Blog de Antonio Romea. Intérprete Jurado de Ruso e Inglés.

ПЕРЕВОДЧИК АНТОНИО РОМЕА. Blog de Antonio Romea. Intérprete Jurado de Ruso e Inglés. Artículos publicados o ¿censurados? en prensa española.
MANIFIESTO:
Tras la Segunda Guerra Mundial (1945) se fundó la ONU, la cual condenó el Colonialismo. Se inició el proceso de Independencia de las naciones de Africa y Asia (1948-1965), ex-colonias de Francia e Inglaterra. EEUU desarrolló una política de neocolonialismo: dominio politico-económico, pero no militar directo en Hispanoamérica y otras regiones. Su intento colonial directo fue derrotado en Vietnam (1977).

La disolución de la URSS en 1991, puso fin a la Guerra Fría y la bipolaridad en que se había mantenido el Mundo desde la II Guerra Mundial. La Administración de EEUU, sin contrapeso, como Imperio incontestado, se lanzó a la conquista clásica de colonias.

Las víctimas: Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afganistán, Somalia...

Se presiona a los países que limitan las “inversiones” extranjeras, se les obliga a que "abran sus mercados" a los capitales occidentales: Irán, Siria, China, Zimbawe, Corea del Norte, Myammar, Sudán, etc.

Las Instituciones Internacionales, ONU, Premio Nobel, Tribunal de la Haya, IAEA, han dejado de ser neutrales. Adulteradas, son instrumento de esta nueva política colonial. También denominada Neocolonialismo:

1. Exportación de capitales.

2. Adquisición de territorios: Medios de Producción (empresas e industrias), Materias Primas y Energía (recursos naturales).

La forma es clásica, lo hicieron portugueses y españoles (S.XVI-XVII), e ingleses y franceses (S.XVIII-XIX), la retórica ha cambiado: Antes se colonizaba, mataba, destruía y sometía a la pobreza a los pueblos para "Cristianizarles" o “Civilizarles", en el S.XXI para "Democratizarles".


En el S.XXI comienza con un retroceso ético y legal con respecto a los principios fundacionales de la ONU, que debía garantizar la NO repetición de guerras contra civiles y crímenes contra la Humanidad.

International Affairs and Colonialism in S.XXI. Interpretation Russian-English-Spanish

3 nov. 2011

Netanyahu, the Israeli Premier pressed militay staff to attack Iran. Reactions of Iran & Israeli press


Iran is not threating any one, to take that country as a threat is a subjetive and ideologically based point of view, or maybe a self interested point of view. 

Very on the contrary, Israel is a non declared nuclear power that could reach European capitals with atomic bombs, that not respect the UN Resolutions and that is in continious war with his neigbours. And International Community is not punishing it or talking about bombing Israel, then why against Iran?



Presstv of Iran published that will answer to any attack by launching missiles against Israel and US troops and warships in the region. See also reactions of israelí readers of Haaretz bellow. No body except Netanayahu, “the liar”-in Sarkozy´s words-, and the arms manufacturers want a war.

A war will serve only the interest of Netanyahu and some military-industrial and security loobies, which have too much power in USA-Iraeli governments.  A war could be catastrophic for both israelis and iranians. And very usefull for Netanyahu to stop social protests in Israel. 

And by the way, the government elites of US and Israel (the neo colonial powers) do not care about democracy in others countries, except if their markets are closed for their "investors", so if they can not buy cheap local factories, oil refineries and earn money with the reconstruction of countries previously destroyed by their bombing.






   
PressTV (Iranian TV and website) published the following on possible attack of Israel to Iran: 

Reportedly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has recently sought to drum up cabinet support for a military strike against the nuclear sites of the Islamic republic of Iran. In joint efforts with the defense minister Ehud Barak, Netanyahu has succeeded in wringing support for such a reckless act from the skeptics who were already opposed to launching an attack on Iran. Among those he managed to convince was Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

There are still those in the Israeli cabinet who are against such a move including Interior Minister Eli Yishai of the ultra-Orthodox Shas party, Intelligence Minister Dan Meridor, Strategic Affairs Minister and Netanyahu confidant Moshe Yaalon, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz, army chief Benny Gantz, the head of Israel's intelligence agency Tamir Pardo, the chief of military intelligence Aviv Kochavi and the head of Israel's domestic intelligence agency Yoram Cohen.

However, the support voiced by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is considered an ace in the hole for Netanyahu who also enjoys the full-throated support of Washington.

In a show of military prowess and obvious brinkmanship, Israel test-fired a nuke capable missile on Wednesday which cannot be taken as a coincidence considering the threat made by Netanyahu.

"Israel today carried out the test-firing of a rocket propulsion system from the Palmachim base," a Defense Ministry statement said. "This had been long planned by the Defense establishment and was carried out as scheduled."

Echoing his old familiar comments about Iran, Netanyahu said, "A nuclear Iran will pose a serious threat to the Middle East and the entire world, and it of course poses a direct and heavy threat to us"

Also on Wednesday, Israeli Foreign Minister accused Iran of being “the largest, most dangerous threat to the current world order”, adding that Israel expects the international community to “step up efforts to act against it.”

Moshe Yaalon, Israel's strategic affairs minister, told Army Radio on Tuesday, "The military option (against Iran) is not an empty threat, but Israel should not leap to lead it. The whole thing should be lead by the United States, and as a last resort."

