≡ Menu

Israeli Targets Hit in Coordinated Terror Attacks

india terror attack

Car of Israeli defense attache driven by his wife, burns after being bombed (AP)

Normally, I’d have a post about this important story already published.  But Muhammad Sahimi and I have wanted to partner on a joint op ed for some time and this presented a great opportunity.  So we’re submitting it and hoping it will be accepted for publication.

What follows will be a very short summary of my portion of the piece we’ve written:

The attacks in Georgia and India would appear to have all the hallmarks of an Iranian response to Israel’s long campaign of terror against its nuclear and military program, though Iran has denied involvement.

Bibi Netanyahu, ever eager to implicate Iran in dastardly crimes against Israel, the Jewish people and humanity, has called Iran “the greatest exporter of terror in the world.”  He’s leaving out his own country, which is certainly competitive in this sweepstakes.  The Israeli prime minister might also want to keep in mind that Israel began this war against Iran and that an Iranian hit, if that’s what happened, is a response to Israeli terror.  What Israel banks on is the short memory of the world when it comes to following this series of terror acts.  It wants the world to focus on what happened today, but not what happened yesterday or last week, which led to today.

Five Iranian nuclear scientists are dead, one civilian driver was also killed, and one scientist’s wife was gravely injured in these attacks.  A missile base blew up, killing an IRG general. Stuxnet delayed Iran’s uranium enrichment program for several months.  These are acts that do not happen in a vacuum.  There is action and reaction.

Ethan Bronner writes that the victims of today’s attack were “civilians.”  But he neglects to acknowledge that any of the Iranian victims were civilians.  For him, the Iranians were indistinguishable from each other.  The main targets were legitimate, I suppose, and the secondary victims were collateral damage.  I’ve got news for Eytan: they’re all civilians and neither Israel, Iran nor Hezbollah has any right to target any of them.  But if Israel does do so, it has only itself to blame for the outcome.  And it can expect more to come if it continues its covert war or attacks Iran outright.

Personally, I think these attacks were a warning shot across Israel’s bow.  I don’t even think they meant to kill anyone.  They meant to lay down a marker and let Israel know what it has coming if it wants to play this game.  After all, Ehud Barak has dismissed any Iranian counter-strike.  Only 500 Israelis would die, he’s claimed, after Israel launched a military strike.  Iran wouldn’t dare go full-out because it would risk the world’s rage if it did.  To me, this is typical Israeli testosterone-injected posing.  If Bibi or Barak really believe this, then they’re as deluded or moreso than I feared.

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • overlook February 14, 2012, 2:21 AM

    Why do you lie? Israel does not “export terror”, never has. Here’s a list of assasinations attributed to Israel:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israeli_assassinations

    Look at the list and the the nature of the targets. Israel has only targeted terrorists.

    On the other hand, Iran, PLO and Hezbollah have made it a point to target civilians in the most heinous ways imaginable:
    http://www.adl.org/Israel/israel_attacks.asp

    • Richard Silverstein February 14, 2012, 12:55 PM

      I’m afraid it’s you who is disingenuous. The Iranian terror attacks bought & paid for by the Mossad nearly fatally injured the wife of a scientist & murdered a civilian driver. Not to mention the errors Mossad has made in killing the wrong targets (Lillehammer) or targets which had nothing to do with terror (Khanafani).

      BTW when a country assassinates an enemy on foreign soil this is an act of terror. Period.

      If you accuse me of lying again you won’t publish another comment here.

      • Amir G February 14, 2012, 4:42 PM

        You may not be a liar but you are no doubt a hypocrite.
        You deleted my comment on the AMIA building claiming it was off topic, but you bring Lillehammer, You let the rest of the crowd here bring Liberty, you let Persian Advocate bring his conspiracy theory’s but the Amia attack and the attack on the Israeli Embassy in Argentina that’s off topic ? You show double standard and biased. And that’s my friend is where you own version of Zionism, is falling short.

        • Richard Silverstein February 14, 2012, 5:26 PM

          Yours wasn’t the first comment yesterday referencing Argentina. Not even the 2nd. It was the 3rd. And all were off topic. You had the misfortune of being last in line & I deleted yr comment because of that.

          I agree with you that the USS Liberty and 9/11 conspiracy theories are off topic as well & I’ve said so in the past & say so again.

          I mentioned Lillihammer because a commenter claimed falsely that Israel never kills civilians. In order to prove a falsehood I’m afraid I will resort briefly to historical evidence to support my claim.

