"TOO LATE" TO STOP IRAN'S NUCLEAR WEAPON? THE FIGHT FOR JERUSALEM


Breaking news this morning: a new study compiled by EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana says it may be too late to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons.

“At some stage we must expect that Iran will acquire the capacity to enrich uranium on the scale required for a weapons programme,” says the paper, dated February 7 and circulated to the EU’s 27 national governments ahead of a foreign ministers meeting yesterday, according to the Financial Times. “In practice . . . the Iranians have pursued their programme at their own pace, the limiting factor being technical difficulties rather than resolutions by the UN or the International Atomic Energy Agency....The problems with Iran will not be resolved through economic sanctions alone.”

The Financial Times story concludes: "The EU document is embarrassing for advocates of negotiations with Iran, since last year it was Mr Solana and his staff who spearheaded talks with Tehran on behalf of both the EU and the permanent members of the UN Security Council."

Embarrassing? That's quite an understatement. Solana and his Western diplomatic colleagues have blown it. They've wasted precious time and proved that to misunderstand the nature and threat of evil is to risk being blindsided by it. Now, rather than support the type of decisive military action necessary to prevent Iran from using the bombs it is making, they are advocating just learning to live with a nuclear Iran. Will that be the policy of our White House and Congress as well? Can they not see the threat that is building?

Last month in Jerusalem, I spent several hours with a diplomat who does get it, thank God. Dore Gold was a senior advisor to various Israeli Prime Ministers and once served as Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations. I interviewed Dore for the Epicenter documentary we're currently producing. It was a great time catching up with an old friend. It was also a sobering time, hearing Dore's latest analysis of the urgent and growing threats in the region, an analysis which forms the basis of his new powerful and provocative book, The Fight For Jerusalem: Radical Islam, The West, and The Future of the Holy City.

The Epicenter documentary will be released nationwide on June 1st, and Dore's insights form a key part of the film. But don't wait until then. Dore's book was just released, and on Sunday will hit #3 on the Washington Post bestseller list and #17 on the New York Times list. No wonder. The Fight For Jerusalem should be required reading for the President and every Member of Congress and the Cabinet. It is the best researched, most informative, and most important book on the threat of radical Islam by an Israeli author in this decade.

Dore, an observant Orthodox Jew who was born in the U.S. and emigrated to Israel, knows his stuff. He's negotiated with Middle Eastern and other world leaders at the highest levels. He's had behind-the-scenes relationships with Arab and Islamic officials and scholars for decades. He currently runs the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a highly respected think tank. Unlike most senior Western diplomats, he has come to the accurate conclusion that secular Arab nationalism is no longer driving events in the Middle East as it did in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. Today, it's Islamic eschatology -- or end times theology -- that is inspiring a deadly new effort to hasten the destruction of both Israel and Judeo-Christian civilization as we know it. What's more, Dore understands that this requires an entirely different Western strategy than past conflicts, beginning with the realization that you can't successfully negotiate with or deter extremists who believe it is their God-given mission to annhilate the world.

One chapter I found particularly detailed and chilling: Chapter 8, "Jerusalem as an Apocalyptic Trigger For Radical Islam." Allow me to quote a few passages:

* "For [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, the destruction of Israel is one of the key global developments that will trigger the appearance of the Mahdi [Islamic Messiah]. It was on Iran's annual 'Jerusalem Day' on October 26, 2005, that Ahmadinejad made his famous reference to the need to 'wipe Israel off the map.'....Ahmadinejad shows all the signs of not only using apocalyptic language, but also believing that he has a personal role in bringing the end of times about." (p. 232)

* "[W]hat was the connection between Jerusalem and Ahmadinejad's planned final battle? Dr. Bilal Na'im served as an assistant to the head of the Executive Council of Hizbullah, the Iranian-controlled Lebanese Shiite terrorist organization. In an essay discussing the details of how the Mahdi is supposed to appear before the world, according to Shiite doctrine, he states that initially the Mahdi reveals himself in Mecca 'and he will lean on the Ka'abah and view the arrival of his supporters from around the world.' From Mecca the Mahdi next moves to Karbala in Iraq. But his most important destination, in Na'im's description, is clearly Jerusalem. It is in Jerusalem from where the launching of the Mahdi's world conquest is declared. He explains, 'The liberation of Jerusalem is the preface for liberating the world and establishing the state of justice and values on earth.' In short, Jerusalem serves as the launching pad for the Mahdi's global jihad at the end of days." (p. 233)

* "[I]t has been clear for more than a decade that Jerusalem has become a focal point for apocalyptic authors whose works have become relatively popular across the Arab world during these years. Their books are not just part of a theoretical discourse, but rather their language is reiterated by some of the most violent terrorist groups operating in the Middle East." (p. 251)

* "Diplomats and intelligence agencies don't normally pore over obscure religious texts about the end of days. But considering their widespread popularity and their practical impact on the issue of Jerusalem, that could be a colossal error. If one day Israel succumbed to the constant barrage of pressures from EU diplomats -- backed by certain quarters in the U.S. foreign policy establishment as well -- to redivide Jerusalem by relinquishing its holy sites, it might well unleash a new wave of jihadism emboldened by a sense that the traditions of radical Islamists about final battles at the end of history are about to come true. Western diplomats pursuing such a course of action may well believe they are lowering the flames of radical Islamic rage, but in fact they will only be turning up those flames to heights that have not been seen before." (p. 254)

Bottom line: Dore Gold's book could not be better written or better timed. I doubt Javier Solana will read it. But I am and you should.

posted by Joel C. Rosenberg @ 6:25 AM
.........................................................benny

Russia prepares for 'wars of the future'
The Russian military embarks on an ambitious procurement plan to beef up conventional forces on the continent and maintain a nuclear force capable of overwhelming the US National Missile Defense.
By Simon Saradzhyan in Moscow for ISN Security Watch (12/02/07)
The Russian military will spend a total of some 5 trillion rubles (US$189 billion) between 2007-2015 to replace 45 percent of its current arsenal with new weaponry systems ranging from submarine-launched ballistic missiles to new aircraft carriers for deep-water missions, in what reflects the country's resurgence as a global player.
According to an official statement, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov told the federal parliament on 8 February that the new arms and rigorous training should prepare Russia's war machine for the future.
"There are cardinal changes in what is going on in the world and the armed forces need to be prepared for […] wars of the future," according to the minister, who also holds the rank of deputy prime minister and is one of the possible contesters in the 2008 presidential race.
In line with the Defense Ministry's 2007-2015 armament program, the Russian military will spend a total of 300 billion rubles on procurement this year alone, according to Ivanov. Russia's defense budget has been growing steadily thanks to economic growth fuelled by high oil prices and a consumer boom. As a result of the surge in federal budget revenues, the Defense Ministry quadrupled its budget from 214 billion rubles in 2001 to 821 billion this year.
Experts say the Defense Ministry's shopping spree reflects the Kremlin's desire to transform the continuing economic resurgence into geopolitical dividends by beefing up conventional forces while maintaining the strategic nuclear forces' so-called assured destruction capability of in order to flex muscles in the adjacent neighborhoods in the short-to-medium term and across the globe in the longer term.
"The procurement plan demonstrates that Russia at least wants to acquire capability to project military-political influence at least on the regional level [..]," Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) and member of the Defense Ministry's Public Council, told ISN Security Watch in a Saturday phone interview.
Ivan Safranchuk, director of the Moscow office of the Washington, DC-based World Security Institute, concurred. "This is a sign that Russia wants to expand projection of its influence in the world, " Safranchuk told ISN Security Watch in a Wednesday phone interview.
The experts specifically pointed out that talk of procuring new aircraft carriers was one sign that Russia was seeking to expand its zone of influence. The decision to procure more could be made in 2009, the statement quoted Ivanov as saying. The Russian navy currently has one Soviet-era aircraft carrier and would have to build new ones from scratch since the sole maker of this ship in Soviet times is located in now-independent Ukraine.
As part of the shopping spree, the military will procure a total of 31 ships for the navy in 2007-2015, according to Ivanov. The ministry will also procure new arms for 40 tanks, 97 infantry and 50 airborne battalions in line with the 2007-2017 programs, he said.
As part of the reforms, the military will also stop procuring arms directly and rely on the Federal Agency for Arms Deliveries. Ivanov said this agency would become fully operational in 2008 to procure arms, equipment and other items for all of the so-called power agencies.
In his report, the minister also affirmed the Russian military's right for a preventive conventional strike and ruled out any new personnel cuts in the 1.1-million strong force, but assured that the share of professional soldiers would continue to grow among the rank-and-file.
The minister also reported that Russia may adopt a new military doctrine several years from now, once a new national security document was crafted and reaffirmed plans to replace the existing military district with regional commands.
The new doctrine is needed to formulate a response to expansion of the US presence in Russia's backyard, General Yury Baluyevsky, chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces said in remarks posted on the Defense Ministry's web site on 9 February
"The US military leadership's course aimed at maintaining its global leadership and expanding its economic, political and military presence in Russia's traditional zones of influence" has become a top threat for Russia's national security, Baluyevsky said.
Among other things, the armament program provides for construction of new "cheaper and more efficient" early radar warning stations on Russian territory, according to Ivanov. He said one such station, already built near St Petersburg, would allow the military to detect incoming missiles on territory spanning from Western Europe to the North Pole.
The stations are designed to fill in holes left in the Russian military's early warning capabilities by the disintegration of the Soviet Union as well as to decrease its dependence on these capabilities from former Soviet republics, according to Ivanov.
"We have plans to continue construction of these stations so that we won't depend on anyone, including our allies," Ivanov said in a reference to Belarus. Belarus has been Russia's closest ally and the two countries even operate a joint air defense system, but relations have been strained by a dispute over prices of Russian energy exports to Belarus.
The Russian strategic triad currently relies on data collected by early warning radars in Baranovichi in Belarus and Mukachevo and Sevastopol in Ukraine, as well as in Gabala, Azerbaijan. The Russian military has lost one such station in Skrunde, Latvia.
Ivanov did not say how many early warning satellites the military plans to procure in line with the program, but he did say that this year alone would see the armed forces acquire four satellites and four launch vehicles from the national defense industry.
To further decrease the dependency on facilities outside Russia, the Russian military will continue to spend 1 billion rubles a year to build a new base for the Black Sea fleet, which currently is based in Ukraine's Crimea in accordance with an agreement that expires in 2017.
The Russian military will also be less dependent on launches of heavy satellites to geostationary orbits from the Baikonur Cosmodrome, which Russia is leasing from Kazakhstan, once launch pads for Soyuz-2 and Angara rockets are built at the Plesetsk springboard in the Arkhangelsk region, according to the arms program.
The program also provides for procurement of at least 50 mobile versions of Topol-Ms as well as dozens of silo-based versions of this intercontinental ballistic missile. The mobile-driven ICBMs are harder to detect, but the Russian military is not so concerned with beefing up the mobile component of the Strategic Missile Forces that it would revive construction of train-driven ICBM systems, which were designed and produced in Ukraine in Soviet times, according to the minister. This year alone will see 17 ICBMs procured, the minister said. In comparison, the military had purchased around 10 ICBMs or fewer per year in recent times.
The next several years also will see the strategic nuclear triad continue operating 50 long-range Tu-160 and Tu-95 bombers and acquire new early radar warning stations on Russian territory, according to Ivanov.
In addition to new Topol-M's ICBMs, the Russian military also is set to procure Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). However, this procurement was delayed after a series of launch test failures in what also puts off commissioning of a new generation of atomic submarines.
The increase in the annual rate of procurement of nuclear missiles is not sufficient to replace the ICBMs that the military needs to decommission in the next five years, but would "would still allow to maintain its strategic military capability at an acceptable level," according to Safranchuk.
The Russian military needs to decommission almost all Soviet-built ICBMs in 2012-2015 due to expiration of their service lives in what would leave the strategic triad with only several hundred warheads on operational delivery systems in all three components of the triad, according to Safranchuk's estimates.
Pukhov of the CAST center agreed: "There is no talk about any kind of pseudo symmetry between the US and Russia in this, but the nuclear forces would still suffice to overcome the missile defense."
However, according to the influential Nezavisimoye Voyennoye Obozreniye (Independent Military Review) weekly, the rate of commissioning of new arms "doesn't correspond with the real threats."
The weekly's 9 February issue agreed that Ivanov's estimate that some 45 percent of the existing arms would have been replaced by 2016, but argued that many of the remaining older systems could break down in what "may possibly lead to lack of armaments."
Russia's new military program comes as the US moves forward with plans to site missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic - intentions that have put Russia on edge and which many believe prompted Moscow's very detailed release of its new defense program.
While Washington claims the planned Polish and Czech installations are intended to defend against missiles fired by Iran or North Korea, Moscow claims that the real intention has more to do with Russia's nuclear arsenal.
Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov once again attacked the US missile defense shield on sidelines on a security conference in Munich on 11 February as well as called abrogation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty between the US and the Soviet Union, which eliminated medium-range missiles. He described the treaty as "a relic of the Cold War."

