O conflito ja é praticamente certo e garantido ja faz alguns meses.
È apenas questão de tempos esses ataques de 1 lado pro outro ou a confirmação de que o tempo ta esgotando forçarem um dos lados a agir.
A muito tempo isso saiu do ponto em que 1 país vai andar pra tras. Todos os lados são orgulhosos d+ pra isso.
Irã tem como se defender de Israel?
Moderador: Conselho de Moderação
-
Sterrius
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 5140
- Registrado em: Sex Ago 01, 2008 1:28 pm
- Agradeceu: 115 vezes
- Agradeceram: 323 vezes
Re: Irã tem como se defender de Israel?
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 77,00.html
+1 materia.
Pena que ele é minoria.
+1 materia.
EXcelente materia por sinal. Me surpreendi com a entrevista.'Religion now more dangerous than Arabs'
Rabbi David Hartman, teacher and rebel, is celebrating his 80th birthday and cannot believe the kind of Judaism developing around him: 'Instead of creating a new humanity, Religious Zionism leaders are fighting over stones and verses'
Pena que ele é minoria.
-
rodrigo
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 12891
- Registrado em: Dom Ago 22, 2004 8:16 pm
- Agradeceu: 221 vezes
- Agradeceram: 424 vezes
Re: Irã tem como se defender de Israel?
America, Israel and Iran - no way out
If Obama can't stand up to Iran and Israel, he will set the US on a direct path to another Middle East war.
US Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta made some perhaps unintentionally interesting remarks regarding US policy toward Iran earlier this month, and it is fair to suppose that the venue in which he made them was not accidental.
Each year, the Brookings Institution, a prominent US think-tank, hosts the Saban Forum, a gathering of US and Israeli officials, along with the usual retinue of journalists, academics and observers, to discuss issues of common interest and concern. This year's theme was "Strategic Challenges in the New Middle East", and participants sought to focus thought and discussion, in the Saban Centre's words, "... on historic shifts... and their implication for US-Israeli security and interests in the Middle East region".
Of course, the tacit assumption that US and Israeli interests in the region are somehow mystically conjoined is an increasingly dangerous one, and a fallacy that the Saban Forum, like other such Washington confabs, does much to promote.
Other "strategic challenges" in the Middle East notwithstanding, the threat posed by Iran's apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons hung like an incubus over this year's proceedings, and in addressing those concerns in his keynote speech, Secretary Panetta delivered the sort of mixed message which Israeli officials have come to expect from the Obama administration.
Standing before huge Israeli and US flags, the secretary delivered prepared remarks in which he strongly asserted that "determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons" was one of three "pillars" of US policy in the region. And while he extolled the importance and encouraging efficacy of diplomatic and economic sanctions, and carefully noted that resort to military force must be a last, and not a first option, Panetta also pointedly stressed that the administration had "not taken any options off the table".
His department, he said, would be charged with preparation of a military option if so requested by the commander in chief, and would not shrink from doing so. All in all, it was a vigorous, straightforward restatement of administration policy, designed to reassure an Israeli audience.
But in response to questions, the defence secretary said perhaps more than he intended, revealing more of the administration's true thinking than would have passed muster in his cleared remarks. A military strike on Iran, he said, would not destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions, but only delay them - perhaps a year or two at best. The relevant targets, he added "are very difficult to get at".
Obama wedded to containment?
And against such limited and tenuous gains, one would have to weigh some daunting unintended consequences: a regional backlash which would end Iran's isolation and generate popular political support for its clerical regime both at home and abroad; attacks against US military assets and interests in the region; and "severe economic consequences" - read: sharply increased oil prices - which would undermine fragile economies in the US and Europe. Finally, he said, initiation of hostilities could produce "an escalation... that would not only involve many lives, but ... could consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret (emphasis added)".
Hardly a ringing call to arms, that.
William A Galston, a Senior Fellow at Brookings who attended this year's Forum, has written perceptively for The New Republic about Israeli reactions to it. Apparently, the studied ambiguity which the administration is attempting to maintain regarding its willingness to employ military force against Iran is not having the intended effect on its chosen audience - which is not the Iranians, but the Israelis.
According to Galston, among the many Israelis of differing political stripes with whom he spoke at the conference, no one - not one - believed that the Obama administration would ever exercise a military option to prevent Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon. Obama, they have concluded, is wedded to a containment policy; if Iran were nonetheless to acquire a nuclear capability, they are convinced, his administration would reconfigure its containment policy to suit.
As Galston points out, this is completely unacceptable to the Israelis. For them, a nuclearised Iran poses an existential threat which they - unike the Americans - literally will not tolerate. This fact is recognised within the administration, and particularly within the US Department of Defence, with which potential hostilities with Iran, however initiated, would be its responsibility to deal.
No one really paying attention should be surprised by this. Just days before the Panetta speech at Brookings, General Martin Dempsey, the US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, gave a notable interview in which he made clear that, while the US sees sanctions and diplomatic pressure as the prudent course to pursue vis-a-vis Iran, "I'm not sure the Israelis share our assessment of that. And because they don't and because to them this is an existential threat, I think probably that it's fair to say that our expectations are different right now."