          What I didn’t want to happen was to get into a knock down drag out fight about what happened in Argentina, who did it, etc. We’ve been down that road here before & it’s been argued ad nauseam. There’s no benefit in kicking that dead horse.

          Another point you should keep in mind is that once I’ve placed a commenter like you on moderation I review every comment and do not approve comments at all which violate the comment rules. With a commenter who is not on moderation I am much freer in allowing them to speak. There are a number of right wing commenters who are not moderated & whose comments, even ones I disagree with, are published with no moderation or editing.

          • Amir G February 14, 2012, 6:30 PM

            P.P.S Lillihammer was a mistake.
            Israel doe’s not target civilians. sure citizens get hurt in the process, and may become a target if they are part of a nuclear effort.

            The other side targets women, and children.

            Do not confuse between the two.

          • Richard Silverstein February 16, 2012, 12:58 AM

            Israel doesn’t target civilians? Read this typically eloquent column by Gideon Levy. Of 250 Palestians killed in IDF “terror” attacks over an 8 yr period (2002-2009), 150 were civilians. That includes women and children, bud.

            Both sides have terrorists. Your side has bigger guns & kills more than the other.

          • Amir G February 16, 2012, 5:11 AM

            I didn’t say Israel doe’s not kill civilians.
            I said Israel doesn’t target them. Big difference, when you fire a Qassam rocket onto the city of Sderot, you are targeting civilians. When you detonate yourself inside a restaurant or a bus, you kill civilians. When you go into the home of the Fogel family you kill civilians, When you go into the home of the Haran family – you kill civilians.

            Israel – does not do any of the activities listed above. Israel fires missiles designed specifically with a smaller warhead to minimize collateral damage. Israel sends special forces to get wanted folks out of populated people endangering those soldiers and a lot of time sacrificing them, to minimize collateral damage.

            Sure mistakes happen, like Lillihammer, like the 66 years old Palestinian that was killed in his bed during a mistakable arrest, but Israel does not target civilians.

            You really want to argue that Israel target civilians ?

            talking about it, from the international law perspective, operating from within populated area’s does not give the Hamas immunity, it actually makes them the one responsible for any death caused to the civilians around them.

          • Richard Silverstein February 16, 2012, 6:11 PM

            Israeli does deliberately target civilians. In murdering Salah Shehadeh it killed 15 civilians including women & children. That’s why Doron Almog & Dan Halutz are wanted as war criminals.

            It regularly assassinates militants even though there are civilians likely to be hurt. This was precisely the point of Uri Blau’s reporting on Yair Naveh’s violation of the Supreme Court ruling on this very subject. Naveh’s forces assassinated unarmed militants who were in the company of civilians both violations of the Court ruling.

            When you bomb a car carrying civilians as the Mossad did in Tehran, you’re targeting civilians.

            As for the IDF’s supposed care & precision in going after militants, spare us. One of the major purposes of this blog is to put the lie to such claims. The IDF operates with callous disregard for Palestinian life. If you don’t know or concede this you haven’t been reading the hundreds of blogs posts I’ve written which painstakingly recount the atrocious record. I’m afraid yr mouthing platitudes with no bearingnon reality.

            I have always said there are Palestinian militants and groups which have violated international law and deserve to be held accountable. But the lion’s share of violations are Israel’s.

            Please do not publish more than THREE comments in any 24 hour period. This is a limit I impose when commenters consistently comment a great many times over an extended period. This is to ensure that the threads remain the domain of everyone & not just you.

          • Amir G February 16, 2012, 6:40 PM

            Once again Richard you show your bias.
            Are you asking Persian Advocate to publish 3 comments in a 24 hours ?
            I’ll Give you a hint, in this thread alone he published more then double that (8 in total)
            at least have enough integrity and courage to say, “i don’t like you i don’t like your opinions, do not publish them here.”

          • Richard Silverstein February 17, 2012, 1:30 AM

            I’m not talking about how many comments are published in a thread. I’m talking about how many you publish in 24 hours. Persian Advocate usually publishes around 3 in a day. But I don’t feel the need to reply to most of his & I do feel the need to respond to most of yours. And frankly, I don’t want to spend all day doing it. So you’ll have to live with this limitation whether you like it or not.

          • editorsteve February 16, 2012, 6:49 PM

            International law is clear. Combatants can “hide” among civilians and cannot be attacked unless they directly threaten the attackers’ troops at the time of the attack. For example, attackers can blow up a house to kill an artillery spotter or a sniper that has targeted the attackers, even if there are civilians inside. But the attackers better be damn sure the guy on the roof is a spotter and not just a concerned dad looking down the street for a safe escape route for his family — the burden of proof, if it gets to court, is on the attackers.

