Has the Middle East Turned a Corner?
Patrick Seale Al-Hayat - 16/03/07//

Two weeks ago, it seemed as if the Middle East was on the brink of war. U.S. carrier strike forces were heading for the Gulf while Vice-President Dick Cheney growled that, if Tehran did not halt uranium enrichment, 'all options were on the table'. Washington's belligerent neocons seemed to be making a come-back and their organ, the Weekly Standard, was baying for war.
Suddenly, a break in the clouds suggests that better weather lies ahead. A striking development has been a surge of Saudi diplomacy in a great many directions. The Saudis brokered last month's Mecca agreement between Fatah and Hamas, opening the way for a Palestinian national unity government, and they are proposing, in the near future, to hold a similar meeting of reconciliation for all Lebanese factions.
Underpinned by Saudi Arabia's religious authority and financial muscle, these are promising developments, establishing the Kingdom as the Arab world's leading actor.
Braving Washington's displeasure, Riyadh has embarked on an intense dialogue with Iran - first through Prince Bandar bin Sultan and Ali Larijani, the respective heads of their countries' national security councils, and then at a recent summit meeting in Riyadh between King Abdallah bin Abdulaziz and Iran's President Mahmud Ahmadinejad.
The two countries have a strong common interest a) in preventing Sunni-Shi'i violence in Iraq from spilling over into the region; in damping down the flames of conflict in the Palestinian and Lebanese arenas; and, above all, c) in preventing a U.S.-Iranian war, which would be catastrophic for the whole Middle East, and especially for the vulnerable Arab Gulf states.
The Saudi-Iranian dialogue is a strong signal that these two leading countries are determined to take the destinies of the region into their own hands, free from the intervention of external powers. It is a clear message directed at the United States, whose influence and authority are much diminished because of its calamitous war in Iraq.
All this would seem to be in preparation for the important Arab summit meeting in Riyadh on 28-29 March. In the past, these summits have often been derided as ineffectual, because they have rarely been followed by concerted action. This time, however, there is a new sense of urgency.
The Riyadh summit is widely expected to re-launch the Arab Peace Initiative, first proposed by King Abdallah when he was Crown Prince, and then endorsed by the entire Arab world at the Beirut summit of March 2002.
It offered Israel peace and normal relations with all 22 members of the Arab League if it withdrew from all territories occupied in the 1967 war; recognised the establishment of a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza, with its capital in Arab East Jerusalem; and provided for a just solution of the Palestine refugee problem to be agreed in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (which in effect gave refugees the choice between return to their former homes or compensation.)
When it was first launched, Israel scornfully rejected the Arab Peace Initiative, but times have changed. Voices are now being raised in Israel - not least that of Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni - suggesting that the Initiative could provide the basis for negotiations.
America's severe difficulties in Iraq; the beginning of its dialogue with Iran and Syria and the inevitable eventual withdrawal of its troops; Israel's failure to crush Hizballah in last summer's war in Lebanon or to eliminate Hamas by military strikes and a financial boycott; the re-engagement of the United States in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process; the awakening of European Union diplomacy, as may be seen from this week's Middle East tour of the EU's high representative Javier Solana; the ending of Syria's isolation - all these developments have led some Israelis to believe that the time may have come to seize the outstretched Arab hand.
Not least among the factors influencing Israeli opinion is the utter discredit of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his hapless defence minister, the former trade union leader Amir Peretz. According to the polls, their standing in Israel is close to zero. They may well be driven from office when Eliyahu Winograd, a retired judge, publishes his interim report next month into the events which led to the 34-day Lebanon war. Olmert, in any event, is facing questioning in a series of corruption cases.
His disappearance from the political scene may give an opportunity to Tsipi Livni to make a bid for the leadership of Kadima. In the Labour camp, the fall of Peretz may give the former prime minister Ehud Barak a chance to re-emerge. Both Livni and Barak seem to understand that Israel's strategic environment has changed for the worse, and that the time for a comprehensive peace with the Arabs may have arrived.
Barak is known to be planning to challenge Peretz for the Labour leadership at the party's primaries in May. He is thought to be anxious to rectify the errors he made as prime minister in 1999-2000, when he missed the chance of peace with the Palestinians and Syria.
Livni, in turn, has been making relatively peaceful noises, as in her speech on 12 March at the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Israel's powerful lobby in the U.S.
She spelled out her terms for dealing with Arab 'moderates': they must be ready to confront terror; to release Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier seized in Gaza; to end attacks on Israeli civilians; to end the smuggling of weapons across the Gaza-Egyptian border; and prepare 'the Palestinian people for the compromises and historic reconciliation that any true peace will require from both sides.'
This is a very different tone from that used by Israeli hard-liners such as Binyamin ('Bibi') Netanyahu, who also dreams of making a come-back at the head of a reinvigorated Likud, if Kadima should break up. Netanyahu's strident call on the world to stop the Iranian Mullahs from getting the bomb now seems strangely out of date. Even AIPAC is no longer calling for war against Iran, preferring to lend its considerable weight to a financial boycott aimed at undermining the Iranian economy.
Almost imperceptibly, it looks as if the Bush administration is correcting its aim in the Middle East. Diplomacy is once more in fashion after the unilateralism of recent years, the pre-emptive use of military force, the talk of regime change and the contempt for international organisations.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is returning to the Middle East on 24 March for another meeting with Ehud Olmert and Mahmud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority. She is also due to meet representatives of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, as well as of the international Quartet (U.S. Russia, EU and UN.) Little has so far come of her earlier visits to the region, but she must be given good marks for perseverance.
She may also attend a meeting in Istanbul next month to follow up the work of the conference in Baghdad on 10 March, which brought together representatives of 17 countries and organisations in a bid to stabilize Iraq. This will be an opportunity for bilateral talks with Iran and Syria.
Behind the scenes, leading European states are urging the U.S. to lift the boycott of the Palestinian national unity government, even though it includes Hamas. A test of Condoleezza Rice's independence will be whether she agrees to do so, or whether she will continue to shun the Palestinian government, as Israel would like.
The battle for peace is by no means won. Inside the American administration, pro-Israeli hard-liners remain in positions of power, such as Eliott Abrams at the National Security Council and Stuart Levey, under-secretary at the US Treasury, who has been conducting the international campaign to boycott Iran's banking and trading system.
In a surprise move Condoleezza Rice has appointed Eliot A Cohen, a leading neocon champion of the Iraq war, to the post of State Department Counselor, which he is due to take up next month. This would seem to contradict the new trend towards diplomacy and conflict-resolution. One explanation heard in Washington is that in order to press Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians, she needs a neocon right next to her to protect her flanks from hawks inside and outside the administration.
*Original English

You people are so intolerant. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the leader of a nation. He is the President of Iran, whether you like it or not.

This is about diplomacy. We cant just bomb everyone or attack everyone who threatens us. We need diplomacy. How dare you say that he shouldn't be given a Visa to come to America!

The United States should definatley give him a visa to come to America.



ps.

and once he's here, just don't let him go back.


NEED FEEDBACK/YOUR TURN........


The puzzle of Solana's power
BBC Europe correspondent Jonny Dymond travelled with the EU's foreign policy chief Javier Solana on his recent trip around the Middle East. Here he examines Mr Solana's role and how EU foreign policy fits into the jigsaw of international diplomacy.
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is a cajoler and persuader
On the final day of his whistle-stop tour of the Middle East, Javier Solana sat down with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Mouallim.

Camera crews were being brought into the small meeting room in batches of five or six at a time, and it was taking a little while to get them all in and out.

Rather than discuss the finer points of Syria-Lebanese relations with the microphones switched on, Mr Solana and the foreign minister sparred a little.

"I see you all the time on the television," said Mr Mouallim.

There's always an EU diplomat somewhere remembering a [UN] resolution

EU official


Solana's Mid-East tour

"I don't look for them. They look for me," protested Mr Solana. "They're hoping I'm going to say something important."

"Just your presence is an important event," said Mr Mouallim.

Both men had the fixed grins of professional diplomats. But scattered like tiny diamonds across the exchange were telling truths and untruths about Mr Solana's role.


Important tools

For the Syrians, Mr Solana's presence really was an important event. It was a sign that their long international isolation was coming to an end.

His visit was to be milked for publicity purposes. In a country where the government controls every TV station, it is no coincidence the 15 crews turn up to film an international visitor.



For Syria, Mr Solana's visit was an important event

The untruth is that Mr Solana does not look for the TV cameras. He does.

Not because he is vain - though there is probably a little bit of that. It is mainly because cameras and microphones are among his most important tools.

There is no EU army. Mr Solana cannot - should the desire ever take him - order up an air strike or send a fleet to hover off the coast of a country.

He carries no fat commercial contracts to use as persuasion, nor does he have the power to impose embargoes.

Even the EU's sizeable aid and development budgets are disbursed by other departments.

He is instead a cajoler and a persuader. He is a symbol of that still nebulous thing, European foreign policy.


Hard and soft power

EU foreign policy is not the sum of the policies of the member states that make up the union. It is different.

Freed from the restraints and demands of national self interest, it starts from a different base - at its best, the desire to spread democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law.


For a state, the starting point is the national interest. For an organisation like the EU, it is principles

EU diplomat

That is not to say that it is not full of messy compromises.

Common positions thrashed out by 27 foreign ministers and their civil servants are never going to be examples of moral clarity.

The EU ducks and weaves with diplomatic language along with the best of them.

But the starting point is different.

"For a state," says one EU diplomat, "the starting point is the national interest. For an organisation like the EU, it is principles - the rule of law, UN resolutions, human rights.

"These are very important for the EU, especially in the Middle East."

EU foreign policy is built up year by year, layer upon layer, precedent upon precedent. Not for the European Union sudden declarations about an "axis of evil".

