Pro-War Propaganda
An American “think-tank” expects Israel to engage in a “preventive attack” on Iran and recommends the United States provide support for it.
A study recently released by the American-based Heritage Foundation deals with the “implications” of an Israeli “preventive attack” against Iran. The Heritage Foundation belongs to a group of so-called think tanks trying to influence U.S. foreign policy. The Heritage Foundation is already on record since July 2000 recommending a “new Afghanistan policy” oriented toward a war of aggression. The institution was also significantly active in the political-psychological run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
In the now public study, the foundation recommends the United States recognize Israel’s “right” to wage a war of aggression against Iran in the name of self-defense. It further recommends Washington should not attempt to dissuade Israel from attacking Iran, but should expect Iran to answer an attack with “extreme force” and prepare itself to enter the war on Israel’s side. And further: “Since it is likely that Iran would attack the United States in response to an Israeli attack against their nation, it is logical that the United States should join in Israel’s preventive attack on Iran.” In addition, it recommends the U.S. government try to form a broad coalition including NATO, the Arabian Peninsula, Japan, Australia and India in order to keep the Straits of Hormuz, the most important sea route for transporting oil, open by military means.
In a Heritage Foundation paper released at the same time concerning the effects of the Iraq war on Russian-American relations, they recommended undertaking preparations for war with Russia using “visible deterrence, including deployment of massively superior nuclear weaponry” on warships, aircraft carriers and strongholds surrounding Iran.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy also talked last week of a preemptive strike against Iran by Israel. He repeated the propaganda fabrication that Iran wanted to “wipe Israel off the map.” France intends to push for “strong measures” in the U.N. Security Council, but also wants to ensure “the European Union meets its responsibilities.” He’s referring to separate sanctions in tandem with the United States should a new U.N. resolution (this will be the fourth) fail due to Chinese or Russian opposition. On Monday of last week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed this same sentiment in a German-Israeli cabinet meeting.
The Dec 31, 2009 “deadline” for a solution to the Iran question that President Obama announced last year during Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington has passed. Also set to expire is the Jan 31 deadline set by Tehran: if there is no resolution to the question of whether Iran will be supplied with 20-percent enriched uranium by that date, it intends to begin its own enrichment. The fuel is needed to power reactors that produce an isotope used in the treatment of cancer patients.
A study recently released by the American-based Heritage Foundation deals with the “implications” of an Israeli “preventive attack” against Iran. The Heritage Foundation belongs to a group of so-called think tanks trying to influence U.S. foreign policy. The Heritage Foundation is already on record since July 2000 recommending a “new Afghanistan policy” oriented toward a war of aggression. The institution was also significantly active in the political-psychological run-up to the invasion of Iraq.
In the now public study, the foundation recommends the United States recognize Israel’s “right” to wage a war of aggression against Iran in the name of self-defense. It further recommends Washington should not attempt to dissuade Israel from attacking Iran, but should expect Iran to answer an attack with “extreme force” and prepare itself to enter the war on Israel’s side. And further: “Since it is likely that Iran would attack the United States in response to an Israeli attack against their nation, it is logical that the United States should join in Israel’s preventive attack on Iran.” In addition, it recommends the U.S. government try to form a broad coalition including NATO, the Arabian Peninsula, Japan, Australia and India in order to keep the Straits of Hormuz, the most important sea route for transporting oil, open by military means.
In a Heritage Foundation paper released at the same time concerning the effects of the Iraq war on Russian-American relations, they recommended undertaking preparations for war with Russia using “visible deterrence, including deployment of massively superior nuclear weaponry” on warships, aircraft carriers and strongholds surrounding Iran.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy also talked last week of a preemptive strike against Iran by Israel. He repeated the propaganda fabrication that Iran wanted to “wipe Israel off the map.” France intends to push for “strong measures” in the U.N. Security Council, but also wants to ensure “the European Union meets its responsibilities.” He’s referring to separate sanctions in tandem with the United States should a new U.N. resolution (this will be the fourth) fail due to Chinese or Russian opposition. On Monday of last week, German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed this same sentiment in a German-Israeli cabinet meeting.
The Dec 31, 2009 “deadline” for a solution to the Iran question that President Obama announced last year during Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington has passed. Also set to expire is the Jan 31 deadline set by Tehran: if there is no resolution to the question of whether Iran will be supplied with 20-percent enriched uranium by that date, it intends to begin its own enrichment. The fuel is needed to power reactors that produce an isotope used in the treatment of cancer patients.