            Amir, IDF admits to killing 600 civilians in Gaza, and 800 combatants. Very high civilian loss ratio. Also, in Gaza, phosphorus use by IDF was well documented. The phosphorus shells may have been meant for use as flares (and I doubt it), but were clearly used by some troops in the field for direct attacks.

            I can think of a lot of excuses — young troops, lack of training, poor field command, muddled goals set by elected leaders, and on and on. But this kind of civilian carnage is not civilized. It is not excusable.

            I’m quoting loosely from the Goldstone report, which also notes that firing poorly controlled rockets into civilian areas and then blaming the lousy technology for civilian casualties is also not permitted.

            War is uncivilized enough, even if the rules are obeyed. When the rules are flouted, we have … terrorism.

          • Joel February 16, 2012, 7:06 PM

            I don’t believe Israel admitted to killing 600 civilians and I know they didn’t claim to kill 800 combatants. 700 combatants if I’m not mistaken.

            Using a combination of new tactics, Israel has ‘broken the back’ of asymmetrical urban warfare. This is evidenced by the high number of enemy combatant casualties as compared to Israel’s low military casualties. That several hundred civilians died as ‘collaterals’ is unfortunate.

            But consider this, the 4th largest army in the world attacked ‘the most densely populated place on the planet’ for three weeks by land, sea and air, yet 99.9 percent of Gazans survived. How did that happen? I would posit that the number of civilians deaths in Gaza were quite low.

            Am I wrong comparatively speaking?

          • Richard Silverstein February 17, 2012, 1:36 AM

            Israel killed 1,100 civilians during Cast Lead of whom 300 were children. 300 combatants were killed. These numbers were compiled by Israeli & Gazan human rights groups using careful, precise methods. The IDF had absolutely no way of keeping track of how many were killed in Gaza. It wouldn’t even allow ambulances to gather in the wounded & dead for days & certainly maintained no numbers of how many it killed.

            As for “breaking the back” of anything, the IDF has broken the back of truth rather than of the Palestinian will to resist. Just wait till you wage another war in Lebanon or Gaza & you will see a virtual repeat. The fact that almost no Israelis are killed in wars in Gaza is meaningless. It’s easy not to die when the largest percentage of those you kill are unarmed civilians.

            I find this sort of argument disgusting & morally repellant beyond measure. If you continue in this vein you’re well on the way to banning #4.

          • overlook February 17, 2012, 5:30 AM

            “Israel killed 1,100 civilians during Cast Lead of whom 300 were children. 300 combatants were killed.”

            That’s not what Hamas says: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-admits-600-700-of-its-men-were-killed-in-cast-lead-1.323776

          • Richard Silverstein February 17, 2012, 12:36 PM

            The figures I quoted are from carefully documented records & lists compiled by human rights groups with no axe to grind either on behalf of Israel or Hamas. They are credible numbers because of that. Any other numbers provided by any source like Hamas or Israel are not documented & hence suspect.

          • Amir G February 17, 2012, 6:04 AM

            @ Richard, I was talking about the number of comments your lacky made in a period of 24 hours. In this thread alone there are 8.

            Your data Re: Civilians killed in Gaza is wrong. but i see someone already published a link to haaretz article.

            With respect to the killing of Salah Shehadeh. The guy was no mother Theresa, people tend to forget that he was the commander of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the Hamas Militant group who was / is responsible for the killing of many Israeli’s (at the time carrying suicide missions)

            @ EditorSteve War on Terrorism is aimed at decreasing the numbers of civilians killed by the terrorists, and as you noted, hiding among civilians does not grant anyone immunity as long as they keep on targeting the other side. Israel knew were Shehadeh was hiding and took him out. No different then blowing off an house to kill an enemy artillery spotter. When you deal with Terrorists who has no office, and no compound, they plan their attacks anywhere they are at, hence they are targeting the other side at all times, and therefore shall not be granted immunity even if they are hiding among civilians. This is the underlying policy that enables US drone attacks in Pakistan and elsewhere.

          • Richard Silverstein February 18, 2012, 3:31 PM

            If you call another commenter an insulting name like that it will be your last comment. It’s disgusting.