Asked whether he thought Israel would inform the US before striking Iran, Dempsey responded, "I don't know." That is political-military speak for "No".
In short, current US policy, as the Israelis understand it - and as opposed to how it is being articulated by the administration - is unacceptable to Israel. This is no doubt troubling to them, but not a grave concern, for two reasons. First, the Israelis need not rely on the US to initiate hostilities with Iran, if it should come to that. They can do so themselves, confident that the US will then be forced to deal with the consequences, including the Iranian retaliation which Panetta described and all would expect.
Weakened by rhetoric
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the Israelis know that they can pursue such a course, in extremis, without serious fear of repercussions, including a cutoff of US support - diplomatic, military, or otherwise. They know that, where Israel is concerned, policy is not made in the White House, and still less at the Pentagon. It is made in Congress, which stands in thrall to Israel.
Remember, this is an administration which thought it could pressure Israel into abandoning its illegal settlement programme and making a just peace with the Palestinians; it has since been taught a political lesson which it is unlikely to forget.
And so, in this as in all other instances, the White House, bereft of effective sticks, is reduced to importuning the Israelis, trying to convince them of the seriousness of US purpose in confronting Iran and the effectiveness of its current sanctions policy, while hoping against hope that the Israelis would not take the sort of precipitate action which all would eventually come to regret.
In making its case to the Israelis, moreover, the White House' domestic political position is being further weakened by its own rhetoric. The president and senior administration officials know that Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel, and that the Iranians are anything but impervious to the overwhelming nuclear retaliatory threat which Israel poses.
In fact, the Iranian drive for a nuclear weapons capability has relatively little to do with Israel, and much to do with the threat posed by Washington, whose ability to intervene at will in the region with overwhelming conventional force has been amply demonstrated three times in the past 20 years.
The White House dares not say this, however, lest it convey weakness to Iran and a lack of resolve both to Israel and to its political critics in the US. Indeed, Secretary Panetta was back at it in his address to the Saban Forum when, after making reference to Iran's support for terrorists, he asserted that "... a nuclear weapon would be devastating if they had that capability".
Having hyped the Iranian threat incessantly for the past three years, asserting that an Iranian nuclear weapon would have devastating and unacceptable consequences for US interests, the administration has put itself politically in a position from which it cannot escape on its own.
The president's Republican adversaries are parroting the same rhetoric, and fairly slavering at the chance to brand him as soft on the Iranian threat; even his Democratic colleagues would quickly abandon him if forced to make a choice, as the recent Senate vote on toughening Iran sanctions, which went considerably further than the administration wanted, has made clear.
Thus does Obama find himself effectively in a corner.
He has bet everything on the efficacy of a sanctions policy toward Iran, and while it may succeed, very few experts believe it can. The putatively most powerful man in the world is now hostage to the whims of Israel and Iran, foreign countries neither of which he can control. Unless one of them chooses to release him, there is no way out save moving forward, on a direct path to war.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 90801.html
If Obama can't stand up to Iran and Israel, he will set the US on a direct path to another Middle East war.
US Secretary of Defence Leon Panetta made some perhaps unintentionally interesting remarks regarding US policy toward Iran earlier this month, and it is fair to suppose that the venue in which he made them was not accidental.
Each year, the Brookings Institution, a prominent US think-tank, hosts the Saban Forum, a gathering of US and Israeli officials, along with the usual retinue of journalists, academics and observers, to discuss issues of common interest and concern. This year's theme was "Strategic Challenges in the New Middle East", and participants sought to focus thought and discussion, in the Saban Centre's words, "... on historic shifts... and their implication for US-Israeli security and interests in the Middle East region".
Of course, the tacit assumption that US and Israeli interests in the region are somehow mystically conjoined is an increasingly dangerous one, and a fallacy that the Saban Forum, like other such Washington confabs, does much to promote.
Other "strategic challenges" in the Middle East notwithstanding, the threat posed by Iran's apparent pursuit of nuclear weapons hung like an incubus over this year's proceedings, and in addressing those concerns in his keynote speech, Secretary Panetta delivered the sort of mixed message which Israeli officials have come to expect from the Obama administration.
Standing before huge Israeli and US flags, the secretary delivered prepared remarks in which he strongly asserted that "determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons" was one of three "pillars" of US policy in the region. And while he extolled the importance and encouraging efficacy of diplomatic and economic sanctions, and carefully noted that resort to military force must be a last, and not a first option, Panetta also pointedly stressed that the administration had "not taken any options off the table".
His department, he said, would be charged with preparation of a military option if so requested by the commander in chief, and would not shrink from doing so. All in all, it was a vigorous, straightforward restatement of administration policy, designed to reassure an Israeli audience.
But in response to questions, the defence secretary said perhaps more than he intended, revealing more of the administration's true thinking than would have passed muster in his cleared remarks. A military strike on Iran, he said, would not destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions, but only delay them - perhaps a year or two at best. The relevant targets, he added "are very difficult to get at".
Obama wedded to containment?