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

INTL - Iran drones 'can attack US ships'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iran drones 'can attack US ships'
By Frances Harrison
BBC News, Tehran



An Iranian website close to the Revolutionary Guard has said they have drones that can launch attacks on American warships in the Persian Gulf.
This comes as the US has sent a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf in a move it says is intended to warn Iran that it intends to have a regional presence.

Both sides have increased the talk of war readiness in recent weeks.

This comes as concerns mount internationally about Iran's nuclear programme and its involvement in Iraq.

The Baztab website quotes the acting commander of the Revolutionary Guard's land forces as saying that Iran has unmanned aircraft that can fly long distances and launch attacks on American warships.

The commander reportedly said this would make the Americans leave the region in shame.

He added Iran had all US activity, including the slightest changes of the enemy, under constant surveillance.

And the website also quoted the commander claiming that Iran had managed to put the logo of the Revolutionary Guards on the side of an American warship in the Gulf to demonstrate how insecure they were in this region.

There is no independent confirmation of these Iranian assertions, but they show how Tehran is trying to counter what it says is the psychological warfare of the Americans with claims of military superiority.

Every few weeks, there are new Iranian war games and state television shows pictures of fresh military hardware like missiles and torpedoes being tested

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pag...st/6356971.stm
__________________
The training starts at the earliest age. For the past twenty years we have marched over the american flag.
Every meeting starts by saying "Death to America" and Death to Israel." It's not hidden. For twenty years this has been the policy of Iran.

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

ECON - Trouble in the Straits of Hormuz

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trouble in the Straits of Hormuz

By Jeremy Wakeford
13 Feb 2007 at 10:41 AM EST

JOHANNESBURG (Business Day) -- A slew of articles has recently appeared in the international media warning that the U.S. - or more accurately the Bush administration - is preparing for an imminent and catastrophic military attack on Iran. The evidence of military preparations in the Middle East region is mounting. Last month, U.S. President George Bush announced the deployment of a second aircraft carrier group to the Persian Gulf, along with 21,500 extra troops for Iraq.

He also replaced the head of the Pentagon’s central command (which oversees military operations in the Middle East and central Europe, especially the ground forces in Afghanistan and Iraq), previously an army general known to be against conflict with Iran, with a more hawkish admiral skilled in tactical sea-based warfare.

Furthermore, Patriot antimissile systems have reportedly been deployed around the Middle East, presumably to counter retaliatory missile strikes by Iran on U.S.-friendly neighbours or U.S. military bases. And there has been a massive naval build-up in the eastern Mediterranean.

According to the Kuwait-based Arab Times, an attack on Iran is likely to occur any time between late this month and the end of April. The U.S. congress is seemingly unwilling or powerless to do anything to stop this.

Why would the U.S. want to attack Iran? The ostensible reason, which has been given plenty of press coverage, is Iran’s nuclear programme, which Washington argues is aimed at the production of weapons of mass destruction. Possibly they are correct; perhaps Iran’s leaders desire nuclear weapons to counterbalance those possessed by Israel. But it is worth asking why the U.S. is determined to prevent Iran from pursuing a nuclear programme, when it has not taken any military action against North Korea, which already has atomic weapons capability.

Arguably, the main underlying motive for U.S. aggression is the geostrategic significance of Iran and its energy resources. Iran has the world’s second-biggest natural gas reserves after Russia, and still has significant oil reserves, although they are depleting. Moreover, Iran also recently forged close ties with Russia and China, both of which have invested heavily in Iran and supplied it with conventional weaponry.

These issues need to be viewed within a broader energy and geopolitical context. The inevitable peak in world oil production is either imminent (set to occur within the next few years) or possibly even occurring at present (as suggested recently by Matthew Simmons, chairman of the world’s largest energy investment banking consultancy). Given the world economy’s overwhelming dependence on oil - for more than 35% of primary energy, 90% of transport fuels, and as a crucial input into the agriculture, petrochemicals and pharmaceuticals industries - there is much at stake to gain access to diminishing supplies of crude. In its race to catch up with the industrialised countries, China’s rapidly growing thirst for oil imports sets it on a collision course with the U.S., which consumes a quarter of the world’s oil output.

Crucially, the Middle East contains more than half of the world’s remaining regular oil reserves, and a substantial portion of remaining natural gas.

Whatever the possible reasons for U.S. military action against Iran, what would be the likely economic effect?

History can supply some clues.

In 1979, Islamists overthrew the U.S.-backed regime of the Shah of Iran. This Iranian Revolution - and Iran’s subsequent war with Iraq (led by Saddam Hussein and backed by the U.S.) - caused the loss of Iran’s approximately 5% contribution to the world’s daily production of oil.

This supply shortfall - and the resultant panic and hoarding behaviour in the oil market - led to a tripling in the price of crude oil.

Many of the industrialised countries’ central banks - notably the U.S. Federal Reserve - reacted by sharply raising interest rates in a bid to quash inflationary expectations. In the process they induced a severe economic recession in the U.S. and most of the world, not to mention triggering the third-world debt crisis.

Today, a U.S. attack on Iran could cause a much more serious disruption of world oil supplies, nearly 20% of which flow through the narrow Straits of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, which is bordered on one side by Iran. Last year, following the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict in Lebanon, Iran conducted war exercises in the Straits. It is likely that they would attempt to disrupt the passage of oil tankers as a way of retaliating against the U.S.

If indeed the U.S. does launch an attack on Iran and thereby spark an oil price shock, perhaps it will serve as a timely wake-up call to consumers - to make preparations for the looming peak and decline in global oil production, which itself can be expected to trigger recurrent oil shocks as well as further international conflict.

Jeremy Wakeford is a senior lecturer in UCT’s School of Economics and a member of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil-SA.
__________________
......................................benny

Feb. 13, 2007 21:06 | Updated Feb. 13, 2007 21:26
Right on!: Stop the atomic ayatollahs
By MICHAEL FREUND



Talkbacks for this article: 9

Less than 1,000 miles east of Tel Aviv a new Auschwitz is being prepared, as the world looks on and does virtually nothing to stop it. Instead of the gas chambers being fired up, centrifuges are being installed. In place of Zyklon-B gas, the agent of choice is now uranium.

And while the language spoken by its architects may be different, the threat to the future of the Jewish people, and that of the entire Western world, is no less grave than it was six decades ago in Europe.

Indeed, with each passing day the would-be Hitler of Persia draws perilously closer to his goal of obtaining a nuclear arsenal, threatening everyone, and everything, that all of us hold dear. The press loves to mock the Iranian president, portraying him as a nut, a kook, and a fanatic. But I take him at his word. He has made quite clear what his objective is, telling us over and over again that he plans to eliminate Israel and destroy the West.

Like it or not, we are all in his crosshairs, and we ignore him at our peril. And that is why it is time to show a little more courage and a lot more determination, and to tackle this threat head-on.

It is time for Israel or the US to bomb Iran now. Not next week, next month, or next summer, but now. As quickly and as hard and as painfully as possible.

THE ALARM bells are ringing, and the danger signs are near. In recent days it was reported that Teheran has installed at least the first two sets of 164 centrifuges to enrich uranium at its underground nuclear facility in Natanz, part of its plan to fit nearly 3,000 in all.

You don't have to be a nuclear scientist to understand that the large-scale use of centrifuges means a country can produce more enriched uranium in a shorter period of time. And that is exactly what the Iranian leadership is vowing to do. In a speech on Sunday in Teheran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad promised his audience an "April surprise."

"From now until April 9," he said, "you will hear frequently about the great progress of the Iranian people and the unique developments in the fields of industry, agriculture, and especially nuclear energy."

"This is the nuclear celebration," Ahmadinejad promised the crowd. His idea of a "celebration," of course, is our idea of a funeral.

According to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies, once the 3,000 centrifuges are operational it will take possibly as little as nine months for Iranian scientists to produce enough highly-enriched uranium to make an atomic bomb.