"There's always," says one official, "an EU diplomat somewhere remembering a [UN] resolution."

That EU diplomat is often Mr Solana. He is right when he says that the camera crews are hoping he will say something important. How often they are disappointed.

His style is the antithesis of that of US secretaries of state, with their dramatic rhetorical flourishes.

Theirs is "hard" power, his is "soft".

The same official admits that Europe is Venus to the US's Mars; Europeans, he says, are not interested in fighting wars anymore.

The avoidance of another catastrophic war was one of the reasons the EU was created.

How much EU foreign policy actually achieves is for others to decide.

But the palaces of presidents and kings are open to Mr Solana.
For a man who walks quietly but carries no big stick, his counsel is widely sought and his shadow surprisingly long.

Ban Ki-moon's New Approach for Dealing with Iran and Syria


New York - Lebanon has become a fundamental key in regional relations with Iran and Syria alike. The consensus over establishing the international tribunal to try those implicated in the political assassinations is nearly completed, despite Damascus' efforts to obstruct its formation. Also relevant is the surveillance of the Syrian-Lebanese borders to prevent the continued violations of the embargo on arms smuggling, this surveillance is making its way to the UN Security Council. In addition, forcing Iran to stop providing weapons to Hezbollah, or any party of any kind, has also been met with consensus among the five permanent members of the Security Council. There is now a European official notification to Damascus that its path to international rehabilitation undeniably passes through Lebanon and its acquiescence to the international tribunal, the international borders and the Lebanese-Lebanese dialogue.

There has also been a regional notification sent to the leadership in Syria to the effect that avoiding the international tribunal is absolutely not an option, and that there will be no Arab cover for any attempt to prevent its establishment, whether by damaging Lebanon or by its allies, Lebanese or Palestinian. Moreover, there is an international notification at the level of new UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that he is very serious about his insistence that everybody in the region - Iran, Syria, Israel, Hezbollah and the Palestinian factions - must all submit to international resolutions that bolster the legitimately elected Lebanese government. This includes the Islamist extremist groups that have taken the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon as a safe haven. Everyone also must abide by the embargo on arms smuggling to the militia groups in Lebanon, which also must be disarmed, as stipulated by the international resolutions.

The UN resolutions also insist on setting up the international tribunal so that more assassinations do not resume with impunity. Finally, there is a unanimous notification from the Security Council to Iran that it will continue - under Article 7 of the Charter - to bear sanctions that isolate it and harm it economically, no matter how much Tehran shows indifference. Iran and Syria have begun to feel the noose tighten around their necks by a quasi international and regional consensus. They have also begun to realize that encircling one while courting - although provisionally - could dismantle the strategic relation, via decisions taken by the ruling establishment itself in Tehran.

The Iranian leadership is also well-aware of the meaning of the consensus between China, Russia, the US, the UK, France and Germany over keeping Iran under sanctions will leave it like Sierra Leone, Sudan, al-Qaeda and the Taliban. In addition, Iran also knows, without admitting, that such sanctions, as superficial and weak as they may appear, have genuinely danmaged the Iranian economy to a great extent. It is very costly indeed for a weak economy during the era of George Bush's provocative leadership that has sent three aircraft carrier to the Hormuz Straights in preparation for imposing a blockade to prevent the export of Iranian oil, if needs be.

The ruling establishment in Iran is already taking serious steps to reigning in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, at least at the regional level, particularly through the important talks with the Saudi Kingdom. Some attempts have been made at the level of the nuclear portfolio that is on the international agenda; knowing that the Security Council in New York is tackling the nuclear issue after Tehran refused to submit to the demands made by the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Now Iran is repeatedly trying to return the portfolio to Vienna, offering readiness and guarantees that it had not offered before. Alas, it is too late, since Iran will not be able to take the file away from New York, since it is subject to sanctions by virtue of the Security Council resolution in line with Article 7 of the Charter. This is precisely what the Iranian leadership wants to recover from and brush off, but it has thrown itself into a tight corner due to its refusal to meet the condition of suspending its uranium enrichment in exchange for suspending the sanctions.

What the major powers are heading toward now, and what the Security Council will be precisely examining soon, is a new draft resolution that will bolster the already existing sanctions regime. This will include adding new Iranian names and institutions to the list of boycott and punishing officials alongside the revolutionary guard. The negotiations are ongoing, but the principle of submitting Iran to additional sanctions enjoys consensus; i.e. Russia and China's approval to the ongoing sanctions.

According to the draft resolution, there is a regional dimension meant to contain Iran's regional ambitions, not just its nuclear ones. There is an indication that the resolution will include a mandatory ban imposed on Tehran that will prevent it from providing, selling or transporting any weapons from its territories or via its citizens, directly or indirectly. There are also signs that the draft proposal will stress the obligation of each State to provide all necessary mutual aid to guarantee the implementation of the measures stipulated by the resolution.

This means that the Security Council, when it adopts the resolution, will prohibit Iran from selling or supplying weapons to any organizations, groups, individuals or entities in Iraq, Palestine or Lebanon. This also means that all States are committed to provide mutual assistance to insure the implementation of this clause. For instance, in the event that Iran tries to supply Hezbollah with yet more missiles and weapons, the States will have the right to help the Lebanese government insure that these arms do not reach Hezbollah. That in turn means that additional sanctions will be imposed on Tehran in the event that it tries to breach the sanctions on military exports.

This is as far Iran is concerned; containing its export of weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Since these weapons will cross the Syrian-Lebanese borders and thereby violate the arms embargo to prevent smuggling weapons to any entity in Lebanon besides the government by virtue of Resolution 1701, there is a inclination in the Security Council to tighten the noose on Damascus as well to prevent it from pumping weapons into the Lebanese scene; to Hezbollah, the Palestinian factions, and the Islamist extremists affiliated to al-Qaeda network and its likes.

This is a cause for concern for the three pronged axis made up of Tehran, Damascus and Hezbollah; not only due to regional and international attempts to contain this axis, but also due to the possibility that this containment will influence the decisions of its members. That is to say, the possibility than Iran might abandon Damascus and even take a decision to reign in and contain Hezbollah.

The UN Secretary General suggested that new steps be taken to the Security Council in order to insure the arms embargo that was imposed by Resolution 1701. He said, in a report to be discussed by the Security Council today, that: "In considering further steps to ensure full implementation of paragraph 15 of UN resolution 1701, including the arms embargo, the Security Council may wish to consider supporting an independent assessment mission to consider the monitoring of the border [Syrian-Lebanese]." Ban Ki-moon urges the SC to find means to monitor the Syrian-Lebanese international borders to fend off any leak of weapons and prepare the case to condemn and punish whoever breaches the embargo.

However, the embargo will not prevent infighting in the context of a civil war if Hezbollah's leadership decides to wage it. After all, the weapons are available to Hezbollah; those received lately are not the kind it needs to fight Israel, but the kind used in internal wars.

This international encirclement is meant to contain the possibility of another unfolding war between Hezbollah and Israel, because the latter promised to destroy Lebanon and take its revenge if the Lebanese government and the international community do not take measures to prevent Hezbollah from dragging it into another war - not to mention preventing it from acquiring new arms guaranteed by Iran, via the Lebanese-Syrian borders.

Then there is the matter of the international forces that are working in the context of the reinforced UN forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL 2). Some of the participating countries in the forces have made it clear that they will not risk their troops by placing them in such a volatile situation, the kind prevailing in Lebanon, especially via its borders. As a result, there is a drive in the Security Council toward increasing the surveillance of the borders and tightening the noose to prevent the smuggling of arms to anyone in Lebanon, except for the legitimate government, the Lebanese army and the international forces.

In his latest report over implementing Resolution 1701, Ban Ki-moon stressed repeatedly that it was imperative that the Lebanese army and the security forces be supported; calling on the international community to provide assistance to the Lebanese armed forces and multiply the assistance that is already being given. He also dealt with the issue of arms smuggling, saying that there was key and critical information in this regard that revealed that smuggling was taking place, suggesting the formation of an 'independent military group' to look into the matter. He also said that Syria and, Iran, in particular, must be encouraged to insure the respect of the arms embargo, calling on the Syrian government to take the necessary steps to demarcate the borders between Syria and Lebanon. That is exactly what the Lebanese government itself has been requesting over and over again for more than a year now.

Moreover, Ban Ki-moon dealt with the issue of the Chabaa Farms, which Syria says are Lebanese, even though in 2000, the UN included it to the Syrian territory when it carried out its geographical survey in order to implement Resolution 425. This Resolution was meant to bring the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory to an end. The report shows that good progress has been made in designating the location of the Chabaa Farms; there are even 'new' documents that the original geographical experts in 2000 did not have access to. According to Ban Ki-moon, these experts will complete their survey by mid June. A schedule was set to deal with the results, as needs be. Therefore, in the event that these documents prove that the Chabaa Farms are Lebanese, the responsibility will lie on Israel to withdraw and return it to Lebanon instead of keeping them under Syrian sovereignity. This would make the return of the lands from Israel subject to Resolution 242.

Until this very moment, Syria has not responded to the requests made by the UN to provide it with the documents supporting Syria's case that the Farms are Lebanese. From now until June, it will become clear whether these Farms are Lebanese, or if Syria created the whole notion that the Farms are Lebanese to justify Hezbollah's continued resistance, instead of leaving the liberation of these lands to the Lebanese State.

The important thing is that Ban Ki-moon is pressuring, and not only Syria on this matter, but also Israel. What angered Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is giving the Chabaa Farms this attention in the report about the implementation of Resolution 1701. Moreover, the Secretary General also blamed Israel for its violations of the Blue Line that forms, in effect, the current borders between Lebanon and Syria. He blamed Hezbollah as well for its violations of the Blue Line. He made it clear that maintaining the stability of Lebanon demands by necessity implementing the Security Council Resolution that stipulates the "disarming of all armed groups" in Lebanon. He called for the "immediate assistance" of the Lebanese army in standing up to the danger resulting from the 'Islamist extremists' infesting the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, using them as a safe hiding place to undermine Lebanon's stability.

