War with Iran is imminent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 8, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern



By Jerome R. Corsi



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2007
In addition to moving additional military forces into the region, President Bush is putting into place a new political and military command team, all in preparation for an expanded war in the Middle East.

We have already noted that the USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) aircraft carrier battle group is heading to the Persian Gulf to join the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) aircraft carrier battle group currently on station there.

Additionally, the USS Boxer (LHD 4) amphibious assault ship, the flagship of the Boxer Expeditionary Strike Group, is on station in the Persian Gulf. On January 4, 2007, the USS Bataan (LHD 5), the command ship of the Bataan Expeditionary Strike Group, departed from Norfolk, Va., headed for forward deployment. Typically, we would expect the USS Bataan to replace the USS Boxer in normal rotation. Even if that is the destination of the USS Bataan, we would have two amphibious strike forces in the Gulf as the rotation is completed.

(Column continues below)


Along with each carrier attack group comes a fleet of 12 ships, including two guided missile-cruisers, generally Ticonderoga-class, two guided missile destroyers, generally Arleigh Burke-class, and an attack submarine that is usually Los Angeles-class.

U.S. Admiral William J. Fallon, head of U.S. Pacific Command is taking over as the top commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East, following the retirement of Gen. John Abizaid. The transition of command from the Army to the Navy should be noted, especially with this much naval power concentrating in the Gulf. We should also note that Admiral Fallon has command experience in the 1991 Gulf War, where he commanded the Carrier Air Wing Eight on the USS Theodore Roosevelt during Operation Desert Storm. In 1995, he was the Commander of the U.S. Sixth Fleet battle force supporting NATO's Operation Deliberate Force in Bosnia. He is considered one of the Navy's top commanders in combined forces operations and an expert in amphibious landings.

Quietly, the Bush administration is changing the entire command structure in the Middle East. The U.S. top commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey is being replaced by Gen. David Petraeus. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, Gen.Petraeus commanded the famed 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), leading the ''Screaming Eagles'' in combat. Following that, he commanded the Multi-National Security Transition Command in Iraq, assuming responsibility for training Iraqi forces. Petraeus is on record supporting a five-brigade expansion of U.S. forces in Iraq, in direct contrast to Gen. Casey, who expressed skepticism that increasing U.S. troop levels in Iraq would help stabilize the country. The political deck shuffling also reflects a Bush administration decision to expand the war in the Middle East.

Immediately following the Republican Party electoral defeat in Nov. 2006, Bush announced that Robert Gates would be nominated to replace Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense. In 1987, Gates withdrew his nomination to become Director of the CIA because of a controversy that had developed concerning his role in the Iran-Contra affair.

Credentials in the Iran-Contra affair seem right now to be a plus in the White House. John Negroponte is being moved from Director of National Intelligence to being the top deputy at the State Department to Condoleezza Rice. During Iran-Contra, Negroponte was U.S. ambassador to Honduras, where he encouraged the expansion of U.S. military and intelligence presence in Central America. Replacing Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence is Admiral Mike McConnell, who served as the intelligence officer of the Joint Chiefs during Operation Desert Storm.

Maybe the best way to understand the Iraq Study Group (ISG) is that it was only Round One, George H. W. Bush's attempt to get his old team together to convince his son to abandon Iraq. The ISG included both James Baker III, Reagan's chief of staff who advised that Iran-Contra could well be illegal and might lead to impeachment, as well as Edwin Meese, who as Reagan's attorney general lead what amounted to a whitewash internal investigation of Iran-Contra. Baker typically represents the Council on Foreign Relations line on the Middle East – protect the oil, use military sparingly, and abandon Israel to Arab oil interests whenever possible. With this approach having been rejected by George W. Bush, the next alternative, Round Two, was for George H. W. Bush to bring in key hawks from the Iran-Contra days, to implement his son's expansion of the war.

Much of the plan for an Iraq surge in force seems to originate from Frederick Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute, whose report, ''A Plan for Success in Iraq,'' has been joined by retired Gen. Jack Keane. Kagan is a military historian who has taught at West Point. Gen. Keane was a career Army paratrooper (featured in Tom Clancy's book, ''Airborne''), who rose to being vice chief of staff of the Army.

Notably, one AEI expert on Iran who is not being consulted by the Bush administration is Michael Ledeen, whose Iran-Contra credentials are also quite strong. Ledeen has continuously argued that we could produce peaceful change in Iran, if only the Bush administration would define regime-change as our policy in Iran and the State Department would release the millions Congress has allocated to support non-governmental organizations around the world who would work toward the regime-change objective.

If President Bush were truly to follow Ronald Reagan's example with the ex-Soviet Union, he would support Michael Ledeen's objectives, while stepping up military pressure in the region. I continue to press for implementing Michael Ledeen's strategy of creating Ukraine-like peaceful change from within Iran, although truthfully I fear the window for that happening may have passed.

President Bush may feel he has no alternative but to push military options in the Middle East. Following the Iraq Study Group's advice and staging a military withdrawal from Iraq could well support a Democratic effort in Congress to investigate the Iraq War as a prelude to impeachment. We should also note that Harriet Miers has resigned as White House counsel, setting the stage for Bush to bring in a lawyer with heavy duty Washington credentials in fending off hostile investigations.

Also somewhat cornered right now is Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister. Olmert, like Bush, is experiencing a level of low public opinion that typically precedes removal from office. Olmert has consistently lost public favor by following the White House ''roadmap to peace,'' which has involved an old James Baker plan calling for Israel to cede territory to the Palestinians in exchange for peace. Condi Rice, a James Baker protégé, has gotten nowhere following this plan for two years, only to see Hamas control the Palestinian Authority and launch rockets back on Israel from the newly-returned Gaza Strip. Former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a strong opponent of the Ahmadinejad regime in Iran, and the Likud Party would welcome a vote of no-confidence in the Knesset and a call for new elections.

Ahmadinejad himself is the third leader in this drama who may well be on a short leash. Having just lost a round of local elections throughout Iran, Ahmadinejad finds himself facing once again student protests in the street. Ahmadinejad has pursued nuclear weapons and funding terrorist groups including Hezbollah and now also Hamas, rather than keeping his campaign promise to return oil wealth to the people of Iran. The Iranian parliament has moved up the date for the presidential election by one year. Now, with Supreme Leader Khamanei dying of cancer, there may soon be a fight in the Assembly of Experts to see if former president Rafsanjani can wrest control away from Ahmadinejad and his spiritual leader Ayatollah Hasbah-Yazdi, a chief adherent of the belief that the Twelfth Imam, the Mahdi, will soon come out of the well from centuries-long occlusion to lead Shi'ite Islam in worldwide triumph.

The one wild card that would change the equation would be an aggressive move by Iran. Should Iran launch a cruise missile at a U.S. Navy ship in the Gulf, we will have war right now. Should an Iranian missile sink a U.S. carrier, the U.S. population would experience another 9/11 moment. At that point, a massive U.S.-led military strike on Iran would become inevitable. Would President Bush provoke Iran to make just such a move? A pre-emptive strike on Iran would never be approved by a Democratic Congress, but U.S. massive retaliation for a serious act of war by Iran would be a totally different matter.

Truthfully, we are already at war with Iran. My concern stems from the realization that the internal politics in Iran may be such that Ahmadinejad cannot allow a massive U.S. military build-up in the region without making some kind of a response. With Iraq's borders as open as is our southern border with Mexico, Iran has now sent into Iraq a sufficient number of terrorists and arms to create a real civil war. Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi militia, which featured so prominent in the Shi'ite rejoicing that reduced Saddam's hanging to a partisan event, is an Iran-funded creation. Ahmadinejad cannot afford to see a strengthened U.S. military destroy Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army.

If a broader war breaks out in Iraq, Olmert will certainly face pressure to send the Israel military into the Gaza after Hamas and into Lebanon after Hezbollah. If that happens, it will only be a matter of time before Israel and the U.S. have no choice but to invade Syria. The Iraq war could quickly spin into a regional war, with Israel waiting on the sidelines ready to launch an air and missile strike on Iran that could include tactical nuclear weapons.

With Russia ready to deliver the $1 billion TOR M-1 surface-to-air missile defense system to Iran, military leaders are unwilling to wait too long to attack Iran. Now that Russia and China have invited Iran to join their Shanghai Cooperation Pact, will Russia and China sit by idly should the U.S. look like we are winning a wider regional war in the Middle East? If we get more deeply involved in Iraq, China may have their moment to go after Taiwan once and for all. A broader regional war could easily lead into a third world war, much as World Wars I and II began.

Odds are that we will not enter 2008 with all three of these leaders – Bush, Olmert, and Ahmadinejad – as heads of state. If President Bush does go the military route in the Middle East, he will bet his presidency on that decision.

.............................................benny

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...401907_pf.html

The Pentagon Preps for Iran
By William M. Arkin
Sunday, April 16, 2006; B01
Does the United States have a war plan for stopping Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons?

Last week, President Bush dismissed news reports that his administration has been working on contingency plans for war -- particularly talk of the possibility of using tactical nuclear weapons against Tehran -- as "wild speculation." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld chimed in, calling it "fantasyland." He declared to reporters that "it just isn't useful" to talk about contingency planning.
But the secretary is wrong.

It's important to talk about war planning that's real. And it is for Iran. In early 2003, even as U.S. forces were on the brink of war with Iraq, the Army had already begun conducting an analysis for a full-scale war with Iran. The analysis, called TIRANNT, for "theater Iran near term," was coupled with a mock scenario for a Marine Corps invasion and a simulation of the Iranian missile force. U.S. and British planners conducted a Caspian Sea war game around the same time. And Bush directed the U.S. Strategic Command to draw up a global strike war plan for an attack against Iranian weapons of mass de struction. All of this will ultimately feed into a new war plan for "major combat operations" against Iran that military sources confirm now exists in draft form.

None of this activity has been disclosed by the U.S. military, and when I wrote about Iran contingency planning last week on The Washington Post Web site, the Pentagon stuck to its dogged position that "we don't discuss war plans." But it should.

The diplomatic effort directed at Iran would be mightily enhanced if that country understood that the United States is so serious about deterring the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons that it would be willing to go to war to stop that quest from reaching fruition.

Iran needs to know -- and even more important, the American public needs to know -- that no matter how many experts talk about difficult-to-find targets or the catastrophe that could unfold if war comes, military planners are already working hard to minimize the risks of any military operation. This is the very essence of contingency planning.

I've been tracking U.S. war planning, maintaining friends and contacts in that closed world, for more than 20 years. My one regret in writing about this secret subject, especially because the government always claims that revealing anything could harm U.S. forces, is not delving deeply enough into the details of the war plan for Iraq. Now, with Iran, it's once again difficult but essential to piece together the facts.

Here's what we know now. Under TIRANNT, Army and U.S. Central Command planners have been examining both near-term and out-year scenarios for war with Iran, including all aspects of a major combat operation, from mobilization and deployment of forces through postwar stability operations after regime change.
The core TIRANNT effort began in May 2003, when modelers and intelligence specialists pulled together the data needed for theater-level (meaning large-scale) scenario analysis for Iran. TIRANNT has since been updated using post-Iraq war information on the performance of U.S. forces.