And so, by the end of this year, the atomic ayatollahs could very well have their hands on the ultimate weapon of mass terror and destruction. This cannot and must not be allowed to come to pass. And the only way to stop it is with military action.

DIPLOMACY has run its course. Its only effect has been to give the Iranians still more time to progress toward achieving their surreptitious and malicious aims. After the UN Security Council passed a resolution in December insisting that Iran end its uranium-enrichment program, Ahmadinejad dismissed it as "a piece of torn paper" and vowed to expand his country's nuclear program; which is precisely what he proceeded to do.

For more than a decade Iran hid its nuclear program from the international community. It has interfered with inspections of its nuclear facilities and repeatedly defied demands to cease and desist from its dangerous actions. Does anyone really think another UN resolution is going to do the trick?

The effects of the world's inaction have already begun to be felt, as other Arab countries in the region now speak openly of pursuing their own nuclear capability.



On Sunday, the secretary-general of the Gulf Cooperation Council announced that six Gulf Arab states are moving ahead with plans to build their own nuclear power plants. These same countries have oil coming out of their ears, so there is hardly a pressing need for them to develop nuclear energy resources. But they are undoubtedly looking on with alarm at their Iranian neighbor to the north, nervous at the prospect that he will be allowed to succeed in his quest to obtain nuclear weapons.

So now, thanks to the failure to shut down the Iranian nuclear program, we have the beginnings of a good, old-fashioned Middle Eastern arms race on our hands. Furthermore, the Iranians have grown so emboldened that they now feel comfortable enough to start sharing their nuclear know-how with other rogue regimes. As the official Iranian news agency IRNA reported last week, "Iran's ambassador to Belarus on Friday expressed Teheran's readiness to explore cooperation in construction of a nuclear plant in the country."

And according to reports last month in the British press, Iran is cooperating with North Korea on nuclear research and ballistic missile technology.

THE FACT is that Iran is out to assert its power and dominance, and to sow instability for the US and its interests far and wide. Last summer, Teheran orchestrated the war in Lebanon through its proxy group, Hizbullah, and it is now waging war against the West by sending arms for use against US and coalition troops in Iraq.

At the same time, the ayatollahs are busy expanding their military arsenal so they can create an ever-greater arc of terror and fear. Back in November, Iran test-fired dozens of missiles, including the Shihab-3, which is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead and can hit targets up to 1,200 miles away - meaning that all of Israel is now within reach.

And lest anyone still doubts Ahmadinejad's intentions, he made them abundantly clear at the Holocaust denial conference he hosted in Teheran back in December. In his closing speech, the would-be Persian executioner gleefully declared that "The life-curve of the Zionist regime has begun its descent, and it is now on a downward slope towards its fall... The Zionist regime will be wiped out, and humanity will be liberated."

And once he dispenses with the Jews, as we know, it is the West that will be next. So this is not just Israel's battle, it is everyone's war, and it is time for the decision-makers in Washington and Jerusalem to act.

Sure, the thought of striking Iran is scary, particularly in light of the trouble America is having next door in Iraq. But as frightening as the idea might seem, it pales in comparison with the ayatollahs having their finger on the button and being able to threaten the world with nuclear blackmail and destruction.

So like it or not, time is of the essence, and there is not a moment to lose. The US or Israel should bomb Iran now, before it proves too late.

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

Feb. 12, 2007

U.S., Iran could be starting new `proxy war,' experts say

By Bay Fang
Chicago Tribune
(MCT)
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/16679876.htm

WASHINGTON - During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union avoided fighting each other directly, with both great powers fearing direct battles could escalate into a nuclear war. Instead, they supported opposing sides in conflicts in Afghanistan, Angola, Korea, Vietnam and other hotspots around the world.

Analysts now say that the U.S. and Iran could be at the start of the same sort of "proxy war" in Iraq, perhaps the first such conflict in the new era of warfare since the end of the Cold War.

The latest verbal shot was fired Sunday when U.S. military officials in Baghdad accused "the highest level" of Iran's government of supplying Iraqi militants with armor-piercing roadside bombs called "explosively formed penetrators," or EFPs, that have been responsible for the deaths of 170 members of the U.S.-led coalition.

When President Bush recently accused Iran of providing weapons and training to militias attacking U.S. troops in Iraq, he said U.S. forces would kill or capture Iranian operatives in Iraq, but would not attack Iran directly.

"We've known for a while that Iran was providing lethal aid to the insurgents, we're just finally pushing back," a senior administration official said last week in an interview. "Iran has to understand that it is not getting a free pass anymore."

In turn, Tehran's ambassador to the United Nations, Javad Zarif, accused the U.S. in a column Thursday in The New York Times of "trying to make Iran its scapegoat and fabricating evidence of Iranian activities in Iraq."

With the ratcheting up of tensions, analysts say the potential for a misstep looms large.

"The worst case is that there's an accidental war," said Robert Malley, Middle East program director for the International Crisis Group, an independent research organization. "Neither side may think it's in their best interest, but they have to hit back to show they're not doing nothing."

Along with the recent verbal sniping have come a number of armed confrontations.

Last month, U.S. soldiers raided an Iranian office in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil, detaining five Iranian officials. The U.S. also moved a second aircraft carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf, and positioned more Patriot anti-missile batteries in the region.

On Jan. 20, militants kidnapped and killed four American soldiers in an ambush at a U.S. military base in the southern Iraqi city of Karbala. U.S. military officials in Baghdad are investigating whether Iranian agents were involved, surmising that it could have been payback for the Irbil raid.

The administration says it has known for about six months about Iranian "networks" providing aid and weaponry to Shiite militants, such as renegade offshoots of Muqtada al-Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army, but only recently decided to go after them in a more systematic way.

Iran has responded with more rhetoric, though Iran-watchers say that the response has been milder than in previous times, and that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appears to be in a weak position domestically. Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a Thursday speech broadcast on state television, "The enemy knows well that any invasion would be followed by a comprehensive reaction to the invaders and their interests all over the world."

The growing face-off has put Iraqi officials in a difficult situation. Historically, Iran has maintained strong relationships with top Shiite Arabs and Kurdish leaders. During part of the long regime of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Iran served as a haven for such political leaders as current Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Abdul Aziz Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Iran also armed Kurds led by Jalal Talabani, who is now Iraq's president, in the midst of internecine fighting between Kurds in the mid-1990s.

Some analysts of Iran argue that it has no interest in inflaming a sectarian war in Iraq, because of the potential for a huge refugee crisis in Iran. "Iran doesn't want a failed Iraq but a weak Iraq," one Iraqi official said.

In the Irbil raid, U.S. forces seized computers and files from a purported intelligence office. But some Iraqi officials, including the foreign minister, have accused U.S. forces of taking a heavy-handed approach against the Iranians inside Iraq.

"Iran has the choice now of going underground and being less active, or accelerating its efforts to hurt the Americans where they can," said Qubad Talabany, who represents the Kurdistan Regional Government in the U.S. "We're worried that America will do something without assessing the situation. The last thing we want is two powerful countries fighting a war on our turf, but maybe it's inevitable."

A U.S. military news conference Sunday, in which Iran was accused of supplying EFPs to Iraqi militants, was an example of the new American policy of directly challenging what it views as improper Iranian influence in Iraq.

The EFPs, which can penetrate Abrams tanks and Humvees, have accounted for a small number of attacks on U.S. troops but have caused a disproportionate number of casualties.

Sunday's news conference was the most extensive effort yet to link Iran directly to EFPs, but the explosives were also cited Friday by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. At the same time that Gates was accusing Iran of supplying insurgents, however, he gave assurances that the U.S. has no intention of attacking Iran.

Some in Congress have been skeptical of the U.S. evidence against Iran and have accused the administration of ignoring a 2003 diplomatic overture from Iran, which offered a broad, direct dialogue with the United States. In that proposal, Iraq was high on the list of issues to be discussed, with Tehran proposing "active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization."

Allies in the region, increasingly anxious that they will be drawn into the conflict if it spreads beyond Iraq's boundaries, have also advocated diplomatic discussions between the U.S. and Iran.

Some diplomatic alliances have been formed with Washington's blessing. During a visit to the region last month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with an informal group of Arab allies made up of Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf Cooperation Council, which represents some Persian Gulf countries.

But the fear of spillover has also caused such traditional rivals as Iran and Saudi Arabia to start cooperating with each other, most recently in a joint effort to defuse a general strike called by the Shiite militant group Hezbollah in an effort to topple Lebanon's government.

"We're scared Iraq might turn into a war, not only between the U.S. and Iran, but drawing in people from all over the world who want to fight," one Arab diplomat in the U.S. who spoke on condition of anonymity said in an interview. "Thousands went to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, got trained, and spread throughout the world - and that's how we ended up with al-Qaida."
__________________
............................................benny

Rapture Imminent


GET RIGHT… OR GET LEFT!
I say this with conviction.
This world doesn't have much time left…
Don't scoff at this prediction.
Matthew twenty four outlines the coming season.
JESUS tells us, what will be ...
HE told us, for a reason.


You may think that this is a warning ...
and it certainly "is".
But I didn't make this stuff up...
The warnings in the book are HIS.
JESUS said there would be wars...
famines...and pestilences.
All of these are happening "now"
and reducing numbered census.


HE told us earthquakes would increase
and they would be in "diverse" places.
We hear about them every day...
at ever quickening paces.
There are other dire predictions
In that chapter CHRIST has stated.
I doubt that you... could read them all,
and then... not be... persuaded.


CHRIST said when you see "ALL" these things take place together,
that the time is "Not Yet."
HE said it is the beginning of sorrows.
But the end is near... you can bet.





So take a look around you, then read what's written here.
There's soon to be an end of things...
of all things we hold dear.
These words you read, you may have doubt...
and think that "you" don't need it.
But I assure you, by HIS word…
You really ought to "heed it".


It's difficult to convey GOD's words
about this troubled time...
and correlate HIS perfect WORD
into some type of rhyme.
The whole of this is to "encourage"
…the "point"... is that we care.
Just how much time... till it occurs...
there's no one "here" aware.


HE offers you salvation...
I hope this poem speaks "TO" you.
Don't put it off... and hear those words...
"DEPART ... I NEVER KNEW YOU."