In other words, the new Secretary General is serious in his stances with regard to the Lebanese portfolio, and in the notifications and messages of warning he has sent to Lebanon's two neighbors, Syria and Israel. The same goes for Iran. His predecessor, Kofi Annan, left his post while sending out positive signals to Tehran and Damascus due to their cooperation and 'encouraging' promises, as he put it. But they remain promises that Annan did not reveal, and that were not implemented by the Syrian and Lebanese leaderships.

Ban Ki-moon is heading to the Middle East next week in a tour that excludes Syria and Iran, in contrast to what Annan insisted on doing in his tours in the area that always included Damascus whenever he visited Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel. Ban Ki-moon's message to the Syrian leadership is very clear: 'Implement the resolutions concerning Lebanon'. His message to Iran is just as serious, and the essence of the message is that the world is keeping its eye on Tehran, not only with regard of its nuclear ambitions, but also from the perspective of its regional activities, especially Lebanon.

Lebanon has become a test for Syria and Iran by virtue of a quasi Arab, regional and international consensus. Thus, any talk of deals that would sacrifice the international tribunal is nonsense. Undoubtedly, the tribunal is upcoming, surveillance is also on its way, just as preventing more arms smuggling is taking on a qualitative leap.

WELCOME BACK, BENNY



The EU/US Partnership
Joint Press Conference With German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy and Secretary General of the European Union Javier Solana and European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighborhood Policy Benita Ferrero-Waldner

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Washington, DC
March 19, 2007

SECRETARY RICE: Good afternoon. I am very pleased to welcome to Washington and to the State Department my colleagues from the European Union Troijka. I am pleased to have with us Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the Foreign Minister of Germany, which is, of course, the presidency at this point of the European Union. My colleague Javier Solana, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Benita Ferrero-Waldner, the External Relations Commissioner for the EU.

We've had extensive discussions today beginning in a session and then moving onto lunch. We've discussed the situation in the Middle East, including the Israeli-Palestinian issue. We have discussed Iran's failure to comply with its obligations to date and the work that is going on in the Security Council. We emphasized again that while the Security Council we hope will act very soon, we still hope that there are those in Iran who wish to take advantage of the offer to negotiate that has been put before the Iranian Government. We talked about the situation in Lebanon and in Iraq, Afghanistan, Darfur and Kosovo. We have had, as I said, very extensive discussions.

I think we find ourselves in substantial agreement. I thought that one of the most interesting comments was made by Javier who said that when we get together these days to talk, we're talking about things that we've been talking about almost every day. It shows the level of cooperation and the frequency of contact that we have here in the Transatlantic Alliance as we take on some of the most challenging issues of the day.

So thank you very much colleagues, for being here. I'm very glad we've had such good discussions and I look forward to further work. Frank-Walter.

FOREIGN MINISTER STEINMEIER: (Via interpreter) Dear colleague, dear Condi, thank you very much indeed for preparing today's meeting of the EU Troijka and the American Secretary of State in preparation of a EU-U.S. summit meeting to which we are looking forward and which will take place at the end of next month. I trust that this summit meeting is going to show very good results.

I don't know how often I've already been here in Washington in the course of this year, but I think it's an expression of the dense links between both our countries and it's also an expression of the fact that we have to deal with a great number of international conflicts where we have to cooperate closely, where we want to do so. And I think that we can be helpful whenever regional efforts are being undertaken to strengthen peace and stability and wherever these efforts are not enough, thus you need not be surprised. And of course you expect us to have talked about two matters in greater detail today.

Condoleezza Rice pointed to the fact that now that a national unity government has been formed by the Palestinians we have entered a stage where we are very carefully watching the declarations, the statements made by that new government, but also the first decisions and actions to be taken by that new government. And of course this is going to have an influence on the readiness of the Europeans to cooperate with that government. It's clear, ladies and gentlemen, that we stand by what we've said in the past, in the framework of the Quartet, we stand by the expectations that we've expressed there. And the Quartet has not really invented these matters on its own, but it's part and parcel of the roadmap process. We also talked in greater detail about after having had discussions in the course of the last two and a half weeks on how to proceed towards Iran. And with Iran, you may be aware of the fact that Mr. ElBaradei had to note -- take note of the fact that Iran continues to disregard the demands by the IAEA that the Security Council was called upon to think about how to proceed from here.

You may be aware of the fact that over the last few days we talked in great intensity about a text of a resolution. We're reaching the final stages here. And I take it that a resolution will be passed in the very near future. But this is not going to -- alter anything about the fact that we stand by the two-track approach. On the one hand, we speak out strongly to Iran. What we want to see about what we want to see, but at the same time, we continue to keep the door toward negotiations open. Kosovo also figure prominently on today's agenda, again with an eye to the Security Council. Now that the negotiations in Vienna, we analyzed them today, the Security Council will be tasked to look at the proposals of Mr. Ahtisaari. As a member of the Contact Group, we not only have an interest in, but also want to help bring about greater stability to the Balkans, a greater degree of stability and more peace. And I think that this requires a speedy decision on the future status of Kosovo.

I am very happy about the fact that we are meeting here today in the framework of the EU Troijka. I'm happy that we were able to talk about all these subject matters today and I'm also looking forward to a joint premiere right after this press conference. We will meet again with experts from the business community, from science, and also financial experts and talk with them about the way in which foreign politicians can defend their common interests and further develop their common interests in an energy partnership. Thank you very much.

MR. SOLANA: Thank you very much. I'm very, very pleased (inaudible) a very cordial meeting, very constructive meeting, long, and we have touched issues of great interest, practically in all the continents of the Europe, really, in which we are cooperating, the United States and the European Union. And that is something that should be underlined. We have been talking about things in formation, things which have taken place dramatically in Africa like Sudan, things which are close in the Middle East, things that are happened in Europe like the Balkans. And in all of them, I think we have made progress today.

Let me say that I had the opportunity also, for the first time, to discuss with my friends my last trip to the Middle East in which I've been in Lebanon, I've been in Syria, and I've been also in Saudi Arabia, three countries which are interested to know what is going on. And I had the opportunity to share my ideas, their ideas together, and I think we have learned from all this reflections together, moving toward the future.

So what I would say, in short, that it has been a very good meeting. As the Secretary has said, these type of meetings formalize -- take place every now and then, but informally takes place just about every other day. So we're in permanent contact and I think this is good not only for the Europeans and the Americans, but I think that is good for the world. When the Europeans and Americans work together, I think that the world is a little bit safer. Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER FERRERO-WALDNER: Thank you. Of the many, many items that have been discussed today, I would like to just take out three very shortly. First, I think on Israel-Palestine, it is very important that in this delicate moment, we at least can go on with our temporary international mechanism and that we prolong this for another three months in order to see that the Palestinian people will not suffer in this period where we have to, of course, make a judgment on the national unity government, one.

Two, I would like to say that we are working very, very closely with the U.S. on Afghanistan. Indeed, together with an ESDP Mission on policing, we, the Commission, will work extremely hard on a rule of law mission -- that means on judges -- on the ministry of justice and also on the prosecutor's office because we think thus, we can really have a different courts of judges, that there should not be impunity anymore, there should be less corruption, and there should be a high ethic code.

And third, I would like to say that also on Iraq, I think there matters of reconstruction and capacity-building for this Administration are of great importance and these are the three items where we are also very, very closely collaborating. Thank you.

STAFF: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: First, to the Higher Representative. Mr. Solana, to give this new Palestinian government the best chance of success, do you think it's now time to lift the international aid embargo and if not, do you have a timeline for when you would like to see that happen? And to Secretary Rice, the coalition government platform includes a reference to the right of resistance. Do you read that as a code for terrorism and if so why?

MR. SOLANA: Should I start? As you know, we have been following from the very beginning the formation of this government and we have made already several statements in different meetings of the Quartet. We want to praise, once again, the efforts of the King Abdullah and the Saudis for mobilizing this effort. We hope very much that when the government is established and is already there that it will contribute no doubt first to the peace among the Palestinians, but we have to say also that the government does not comply fully with the principle that the Quartet had so many times said publicly they would like to have in this government. In any case, we expect very much that this government in the process will be taking the positions of the Quartet as much as possible and at the end take completely and they will have a total normalization of the relation with the government. And I think not only that, we will have the possibility of moving in the peace process at much faster rhythm.

We'd like to say that once again that we would like to continue working with the Palestinian people. We are not going to let the Palestinian people down and we hope very much to follow in great detail the facts -- the deeds -- that this government behaves is much more important what they do than what they say at this point in time. We are going to follow that. In any case, we will never let the Palestinian people down.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I would put the question to the Palestinian government because after all for a generation now -- well, a political generation, the Palestinian leadership has adhered to the principles that would undergird a two-state solution, including renunciation of violence and the willingness to live side by side with Israel. It's in the roadmap. It is the foundation really of Oslo. And so I'm not going to try to interpret what the right of resistance means, but I'll tell you, it doesn't sound very good to me, when one talks about all forms of resistance. So I would put the question to the Palestinian government and to its prime minister: Do you mean the right of resistance by violence and let's get an answer.

QUESTION: Mr. (inaudible). Madame Secretary, how do you react to the strong suggestions from Berlin that you should not go it alone when it comes to the missile defense shields?

(Via interpreter) Do you think, Minister, does this constitute a burden on German-American relations?