Meanwhile, Air Force planners have modeled attacks against existing Iranian air defenses and targets, while Navy planners have evaluated coastal defenses and drawn up scenarios for keeping control of the Strait of Hormuz at the base of the Persian Gulf.


.........................................benny

The topic below,...I believe has strong prophetic implications towards revelation 13.............So many things are happening at the same time that has great significance towards the endtime prophetic scenerio. There are many factors to consider. For one,...we know that a man will come out of the E.U. having great power and authority........and as you can see,the E.U. is desperate for such a man to lead them. When one reads, revelation 6;1....we see a man on a white horse, who we have identified as the anti-christ......The white horse is believed to be symbolic of peace......Students of prophecy, picture him as stepping onto the world scene, as the man of the hour, who will seem to have all the answers to the worlds problems....We also know that he will confirm a covenant with Israel and the many for a period of 7 years.In ezekial 38.....Israel must be living in safety and her walls must become defenced, "BEFORE" Russia, and the islamic nations attack Israel........This means that the anti-christ will have to provide a very strong security agreement,....strong enough, that would convince Israel that she is living in a time of peace, and therefore would defence/unwall her cities........But yet again....in Daniel 9;24.....It states that the anti-christ will cause the sacrifices to cease......This statement indicates, that a third temple will be built on the temple mount area.....At this moment, it is very evident that the arab nations would all attack Israel, if the Jews attempt to build the third temple......and at this moment...there does not seem anyway possible that the arab nations would agree to it........At this moment...we see the signs that the anti-christ will very soon step onto the world scene, and we know that when he does....that he will confirm a 7 year agreement with Israel and the many, which must include, an agreement for the jews that would allow Israel to build the third temple on the temple mount area.....Considering the situation at this moment.......It seems that something very drastic must happen very soon to change the status-quo......Something of biblical proportion......As many of you are aware ......The crisses between Israel, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and the Hamas, reveals that we may very shortly wittness the prophecy of Isaiah 17;1 come to pass.....and maybe by early summer or even sooner!.......This war would have great repercussions upon all the world in many ways.....But would this war(prophecy)..be enough to shock the arabs to agree to willingly let Israel build her third temple?......Maybe not just yet....But I believe that the Rapture of millions of people and babies under the age of accountability would very much shock the arabs to agree to a third jewish temple.....The one thing that all the would would have in common is babies that had disappeared.....Combine that with a false prophet who called fire out of the sky.....the arab world would agree to whatever the anti-christ had suggested......................................................................................................................................................................................................‘War is a stupid way of doing business’
January 8th, 2007 by Loek Essers
By Pieter van den Akker
,,One of the main problems of the United Nations (UN) is that they have less money to spend than the world’s poorest government”, says Joris Voorhoeve, former Minister of Defence of the Netherlands in his speech at Unisca’s welcoming ceremony last Friday. ,,One euro a year for every person worldwide. To compare, the European Union has more than two hundred euros for every inhabitant a year.”


Voorhoeve also pleaded for an extensive role of the European Union. He thinks that the UN’ s veto system leads to very slow decision making, or even results in no decision making at all. For that reason, he would like to see Europe’s power to be increased. Voorhoeve: ,,In spite of the UN’s will to solve problems and their intervention in conflicts when necessary, it happens too often that there is no change in those situations. Just realizing the ‘impression of solving’ is not enough, as you will understand.”



Prof. Dr. Ir. J.J.C Voorhoeve, former Minister of Defence of The Netherlands

According to the Dutchman, who got in big trouble during the Balkan War in the nineties, it is a pity that, ‘decisions are blocked by each other’. What he means by that remark is that ‘old enemies’ like China and Japan for example, still have a lot of trouble to forget about their past and often tend to vote against each other.


Just like many others he thinks that peacekeeping is the main task of the United Nations. ,,War is a stupid way of doing business”, Voorhoeve mentioned. But what, in his opinion, will be essential to prevent wars in the future? ,,We need to strengthen the authority of institutions like the Security Council, the ‘new’ Peace building Commission and, as I said earlier, the European Union.”


Although he desires more cooperation between the United States and Europe, he does not fear new threats due to a bipolar world as was the case with the Cold War a couple of decades ago. ,,No, I do not think there will be dangerous tensions. Off course, the United States and the European Union have different points of view but there will also be agreement. So I think it is very important to work together.”


He mentioned the former Secretary of State of the US, Henry Kissinger, who once said: ‘When I call Europe, nobody answers the phone.’ Voorhoeve: ,,Nowadays, the phone is answered by Javier Solana, but his position isn’t powerful enough. That should be changed.”


Finally he grabbed the chance to express his critique on countries worldwide that mistreat their population and refuse to assume their responsibility in name of the principle of sovereignty. Voorhoeve: ,,The idea that sovereignty solves all serious problems is not right. Sovereignty is not holy and should not be the guideline of international foreign policy.”
....................................................benny ....P.S.S. ...The Rapture is breathtakenly close!!!

Jan. 9, 2007 22:14 | Updated Jan. 10, 2007 6:36
Arab League, Israeli reps. set to meet
By MARION FISCHEL
Madrid



Although the peace process appears to be stuck, representative of the Arab League, including Syria, will meet with Israeli delegates starting Wednesday at a reunion honoring the 1991 Madrid Conference.

The three-day conference in Madrid, a civil initiative inspired by the need to create an international climate favorable to facilitating the peace process, is called Madrid +15: Madrid 15 Years Later.

Organized by the Toledo International Peace Center, Search for Common Ground and the Fundacion Tres Culturas del Mediterraneo, Madrid +15 aims to identify the expectations of the parties involved and find a platform from which to launch a sustainable end to the conflict.

Emilio Cassinello, director-general of the Toledo International Peace Center, said the "key objective" of the conference was "to impart a global message that even though the present distances between the positions of the parties involved in the Near East crisis are unbridgeable, they are not unsalvageable, and that the positions should and must be brought closer."

The current conference will be attended by a team of eight representatives from the Palestinian Authority headed by Fatah leader Mohammed Dahlan; 11 Israeli representatives including former foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami and former head of Military Intelligence Uri Saguy; a European contingent including the foreign ministers of Denmark, Norway and Sweden and former French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine, as well as former Spanish president Felipe Gonzalez and EU high representative for common and security policy, Javier Solana.

Russia, the UN, the Arab League, the Cooperation Council of the Arab States of the Gulf, Syria and Saudi Arabia will also be represented, as will the US, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon.

Cassinello will be one of the moderators at a Wednesday session entitled "How to Influence Policy." Other working sessions on that day will concentrate individually on Lebanon-Israel, Palestine-Israel and Syria-Israel issues.

On Friday the four working sessions will report to a chair presided by Royal Counselor Andre Azoulay and Regional Minister of the Presidency of Andalucia Gaspar Zarrias - both members of the Fundacion Tres Culturas del Mediterraneo.

Following that, the "Middle East Working Session: A Regional Approach", will be moderated by Marc Otte, EU special representative for the Middle East peace process, and will include Terje Roed-Larsen, president of the International Academy for Peace and former special coordinator to the Middle East peace process and Hans Blix, former Swedish foreign minister.

According to Cassinello, a peace initiative is to be found somewhere among all the previous attempts, including the Oslo Accords, the road map, Clinton's parameters and the Saudi initiative supported by the Arab League.

"Recent initiatives and political proposals emphasize the need for a regional focus with international support in the spirit of the peace conference held in Madrid in 1991," he said.

After an audience with Spanish King Juan Carlos I, the opening dinner of Madrid +15 will take place Wednesday evening at the Santa Cruz Palace, hosted by the governments of Spain, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos will give the welcoming address. Post comment | Terms


......................................................benny

Jan. 9, 2007 23:35 | Updated Jan. 10, 2007 3:21
US bans, freezes assets of Iranian bank
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT
WASHINGTON



Talkbacks for this article: 5

The US government stepped up efforts Tuesday to disrupt financing of Iran's nuclear weapons program, banning its fifth-largest state-owned bank from using the American financial system or banks and freezing its assets in the US.

The designation of Bank Sepah as a supporter of WMD proliferation comes on the heels of the UN Security Council's decision to apply sanctions to curb Iran's nuclear program. It follows a similar action against Iran's Bank Saderat in September and helps create a climate in which investors are dissuaded from doing business with Iran, according to the US Treasury Department.

"Financial institutions and other companies have begun to re-evaluate their business relationships with Iran. Many leading financial institutions have either scaled back dramatically or terminated entirely their Iran-related business," said Stuart Levey, the treasury's under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, at a press conference Tuesday.

"They have done so of their own accord, many concluding that they did not wish to be the banker for a regime that funds terrorism, defies the UN security council in pursuing a nuclear program and deliberately conceals the nature of its business."

He also pointed to activities such as the sponsoring of a conference questioning the Holocaust, saying, "These things all start to add together and are leading to increasing isolation of Iran from the legitimate business community that it needs for its future."

Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the treasury action against Bank Sepah opens a new arena of concern for banks, which will now have to avoid complicity in WMD proliferation, not just terrorism.

The latter policy, pursued by the Bush administration in earnest over the last two years with the appointment of Levey, "has been quite successful in saying to banks, do you really want to get involved in this," noted Clawson, implying the answer from banks was overwhelmingly no. "The banks don't want to acquire reputations for being 'criminal banks.'"

The block on Sepah forbids American citizens from handing any direct or indirect transactions involving the bank, which the US accuses of financing the Iranian Aerospace Industries Organization (AIO), which oversees all of Iran's missile industries and manages the country's missile program.

"Bank Sepah is the financial linchpin of Iran's missile procurement network and has actively assisted Iran's pursuit of missiles capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction," Levey said. "It's very important that they don't have the means of delivery."

He said that the move was taken under the authority of an executive order and was discussed with European allies, including Italy, since the Rome Bank Sepah branch was involved in a large number of AIO transactions.

Levey said the treasury's investigation of the Iranian bank also revealed shady practices including attempts to conceal its name from a party to international business and links with North Korea.

While North Korea has been easier to isolate economically because of its small size, Levey said Iran is vulnerable because it has "a much greater integration into the international financial system."

In Teheran, Reuters reported that Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, told Iran's Student News Agency, "This is not the first time that such measures of America take place and the bank harassments of America have happened in some cases. However, these are not issues that can affect Iran's will." Post comment | Terms


...............................................benny

Jan. 9, 2007 13:48 | Updated Jan. 10, 2007 0:09
MI head: Syria lowers army alert
By SHEERA CLAIRE FRENKEL



Talkbacks for this article: 25

Following weeks of reports that Syria was preparing for a confrontation with Israel, Military Intelligence head Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin announced Tuesday that the Syrian army was lowering its alert level. The current alert level, Yadlin told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, was now lower than it had been before the war in Lebanon last summer.