The Middle East on a Collision Course (6): The Saudi Oil Weapon
By: Nimrod Raphaeli
Introduction

In his just-published memoirs, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy relates the story of a meeting between three European foreign ministers together with Javier Solana of the European Union and President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The meeting, which took place at the United Nations on September 15, 2005, dealt with what Douste-Blazy characterized as "the generous European offer" to Iran regarding its nuclear program. Ahmadinejad was characterized by Douste-Blazy, a surgeon and a professor of medicine by profession, as stubborn, and the meeting was described as leading nowhere. Suddenly, Ahmadinejad changed the course of the conversation with the following aside: "Do you know why we should wish to have chaos at any price?" he asked rhetorically. "Because, after the chaos, we can see the greatness of Allah." [1]

The response to this challenge came from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which employed recently a quiet but effective diplomacy aimed at curbing Ahmadinejad's inclination for chaos-making in their backyard.


U.N. Sanctions Against Iran

After protracted negotiations among the five permanent members of the Security Council - the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, and China, in addition to Germany, which was occupying one of the rotating seats in the council - the Security Council passed, on December 23, 2006, Resolution 1737, imposing watered-down sanctions on Iran for its failure to halt its uranium enrichment program. The resolution calls on all states "to prevent the supply, sale or transfer…of all items, materials, equipment, goods, and technology which could contribute to Iran's enrichment-related, reprocessing or heavy water-related activities or to the development of nuclear weapons delivery systems."

From the standpoint of Ahmadinejad, the resolution was "a straw paper…by which they [i.e., mainly the Western powers] aim to scare Iranians…." Immediately afterwards, Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani, who is in charge of Iran's nuclear dossier, told the Iranian daily Kayhan, "Our immediate response to these sanctions is that tomorrow morning, 3,000 centrifuges will begin operation in Natanz."


The Saudi Oil Weapon

Saudi Arabia, like other countries, is concerned both about Iran's nuclear program and about its activities in Iraq in support of the Shi'a, in Lebanon and in Palestine. While being somewhat silent about Iran's nuclear program, Saudi Arabia's condemnation of Iran's meddling in the Middle East was vocal. Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal could not have been more blunt when he told the French daily Le Figaro, "We repeat what was said to the Iranians: Do not interfere in our affairs." He characterized the Saudi-Iranian dialogue as an effort to explain to the Iranians the Saudi and Arab fears "about the Iranian influence on the Arab world." For this reason he rejected the French attempt to send a delegation to Tehran to discuss the latter's meddling in Lebanon as something "that cannot be accepted [because it] offers legitimacy to the Iranian intervention." [2] The critical question is whether Saudi Arabia is prepared to translate its warning into action through the use of the "oil weapon." If the Saudis are prepared to apply the oil weapon, the impact on Iran's economic fortunes could be significant.

A brief analysis of the Saudi oil situation and the Iranian economic condition will demonstrate why Iran has every reason both to take seriously Saudi warnings about meddling in the Saudi backyard and to be apprehensive about the potent oil weapon.


The Saudi Budget Surplus

After deficits of $10.4 billion and $8 billion in 2003 and 2004, respectively, Saudi Arabia accumulated a surplus of revenues over expenditures of $58.2 billion and $70.6 billion in 2005 and 2006, respectively. The surplus for 2007 is conservatively estimated at $5.3 billion because the estimated revenues of $106 billion are calculated on the basis of crude oil export of 7.2 million b/d at an average price of $37/b, assuming a production cost of $2.50/b. [3] Since the price of oil in the first six weeks of 2007 has hovered around the mid- to upper 50s per barrel, and if there is no sudden and sharp reversal either in the price per barrel or the number of barrels exported, it is clear that Saudi Arabia will accumulate a much larger surplus than was estimated.

At the same time, Saudi Arabia has announced its intention to expand production capacity to 12 million b/d by 2009 through investment of $80 billion. At this level of production 1.5 to 2 million b/d will be set aside for local consumption, leaving at least 10 million b/d for export which is about 3 million b/d over current level of export.

Providing this information, Saudi Oil Minister Ali Al-Nuai'mi said at a Petrotec conference in New Delhi that his country could invest even more to generate higher levels of production to insure stability in the oil markets. [4] It is not certain that there is a refining capacity for such an additional supply of oil were it made available to the market, but it could nonetheless serve as a spare capacity that could be used by the Kingdom to leverage oil supply and prices in a manner compatible with its national interests, which are not necessarily compatible with those of Iran; indeed, the interests of the two nations may be very different.

If Saudi Arabia were to increase its export between one to two million barrels a day, it could bring down the price of oil quite close to the 2007 budget estimate of $37 barrel. If that were to happen, Saudi Arabia could absorb the shock, but Iran's economy could fall into a serious crisis.


Iran's Economy in a Glance

While Iran is seeking to develop its nuclear weapon and thereby declare itself "a great power," its economic health belies its ambitions.

Data drawn from the Central Bank of Iran [5] show an accumulated deficit spending in the last four [solar] years 1381-1384 and the second quarter of 1385, as follows:

Year
Billion Riyals ($US equivalent at exchange rate of 9.17 riyal to the dollar in parentheses)

1381 (2003
85.6 (9.3)

1382 (2004)
99.4 (10.8)

1383 (2005)
128.5 (14.0)

1384 (2006)
130.5 (14.2)

1385 (2007) (2ndQrt.)
49.0 (5.3)




To deal with the budget shortfalls and, at the same time, continue the president's profligate populist policies, Iran has been drawing on the special foreign exchange account which was meant to cushion the country in the event of a rapid shortfall in oil revenues. According to the daily Etemad-i-Melli, the Iranian Majlis (Parliament) voted on January 24 to allow the government to withdraw from the account the equivalent of $700 million to finance shortfalls in the health and health-education sectors, including the payment of overdue wages. During a contentious debate in the Majlis on the government's request, a member of the parliamentary Economic Committee, Elias Naderan, claimed that "the foreign-exchange reserve account has no cash in it to take out." Another member of parliament, Ahmad Tavakkli, claimed that the fund had a balance of only $400 million and wondered where exactly the remaining $300 million would come from.

As for the 2007 budget which starts on March 1, there are conflicting reports on the estimated price of crude oil calculated for the revenue column. One report presumes a per barrel price of $33.70 while Nedaran, quoted earlier, maintains that government spending is based on the assumption of oil price of $45 per barrel.

At the same time, the inflation rate in Iran has been estimated at 15.8 percent, while unemployment was in excess of 10 percent. In a rare acknowledgement of the impact of the sanctions on Iran, Iranian oil minister Kazem Waziri Hamaneh told Shana, the oil ministry news agency, that Tehran was having trouble financing oil projects on which the economy depends. Foreign banks are not lending to Iran either because of U.S. pressure or because the banks are also "drawing their own conclusions." [6] In this regard, Iran's threats to use the oil weapon if attacked are hollow at best, because the country cannot fund the most basic programs for too long without the steady flow of oil revenues.

These concerns have generated calls from Expediency Council Chairman Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani and Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Mahmud Hashemi-Shahrudi for an acceleration of privatization plans and backing for private-sector activities both as a means of reducing subsidies to failed public enterprises and to help integrate the Iranian economy into the global system. [7]

Ahmadinejad has pursued a populist program to benefit the underclass in Iran. However, populism without funding will become empty slogans. This, in turn, could greatly weaken his authority and undermine his regime's stability. There is already mounting pressures from the clerics to tone down his demagoguery, and a rise of discontent among the poor could quickly place him in political jeopardy. The oil option of Saudi Arabia, more than anything else, including the U.S.'s second aircraft carrier steaming into the Gulf, could expedite the process of his downfall or, at a minimum, cause him to limp for the remainder of his term of office.


Iran's Appeal to Saudi Arabia to Reduce Oil Export

It is hardly surprising that the Deputy Chairman of Iran's Parliamentary Committee for National Security and Foreign Policy Mohammad Nabi Roudaki has made this statement:

"A number of Arab countries in the region and the Saudi government are inclined to help the U.S. and want to pressure Iran... We recommend to Saudi Arabia that it trust [only] itself, and that it bring about regional stability with the accompaniment of the forces in the region. It is best that Saudi Arabia do nothing [against Iran], since [otherwise] they will quickly face protest by their people. Saudi Arabia must reduce its oil exports so that the price of oil will balance out. Otherwise, tomorrow America will attack Saudi Arabia, on the pretext that it has no democracy and freedom."


*Nimrod Raphaeli is Senior Analyst of MEMRI's Middle East Economic Studies Program.

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

February 13, 2007
President Bush's Church Membership
by Michael G. Mickey

(2-13-07)

On Monday, 2-19-07, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will meet to "start the process of founding an independent Palestinian state and take steps for peace in the Middle East" at a yet-to-be disclosed location, according to a Turkish Press article. God help us!

Throughout the process of President Bush leading our nation into membership in the international Quartet alongside Russia, the European Union and the United Nations, I've been scratching my head while mumbling, often loud enough that other members of my family hear me, "Has Dubya lost his mind? Doesn't he know what will befall our nation if we side with those we know are trying to destroy the nation of Israel from the face of the earth? He's a born-again Christian! He should know better."

Slowly but surely, I regret to say, I'm beginning to understand. This has to do with President Bush's church membership. I've heard he's a member of the Methodist Church. I've also heard he's a full-fledged card-carrying member of the new world order in the making, but for the purposes of this commentary, based on his recent actions, I'm going to state that I believe he's in a different church altogether - the church of Laodicea.

Revelation 3:14-19:

And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
Sadly, many born-again Christians today have very little foundational understanding of the faith we practice. As such, we lack any passion or zeal to be faithful in relation to the commands of the Lord, some of which deal directly with the nation of Israel.

In Genesis 12:3 we see that God has promised to bless those who bless Israel and curse those who curse Israel. When we support the creation of a nation that has been sought almost solely through the shedding of innocent blood, particularly Jewish blood, we are not blessing Israel. Rather, we are making Israel less defendable militarily, advancing the cause of the very thing we are allegedly in Iraq and Afghanistan to fight - terrorism! By giving the Palestinians a homeland on Israel's God-given covenant lands, we're not only telling radical Islam that its tactics can work, but encouraging more of the same. What does this make us? A house divided against itself and we're told what that means in Matthew 12:25, which is corroborative of Genesis 12:3 in this instance.

The bottom line? I think President Bush is making a monstrous mistake in putting us out in front on this issue of creating a Palestinian state. The wise thing to do, which would honor God, would be to pull out of the Quartet, repent before our God and stand with Israel without any hesitation whatsoever. To do otherwise is national suicide. That's not an opinion on my part, but the Word of God.

Zechariah 12:2-3: Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

Lastly, a transcript of a C-SPAN interview with President Bush contains the following disturbing information:
Q. And, finally, what books are you reading these days?