And against such limited and tenuous gains, one would have to weigh some daunting unintended consequences: a regional backlash which would end Iran's isolation and generate popular political support for its clerical regime both at home and abroad; attacks against US military assets and interests in the region; and "severe economic consequences" - read: sharply increased oil prices - which would undermine fragile economies in the US and Europe. Finally, he said, initiation of hostilities could produce "an escalation... that would not only involve many lives, but ... could consume the Middle East in a confrontation and a conflict that we would regret (emphasis added)".
Hardly a ringing call to arms, that.
William A Galston, a Senior Fellow at Brookings who attended this year's Forum, has written perceptively for The New Republic about Israeli reactions to it. Apparently, the studied ambiguity which the administration is attempting to maintain regarding its willingness to employ military force against Iran is not having the intended effect on its chosen audience - which is not the Iranians, but the Israelis.
According to Galston, among the many Israelis of differing political stripes with whom he spoke at the conference, no one - not one - believed that the Obama administration would ever exercise a military option to prevent Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon. Obama, they have concluded, is wedded to a containment policy; if Iran were nonetheless to acquire a nuclear capability, they are convinced, his administration would reconfigure its containment policy to suit.
As Galston points out, this is completely unacceptable to the Israelis. For them, a nuclearised Iran poses an existential threat which they - unike the Americans - literally will not tolerate. This fact is recognised within the administration, and particularly within the US Department of Defence, with which potential hostilities with Iran, however initiated, would be its responsibility to deal.
No one really paying attention should be surprised by this. Just days before the Panetta speech at Brookings, General Martin Dempsey, the US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, gave a notable interview in which he made clear that, while the US sees sanctions and diplomatic pressure as the prudent course to pursue vis-a-vis Iran, "I'm not sure the Israelis share our assessment of that. And because they don't and because to them this is an existential threat, I think probably that it's fair to say that our expectations are different right now."
Asked whether he thought Israel would inform the US before striking Iran, Dempsey responded, "I don't know." That is political-military speak for "No".
In short, current US policy, as the Israelis understand it - and as opposed to how it is being articulated by the administration - is unacceptable to Israel. This is no doubt troubling to them, but not a grave concern, for two reasons. First, the Israelis need not rely on the US to initiate hostilities with Iran, if it should come to that. They can do so themselves, confident that the US will then be forced to deal with the consequences, including the Iranian retaliation which Panetta described and all would expect.
Weakened by rhetoric
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the Israelis know that they can pursue such a course, in extremis, without serious fear of repercussions, including a cutoff of US support - diplomatic, military, or otherwise. They know that, where Israel is concerned, policy is not made in the White House, and still less at the Pentagon. It is made in Congress, which stands in thrall to Israel.
Remember, this is an administration which thought it could pressure Israel into abandoning its illegal settlement programme and making a just peace with the Palestinians; it has since been taught a political lesson which it is unlikely to forget.
And so, in this as in all other instances, the White House, bereft of effective sticks, is reduced to importuning the Israelis, trying to convince them of the seriousness of US purpose in confronting Iran and the effectiveness of its current sanctions policy, while hoping against hope that the Israelis would not take the sort of precipitate action which all would eventually come to regret.
In making its case to the Israelis, moreover, the White House' domestic political position is being further weakened by its own rhetoric. The president and senior administration officials know that Iran does not pose an existential threat to Israel, and that the Iranians are anything but impervious to the overwhelming nuclear retaliatory threat which Israel poses.
In fact, the Iranian drive for a nuclear weapons capability has relatively little to do with Israel, and much to do with the threat posed by Washington, whose ability to intervene at will in the region with overwhelming conventional force has been amply demonstrated three times in the past 20 years.
The White House dares not say this, however, lest it convey weakness to Iran and a lack of resolve both to Israel and to its political critics in the US. Indeed, Secretary Panetta was back at it in his address to the Saban Forum when, after making reference to Iran's support for terrorists, he asserted that "... a nuclear weapon would be devastating if they had that capability".
Having hyped the Iranian threat incessantly for the past three years, asserting that an Iranian nuclear weapon would have devastating and unacceptable consequences for US interests, the administration has put itself politically in a position from which it cannot escape on its own.
The president's Republican adversaries are parroting the same rhetoric, and fairly slavering at the chance to brand him as soft on the Iranian threat; even his Democratic colleagues would quickly abandon him if forced to make a choice, as the recent Senate vote on toughening Iran sanctions, which went considerably further than the administration wanted, has made clear.
Thus does Obama find himself effectively in a corner.
He has bet everything on the efficacy of a sanctions policy toward Iran, and while it may succeed, very few experts believe it can. The putatively most powerful man in the world is now hostage to the whims of Israel and Iran, foreign countries neither of which he can control. Unless one of them chooses to release him, there is no way out save moving forward, on a direct path to war.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinio ... 90801.html
"O correr da vida embrulha tudo,
a vida é assim: esquenta e esfria,
aperta e daí afrouxa,
sossega e depois desinquieta.
O que ela quer da gente é coragem."
João Guimarães Rosa
a vida é assim: esquenta e esfria,
aperta e daí afrouxa,
sossega e depois desinquieta.
O que ela quer da gente é coragem."
João Guimarães Rosa
-
rodrigo
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 12891
- Registrado em: Dom Ago 22, 2004 8:16 pm
- Agradeceu: 221 vezes
- Agradeceram: 424 vezes
Re: Irã tem como se defender de Israel?
