http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/site/modules/news/article.php?storyid=255
By Randy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Whatever is going to happen, it has to be in the near term... The Islamic snake is growing rapidly and the threat only grows larger and stronger as time goes by.". 27 April 2006: Articles in the media have been overwhelming lately detailing the growing tensions between the United States and Israel against Iran. There has been heated debate over whether the United States would give Israel the nod on an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, or whether it would be a joint effort between Israel and Iran. This is a very delicate matter in one strong regard: the United States would most likely NOT give the nod to Israel to attack, but instead will lean towards sanctions and a political solution or mount an attack alone or with a few loyal allies, with Israel noticeably left out. To minimize the chances of the Middle East erupting immediately into World War III, Israel would most likely be asked to stay out of an offensive measure but allowed to defend herself against any collateral attacks that would most likely occur if the United States were to attack Iran. The United States could probably engage Iran and even Syria without upsetting the delicate balance in the region. If Israel were to engage in an attack or war with Iran, the "moderate" or even US friendly countries would be placed into a very precarious position considering that their populations are Muslim. The blood feud between Israel and the Middle East goes back too many centuries and the underlying hatred for Israel by all Muslim countries would erupt almost immediately into warfare against Israel across the board. On the other hand, the United States could get away with attacking Iran because the Middle East OPEC countries have a love of money that supersedes many things except a blood feud many centuries old. Israel has been stifled and held back for years from attacking anyone in the region large scale. If you recall during the first Gulf War, Israel was attacked with SCUD missiles by Iraq and acted only with defensive measures, by US request. Land given back to Palestinians and concessions made to Palestine have been solely at the request from the United States. If we attack Iran, Israel will be most likely asked to act purely defensively even though they are the exact target of Iran. They would be told beforehand that an attack on Iran by the United States is not a green light to invade Palestine which if left to their own devices, an invasion of Palestine would have happened long ago. Since Palestine has always been a point of contention with the Muslim countries, it would be critical for Israel to remain as is and not move into Palestine militarily or it would bring up the blood feud and many "fence straddling" Muslim countries would go to the defense of the Palestinian people. Remember, I'm not saying I'm in agreement with anything stated here, I'm just telling you the likelihood of certain things and the "why" behind some decisions that will be made. In a worst case scenario, if Iran directly attacks Israel in any way, then all bets are off. The strike would most likely be nuclear in nature as Iran would want to try to incapacitate Israel with the first strikes. Bearing in mind that Iran isn't interested in winning a war to the same extent that they are interested and determined in starting a war, it is Iran that would strike first in any Iranian/Israeli conflict. In order to head off the entire region breaking into war, if there is to be a pre-emptive strike against Iran, it would have to be an attack by the United States and other allies. If we don't bring Iran to task very soon, there are two scenarios to be prepared for. Iran will most likely attack Israel, thrusting Israel into a war which would create a "Pandora's box" of sorts as all relationships will become strained in the region with the United States as we certainly would come to the aid of Israel much as a big brother would do for the smaller family member. Remember, these are Muslims first and they would be required to defend their brother country Iran in a "blood feud". The only countries that would get upset with the US due to a US attack on Iran without Israel would certainly be Russia, Syria and Turkey, the latter mostly because of their unfortunate location. Of course China wouldn't be real happy, but their displeasure would most likely be verbal in nature. The immediate results of the United States attacking Iran will be seen in our streets here in this country. The imbedded Islamic cells that exist here will unleash a multitude of attacks, using many different attack venues and a variety of weapons. Islamic planners and extremists sent agents into this country long before they overthrew the Shah of Iran and gained control of that country. This country has been a target of Islam ever since we ushered Israel into the status of being a country back in the 40's. We are hated regardless of our business relationships. We are hated because we represent everything that Islam is against. The second scenario is just as scary. In 2008 a democrat could end up in the White House and then the United States would be in a most precarious position. Historically the democrats have conceded and overlooked much of the problem created by Islam. They historically have coddled Islam. If a democrat had made it into the White House on the last go around, we would have a Taliban run country known as the former country of Iraq and we would probably be selling arms to Iran to be used against us later. Arabic would be the second language in our schools and Islamic organizations would have offices on the second floor of the White House. They are almost there now. Whatever is going to happen, it has to be in the near term meaning fairly soon. The Islamic snake is growing rapidly and the threat only grows larger and stronger as time goes by. There is strong talk about alternative fuels, less dependence on foreign oil and other measures. The reality, however is this: any plans or changes made in our oil dependence will take years to implement and make into reality. ...And we don't have years. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