President Bush: Well, I just finished a book called "Abraham," by a guy named Feiler. And it's a really interesting book that studies the prophet Abraham from the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim perspective. And the lesson is, is that if you -- you can look at Abraham as a unifying factor. In other words, all three of our -- all three of those religions started from the same source, which means it's possible to reconcile differences. And I was impressed by his writing. I really enjoyed the amount of study he did on the subject. And I appreciated his lessons that sometimes as each religion appropriated Abraham to suit their own needs, but, ultimately, we could view Abraham as a way to find a common God.
The holy book of Islam, the Quran, tells the Muslim to persecute, subdue and kill Christians and Jews who will not drop their religious beliefs and convert to their faith. The Holy Bible tells the Christian to "love thy neighbour as thyself" and for us to go forth and share the gospel of Jesus Christ with all who will hear it that they might be saved!

What kind of "common God" can Islam and Christianity find? One thing is absolutely a fact. If our two faiths do find a common God, the one we'll end up with will not be Jehovah nor will we bow a knee to Christ any longer.

While I do not know President Bush's heart, I am deeply concerned that anyone claiming to be a born-again Christian, even in the interest of political or diplomatic gain, would suggest it is possible for these two polarized religions to find a "common God."

While I love President Bush, I am praying that God will speak to him concerning all the issues presented herein. Between the Democrats having Imam Husham Al-Husainy pray at the DNC winter meeting and the Bush White House acting in the manner it presently is, we need to be hitting our knees in prayer for our nation and its leadership. Seriously.

SEE ALSO: To hear Imam Husham Al-Husainy and Sean Hannity have a discussion about Al-Husainy's beliefs, click HERE.

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

February 13, 2007

STRATFOR - Russia's Great-Power Strategy

By George Friedman

Most speeches at diplomatic gatherings aren't worth the time it takes to listen to them. On rare occasion, a speech is delivered that needs to be listened to carefully. Russian President Vladimir Putin gave such a speech over the weekend in Munich, at a meeting on international security. The speech did not break new ground; it repeated things that the Russians have been saying for quite a while. But the venue in which it was given and the confidence with which it was asserted signify a new point in Russian history. The Cold War has not returned, but Russia is now officially asserting itself as a great power, and behaving accordingly.

At Munich, Putin launched a systematic attack on the role the United States is playing in the world. He said: "One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way ... This is nourishing an arms race with the desire of countries to get nuclear weapons." In other words, the United States has gone beyond its legitimate reach and is therefore responsible for attempts by other countries -- an obvious reference to Iran -- to acquire nuclear weapons.

Russia for some time has been in confrontation with the United States over U.S. actions in the former Soviet Union (FSU). What the Russians perceive as an American attempt to create a pro-U.S. regime in Ukraine triggered the confrontation. But now, the issue goes beyond U.S. actions in the FSU. The Russians are arguing that the unipolar world -- meaning that the United States is the only global power and is surrounded by lesser, regional powers -- is itself unacceptable. In other words, the United States sees itself as the solution when it is, actually, the problem.

In his speech, Putin reached out to European states -- particularly Germany, pointing out that it has close, but blunt, relations with Russia. The Central Europeans showed themselves to be extremely wary about Putin's speech, recognizing it for what it was -- a new level of assertiveness from an historical enemy. Some German leaders appeared more understanding, however: Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier made no mention of Putin's speech in his own presentation to the conference, while Ruprecht Polenz, chairman of the Bundestag Foreign Affairs Committee, praised Putin's stance on Iran. He also noted that the U.S. plans to deploy an anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic was cause for concern -- and not only to Russia.

Putin now clearly wants to escalate the confrontations with the United States and likely wants to build a coalition to limit American power. The gross imbalance of global power in the current system makes such coalition-building inevitable -- and it makes sense that the Russians should be taking the lead. The Europeans are risk-averse, and the Chinese do not have much at risk in their dealings with the United States at the moment. The Russians, however, have everything at risk. The United States is intruding in the FSU, and an ideological success for the Americans in Ukraine would leave the Russians permanently on the defensive.

The Russians need allies but are not likely to find them among other great-power states. Fortunately for Moscow, the U.S. obsession with Iraq creates alternative opportunities. First, the focus on Iraq prevents the Americans from countering Russia elsewhere. Second, it gives the Russians serious leverage against the United States -- for example, by shipping weapons to key players in the region. Finally, there are Middle Eastern states that seek great-power patronage. It is therefore no accident that Putin's next stop, following the Munich conference, was in Saudi Arabia. Having stabilized the situation in the former Soviet region, the Russians now are constructing their follow-on strategy, and that concerns the Middle East.

The Russian Interests

The Middle East is the pressure point to which the United States is most sensitive. Its military commitment in Iraq, the confrontation with Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and oil in the Arabian Peninsula create a situation such that pain in the region affects the United States intensely. Therefore, it makes sense for the Russians to use all available means of pressure in the Middle East in efforts to control U.S. behavior elsewhere, particularly in the former Soviet Union.

Like the Americans, the Russians also have direct interests in the Middle East. Energy is a primary one: Russia is not only a major exporter of energy supplies, it is currently the world's top oil producer. The Russians have a need to maintain robust energy prices, and working with the Iranians and Saudis in some way to achieve this is directly in line with Moscow's interest. To be more specific, the Russians do not want the Saudis increasing oil production.

There are strategic interests in the Middle East as well. For example, the Russians are still bogged down in Chechnya. It is Moscow's belief that if Chechnya were to secede from the Russian Federation, a precedent would be set that could lead to the dissolution of the Federation. Moscow will not allow this. The Russians consistently have claimed that the Chechen rebellion has been funded by "Wahhabis," by which they mean Saudis. Reaching an accommodation with the Saudis, therefore, would have not only economic, but also strategic, implications for the Russians.

On a broader level, the Russians retain important interests in the Caucasus and in Central Asia. In both cases, their needs intersect with forces originating in the Muslim world and trace, to some extent, back to the Middle East. If the Russian strategy is to reassert a sphere of influence in the former Soviet region, it follows that these regions must be secured. That, in turn, inevitably involves the Russians in the Middle East.

Therefore, even if Russia is not in a position to pursue some of the strategic goals that date back to the Soviet era and before -- such as control of the Bosporus and projection of naval power into the Mediterranean -- it nevertheless has a basic, ongoing interest in the region. Russia has a need both to limit American power and to achieve direct goals of its own. So it makes perfect sense for Putin to leave Munich and embark on a tour of Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries.

The Complexities

But the Russians also have a problem. The strategic interests of Middle Eastern states diverge, to say the least. The two main Islamic powers between the Levant and the Hindu Kush are Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Russians have things they want from each, but the Saudis and Iranians have dramatically different interests. Saudi Arabia -- an Arab and primarily Sunni kingdom -- is rich but militarily weak. The government's reliance on outside help for national defense generates intense opposition within the kingdom. Desert Storm, which established a basing arrangement for Western troops within Saudi Arabia, was one of the driving forces behind the creation of al Qaeda. Iran -- a predominantly Persian and Shiite power -- is not nearly as rich as Saudi Arabia but militarily much more powerful. Iran seeks to become the dominant power in the Persian Gulf -- out of both its need to defend itself against aggression, and for controlling and exploiting the oil wealth of the region.

Putting the split between Sunni and Shiite aside for the moment, there is tremendous geopolitical asymmetry between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saudi Arabia wants to limit Iranian power, while keeping its own dependence on foreign powers at a minimum. That means that, though keeping energy prices high might make financial sense for the kingdom, the fact that high energy prices also strengthen the Iranians actually can be a more important consideration, depending on circumstances. There is some evidence that recent declines in oil prices are linked to decisions in Riyadh that are aimed at increasing production, reducing prices and hurting the Iranians.

This creates a problem for Russia. While Moscow has substantial room for maneuver, the fact is that lowered oil prices impact energy prices overall, and therefore hurt the Russians. The Saudis, moreover, need the Iranians blocked -- but without going so far as to permit foreign troops to be based in Saudi Arabia itself. In other words, they want to see the United States remain in Iraq, since the Americans serve as the perfect shield against the Iranians so long as they remain there. Putin's criticisms of the United States, as delivered in Munich, would have been applauded by Saudi Arabia prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But in 2007, the results of that invasion are exactly what the Saudis feared -- a collapsed Iraq and a relatively powerful Iran. The Saudis now need the Americans to stay put in the region.

The interests of Russia and Iran align more closely, but there are points of divergence there as well. Both benefit from having the United States tied up, militarily and politically, in wars, but Tehran would be delighted to see a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq that leaves a power vacuum for Iran to fill. The Russians would rather not see this outcome. First, they are quite happy to have the United States bogged down in Iraq and would prefer that to having the U.S. military freed for operations elsewhere. Second, they are interested in a relationship with Iran but are not eager to drive the United States and Saudi Arabia into closer relations. Third, the Russians do not want to see Iran become the dominant power in the region. They want to use Iran, but within certain manageable limits.

Russia has been supplying Iran with weapons. Of particular significance is the supply of surface-to-air missiles that would raise the cost of U.S. air operations against Iran. It is not clear whether the advanced S300PMU surface-to-air missile has yet been delivered, although there has been some discussion of this lately. If it were delivered, this would present significant challenges for U.S. air operation over Iran. The Russians would find this particularly advantageous, as the Iranians would absorb U.S. attentions and, as in Vietnam, the Russians would benefit from extended, fruitless commitments of U.S. military forces in regions not vital to Russia.

Meanwhile, there are energy matters: The Russians, as we have said, are interested in working with Iran to manage world oil prices. But at the same time, they would not be averse to a U.S. attack that takes Iran's oil off the market, spikes prices and enriches Russia.

Finally, it must be remembered that behind this complex relationship with Iran, there historically has been animosity and rivalry between the two countries. The Caucasus has been their battleground. For the moment, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is a buffer there, but it is a buffer in which Russians and Iranians are already dueling. So long as both states are relatively weak, the buffer will maintain itself. But as they get stronger, the Caucasus will become a battleground again. When Russian and Iranian territories border each other, the two powers are rarely at peace. Indeed, Iran frequently needs outside help to contain the Russians.

A Complicated Strategy

In sum, the Russian position in the Middle East is at least as complex as the American one. Or perhaps even more so, since the Americans can leave and the Russians always will live on the doorstep of the Middle East. Historically, once the Russians start fishing in Middle Eastern waters, they find themselves in a greater trap than the Americans. The opening moves are easy. The duel between Saudi Arabia and Iran seems manageable. But as time goes on, Putin's Soviet predecessors learned, the Middle East is a graveyard of ambitions -- and not just American ambitions.