Irã anunciou que vai levar tudo que for possível de seu programa nuclear para debaixo da terra. Depois dessas combustões espontâneas...
"O correr da vida embrulha tudo,
a vida é assim: esquenta e esfria,
aperta e daí afrouxa,
sossega e depois desinquieta.
O que ela quer da gente é coragem."
João Guimarães Rosa
a vida é assim: esquenta e esfria,
aperta e daí afrouxa,
sossega e depois desinquieta.
O que ela quer da gente é coragem."
João Guimarães Rosa
-
FOXTROT
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 7685
- Registrado em: Ter Set 16, 2008 1:53 pm
- Localização: Caçapava do Sul/RS.
- Agradeceu: 264 vezes
- Agradeceram: 106 vezes
Re: Irã tem como se defender de Israel?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
terra.com.br
Irã prepara atividade nuclear subterrânea, dizem fontes
14 de dezembro de 2011 • 18h35 • atualizado às 19h48
O Irã pode iniciar em breve atividades nucleares estratégicas em uma instalação escavada dentro de uma montanha, disseram fontes diplomáticas nesta quarta-feira, em uma notícia que deve causar ainda mais preocupação para os países que exigem o fim dessas atividades.
O bunker em questão fica em Fordow, perto da cidade sagrada de Qom. As fontes disseram que equipamentos e matérias-primas já foram transferidos para lá, à espera de uma decisão do governo para dar início à atividade de enriquecimento de urânio em alto grau.
Até agora, o enriquecimento acontecia sobre a superfície, em outro local. "Eles estão prontos para começar a alimentar", disse uma fonte diplomática, referindo-se à colocação nas centrífugas de gás urânio baixamente enriquecido, num processo que eleva o seu grau de pureza.
O urânio, dependendo do nível de enriquecimento, pode ser usado para alimentar reatores nucleares ou para a produção de armas atômicas. Os Estados Unidos e seus aliados acusam o Irã de tentar desenvolver secretamente a tecnologia de armas nucleares, algo que Teerã nega, dizendo que sua intenção é apenas gerar energia para fins pacíficos.
Shannon Kile, especialista em proliferação de armas nucleares, observou que meses atrás o Irã já havia anunciado a transferência das suas atividades mais estratégicas de enriquecimento para Fordow, mas que o início desse trabalho propriamente dito seria algo significativo. "Obviamente, para as pessoas que estão preocupadas com a capacidade do Irã para 'escapar' e enriquecer (urânio) até o grau necessário ao uso em armas, esse é um grande passo no caminho", disse Kile, que trabalha no Instituto Internacional de Estocolmo para a Pesquisa da Paz.
O Irã anunciou em 2010 que pretendia elevar o nível de enriquecimento do seu urânio de 3,5 para 20 por cento, e que esse material adicionalmente enriquecido seria usado para repor os estoques do combustível de um reator de pesquisas médicas.
A notícia preocupou o Ocidente, embora o uso em armas nucleares exija urânio enriquecido a quase 90 por cento. EUA e Israel dizem não descartar uma ação militar para impedir o Irã de manter seu programa de enriquecimento.
A principal usina iraniana de enriquecimento fica na cidade de Natanz, no centro do país. A liderança do país disse em junho que iria transferir o enriquecimento de alto grau para Fordow, aproveitando sua maior capacidade e a maior proteção contra um eventual bombardeio.
Nesta quarta-feira, um comandante da Guarda Revolucionária (força de elite do Exército iraniano) disse à agência semioficial de notícias Mehr que o Irã irá, se necessário, transferir suas instalações de enriquecimento de urânio para locais mais seguros. Ele não entrou em detalhes sobre isso.
"Só os mortos conhecem o fim da guerra" Platão.
Re: Irã tem como se defender de Israel?
Quem será essa fonte diplomática...FOXTROT escreveu:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
terra.com.br
Irã prepara atividade nuclear subterrânea, dizem fontes
14 de dezembro de 2011 • 18h35 • atualizado às 19h48
O Irã pode iniciar em breve atividades nucleares estratégicas em uma instalação escavada dentro de uma montanha, disseram fontes diplomáticas nesta quarta-feira, em uma notícia que deve causar ainda mais preocupação para os países que exigem o fim dessas atividades.
O bunker em questão fica em Fordow, perto da cidade sagrada de Qom. As fontes disseram que equipamentos e matérias-primas já foram transferidos para lá, à espera de uma decisão do governo para dar início à atividade de enriquecimento de urânio em alto grau.
Até agora, o enriquecimento acontecia sobre a superfície, em outro local. "Eles estão prontos para começar a alimentar", disse uma fonte diplomática, referindo-se à colocação nas centrífugas de gás urânio baixamente enriquecido, num processo que eleva o seu grau de pureza.
O urânio, dependendo do nível de enriquecimento, pode ser usado para alimentar reatores nucleares ou para a produção de armas atômicas. Os Estados Unidos e seus aliados acusam o Irã de tentar desenvolver secretamente a tecnologia de armas nucleares, algo que Teerã nega, dizendo que sua intenção é apenas gerar energia para fins pacíficos.