            The problem with Shehadeh’s killing was that it knowingly murdered 15 civilians destroying an entire apt building. That has nothing to do with Shehadeh or his alleged crimes. You can’t knowingly murder elderly folk, women & children unless you wish to end in The Hague as Almog likely will.

            Israel’s war on Palestinians (which you euphemistically call a “war on terror”) has no goal of minimizing civilian deaths. In fact Israel regularly kills civilians & unarmed protesters (who are also civilians).

            I find it deeply morally offensive for you to refuse to acknowledge the innocent civilian deaths caused by Shehadeh’s assassination. This is odious. There is NO justification for civilian murder under any law except that of the jungle, which seems to be your and Israel’s operative principle.

            There comes a point in the lifespan of commenters like you when something they write is so morally repellant I pull the plug on them. This was your moment. The next comment you write which violates the comment rules in any way will be your last.

          • editorsteve February 17, 2012, 6:35 AM

            Human Rights Watch tallied 1700 Gazan deaths in the three weeks of Cast Lead. HRW claimed only 100 died of natural causes, but this seems low. On average, there were 100 deaths per week due to natural causes in Gaza at the time (Source: CIA Handbook, quoting earlier HRW reports, ICRC, etc). Death rate is lower in winter months there, but assuming the full average, the body count due to the attack was 1400. So the final sum of combatants and non-combatants has to add up to at least 1400! There is some dispute as to who is a combatant. Police cadets in training? But the total body count seems irrefutable. I’ll stand by my number (600 civilian deaths, minimum… possibly 800, really doubt it was 1100) because I read the original tally sheets and reports at the time and some followups… and also attended a raucus “experts” meeting on this at the UN in June after the attack.

            I dwell on this because reports get twisted over time, and I see both an IDF whitewashing and Hamas “data enhancement” here. After the terror bombings of WWII by all sides, the world sort of settled in on grudging acceptance of 10-15% civilian collateral damage. Ugh. At a MINIMUM, IDF was three times that. Bad enough, I’d say. An atrocity, I’d say. Should never be repeated, I’d say.

          • overlook February 17, 2012, 7:09 AM

            The figures you present seem about right. There were around 1400 Gazan casualties, about 700 civilians are 700 combatants dead, if you include the police cadets as combatants, which I do, since many of them belong to the Hamas military wing and were active operatives before.

            This puts the ratio of civilians to combatants at around 1:1 (one civilian killed for every combatant). Compared to NATO and US operations, this is a very “good” ratio, especially considering the fact that Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world and the fact that Hamas operated directly from civilian homes and used Gazans as human shields.

            Considering that US operations in Afghanistan achieve a 3:1 ratio and in Iraq/Kosovo result in a 4:1 ratio, I would say that it shows that Israel had minimized civilian casualties in unprecedented levels.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#Israel_in_the_Gaza_War

          • Richard Silverstein February 17, 2012, 12:40 PM

            The police cadets were unarmed & were police, not soldiers. They were killed in cold blood while on a parade ground graduating from their police course. If Hamas killed 250 Israeli police in the same circumstances you’d call it terrorism, which it was. Only 300 fighters were killed & 1,100 civilians. These numbers were compiled by human rights groups having no axe to grind for either side.

            This is your last comment on this subject. As I wrote Cast Lead is off topic in this thread. If you continue with this subject you will be moderated. STAY ON TOPIC.

            You’re offering pure hasbara.

          • editorsteve February 17, 2012, 7:32 AM

            Overlook, where do you get your numbers on civilian deaths in Afghanistan, etc? The Guardian’s datablog website at http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/aug/10/afghanistan-civilian-casualties-statistics shows 2700 civilian deaths at hands of pro-government forces since 2006. That’s a lot, but only 5-10% of taliban supposedly killed since 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Taliban_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan, which gives pretty good data back to 2001 and lists original battle reports). I would say that both numbers are subject to wide errors, but by any conceivable measure the civilian death rates there are only a fifth of the Gaza rate, and maybe less.

            In Iraq, if you include civilian deaths due to the hatreds unleashed by the West invading in the first place, you get worse-than-Gaza ratios (by far). But these are NOT people directly killed by the Western forces. “Only” indirectly. For this comparison, most of them don’t count. Sigh.

      • overlook February 14, 2012, 11:32 PM

        So even according to you, the vast majority of Mossad operations do not harm civilians. In the extremely rare cases where civilians are hurt, it can be attributed to an error on Mossad’s part, which usually haunts it forever. Compared to Hezbollah and Iran, whose operational infrastructure exists for the sole purpose of targeting civilians (e.g., AMIA building bombing). And yet, you feel comfortable with the hyperbolic statement that Iran and Israel are both “terror” exporters?