Russia wants to contain U.S. power, and manipulating the situation in the Middle East certainly will cause the Americans substantial pain. But whatever short-term advantages the Russians may be able to find and exploit in the region, there is an order of complexity in Putin's maneuver that might transcend any advantage they gain from boxing the Americans in.

In returning to "great power" status, Russia is using an obvious opening gambit. But being obvious does not make it optimal.
.......................................benny

Analysis:

Iran, a, very serious threat

By CLAUDE SALHANI
UPI International Editor
http://www.upi.com/InternationalInte...4-121943-2621r

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 (UPI) -- Iran today poses a five-pronged threat, warned the man who first blew the whistle on the Islamic republic's nuclear program.

Iran is "a very, very serious threat to the free world," said Alireza Jafarzadeh, who outlines the dangers posed by the Islamic republic, as he sees them, in his new book, "The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the coming nuclear crisis."

"Iran wants to extend its influence beyond its borders," said Jafarzadeh.

"The agenda of Ayatollah Khomeini was to establish global Islamic rule, to expand Iran's influence beyond the Iranian borders. They want to deliver Jerusalem via Karbala, meaning to turn Iraq into an Islamic republic and from there use it as a springboard to spread their revolution to other countries in the area," he said.

The author, who is close to the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, was the first person to reveal the Islamic republic's secret nuclear processing sites at Natanz and Arak.

On Iran's role in Iraq, Jafarzadeh wrote: "The problem in Iraq is neither a civil nor a sectarian war. The main threat to Iraq is neither al-Qaida nor the Sunni insurgents -- they both are cause for major problems, but neither can take the whole future of Iraq as a hostage. Rather, Iraq is now a battleground for the clash of two alternatives: Islamic extremist opinion which gets its orders from Tehran and seeks to establish an Islamic republic in Iraq, and a democratic alternative seeking a pluralistic democracy in the country. The former seeks sectarian violence and fans the flames of civil war while the latter seeks to ease tension, provide security and stability and establish democratic institutions."

Outlining those threats, Jafarzadeh, an Iranian exile who lives in Washington, underlined the five prongs followed by the regime in Tehran.

First: Iran wants to pursue its nuclear program, come what may. Iran is cognizant of the facts possession of nuclear weapons puts it in a different category altogether. The regime in Tehran believes that nuclear weapons will offer it protection from a potential invasion by the United States. Indeed, Washington is likely to think twice about waging war on a country that is armed with nuclear weapons.

Second: Iran's meddling in Iraq. Since the start of the Iranian revolution in 1979, Khomeini wanted to export the Islamic revolution to neighboring countries, particularly Iraq, Bahrain and Kuwait, who have important Shiite minorities. But try as they did, Iran's mullahs were unsuccessful until the fall of Saddam Hussein.

The American invasion of Iraq in 2003 offered the Iranians a unique opportunity to intervene in Iraq's internal affairs. Immediately after the fall of Baghdad to the U.S.-led coalition, Iranian Revolutionary Guards profited from the fact that Iraq's 900-mile border with Iran was largely unguarded as the Iraqi army was, first, on the retreat, and, second, disbanded by order of the U.S. administrator of Iraq. Iranian forces therefore immediately began to cross into Iraq and began supporting anti-American and anti-coalition forces. Iranian agents started training Iraqis in insurgency tactics and, according to several sources, Iran has provided training, financing and explosives and weapons to the insurgency.

Third: Iran's support of international terrorism. The United States accuses the Tehran regime of supporting terrorist groups, or groups considered to be terrorists by the United States. Iran, says Jafarzadeh, poses a serious threat to the world by its support of terrorism. The Islamic republic has long been a supporter of groups such as Lebanon's Hezbollah, or the Islamic resistance movement in the Palestinian territories, better known as Hamas.

Fourth: Iran continues to oppose the Middle East peace process. However, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does nothing to encourage peace in the Middle East with his repeated claims that "Israel should be wiped off the map," and persists with his insistence that the "Holocaust never happened.

Needless to say, this has raised concern, not only in Israel, but in the United States and Western countries that a nuclear-armed Iran will only make matters worse.

Jafarzadeh writes: For 27 years, the Iranian regime has voiced its hatred of the United States and the West, and for the same number of years attempts have been made to change the regime's behavior through external pressures, threats, negotiations and appeasement. All these attempts have the failed, and as the Iranian regime accelerates its push for a nuclear arsenal, the world no longer has the luxury of waiting for Tehran to turn itself around and shed its medieval mindset. The Iranian regime was not budged from its original theme of hating the West and working to export its Islamic revolution.

"Ignoring this will only further step up Tehran's rush to the bomb," Jafarzadeh said.

And five: The way Iran treats its own citizens. The mistreatment of women, abuse of human rights, censorship and executions continue to preoccupy human rights groups and Iranians struggling and hoping to see democracy blossom in their country.
__________________
.............................................benny

Bush: Iran is source of deadly weapons By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent
1 hour, 51 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Challenged on the accuracy of U.S. intelligence, President Bush said Wednesday there is no doubt the Iranian government is providing armor-piercing weapons to kill American soldiers in Iraq. But he backed away from claims the top echelon of Iran's government was responsible.

ADVERTISEMENT

Bush, at a news conference, also said he would fight any attempt by the Democratic-controlled Congress to cut off money for the war. "They need to fund our troops and the need to make sure we have the flexibility necessary to get the job done," he said.

The House is expected to vote Friday on a nonbinding resolution opposing Bush's decision to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.

The meeting with reporters in the East Room was Bush's first news conference since Dec. 20 and the first since he announced the troop buildup in Iraq. The four-year-old war hangs heavily on his presidency, and Bush's approval rating in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll in February matched an all-time low of 32 percent.

Iran was a dominant theme of reporters' questions because of conflicting statements about U.S. intelligence in Iran and recurring speculation that Bush is looking for an excuse to attack the Islamic republic, which is believed by Washington and its allies to be seeking nuclear weapons.

Defending U.S. intelligence that has pinpointed Iran as a hostile arms supplier in Iraq, Bush said, "Does this mean you're trying to have a pretext for war? No. It means I'm trying to protect our troops."

There have been mixed signals in the administration about Iran's involvement in supplying Shiite groups in Iraq with a particularly lethal type of roadside bombs known as explosively formed penetrators.

Three senior U.S. military officials, at a weekend briefing in Baghdad, said the highest levels of the Iranian government had ordered the weapons smuggled into Iraq. They based their claim on the belief the weapons are moving into Iraq through the Iran's Revolutionary Guards elite Quds Force.

But Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said later he was not ready to conclude that Iran's top leaders were behind the attacks. Some lawmakers also have questioned the administration's statements.

Wading into the debate, Bush said the Quds Force was instrumental in supplying the weapons — "we know that," he said — and that the Quds Force was part of the Iranian government. "That's a known," he said. "What we don't know is whether or not the head leaders of Iran ordered the Quds Force to do what they did."

Pressed again on the subject, Bush displayed some irritation and said, "Whether (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad ordered the Quds Force to do this, I don't think we know. But we do know that they're there and I intend to do something about it. And I've asked our commanders to do something about it. And we're going to protect our troops." Ahmadinejad has denied Iran was behind the attacks.

Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee emerged from a classified briefing Wednesday saying they wanted more information about Iran. The committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), said it was unclear to him precisely what the administration knows about the Tehran government's ties to the weapons found in Iraq.

"There seems to be some disarray," said Levin, D-Mich. He said he eventually hopes to see some declassified information on the subject.

Bush came into the news conference after receiving a briefing from Baghdad by Gen. David Petraeus, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq.

Bush said he talked with Petraeus about coordination between Iraqi and coalition forces, and that while it seemed to be good, more work was needed on developing an efficient command-and-control structure.

Bush responded carefully when asked about Russian President Vladimir Putin's accusations Saturday that the United States was undermining global security and provoking a nuclear arms race. The depth of Putin's criticism surprised U.S. officials.

Bush said Putin was "the same strong-willed person" he has known since 2001 and there is a "complicated relationship" between Washington and Moscow.

On other matters, Bush said:

_The agreement announced Tuesday to shut down North Korea's nuclear program in exchange for fuel assistance was "a good first step." He said he strongly disagreed with former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton that it was a bad deal.

_He will not comment on the 2008 presidential race. "I will resist all temptation to become the pundit-in-chief."

_He will not comment on whether he authorized members of his administration to leak the identity of Valerie Plame, a one-time CIA officer whose husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, criticized the administration's case for the Iraq war. Similarly, Bush refused to say whether he might pardon I. Lewis "Scooter Libby, the former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. Libby is on trial on charges of lying and obstructing the investigation into the Plame's identity.

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

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Saudis to purchase nuclear option, advanced missiles and spy satellites off the shelf from Pakistan and Russia

February 15, 2007, 11:45 AM (GMT+02:00)

Moscow will assist in Saudi development of a civilian nuclear program and build six “research satellites” for the oil kingdom. DEBKAfile’s Gulf intelligence sources report this was agreed in the talks held in Riyadh earlier this week by visiting Russian president Vladimir Putin and King Abdullah. Israeli military sources report that Moscow in fact undertook to provide Saudi Arabia with half a dozen military surveillance satellites, launch them and set up ground control centers, thereby making the oil kingdom the first Middle East national with a multiple spy satellite capability for tracking the military movements of its neighbors, including Iran and Israel.

This Saudi-Russian venture has got Israel worried because it will enable Riyadh to pick up highly sensitive intelligence on its military movements and relay it to Egypt and the Palestinians.

This development confirms DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s previous disclosures that the Saudis do not intend wasting time developing their own military capabilities but are going shopping for finished products.

On Jan. 21, Saudi rulers favored visiting Pakistani president Gen. Pervez Musharraf with exception honors when he arrived at the outset of a tour of five Arab capitals. DEBKA-Net-Weekly described King Abdullah as personally welcoming the visitor and driving him in the royal convoy to a palace outside the capital where they were closeted alone for three hours. The king also conferred on the Pakistani ruler the King Abdul Aziz Award.

This ceremonial led up to an epic accord of 7 secret clauses on the terms in which Pakistan would make nuclear weapons available to, and sell, Saudi Arabia nuclear-capable missiles. DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s sources revealed that Musharraf undertook to make them available in the event of a nuclear emergency facing Saudi Arabia, the Gulf emirates, Egypt or Jordan. A mechanism was thus set up for Saudi Arabia to potentially beat Iran to the draw in acquiring a nuclear bomb, as well as controlling the security of its allies.