Shannon Kile, especialista em proliferação de armas nucleares, observou que meses atrás o Irã já havia anunciado a transferência das suas atividades mais estratégicas de enriquecimento para Fordow, mas que o início desse trabalho propriamente dito seria algo significativo. "Obviamente, para as pessoas que estão preocupadas com a capacidade do Irã para 'escapar' e enriquecer (urânio) até o grau necessário ao uso em armas, esse é um grande passo no caminho", disse Kile, que trabalha no Instituto Internacional de Estocolmo para a Pesquisa da Paz.
O Irã anunciou em 2010 que pretendia elevar o nível de enriquecimento do seu urânio de 3,5 para 20 por cento, e que esse material adicionalmente enriquecido seria usado para repor os estoques do combustível de um reator de pesquisas médicas.
A notícia preocupou o Ocidente, embora o uso em armas nucleares exija urânio enriquecido a quase 90 por cento. EUA e Israel dizem não descartar uma ação militar para impedir o Irã de manter seu programa de enriquecimento.
A principal usina iraniana de enriquecimento fica na cidade de Natanz, no centro do país. A liderança do país disse em junho que iria transferir o enriquecimento de alto grau para Fordow, aproveitando sua maior capacidade e a maior proteção contra um eventual bombardeio.
Nesta quarta-feira, um comandante da Guarda Revolucionária (força de elite do Exército iraniano) disse à agência semioficial de notícias Mehr que o Irã irá, se necessário, transferir suas instalações de enriquecimento de urânio para locais mais seguros. Ele não entrou em detalhes sobre isso.
-
Túlio
- Site Admin
- Mensagens: 61474
- Registrado em: Sáb Jul 02, 2005 9:23 pm
- Localização: Tramandaí, RS, Brasil
- Agradeceu: 6305 vezes
- Agradeceram: 6656 vezes
- Contato:
Re: Irã tem como se defender de Israel?
Sei lá eu, essa de dizer exatamente onde pretendem botar as instalações e acrescentando que é uma montanha perto de uma cidade sagrada me lembra o Quero-quero, que sempre canta longe do ninho... 
![8-]](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif "Cool")
“Look at these people. Wandering around with absolutely no idea what's about to happen.”
P. Sullivan (Margin Call, 2011)
P. Sullivan (Margin Call, 2011)
-
suntsé
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 3167
- Registrado em: Sáb Mar 27, 2004 9:58 pm
- Agradeceu: 232 vezes
- Agradeceram: 154 vezes
Re: Irã tem como se defender de Israel?
Fonte diplomatica da CIA.kurgan escreveu:
Quem será essa fonte diplomática...
-
EDSON
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 7303
- Registrado em: Sex Fev 16, 2007 4:12 pm
- Localização: CURITIBA/PR
- Agradeceu: 65 vezes
- Agradeceram: 335 vezes
Re: Irã tem como se defender de Israel?
A Guarda Revolucionária não é nenhuma força de elite. E também não é do exército este sim tem tropas de operações especiais. A infantaria da Guarda Revolucionária é formada por voluntários (fanáticos ou assíduos islâmicos Xiitas).FOXTROT escreveu::
Nesta quarta-feira, um comandante da Guarda Revolucionária (força de elite do Exército iraniano)
-
romeo
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 869
- Registrado em: Ter Fev 12, 2008 12:46 am
- Agradeceu: 55 vezes
- Agradeceram: 81 vezes
Re: Irã tem como se defender de Israel?
Os persas podem fechar hoje o Estreito de Ormuz, dando uma dor-de-cabeça enorme ao mundo...
Somente os portugueses têm moral para modificar esta situação...
Basta que retomem a fortaleza que construiram e que portanto lhes pertence por direito...
http://contextolivre.blogspot.com/2011/ ... do_10.html
![[004]](./images/smilies/004.gif "Fogo!")
Somente os portugueses têm moral para modificar esta situação...
Basta que retomem a fortaleza que construiram e que portanto lhes pertence por direito...
http://contextolivre.blogspot.com/2011/ ... do_10.html
-
cabeça de martelo
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 39480
- Registrado em: Sex Out 21, 2005 10:45 am
- Localização: Portugal
- Agradeceu: 1137 vezes
- Agradeceram: 2847 vezes
Re: Irã tem como se defender de Israel?
Não temos dinheiro nem para mandar cantar um cego e queres que nós nos metemos numa guerra?! 
E se para isso basta-se ter sido quem construiu as fortalezas, cidades, etc; então estou a caminho do Brasil para tomar posse de muita cidade por aí...
E se para isso basta-se ter sido quem construiu as fortalezas, cidades, etc; então estou a caminho do Brasil para tomar posse de muita cidade por aí...
"Lá nos confins da Península Ibérica, existe um povo que não governa nem se deixa governar ”, Caio Júlio César, líder Militar Romano".
O insulto é a arma dos fracos...
O insulto é a arma dos fracos...
