53 thoughts on “Israel-Iran Confrontation Enters Dangerous New Phase – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. I don’t think it’s fair reporting to take these reports of “Iranian” attacks at face value. The facts surrounding all of these incidents are very fishy. Note that they virtually all fail. In my opinion it is most likely Israel using its MEK Iranian assets to try to give it some help in the court of public opinion.

    1. How can the picture of the burning and blown up vehicle in New Delhi be reconciled with this report in the Jerusalem Post:

      “In the first attack, the wife of an Israeli diplomat was injured when a bomb exploded in her car in New Delhi, India. The woman succeeded in driving to the Israeli embassy where she was evacuated to a nearby hospital.”


      She supposedly had shrapnel in her spine and liver, but, according to other reports, was transported while under anesthesia to Israel for treatment, accompanied by two Israeli doctors who happened to be in New Delhi.


    2. “Which means that Iran is taking off the gloves and not even hiding behind a proxy, as Israel has done. ”
      Not every one is a state actor. Since Iranians are known for their skill with explosives, he sounds like an untrained idiot.
      And he tried to blow up a cab.
      What kind of target is that?

      As for the attack in India, they don’t think this was Iran.

  2. RE: “It’s a lose-lose for Israel though its hawks certainly don’t see it that way.” ~ R.S.

    SEE: The Dilemmas of Israeli Power, by Roger Cohen, New York Times Op-Ed, 2/13/12

    (excerpt)…Some of the most fascinating pages of “The Crisis of Zionism” [by Peter Beinart] trace the ideological backdrop to the bitter clash between Obama and Netanyahu. Beinart demonstrates the strong liberal Zionist influence of Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf on Obama during his Chicago years. Wolf hated the idea of “an Israel besieged by anti-Semites;” his teaching was “interfaith” and “integrationist.” It cleaved to the liberal roots of American Zionism and the ethical teachings of the prophets who, as expressed in Exodus, commanded Jews not to oppress strangers “having yourselves been strangers in the land of Egypt.”
    The contrast with Netanyahu — raised in the Jabotinsky strain of Zionism by a father who viewed Arabs as “semi-barbaric” and rejected an “emasculating moralism” in favor of a new warrior breed of Jew…

    ENTIRE OP-ED – http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/opinion/cohen-the-dilemmas-of-jewish-power.html

    P.S. FROM TED RALL, 07/22/10: …Umberto Eco’s 1995 essay “Eternal Fascism” describes the cult of action for its own sake under fascist regimes and movements: “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
    SOURCE – http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/22-1

    1. P.P.S. ALSO SEE: Did rightist NGO leader admit to being inspired by fascist thinkers?, by Yossi Gurvitz, +972 Magazine, 2/13/12

      (excerpts) Yesterday, the defense in the trial of Im Tirzu vs. the Facebook group “Im Tirzu – a fascist movement” presented its depositions. The plaintiff is the infamous right-wing group, the defendants are a group of leftist activists, the issue is libel. It began in 2010 when Ronen Shoval, chairman of Im Tirzu, sent the following email…
      …Among the depositions by the defense is one by Tomer Persico, who is a researcher of religions and the writer of one of the most important blogs on the issue in Israel..
      …In his deposition, Persico described a conversation with Shoval that took place a few months ago, as they were being interviewed by the paper Makor Rishon. In the recorded conversation, Persico told Shoval that he was surprised to see clear romantic German influences in a book by Shoval, and was surprised when the latter freely admitted it. Shoval said that “in my thesis, I dealt a lot with Ficthe, Schelling, Herder and George Sorel.” The latter is considered to be one of the inspirations of Italian fascism, and was fascinated by political violence: he praised Action Francaise, the nationalist movement which was a precursor of French fascism, he praised Mussolini – and Lenin, too., He was also an anti-Semite who spread the blood libel (though he was on the side of the angels in the Dreyfus Affair). This is, to say the least, a rather strange inspiration for the leader of a so-called neo-Zionist revival movement. Persico said he was “stunned.”
      Shoval, says Persico, claimed Persico was unkind in his review of his book, since when he used the ideas of Herder and Fichte about the organic nature of the volk, he was speaking metaphorically. Shoval said he didn’t put it quite that way in his book, since the purpose of the book “is to express ideas simplistically – I say, simplistically – ideas which are very deep… to make it clear to the multitude… the meaning of the word ‘Zionism’ today.” Persico claimed that such simplicity is dangerous and that it is typical of Im Tirzu’s activity; Shoval replied that “this is an issue of marketing strategies.”
      So, in the name of marketing strategies, Shoval is injecting volkist concepts into the Israeli mindset, concepts which originally – and he claims to know the original very well – have caused untold suffering both to the people they were injected into, to the minorities living among them, and to nearby nations…

      ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://972mag.com/im-tirzu-leader-admits-inspired-by-fascist-thinkers/35322/

    2. Like we say up here in Canada. that is to Israel “YOU MAKE YOUR BED YOU LIE IN IT” or “IF YOU ARE GOING TO PLAY YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY”No winners only loosers
      Governement sponsered terrorism is TERRORISM in my book

      1. OK, yeah . . . maybe there are folks here in Canada who say such things, but they don’t say them to Israel.

        Harper is so far up Bibi’s rear end he makes Obama look like Hasan Nasrallah. Fortunately, Canada is as impotent as the Israeli Supreme Court, so in terms of the world-picture Harper’s fawning amounts to nothing more than window-dressing.

        Canadians could care less about what’s going on in Israel, but the Canadian politicians sure love those shekels.

          1. Well, OK, serge . . . OBVIOUSLY you don’t play hockey.

            Me either. I’ve never seen a guy with a hockey stick that I would trust with my sister. (And she’s 65 yo.)

      2. I’m a Canadian also,see the priminister say an attack on Israel is like an attack on Canada.I lived here my entire life my granfather was in WW2 and I don’t know 1 Canadian that would agree.Israel starts the problems they need to deal with it.Canada needs to do what we were befor the 9/11 fauls flag and go back to peacekeeping.Are country was loved still is but not as much since Afganistan and Lybia,and statement like that by are so called leader.

    3. P.P.P.S. JABOTINSKY/WISSE*/NETANYAHU/: “Thinking”=”rational universalism”=”emasculating moralism”!!!

      *Ruth Wisse’s thesis that liberals betrayed the Jewish cause by believing too much in rational universalism

  3. P.S. FROM Dahlia Scheindlin, +972 Magazine, 2/14/12:

    (excerpts)…After two weeks in America visiting family and friends, two observations struck me powerfully. First, the understanding that Israel is committing terrible deeds that are destroying itself and its neighbors, has penetrated among you… …On this trip, I was stunned to learn that now you don’t even really want to visit Israel because you can’t face what you’re increasingly coming to see as a brutal occupying entity flirting with fascist notions
    …Here’s how that made me feel: abandoned, by the liberal Jews of America. You were swept away by Ruth Wisse’s thesis that liberals betrayed the Jewish cause by believing too much in rational universalism and failing to acknowledge the unique, everlasting threat of anti-Semitism…

    SOURCE – http://972mag.com/dear-liberal-american-jews-please-dont-betray-israel/35396/

  4. You called the MEK a “terror group” in this post. This is a label applied to them only by four countries, the US, Canada, Iran, and Iraq.

    The European Union, among others, does not consider the MEK to be a terror group.

    I am curious to know why you are coming down the way you do in this case, when, in the case of Hamas, which is designated as a terror group by the US, Canada, Israel, Japan, and the European Union, you feel less comfortable using that label.

    1. The MEK is on record for killing American civilians and officials. They have waged campaigns against civilians in Iran on the basis of creating provocations (shooting people in crowds and pretending to be the government) and sided with Saddam during his campaign during the 80s to unjustly invade Iran.

      They are beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt, a terror group. http://www.mekterror.com

      1. The European Union removed the group from its list of terrorist organizations in 2009.

        They have been asking the US to do the same since then.

        1. US Congress made insider trading legal for a long time. Your arguments lack moral basis, and the label of FTO is not to be politicized like the MEK has. I would suggest going to the site.

          Why do you support a terrorist organization KNOWN to have killed American civilians, Iranian civilians, and officials alike?

          1. I am not making an argument, and I have at no point expressed any support for this group. I am simply inquiring to get a better understanding.

            Why does the European Union (and most of the rest of the world) not consider the MEK to be a terrorist organization?

            Do you consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization as the EU, the US, Canada and others do?

          2. It could be because the MEK hoodwinked the EU into removing them from the terror list as they’re trying to do here in the U.S.