Yadlin also said he did not know for certain that Syrian President Bashar Assad was truly interested in peace with Israel. "Assad is clearly interested in the benefits he will be afforded through the negotiations process, namely international recognition," said Yadlin. "It is not as clear if he is interested in achieving an actual peace."

The sincerity of Assad's statement last month, that peace talks with Israel could be completed "in six months" if they were resumed from where they left off, has been questioned by many Israeli officials.

Within Israel's military establishment there have been conflicting reports. Brig.-Gen. Yossi Baidatz, head of the Military Intelligence Research Division, stated that "Syria is genuinely interested in negotiations," while Mossad director Meir Dagan announced that he does not "truly see Syria offering to renew negotiations with Israel."

The issue has been at the source of the debate over whether Israel would find itself in another war with its neighbors by the summer.

"It is clear Syria is deeply committed to the axis of evil, to Iran, to arming Hizbullah in Lebanon and to the attempts to bring down Saniora," said MK Effie Eitam (National Union-National Religious Party).

MK Yossi Beilin (Meretz) said, "If the prime minister listened to what we heard today, he should know that it would be national lawlessness not to quickly launch a dialogue with Syria in a bid to reach peace... I believe Syria is very serious regarding negotiations and it's serious not to open negotiations with them."

Turning to Lebanon, Yadlin confirmed reports that Hizbullah was rebuilding itself in the south of Lebanon and that UNIFIL forces were hesitant to directly interfere with disarming the terror group. Yadlin also said that dozens, if not hundreds, of al-Qaeda operatives were working in Lebanon.

"Those who can be harmed by al-Qaeda operatives are UNIFIL and western interests in Lebanon," Yadlin said.

Al-Qaeda forces were also recently discovered in the Gaza Strip, said Yadlin, although they were mostly involved in logistical exercises. Al-Qaeda is seeking to widen its base in the entire Middle East by dispatching operatives to Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Egypt. The terror organization's intentions to launch attacks in Israel are no secret and Ayman al-Zawahiri has made public calls to destroy Israel.

Yadlin also discussed Iran's nuclear weapons program, stating that Iran was using the 60-day ultimatum by the United Nations' Security Council to push forward with uranium enrichment.

"Iran's trying to convey the message that it is too late... the horse is out of the barn and they have the technological know-how to build a nuclear weapon," said Yadlin.

According to Israeli estimates, Iran will be able to produce a nuclear bomb by mid 2009 at the earliest, barring technological obstacles and foreign interventions. If Iran was able to purchase enriched materials from other countries, it could produce a nuclear bomb earlier than 2009, Yadlin said. Post comment | Terms


..........................................benny

Iran Countdown Clock - TARGET IRAN
http://www.globalsecurity.org





01 February 2007
The year 2007 begins to mark the closing of the window of opportunity for military strkes against Iran.

CBS News reported on 18 December 2006 that the Bush administration has decided to ramp up the naval presence in the Persian Gulf to send a message to Tehran. CBS reported that an additional aircraft carrier would be added to the Gulf contingent in January 2007, arriving on station around 01 February 2007. The New York Times reported 20 December 2006 that the Bremerton-based aircraft carrier CVN-74 John C. Stennis and its strike group could leave weeks earlier than planned as part of a move to increase the U.S. military presence in and around the Middle East. Moving up the Stennis’ departure date in January 2006 allows a longer overlap with USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, the carrier currently in the Persian Gulf. Eisenhower deployed 01 October 2006, and could remain on station into March 2007. It is difficult for one Carrier Air Wing [CVW] to conduct flight operations for much more than about 12 hours before having to stop. However, with the combined striking power of two CVWs, the Carrier Task Force (CTF) is able to conduct air operations over a continuous 24-hour cycle.

If the White House is politically risk averse with reference to striking Iran, striking Iran in early February 2007 would allow the maximum time betweeenr the strikes and the 2008 Presidential election.


1-11 February 2007 - Ten-Day Dawn
The 10 Day Dawn (Daheh-ye Fajr) celebrations mark anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979. On 12th of Bahman 1357 (01 February 1979), the Imam Khomeini appeared in Iran on the steps of an Air France plane. The great crowd of people who had gone to welcome their Imam were waiting at Mehrabad airport and along his way to Behesht-e Zahra Cemetery. They desired to meet their leader whom was returning to his homeland after a 15-year exile forced by the Shah’s regime. The whole city was illuminated and strewn with flowers. The Islamic Revolution gained the victory on 11 Febreary 1979. The Ten Day Dawn marks the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 and is celebrated by Iranians each year.

On 14 November 2006 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that two major technological achievements of the government will be made public during the Ten-Day Dawn (February 1-11) of 2007. He said this year's Ten-Day Dawn will the ten-day celebration of Iranian nation for its nuclear and technological achievements. "This year's Ten-Day Dawn period will mark the Iranian nation's success in mastering fuel cycle as well as its achievements in other fields," Ahmadinejad said. He said Iran possesses the “full nuclear fuel cycle and time is completely running in our favor in terms of diplomacy.” Further, “We will commission some 3,000 centrifuges by [the Ten-Day Dawn festivities at the beginning of February].” On 18 Decenber 2006 Government Spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham said that Iran will be announced as an established nuclear state during the 2007 Ten Day Dawn ceremonies.
__________________
............................................benny

Jan. 10, 2007 1:54 | Updated Jan. 10, 2007 2:17
Jones: US will stand by Israel in face of Iranian threat
By TOVAH LAZAROFF AND LEAH GRANOF



Talkbacks for this article: 9

United States Ambassador Richard Jones said on Tuesday that his country was committed to Israel's security in light of the "serious threat" Iran and Hamas posed to Israel's existence.

"Iran's president [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] openly calls for wiping Israel off the map. Hamas leader Khaled Mashal stubbornly refuses to accept that Israel even has a right to exist," said Jones. He spoke in Jerusalem to gathering of the biennial national convention of the Association of Americans and Canadians in Israel.

"When you add Iran's nuclear ambition to an already unstable mix of regional tensions the serious nature of Israel's security challenge becomes clear," Jones said.

He assured the audience that, "Israel's security and well being are of vital importance to the United States."

Military threats are not the only problem Israel faces, Jones said.

"Even some Western artists and academics afflicted with a peculiar strain of ideological blindness have proposed a cultural boycott of Israel, while saying nothing about those who deny the holocaust," Jones said.

He also acknowledged Israel's struggle to preserve its identity as a Jewish and democratic state while at the same time preserving minority rights.

"Balancing full participation by minorities with the majority's legitimate desire to preserve the original character of the country will not always be easy," Jones said. He added, that he was confident that Israel would reconcile those goals for the benefit of its citizens.

In turning his attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Jones said US President George Bush believed that solving this issue was one of the "greatest objectives" of his presidency.

On Monday, Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh told The Jerusalem Post that Bush's road map for peace, which Israel and the Palestinian Authority initially signed onto as a method to resolve their differences, had expired

But on Tuesday Jones said that the US remains committed to the Road Map as the best tool by which to move forward toward a two-state solution, even though he did not specially address Sneh's comment.

The Prime Minister's office has also insisted that Israel remains committed to the road map.

In speaking to AACI on Tuesday, Jones said that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is due to arrive in the region at the end of the week to help push forwards diplomatic efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to the State Department. Rice will be in Jerusalem, Ramallah, Sharm El Sheik, Aman, Kuwait City and Riyadh during her weeklong trip.

Jones said that she along with the "United States will pursue diplomatic efforts to help [Palestinian Authority] President Mahmoud Abbas strengthen and reform the Palestinian Authority."

He added that that the US would also "encourage engagement by regional leaders in support of peace."
......................................benny

January 9, 2007
Moon and Solana: The Middle East must be resolved quickly!
by Michael G. Mickey
1-10-07

The Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) is reporting that UN Secretary General and European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana agreed Monday that "three issues, including that of the Middle East at large, should be dealt with "rapidly.""

The three issues?



1. The Middle East at large.
2. Lebanon
3. Sheba'a Farms, which is a small area of disputed ownership located at the junction of Syria, Lebanon, and Israel

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is quoted in the article as saying the following:

"Within the Middle East, I would like to insist as strongly as possible, that we have to tackle the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. I hope very much that he (Ban) will also play an important role in invigorating the Quartet."This must be for us a priority of great significance at this period of time."

Solana makes it clear in the article, as the primary foreign policy voice of the revived Roman empire of Bible prophecy, that this is going to be his focus in the days ahead, all of this coming as Iran continues to seek nuclear weapons and rumors persist that Israel may be considering military action to deal with the threat posed by Iran.

"We need to solve problems," Solana says in the article. "We don't need to talk about the problems... This is the spirit in which I'm going to work, in which the new Secretary-General is going to work."

The Quartet is to meet later this month in Paris.

Is the cry of "peace and safety" soon going to be heard in the Middle East as Moon and Solana believe needs to happen?

If so, it's rapidly nearing time for our departure, Christians!

1st Thessalonians 5:3-6: For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober.

Keep your eyes on Jesus, saints of God! Keep your eyes on Him!

Posted by Michael G. Mickey at 11:48 PM

Labels: Ban Ki Moon, Israeli, Javier Solana, Lebanon, Middle East, Palestinian, peace, Syria


2 comments:
Anonymous said...
We're goin' home soon.
Soon our Father is gonna call his children home.
We've all gotta buckle down and rememberto daily surrender to the Holy Spirit so our lights can be shining like they never have before in these last moments before we're called home.
If we're going to be the generation that rounds out the Church Age,then let's do it right!
Hold strong to the truth of God's word and stay strong in prayer brothers and sisters in Christ,can't wait to see you all!

January 10, 2007 2:46 AM
Anonymous said...
I absolutely believe the stage is set for Christ to snatch us away. There is going to be so many people left including those that accept the Blasphemy Challenge. My heart is broken for them but our God will is just and patient but clearly that patience is waning thin. Mankind has no idea what is about to happen.

Maranatha!
Kevin

January 10, 2007 8:14 AM
Post a Comment

................................................benny .......P.S....I noticed the statement about Iran, and the Rapture.......This is what I have been pointing out all along........That I believe that the world will recieve two global shocks back to back......The rapture and Isaiah 17;1....and not necessarily in that order.

Russian Admiral Predicts Impending US Strike Against Iran

January 09, 2007
Kuwait News Agency
KUNA
http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.as...en&DSNO=940826

MOSCOW -- Former Russian Black Sea Fleet Commander Admiral Edward Baltin said Tuesday that the presence of so many nuclear submarines in the Arab Gulf waters pointed to likely plans for a US attack against Iran.

Baltine, who was quoted by Interfax news agency, said the presence of US submarines in Gulf waters meant that Washington was contemplating a strike against Iran.

"The presence of the submarines indicates that Washington has not abandoned plans to launch a sudden attack against Iran," the admiral said.

