Pacific May be latest Price for Israel's
Sat Feb 24, 2007 22:07
 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Pacific May be latest Price for Israel's Security
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 15:46:57 -0800
From: Tom Mysiewicz tgmy7@hotmail.com

U.S. Control of the Pacific:
Latest Price for Israel's Security?

by
Tom Mysiewicz
http://members.tripod.com/Writer_on_Call

The U.S. fought a bloody war with Japan for control of Asia and the
Pacific, followed by wars in Korea (also a conflict with China) and
Vietnam. It now appears that control of this region, once considered vital
to U.S. security, may be one of the costs of guaranteeing Israel's security.

Israel apparently feels--based on statements of its military leaders
and think tanks--that Iran is outflanking it through the use of Hezbollah in
Lebanon and Hamas in the Occupied Territories, to say nothing of its
alliance with Syria, long considered a lynchpin for hegemony over the region
by Israeli planners. Also, Israel vitally needs to reopen an Iraqi oil
pipeline (closed since 1948 and now threatened by Syria and Iran) and gain
access to oil revenues. Why? The eventual Iraq War cost of $1.5- to
$2-trillion may bankrupt the U.S., its current "economic workhorse". Thus,
despite all the eyewash about Iranian WMDs, it is essential for Israel that
the Iranian threat be neutralized.

So essential is it that, on 30 December 2006, Israeli Brig. General
Oded Tira called for Israeli supporters in the U.S. and Europe to put
pressure on their governments for a strike on Iran:

"An American strike on Iran is essential for our existence. We must
help pave the way by lobbying the Democratic Party...and U.S. newspaper
editors."

Thus, the current U.S. naval buildup in the region does not take place
in a vacuum. For one thing, the U.S. apparently feels comfortable in
stripping forces from the Pacific to use in this buildup. And this brings
us to the point of this article.

While I think there is a chance for a limited attack during the March
11th thru 17th Purim festival, I believe the game is to keep radical forces
in Pakistan in check (and prevent them from gaining access to Pakistani
nukes) while using the threat of attack on Iran (and the requisite
disruption of fuel supplies) to pressure European and other governments into
supporting a strong economic embargo on Iran. Coupled with increased
support for anti-government Iranian groups, it seems the hope is to
destabilize the country to such a point that it will in no way be able to
mount a meaningful attack against Israel when its nuclear facilities are
eventually bombed.

Enter China. China and Russia (whose Lukoil might be allowed to
resume development work in Iraq) will need to be brought on board for this
strategy to work, although Putin may be the proverbial "fly in the
ointment".

First there was the agreement last October to give China the Iraqi
al-Ahdab oil concession. This could not have taken place without U.S.
acquiesence. China has also been allowed to conclude major energy deals
with Canada (Athabasca Tar Sands) and Venezuela with scarcely a word of
protest from the U.S. I think it is clear that China is being allowed to
secure its energy needs. (And the role of Henry Kissinger and his employee,
Paul Bremer,in this cannot be underestimated.)

Next, there has been a major diplomatic breakthrough on the Korean
Peninsula, allowing 25,000 U.S. troops to be pulled out for Iraq duty. In
addition to supplying North Korea with oil, the U.S. may formally end the
Korean War and recognize North Korea and provide it with security
guarantees.

This development also impacts Taiwan since it had been widely assumed
that U.S. forces earmarked for Korea could be used to defend that island in
the event of an attack from the Chinese mainland. In fact, China has
promised to attack Taiwan if it establishes a new constitution and proclaims
its independence from China. Which could well happen in 2007 when such a
referrendum takes place. The fact that the U.S. is moving forces out of the
region rather than into it may signal that Taiwan is being sacrificed to
China as a quid pro quo for support on Iran and Israel's security.

In addition to the U.S. itself, a major loser in this strategy of
allowing China to be the dominant power in the Pacific may be Japan, which
could be forced to militarize, assemble the parts of its 100 nuclear
warheads and defend its own interests--which could be greatly harmed
nevertheless if its Iranian oil supplies are curtailed.

####

Main Page - Tuesday, 02/27/07

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]

APFN MESSAGEBOARD ARCHIVES

messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)