            Did you read that Robert Wright argues in The Atlantic that based on the MSNBC report by Richard Engel that Israel is a state sponsor of terror? That would put it in the same league as MEK.

            The difference between MEK & Hamas is that Hamas doesn’t currently engage in acts of terror & MEK (& Israel) does.

          3. You wrote that “Hamas doesn’t currently engage in acts of terror & MEK (& Israel) does” but Hamas has taken credit for such an attack as recently as 2010, in which a pregnant woman was killed, among others.

          4. Here is an excerpt and link to the incident in 2010 that I was referencing:

            The military wing of Hamas has claimed responsibility for a shooting that killed four Israelis near Hebron in the occupied West Bank.

            At least one gunman opened fire on a car driving on Highway 60 near the Kiryat Arba settlement on Tuesday.

            The Qassam Brigades, the military wing of the Hamas movement, claimed responsibility for the attack in a short statement posted on its website, and said it would be the first in a “series of operations” in the West Bank.

            Israseli rescue services said the victims were two men and two women, and that one of the women was pregnant.


          5. @Bob Mann,

            I consider Hamas to be a resistance organization that has resorted to committing acts of terrorism for its cause. It is an organization that was factually upstarted and funded by Israel with the same charter to counterweight Arafat’s PLO. Palestine’s representative bodies has criminals within and they should be separated and held accountable.

            I consider Israel to be an ethnotheocracy posing as a democracy and practicing what would be textbook tiered class citizenship, or better said, apartheid, which has committed terrorist acts. Israel’s government has criminals and they should be held accountable.

            I consider Iran to be a nationalistic theocracy built under a paradigm of resisting foreign meddling, which has committed terrorist acts to support its cause. Iran’s government has individuals in it that have also done wrongs, which the judicial branch of that government would not disagree were criminal acts once investigated, and they should be held accountable.

            The US is nascent feudalistic theocracy disguised as a representative democracy in the form of a republic. Both parties are controlled by powerful interests that seduce constituents based on good intentions. The Democrats seek a bigger welfare government while reducing commercial rights. The Republicans seek a bigger police state government while reducing individual rights. In both cases, the Constitution, the very spirit of which enumerates the very boundaries or limitations of any potential government, has been discarded for short-term interests and slogans.

  5. try this distinction on for size, bob. hamas won parliamentary elections and administers civil society withiin distinct, recognized geographic borders. and your numbers game is besides the point. the US does identify MEK as a terrorist group, yet US ‘ally’ israel, and american supporters of israel, provide material and moral support for that group. that’s the rub.

    1. “hamas won parliamentary elections and administers civil society within”.

      So? They administer a civil society AND launch attacks against Israeli civilians. They’re still a terrorist organization. As for their legal status, you are comfortably forgetting that Hamas overthrew the semi-Democratic PA regime in Gaza through a bloody coup which left 165 Fatah members dead, many of whom were executed. Their rule in Gaza is illegal.


      1. geez, thanks for the wiki link. and you conveniently forget that hamas’s victory in parliamentary elections was immediately undermined by US/israel (as both governments readily admitted at the time), as if it is their prerogative to decide who palestinians elect to run their government. the campaign to destabilize the hamas government and force new elections began immediately after hamas won a majority of seats in an election european observers described as fair, transparent, free of violence and consistent with european standards. and you conveniently forget the documented history of terrorism that the lead to the establishment of the israeli state, to include the murder of british officials, palestinian civilians, and jews who were insufficiently strident in their zionism.

        1. Even if we’ll accept your definition
          There is a huge difference between attacking Key Figures and in Iranian nuclear program, to attacking Diplomats who are are protected by International law.

          but i guess International law come’s handy only for bashing the state of Israel, all other states are exempt.

          1. Isn’t it interesting how international law becomes a sacred cow for you as long as it promotes yr interest. But when it doesn’t as in settlements, the Occupation, or Gaza siege, then it’s something you scorn. Make up yr mind. Can’t have it both ways.

          2. Are we talking about the same Gaza siege the report of Sir Geoffrey Palmer found legal and acceptable from the international law point of view ?

            And the settlements ? Illegal by international law ? since when ? disputed is the right term.

            You are the one who should make up his mind, and as i already told you, i am no right-winger. right of you of course, but Brit-Shalom in who’s spirit you preach were left of everyone.