He blamed Monday's collision between a US submarine and a Japanese sea liner near the Strait of Hormuz on the fact that US submarines needed to sail relatively higher than their usual depths to get clearer vision enabling them to zero in on likely targets.

The admiral recalled that, in previous conflicts, US submarines had "cleaned up" the road to pave the way for an air strike through destroying enemy air defense installations.
__________________
.............................................benny

Tories Back US Action on Iran

January 10, 2007
Independent
Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...cle2140280.ece

Liam Fox, the shadow Defence Secretary, has backed hawks in the White House by calling for "nothing to be ruled out" to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon.Mr Fox gave the clearest signal yet that the Conservatives would support military action, including the use of nuclear strikes by the US or Israel, to halt the alleged production of a nuclear weapon by Iran.

"I am a hawk on Iran," said Mr Fox. "We should rule absolutely nothing out when it comes to Iran.

"They are notoriously good poker players and it is a very high stakes game they are playing."

His remarks follow reports in the US; that Israel is ready to use nuclear "bunker buster" bombs to knock out the Iranian nuclear plants.

Israeli officials denied the reports but there is a widespread belief at Westminster that Israel and America will not stand by while Iran develops nuclear weapons, although Iran has denied it is doing so.

The issue has caused rifts in Tony Blair's Government. Jack Straw said military action against Iran was "inconceivable" when he was foreign secretary. Mr Blair has insisted that military action was not on the agenda, but refused to go as far as Mr Straw in ruling it out.
............................................benny

Sleeper Conference.......by herb peters
Russia, proving to be an unreliable energy partner Read about it here, is causing the EU to look elsewhere -- both inward and outward. Inward means finding ways to cut down the EU's dependence on fossil fuels. Outward means developing a common energy policy and begin speaking with a "single voice" Read about it here I Green Paper pdf. Friends, where have we heard those words -- "single voice" -- before?

You see, one of the primary reasons why the EU heads need a new, super Foreign Minister post, is so the EU can better negotiate in the international arena. And, in an EU document calling for a Foreign Minister, the EU's inability to negotiate favorable energy deals with Russia is an example given for why the post is needed.

In the meantime, it's obvious the EU needs a better energy partner. This is where Euromed may come in. You see, besides by 2010 having a free trade zone established between the EU and the Mediterranean region, by 2010 the EU wants to have a secure energy infrastructure established too. Now we know why.

This brings us to something that, too late for a commentary, I posted last night. It was a link to an article about a conference that's being called, "Madrid + 15" Read about it here. As I read the list of those attending, and I noticed that they were mostly past officials and lower ranking representatives, my first thoughts were that this conference shouldn't be considered too important. But, when I saw the EU's Javier Solana's name, I changed my mind. My experience tells me that, for political reasons, Solana usually doesn't attend meetings he doesn't feel worthy of his presence.

I also noticed that Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos would be giving the opening address. Moratinos, you may recall, once worked under Solana as his personal representative to the Middle East. And Moratinos, for some time now, has been calling for another Madrid type international conference. If you recall, it was at the 1991 Madrid Conference when the idea of Israel trading land for peace was born. And, it was at the Madrid Conference where Solana says he was first introduced into the Middle East peace process.

Let's take another look at the list of those attending:

The current conference will be attended by a team of eight representatives from the Palestinian Authority headed by Fatah leader Mohammed Dahlan; 11 Israeli representatives including former foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami and former head of Military Intelligence Uri Saguy; a European contingent including the foreign ministers of Denmark, Norway and Sweden and former French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine, as well as former Spanish president Felipe Gonzalez and EU high representative for common and security policy, Javier Solana. Russia, the UN, the Arab League, the Cooperation Council of the Arab States of the Gulf, Syria and Saudi Arabia will also be represented, as will the US, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon.

Friends, if Madrid +15 doesn't qualify as another 1991 Madrid type conference, I don't know what would. In fact, this conference is even being called a "reunion."

This brings up an intriguing question: By calling this meeting just a reunion, are they actually trying to hide the significance of this event?

Could it be a sleeper conference?

...........................................benny

Left Behind


There will come a time when we are gone
and you'll not know that we've departed.
But read on dear friend and I'll tell you
Just "what" has now been started.
What you'll hear on the radio
or view on the evening news..
Will only tell you that we've "gone"
and the moderators "views".


Here's the "TRUTH" put quite simply
and laid out really plain…
We are now with JESUS CHRIST
and forever in HIS reign.
What has just took place is not a surprise....
it has been expected.
Our mass departure from this earth
has for centuries been projected.


If you look around and find a Bible,
keep it close at hand.
You're going to need to read it
to completely understand.
First Thessalonians Four Seventeen
is a verse you should read first.
Start from verse fourteen,
and you'll know why we've dispersed.


Also read chapter Five...
Verses 1 on through eleven.
It will tell you where "we've" gone...
with JESUS up in heaven.
This is no fairy tale dear friend.
It's not a "Disney" story.
We as believers are saved by GOD
to be with HIM in Glory.


This world and all that are within it,
will face the utmost evil.
It's cataclysmic terror...
you will share with it's upheaval.
The antichrist will surface then,
and control your every function.
You'll not escape the hell to follow...
you now stand at your life's junction.


There is a way to be with us
and to join our GOD above.
You'll have to face the trials to come,
and die to earn HIS love.
Only those who do not take the "mark" on their own person,
Will earn the right to confess JESUS
even though things worsen.





You say that's "harsh"
why should I die...
just to be with HIM?
Why not just stay and take the "mark"...
could it really be that grim?
YES! The answer is for sure...
please make your preparation.
If you don't ask JESUS into your life,
you'll face eternal separation.


You'll be cast into the Lake of Fire,
prepared for Unbelievers.
Because you failed to see the truth,
and listened to deceivers.
GOD'S love is great...
and you are made in our own GOD'S image.
You will be named among the lost...
This battle isn't scrimmage.





As you read the Bible
you will see how things progressed.
And how you could have been with us
if JESUS you confessed.
Because you failed to ask HIM "in"
just means that you were left.
The "believers" were taken out of here
as if by some great theft.


It's not too late to save yourself,
you still can gain HIS favor.
But since you failed to know HIM first...
tribulation you will savor.
You'll have to go on to the end
and confess JESUS as your SAVIOUR.
You will meet with an untimely end...
then for your righteous behavior.


Just weigh the cost,
and consequence's...
the severest price to pay.
It's what you'll have to do then friend,
to join with HIM that day.
You'll have a special place with GOD,
you'll be beneath HIS Throne.
But You will have the comfort then
to know that You're HIS own.


All this pain you could avoid
if you receive HIM now.
Don't wait to read these words much later...
this poem will tell you how.
Ask LORD JESUS to come into your heart...
But you must be sincere.
If you do this before the rapture comes,
You won't be left here.

C.C. ©May 4, 2006

................................................benny

Bush's Rush to Armageddon

By Robert Parry
January 8, 2007

George W. Bush has purged senior military and intelligence officials who were obstacles to a wider war in the Middle East, broadening his options for both escalating the conflict inside Iraq and expanding the fighting to Iran and Syria with Israel’s help.

On Jan. 4, Bush ousted the top two commanders in the Middle East, Generals John Abizaid and George Casey, who had opposed a military escalation in Iraq, and removed Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, who had stood by intelligence estimates downplaying the near-term threat from Iran’s nuclear program.

Most Washington observers have treated Bush’s shake-up as either routine or part of his desire for a new team to handle his planned “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq. But intelligence sources say the personnel changes also fit with a scenario for attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and seeking violent regime change in Syria.

Bush appointed Admiral William Fallon as the new chief of Central Command for the Middle East despite the fact that Fallon, a former Navy fighter pilot and currently head of the Pacific Command, will oversee two ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The choice of Fallon makes more sense if Bush foresees a bigger role for two aircraft carrier groups now poised off Iran’s coastline, such as support for possible Israeli air strikes against Iran’s nuclear targets or as a deterrent against any overt Iranian retaliation.

Though not considered a Middle East expert, Fallon has moved in neoconservative circles, for instance, attending a 2001 awards ceremony at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, a think tank dedicated to explaining “the link between American defense policy and the security of Israel.”

Bush’s personnel changes also come as Israel is reported stepping up preparations for air strikes, possibly including tactical nuclear bombs, to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, such as the reactor at Natanz, south of Tehran, where enriched uranium is produced.

The Sunday Times of London reported on Jan. 7 that two Israeli air squadrons are training for the mission and “if things go according to plan, a pilot will first launch a conventional laser-guided bomb to blow a shaft down through the layers of hardened concrete [at Natanz]. Other pilots will then be ready to drop low-yield one kiloton nuclear weapons into the hole.”

The Sunday Times wrote that Israel also would hit two other facilities – at Isfahan and Arak – with conventional bombs. But the possible use of a nuclear bomb at Natanz would represent the first nuclear attack since the United States destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan at the end of World War II six decades ago.

While some observers believe Israel may be leaking details of its plans as a way to frighten Iran into accepting international controls on its nuclear program, other sources indicate that Israel and the Bush administration are seriously preparing for this wider Middle Eastern war.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has called the possibility of an Iranian nuclear bomb an “existential threat” to Israel.

After the Sunday Times article appeared, an Israeli government spokesman denied that Israel has drawn up secret plans to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities. For its part, Iran claims it only wants a nuclear program for producing energy.

Negroponte’s Heresy

Whatever Iran’s intent, Negroponte has said U.S. intelligence does not believe Iran could produce a nuclear weapon until next decade.

Negroponte’s assessment in April 2006 infuriated neoconservative hardliners who wanted a worst-case scenario on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, much as they pressed for an alarmist view on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in 2003.

Unlike former CIA Director George Tenet, who bent to Bush’s political needs on Iraq, Negroponte stood behind the position of intelligence analysts who cited Iran’s limited progress in refining uranium.

“Our assessment is that the prospects of an Iranian weapon are still a number of years off, and probably into the next decade,” Negroponte said in an interview with NBC News. Expressing a similarly tempered view in a speech at the National Press Club, Negroponte said, “I think it’s important that this issue be kept in perspective.”

Some neocons complained that Negroponte was betraying the President.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr., a leading figure in the neoconservative Project for the New American Century, called for Negroponte’s firing because of the Iran assessment and his “abysmal personnel decisions” in hiring senior intelligence analysts who were skeptics about Bush’s Iraqi WMD claims.

In an article for Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times, Gaffney attacked Negroponte for giving top analytical jobs to Thomas Fingar, who had served as assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research, and Kenneth Brill, who was U.S. ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which debunked some of the U.S. and British claims about Iraq seeking uranium ore from Africa.

Fingar’s Office of Intelligence and Research had led the dissent against the Iraq WMD case, especially over what turned out to be Bush’s false claims that Iraq was developing a nuclear bomb.

“Given this background, is it any wonder that Messrs. Negroponte, Fingar and Brill … gave us the spectacle of absurdly declaring the Iranian regime to be years away from having nuclear weapons?” wrote Gaffney, who was a senior Pentagon official during the Reagan administration.