-
P44
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 55255
- Registrado em: Ter Dez 07, 2004 6:34 am
- Localização: O raio que vos parta
- Agradeceu: 2752 vezes
- Agradeceram: 2433 vezes
Re: Irã tem como se defender de Israel?
romeo,
Mete mais tabaco nisso
Mete mais tabaco nisso
Triste sina ter nascido português 
-
FOXTROT
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 7685
- Registrado em: Ter Set 16, 2008 1:53 pm
- Localização: Caçapava do Sul/RS.
- Agradeceu: 264 vezes
- Agradeceram: 106 vezes
Re: Irã tem como se defender de Israel?
terra.com.br
Presidente de Israel garante ter resposta a ameaças do Irã
27 de dezembro de 2011 • 16h35 • atualizado às 17h13
O presidente israelense, Shimon Peres, garantiu nesta terça-feira que tem respostas às ameaças nucleares do Irã, reafirmando que o país do Golfo representa um "problema para o mundo inteiro" e não apenas para o Estado hebraico.
"Israel tem respostas para o problema iraniano. Mas é responsabilidade do mundo inteiro resolver isso, não é um monopólio israelense", disse Peres durante a conferência anual de embaixadores de Israel em Jerusalém.
são os sionistas que se sentem ameaçados, portanto, eles que se virem.
Em seu discurso, o presidente destacou que a doutrina de "ambiguidade deliberada" de Israel em questões nucleares é um meio de dissuasão "eficaz" contra Teerã.
Essa doutrina consiste em Israel, que não assinou o Tratado de Não-Proliferação Nuclear (TNP), não confirmar nem desmentir se dispõe de arsenal nuclear.
Segundo especialistas estrangeiros, o Estado hebraico tem entre 200 e 300 ogivas nucleares obtidas graças a um reator situado em Dimona, no deserto de Negev (sul), apesar de Israel afirmar que este lugar, que existe há 40 anos, é um centro de pesquisas.
"Israel tem capacidades de dissuasão, reais ou não. Ninguém sabe exatamente o que existe em Dimona, mas devo dizer que os fantasmas e as suspeitas dos países do Oriente Médio sobre essa questão favorecem a dissuasão israelense", analisou Peres.
"A decisão de Israel de manter uma política de ambiguidade todos esses anos tem sido bastante prudente", destacou.
Peres, como outros dirigentes israelenses, deu a entender, há pouco tempo, que seu país não descarta a opção militar para atuar contra o Irã.
Em um informe recente, a Agência Internacional de Energia Atômica (AIEA) apoiou as suspeitas dos países ocidentais, segundo as quais Teerã, apesar de desmenti-lo, está desenvolvendo uma bomba nuclear.
Presidente de Israel garante ter resposta a ameaças do Irã
27 de dezembro de 2011 • 16h35 • atualizado às 17h13
O presidente israelense, Shimon Peres, garantiu nesta terça-feira que tem respostas às ameaças nucleares do Irã, reafirmando que o país do Golfo representa um "problema para o mundo inteiro" e não apenas para o Estado hebraico.
"Israel tem respostas para o problema iraniano. Mas é responsabilidade do mundo inteiro resolver isso, não é um monopólio israelense", disse Peres durante a conferência anual de embaixadores de Israel em Jerusalém.
são os sionistas que se sentem ameaçados, portanto, eles que se virem.
Em seu discurso, o presidente destacou que a doutrina de "ambiguidade deliberada" de Israel em questões nucleares é um meio de dissuasão "eficaz" contra Teerã.
Essa doutrina consiste em Israel, que não assinou o Tratado de Não-Proliferação Nuclear (TNP), não confirmar nem desmentir se dispõe de arsenal nuclear.
Segundo especialistas estrangeiros, o Estado hebraico tem entre 200 e 300 ogivas nucleares obtidas graças a um reator situado em Dimona, no deserto de Negev (sul), apesar de Israel afirmar que este lugar, que existe há 40 anos, é um centro de pesquisas.
"Israel tem capacidades de dissuasão, reais ou não. Ninguém sabe exatamente o que existe em Dimona, mas devo dizer que os fantasmas e as suspeitas dos países do Oriente Médio sobre essa questão favorecem a dissuasão israelense", analisou Peres.
"A decisão de Israel de manter uma política de ambiguidade todos esses anos tem sido bastante prudente", destacou.
Peres, como outros dirigentes israelenses, deu a entender, há pouco tempo, que seu país não descarta a opção militar para atuar contra o Irã.
Em um informe recente, a Agência Internacional de Energia Atômica (AIEA) apoiou as suspeitas dos países ocidentais, segundo as quais Teerã, apesar de desmenti-lo, está desenvolvendo uma bomba nuclear.
"Só os mortos conhecem o fim da guerra" Platão.
-
rodrigo
- Sênior
- Mensagens: 12891
- Registrado em: Dom Ago 22, 2004 8:16 pm
- Agradeceu: 221 vezes
- Agradeceram: 424 vezes
Re: Irã tem como se defender de Israel?
Israel is pushing US toward Iran war, Russian official says
Nikolai Patrushev, head of the Kremlin's Security Council, warns Iran could retaliate by blocking oil shipments from the Gulf.
Russia fears Israel will push the United States into a military conflict with Iran which could retaliate by blocking oil shipments from the Gulf, a confidant of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Thursday.
