA.
3. More out of control federal government spending.
4. Enforcement of mandatory government healthcare.
5. Accelerated purchase of firearms and stockpiling of ammunition.
6. Persecution of veterans and people who oppose government policies.
7. More secret arrests of U.S. citizens in at home and abroad.
8. Acceleration of the legalization of 30 million illegal immigrants.
9. Rise in energy prizes due to Obama’s commitment to shut down coal plants without having any alternative sources available to people.
10. $600 billion in tax increases scheduled to take effect during the next four years and beyond.
11. Government’s debt reaching $16 trillion which will get the U.S. that much closer to the fiscal cliff.

These and many more will be the “unintended consequences” of electing Barack Obama to drive the car for the next 4 years.

Is the best really yet to come?

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Armageddon Knights: The Romney-Netanyahu Friendship

By LUIS R. MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | APRIL 9, 2012

An old friendship that is rooted in 1976 could spell trouble for Iran. Mitt Romney, the leading presidential candidate for the Republican party in the United States has not been shy about his intentions to attack Iran in order to prevent that country from developing a nuclear weapon. In fact, Mr. Romney has been extremely critical of current US president Barack Obama, for not fully supporting an attack on Iranian nuclear sites. Is Tel Aviv, his old pal Benjamin Netanyahu thinks the same way. Opposing views to an attack on Iran, such as that of former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, warn that a pre-emptive Jewish attack on Iran will open the door for endless regional warfare between Israel and militia terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, that will work as Iran’s proxy armies.

In addition to Dagan’s warning, no intelligence agency in the world has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Iran is either seeking or fabricating a nuclear weapon. According to Dagan, western Iranian foes aren’t even sure how many nuclear sites Iran has and where are they exactly located. Dagan said that Israel and its western partners have at least three years to find common ground with Iran and with this, avoid a military confrontation. The former Israeli spy chief says that should war break out between Iran and Israel, he envisions a very difficult future for this country. He has called on Benjamin Netanyahu to call off any intent to attack Iran.

According to the New York Times, Romney’s friendship with Netanyahu began while both men worked as corporate advisers in Boston, Mass. Their shared work experience in the corporate world made their friendship a very cozy one. Now, these two men could find themselves in opposite sides of the world, holding two of the most powerful offices in the planet while sharing the same goal: attacking Iran. The likelihood of an American, Jewish or a joint attack on Iran is not less likely to happen under Obama, who has not send American troops into harms way due in part to the heavy opposition at home, his poor poll ratings and the bad shape the American economy is in right now. Launching a new war, most likely without the approval from Congress or the American people would mean certain defeat for Obama.

This is why, Mr. Obama publicly, although inadvertently told Benjamin Netanyahu that he — Obama — needed more time to launch the attack, perhaps after his reelection in November. Barack Obama was caught telling Netanyahu that once was elected, he would have more time to plan and work out events such as attack on the Iranians. The gaffe confirmed Obama’s intention to carry out an attack on Iran, just not now. In fact, American war ships have begun leaving the fiery Strait of Hormuz area to their previous homes. Analysts now believe that either Israel or the United States may launch a military strike during the summer of 2013.

According to the Times, the relationship between Romney and Netanyahu has been kept warm by multiple encounters between the men over the years, and even strengthened by numerous mutual friends. This, says the NYT “has resulted in an unusually frank exchange of advice and insights on topics like politics, economics and the Middle East.” Could this mean that these two men have already figured out how to deal with Iran themselves, without any help from allies or even the US government? What is certainly true is that if Mr. Romney becomes US president in November 2012, the Israeli Prime Minister will indeed have a stronger partner should he decide to carry out an attack on Iran. Their friendship has not devolved or faded, not even through the American political campaign, with Mr. Romney giving Netanyahu personal advice on who to talk to in the United States in order to achieve his goal to divest American monies from Iranian investments. Previously, Netanyahu had advised Romney on how to shrink the size of government while the Republican presidential candidate was the governor of Massachusetts.

“Only a few weeks ago, on Super Tuesday, Mr. Netanyahu delivered a personal briefing by telephone to Mr. Romney about the situation in Iran,” reports the NYT. This and any other intelligence reporting by Netanyahu may come in handy, given that unless a terrorist attack hits the US between now and the November election, it is very possible that Mitt Romney will be the next US president. “We can almost speak in shorthand,” Mr. Romney has said. “We share common experiences and have a perspective and underpinning which is similar.” At the very least, these two men have learned that they agree on how to do things and the methods they may or may not use to solve any problems. “… despite our very different backgrounds, my sense is that we employ similar methods in analyzing problems and coming up with solutions for them,” said Benjamin Netanyahu.

The New York Times implies that the relationship between Netanyahu and Romney stands out because of the unlikelihood that two men of different backgrounds share a friendship that is so strong as theirs, while both have achieved such a relevant political stature. An educated hunch would propose that given the past and vision they share it is very likely that these two men were groomed — as it always happened — once they entered the political arena, to carry out an agenda. Mr. Netanyahu has already achieved his pinnacle, which is to hold the most influential government position in Israel, while Mitt Romney is well on his way to getting into office. The aspect of their relationship that is most worrying is Mr. Romney’s past statements which seem to show a high degree of loyalty towards Benjamin Netanyahu. In multiple occasions, Romney expressed his view that he would not dare make plans for Israel without first consulting his old friend Netanyahu. A similar position was expressed by Barack Obama, who said that he would not wait for the US Congress to make the decisions. Instead, he would act unilaterally and under the authority vested on him by the United Nations.

What Obama’s but most decisively Mitt Romney’s position on Israel’s role in the Middle East could mean is uncertain to this point. However, something that is clearer than ever is that if Mr. Romney gets into the White House in November, the state of Israel would have every door of the White House wide open, perhaps more than ever before. This means that the two most influential men on the planet who share a long and strong friendship would be able to openly discuss what they want to do with Iran in the short term; and with other countries like Syria and Pakistan in the long term. This is the kind of scenario that the world would expect if Mitt Romney gets into office. Similar results are to be expected if Obama wins re-election.

Short of a brokered convention for the Republican ticket in November that results in Mitt Romney not being on the ballot, it seems that two business men will have the future of the Middle East and perhaps the world in their hands come 2013. It is difficult to see how Barack Obama will stay in office after November, unless, as we pointed out before, a false-flag attack on the United States, or a fabricated emergency enables the current US president to remain in office for longer. Either way, war against Iran is inevitable; it is just a matter of when. The timing is very important, because a government preparations for war are not as seen from outside by the public or the media. Many details are taken into account, then they’re finely tuned and finally carefully executed. An attack on Iran by the summer of 2013 seems a likely outcome with either Obama or Romney in the Oval Office. What we still must learn is what instrument or instruments will they use to spark the flame: faulty intelligence, false-flag terrorist attacks, proxy wars, assassinations… The menu is large and diverse.

You may share our original content as long as you respect our copyright policy as shown on our website footer. Please don’t cut articles from The Real Agenda to redistribute by email or post to the web if you don’t follow our policies.