Gaffney also accused Negroponte of giving promotions to “government officials in sensitive positions who actively subvert the President’s policies,” an apparent reference to Fingar and Brill. The neocons have long resented U.S. intelligence assessments that conflict with their policy prescriptions. [See Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege.]

In his personnel shakeup, Bush shifted Negroponte from his Cabinet-level position as DNI to a sub-Cabinet post as deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. To replace Negroponte, Bush nominated Navy retired Vice Admiral John McConnell, who is viewed by intelligence professionals as a low-profile technocrat, not a strong independent figure.

A Freer Hand

Negroponte’s departure should give Bush a freer hand if he decides to support attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Bush’s neocon advisers fear that if Bush doesn’t act decisively in his remaining two years in office, his successor may lack the political will to launch a preemptive strike against Iran.

Bush reportedly has been weighing his military options for bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities since early 2006. But he has encountered resistance from the top U.S. military brass, much as he has with his plans to escalate U.S. troop levels in Iraq.

As investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote in The New Yorker, a number of senior U.S. military officers were troubled by administration war planners who believed “bunker-busting” tactical nuclear weapons, known as B61-11s, were the only way to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities buried deep underground.

A former senior intelligence official told Hersh that the White House refused to remove the nuclear option from the plans despite objections from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “Whenever anybody tries to get it out, they’re shouted down,” the ex-official said. [New Yorker, April 17, 2006]

By late April 2006, however, the Joint Chiefs finally got the White House to agree that using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran’s uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, less than 200 miles south of Tehran, was politically unacceptable, Hersh reported.

“Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning,” one former senior intelligence official said. [New Yorker, July 10, 2006]

But one way to get around the opposition of the Joint Chiefs would be to delegate the bombing operation to the Israelis. Given Israel’s powerful lobbying operation in Washington and its strong ties to leading Democrats, an Israeli-led attack might be more politically palatable with the Congress.

Attacks on Iran and Syria also would fit with Bush’s desire to counter the growing Shiite influence across the Middle East, which was given an unintended boost by Bush’s ouster of the Sunni-dominated government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

The original neocon plan for the Iraq invasion was to use Iraq as a base to force regime change in Syria and Iran, thus dealing strong blows to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories.

This regional transformation supposedly would have protected Israel’s northern border and strengthened Israel’s hand in dictating final peace terms to the Palestinians. But the U.S. invasion of Iraq backfired, descending into a sectarian civil war with Iraq’s pro-Iranian Shiite majority gaining the upper hand.

In effect, by ousting Saddam Hussein, Bush had eliminated the principal buffer who had been holding the line against the radical Shiites in Iran since 1979. By tipping the strategic balance to the Shiites, Bush also unnerved the Sunni monarchy of Saudi Arabia.

A Nightmare

By 2006, the dream of a U.S.-orchestrated transformation of the Middle East had turned into a nightmare of rising Shiite radicalism. To address this unanticipated development, Bush began pondering how best to throttle Shiite expansionism.

In summer 2006, Washington Post foreign policy analyst Robin Wright wrote that U.S. officials told her that “for the United States, the broader goal is to strangle the axis of Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pooling resources to change the strategic playing field in the Middle East.” [Washington Post, July 16, 2006]

Bush’s advisers also blamed the governments of Syria and Iran for supporting anti-U.S. fighters in Iraq.

Yet lacking the military and political capacity to expand the conflict beyond Iraq, the Bush administration turned to Israel and its new Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. By summer 2006, Israeli sources were describing Bush’s interest in finding a pretext to take Syria and Iran down a notch.

That opening came when border tensions with Hamas in Gaza and with Hezbollah in Lebanon led to the capture of three Israeli soldiers and a rapid Israeli escalation of the conflict into an air-and-ground campaign against Lebanon.

Bush and his neoconservative advisers saw the Israeli-Lebanese conflict as an opening to expand the fighting into Syria and achieve the long-sought “regime change” in Damascus, Israeli sources said.

One Israeli source told me that Bush’s interest in spreading the war to Syria was considered “nuts” by some senior Israeli officials, although Prime Minister Olmert generally shared Bush’s hard-line strategy against Islamic militants. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Bush Wants Wider War.”]

In an article on July 30, 2006. the Jerusalem Post also hinted at Bush’s suggestion of a wider war into Syria. “Defense officials told the Post … that they were receiving indications from the US that America would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria,” the newspaper reported.

In August 2006, the Inter-Press Service added more details, reporting that the message was passed to Israel by Bush’s deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams, who had been a central figure in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s.

“In a meeting with a very senior Israeli official, Abrams indicated that Washington would have no objection if Israel chose to extend the war beyond to its other northern neighbor, leaving the interlocutor in no doubt that the intended target was Syria,” a source told the Inter-Press Service.

In December 2006, Meyray Wurmser, a leading U.S. neoconservative whose spouse is a Middle East adviser to Vice President Cheney, confirmed that neocons inside and outside the Bush administration had hoped Israel would attack Syria as a means of undermining the insurgents in Iraq.

“If Syria had been defeated, the rebellion in Iraq would have ended,” Wurmser said in an interview with Yitzhak Benhorin of the Ynet Web site. “A great part of it was the thought that Israel should fight against the real enemy, the one backing Hezbollah. … If Israel had hit Syria, it would have been such a harsh blow for Iran that it would have weakened it and (changed) the strategic map in the Middle East.”

But the Israeli summer offensives in Gaza and Lebanon fell short of Olmert’s objectives, instead generating international condemnation of Tel Aviv for the large numbers of civilian casualties from Israel’s bombing raids.

Wounded Leaders

Now, as two politically wounded leaders, Bush and Olmert share an interest in trying to salvage some success out of their military setbacks. So, they are looking at possible moves that are much more dramatic than minor adjustments to the status quo.

Democrats and some Republicans are questioning why Bush wants to send 20,000 more U.S. troops to Iraq and offer Iraqis some jobs programs, when similar tactics have been tried unsuccessfully in the past.

Indeed, one source familiar with high-level thinking in Washington and Tel Aviv said an unstated reason for Bush’s troop “surge” is to bolster the defenses of Baghdad’s Green Zone if a possible Israeli attack on Iran prompts an uprising among Iraqi Shiites.

The two U.S. aircraft carrier strike forces off Iran’s coast could provide further deterrence against Iranian retaliation. But the conflict would almost certainly spread anyway.

Likely Hezbollah missile strikes against Israel would offer another pretext for Israel to invade Syria and finally oust Hezbollah’s allies in Damascus, as the U.S. neocons had hope would happen in summer 2006, the source said.

In the neoconservative vision, this wider war would offer perhaps a last chance at achieving the regional transformation that has been at the heart of Bush’s strategy of “democratizing” the Middle East through violence if necessary.

However, few Middle East experts believe that Bush really would want the results of truly democratic elections in the region because Islamic militants would almost surely win resoundingly amid the anti-Americanism that has grown even more intense since the hanging of Saddam Hussein in late December.

An Israeli assault on Iran could put the region’s remaining pro-American dictators in jeopardy, too. In Pakistan, for instance, Islamic militants with ties to al-Qaeda have been gaining strength and might try to overthrow Gen. Pervez Musharraf, conceivably giving Islamic terrorists control of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal.

For some U.S. foreign policy experts, this potential for disaster from a U.S.-backed Israeli air strike on Iran is so terrifying that they ultimately don’t believe Bush and Olmert would dare implement such the plan.

But Bush’s actions in the past two months – reaffirming his determination to achieve “victory” in Iraq – suggest that he wants nothing of the “graceful exit” that might come from a de-escalation of the war.

Losing Faith

Bush has dug in his heels even as some senior administration officials have lost faith in his strategy.

On Nov. 6, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sent Bush a memo suggesting a “major adjustment” in Iraq War policy that would include “an accelerated drawdown of U.S. bases” from 55 to five by July 2007 with remaining U.S. forces only committed to Iraqi areas that request them.

“Unless they [the local Iraqi governments] cooperate fully, U.S. forces would leave their province,” Rumsfeld wrote.

Proposing an option similar to a plan enunciated by Democratic Rep. John Murtha, Rumsfeld suggested that the commanders “withdraw U.S. forces from vulnerable positions – cities, patrolling, etc. – and move U.S. forces to a Quick Reaction Force (QRF) status, operating from within Iraq and Kuwait, to be available when Iraqi security forces need assistance.”

And in what could be read as an implicit criticism of Bush’s lofty rhetoric about transforming Iraq and the Middle East, Rumsfeld said the administration should “recast the U.S. military mission and the U.S. goals (how we talk about them) – go minimalist.” [NYT, Dec. 3, 2006]

On Nov. 8, two days after the memo and one day after American voters elected Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, Bush fired Rumsfeld. The firing was widely interpreted as a sign that Bush was ready to moderate his position on Iraq, but the evidence now suggests that Bush got rid of Rumsfeld for going wobbly on the war.

On Dec. 6, when longtime Bush family counselor James Baker issued a report by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group urging a drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq, Bush wasted little time in slapping it down.

Instead, Bush talked about waging a long war against Islamic “radicals and extremists,” an escalation from his original post-9/11 goal of defeating “terrorists with global reach.”

At his news conference on Dec. 20, Bush cast this wider struggle against Islamists as a test of American manhood and perseverance by demonstrating to the enemy that “they can’t run us out of the Middle East, that they can’t intimidate America.”

Bush suggested, too, that painful decisions lay ahead in the New Year.

“I’m not going to make predictions about what 2007 will look like in Iraq, except that it’s going to require difficult choices and additional sacrifices, because the enemy is merciless and violent,” Bush said.

Rather than scale back his neoconservative dream of transforming the Middle East, Bush argued for an expanded U.S. military to wage this long war.

“We must make sure that our military has the capability to stay in the fight for a long period of time,” Bush said. “I’m not predicting any particular theater, but I am predicting that it’s going to take a while for the ideology of liberty to finally triumph over the ideology of hate. …

“We’re in the beginning of a conflict between competing ideologies – a conflict that will determine whether or not your children can live in a peace. A failure in the Middle East, for example, or failure in Iraq, or isolationism, will condemn a generation of young Americans to permanent threat from overseas.”

Escalation

Since then, Bush has floated the idea of a troop “surge” and replaced commanders who disagreed with him. Bush also removed U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, a Sunni Muslim generally considered a voice for moderation in U.S. policy who privately objected to Bush’s decision to press ahead with the hanging of Saddam Hussein.

There are even indications of tension between Bush and Cheney, who like his old friend Rumsfeld, appears to have grown disillusioned with the war.

In a little-noticed comment on Jan. 4, Sen. Joseph Biden, the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Cheney and Rumsfeld “are really smart guys who made a very, very, very, very bad bet, and it blew up in their faces. Now, what do they do with it? I think they have concluded they can’t fix it, so how do you keep it stitched together without it completely unraveling?” [Washington Post, Jan. 5, 2007]

But Bush does not appear to share that goal of limiting the damage. Instead, he is looking for ways to “double-down” his gamble in Iraq by joining with Olmert – and possibly outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair – in expanding the conflict.