        • Richard Silverstein February 15, 2012, 12:31 AM

          Don’t put words in my mouth & don’t get cute with me. I said nothing of the sort & you know it.

          I consider scientists civilians. Besides, the Iranians claims that at least one of the five scientists had no role in the nuclear program other than as a classroom teacher. In other words, he played no direct role whatsoever in the Iranian nuclear weapons (if there is one) or enrichment program. The problem with what the Mossad is doing is that their terror acts are based on intelligence that could easily be wrong. That’s what happened in Lillehammer and has happened elsewhere.

          Mossad is not haunted by its errors. And who are you to speak on its behalf about its alleged emotions regarding its failures? Are you the agency historian or moral conscience?

          Any killing of anyone on foreign soil (except in war) by another country is an act of terror. If Iran killed an Israeli general inside Israel I’d consider it an act of terror too. Though I’d be hard-pressed to condemn it as strongly as I ordinarily would since Israel has done the same to Iran.

          • overlook February 15, 2012, 2:53 AM

            “Any killing of anyone on foreign soil (except in war) by another country is an act of terror.”

            I’m not sure if that’s a good definition or even the accepted one. Most covert intelligence organizations, both western and eastern engage in violent activities on foreign soil, but are not considered terrorist organizations. Take a look at the wikipedia page for a better definition.

            Terror is a method of embedding fear within a target population through random violence, usually targeted at civilians.
            This is what Hezbollah, Iran, Al-Qaeda does. On the other hand, Mossad, CIA and other intelligence organizations target only those who are considered a threat against the security of their respective countries. Hezbollah tries to blow up Jewish schools and embassies, while Israel and the US target known terrorists. Big difference.

    • PersianAdvocate February 14, 2012, 1:43 PM

      Your definition of “terror” is at issue. What you mean to say is “a designated opponent of Israel’s dreams of being THE Middle East overlord rather than a bastion of light on to others”. Upstarting and funding Hamas with the same charter to counter the PLO is no exportation, I guess. Um let’s see, what else what else… oh yes, USS Liberty. Should I start a rant on the PKK?

      How about a Council of Foreign Relations approved article? http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag
      Or does MSNBC’s reports of US officials’ statements that Israel is exporting terrorism wreak of lies, too? http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/08/10354553-israel-teams-with-terror-group-to-kill-irans-nuclear-scientists-us-officials-tell-nbc-news

      And you want us to believe this guy?!!? http://desertpeace.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/foxman-training-class.jpg

  • Daniel February 14, 2012, 3:09 AM

    I believe you are forgeting some of the context of israel’s supposed attacks against Iran. Did Iran not initate this “shadow-war” long before those attacks when it supported Hammas and Hizballah during the 90s or participated in the attack against the JCC in Argentina?

    • David February 14, 2012, 9:59 AM

      “Shadow-war” is an extension of real war and the “terror” groups are simply combatants in a war that Zionists instigated in any case, and almost every case. To the chicken and egg riddle, the answer is “the Zionists.”

      Isn’t it possible that the attack in India was Iranian in origin and was deliberately placed in that country to provide enhanced deniability for Iran? And this, with or without the Indian governments collusion.

  • Eliyahu February 14, 2012, 3:24 AM

    A missile base blew up, killing an IRG general

    I’ve got news for Eytan: they’re all civilians

    You keep using that word… I do not think it means what you think it means…

    • Richard Silverstein February 14, 2012, 12:50 PM

      I’ll make a deal with you. If you concede it would be OK for Iran or Hezbollah to assassinate an Israeli general, then it’s OK to assassinate an Iranian. Deal?

      • Marc February 14, 2012, 1:04 PM

        It is absolutely ok for all sides in the conflict to gun down each other’s military personnel with great abandon, relish and joy.

        In fact – I wish both (all? how many are there?) sides in this polylateral affair great successes.

        • Richard Silverstein February 14, 2012, 5:17 PM

          Frankly I don’t believe. As soon as Ehud Barak’s or Benny Gantz’s blood ran in the streets you’d be screaming for revenge. An IRG general’s blood? Not so much.

          • Marc February 14, 2012, 8:43 PM

            Now, now – you’re putting screams in my mouth :-)…

            I make no distinction between IDF and IRG generals’ blood. I might be more concerned for our (Israeli) rank and file, to a degree, but it is the military’s job to kill, be killed, wound, be wounded.

