Reporter Claims Israeli Nuke Strike On Iran Averted By U.S. Fighters

Sources say F16 suicide mission armed with 20-kiloton bomb recalled by Israelis under threat of U.S. Sidewinder missile shootdown

 

Friday, January 19, 2007

 

As escalation towards a war with Iran reaches fever pitch, an online journalist today breaks the astounding news that Israeli fighter jets have already attempted to bomb tactical locations in Iran with nuclear weapons nearly twice as powerful as the one dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, only to be turned back by U.S. warplanes over Iraq.

 

William Thomas, familiar to many for his work in ascertaining the true nature of chemtrails, cites two sources with U.S. and other military contacts who told him that on two recent occasions Israeli fighter bombers armed with both conventional and nuclear weapons were turned back by U.S. planes under threat of missile interception.

 

The latest incident occurred on January 7th, claims Thomas, in which jets trespassed beyond the authorized zone over Iraq "Before being recalled by Israeli authorities." Sources told Thomas that the attack squadron "Comprised three IAF F-16s. Each carried conventional munitions—as well as a single 20-kiloton nuclear bomb."

 

Thomas goes into great depth about the circumstances behind the attempted raid in a near 5,000 word article posted on his website.

 

According to Thomas' source, Israeli warplanes "Are routinely “topped off” by American aerial refueling tankers, but only on condition that the Israeli jets fly a “racetrack” holding pattern—and do not continue “downtown” toward Iran."

 

The target of the January 7 raid was purported to be Iran's 3rd Tactical Air Base at Hamadan, where Revolutionary Guard troops and substantial weapons deposits are stationed. The source even suggested that the attack was designed to be a one way kamikaze mission whereby, "Volunteer pilots are prepared to fly their nuclear bombs “into their targets” if necessary."

 

The news dovetails yesterday's scare, briefly provoked by a rumor that an Iranian missile had struck a U.S. naval vessel in the Gulf. "The bond market briefly pared losses on talk of possible military engagement between the United States and Iran, but turned back down after the Defense Department said the incident did not occur," reported Reuters.

 

This followed reports on Wednesday that Iran had shot down a U.S. drone near its border.

 

 

It also comes after Iranian officials condemned a U.S. raid on a consulate in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil, during which five Iranian diplomats were kidnapped. Many saw the raid, which was directly authorized by the White House, as an outright attempt on behalf of the U.S. to provoke a heavy handed Iranian response that would boost the Neo-Con's justification for war.

 

Republican Congressman and Presidential candidate Ron Paul recently expressed his fear during a speech on the House floor that the Bush administration could contrive a staged Gulf of Tonkin style incident to garner domestic and international support for an air strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

 

Over the last two weeks events have accelerated a seemingly inevitable path to conflict. American aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines are multiplying in the Persian Gulf and Bush recently appointed Adm. William Fallon, a Navy veteran, to oversee the ground war in Iraq, a contradiction many fear betrays preparation for an attack on Iran's uranium enrichment facilities which could take place as soon as next month according to several analysts.

 

A bipartisan group of lawmakers in Congress is attempting to rush though legislation that would bar President Bush from authorizing an attack on Iran without House approval but it all seems to be too little too late. Bush's entire Presidency has characterized itself as a unitary dictatorship and his administration has proven itself time and time again perfectly willing to completely ignore the will of Congress and the people in pursuing its preset agenda. In addition, Bush could avoid having to go to Congress by simply providing tacit support for an Israeli strike portrayed as a lone action, as happened this past summer in Lebanon.

 

The most interesting aspect of such an attack if it does take place will undoubtedly be the response of Russia. Having taken measures to protect their investment in the growth of Iranian nuclear facilities by providing state of the art missile defense systems, the Russians have received severe condemnation from both the U.S. and Israel.

 

The Turkish Weekly quoted a senior Israeli official in Jerusalem who took a bold swipe at Russia by stating, "We hope they understand that this is a threat that could come back to them as well."

->would they care to name sources? saying someone has sources without naming them is like a barrister saying he has a witness to a murder, but then refusing to name the witness... any affect is void...

->also do they know israel abides by the law that it only will attack if first attacked by the opposition, in this case iran?

We're on the verge of a new "Arab cold war". If Iran does ever develop nuclear weapons, they'll be the only rival to Israel in the region. They also have great wealth, despite what is said.

 

Josh, rarely are sources mentioned.

->would they care to name sources? saying someone has sources without naming them is like a barrister saying he has a witness to a murder, but then refusing to name the witness... any affect is void...

->also do they know israel abides by the law that it only will attack if first attacked by the opposition, in this case iran?

 

Exactly, you can watch the news on TV all day and it's "sources say" this and "sources say" that.

AND I guess William Thomas should be asked about his sources.

 

Israel abides by law? Do my a favour. And when I say 'Israel' I mean it's terrorising leaders and NOT it's general public.

Exactly, you can watch the news on TV all day and it's "sources say" this and "sources say" that.