SECRETARY RICE: We're not going it alone. We have allies who wish to participate in missile defense. And let's remember what missile defense in this context means. We are not in the Cold War any longer. We're not in a context of missile defense to try and somehow degrade the retaliatory capability of a Soviet Union that would worry about a first strike against the Soviet Union and then the ability to survive a retaliatory strike. That's not the world that we live in. That is by the way the world that I made my living in quite a long time ago during the period of arms control when the only -- really the only common agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union was that we didn't want to annihilate each other, and we had these very elaborate concepts of strategic stability that really meant we had to leave ourselves vulnerable to one another. That's what was meant. But that's not the world that we live in now.

We live in a world in which Russia and the United States have a good working relationship in which I think very few would even contemplate the notion of somehow a nuclear exchange between the United States and Russia -- on what basis, on what political basis? Rather, we live in a world in which we face small nuclear threats, small potential missile threats from, for instance, Iran. And in that world, a limited missile defense that can deal with small threats is very much a stabilizing factor, not a destabilizing factor. We are working with our allies, including with Poland and the Czech Republic to talk about what kind of deployment makes sense.

But I just want to be very clear, we have talked to the Russians repeatedly starting in the spring of 2006 about what this would mean. We have had briefers to Russia from the missile defense, the head of the Missile Defense Agency. We have had -- I myself have had discussions with my Russians colleagues, Don Rumsfeld with his, Bob Gates with his. We are continuing to consult with the Russians. But the notion that somehow this is aimed at Russia is simply not borne out by the facts and we are not therefore going it alone. We're simply trying to deal with a new threat -- a threat, by the way that is there for all of us.

FOREIGN MINISTER STEINMEIER: (Via interpreter) I fully underline and support what the American Secretary of State just said at the outset of her statement. The Cold War has come to an end. It's over. We all live in new circumstances, under new conditions and that is what is decisive about this and this is why last Sunday -- and I trust you saw that -- published an article in a leading German paper and said in that article that the American need to defend itself against such possible threats by possible threats by possible long-distance weapons is something that one has to respect.

Another point that I'd like to make and I think that here understanding has been shown on the American side, that such a defensive shield ought to be extended to Europe and that requires discussions and we as the presidency of the European Union do have an understandable interest in seeing the European positions be harmonized and staying as close as possible -- as close as possible really, if not identical. And this is what I'm working for. This is my objective.

My -- the first sentence of that article, I remember a word you said when you came to Berlin, the discussion that we have on this subject matter ought to be intensified. At the time I said the right place for such a discussion in my eyes would be NATO, but of course I didn't want to avoid a discussion amongst the EU member-states about this, but I think that that would be the suitable place for such a discussion. NATO has become a very intensive debate, more intensive than in the last few months and years indeed. And today again we heard that the discussion amongst the Americans and the Russian Government have been resumed, continue. Now we have to wait and see where we're going with this, but it's not a disruption of American-German relations, none whatsoever.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) for Secretary Rice and Mr. Solana, President Abbas has publicly and repeatedly appealed to the Quartet to lift its aid embargo. Do you not worry that if you refuse or if this drags on, that his inability to deliver despite his close relationship with the United States and the European Union will undermine his standing and that of other moderates among the Palestinian people?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, let me start by repeating something that Benita said and that Javier said as well. We are going to continue to help the Palestinian people. We've been helping through humanitarian assistance. We have the temporary international mechanism. I think if you look at the numbers, you'll see that actually, the amount of assistance going into the Palestinian people has -- it's gone up over the last year.

And so we're going to continue to help the Palestinian people and we're going to continue to deal with Abu Mazen. I'm going to the region at the end of the week. I intend to see him, to talk with him, and to continue to try to work on bettering the lives of the Palestinian people as well as trying to push forward on a political horizon so that the Palestinian people can see the pathway to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Now the Quartet principles are there not to be obstructionists, but because they are the foundational principles for peace. You cannot have a peace agreement or a peace process when one party does not recognize the right of the other party to exist or will not renounce violence. And that's why there has been so much concern in the international community that any government of the Palestinian people would reflect those principles, because those principles are critical to getting to a two-state solution. And I should add they have been at the foundation of where Palestinian leadership has been since Oslo.

And so we will continue to insist that those principles be respected. We're going to continue to help the Palestinian people. And we're going to continue to deal with Abu Mazen. And I think that that is the right place to be so that Palestinians understand what is before them in order to gain full acceptance for their government.

MR. SOLANA: Well, I have a little to add -- to say once again that the Palestinian people will never be let down by us and for the European Union. As has been said, we have been increasing our contribution the last three years. We will continue in the future. And we see the government people that we trust and we know well, that we have been working with them. And as I said before, we hope very much that this will be a process that will lead to the acceptance of all the principle, because it would be beneficial for them, beneficial for us, for the peace process.

As we have said many, many times, we will continue, the Quartet will continue to engage in trying to define the political horizon so that the peace process can move forward. (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: I have a question to our Foreign Minister and also to Javier Solana, but first, to our Foreign Minister. I'm very happy how you describe now your position on missile defense here, but it is very different from what has been written in German newspapers over the weekend, what the spin of what you said and wrote is. In German newspapers, it is described as a dire warning against the United States not to go it alone and not to have discussions enough with the Russians and this is the start of a new arms race.

So do you feel (inaudible) because normally, as my normal colleagues in Berlin and normally talk to people from the ministry before they write such analysis, could you please clear which side is now really the message? The warning side or what you said here, the merit side and that America has the right to do this and it's not directed against United States?

And Javier, as you have been the NATO General Secretary and have a lot of knowledge about these strategic issues, what is your take on this discussion? As far as you know this missile defense planning and as we know it here, ten missiles probably not directed to intercept 3,000 Russian warheads and even with it's positioned geographically can't even be useful that it's probably designed against Iran. But I would like to learn your take and what you feel -- how (inaudible) in the rest of Europe? Is it as German -- angst-driven as in Germany or is it different in the rest of Europe? Thank you.

FOREIGN MINISTER STEINMEIER: (Via interpreter.) The same applies here as on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. You are responsible for what you have said and not for what others make out of it. You know, when you take a look at the text that I published with a great deal of consideration, you will find the sentence that I just uttered here, the legitimate right of America -- that it is America's legitimate right to protect itself from possible long distance missiles wherever they may come from and to protect itself in a suitable way.

And this does in no way contradict me saying that of course, we have to be aware of the fact that -- had a discussion. If it leads to deployment decisions also on the part of Europe, that in the course of such a discussion, the necessary questions are being clarified in order to avoid misunderstandings that might have undesirable consequences. And that is what is in the text that you have referred to.

MR. SOLANA: (Inaudible) working about theater missile defense. You remember. You remember very well that we're discussing NATO. It never came to an end to that, but it's -- we hope that it will be -- continue to be discussed because the protection of a force that is deployed in the mission, which we -- mission of peacekeeping in order to be protected from potential missile from al-Qaida country, which -- don't want that to continue.

But what I'd like to say is that these issues are complicated issues, they are not simple issues, and would require that -- I will explain to everybody. The United States Secretary of State has told us on several occasions, including today, once again, that that has been explained to our American -- I mean, to our Russian friends. That is true that the Russian sensitivity -- hypersensitivity of having infrastructure move to the east, move to their borders. We know that. I know that very well because I discuss -- not only discuss, I negotiated with the -- at the time, Prime Minister Primakov the first agreement between NATO and Russia. And I knew very well the sensitivity of that issue.

Therefore, the more we talk, the more we explain, the better. But I think that when we talk and when we finalize the discussion, it will be understood by everybody the final sense of direction of this project. That does -- not necessarily has to agree -- everybody with it, but I think that, in general terms, will be something that will be understood by the Russians and by the United States, of course.

SECRETARY RICE: You didn't ask me, but if I could just make a closing comment on this. Look, we are prepared to have and have had discussions of our missile defense plans with all affected parties, I do think with our allies in particular. Because frankly, even though there is a long -range threat, there is an intermediate-range threat also that concerns us for Europe and for our allies. One of the hardest things to do is to look out, to see future threats and to react in time to actually be able to deal with them by the time they fully materialize. And we know that there is a growing Iranian missile threat, first of an intermediate character and then of potentially of a long-range character. It's something we have to deal with and we have said to the Russians that we would be delighted to also engage in missile defense cooperation. And I think that would be a very useful thing to do.

Thank you very much.

Dear Brothers and Sisters In Jesus Christ,......Thank you, For your prayers......Those prayers came to pass....Praise Jesus...He is so awesome!.......We are now in a three bedroom house....I am still in the process of unpacking......Dear LoisFaith2000,....Thankyou for your help on the Isaiah 17;1 News Update.......................................................................................................................................Mar. 19, 2007 19:01

Netanyahu gives Iran sanctions a year

By ETGAR LEFKOVITS
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

The window of opportunity to measure the effect of severe economic sanctions against Iran in an effort to stop its nuclear program is not much more than one year, Likud opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu said Monday.

"What is urgently needed is massive economic pressure on Iran in a global effort to stop its nuclear program, [but] these sanctions have months, a year, but not much more [to work]," Netanyahu said in an address to the Jerusalem Conference. He added that if tough economic sanctions did not work then there were "other means" to stop Iran.

Netanyahu has previously stated that the world has "1,000 days" to stop Iran's nuclear program, in an apparent reference to Israeli intelligence estimates that an Iranian nuclear weapon is not expected to be completed before 2009.

THE IRANIAN THREAT

The former premier has been the leading voice in Israel for taking an aggressive stance against Iran, frequently comparing the current era of world reaction toward Iran to that toward pre-World War II Nazi Germany.

He said an international "genocide divestment" campaign should include sanctions against both the Islamic Republic and Sudan.

In his address, Netanyahu also said there would be no chance of peace with the Palestinians as long as they kept up their demands for the return of refugees to Israel.

"Until the Palestinian side internalizes that the fantasy of the right of return will not be realized then we will not have a partner for peace," he said.