            If you want some reading material on the subject please read Dr. NICHOLAS ROSTOW – Are the Settlements Illegal?

            Dr. Rostow’s credential with respect to international law, are far better then mine. And i believe they are better then yours as well.

          3. The only country that welcomed the Palmer rpt. was Israel. Turkey rejected it. It sunk like a stone to the bottom of a well. Palmer & the other members of his committee were pro-Israel & the rpt was pro Israel. But now that you mention it the rpt told Israel to end the siege, but somehow it didn’t. So what you’re saying is that Israel accepted the portions of his report it liked & ignored the rest, which is precisely how yr arguments about international law work: take what you need & leave the rest.

            The settlements are ILLEGAL. The U.S. says so. Every major nation in the world except Israel says so.

          4. You forget 2 things :
            1. UN Secretary General accepted the report, and so did the US, the EU, Canada, Australia, New Zeland, etc. don’t be making arguments on behalf of of the entire world it sounds kind of ridiculous.

            2. As for the settlements and US stands on the subject. Since when do you care what the US stand on anything is ? US defines Hamas as a terror organization, you think that are legit. So why don’t YOU make up your mind on the subject ? Which US definition you accept ?

          5. I don’t recall any country specifically “accepting” the report though I could see why the countries whose personnel were on the committee compiling it would.

            As for settlements, it isn’t just the U.S. which finds they violate international law. The entire world does except Israel.

          6. Do you recall any country – other then turkey and some of the arab states – who rejected the report ?

          7. “No countries except Turkey or Israel accepted OR rejected it. That’s not how countries deal with such international rpts”

            You noted correctly that the report was made to give the international community the necessary background and define whether or not the Israeli operation Re: Marmara was conducted with accordance to the international law.

            having that knowledge didn’t stop you from saying the following:
            “The only country that welcomed the Palmer rpt. was Israel. Turkey rejected it. It sunk like a stone to the bottom of a well”

            The statement above has no validity what so ever, based on your later statements.
            so which one is right ?

          8. You claimed many countries endorsed the report. I responded by saying Israel was the only country that endorsed it. Next time you might actually include the context in which I make statements. I don’t appreciate someone trying to make my statements appear to be saying something they’re not.

            Israel endorsed the report, Turkey rejected it. That’s the upshot.

    1. Why is it I wonder that you crow whenever a Hamas leader makes a statement proving how extremist the group is. But when a leader like Khaled Meshal voices a far more moderate view, then you ignore it. Clearly there is a struggle going on intnally within Hamas and thanks to Israel’s intransigence the radicals appear to be winning T this time. Which is great fornyour side because you can continue denying Palestinian basic rights with the bogus argument that all Palestinians are fire breathing exterminationists.

      1. “Khaled Meshal voices a far more moderate view”

        No he didn’t, even he was unwilling to recognize the existence of the state of Israel, all he’s was willing to accept is the 1967 borders as a temporary / long term without declaring the end of conflict.

        Besides, i am sure that as one who monitors the conflict so closely you do know that Khaled Meshal will not be seeking re-election.

        1. Wrong again. Khaled said he would accept 67 borders and did not invoke a hudna or takdiya at all. He does not have to recognize israel because he isn’t the Paestinian govt, which is the body which will recognize Israel. BTW, Bibi doesn’t recognize Palestine either. So I’ll get worked up about Hamas when Bibi recognizes Palestine.

          Khaled is stepping down because of the internal divisions about which I spoke. The more pragmatic Hamas leader is being sidelined because of Israel’s ongoing intransigence. So get ready for more war. It’s coming.

      2. Of course, it’s Israel’s fault that “the radicals appear to be winning.” Couldn’t be due to the fact they represent the movement’s religiously driven ideology, enshrined in its charter, and any deviation from this would require a dramatic ideological shift.
        Richard, I gave up on you once I realized that your “insight” ends once the facts don’t fit your worldview. One can oppose the settlements and have a very negative opinion of Netanyahu, and yet still recognize that there are actually people out there who are willing to kill Israelis as well as themselves in the belief that they’ll destroy the state. Once you’re able to accommodate the complexities of real life maybe you’ll be worth reading.

        1. So you’re admitting one of two things: you claim that I’m not worth reading yet have read enough of the post to have an opinion on it; or you read nothing of the post which means your comment isn’t even worth the toilet paper it isn’t writtten on. Either way you’re a hypocrite.