AND I guess William Thomas should be asked about his sources.

 

its hypocritical, who is to say these sources are more correct than what is shown on the news, its all totally speculative, by no means either side is 100% correct, i think there is a correct median somewhere in between.

its hypocritical, who is to say these sources are more correct than what is shown on the news.

 

I'm not - I am however pointing out that the tactics used on mainstream news - of simply claiming "sources" on a large section of stories is pretty much accepted as gospel by most of the dumbed-down viewers, when indeed mainstream news is now a huge business and is controlled by very powerful power with huge conflicts of interest.

but then you accept these other sources as the gospel, thats how i think its hypocritical... totally downplaying any other perspective.

Edited. (Double Post)

No, well I don't just claim sources though. In this instance the article mentions someone who claims a Government source and it makes light of the fact that this man is indeed making a claim.

 

I personally am not claiming anything here - just passing on the information of the existence of the claim. Although many other points after that in the article are sourced.

but you believe them don't you?

 

but then criticise others like nick who believe different 'sources' than you, but with the same fervour....

 

thats what annoys me.

Exactly, you can watch the news on TV all day and it's "sources say" this and "sources say" that.

AND I guess William Thomas should be asked about his sources.

 

Israel abides by law? Do my a favour. And when I say 'Israel' I mean it's terrorising leaders and NOT it's general public.

 

 

Literally hypocritical..

Well I live in Israel. I know I'm only 14 but I'm strange I'm and reading alot about politics etc., so let me answer you.

 

You just belive everybody.. Our leaders are a JOKE and I mean it. Iran is threatening on everybody and all the United Nations do is to pretend they care and stupid sanctions. And guess what? they don't even care. same thing with North Korea. They understood they can develop unconventional weapons and nobody will ever do anything.

Neocons Baiting Iran With Second Strike Group

 

Neocons Baiting Iran With Second Strike Group

Waiting with anticipation for any excuse to pounce

 

 

A top US diplomat has confirmed that a second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group has been deployed to the Gulf in order to send a clear signal to Iran that they will be crushed if they continue to defy the wishes of the US government by enriching uranium.

 

"The Middle East isn't a region to be dominated by Iran. The Gulf isn't a body of water to be controlled by Iran. That's why we've seen the United States station two carrier battle groups in the region," Nicholas Burns, U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in an address to the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center, an influential think-tank, as reported by the AP.

 

"Iran is going to have to understand that the United States will protect its interests if Iran seeks to confront us," Burns continued.

 

Yes, it is of course Iran who are doing the confronting, not the country that has deployed Patriot anti-missile missiles, aircraft carriers, and cruise-missile-firing ships, nor the country that has already allegedly attempted to engage in pre-emptive strikes upon Iran.

 

Despite reports that Iran is willing to conduct talks, the White House is still refusing to even entertain the idea, sticking to the "we don't converse with evil" mantra, deciding instead to deploy war cruisers.

 

The likelihood of some kind of conflict is looking increasingly probable with arch neocons such as Richard Perle preaching that the President would have no hesitation in attacking Iran.

 

Discussing a possible US involvement in a strike on Iran , Perle said at a conference in Israel: "Would this president do it? I think that until the day he leaves office, this is a president that, if he is told, 'Mr. President, you are at the point of no return,' I have very little doubt that this president would order the necessary military action."

 

Perle began his speech by saying it wasn't clear whether "it's our time or Iran's that is over."

 

With Bush's approval rating at an all time low of 28% now, and the current situation in Iraq, it is clear he has nothing left to lose now and indeed may be "at the point of no return" as far as the American people are concerned.

 

 

Interestingly Bilderberg shill John Edwards was also in attendance at the same conference as Perle in Herzliya, Israel, where he also today told the watching Israeli delegates that Iran must be stopped at all costs.

 

With a second strike group deployed it does seem like the neocon warmongers are expecting something to happen very soon.

 

Last week, a former commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, Admiral Eduard Baltin, revealed that he believes a missile attack on the Iranians is imminent, while Republican Congressman and 2008 Presidential candidate Ron Paul fears a staged Gulf of Tonkin style incident may be used to provoke air strikes on Iran.

 

Indeed there were numerous strange reports of incidents occurring in the Gulf from rumours of nonexistent clashes between Iranian and American battleships to those of missile strikes on U.S. vessels.

 

Meanwhile the AP and Reuters have been filing misleading reports stating that Iran has barred IAEA inspectors, an allegation that turns out to be inaccurate according to the IAEA themselves who today stated:

 

"It should be noted however, that there are a sufficient number of inspectors designated for Iran and the IAEA is able to perform its inspection activities in accordance with Iran's Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement."

 

Iran has also begun massing troops along its borders with north Iraq, in addition to launching missile war games, while top a Middle East analyst and former State Department official has gone public with claims that U.S. plans envision a broad attack on Iran, rather than surgical strikes, as part of a war that likely would further destabilize the Middle East for years.