Since the Nov. 7 congressional elections, the three leaders have conducted a round-robin of meetings that on the surface seem to have little purpose. Olmert met privately with Bush on Nov. 13; Blair visited the White House on Dec. 7; and Blair conferred with Olmert in Israel on Dec. 18.

Sources say the three leaders are frantically seeking options for turning around their political fortunes as they face harsh judgments from history for their bloody and risky adventures in the Middle East.

But there is also a clock ticking. Blair, who now stands to go down in the annals of British history as “Bush’s poodle,” is nearing the end of his tenure, having agreed under pressure from his Labour Party to step down in spring 2007.

So, if the Bush-Blair-Olmert triumvirate has any hope of accomplishing the neoconservative remaking of the Middle East, time is running out. Something dramatic must happen soon.

That something looks like it may include a rush to Armageddon.


http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2007/010807.html
__________________
................................................benny

Ok Brothers and Sisters in Jesus Christ....The following topic reveals that "WE" are just about out of "TIME".....It's coming down to the wire! You know very well what all of this is leading too.........Look UP!....for your redemption draws near!.......Things in the last few weeks have been happening so fast.....As though prophetic signs went into fast forward!......For them to deal with the final status of Jerusalem, they "MUST" deal with the Temple Mount issue......But what we must consider is that the arab nations will not simply say......OK Israel,....build your third temple.......If you have been reading my topics,.....you know that the evidence is overwhelming, that Isaiah 17;1 as a result of the coming war could happen at anytime. It will take the rapture, and Isaiah 17;1 to shock and humble the arab world to agree for Israel to build the temple........In combination of a false prophet calling fire out of the sky,...and pointing his finger at the anti-christ, as a messiah........the arab world will go along with whatever that he would suggest. If that coming false prophet turned out to be the arabs long awaited Madi.....That would put the nail in the coffin, so to speak....."WE will not be here to know the identity of the anti-christ, and the false prophet......But yet the stage looks very near set....So based on what "WE" are wittnessing......"WE know that "WE" are about near out of "TIME"......Wittness to all you can...............................................................................................................................................Egypt to press deal on Middle East "final status"
Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:07am ET

Related News
Mideast quartet paralyzed, restart sought: Merkel
More Related News...
advertisement
International News
Sudan, Darfur rebels agree 60-day ceasefire
Venezuela's Chavez sworn in for radical new term
Belarus resumes Russian oil flow, ending 3-day halt
More International News... Email This Article | Print This Article | Reprints [-] Text [+]
CAIRO (Reuters) - Egypt and Jordan will press for agreement on "final status" issues between Israel and the Palestinians, the Egyptian foreign minister said on Wednesday, days before a visit by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit told a news conference that the quest should take precedence over the Middle East peace plan known as the road map, announced by international mediators in 2003 but never fully implemented.

"There is a common position by Egypt, Jordan, the Arabs and the Palestinians calling for 'let us agree on the end of the road and let us agree on what we call...the endgame before we talk about the road map'," he said.

Egypt has floated the same idea before, but it did so this time two days before Rice leaves on a Middle East tour billed as another drive to revive Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts.


Reuters Pictures

Editors Choice: Best pictures
from the last 24 hours.
View Slideshow

For the past few years, peace moves have concentrated on trying to bring about small confidence-building measures, leaving aside bigger questions such as the borders of a future Palestinian state or the fate of Palestinian refugees.

The Egyptian campaign for a rethink, backed to some extent by Jordan, has made little difference to the policies of the United States, which continues to propose short-term measures by Israelis and Palestinians.

Aboul Gheit added: "The endgame has its specific concepts... Let's agree on the frameworks of the (peace) settlement. This is the Egyptian position." He did not elaborate.

Jordanian Foreign Minister Abdelelah al-Khatib, who spoke at the same news conference, did not dispute the Egyptian minister's interpretation of Jordan's position.

"The final settlement is a Palestinian demand and an Arab demand, and there must be agreement on the final settlement whatever steps and stages it takes," Khatib added.


© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.


..............................................benny

Target Iran - Countdown Timeline
The Bush Administration has almost certainly not approved the timing of military operations against Iran, and consequently any projection of the probable timing of such operations is neccessarily speculative. The election of Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad as Iran's new president would appear to preclude a negotiated resolution of Iran's nuclear program. The success of strikes against Iran's WMD facilities requires both tactical and strategic surprise, so there will not be the sort of public rhetorical buildup in the weeks preceeding hostilities, of the sort that preceeded the invasion of Iraq. To the contrary, the Bush Administration will do everything within its power to deceive Iran's leaders into believing that military action is not imminent.

2001
The Coalition for Democracy in Iran was formed in 2001 to mobilize the efforts of a variety of groups and individuals across the United States supporting the aspirations of the Iranian people for freedom, democracy and respect for human rights in Iran. The CDI strongly supports President Bush's designation of Iran as part of the deadly "axis of evil." Michael Ledeen [of the American Enterprise Institute], Morris Amitay [a former director of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC], and James Woolsley [former CIA director] formed the Coalition for Democracy in Iran, which has strong ties to the exiled Reza Pahlavi, the deceased shah's son.

29 January 2002
In his first State of the Union address, President Bush named three countries that he said continue to sponsor terror: North Korea, Iran and Iraq. He called them and their terrorist allies "an axis of evil," and said the price of indifference to them would be "catastrophic." He also warned that the country cannot afford to delay in further responding to the terrorist threat. "Time is not on our side," he said. "I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer."

01 June 2002
Speaking to the graduating class at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, President Bush said "Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.... We have our best chance since the rise of the nation state in the 17th century to build a world where the great powers compete in peace instead of prepare for war.... America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge, thereby making the destabilizing arms races of other eras pointless, and limiting rivalries to trade and other pursuits of peace."

20 May 2003
Senator Sam Brownback introduced the Iran Democracy Act, asking for $50 million to fund opposition groups dedicated to the overthrow of the Islamic regime. The Iran Democracy Act would provide funds for pro-democracy broadcasting into Iran, would reform radio Farda to make it more effective, and would state that it is the policy of the United States to support transparent, full democracy in Iran; to support an internationally-monitored referendum in Iran by which the Iranian people can peacefully change the system of government in Iran.

02 June 2003
The United States and its allies expressed concern at the Evian G-8 Summit about Iran's covert nuclear weapons program, stating that "we will not ignore proliferation implications of Iran's advanced nuclear program" and that "we offer our strongest support to comprehensive IAEA examination of this country's nuclear program."

10 June 2003
California Democrat Brad Sherman is set to introduce a bill in the House of Representatives that would serve as a counterpart to Senator Brownback’s Iran Democracy Act, which will allocate approximately $57 million to Iranian opposition groups and satellite TVs. Sherman’s bill, however, will also slap new sanctions on Iran, a “total” embargo” in order to “encourage the people of Iran to bring about a more peaceful and democratic government,”

June 2003
As of June 2003 a new national security presidential directive on Iran had gone through several competing drafts, but had yet to be approved by President Bush.

16 June 2003
The International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) report on Iran has been given out to IAEA members prior to the IAEA Board of Governors meeting which begins June 16.

3 July 2003
Officials say Israel will destroy Natanz plant if Iran operates it Mark Hibbs Nucleonics Week, July 3, 2003

12 February 2004
On February 12, the Senate passed an important resolution, S. Res. 304, that was submitted that same day by Senator Brownback. Denouncing the elections as harmful for true democratic forces in Iran, the resolution stated that the policy of the United States should be to advocate a democratic government in Iran that will restore freedom to the people of Iran, abandon terrorism, protect human rights, and live in peace and security with the international community.

08 March 2004
On 26 November 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency's Board requested the Director General to submit a comprehensive report on the implementation of the resolution on Iran by mid- February 2004, for consideration by the 08 March 2004 Board of Governors, or to report earlier if appropriate.

06 May 2004
The House passed H.CON.RES.398, which was introduced by HIRC Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) on March 25. It expresses “the concern of Congress over Iran’s development of the means to produce nuclear weapons,” and was passed under “suspension of the rules” on 06 May 2004. The final tally was 376 for the resolution, three against, 14 answering “present,” and 40 not voting. Opponents of this concurrent resolution charged that it led the country down the road to war against Iran. This resolution demands that Iran immediately cease all efforts to acquire nuclear enrichment activities and calls for the country to honor its stated commitments to grant IAEA inspectors unrestricted access to nuclear sites. But the resolution also calls upon all state parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty--including the United States--to use ``all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.'' It also "calls on the President to use all appropriate means to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons..." Even if this bill doesn't authorize the use of force against Iran, it creates a precedent for future escalation, as did similar legislation endorsing ``regime change'' in Iraq back in 1998. This legislation called for yet more and stricter sanctions on Iran , including a demand that other countries also impose sanctions on Iran. Critics charged that sanctions were unmistakably a move toward war, particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is made that the other nations of the world similarly isolate and blockade the country.

15 July 2004
On 15 July 2004 William S. Lind suggested that "an American-Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Such an attack may very well be on the agenda as the "October Surprise," the distraction President George W. Bush desperately needs if the debacle in Iraq is not to lead to his defeat in November."

22 July 2004
Another concurrent resolution (S.CON.RES.81 calls upon all states party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), including the United States, to use appropriate means to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, was passed/agreed to in the Senate on 22 July 2004. This slightly less inflamatory bill was accepted by the House in conference, replacing the more inflamatory language of H.CON.RES.398.

25 July 2004
Iranian Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi said in the northeastern city of Gorgan on 25 July 2004 that there is a "weak" possibility that archfoe Israel will attack Iran, Fars News Agency reported the same day. "Still, Iran has thought of the measures needed to repulse all attacks," he said. Separately, the head of the Iranian regular army's land forces, Brigadier General Nasir Mohammadifar, said in Mashhad in northeastern Iran on 25 July, "America would have attacked Iran by now if it were sure it could defeat us." Mohammadifar told a gathering of army inspectors that the United States is "intensely aware" of its "absolute" inability to attack Iran.

17 August 2004
Brig. Gen. Mohammad Baqer Zolqadr, the deputy chief of the elite Revolutionary Guards, said in a statement issued 17 August 2004, "If Israel fires a missile into the Bushehr nuclear power plant, it has to say goodbye forever to its Dimona nuclear facility, where it produces and stockpiles nuclear weapons." The head of the Revolutionary Guards' political bureau, Yadollah Javani, said said in a separate statement that "All the territory under the control of the Zionist regime, including its nuclear facilities, are within the range of Iran's advanced missiles."

20 August 2004
Iran might launch pre-emptive strikes to protect its nuclear facilities if they are threatened, Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani said in remarks broadcast on 20 August 2004. "We won't sit with our hands tied and wait until someone does something to us," Shamkhani told Arabic channel Al Jazeera when asked what Iran would do if the United States or Israel attacked its atomic facilities. "Some military leaders in Iran are convinced that the pre-emptive measures that America is talking about are not their right alone," he added in Persian. "Any strike on our nuclear facilities will be regarded as a strike on Iran and we will respond with all our might."