"There is a likelihood of military escalation of the conflict, towards which Israel is pushing the Americans," Nikolai Patrushev, who heads the Kremlin's Security Council, told Interfax news agency.
He also said he believes Western countries are getting close to launching a military intervention in Syria, in an attempt to undermine Iran's regional standing.
Patrushev, a former head of the main successor to the Soviet-era KGB, said Tehran could respond by blocking the Strait of Hormuz between Oman and Iran, through which 35 percent of the world's seaborne traded oil passes.
"It cannot be ruled out that the Iranians will be able to carry out their threat to shut exports of Saudi oil through the Strait of Hormuz if faced with military actions against them," Patrushev said in an interview published on Thursday.
Tension over Iranian uranium enrichment, which has moved to a mountain bunker better protected from possible air strikes, has raised fears for world oil supplies and even of war.
Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful while Western powers believe it has military aims. Israel, which sees an Iranian atom bomb as a threat to its existence, is willing to attack Iranian nuclear sites with or without U.S. backing.
However, Patrushev said there was still no proof that Iran was on the brink of creating nuclear weapons. "Talk about Iran creating an atomic bomb by next week we have heard for many years," he said, adding that the United States was trying to topple the Iran's leadership using "all available means" to make the country into "a loyal partner.
Russia, the world's biggest energy producer, opposes further UN Security Council sanctions over Tehran's nuclear program and has sharply criticized U.S. and European Union sanctions.
The United States has said it would use force if Iran carried out its threat to block the strait and moved a new aircraft carrier strike group to the Arabian Sea this week.
Concerning the situation in Syria, Patrushev said he suspects the West is trying to punish Assad's regime for its ties with Iran. "We are receiving information that NATO members and some Persian Gulf states, working under the ‘Libyan scenario’, intend to move from indirect intervention in Syria to direct military intervention," he said.
In remarks clearly aimed at signaling Russian foreign policy after presidential elections in March, Patrushev said Putin would work well with President Barack Obama if he is re-elected when the United States votes later this year.
Patrushev said Obama's chances in the November election were good despite the United States' problems. "With all the difficulties faced by the Democratic administration, President Obama has a good chance of keeping his post," Patrushev said.
Putin himself is almost certain to return to the Russian presidency, something which diplomats see as a setback for Obama's policy of improving relations with Moscow.
But Patrushev said Putin, who is known for his anti-American rhetoric, would work well with Obama. "In the case of Vladimir Putin and then Barack Obama coming to power, the Russian-U.S. relationship, as well as the situation in the world as a whole, may see a strengthening trend," Patrushev said.
Patrushev, a hardliner, said U.S. plans to build a missile defense shield, a source of tension between the two former Cold War foes, did not "pose a serious threat today", although it could weaken Russia's "strategic potential" in the future.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... s-1.406963
Nikolai Patrushev, head of the Kremlin's Security Council, warns Iran could retaliate by blocking oil shipments from the Gulf.
Russia fears Israel will push the United States into a military conflict with Iran which could retaliate by blocking oil shipments from the Gulf, a confidant of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Thursday.
"There is a likelihood of military escalation of the conflict, towards which Israel is pushing the Americans," Nikolai Patrushev, who heads the Kremlin's Security Council, told Interfax news agency.
He also said he believes Western countries are getting close to launching a military intervention in Syria, in an attempt to undermine Iran's regional standing.
Patrushev, a former head of the main successor to the Soviet-era KGB, said Tehran could respond by blocking the Strait of Hormuz between Oman and Iran, through which 35 percent of the world's seaborne traded oil passes.
"It cannot be ruled out that the Iranians will be able to carry out their threat to shut exports of Saudi oil through the Strait of Hormuz if faced with military actions against them," Patrushev said in an interview published on Thursday.
Tension over Iranian uranium enrichment, which has moved to a mountain bunker better protected from possible air strikes, has raised fears for world oil supplies and even of war.
Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful while Western powers believe it has military aims. Israel, which sees an Iranian atom bomb as a threat to its existence, is willing to attack Iranian nuclear sites with or without U.S. backing.
However, Patrushev said there was still no proof that Iran was on the brink of creating nuclear weapons. "Talk about Iran creating an atomic bomb by next week we have heard for many years," he said, adding that the United States was trying to topple the Iran's leadership using "all available means" to make the country into "a loyal partner.
Russia, the world's biggest energy producer, opposes further UN Security Council sanctions over Tehran's nuclear program and has sharply criticized U.S. and European Union sanctions.
The United States has said it would use force if Iran carried out its threat to block the strait and moved a new aircraft carrier strike group to the Arabian Sea this week.
Concerning the situation in Syria, Patrushev said he suspects the West is trying to punish Assad's regime for its ties with Iran. "We are receiving information that NATO members and some Persian Gulf states, working under the ‘Libyan scenario’, intend to move from indirect intervention in Syria to direct military intervention," he said.
In remarks clearly aimed at signaling Russian foreign policy after presidential elections in March, Patrushev said Putin would work well with President Barack Obama if he is re-elected when the United States votes later this year.
Patrushev said Obama's chances in the November election were good despite the United States' problems. "With all the difficulties faced by the Democratic administration, President Obama has a good chance of keeping his post," Patrushev said.