Netanyahu, who is the leading candidate to succeed the beleaguered Prime Minister Ehud Olmert according to public opinion polls, acceded that he did not have the backing of 61 MKs necessary to topple the government at present due to the parliamentarians' "personal interests," but said that early elections were only "a question of time."
__________________
..........................................benny

Why America Must Deal with Iran Soon

Iran is a West Asian country located in the Middle East, and is one of the oldest continuous major civilizations in the world. Its history covers over 4,000 years. Because of its strategic location, it has always played a key role in the affairs of the nations around it.

Iran today, however, has turned into a fanatical nation. Contemporary Iran traces its beginning to the Revolution of 1979. The last Iranian monarch, the Shah of Iran, was trying, in many people’s eyes, to modernize the country too fast. He called for a revolution against unlawful acts and injustice, but his preference for many of the customs of the West made him unpopular with many of the people.

When the Revolution started, Ayatollah Khomeini, an exiled Islamic religious leader living in Paris, quickly took advantage of the situation and began to stir things up. He publicly called for the overthrow of the pro-Western Shah, fomenting trouble from a distance. Taking advantage of economic difficulties and political unrest at the time, Islamic fanatics took charge of the government and brought Khomeini back to the country.

Militant university students seized the American Embassy in Tehran and held approximately 70 Americans hostage more than a year. Then-President Jimmy Carter tried to rescue the hostages, resulting in complete failure. When Ronald Reagan was elected President, the hostages were released, and things moved into a kind of detente.

With the release of the hostages in sight, Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi armed forces invaded Iran. This war continued for eight years. Both Iran and Iraq purchased arms from the U.S., but when Iraq began using chemical weapons on the battlefield in April and May of 1988, the U.S. began having second thoughts.

Iran and al-Qaeda
When al’Qaeda formally declared war on the U.S. and the West in 1996 and 1998, it also declared jihad on Arab governments it did not like. With the response of the West in Afghanistan and Iraq, however, al’Qaeda moved toward accommodation with Iran, even though al-Qaeda is mostly Sunni-believing and Iran is mostly Shiite.

The positions politicians take in the world of conflicting ideologies and changing mores will impact greatly the kind of world our children and our grandchildren grow up in.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, Al-Qaeda’s second-in-command, said in July:

[This campaign of terror] is a Jihad for the sake of God and will last until [our] religion prevails. . . . The entire world is an open battlefield for us. We will attack everywhere until Islam reigns.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, threatened the world with nuclear weapons. In a brazen challenge to America, he said:

If you want to have good relations with the Iranian people in the future, you should acknowledge the right and the might of the Iranian people, and you should bow and surrender to the might of the Iranian people. If you do not accept this, the Iranian people will force you to bow and surrender.

The battle going on in Palestine today is the front line of the conflict between the Islamic world and the Oppressor World [the West]. It is a battle of destiny that will determine the fate of hundreds of years of conflict in Palestine. Israel must be wiped off the map.

We [Muslims] must prepare ourselves to rule the world and the only way to do that is to put forth views on the basis of the Expectation of the Return [of the 12th Imam, whose arrival will be preceded by the Apocalypse]. If we work on that basis, all the affairs of our nation will be streamlined.

With the support and power of God, we will soon experience a world without the United States.

In a speech on February 2, 2007, Ahmadinejad encouraged his own people:

For 27 years, the vanquished enemy has been attempting to harm us. Now it is not looking for new excuses, rather it is not capable of harming us. Today, the U.S. government is engulfed in serious crises both in the region and in its own country. Its problems are so deep that it has lost its way in foreign policy. By relying on propaganda tools it is trying to shift its internal crisis overseas.

Today the Islamic Republic [of Iran] has been transformed into a cultural superpower and is influencing the depths of the hearts and spirits of peoples. Bullying powers fear this reality and know that they cannot harm us. All they can do is to resort to some distractions, and such moves will have no major effect on the nation’s forward march.

Al-Qaeda’s 7 Phases

Der Spiegel, a German news source, published a book review of Fouad Hussein’s latest book, al-Zarqawi - al-Qaida’s Second Generation. This Jordanian journalist is a reliable source of information on the terrorist organization, al’Qaeda. He says of his sources for the book:

I interviewed a whole range of al-Qaida members with different ideologies to get an idea of how the war between the terrorists and Washington would develop in the future.

In the review, Der Spiegel quotes extensively from the book, which is published only in Arabic. According to the article, Al Qaeda’s strategy can be broken down into seven “phases” which span from 2000 until 2020. Here is al-Qaeda’s projected plan:

Phase 1 is called “The Awakening.”The purpose of this period was to awaken the consciousness of Muslims, as well as non-Muslims, worldwide. A few months after 9/11, bin Laden made a statement on a videotape that few in the West understood. “The awakening has started,” he boasted.

Phase 2 is called “Opening Eyes.” This was the period through 2006. Hussein says the terrorists’ goal was to make the “Western conspiracy” aware of the Islamic community.” For the first time, Islam was the everyday subject and conversation of people, groups and nations around the world. In the meantime, the plan said al-Qaeda would continue to train its secret battalions and get them ready for battle. Many think that Hezbollah’s attack on Israel last fall was connected to Phase 2.

Phase 3 is “Arising and Standing Up.” Al-Qaeda will continue its war of nerves with the West, and especially with the United States. According to the Jordanian author’s interviews, this phase should last from 2007 to 2010. It would be marked with increasingly frequent attacks against secular Turkey and arch-enemy Israel.

Phase 4. No exotic name or label was given to Phases 4 and 5. Between 2010 and 2013, the primary objective will be to bring about the downfall of Arab regimes they don’t like, particularly Saudi Arabia and Jordan. At the same time attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber-terrorism.

Recent events seems to have altered (to their advantage, they believe) the focus of Phases 3 and 4. Iranian leaders, as well as al-Qaeda spokesmen, talk openly of the spread of jihad (holy war) and instability. With Iraq a country in chaos, this sets the stage and provides a base for instability in other Mideast countries, making them ripe for overthrow by the Islamists.

For example, Al Qaeda has announced on one of its official web sites that it has established a military wing in the Gaza Strip. The message said that the “Jihad Brigades in the Promised Land” had already carried out mortar and rocket attacks from the Palestinian refugee camp of Khan Younis, aimed at the Jewish settlements of Neveh Dekalim and Ganei Tal in the Gaza Strip.

Phase 5. This will be the point at which the terrorists plan to declare an Islamic state, or Caliphate. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel so weakened that resistance will not be feared and will not be a major factor. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.

Phase 6 – “Total Confrontation.” The author of this book said the jihadists believe that from 2016 onwards will be a period of “total confrontation.” As soon as the Caliphate has been declared, the “Islamic army” will instigate the “fight between the believers and the non-believers.” This is the fight Osama bin Laden has often predicted.

Phase 7 – “Definitive Victory.” This final stage is described as “definitive victory.” The Jordanian author writes that the terrorists believe the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the “one-and-a-half million Muslims,” that the Caliphate will, without doubt, succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn’t last longer than two years.

The United States cannot afford to allow another Islamic state to fall to al Qaeda’s ideologues. The lesson of September 11 serves as a reminder of what happened when Afghanistan became a sanctuary and a “de facto” al’Qaeda state.

Many observers believe that if the United States loses its political will and pursues a policy of isolation from the Muslim world, a showdown with al’Qaeda is inevitable. An open confrontation with the West, as well as a nuclear armed Caliphate, would bring about the call-up of the full military might of the Western world.

Basically, the West has two options:

21st-century style blitzkrieg, similar to the German blitzkrieg just before World War II, with a full mobilization of the military and a sweep of the Islamic crescent, or
nuclear war.
Both options are frightening. America must decide, however, whether it wants to stop the enemy “over there,” or wait until the enemy comes to us and forces our hand. In June, Time magazine excerpted Ron Suskind’s book, The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11.

Suskind says that according to U.S. intelligence, al-Qaeda plotted a hydrogen-cyanide gas attack on New York City subways in 2003, but the attack was called off by al-Qaeda’s No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahiri. The attack was aborted, the book says, because the attack would not have been “dramatically” larger and more devastating than the 9/11 attacks.

Administration officials were, and are, alarmed! If the terrorists called off an attack that would have left tens of thousands dead but was not “big enough,” what might they be planning for us in the future?

What can believers who are busy in the harvest do? First of all, we cannot let up in our work to reap the final harvest. God has called us and we have responded to His call.

Second, we can continue to live in confidence, going about our daily duties knowing that God controls the future. We rely on His precious promises:

When you lie down, you will not be afraid; yes, you will lie down and your sleep will be sweet. Do not be afraid of sudden terror, nor of trouble from the wicked when it comes; for the Lord will be your confidence, and will keep your foot from being caught (Proverbs 3:24-26).

You shall not be afraid of the terror by night, nor of the arrow that flies by day (Psalm 91:5).

Perry Stone, Jr.