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

Clinton warns Bush about action in Iran By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer
Wed Feb 14, 3:21 PM ET



WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton warned President Bush on Wednesday not to take any military action against Iran without getting congressional approval first.

ADVERTISEMENT

"If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the president must come to Congress to seek that authority," Clinton said in a Senate speech.

Clinton, a member of the Armed Services Committee, voted in 2002 to give Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq — a vote that has prompted some Democrats to demand that she repudiate.

Since then, the New York senator has become an outspoken critic of Bush's handling of the war. She said the new Democratic Congress must not let him make similar mistakes in the increasingly tense relationship with Iran.

"It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further congressional authorization," Clinton said.

She also insisted the resolution authorizing force against those responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks did not allow for U.S. action now against Iran.

Clinton, who has come under fire from anti-war Democrats, excoriated the previous Republican-controlled Congress for not questioning the administration over the past six years.

"We continue to experience the consequences of unchecked presidential action," she said, later adding: "This president was allowed for too long to commit blunder after blunder under cover of darkness provided by an allied Republican Congress."

Clinton spoke shortly after President Bush said he was certain the Iranian government is supplying deadly weapons used by fighters in Iraq against U.S. troops, even if he can't prove that the orders came from top Iranian leaders.

"I'm going to do something about it," Bush pledged, displaying apparent irritation at being repeatedly asked about mixed administration signals on who was behind the weaponry.

U.S. officials have said that Iran is behind attacks against troops in Iraq, an assertion denied by Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

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

Feb. 15, 2007 23:16 | Updated Feb. 16, 2007 12:27
Analysis: The price of not preventing Teheran from going nuclear
By ANSHEL PFEFFER



Talkbacks for this article: 1

The arithmetic of dealing with a nuclear Iran is much more complex than simply computing the costs of having an airborne and submarine strike force permanently on alert, astronomical as those costs are.

The strategic weapons, long-range F-15I and F-16I bombers and Dolphin submarines originally were purchased to counter that very threat. The much heavier costs involved would be caused by the necessity to rewrite significant chapters of Israel's security doctrine and the higher state of alertness, not only in the IAF and Navy, but also the other branches of the IDF and security forces.

There is a minority view in the defense establishment that the country has to be at least prepared for the possible reality of Iran with the bomb. This view is represented by the head of the National Security Council, Ilan Mizrahi. But most defense chiefs are opposed, saying Iran must not be allowed to achieve a nuclear capability.

This is not only because a mortal enemy will have the tools to fulfill its dream of wiping Israel off the map. After all, both the Arrow antimissile system and Israel's strategic capabilities serve as a significant deterrence.

But Iran wouldn't need to use a nuclear bomb to shatter the strategic balance in the region; just having one could be enough. For decades the Arab world has been forced to come to terms with Israel's existence - Egypt and Jordan even signed peace treaties - in large part due to their belief that the Zionist entity is also a nuclear power.

It might be hard to imagine, after decades of bloodshed and terrorism, how things could have been worse. But the fact remains that many experts on Arab affairs believe attacks on Israel would have been much more frequent and much worse if not for this fear of the Israeli bomb.

To change that, Iran doesn't even need to announce it has a bomb or carry out a nuclear test like North Korea did last year. It would be enough for the Middle East to think that it had the bomb. Iran might even take a page out of Israel's book and develop its own brand of nuclear ambiguity.

An Iranian nuclear umbrella would be spread over its allies and proxies within the range of a Shihab-3 missile. This would embolden all sorts of groups, organizations and countries, radical streams among Israeli Arabs, Hizbullah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Syria and the front movements it has already set up on the Golan border.

Israel's deterrent factor, already damaged in the Lebanon war, would be further downgraded once there was another nuclear power in the region. Hassan Nasrallah would have a much freer hand in trying to overthrow the Lebanese government with the backing of a nuclear Iran. Egypt and Jordan would also be destabilized.

To head off all these internal and external threats, the IDF's ground units and the police would have to operate at a much higher level of alert. Mobilizing an infantryman or keeping a Merkava tank crew on alert might be a fraction of the cost of keeping an F-16 in the air, but a state of emergency involves tens of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of tanks. This would necessitate long-term mobilization of reserve soldiers, with a crippling effect on the economy.

The IDF doctrine that ensured the survival of a viable, flourishing state - by keeping a relatively small regular army to fend off the immediate threats, with a large reserve corps that could be rushed to the front to hold the line during war - would become obsolete. The price of restructuring the military doctrine in advance is also prohibitive, and besides, there probably isn't enough time.

Israel has the means to counter an Iranian nuclear capability, but an Israel facing a nuclear Iran would have to be a very different country.
....................................benny

By Joel Roseburg:...........................................................................................................................................Friday, February 16, 2007
DEMS SEEK TO TIE BUSH'S HANDS ON IRAN



Week by week, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeatedly vows to annihilate the U.S. and Israel to usher in the end of the world as we know it. He says he will soon unveil dramatic new advances in Iran's bid to become a nuclear power. Iranian state-run television is running programs preparing Shiites for the coming of the Twelfth Imam and saying that this Islamic Messiah -- or Mahdi -- could be revealed to the world as early as this Spring Equinox, March 21st. If that weren't disturbing enough, Russia has just delivered $1 billion worth of missiles to Iran and plans to delivered enriched uranium to Ahmadinejad and the mullahs in March as well.
Yet none of this seems to have Democrats on Capitol Hill worried in the least. Indeed, even as Democrats seek to force U.S. troops out of Iraq before the mission there is finished, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and her allies are simultaneously moving to tie President Bush's hands to prevent him from being able to take military action to stop Iran from threatening the region and the world with thermonuclear war.
In recent weeks, the President and top military officials have ordered a second carrier battle group to the Persian Gulf, sent more Patriot anti-missile batteries to the Gulf States, increased our Strategic Petroleum Reserves, and offered evidence of Iranian arms being sent into Iraq to kill American soldiers. The President has said he is not planning for an invasion of Iran, but no one is really advocating an Iraq-style ground invasion anyway. A massive series of airstrikes and missiles strikes against Iranian nuclear, military and government sites is what outside analysts are recommending. The President has not ruled out this possibility, and Democrat leaders in Congress are furious.
"I do believe that Congress should assert itself," Pelosi told reporters, "and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran."
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA), who has been leading the fight to cut and run from Iraq, is also seeking to block the President from taking any possible military action against Iran. "We don't have the capability of sustaining a war in Iran," Murtha said in a videotaped online interview, according to AP.
House Congressional leaders are planning to hold a vote as early as today on Murtha's non-binding resolution criticizing the President's proposed "troop surge" to secure Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle. The Senate plans a vote for tomorrow. This, despite the fact that the Senate has already voted overwhelmingly to approve Lt. General David Petraeus, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, who is the architect of the President's new strategy.
"This may become the first time in the history of the United States Congress that it has voted to send a new commander into battle and then voted to oppose his plan that is necessary to succeed in that battle," President Bush noted.
I've said it before but it bears repeating: To misunderstand the nature and threat of evil is to risk being blindsided by it. Pelosi, Murtha and their colleagues are not apparently able to see the evil that is rising so quickly. They are, therefore, putting the country is a very precarious position. 2007 is the Year of Decision with regards to Iran. The Democratic leadership seems to have made theirs. What will President Bush decide?
.................................................benny

I know you disagree w/ me somewhat about this, but i have been saying for a while that we will not hit iran. If we were going to, we would have by now. They have recently updated the surface to air defense w/ help from Russia. The dems are screaming you better not hit iran, the un is screaming not to and Bush has waited too late. plus i dont think he has the gumption to do it now. but, i think all this plays into gog magog being close. If we do not hit Iran and they get the bomb (soon, if not already), they will feel bold enough to invade Israel. They dont want to nuke Israel, they want that land. that is why they will invade w/ conventional forces and not nukes. It is my theory that if the magog invasion is close, the rapture is even closer. I think that is what finally gives iran the green light. I expect a peace treaty to be sighned with the arabs and israel. Israel will have no choice since iran will have nukes.

This is by Herb Peters:...........................................................................Like Reading the Bible
Watching Russia's recent moves into the Middle East is almost like reading the Bible. In fact, so much of what we're seeing today is like reading the Bible. But, we all knew that, sooner or later, these days were coming.

For those not familiar with Bible prophecy, I would recommend reading chapters 38 and 39 in the Old Testament book of Ezekiel, and then read this article posted by the Asian Times Read it here. Except for the part about Israel living securely, today's real world picture couldn't be a better match. And according to this report Read it here, it appears possible part of Putin's new Middle East strategy could be to lure Israel into her foretold false sense of security.

This morning I stumbled on an insightful commentary about the EU's failure to establish a meaningful common foreign and security policy. The writer says:

Currently, the Political and Security Committee (COPS) is empowered to handle the tactical creation and management of EU operations, which mostly involve member state assets, but it does not have the bigger mandate. On the other hand, the commission holds all the instruments for implementing all aspects of a strategy, but lacks the power or ability to generate one.

(Keep in mind, the Political and Security Committee is where the EU's High Representative and the 10 Western European Union nations have their emergency powers provided by Recommendation 666.)

The writer goes on to say:

An immediate solution may be the creation of a standing committee at ambassadorial level - ie one that would carry weight - to deal with the matters generally known as CFSP and ESDP - but there is no chance that either member states, or their permanent representatives to the EU, would agree to such a formulation Read commentary here.

But as interesting as the thoughts expressed in the above commentary are, I found some comments made by a reader even more interesting. The reader says:

I too live and work in Brussels, for the Commission. I too share your concerns. But even if there were a Constitution it would make no difference. The problem, as i am sure you must be aware, is not the European Commission or even the European Parliament, but the Council.

The reader continues:

COREPER is unfortunately stymied because the Council does not act as an EU body but as a collection of individual States whose Ministers vote according to national, not EU, instructions.

And then the reader ends by saying something that I've been saying. She says:

And the personalities - well, you know as well as anyone, that not toe-ing the Party line gets you fired!

You see, it's the EU member states in the Council who hold the real reigns of power in the EU. And when push comes to shove, it's the interests of the member states that count. That's why I see it so significant that at the EU's December European Council the EU heads made arrangements for their High Representative, Javier Solana, to have his seat within the Commission without the ratification of their new Constitution. With Solana present within the Commission, Solana can oversee his New European Neighborhood Policy for the EU heads, even without having the legal authority to do so. And if anyone doesn't go along with the program, well, the reader says it best.

