"Israel" Asked US for Green Light to Bomb Iran: Report
Source: Al-Manar TV, 26-9-2008
"Israel" gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites but was told by US President George W. Bush that he would not support it and did not expect to revise that view for the rest of his presidency, a British newspaper reported Friday.
The Guardian quoted senior European diplomatic sources as saying that the then prime minister, Ehud Olmert, used the occasion of Bush's trip to "Israel" for its 60th anniversary to raise the issue in a one-on-one meeting on May 14, the sources said. "He took it [the refusal of a US green light] as where they were at the moment, and that the US position was unlikely to change as long as Bush was in office", they added.
The sources work for a European head of government who met the "Israeli" leader some time after the Bush visit, the daily said. Their talks were so sensitive that no note-takers attended, but the European leader subsequently divulged to his officials the highly sensitive contents of what Olmert had told him of Bush's position, it added.
US FEARS "ISRAEL" WOULD FAIL IN IRAN ATTACK
Bush's decision to refuse to offer any support for a strike on Iran appeared to be based on two factors, the sources said. One was US concern over Iran's likely retaliation, which would probably include a wave of attacks on US military and other personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on shipping in the Persian Gulf.
The Guardian also reported that the other factor why Bush refused to give the Zionist entity a green light to attack Iran was US anxiety that "Israel" would not succeed in disabling Iran's nuclear facilities in a single assault even with the use of dozens of aircraft. "It could not mount a series of attacks over several days without risking full-scale war. So the benefits would not outweigh the costs."
Iran has repeatedly said it would react with force to any attack.
Even if "Israel" were to launch an attack on Iran without US approval its planes could not reach their targets without the US becoming aware of their flightpath and having time to ask them to abandon their mission, the British newspaper said. "The shortest route to Natanz lies across Iraq and the US has total control of Iraqi airspace", the official said. Natanz, about 100 miles north of Isfahan, is the site of a uranium enrichment plant.
"In this context Iran would be bound to assume Bush had approved it, even if the White House denied fore-knowledge, raising the prospect of an attack against the US."
'"ISRAEL" TO STRIKE IRAN'S NUCLEAR FACILITIES'
The daily quoted several high-level "Israeli" officials over the last two years as saying that "Israel" might strike Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent them being developed to provide sufficient weapons-grade uranium to make a nuclear bomb. Iran has always denied having such plans saying its nuclear program is merely peaceful and a right granted by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Olmert himself raised the possibility of an attack at a press conference during a visit to London last November, when he said sanctions were not enough to block Iran's nuclear program. "So there should be more. Up to where? Up until Iran will stop its nuclear program," he said.
The revelation that Olmert was not merely saber-rattling to try to frighten Iran but considered the option seriously enough to discuss it with Bush shows how concerned "Israeli" officials had become, the daily said.
"Bush's refusal to support an attack, and the strong suggestion he would not change his mind, is likely to end speculation that Washington might be preparing an 'October surprise' before the US presidential election. Some analysts have argued that Bush would back an "Israeli" attack in an effort to help John McCain's campaign by creating an eve-of-poll security crisis. "
"Others have said that in the case of an Obama victory, the vice-president, Dick Cheney, the main White House hawk, would want to cripple Iran's nuclear program in the dying weeks of Bush's term," it added
OLMERT DEFIES: ALL OPTIONS MUST REMAIN ON TABLE
In public, Bush gave no hint of his view that the military option had to be excluded.
Neither the United States nor "Israel" -- the Middle East's sole, if undeclared, nuclear armed state -- has ruled out a military response to the nuclear standoff.
Mark Regev, Olmert's spokesman, reacted to the Guardian's story saying: "The need to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is raised at every meeting between the prime minister and foreign leaders. "Israel" prefers a diplomatic solution to this issue but all options must remain on the table. Your unnamed European source attributed words to the prime minister that were not spoken in any working meeting with foreign guests," he addressed the British daily.