            Screaming for revenge is an inane occupation and I believe I am (still) immune to that.

      • Eliyahu February 14, 2012, 1:27 PM

        For Iran or Hezbollah to assasinate an Israeli general would be war, as would Israeli sabotage of Iranian military bases. I don’t know if that makes those “OK” or not in your book. But that those two are basically equivalent is obvious, why do you need me to agree to something obvious before you do as well?

        • Richard Silverstein February 14, 2012, 5:21 PM

          Yet Israel has destroyed Iranian missile bases & assassinated IRG generals & this has been confirmed by U.S. officials. So you’re saying Iran has the right to declare war on Israel based on these terror attacks against it? Because if you’re not saying that you’re a hypocrite.

          • Amir G February 15, 2012, 6:24 PM

            “& this has been confirmed by U.S. officials”

            To be exact it was confirmed by anonymous folks, not by US officials.

          • Richard Silverstein February 16, 2012, 12:49 AM

            Wrong again. Mark Perry made clear both in his article & in a phone conversation to me that while the sources were not named in the article, that they were U.S. government officials. Did you even bother to read Perry’s article? I wrote an entire post about it & linked to it: now go & read!

          • Amir G February 19, 2012, 3:33 PM

            What do you mean wrong again ?

            Did mark Perry publish the names of his sources ? no he didn’t they are still anonymous. It can be a low level official speculating, it can be a High level official on a psy-ops mission, and it can be the truth.
            Your argument is “Trust me, I Know, He told me”. This type of argument doesn’t hold water.

          • Richard Silverstein February 20, 2012, 12:55 AM

            Israeli journalists report ALL their stories based on anonymous sources. They virtually NEVER quote a named source. But that does not discredit the reporting or story (unless one has a hunch that the source or information is biased or fraudulent, which it sometimes is). It is very common in the U.S. to quote unnamed sources in intelligence reporting for obvious reasons.

            If you don’t accept the credibility of Mark Perry’s story it’s because you don’t like the substance of it & not because you doubt the identity of the sources. You just don’t like what they’re saying. But WHAT they’re saying is 100% accurate & has not been contradicted by any other story. If you have credible evidence from Israel or any other source you know that contradicts this story, offer it.

            Otherwise, you’re done in this thread & on this subject. And I mean it.

  • marc b. February 14, 2012, 6:00 AM

    you have a unique perspective, daniel, i’ll give you that. israel’s attacks on iranian nuclear scientists are ‘supposed’, but you have concluded without equivocation that iran participated in the jcc bombing in argentina.

    richard, i have a hard time believing that iran would have carried out the attempted assassination in new delhi just days after india affirms its intent to continue to deal in iranian oil, discounting arguments from the US to the contrary. if it did, it seems it would have to have had the okay from indian intelligence services. the timing of the attack has many in the press scratching their heads. from reuters today:

    ” India’s determination to pursue trade with Iran despite Western sanctions could be undermined as wary exporters back away from fresh deals following a bomb attack in New Delhi blamed on Tehran, a trade association chief said on Tuesday.

    India has struck a defiant tone over new financial sanctions imposed by the United States and European Union to punish Iran for its nuclear programme, coming up with elaborate trade and barter arrangements to pay for oil supplies.

    However, the president of the All India Rice Exporters’ Association, said Monday’s attack on the wife of an Israeli diplomat in the Indian capital will damage trade with Iran and may complicate efforts to resolve an impasse over Iranian defaults on payments for rice imports worth around $150 million.

    “The attack and its political fallout have clearly vitiated the atmosphere. Traders, who were already losing money due to payment defaults, will be extremely wary of continuing their trade with buyers in Iran,” Vijay Setia told Reuters.”

    bizarre.

  • pabelmont February 14, 2012, 6:43 AM

    Because a newish India-Iran oil deal has just been announced, to USA’s detriment and perhaps also Israel’s, this attack in India — so colorable as an attack by resurgent Iranian (intended headline: “Iran counter-attacks against Israel by bombings and against USA sanctions by trade-deal with India”) — could be a black-op from USA or Israel. Because it was timed for the Iran/India oil deal, it is also consistent with Israel’s general long-term systematic attack on Iran.

    The one bottom line that seems assured, today, is that no one of the three — USA, Israel, Iran — is fooling. And this is emphasized by the bombing whether we know “who done it” or not.