      3. this makes as much sense as this view:

        “Clearly there is a struggle going on intnally within Israel and thanks to Iran/hamas/hizbulla/PLO’s intransigence the radicals appear to be winning T this time”

  6. “This denotes urgency on Iran’s part to get its own covert war against Israeli targets into high gear.”

    If you bite the bait that Iran would take the gloves off like this without actually going after strategic targets. Why a diplomat’s wife and then none-Israeli targets, for instance, in Thailand? When Iran does things, they are measured and subtle. For instance, a blimp hitting Israel’s secret air force base. When Israel tries to pin things on Iran, it is done via a kangaroo court in Buenos Aires. All of a sudden international courts are at the Hague are a no-go for a State that pretty much bends and resists the UN and international bodies as it pleases.

    So, you propose that Iran took its gloves off and did so in a way that would clearly create Israel sympathy and Iranian antipathy, and also strain Iran’s relationship with India, a country that just recently helped Iran bypass sanctions based on Israeli lies and speculation, coercion and corruption of foreign officials?

    As you are entitled to your opinion, I respectfully disagree.

    1. I’d have to agree. The Indian Authorities today stated that the New Delhi attack would have no impact on trade relations with Iran.

      That’s not the posturing of a government that’s still weighing the possibilities of an Iranian involvement.

      1. From a 10,000 foot level: these were tactics designed to

        1- alleviate revelations from both MSNBC and Foreign Policy (CFR’s mouthpiece) that Israel commits not only terrorism, supports it against civilians by paid proxies, and tries to pass it off as the work of the CIA in false flag operations;
        2- distract from Andrew Adler’s “matter of fact” writings of sleeper Mossad agents in the USA ready to assassinate President Obama for Israel’s interests (causing war with Iran);
        3- create sympathy for Israel and antipathy for Iran.

        The narrative now is a tit for tat rather than what it should really be: Israel has been creating a false narrative and context for yet another one of its foreign policy relationships. Duh.

        1. Meir Dagan spelled out exactly who it was that was seeking a war with Iran and would do it at any cost. He felt compelled to come out about it. Examining this, you will see those individuals flexing there muscles here. This is what they are capable of and willing to do to take the US to war with Iran.

  7. and this from ‘the asian age’ via juan cole, wherein indian investigators believe that the signature of the attack suggests that it may be the work of an indian ‘muslim module’ rather than the iranians.


    i don’t necessarily know that this is part of a false flag program as some say, but is far from clear than it is iran. it doesn’t make sense operationally or pollitically from what i can see.

  8. This reeks of false flag.

    While Israel benefits a lot by killing essential nuclear scientists/managers in the heart of the Tehran, How would Iran benefit from half-ass unsuccessful operations in countries that are not enemies of Iran against unimportant Israeli targets?

    Only Israel benefits from the propaganda.

    1- Injuring wife of an Israeli diplomat in India and several local people at a time that Iran needs India the most for exporting oil in face of European/American embargo

    2- In Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, an explosive device was discovered on the car of a local staff member of the Israeli Embassy, but was defused by the police.

    3- An Iranian man was seriously wounded in Bangkok on Tuesday when a bomb he was carrying exploded and blew one of his legs off in an incident Israel said was an attempted terrorist attack by Iran.
    Shortly beforehand, there had been an explosion in a house the man was renting.

    As you can see there was no serious harm to any important Israeli person or interest. But the news serves to demonize Iran and justify an attack against the country.

  9. Not sure why we are taking the claims of the Israeli’s at face value – the fact that these men were Iranian hardly means they were acting on behalf of the government.

  10. mossad takes control of the crime scene:

    “New Delhi, Feb. 15: The National Security Guard (NSG) was not allowed to gather forensic samples from the Israel embassy car blast site near the Prime Minister’s house on Monday because of “some diplomatic reasons”, a senior official said today.

    The disclosure came on a day an Israeli team, including Mossad officials, met Indian investigators and provided inputs, including a suggestion that a local module could have used a magnetic bomb supplied from abroad.

    “It was very weird that our post-blast study team was not allowed to visit the site and gather samples, citing some diplomatic reasons. Our experts, whose only job is to study and conduct research based on collected samples, were denied this opportunity,” the official added.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link