"Israel" gave serious thought this spring to launching a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites but was told by US President George W. Bush that he would not support it and did not expect to revise that view for the rest of his presidency, a British newspaper reported Friday.
The Guardian quoted senior European diplomatic sources as saying that the then prime minister, Ehud Olmert, used the occasion of Bush's trip to "Israel" for its 60th anniversary to raise the issue in a one-on-one meeting on May 14, the sources said. "He took it [the refusal of a US green light] as where they were at the moment, and that the US position was unlikely to change as long as Bush was in office", they added.
The sources work for a European head of government who met the "Israeli" leader some time after the Bush visit, the daily said. Their talks were so sensitive that no note-takers attended, but the European leader subsequently divulged to his officials the highly sensitive contents of what Olmert had told him of Bush's position, it added.
US FEARS "ISRAEL" WOULD FAIL IN IRAN ATTACK
Bush's decision to refuse to offer any support for a strike on Iran appeared to be based on two factors, the sources said. One was US concern over Iran's likely retaliation, which would probably include a wave of attacks on US military and other personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on shipping in the Persian Gulf.
The Guardian also reported that the other factor why Bush refused to give the Zionist entity a green light to attack Iran was US anxiety that "Israel" would not succeed in disabling Iran's nuclear facilities in a single assault even with the use of dozens of aircraft. "It could not mount a series of attacks over several days without risking full-scale war. So the benefits would not outweigh the costs."
Iran has repeatedly said it would react with force to any attack.
Even if "Israel" were to launch an attack on Iran without US approval its planes could not reach their targets without the US becoming aware of their flightpath and having time to ask them to abandon their mission, the British newspaper said. "The shortest route to Natanz lies across Iraq and the US has total control of Iraqi airspace", the official said. Natanz, about 100 miles north of Isfahan, is the site of a uranium enrichment plant.
"In this context Iran would be bound to assume Bush had approved it, even if the White House denied fore-knowledge, raising the prospect of an attack against the US."
'"ISRAEL" TO STRIKE IRAN'S NUCLEAR FACILITIES'
The daily quoted several high-level "Israeli" officials over the last two years as saying that "Israel" might strike Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent them being developed to provide sufficient weapons-grade uranium to make a nuclear bomb. Iran has always denied having such plans saying its nuclear program is merely peaceful and a right granted by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
Olmert himself raised the possibility of an attack at a press conference during a visit to London last November, when he said sanctions were not enough to block Iran's nuclear program. "So there should be more. Up to where? Up until Iran will stop its nuclear program," he said.
The revelation that Olmert was not merely saber-rattling to try to frighten Iran but considered the option seriously enough to discuss it with Bush shows how concerned "Israeli" officials had become, the daily said.
"Bush's refusal to support an attack, and the strong suggestion he would not change his mind, is likely to end speculation that Washington might be preparing an 'October surprise' before the US presidential election. Some analysts have argued that Bush would back an "Israeli" attack in an effort to help John McCain's campaign by creating an eve-of-poll security crisis. "
"Others have said that in the case of an Obama victory, the vice-president, Dick Cheney, the main White House hawk, would want to cripple Iran's nuclear program in the dying weeks of Bush's term," it added
OLMERT DEFIES: ALL OPTIONS MUST REMAIN ON TABLE
In public, Bush gave no hint of his view that the military option had to be excluded.
Neither the United States nor "Israel" -- the Middle East's sole, if undeclared, nuclear armed state -- has ruled out a military response to the nuclear standoff.
Mark Regev, Olmert's spokesman, reacted to the Guardian's story saying: "The need to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is raised at every meeting between the prime minister and foreign leaders. "Israel" prefers a diplomatic solution to this issue but all options must remain on the table. Your unnamed European source attributed words to the prime minister that were not spoken in any working meeting with foreign guests," he addressed the British daily.
Iran Downs 52nd US MQ-9 Drone over Qeshm Island
one month ago