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

Monday, March 19, 2007
WHY IS RUSSIA THREATENING TO DENY IRAN ENRICHED URANIUM? We're watching a power play, folks -- meanwhile: US, Israel prepare for nuclear/chem/bio war






UPDATED: Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have been pretty cozy up until now....in recent years, Russia has built nuclear facilities for Iran, sold Iran hundreds of millions of dollars worth of nuclear technology, trained over a thousand Iranian nuclear scientists, run political interference for Iran at the United Nations over the nuclear issue and was due, this month, to deliver enriched uranium to Iran....but now Moscow is balking, and Tehran sounds testy....poor Mahmoud....not a fun way to spend the Persian New Year, fretting about how best to complete his nuclear weapons arsenal....the Russians are claiming that Iran has failed to pay its bills for the nuclear reactor it's building at Bushehr....the Iranians say that's nonsense....they claim they are all paid up and that the Russians are just delaying -- yet again....."It is deplorable that there has been a delay in launching the Bushehr plant," said Iran's chief nuclear negotatiator Ali Larijani, according to a report by Agence France Presse. "The Russians should keep their promises on time....According to the initial contract the plant was set to be launched on July 8, 1999. It has been delayed five times."....Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, says: “Iran has had no delay whatsoever in making payments for the Bushehr nuclear power plant.”....nevertheless, the New York Times is now reporting that: "Russia has informed Iran that it will withhold nuclear fuel for Iran’s nearly completed Bushehr power plant unless Iran suspends its uranium enrichment as demanded by the United Nations Security Council, European, American and Iranian officials said. The ultimatum was delivered in Moscow last week by Igor Ivanov, Russia’s Security Council Secretary, to Ali Hosseini Tash, Iran’s deputy chief nuclear negotiator, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because a confidential diplomatic exchange between two governments was involved."....what does the Bush administration make of the sudden tensions between Russia and Iran?....“We’re not sure what mix of commercial and political motives are at play here,” one senior Bush administration official in Washington told the New York Times. “But clearly the Russians and the Iranians are getting on each other’s nerves — and that’s not all bad.”....The Drudge Report has a banner headline in red tonight: "RUSSIA WARNS IRAN IT WILL WITHHOLD NUCLEAR FUEL," linked to the Times story...it is certainly an interesting development, and one that's had me curious for the last week or so....but honestly, I'm not so sure it's as dramatic as some -- including Drudge and the Times -- seem to believe....all indications thus far have demonstrated that Putin believes Russia's strategic interests lie in developing a military and economic alliance with Iran....but Putin also wants it to be clear to Ahmadinejad -- and to the West -- who is really in charge of this relationship....thus, while this could eventually prove to be a strategic change of direction for Russia, it is more likely a power play by the Kremlin to remind Iran, the junior partner in this emerging alliance, just who's the boss....we'll likely have a somewhat better sense of the relationship between Putin and Ahmadinejad in the next few days.....the Iranian leader has requested a visa to come to the United States, and the State Department has granted his request....Ahmadinejad wants to attend the U.N. Security Council debates in New York over whether new economic sanctions will be imposed on Iran....that should be interesting to watch.
..............................................benny

Dear BonoMike,......God is not going to "smack" the Jews again. The Lord has brought the Jews back in to the land to bring in the everlasting kingdom of God into the world, and to bring the Jews to accept Jesus. First, God will bring the non religious Jews to believe in Him, which the Gog/Magog event will accomplish. Secondly, God will let them have their way in choosing a different messiah than Jesus, who will turn out to be the Antichrist. That is what it is going to take to break their spirit - and that is when the spiritual blinders will come off the Jews eyes and they will accept Jesus. God is not planning and vendetta against the Jews.
..............................................benny

Mar. 21, 2007 9:45 | Updated Mar. 21, 2007 9:48
Bolton: N. Korea, Iran will never give up nuke ambitions
By ASSOCIATED PRESS


Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton criticized the US government for releasing $25 million to North Korea, declared that using military force against Iran would be preferable to allowing a nuclear Iran and said it is time to contemplate regime change in Sudan.

During his 17 months as President George W. Bush's envoy to the United Nations, Bolton gained a reputation for speaking out. Now that he has left the Bush administration, he has become even more outspoken on national security issues, especially the potential proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

After an off-the-record speech Tuesday to the Hudson Institute, a non-partisan policy research organization, Bolton told a group of reporters that Iran will not give up its nuclear ambitions and North Korea will not give up its nuclear weapons.

He expressed hope that those people who think Iran can be talked out of its pursuit of nuclear weapons diplomatically will listen to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is expected to address the U.N. Security Council just before it votes on new sanctions against Teheran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment.

The hard-line Iranian president has dismissed the sanctions as a "torn piece of paper" and vowed nothing can stop Iran's nuclear plans. He has been granted a visa to come to New York but is waiting for the Security Council to schedule a vote, likely late this week or next week.

"I think Iran's record is clear that they're never going to give up the pursuit of uranium enrichment," Bolton said, "and I think that there's no disagreement within their leadership that that's the road to nuclear weapons."

The proposed new resolution - which Bolton said "doesn't add much by way of real sanctions" - will not dissuade Iran "from the course it's on," he said.

The only way to stop Iran, he said, is to take action outside the UN Security Council - by continuing to try to isolate and pressure the country financially, which the United States is trying to do, and by denying Tehran the technology and materials it needs.

"I believe that ultimately the only real prospect of getting Iran to give up nuclear weapons is to change the regime," Bolton said.
Should this be done militarily?

"By the force of the Iranian people themselves," Bolton replied. "But if the alternative is a nuclear Iran, as unpleasant as the use of military force would be, I think the prospect of a nuclear Iran is worse."

As for North Korea, he said the US government's decision to release US$25 million of Pyongyang's funds "is a mistake".

The US alleged that North Korea was using Banco Delta Asia in Macau to launder money and process counterfeit currency. As part of a deal reached at six-party talks in Beijing last month to restart negotiations on eliminating its nuclear program, Washington agreed to release the money.

US Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Daniel Glaser said Monday that the money would be transferred into a North Korean account at the Bank of China in Beijing to be "used solely for the betterment of the North Korean people."

Bolton, who has returned to the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said he has very little confidence that China is going to guarantee that North Korea uses the money for humanitarian programs.

"I think it's a signal of weakness," he said. "It's a terrible signal to Iran and other would-be proliferators, and it's a further example of letting North Korea out of the corner that they put themselves in through the nuclear test in October."



Bolton said North Korea's boycott of six-party talks on Tuesday over a dispute on when the US$25 million will be released from the Macau bank follows Pyongyang's negotiating tactics - agonize over a deal, sign it, then start renegging on it.

"They're just doing it again," he said. "It's why I've compared this to jumping into a bowl of molasses."

As for the deteriorating situation in conflict-wracked Darfur, where more than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million displaced since 2003, Bolton criticized Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for refusing to allow UN peacekeeping troops to deploy to the vast western region and said the UN Security Council should approve a new sanctions resolution.

Asked what the US could do given al-Bashir's opposition, Bolton said, "I think it's very hard unless you're willing to contemplate something like regime change, which there may be reasons to do in Sudan because of al-Qaida influence and other reasons."

"I think regime change in Sudan is something that should be looked at, but also this is the time to press the African Union to do more," he said.

The AU has a 7,000-strong force in Darfur, "and if the U.N. can't alleviate the suffering, than the AU ought to step up and do more," Bolton said.

How can the Sudanese government be changed?
"I think there are so many dissatisfied elements of Sudan with this government that I think there are a lot of candidates for that," Bolton said.

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

Today's Civil Defense Exercise Largest Since 1948

by Gil Ronen and Hillel Fendel


(IsraelNN.com) The IDF Home Front Command is holding the largest civil defense drill in Israel's history today and tomorrow (Tuesday and Wednesday). Simulating a combined attack on Israel on all fronts, the drill was suspended for over an hour because of intelligence warnings of a genuine attack.

The exercise was preceded by this Home Front Command announcement, repeated on radio broadcasts throughout the morning: "Sirens will be heard at 2 PM Tuesday in many parts of central and southern Israel and heightened activity of IDF, police and rescue forces will be noticeable during the exercise. Traffic disruptions may be felt and blast sounds may be heard across the country."

The wail of sirens were heard in most of Israel, from Hadera to the Negev desert, including Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Be'er Sheva, Raanana, Ashkelon, and Dimona. In case of a real emergency, the public was told it would be notified through the mass media.

Preparations for the drill were suspended for over an hour in the forenoon hours in light of warnings of a genuine terrorist alert. The Coastal Highway was closed to traffic until a taxi carrying two suspects - as well as several innocent passengers - was located and stopped. A month ago, a large suicide attack was thwarted when security services learned that a terrorist had infiltrated pre-'67 Israel and was on his way to blow himself up in a crowded area. Large areas of central Israel were practically closed down as the security forces pursued the would-be murderer, finally locating him in a hideout-apartment in Bat Yam.

Magen David Adom, Israel's emergency rescue service, says today's was the largest nationwide drill ever held since Israel's declaration of independence in 1948. Nine MDA districts participated simultaneously, practicing to deal with an unprecedented number of simultaneous events and a very large number of simulated victims.

MDA crews in the southern parts of Israel (Lachish and Negev regions) simulated a joint Kassam and Katyusha rocket attack from Gaza, together with a terror attack using unconventional weapons in the Be'er Sheva train station, with a large number of simulated casualties. In central Israel, MDA drilled for a chemical terror attack on a school in Ramat Gan and a missile attack with conventional warheads.

Some emergency forces said an unclear division of labor could become dangerous in the event of a real emergency. "If a rocket falls in Netanya and causes damage," Fire Commissioner Shimon Romach told NRG-Maariv while drilling with his forces in Ramat Gan, "the Home Front Command is responsible. But if a terrorist attack happens in the same building, the police are responsible. This is confusing."

Tomorrow, on the second day of exercises, MDA will simulate a mega-terror attack with 400 casualties in two locations – the community of Neurim and in the coastal city of Netanya. The Police and the Home Front Command will simulate a Syrian rocket attack on Tel Aviv, supposedly knocking the Reading power station out of service, as well as a chase after a suicide terrorist in central Israel and a mass terror attack on a school.

Thousands of people will participate in the drill. The Prisons Service will rehearse mass rioting by Arab terror prisoners, hostage taking and attempted escapes.

“The aim of the exercise is to prepare the different services and bodies operating in the civilian environment for various emergency scenarios, while implementing the lessons learned during the conflict in Lebanon in the summer of 2006,” a Home Front Command statement reads.

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

The Unbelievers Poem





If you're an "unbeliever"
and you think there is no GOD
We're going to cover ground
that perhaps you've never trod.
It's time someone spoke the truth
and didn't "sugar-coat" it.
If you care to read the rest
then this poem will surely "quote" it.