    • PersianAdvocate February 14, 2012, 8:51 AM

      I like to call it a “poor man’s magic show”. Cirque Du Soleil: Netanyahu – the Theater of the Absurd

  • lifelong February 14, 2012, 7:37 AM

    Now it definitely has False flag written all over it… ‘Iranians’ throwing bombs after botching an operation in a makeshift safehouse… The same people who allegedly systematically killed US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, are now throwing bombs at Taxi’s??

    First country to comment: Israel.

    He said Iran and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah were “unrelenting terror elements endangering the stability of the region and endangering the stability of the world”.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17026007

    Thai police says the bombers ‘COULD’ be Iranian. But the Israeli’s ‘know’ they’re Iranian.

    • editorsteve February 14, 2012, 7:11 PM

      I felt the same way until the Bangkok incident, reported here by English-language press in Thailand:

      http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/279816/iranian-injured-in-bangkok-bombs

      There were four Iranians and a bomb factory, the story says.

      All that said, I agree with Richard, of course. Targeting civilians is always wrong, period. Also, targeting combatants when civilians are endangered by such targeting is also contrary to international law unless the targeters are DIRECTLY threatened in the field.

      • PersianAdvocate February 14, 2012, 10:13 PM

        Also, Iranians were used to commit the assassinations in Iran by Israel.

  • Omar February 14, 2012, 8:27 AM

    ‘The stability of the world’. I absolutely love it.

    And of course what all this boils down to is that the Israelis make their bed and everybody on earth has to lie in it with them. Not me.

    I think if we willingly engage in this Israeli-orchestrated pantomime of blaming the Iranians for existing we will invite yet more disaster on our heads.

  • PersianAdvocate February 14, 2012, 8:45 AM

    Sorry, Richard, but this is a false flag for several reasons.

    1- The most obvious is that these terrorist actions occurred on Monday and Tuesday, the beginning of the weekly Western news cycle;

    2- Cost/Benefit Analyses fail epically on both the Monday and Tuesday Attacks:

    a- Monday/India – Iran had just signed deals that promised that India would help Iran avert the unfair sanctions against it. An act of terror in India’s territory would be contrary to all Iranian actions of mutual friendship by and between India. On the other hand, there is a faction that would like to see Iran ostracized and at war. By attacking in India, it is easily foreseeable that Iran would build sympathy for Israel worldwide when Iran was quickly gaining footing for being a victim of terrorism by the one who had long accused everyone else of terrorism.

    b-Tuesday/Thailand – Ehud Barak is coincidentally in Singapore. Here, the assailant carried with him DOCUMENTS (purportedly an Iranian passport (lol!!!!) according to YNetNews) to show that he was Iranian.

    c- the targets. Israeli diplomats are of what strategic value? In India? In Thailand? Wouldn’t it be more clever to, perhaps, try to do something to build Iranian sympathy and Israeli antipathy?

    3- Iranians are being again portrayed as toothless tigers and the implication here is that Israel now “has a right to retaliate”. Israel has successfully gotten anti-war voices to now switch to a context of “tit for tat” when really, it is just one party inflicting minimal damage on to itself to gain sympathy against another after having been uncovered as a true sponsor of terrorism against civilians in the Middle East.

    Intelligence games are best viewed at 10,000 feet my friend. If the Iranians wanted revenge, a 14 year old would light another hookah fire or it would be done so that Israel wouldn’t be able to point the finger so easily. Let’s be real.

    • PersianAdvocate February 14, 2012, 8:48 AM

      as to 2c above: aka hitting a target of SOME strategic value lol Israeli chauvinism shows in their false flags. They are still trying to portray the Iranians as know-nothing, reckless incompetents, and this is to their great detriment. Their actions are transparent and serve as inoculations to deterrence apparatus willing to avert their schemes.

  • chet380 February 14, 2012, 9:32 AM

    4. If this was an “Iranian state-sponsored terrorist attack” wouldn’t they have used a powerful bomb instead of the much less lethal grenades?

    • Richard Silverstein February 14, 2012, 12:48 PM

      I understand they were magnetic bombs of a similar type to the ones used to kill the Iranain scientists.

    • PersianAdvocate February 14, 2012, 1:33 PM

      No, I believe Iran would have used a much more subtle means than a bomb. That is a context established by Israel and Arabs, not Iran. Iran has relatively free reign in Thailand and India. There is no difficulty in setting up operations for softer-strategies, like kidnapping. There would be a lot more room for planning ahead such as to remove chance for error (blowing up your pantaloons, for instance).