And the personalities - well, you know as well as anyone, that not toe-ing the Party line gets you fired!

Yes, reading the news is like reading the Bible.

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

INTL - Iranian-US ----For-Tat?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iranian-US ----For-Tat?
28 Shevat 5767, 16 February 07 09:17by Ezra HaLevi(IsraelNN.com) The beginnings of a United States-Iran war?

Revolutionary Guard Grounds Forces Chief Nur Ali Shushkari claimed that Iranian commandos engraved the Revolutionary Guard’s emblem on the side of the US naval vessel undetected. Shishkari claimed the commandos used a submarine to approach the vessel.

The announcement was intended to be a threat to the US Army, which continues to build up its presence in the region. So reports Iran’s state-controlled IRNA news service.

Shortly after the announcement, a busload of Iranian Revolutionary Guards was blown up by a car bomb in the town of Zahedan, in the southeastern region of the Islamic republic, near the Pakistan and Afghanistan borders. IRNA said that the blast killed 11 people.

An Iranian official was quoted anonymously by IRNA saying the attack was carried out by a US-backed group, “based on evidence gathered.” The report said five suspects have been arrested. “A group which has been on the spotlight of US media propaganda was responsible for the blast,” the official said.

Governor Hassan-Ali Nouri of Zahedan said the attack was perpetrated by "saboteurs" who parked a bomb-laden car on the side of a road. When the bus passed, two armed men on motorcycles sprayed both the bus and the parked car with bullets, setting off the explosion.



http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Se...=0&item=121575
__________________
........................................benny

Iran - This, Mr President, is how wars start

Andrew Stephen
Published 19 February 2007
http://www.newstatesman.com/200702190015

If only they could get their stories straight. We are told on Sunday by senior US military officials in Baghdad that deadly new "explosively formed penetrators", which have killed 170 US soldiers in Iraq, are "coming from the highest levels of the Iranian government". Fast-forward a day, cross the world to Australia, and we find General Peter Pace - chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who should know a thing or two about what is going on - telling us on a visit to Canberra that "what I would not say is that the Iranian government, per se, knows about this".

Back in Washington, we hear Robert Gates, Donald Rumsfeld's successor as defence secretary, insisting that "we are not planning for a war with Iran" - while George W Bush himself is saying that "if Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly". My sources, meanwhile, were telling me last Monday that the US is preparing to send a third battleship carrier group to the Gulf.

Pentagon correspondents were simultaneously being briefed about how the Pentagon has contingency plans to use B-2 stealth bombers to launch 400 cruise missiles at 50 targets in Iran. And, in what some insist is a chilling reprise of the build-up to the Iraq war, we learned more about the secret "Iranian Directorate", set up by Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld last year. It is in the Pentagon - where Rummy still has a desk - and is led by Abram Shulsky, a veteran neo-con who (just like Paul Wolfowitz) was a disciple of Leo Strauss at the University of Chicago and was in charge of Cheney's Office of Special Plans, which brought us all that top-level intelligence on Saddam Hussein's wea pons of mass destruction.

So what is going on? Even front-line Democrats - Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards - have been acting like rabbits caught in the headlights and keeping conspicuously quiet about Iran, leaving second-tier Democratic contenders such as Senator Christopher Dodd to say he is "worried" about the escalating rhetoric and actions of the Bush administration.

Flat-out lies, contradictions, the right hand not knowing what the left is doing: that, by far, is the most worrying aspect of the Iran crisis unfolding before us. Condoleezza Rice, for example, is to head summit talks on 19 February with Ehud Olmert (the Israeli prime minister) and Mahmoud Abbas (president of the Palestinian National Authority). But she told a House committee on 8 February: "I think I would have noticed if the Iranians had said, 'We're ready to recognise Israel', Congressman" - either an extraordinary lapse of memory or a blatant fib, because Rice spoke publicly last year of Iran's faxed proposal to the state department in 2003 in which it said it was ready to do exactly that in bilateral talks, an offer the US rejected.

But let us pause and take a deep breath. I have not spoken to anybody in Washington this week who actually thinks the Bush administration is planning imminent war against Iran, though I would be prepared to bet that Bush will launch some kind of military strike against Iran before he leaves office; I have, however, talked to insiders who think war with Iran could yet be the logical outcome of the muddle-headedness and incompetence of the Bush administration.

And yet, the new scare talk of how none other than Vladimir Putin is now providing Iran with nuclear fission materials notwithstanding, the whole issue of Iran becoming a nuclear power is actually receding here. Even Olmert, in a speech a few days ago which went virtually unnoticed outside Israel, suggested that Iran is bluffing about how close it is to becoming a nuclear power. John Negroponte, America's outgoing intelligence tsar, said last year that Iran could not become a nuclear power until somewhere between 2010 and 2015. The likelihood of a pre-emptive strike against Iran by either Israel or the United States has, therefore, lessened.

Which brings us back, inevitably, to Iraq. Even the Bush administration is not stupid enough to think the Democrat-controlled Congress would authorise Bush to launch a war against Iran - or release funds to do so - but it has already authorised him to take all steps necessary to bring stability to Iraq. I am told that US intel ligence has known that Iran has been actively involved in US operations inside Iraq for at least two years, and that the "EFPs" so dramatically unveiled in Baghdad on 11 February have been known to have been in use in Iraq for at least a year.

So, why the dramatic flurry of "revelations" and ratcheting-up of hostility towards Iran? A serious theory - which could be a coherent military strategy in the hands of any but the Bush administration - is that the anti-Iran PR campaign is to assist Bush's so-called military "surge" in Iraq. Wayne White, a former Middle East analyst with the state department's bureau of intelligence and research, believes that the sudden tough-talk campaign (which has been so pliantly relayed by the US and UK media) is to intimidate Iran into scaling back its operations inside Iraq and thus help the "surge" succeed.

But if and when it fails, White says, the administration is also setting up Iran as a convenient scapegoat. Taking swingeing military action against Iranian elements inside Iraq therefore becomes much more politically acceptable to the American public if it is convinced that it is Iranians - rather than those vague, shadowy Iraqi "insurgents" - who are actually killing American boys in ever greater numbers in Iraq. If this theory is correct, the administration is thus providing itself with a handy excuse to go on the military offensive inside Iraq, and at the same time providing a reason for why its escalation fails.

Chicken talk

To my friend Martin Indyk, Clinton's London-born, Australian-raised US ambassador to Israel who is now director of the Saban Centre for Middle East Policy and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, this strategy of pursuing Middle East diplomacy backed up by the threat of military force is dangerous "chicken talk" that could have deadly consequences. "If you're trying to ensure that your surge strategy succeeds, why would you bait the Iranians when they can help to make sure that it fails?" he asked me rhetorically. "Why pick a fight with the Iranians now when we haven't done it for the past three years?"

Indeed, Indyk paints a chilling possible scenario that could unfold, which he likens to a 1956 Suez-type stand-off. Iran, he says, knows that the US is most vulnerable inside Iraq.

"If the Iranians decide to respond by showing that they can be tough guys, too, we could easily get an escalation of a ----for-tat nature," he told me. "It would start in Iraq, where we start to do things and they respond. Then we [the US] believe they're responsible for that, and so we decide to ratchet it up by hitting them somewhere else, and then they respond by hitting us in the Gulf. And then we are at war."

More than 42 years ago, the USS Maddox and the USS Turner were allegedly attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin by North Vietnam, who claimed severe provocation. History is still vague as to what triggered a series of ----for-tat incidents between the mighty US and little North Vietnam. But it is all too clear about the outcome. That, Mr President, is how wars start.
__________________
.............................................benny

INTL - U.S. ships move to protect Persian Gulf's oil shipments

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. ships move to protect Persian Gulf's oil shipments
By TONY PERRY, LOS ANGELES TIMES,
© February 17, 2007
Last updated: 11:49 PM


ABOARD THE FIREBOLT, Persian Gulf - Every day, this coastal patrol ship and its crew of 30 sailors are on alert. At 170 feet in length, the Firebolt and similar craft are the smallest and possibly the most lightly armed ships in the Navy.

Soon the Firebolt will be joined in the region by one of the Navy's most heavily armed behemoths: the 1,092-foot-long carrier John C. Stennis, carrying a crew of 5,000 and more than 80 warplanes. The Firebolt is attached to the Atlantic Fleet, which is based in Norfolk. The Stennis will lead a strike force of destroyers, cruisers and submarines deployed to the Persian Gulf region by the Bush administration amid heightened tensions with Iran over its nuclear program and allegations of meddling in Iraq.

Despite their differences in size and weaponry, the Firebolt and the Stennis share a stated mission: Deter the Iranian Navy from hostile acts in an area vital to oil shipments by showing the Tehran regime that U.S. military strength remains formidable despite its entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran, for its part, has begun an air and naval exercise, and announced it has tested a missile capable of sinking a large ship. In November, the Iranian Navy released pictures of its supply of mines that it says could be used to deny access to the gulf for ships it considers "invaders."

Although there is no denying that the Stennis and its strike force bring with them the ability to strike Iran's nuclear sites, officials in Washington and Tehran appear to be focusing on the near-term threat of a naval confrontation.

Such a clash could be disastrous to the world's oil supplies, 40 percent of which pass in tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, a 40-mile-wide pinchpoint at the southern edge of the 600-mile-long gulf.

Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh, commander of the 5th Fleet, based in Bahrain, said the Iranians, by conducting live-fire missile exercises near the strait, have created "an environment of intimidation and fear" among Persian Gulf nations.

"We will continue to stand by our friends in the region," Walsh e-mailed the Los Angeles Times.

The Iranians, however, view any U.S. presence in gulf waters as a provocation and a threat to its security, and has repeatedly issued warnings that it has the ability to attack U.S. ships - by drone aircraft, small boats and missiles.

In testimony two weeks ago before Congress, U.S. Admiral William J. Fallon, President Bush's nominee to be commander of the U.S. Central Command, said that it is clear from the Iranians' recent military acquisitions and showy exercises that their main strategy is to "deny us the ability to operate in this vicinity."

Analysts suggest the current Iranian strategy might be to trap the U.S. ships in the gulf by laying mines at the Strait of Hormuz, or by launching an attack from its three submarines.

Iranians have boasted that their Russian-built diesel-powered submarines are so quiet that they have been able to operate within striking distance of U.S. ships without being detected. The chief of the Iranian Navy is a submariner.

However, analysts say that closing the Strait of Hormuz, even for a brief time, could prove economically disastrous for Tehran, given its dependenc