There's scant time left, to coddle you
or to make a "soft" appeal.
To convince you to seek GOD
and to know that HE is real.
This is it ... the shortened version.
We're running out of days.
There isn't time to sweet talk you
into changing all your ways.


Do you want to go to heaven
or spend your eternity in hell?
The choice is yours...it's your own call,
you should know full well.
Being "good" is not enough
despite what you may think.
When life ends here upon this earth
you'll be at "that" brink.


Some will tell you, You'll be back
and live here once again.
Still other's say if you work hard
you can bail out on your sin.
There is only ONE WAY to heaven
there's no others you can try.
The fact remains you are forever
Your "Soul" will never die.


You won't have another chance
when your last breath you take.
You're either "For HIM" or "Against HIM"
with the choice you make.
So listen up, confess your sins
and ask GOD for HIS pardon.
Don't act the fool
and show your cool.
Don't cause your heart to harden.


You could be a brother
or a Mother's precious son.
Many in the family
or you the only one.
It doesn't really matter
just how many in the fold.
This message of GOD's saving GRACE
for you does not grow old.


You may be an unsaved Mother
perhaps your Daughters plea's amuse you.
You ought to get a clue though lady
she just doesn't want to lose you.
Don't kid yourself, don't take this lightly
this message is not a fable.
You really should consider GOD
while you still are able.


If someone placed this poem before you
and "you" an unbeliever
Then GOD again has offered you
escape from the deceiver.
If you don't think that our GOD's real
just put it to a test.
But don't say it, if you don't "mean" it
for our GOD does not jest.


Our GOD deals in "absolutes"
at "No Time" is HE vague.
HE wants to save us all from hell
but HE will "Never" Beg!
JESUS paid for all our sins
by HIS death upon the cross.
To refuse HIS total payment
is to seek eternal loss.


GOD has spoken to you many times
but you've chosen to reject it.
If you're still here when HIS wrath comes
you simply should expect it.
They'll be no time to cop a plea
or make a better deal.
You'll have "zero opportunity"
you'll have no last appeal.


If you die without our LORD
then the "Lake of Fire" awaits you.
The devil then can claim your soul
and he "will" because he hates you.
The punishment's eternal,
pain and agony so brutal.
Your screams for help will be ignored
all your efforts will be futile.


If you've chosen to ignore
the many warnings that HE's told you.
For that, my unbelieving friend,
the depths of Hell enfold you.


Well that's it folks... this poem is done
forgive this holy rant.
But, I strongly urge you...seek GOD "NOW"
for later on you can't.


Just pray...LORD JESUS please hear me
I don't want to go to Hell.
It's possible that I could go
this fact I know full well.
I ask that YOU forgive my sins
and grant me absolution.
I will follow YOU my LORD
I make this resolution.


C.C. ©February 12, 2006


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

missed you benny...welcome back

Former IDF chief: Conflict with Iran is inevitable

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

Printer-friendly version Source: Ynetnews
March 21, 2007

Former IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon said Tuesday Iran has declared war on the West, making a conflict with that country inevitable.

Ya'alon, a right-thinking security expert who was ejected from his position for opposing the Sharon's government's uprooting of Gaza's Jews in 2005, criticized the international community for not nipping the Iranian threat in the bud years ago.

That continuing weakness in the face of Iranian defiance was only hastening war.

However, that conflict is likely to be played out in numerous additional secondary wars before Iran itself actually comes to blow with Israel and the West, Ya'alon predicted.

He pointed to last summer's war between Israel and Lebanon's Hizb'allah - an Iranian proxy - as an example of the kind of violence that can be expected to spread throughout the region and the world as Iran gains power and advances in its quest to obtain nuclear arms.

The former IDF chief urged citizens of the West to brace themselves for a very protracted battle against these Iranian-backed and controlled forces if they are to have any hope of victory.
...........................................benny


'Fight Iran before it goes nuclear' - fmr US amb. to UN

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

Printer-friendly version By Stan Goodenough
March 21, 2007

Iran is resolved to realize its nuclear ambitions and will never give them up.

It would therefore be better to use military force against the Islamist state than permit it to acquire those nukes.

This latest warning to the world was voiced Tuesday by former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton.

Bolton was let go from his post, many believe, because of his unwillingness to compromise when addressing issues of US (and Israeli) security.

"I think Iran's record is clear that they're never going to give up the pursuit of uranium enrichment," he said, according to Ynetnews.

"And I think that there's no disagreement within their leadership that that's the road to nuclear weapons."

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

Tehran warns of action over uranium

March 23, 2007
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5-2703,00.html

TEHRAN: Iran's spiritual leader has warned his country will pursue "illegal actions" if the UN Security Council insists it halt uranium enrichment, an apparent reference to nuclear activities outside international regulations.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also warned the US yesterday that Iran would fight back with "all its capacities" if attacked.

"Until today, what we have done has been in accordance with international regulations," he said. "But if they take illegal actions, we too can take illegal actions and will do so."

He did not elaborate on what the "illegal actions" could be. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the agreement under which UN inspections are held.

US Under-Secretary of State Nicholas Burns warned Iran to "think carefully". Mr Burns said a new UN bid to toughen sanctions on Iran, which has refused to halt enriching uranium, would act as a "vice" to start isolating Tehran from the rest of the world. "Who are Iran's friends on this nuclear issue? I can find four: Cuba, Venezuela, Syria and Belarus," he said, naming countries that have testy relations with Washington.

"Iran needs to think carefully about its options on the nuclear issue."

Iran has refused to surrender its right under the treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel but has offered guarantees that its nuclear program will not be diverted towards weapons.

The five permanent members of the Security Council - the US, Russia, China, Britain and France - and Germany have drawn up new sanctions to punish Iran for rejecting UN demands to halt enrichment, a process that can produce fuel for a reactor or fissile material for a warhead.

"If they want to treat us with threats and enforcement of coercion and violence, undoubtedly they must know that the Iranian nation and authorities will use all their capacities to strike enemies that attack," Ayatollah Khamenei said in an address marking the Persian New Year.

Ambassadors from the 15 Security Council nations held informal talks in New York yesterday ahead of a meeting to discuss possible changes to the draft sanctions resolution. The new sanctions would ban Iranian arms exports and freeze the assets of 28 individuals and groups involved in Iran's nuclear and missile programs, about a third linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard, a military corps.

The package calls for voluntary restrictions on travel by the individuals subject to sanctions, on arms sales to Iran and on new financial aid or loans.

The US and France hope the new sanctions will be adopted by the end of the week. But South Africa, which holds the rotating Security Council presidency, has proposed extensive changes to the resolution, including eliminating the arms embargo and a 90-day "time out" on sanctions. Discussion of South Africa's proposals would probably delay a vote.

Iran says it needs alternative energy sources for when oil runs out.

"Nuclear energy is a must," the ayatollah said. "One day oil will dry up ... The Iranian nation needs nuclear energy for life, not weapons."

AP, AFP
................................................benny

Iran begins new military manoeuvres in the Gulf

dpa German Press Agency
Published: Thursday March 22, 2007
http://rawstory.com/news/dpa/Iran_be..._03222007.html

Tehran- Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) on
Thursday started military manoeuvres in the Gulf, the fourth in eight
weeks, the news network Khabar reported.

The week of war games entitled "EqtEdar" (Might) would test the
latest technical developments in the navy and use of the new tactical
submarine and missile launchers.

The manoeuvres - like the three previous ones - were aimed at
showing Iran's readiness to confront any possible military strikes by
the United States in the Gulf and against Iran's nuclear sites.

IRGC navy commander General Morteza Safar told ISNA news agency
that Iranians would not allow even one US soldier enter Iranian soil.

"If the Americans started a war against Iran, then they would not
be the ones to end it," the commander said.

"What keeps Islamic Iran is our spirit of resistance and
martyrdom," he added.

The IRGC has several times said that all foreign warships in the
Gulf, including those of the US, were in range of Iranian missiles.

Iranian leaders brand US threats as a "psychological war", but
warn the armed forces are ready for any possible confrontation.
__________________
................................................benny

Britain may try to revive nuclear pact to curb Iran

Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:06 PM IST
By Sophie Walker
http://in.today.reuters.com/news/new...a-291877-1.xml
LONDON (Reuters) - Gordon Brown may lead efforts to revive the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a way of tackling Iran's atomic ambitions, his most pressing foreign policy challenge once he becomes British prime minister.

After 10 years as finance minister, Brown is widely expected to succeed Tony Blair in June or July. Government and diplomatic sources say he may have less than a year to influence policy on Iran as Washington's patience with Tehran wears thin.

Western relations with Iran are fraught because of concern it may be trying to build nuclear bombs under cover of an atomic energy programme, and threats of U.N. sanctions appear so far to have done nothing to dissuade it from pressing on.

"There are things Brown can do and things he can't do. Iran is the thing he can't not do," said one government source.

Experts believe Iran is close to enriching industrial quantities of uranium, which can be used to generate electricity or, if highly enriched, to make nuclear bombs.

Sources close to Brown say his aides are discussing ways of reinforcing the NPT, a pact which has neither prevented several states acquiring nuclear arms nor persuaded others to disarm.

"We need to think about whether we want to take a more internationalist approach to the counter-proliferation agenda and look at steps that could be taken by nuclear-possessing countries to get the process going again," said one source.

The treaty dates back to 1968 but four states known, or believed, to have nuclear weapons -- India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea -- stand outside of it and in this context some see the Western campaign against Iran as hypocritical.

NEW MESSAGE

"You cannot have a world of nuclear haves and have-nots and there is a huge audience for this message right now," said Dan Plesch, author and commentator on nuclear proliferation.