13 September 2004
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) will consider Iran's nuclear efforts during the IAEA Board meeting scheduled for 13 September in Vienna, Austria. The US may resort to the United Nations Security Council in an attempt to impose sanctions on Iran. The IAEA Board of Governors may report Iran's noncompliance to the United Nations Security Council, and the Security Council may take action under Articles 39 through 41 of the United Nations Charter to encourage or order Iran to cease its programs that would contribute to building a nuclear weapons capability. From 20-24 September 2004 the 48th Regular Session of the IAEA General Conference meets in Vienna, Austria.

02 November 2004
John Kerry's position is that "A nuclear armed Iran is an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States and our allies in the region. While we have been preoccupied in Iraq, Iran has reportedly been moving ahead with its nuclear program. We can no longer sit on the sidelines and leave the negotiations to the Europeans. It is critical that we work with our allies to resolve these issues and lead a global effort to prevent Iran from obtaining the technology necessary to build nuclear weapons. Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear. Under the current circumstances, John Kerry believes we should support the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) efforts to discern the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, while pushing Iran to agree to a verifiable and permanent suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing programs. If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action."

December 2004
Sightings of unidentified flying objects in Iranian skies increased in late December 2004. There were sightings in Markazi Province (where Tehran is located) and Bushehr Province (where nuclear reactors are being built). Sightings in Isfahan Province occurred near Arak and Natanz (where other nuclear-related facilities are located). Observers suggested these could be military-reconnaissance aircraft. US combat aircraft allegedly were sighted near Khorramshahr on 29 December and again on 30 December 2004. An anonymous informed source said, "The circling of two American fighter planes on Wednesday and their maneuvers over border areas of Iran and Iraq indicated that the planes were involved in spying." It is not clear if the Iranian antiaircraft units were able to react to the alleged violation of their airspace.

01 January 2005
A US warplane reportedly violated Iranian air space, this time a border edge near Afghanistan in the eastern province of Razavi Khorassan, in the latest spate of such overflights reported by the press. According to the evening daily Kayhan, an American fighter entered Iranian air space Thursday night, flying over the southern border strip at Iran`s Mousa-Abad region for several minutes. The US warplane flew back to Afghanistan, from where it had entered the Iranian airspace, the paper added. Kayhan further quoted an unknown source as saying that three US warplanes had again violated Iranian air space in the southwestern cities of Khorramshahr and Abadan near the Iraqi border.

23 June 2005
Iran's ninth presidential election took place on 17 June 2005, with the runoff election taking place on 24 June 2005. Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad was elected as Iran's president. Ahmadinejad's campaign issued a statement which described Iran's nuclear program as "a flood which cannot be stopped by a match stick ... It's impossible to stop a nation's scientific progress with a bunch of irrelevant words ... We will hold talks from a rational point of view and if they accept our legitimate right we'll cooperate ... The analysts say no country, no matter how powerful they are, can attack Iran. It would be suicidal for a country to attack Iran... so we must not bend to threats."

13 August 2005
On 13 August 2005 President Bush once again refused to rule out the use of force against Iran. When asked in an interview with Israeli television if the use of force was an alternative if diplomacy failed, Bush said: "All options are on the table. ... The use of force is the last option for any president. You know we have used force in the recent past to secure our country... I have been willing to do so as a last resort in order to secure the country and provide the opportunity for people to live in free societies ... we want diplomacy to work and so we are working feverishly on the diplomatic route and, you know, we will see if we are successful or not. As you know I'm sceptical ... "

23 September 2006
The first day of Ramadan is 23 September 2006, and the last day is 22 October 2006.

7 November 2006
The US Congressional elections of 2006 will be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006. It is unclear how the United States election cycle would influence the timing of strikes against Iran. If the White House is risk averse, it would be unlikely to launch strikes in the run-up to the 2006 election [or the 2008 election]. However, as soon as the election concludes, risk averse domestic political inhibitions about the uncertain consequences of striking Iran might be greatly diminished. Alternately, it might be conjectured that the White House might judge that military strikes would rally the country around the President and his party. This would argue for timing the strikes as little as a week before the election, a pre-planned October Surprise.

2006
Some analysts predicted that Iran could acquire a nuclear weapon as early as 2006. As of mid-2003 the CIA reportedly assessed that Iran was two or three years away from developing nuclear weapons. IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei told Der Spiegel 21 February 2005 that if Iran was determined to have nuclear weapons - as the US believes it is - it was “likely to have a bomb in two or three years”. These estimates would seem rather pessimistic. A more realistic date would seem to be around 2010.

01 February 2007
The year 2007 begins to mark the closing of the window of opportunity for military strkes against Iran.

CBS News reported on 18 December 2006 that the Bush administration has decided to ramp up the naval presence in the Persian Gulf to send a message to Tehran. CBS reported that an additional aircraft carrier would be added to the Gulf contingent in January 2007, arriving on station around 01 February 2007. The New York Times reported 20 December 2006 that the Bremerton-based aircraft carrier CVN-74 John C. Stennis and its strike group could leave weeks earlier than planned as part of a move to increase the U.S. military presence in and around the Middle East. Moving up the Stennis’ departure date in January 2006 allows a longer overlap with USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, the carrier currently in the Persian Gulf. Eisenhower deployed 01 October 2006, and could remain on station into March 2007. It is difficult for one Carrier Air Wing [CVW] to conduct flight operations for much more than about 12 hours before having to stop. However, with the combined striking power of two CVWs, the Carrier Task Force (CTF) is able to conduct air operations over a continuous 24-hour cycle.

If the White House is politically risk averse with reference to striking Iran, striking Iran in early February 2007 would allow the maximum time betweeenr the strikes and the 2008 Presidential election.

1-11 February 2007 - Ten-Day Dawn
The 10 Day Dawn (Daheh-ye Fajr) celebrations mark anniversary of the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979. On 12th of Bahman 1357 (01 February 1979), the Imam Khomeini appeared in Iran on the steps of an Air France plane. The great crowd of people who had gone to welcome their Imam were waiting at Mehrabad airport and along his way to Behesht-e Zahra Cemetery. They desired to meet their leader whom was returning to his homeland after a 15-year exile forced by the Shah’s regime. The whole city was illuminated and strewn with flowers. The Islamic Revolution gained the victory on 11 Febreary 1979. The Ten Day Dawn marks the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 and is celebrated by Iranians each year.

On 14 November 2006 President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that two major technological achievements of the government will be made public during the Ten-Day Dawn (February 1-11) of 2007. He said this year's Ten-Day Dawn will the ten-day celebration of Iranian nation for its nuclear and technological achievements. "This year's Ten-Day Dawn period will mark the Iranian nation's success in mastering fuel cycle as well as its achievements in other fields," Ahmadinejad said. He said Iran possesses the “full nuclear fuel cycle and time is completely running in our favor in terms of diplomacy.” Further, “We will commission some 3,000 centrifuges by [the Ten-Day Dawn festivities at the beginning of February].” On 18 Decenber 2006 Government Spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham said that Iran will be announced as an established nuclear state during the 2007 Ten Day Dawn ceremonies.

March 2007
On 26 September 2006 Iran and Russia signed an agreement under which Russia will ship fuel to a nuclear power plant it is building in Iran by March 2007. The agreement was signed by Sergei Shmatko, head of Russia’s state-run company Atomstroiexport, and Mahmoud Hanatian, vice president of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization. The document provides for supplying Russian fuel for the atomic energy plant in March, physical start-up in September 2007 and electric generation by November 2007. about 80 tons of fuel would be supplied by Russia for Iran.

On 12 November 2006 Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said Iran intended to install 3,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges by March 2007. Hosseini said Iran was doing all the work to install the centrifuges under control of the UN nuclear watchdog, adding that two cascades of 164 centrifuges were already in operation in the country. The 3,000 uranium enrichment centrifuges would give Iran the capability of producing enough Highly Enriched Uranium for about one atomic bomb annually.

Either one of these events might be regarded as a "Red Line" by either Israel and/or the United States. That both would take place nearly simultaneously would seem to significantly raise the probability of strkes against Iran's WMD facilities in this timeframe.


August 2007
Monday, September 3rd is Labor Day 2007, the notional beginning of the 2008 Presidential campaign. If the White House is politically risk averse with reference to striking Iran, the weeks before Labor Day might mark the last opportune moment to do the deed before the Presidential campaign gets under way.

4 November 2008
The US presidential election of 2008 is scheduled to occur on November 4, 2008. If the White House judges that military strikes would rally the country around the President and his party, it would argue for timing strikes as little as a week before the election, a pre-planned October Surprise.

20 January 2009
The new President is innaugurated. Depending on political calculation, a final window of opportunity to strike Iran opens during the transition from the old President the new. If Bush judged that his incoming successor lacked the resolve to take the neccessary action, or if it were judged that blaming Bush would ease the way of the new President, there might be arguments for striking after the election but before the innauguration.

31 December 2009
If strikes have not occured by January 2009, the new President will have some months to decide on a course of action. If strikes have not occured by the end of 2009, American policy will have shifted from saying the Atomic Ayatollahs are unacceptable, to accepting them as an accomplished fact.

...........................................benny

Mussa urges Mideast peace settlement


Arab league, EU, join Spanish call for new Middle East peace push at Madrid anniversary meeting.


MADRID - Arab League Secretary-General Amr Mussa on Thursday threw his weight behind Spanish calls for an international conference on the Middle East at a meeting to mark the 15th anniversary of the Madrid Conference which preceded the 1993 Oslo Accords.


"I invite the participants of this meeting to urge for an urgent international conference for a peace settlement, this time with the United Nations," Mussa told the gathering in the Spanish capital.


"The peace process should not be considered secondary to the fight against terrorism. It must come first," said Mussa.


He added that the parties involved should not be "afraid of peace", while urging Israel to "work to be a full member of the Middle East society of nations".


The EU's External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner added her voice to the clamour for a new conference as she appealed for the relaunching of the Quartet, comprising the United Nations, United States, the European Union and Russia, to work on a peace settlement.


"A revigorated Quartet has to play a key role," Ferrero-Waldner said, urging the pursuit of "consensus and (economic) development, (but) not by violence".


She added the EU was ready to play a key role to help develop "a comprehensive regional solution" but added that ongoing violence would hamper outside efforts, noting the standoff between supporters of Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas's Fatah party and those of the ruling Hamas movement.


"The first priority is to stop violence, the Palestinians must work towards resolving their own internal differences," Ferrero-Waldner said, stressing that a solution "cannot be imposed externally."


Thursday's meeting brought together a number of European, Arab and Israeli figures, some of whom attended the original US and Russian-sponsored version which paved the way to the Oslo Accords for Palestinian self-government.


Overnight, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos made an impassioned call for revamped peace talks via a new international conference which Spain has been lobbying for for months.