There seems to be a united front against Iran in the Israeli cabinet but as far as a military strike is concerned, there is a difference of opinion as to the sanity of such an act and the looming consequences it may incur.

Be it as it may, one of the main factors which render such an act implausible is that Israel is well aware of Iran's military competence and self-sufficiency.

From a military point of view, Iran is known as the best in the region and one of the best in the world in terms of missile industry.

The successful production of the short-, medium- and long-range missiles Shahab (Meteor) and Sejjil (Baked Clay), Saqeb (falling stone) and Sayyad (Hunter), Fateh (Conqueror) and Zelzal (Temblor), Misaq (Covenant) and Ra'ad (Thunder), Toufan (Storm) and Safar (Journey) bears testimony to this claim. The country has so far succeeded in producing more than 50 types of high-tech missiles as part of its deterrent strategy for enhancing military might as it has always been exposed to threats by the Zionist regime and Washington.

The recent Iranian missile Qader (powerful), a magnum achievement, is a sea-launched cruise missile which has a highly destructive power and can eliminate frigates, warships as well as any coastal targets. With a range of over 200 kilometers, the missile can evade any highly advanced radar systems.

A senior IRGC commander Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh has already stated that Iran has the know-how to build missiles with over 2,000 kilometers but since the US and Israeli targets are within the reach of the current missiles, the country does not see any point in doing so.

“Iran's missiles have a range of up to 2,000 kilometers and have been designed for US and the Zionist regime (Israel)'s bases in the region,” he added.

According to the Iranian commander, as there is a distance of 1,200 kilometers between Iran and Israel, Iran is already capable of targeting the Zionist regime with the current missiles. Needless to say, Sejjil (Baked Clay) and Shahab missiles rank among the missiles capable of targeting objects within a range of 2,000 kilometers.

With over 50 types of state-of-the-art missiles at its disposal, Iran is readily capable of delivering a death blow to any aggressor who ventures to violate its soil. However, Iran has frequently said its military might poses no threat to other countries and that its defense doctrine is based on deterrence.

As the Leader of the Islamic revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has said the “main objective of producing weapons in Iran is defending the country against bullying enemies” while in the West, “the main reason for weapons production is increasing the wealth of the weapons cartels.”

Regardless of Iran's military might in countering any audacious aggression, Israel is standing on its last feet as poverty and social strife are rampant in the country and the people have already begun pressing their hands on Tel Aviv's throat.

It matters little on what grounds the idea of attacking Iran was articulated in the minds of the Israelis or who was the initial originator of this imbecilic notion.

What is important is that an Israeli attack will not only disturb the political equilibrium in the Middle East but it will inflict losses of inconceivable proportions upon the Zionist entity as well.

A military strike by Israel on Iran is tantamount to a final nail in the coffin of Zionism.

Author: Ismail Salami is an Iranian author and political analyst. A prolific writer, he has written numerous books and articles on the Middle East. His articles have been translated into a number of languages.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
"Harizon" a pseudonym of an israeli citizen commented in Hareetz (Israeli newspaper):
In the 2006 war, the IDF proved unable to handle the Hizbollah militia. In the end, the IDF did not achieve any of their goals. The rockets were not stopped. The captured IDF men were not returned. Hizbollah was not disarmed or destroyed. Nasrallah was not killed. Instead, the IDF learned a tough lesson, firing their defense minsiter, their chief of staff, seven other senerals, and they endured the recommendations of the Winograd committee. After this, the IDF engaged the Palestinian civilians in a two week campaign, killing 1400 civilians and losing four IDF men to enemy fire. Seven other IDF men were killed by "friendly" fire. After this was the flotilla, in which the Israeli army, navy, and air force, along with special commandos intercepted a few small boats in international waters, executing a number of them with shots to the head at close range. The most recent IDF exploit was shooting through the border fence with Syria, killing a number of civilian protesters. The IDF seems to do rather well against unarmed civilians, not so well against armed opponents. Israel may fanticize about attacking Iran, but there is not a snowballs chance this will happen.

Compilated form the iranian and israeli press by Antonio Romea

1 comentario:

  1. Mark Jackson said:
    Antonio, the article was written by an Iranian so take it with a grain of salt. Author: Ismail Salami is an Iranian author and political analyst.

    Elias J. Moor said:
    If you honestly think Iran is a stable democracy that is not a threat your view is myopic. The Israeli government is by far an angel, but Ahmadinejad is a lunatic that barely has control of his own government. I figure it's a waste of time trying to educate you, but my hope is others won't agree with your profoundly "devoid from reality" point of view.

    Antonio Romea answered:
    I´m not talking about internal affairs of Iran. Egypt and Tunis were also dictatorships. That´s not the justification for a war and nuke is not too, because then Israel is a nuke power too.
    I am talking about not beginig a war, that serves only the interest of Netanyahu and some military-industrial and security loobies, which have too much power in USA-Iraeli governments. A war could be catastrophic for both israelis and iranians. And very usefull for Netanyahu to stop social protests in Israel. Pleas read the links of my blog (in English and Spanish). http://antonioromea.blogspot.com/

    And by the way, the government elites of US and Israel (the neo colonial powers) do not care about democracy in others countries, like Morocco, except if their markets are closed for US-Israeli "investors", so if they can not buy cheap local factories, oil refineries and earn money with the reconstruction and security of countries previously destroyed by their bombing.

    ResponderEliminar