A call this year by former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for Washington to lead a consensus to reverse global reliance on nuclear weapons caused a stir.

A meeting in Vienna in May will review the NPT and while Britain decided last week to renew its Trident nuclear weapons system, analysts reckon Brown could play into a shift in sentiment in parts of the U.S. political establishment.

While Iran has denounced Britain's renewal as a serious setback to disarmament efforts, London plans to cut its warheads by 20 percent, in line with its obligations under the NPT, and government sources say there is scope to ditch more.

Getting fresh commitment to a truly inclusive pact to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons might then help the U.N. Security Council in its bid to curb Iran's ambitions.

Brown will be keen not to be seen as subservient to Washington -- a perceived failing which hurt Blair -- but he is committed to maintaining strong ties with the United States.

Britain sees itself as a trusted interlocutor, a role which analysts say could be vital because the U.S. government is seen to have little ideological room for manoeuvre over Iran and those backing military strikes want to ratchet up the pressure during the final years of George W. Bush's presidency.

"Washington is boxed into a corner," said Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House, an international affairs think-tank.

"The Bush administration can't discuss Iran without going back on their perception that it is at the heart of an existential threat to Israel because it is seen as supporting terrorist groups like Hezbollah and working on nuclear weapons."

"That makes it just impossible for the Bush administration to talk to them. The UK has to lead," Niblett said.

But Brown, who has relatively little experience of dealing with Middle Eastern policy issues, would have to act fast.

"The Israelis seem to have set a timetable of six to nine months, in terms of the intelligence they are pushing about when Iran will have industrial-level enriching capacity," said Alex Bigham, Iran analyst at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.
...............................................benny




7:45AM Thursday March 22, 2007

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Reuters
Middle East conflict
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/s...ectid=10430156

TEHRAN - Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned today Iran would hit back with everything it has if attacked over its nuclear program, which the United States believes is aimed at making atom bombs.

Khamenei, who has previously threatened US regional interests if attacked, was speaking in the northeastern city of Mashhad to mark the Iranian new year, which falls on March 21.

"If they want to threaten us and use force and violence against us, they should not doubt that Iranian officials will use all they have in their power to deal a blow to those who assault them," he said in an address carried by Iranian television news.

The United Nations Security Council is considering new sanctions against Iran over its refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment program, whose product can be used to make fuel for power generation or, when more highly enriched, nuclear weapons.

Iran, the world's fourth largest oil exporter, insists the program is peaceful and aimed solely at generating electricity.


Khamenei said Iran's nuclear work followed international rules, but if major powers via the Security Council took "illegal actions" and ignored Iran's rights, "we can also carry out illegal actions and we will do that."

Washington has said it would prefer a diplomatic solution to the standoff, but has not ruled out military options.

- REUTERS
..................................................benny

3/22/2007

U.S. EXPECTS ISRAEL TO DEFEND ITSELF FROM IRAN

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/20...h/03_23_1.html

WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The U.S. intelligence community expects Israel to either preempt or retaliate against any Iranian missile attack.

National Intelligence Director John McConnell said Israel and the United States were taking the Iranian nuclear threat seriously. McConnell said he expected Israel to destroy Iran's nuclear installations even without U.S. support.

In an exchange at the Senate Armed Services Committee on Feb. 27, Sen. Lindsey Graham asked McConnell regarding the Iranian military threat. Graham, a South Carolina Democrat, asked McConnell what he would do if he was Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

"I would react [to Iran] in a way to protect my country," McConnell, a naval admiral, said.
__________________
..............................................benny

Hi Benny,
Your source is no longer there, it may have been deleted.
j

Israeli military: Syria deploying rockets near border



SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, March 12, 2007

TEL AVIV — Israel's military has determined that Syria deployed more than 1,000 missiles and rockets near the Jewish state.


Officials said Syria has brought a range of medium- and long-range rockets that could strike northern and central Israel. They said the transfer of rockets and missiles from Syrian military bases began in September 2006.
[On Saturday, Israel's military denied reports that Syria has deployed troops near the Israeli border. The military, however, did not deny the rocket deployment.]

"The Syrians have been very cautious and acted very quietly, but there is a new situation along their southern border," an official said. "We have been asking UNIFIL [United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon] to become involved."

The Syrian deployment was disclosed as defense ministers from Iran and Syria met in Damascus over the weekend. The state-owned media in Iran and Syria said the talks were meant to expand defense and military relations, including joint weapons production, and accelerate existing agreements.

"We are discussing with the Syrian side a host of matters including the transfer of weapons manufacturing technology and training," Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Najar said on Saturday. "We are also discussing defense issues and political matters. We believe that Iran's defense capabilities are at the disposal of Syria."

Israeli officials said the number of rockets moved toward Israel was estimated at between 1,000 and 3,000. They said the weapons included 220 mm rockets, with a range of 70 kilometers, and 302 mm projectiles, with a range of 110 kilometers. Both class of rockets were fired by Hizbullah during the 34-day war in mid-2006.

The rockets and missiles were said to have been deployed along the Lebanese-Syrian border near Israel. Other Syrian weapons were stationed in the Syrian-controlled Golan Heights.

Officials said the deployment began with the stationing of Iranian and Syrian weapons in the Bekaa Valley. They said the Syrian military, with help from Iran and Hizbullah, deployed extended-range Katyusha-class rockets in bunkers and camouflaged positions.

Many of the rockets were also believed to have been transported across the border into Lebanon. Officials said Hizbullah has been storing the weapons in huge underground bunkers.

"We are seeing serious preparations for a war by Syria and Hizbullah, with massive help from Iran," a military source said.


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

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Israel-Jordan tensions flare over discovery of king’s covert support for hard-line Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal

March 22, 2007, 11:45 AM (GMT+02:00)


King Abdullah of Jordan


Israeli officials and army chiefs were taken aback by an intelligence report summing up two years of research, which exposed Jordan’s King Abdullah, Israel’s partner in peace and the war on terror, as being secretly in league with the Damascus-based radical Khaled Meshaal.

A high-placed Israeli source commented: “All these years Israel was guided by the knowledge that Meshaal was sponsored by Damascus and more recently Tehran. We now learn the entire Hamas leadership also enjoyed the patronage of the Hashemite court in Amman. It has been a real shock.”

It also catches Israel in a diplomatic crisis with both its Arab peace partners a week before the Arab summit in Riyadh. Cairo claims Israel’s responsibility for hundreds of Egyptian troop deaths was exposed in an Israeli TV documentary.

The Jordanian-Hamas connection came to light during Israel’s information-gathering on the stages leading up to the formation of the Palestinian Fatah-Hamas government. The rancor spilled out into acerbic exchanges between Jerusalem and Amman.

March 16, prime minister Ehud Olmert said a precipitate US withdrawal from Iraq would jeopardize and may even bring down the regime in Amman. The king riposted that Olmert had better to deal with the shaky situation of his own government than with Jordanian affairs.

On March 20, parliament in Amman condemned Olmert’s words, maintaining, “The Hashemite regime in Jordan, which has not been at any time a fragile country or lacked the attributes of a state, will remain a strong homeland, unaffected by skepticism of developments in the region.”

The dispute casts a long shadow on Israel-Jordanian collaboration in the war on Islamist terror, DEBKAfile’s counter-terror reports. US president’s security coordinator Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton, joined by the British and Canadians, is organizing a Jordanian-Palestinian military force to prop up Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah in relation to Hamas.

Tuesday, March 20, the American general reported to Congress in Washington that Hamas commands a well-trained army which is bigger and equipped by Iran with superior weaponry to Abbas’ security forces.

This was the first time an American military officer has made such an assessment of relative Fatah-Hamas strength.

The compilers of the Israeli intelligence report question the consistency of Jordan on the one hand contributing to a military force supposed to bolster Palestinian moderates while at the same time backing Hamas. They also ask, according to DEBKAfile’s sources, if Jordan can be relied on to select non-Hamas members for the Palestinian unit designed to offset Hamas’ military strength. Were Hamas infiltrators weeded out? And can Jordanian officials be trusted not to leak the force’s secrets to Hamas?

The ties between the royal house and Hamas, according to Israeli intelligence researchers, have always been managed by Muslim Brotherhood leaders close to the throne.
.............................................benny






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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
Europe claims Israel preparing for war
Officials telling Damascus to expect conflict this summer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 22, 2007
3:00 p.m. Eastern


By Aaron Klein
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


Bashar Assad
TEL AVIV – European officials have been claiming to Syrian leaders the past few weeks Israel is preparing for a military confrontation with Damascus, in some cases providing Syria with inaccurate information, WND has learned.

A top source in Syrian President Bashar Assad's Baath party told WND European leaders visiting Damascus in recent weeks delivered messages stating Israel was taking measures in advance of a large-scale conflict with Syria, including updating battle plans, training reservist soldiers and preparing the home front for missile attacks.

(Story continues below)


One senior European Union official told Assad the Israeli government instructed its major hospitals not to allow staff to take vacation time during the summer months for fear a conflict will break out during that period, according to the Baath party source.

Israeli security officials and spokesmen for several major Israeli hospitals denied the claim.

The European officials advised Assad to engage in dialogue with the Jewish state and the U.S. leading to a full Israeli withdrawal of the Golan Heights, the Baath official said. The Golan is strategic mountainous territory looking down on Israeli population centers twice used by Syria to mount ground invasions into Israel.

Israel this week engaged in a nationwide drill, acting out responses to various wartime scenarios, including salvoes of chemical-tipped missiles and major terrorist attacks. It was the largest war drill held in Israel since its establishment in 1948. Israeli government spokesmen said the drills were to test lessons learned during last summer's war against the Hezbollah militia in Lebanon.

Israeli security sources confirmed stepped-up training schedules for Israel Defense Forces reservist troops have been implemented. They say the training is not related to any exp