Putin himself is almost certain to return to the Russian presidency, something which diplomats see as a setback for Obama's policy of improving relations with Moscow.
But Patrushev said Putin, who is known for his anti-American rhetoric, would work well with Obama. "In the case of Vladimir Putin and then Barack Obama coming to power, the Russian-U.S. relationship, as well as the situation in the world as a whole, may see a strengthening trend," Patrushev said.
Patrushev, a hardliner, said U.S. plans to build a missile defense shield, a source of tension between the two former Cold War foes, did not "pose a serious threat today", although it could weaken Russia's "strategic potential" in the future.
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... s-1.406963
"O correr da vida embrulha tudo,
a vida é assim: esquenta e esfria,
aperta e daí afrouxa,
sossega e depois desinquieta.
O que ela quer da gente é coragem."
João Guimarães Rosa
a vida é assim: esquenta e esfria,
aperta e daí afrouxa,
sossega e depois desinquieta.
O que ela quer da gente é coragem."
João Guimarães Rosa
Re: Irã tem como se defender de Israel?
Bomba nuclear do Irã pode impedir guerras de Israel, diz general
Reuters
Por Dan Williams
JERUSALÉM, 17 Jan (Reuters) - Um Irã com armas nucleares poderia impedir Israel de ir à guerra contra aliados de Teerã no Líbano e na Faixa de Gaza, disse um general israelense nesta terça-feira.
O Estado judaico enxerga os programas de enriquecimento de urânio e de mísseis do Irã como uma ameaça mortal, e vem fazendo lobby entre as grandes potências para revertê-los através de sanções, ao mesmo tempo em que sugere que pode recorrer a ataques militares preventivos.
O general Amir Eshel, chefe do planejamento estratégico das Forças Armadas, repetiu o argumento dos líderes israelenses de que o Irã, que rejeita estar fazendo algo errado e condena a censura internacional sobre seus projetos secretos, poderia criar "uma selva nuclear global" e alimentar a corrida armamentista em um Oriente Médio já volátil.
Eshel deixou claro que Israel - que acredita-se ter o único arsenal atômico da região - teme que Síria e a milícia do Hezbollah do Líbano, assim como os islâmicos palestinos do Hamas que governam Gaza, possam um dia contar com uma bomba iraniana.
"Eles serão mais agressivos. Eles se atreverão a fazer coisas que agora não fazem", disse em um comunicado a jornalistas e diplomatas estrangeiros.
"Portanto, isso vai criar uma mudança dramática na postura estratégica de Israel, porque se formos obrigados a fazer coisas em Gaza ou no Líbano sob a proteção nuclear iraniana, pode ser diferente".
Eshel, que falou no centro de estudos conservador Centro para Questões Públicas de Jerusalém, citou uma autoridade da Índia não identificada que havia descrito o atrito de poder na Ásia com o vizinho rival Paquistão em termos de autocontenção.
"Quando o outro lado tem capacidade nuclear e estamos prontos a usá-la, você pensa duas vezes", disse Eshel. "Você se contem mais porque não quer entrar nesse jogo".
http://noticias.uol.com.br/ultimas-noti ... eneral.htm
Reuters
Por Dan Williams
JERUSALÉM, 17 Jan (Reuters) - Um Irã com armas nucleares poderia impedir Israel de ir à guerra contra aliados de Teerã no Líbano e na Faixa de Gaza, disse um general israelense nesta terça-feira.
O Estado judaico enxerga os programas de enriquecimento de urânio e de mísseis do Irã como uma ameaça mortal, e vem fazendo lobby entre as grandes potências para revertê-los através de sanções, ao mesmo tempo em que sugere que pode recorrer a ataques militares preventivos.
O general Amir Eshel, chefe do planejamento estratégico das Forças Armadas, repetiu o argumento dos líderes israelenses de que o Irã, que rejeita estar fazendo algo errado e condena a censura internacional sobre seus projetos secretos, poderia criar "uma selva nuclear global" e alimentar a corrida armamentista em um Oriente Médio já volátil.
Eshel deixou claro que Israel - que acredita-se ter o único arsenal atômico da região - teme que Síria e a milícia do Hezbollah do Líbano, assim como os islâmicos palestinos do Hamas que governam Gaza, possam um dia contar com uma bomba iraniana.
"Eles serão mais agressivos. Eles se atreverão a fazer coisas que agora não fazem", disse em um comunicado a jornalistas e diplomatas estrangeiros.
"Portanto, isso vai criar uma mudança dramática na postura estratégica de Israel, porque se formos obrigados a fazer coisas em Gaza ou no Líbano sob a proteção nuclear iraniana, pode ser diferente".
Eshel, que falou no centro de estudos conservador Centro para Questões Públicas de Jerusalém, citou uma autoridade da Índia não identificada que havia descrito o atrito de poder na Ásia com o vizinho rival Paquistão em termos de autocontenção.
"Quando o outro lado tem capacidade nuclear e estamos prontos a usá-la, você pensa duas vezes", disse Eshel. "Você se contem mais porque não quer entrar nesse jogo".
http://noticias.uol.com.br/ultimas-noti ... eneral.htm