      Israel has no reach in Iran. It has to operate via proxies, and even those proxies are completely strained because Iran is a secure State (its very revolution in 1979 is premised on removing foreign meddling from the country). That is why they had to resort to magnetic bombs on passing motorcycles.

  • Bob Mann February 14, 2012, 12:14 PM

    What is your response to the readers who believe this is a “false flag” operation?

    • lifelong February 14, 2012, 3:42 PM

      Lavon Affair. USS Liberty.

      Just a reminder in case you believe that Israel is too noble for dirty tactics…

    • Richard Silverstein February 14, 2012, 5:19 PM

      I don’t believe this claim especially in light to today’s developments in Thailand.

    • PersianAdvocate February 14, 2012, 10:20 PM

      If they can’t convince you on Monday, shove it down their throats on Thursday. The guy was basically wearing a sandwich board that said: “IM AN IRANIAN TERRORIST”

      The objectives of this event were clear and the reactions natural/predictable, and to think that Iran’s government would not perceive them is mistaken IMHO: gain sympathy for Israel/antipathy for Iran.

      Note: no one was killed. Stupid, pathetic Iranians. They now have every fair minded peace activist saying “tit for tat” instead of “wtf?” mission accomplished!

  • Denis February 14, 2012, 12:50 PM

    Smells like another rockets from Gaza run-up to Israeli retaliation. Did you ever notice how those rockets never hit anything in Israel but sand?

    • Joel February 15, 2012, 7:44 PM

      Denis.

      Did you ever notice that Hamas declared and launched military attacks on Israel 3 days before Israel declared and launched Operation Cast Lead?

      http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=207221

      • Richard Silverstein February 16, 2012, 12:52 AM

        Did you ever notice that Israel broke the ceasefire a month before the war by bombing a Gaza tunnel & killing 5 Hamas operatives. And that Hamas responded to this provocation with missile fire? Did you know that many Israeli analysts have said that Israel did so deliberately because it wanted a war with Hamas? No you didn’t notice that, did you? Wonder why.

        • Joel February 16, 2012, 10:27 AM

          A kidnap tunnel.
          The bombing of the kidnap tunnel killed one or two Hamas ops. The other Hamas ops died after they retalitated against Israel with missile fire and were bombed themselves.

          Why should Israel have left a Hamas kidnap tunnel on her border? They’d be crazy to leave it there.

          Wasn’t the construction of a kidnap tunnel a violation of the ceasefire?

          • Richard Silverstein February 17, 2012, 1:21 AM

            There was a ceasefire. Israel violated it. Israel never stated explicitly what the purpose of the tunnel was and certainly never stated that this one was designed for kidnapping. 5 Hamas operatives were killed in the bombing.

            And no the construction of a tunnel was not a violation of the ceasefire, but bombing Hamas positions & killing their operatives certainly was.

          • overlook February 17, 2012, 5:38 AM

            “There was a ceasefire”
            Correct.

            “Israel violated it”
            Wrong. Hamas violated the cease-fire by building a tunnel for kidnapping Israeli soldiers. The same thing happened in 2006, when Gilad Shalit was kidnapped in Israeli territory.

            “The purpose of the tunnel was and certainly never stated that this one was designed for kidnapping.”

            Wrong. The IDF stated at that time that the tunnel was designed for kidnapping. Also, the tunnel was going under Israeli territory. What were they going to do with it, give us flowers?
            http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c43_1225993932

            “And no the construction of a tunnel was not a violation of the ceasefire”

            Trying to kidnap a soldier of another country is a clear act of aggression and a violation of a cease-fire.

            “bombing Hamas positions & killing their operatives certainly was.”
            No. It is self defense.

          • Richard Silverstein February 17, 2012, 12:35 PM

            Look, we’re not going over this ground. We’ve been over it before. Entire articles have been written on this subject with far more careful marshalling of sources than you’ve offered which show there was a ceasefire which Israel violated repeatedly. We’ve also been over this ground in the comment threads here before. In fact, there is abundant evidence that Israel did this deliberately in order to provoke the war that Israel eventually started. You are off topic which violates the comment rules.

  • strangefriend February 14, 2012, 7:00 PM

    Juan Cole says the Indians place the attack on a Sunni group Indian Mujahidin http://www.juancole.com/2012/02/indian-investigators-do-not-suspect-iran-in-israel-embassy-blast.html

    • PersianAdvocate February 14, 2012, 10:23 PM

      yet, there is a target. trace the funding. then, make sure they werent told the $ came from someone else.