Also overnight, former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev, who was co-chairman of the original 1991 Madrid conference with former US president George Bush senior, regretted in a statement that "the situation in the Middle East has dramatically aggravated."


He added that the wider dimension of Iraq had also undermined the quest for peace.


"The new war in Iraq (Gorbachev also referred to the first Gulf War of 1991) has ... provoked a sharp political division in the international community.


"The Israeli-Palestinian conflict after the hopes raised in Oslo and Madrid turned away into the road of deception," Gorbachev opined, warning that the region was prey to "destructive, extremist" forces who had undermined "the moderate and responsible politicians who were present 15 years ago." Print Printer Friendly Version
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....................................benny ....P.S. ...Notice that they want the United Nations involved this time....Just so that you are aware......When he mentions the United Nations, he really means the A.O.C. ...I will be posting a lot of info on the A.O.C.,and the E.N.P, so that you guys can a clearer idea, as to how all of this seems to be leading to the prophecy of Daniel 9,27......I will title it Daniel 9;27, in the "Signs of the Times section.....There will be a lot to read....but you will get the picture......But you will be able to discern that the anti-christ entrance onto the world stage is not very far away.

In the general category of "what lies directly ahead"....(these Iran threads are going to have to get consolidated)


http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?...aya_jan11_2007
Is Israel doomed?


Thursday, January 11, 2007

By Antonio C. Abaya

IN my article of Nov. 26, 2006 titled The Muddled East—archived in www.tapatt.org—I wondered out loud why—while US President George W. Bush was meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki in Amman, Jordan—Vice President Dick Cheney flew six hours from Washington DC to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, met with the leaders of that medieval kingdom for eight hours, then flew another six hours back to Washington.

That must have been, by any standard, an extraordinarily important meeting, considering that Cheney is the leader of the neo-conservative cabal which planned the 2003 invasion of Iraq even before Sept. 11, 2001, even before George W was elected president in November 2000, and which now is preparing an escalation (“surge”) of the Iraq war toward the neo-cons’ unwavering primary strategic goal: total control of the Middle East.

My interpretation of that meeting, as outlined in that November article, is that Cheney was preparing, with the help of the Saudi royals, for an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. In particular, Cheney wanted Saudi approval for Israeli bombers flying through Saudi air space on their way to Iran, and possibly for mid-air refueling for these aircraft on their way back to Israel after their bombing runs.

After the debacle in Iraq, American public opinion will not support another ground war in Iran. But, given the fabled influence of the Jewish Lobby in US domestic politics, it could conceivably support an air war against Iran ’s nuclear facilities, or even only a supporting role to backstop an Israeli pre-emptive strike, by foiling any Iranian counter strike against Israel right in the Persian Gulf.

The selling point of such US involvement, I wrote in November, would be the expectation that the Iranian middle-class, who are considered pro-Western, would rise up and overthrow the ayatollahs and effect a regime change in Tehran. That expectation was reinforced by the results of local elections in mid-December, in which the political allies of President Ahmadinejad were defeated.

I also wrote in that November article that the Americans may be playing on the Saudi’s and other Arabs’ historical distrust of the Iranians. The Iranians are Persians, not Arabs, and they subjugated the Arabs in pre-Islamic centuries, all the way back to the time of Alexander the Great, 2,500 years ago, when the Persian Empire held sway over an area that stretched from Afghanistan to Turkey and the Libyan desert.

It is significant that about one week after the meeting with Cheney, the Saudi government announced that in the event of an American withdrawal from Iraq, Saudi Arabia would support the Sunnis in their ongoing civil war with the Iranian-backed Shias, a not-so-subtle message to the ayatollahs in Tehran.

Two or three weeks before he was executed on Dec. 31, Saddam Hussein wrote a farewell letter to his (Sunni) people, warning them of “those hateful, devil-worshipping Persians!” This was a reference to the fire-centered practices of Zoroastrianism, the dominant religion in Persia before the advent of Islam in the 7th century AD.

So, if my interpretation is correct, the Sunni-Shia divide in Islam will be cultivated by the Americans and the Israelis, especially in the Arab and Muslim Streets, to create the properly receptive climate for the bombing of Iran ’s nuclear facilities.

Exactly when this will happen, depends on when the Americans and the Israelis feel events are moving toward a point of no return. And this would have to do with their perceptions on when Iran will acquire the capability to make nuclear weapons. President Ahmadinejad’s repeated threats to “wipe Israel off the map” cannot be taken lightly when he is actively working to acquire nuclear weapons.

The American CIA estimates that it would take Iran 10 years to reach that point; the Israeli Mossad thinks it would take only two. The Israeli view seems to have prevailed with the neo-cons in Washington. The Israelis will have to strike soon. Otherwise, they are doomed. So, when?

In an article dated Dec. 21 in the Consortium News, the American writer Robert Parry warns that “the first two or three months of 2007 represent a dangerous opening for an escalation of the war in the Middle East, as George W. Bush will be tempted to ‘double-down’ his gamble in Iraq by joining with Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair to strike at Syria and Iran, intelligence sources say.” (Emphasis mine.)

Parry quotes recent Bush statements that indicate that, rather than being chastised by his party’s defeat in the November elections, Bush is in fact preparing to escalate the Iraq war into a wider Middle East war: Bush wants to demonstrate to the enemy that “they can’t run us out of the Middle East, that they can’t intimidate America.” “I’m not going to make predictions about what 2007 will look like in Iraq, except that it’s going to require difficult choices and additional sacrifices, because the enemy is merciless and violent.”

In another article dated Jan. 8, Parry analyzed the recent changes that Bush has made in the US order of battle. Bush removed (by retirement) Gen. John Abizaid as commander of US Central Command that oversees US military activities in Iraq, Afghanistan and the entire Middle East. He removed Gen. George Casey as overall US commander in Iraq , by kicking him upstairs as US army chief. Both Abizaid and Casey had publicly expressed reservations about Bush’s plan to “surge” the US forces in Iraq by 20,000 more troops by end of January.

To replace Casey, he appointed Gen. Petraeus, who has had experience training Iraqis for their national army and who no doubt shares Bush’s policy of escalation.

More importantly, to replace Gen. Abizaid, he appointed Admr. William Fallon, who until last week was commander of the Pacific Command based in Hawaii. Now, why would an admiral be chosen to oversee two on-going wars, one in the deserts of Iraq, the other in the mountains of Afghanistan?

Elementary, my dear Watson. Admr. Fallon will have under his command two carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf, one already in place, the other soon to be there. Their mission? Almost certainly to back-stop an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Iran and to foil the inevitable Iranian counter-strike against Israel. Or to actively take part in the destruction of Iran ’s nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan, Arak and elsewhere.

Another Bush dis-appointment that Parry finds significant is the demotion of John Negroponte from director of National Intelligence (with oversight powers over 16 intelligence agencies) to a mere undersecretary of state under Condoleeza Rice.

Parry reports that Negroponte had come under fire from the neo-cons’ Frank Gaffney, for his soft reading of Iran ’s nuclear potentials: “Our assessment is that the prospects of an Iranian [nuclear] weapon are still a number of years off, and probably into the next decade” were Negroponte’s famous last words. He was also criticized for appointing senior intelligence analysts who were skeptical of Bush’s claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

That is the American side of the emerging Middle East scenario for 2007. The Israeli side is no less hawkish or portentous.

According to a Jan. 7 article in The Sunday Times (of London ) by Uzi Mahnaimi in New York and Sarah Baxter in Washington, “Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

“Two Israeli air force squadrons are training to blow up an Iranian facility, using low-yield ‘bunker-busters’ [known B61-11s], according to several Israeli military sources… Under the plans, conventional laser-guided bombs would open ‘tunnels’ into the targets. ‘Mini-nukes’ would then immediately be fired a plant at Natanz, exploding deep underground to reduce the risk of radioactive fallout.”

According to the Times article, Israeli pilots have been flying off Gibraltar in recent weeks to train for the 2,000-mile round trip to the Iranian targets. Three possible routes have been mapped out, including one over Turkey. One of the two other routes, presumably, involves flying over Saudi Arabia, as I had earlier theorized.

In his Jan. 8 article, Parry quoted investigative reporter Seymour Hersh (in his article in the April 17, 2006 issue of The New Yorker) that a number of senior US military officers were troubled by administration war planners who believed that the B61-11s tactical nuclear weapons were the only way to destroy Iran’s underground nuclear facilities. Hersh wrote that the White House refused to remove the nuclear option from the plans despite objections from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “Whenever anybody tries to get it out, they’re shouted down.”

So it looks like the world may see the first nuclear weapons detonated in anger since Hiroshima and Nagasaki sometime during the first two or three months of 2007.

Is Israel doomed? If, with the help of the American neo-cons, Israel beats the Iranians to the draw, probably not, in the short term. In the medium term, however, the more appropriate question may be: “Is the world doomed?

Reactions to tony_abaya@yahoo.com. Other articles since 2001 in www.tapatt.org.

AND

Gates wants 92,000 Marines for Iraq
From correspondents in Washington
January 12, 2007

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said he would recommend to President George W. Bush increasing the Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 troops over the next five years for the long-term fight against terrorism.

“The emphasis will be on increasing combat capability,” Mr Gates said at a White House news conference to detail Mr Bush's plan for changing course in the Iraq war.
.............................................benny

January 11, 2007
Madrid Peace Conference off and running!
by Michael G. Mickey
(1-11-07)

For some time now, I've been discussing the possibility that Madrid, Spain would soon host a 1991-like peace conference in hope of reinvigorating the stalled Middle East peace process. What took place in 1991? Madrid hosted a peace conference which served as the impetus for the failed Oslo Accords to be born later in 1993.

As we see in a Jerusalem Post article, that conference is now underway with participants in attendance from Israel, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, the US, the Palestinian Authority, Russia and Saudi Arabia. The European Union is, of course, hosting the event, apparently with Spain's diplomats in the leading role for now, although EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is to arrive tomorrow, according to his personal website.

Speaking of Solana, earlier this week, on Monday, January 8th, while visiting the United States, Solana met with Richard Holbrooke, a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), which is a British think tank in the area of international affairs. The Institute describes itself as "the world’s leading authority on political-military conflict," according to Wikipedia. Not only that, it credits itself with being "hugely influential in setting the intellectual structures for managing the Cold War." Quite stimulating in light of where Solana will be headed tomorrow, isn't it?

Not only did Solana meet with the IISS, he also met with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon before addressing the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He wrapped his day up on 1-8-07 by meeting with Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations. The CFR is often associated with new world order plots as most everyone who studies Bible prophecy knows.

Presently, the CFR is being named as a party involved in what some are suggesting is an ongoing attempt taking place under our collective noses to create a North American Union, as suggested in an Eagle Forum article from 2005, as well as by Wikipedia, which has a CFR document posted on its site it indicates is a "CFR document promoting a North American Union."

On the 9th, Solana visited with Henry Kissinger, whose name has been associated with more new world order plots and associations than Aunt Jemima has been associated with pancakes!

Where is all this headed? I don&