Israel has Iran in its sights

http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/mayfaire/latimes0253.htm

Opinion By Micah Zenko

Unless Tehran responds to by late September to international proposals on its nuclear program, history strongly suggests the Israelis will act alone.

August 30, 2009

Iran has until late September to respond to the latest international proposal aimed at stopping the Islamic Republic from developing a nuclear weapon. Under the proposal, Iran would suspend its uranium enrichment program in exchange for a U.N. Security Council commitment to forgo a fourth round of economic and diplomatic sanctions.

But if diplomacy fails, the world should be prepared for an Israeli attack on Iran's suspected nuclear weapons facilities. As Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently acknowledged: "The window between a strike on Iran and their getting nuclear weapons is a pretty narrow window."

If Israel attempts such a high-risk and destabilizing strike against Iran, President Obama will probably learn of the operation from CNN rather than the CIA. History shows that although Washington seeks influence over Israel's military operations, Israel would rather explain later than ask for approval in advance of launching preventive or preemptive attacks. Those hoping that the Obama administration will be able to pressure Israel to stand down from attacking Iran as diplomatic efforts drag on are mistaken.

The current infighting among Iran's leaders also has led some to incorrectly believe that Tehran's nuclear efforts will stall. As Friday's International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran's nuclear programs revealed, throughout the political crises of the last three months, Iran's production rate for centrifuges has remained steady, as has its ability to produce uranium hexafluoride to feed into the centrifuges.

So let's consider four past Israeli military operations relevant to a possible strike against Iran.

In October 1956, Israel, Britain and France launched an ill-fated assault against Egypt to seize control of the Suez Canal. The day before, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles grilled Abba Eban, Israel's ambassador to the U.S., about Israel's military buildup on the border with Egypt, but Eban kept quiet about his country's plans.

In June 1967, Israel initiated the Six-Day War without notice to Washington, despite President Johnson's insistence that Israel maintain the status quo and consult with the U.S. before taking action. Only days before the war began, Johnson notified Prime Minister Levi Eshkol in a personal message: "Israel just must not take preemptive military action and thereby make itself responsible for the initiation of hostilities."

On June 7, 1981, Israeli fighter-bombers destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak shortly before it was to be fueled to develop the capacity to make nuclear weapons-grade plutonium. Again, Washington was not informed in advance. President Reagan "condemned" the attack and "thought that there were other options that might have been considered."

A few days later, Prime Minister Menachem Begin told CBS News: "This attack will be a precedent for every future government in Israel. ... Every future Israeli prime minister will act, in similar circumstances, in the same way."

Begin's prediction proved true on Sept. 6, 2007, when Israeli aircraft destroyed what was believed to be a North Korean-supplied plutonium reactor in Al Kibar, Syria. Four months earlier, Israeli intelligence officials had provided damning evidence to the Bush administration about the reactor, and the Pentagon drew up plans to attack it. Ironically, according to New York Times reporter David Sanger, President Bush ultimately decided the U.S. could not bomb another country for allegedly possessing weapons of mass destruction. An administration official noted that Israel's attack went forward "without a green light from us. None was asked for, none was given."

These episodes demonstrate that if Israel decides that Iranian nuclear weapons are an existential threat, it will be deaf to entreaties from U.S. officials to refrain from using military force. Soon after the operation, Washington will express concern to Tel Aviv publicly and privately. The long-standing U.S.-Israeli relationship will remain as strong as ever with continued close diplomatic, economic, intelligence and military cooperation.

Should Tehran prove unwilling to meet the September deadline and bargain away its growing and latent nuclear weapon capability, we can expect an Israeli attack that does not require U.S. permission, or even a warning.

Micah Zenko is a fellow in the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

NZ family fight to keep sick mum

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10592774

4:00AM Monday Aug 24, 2009

By Lincoln Tan

Richard and Evangeline Stanners with Josh and Izzy. Photo / Simon Baker

Every time Evangeline Acero Stanners looks at her two young children, she is reminded of how little time she has left with them.

The Filipina mother of two New Zealand-born children, aged 2 and six months, has been told by Immigration New Zealand that she will have to leave when her work permit expires in January - despite being married to a New Zealander.

Immigration has told Mrs Stanners, 35, that she will not be granted residency, which she applied for in June last year, because she was diagnosed with having advanced kidney disease during her second pregnancy last year.

"If I have to leave my children, I know it might be the last time that I will see them, ever. As a mother, my fight to stay alive is so that I can be here for them," she said.

"Immigration is tearing our family apart. If I have to go back to the Philippines, I am surely going to die - I'd rather die with my family beside me."

In a letter to Immigration NZ, nephrologist Kelvin Lynn said Mrs Stanners had only 15 per cent of her overall kidney function, and would need either a transplant or dialysis.

Mrs Stanners says the doctor said she can no longer carry her baby, because it would cause too much of a strain on her kidney.

"Each time I look at them, I cry - saying to them, don't worry, mummy will fight to stay and she'll be here for you," she said.

A New Zealand citizen or resident can sponsor a spouse or partner for residency, but it would be subject to meeting health requirements.

Immigration told Mrs Stanners: "The medical assessor has advised that you do not meet the acceptable standard of health ... on the basis that you are likely to impose significant costs or demands on New Zealand's health services."

Husband Richard Stanners said dialysis treatment would cost about $65,000 a year, and sending Mrs Stanners to the Philippines would "be as good as signing her death warrant".

Mr Stanners, 55, a Christchurch-based mortgage consultant, said his wife developed a minor kidney problem when she was pregnant with their first child, Josh, but her condition deteriorated significantly when she became pregnant the second time.

He said they could not afford to pay for the treatment his wife needed if she was sent back, and was pleading for the Government to let her stay.

MP Jim Anderton wrote to Associate Immigration Minister Kate Wilkinson requesting a medical waiver.

Ms Wilkinson said she would look into the matter but "could not guarantee a favourable outcome".

The couple met on the internet in April 2006 and married in the Philippines in November that year.

Mrs Stanners was granted a 12-month visitor's visa when they moved to NZ the following April, and was later granted two work permits. The second expires on January 10.

Unforgettable Fire: Pictures drawn from Atomic Bomb Survivors

Any person who thinks they understand what nuclear weapons do is mistaken. Unless they were targetted by one, as the survivors drawing this remarkable collection of pictures were. The collection began with one person bringing a hand-drawn picture to NHK, Japan's public broadcasting corporation. When the picture was displayed, thousands of survivors committed their memories to paper and sent in their lay art. This book is a distillation of the exhibit that was created. Many of the pictures have text within them explaining the situation. Translations to English are provided. Although the pictures are haunting enough, additional text of the survivor's recollections, in their own words, is included with each frame, putting the situation in context of what was happening when the explosion occured and what happened afterwards. The eloquence of their words is not easy to describe. The position of this book is that the world must know what these weapons--even the tiny ones used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki--do to living things. I found no trace of anger, only genuine concern that the people of the world find out what these weapons do before they find out firsthand.