Olmert En Route to Washington, Wants F-35 Fighter Jets

[high_treason]

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ ... spx/147622

(IsraelNN.com) Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is en route to Washington, where he will try to advance the purchase of F-35 Stealth fighter jets. American media view his visit as being overshadowed by the criminal investigations against him.
 
"Anything he does now will be regarded as suspect,'' Martin Indyk, the former American ambassador to Israel, told the Bloomberg news organization. Israelis won't back a peace pact with the Palestinian Authority (PA) "because they will assume he is doing it to save himself rather than to achieve peace for Israel," he added.

Former American Middle East envoy Dennis Ross, who was active in forming the Oslo Agreements, also doubted the ability of the Prime Minister to satisfy American President George W. Bush's demand that Israel and the PA reach an agreement this year on final borders for a new Arab state within Israel's current borders. A "parameters agreement,'' in which Olmert and Abbas defining issues on which they agree upon while leaving the rest for future talks, is the best that can be expected, Ross told Bloomberg.

I think we all know where these bombers are going to be used for...also on other news

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/329613

Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt, two Iran experts at the pro-Israeli thinktank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, have published a primer for bombing Iran that looks at the costs and consequences. It's called "The Last Resort," but it might have been called "Making the Unthinkable Thinkable."

They make it look easy.

Would Iranians "rally 'round the flag" if Iran is attacked? Maybe, maybe not, they say. "One cannot assume that a preventive strike against Iran's nuclear infrastructure would necessarily prompt a nationalist backlash."

Would Iran strike back militarily? Maybe, maybe not, again. They looked at seven previous attacks against Iran, and conclude that Iran's response has been hot and cold. "Tehran has not always reacted swiftly to foreign attacks to assuage nationalist passions--and it has sometimes not responded at all." One quick hit-and-run attack against all, or nearly all, of Iran's nuclear research and industrial sites is the best way to go, they seem to suggest.

Would Iran close the Gulf to oil shipments? They might try, but we can handle that, the authors suggest. "Although Iran could disrupt the flow of oil from the Gulf, causing at least temporary panic in world oil and financial markets, it could not block the Gulf for long."

Might Iran rev up its allies in Iraq and Lebanon to confront the United States and its allies? Yes, they say. So we'd have to get tough with them in those places, and "reduce the likelihood of such an eventuality by quietly indicating that, as in 2006, [the Unied States] would support a tough Israeli response to Hizballah rocket attacks [from Lebanon]."

Will America's allies be angry? Probably, but the Europeans will likely sit it out and "the Arab monarchies of the Persian Gulf would have good reason to keep a low profile during any U.S.-Iranian confrontation."

Clawson and Eisenstadt conclude:


Should the United States opt for preventive action, success would hinge in no small part on its ability to craft a sustainable policy that effectively integrates diplomatic, military, and informational instruments to destroy key nodes in Iran's nuclear infrastructure, forestall or mitigate the effect of Iranian retaliation, and set the conditions for successful poststrike diplomacy or military action.

Worth trying, no? What's the downside?

[Anonymous]

Dennis Ross is a douchebag liar: The Camp David II Negotiations: How Dennis Ross Proved the Palestinians Aborted the Peace Process