Iran Test-Fires Another 'Top Secret' Missile

Last Edited: Monday, 16 Apr 2007, 11:43 PM EDT
Created: Monday, 16 Apr 2007, 8:43 PM EDT
04/05/2006 --
Iran said Wednesday it has successfully test-fired a "top secret" missile, the third in a week, state-run television reported.

The report called the missile an "ultra-horizon" weapon and said it could be fired from all military helicopters and jet fighters.

The tests came during war games being held by the elite Revolutionary Guards in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea since Friday at a time of increased tension with the United States over Tehran's nuclear program.

The television called it a "turning point" in Iran's missile tests but did not give any further details.

On Tuesday, Iran tested a new surface-to-sea radar-avoiding missile that is equipped with remote-control and searching systems, state TV reported. It said the new missile, called Kowsar, was a medium-range weapon that Iran had the capability to mass-produce.

It also asserted that the Kowsar's guidance system could not be scrambled, and it had been designed to sink ships.

Shortly after that test, Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, chief of the Revolutionary Guards, said Iran can defend itself against any invasion originating from outside the region — a clear reference to the United States.

"The missile command of the Guards' naval force ... via positioning various types of surface-to-sea missiles, is able, while defending the coastlines and islands, to confront any extraterritorial invasion," the official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted Safavi as saying.

Safavi also called for foreign forces to leave the region. The U.S. 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain.

On Friday, Iran tested the Fajr-3, a missile that it said can avoid radar and hit several targets simultaneously using multiple warheads. Iran also has tested what it calls two new torpedoes.

One of the torpedoes, unveiled Monday, was tested in the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow entrance to the Gulf that is a vital corridor for oil supplies. That seemed to be a clear warning to the United States that Iran believes it has the capability to disable oil tankers moving through the Gulf.

The Revolutionary Guards have been holding their maneuvers — code-named the "Great Prophet" — since Friday.

Some military analysts in Moscow said it appears the high-speed torpedoes likely were Russian-built weapons that may have been acquired from China or Kyrgyzstan.

Others have questioned their capabilities of evading advanced radar systems such as those in Israel.

The United States said Monday that while Iran may have made "some strides" in its military, it likely is exaggerating its capabilities.

"We know that the Iranians are always trying to improve their weapons system by both foreign and indigenous measures," Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said. "It's possible that they are increasing their capability and making strides in radar-absorbing materials and technology."

But "the Iranians have also been known to boast and exaggerate their statements about greater technical and tactical capabilities," he said.

It has not been possible to verify Iran's claims. But it has made clear that it aims to send a message of its military strength.

The U.N. Security Council has demanded Iran give up uranium enrichment, a crucial part of the nuclear process. Washington is pressing for sanctions if Tehran continues its refusal to do so, though U.S. officials have not ruled out military action as an eventual option, insisting they will not allow Iran to gain a nuclear arsenal.

On Tuesday, state TV also said the Revolutionary Guards had tested what it called a "super-modern flying boat" capable of evading radar.

The report showed the boat, looking like an aircraft, taking off from the sea and flying low over the water.

Iran has held war games for two decades to improve its combat readiness and test locally made equipment.

Iran launched an arms development program during its 1980-88 war with Iraq to compensate for a U.S. weapons embargo. Since 1992, Iran has produced its own tanks, armored personnel carriers, missiles and a fighter plane.


http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pa...Y&pageId=3.3.1
........................................................benny

Syrian Minster Calls for Peace, Threatens War


(IsraelNN.com) The Syrian information minister called for renewed peace talks between Israel and Syria, mediated by the US and Russia. At the same Damascus press conference, he threatened that if the Golan is not returned through peace, it will be taken by force.
..........................................benny

Espionage Galore under a Middle East Nuclear Cloud

DEBKAfile Special Analysis

April 17, 2007, 9:19 PM (GMT+02:00)





It sounded like a contest.

On Tuesday, April 17, the Shin Bet intelligence service reported Iranian intelligence had intensified its efforts to recruit Israelis as spies, targeting former Iranians applying for visas to visit their families. One young man had been snared and paid “expenses” for enlisting a friend in security and collecting information. The Shin Bet detained him on landing home, before he did any harm.

Two hours later, in Cairo, a nuclear engineer Mohammed Gaber, was accused by Prosecutor-General Abdul-Maquid Mahmoud of spying on Egypt’s nuclear program on behalf of the Mossad, which was said to have paid him $17,000. An Irishman and Japanese were sought in connection with the affair. Israel dismissed the charge as another of Cairo’s unfounded spy myths, whose dissemination was not conducive to good relations.

Neither case is isolated. Two days earlier, the Israeli-Arab parliamentarian Azmi Beshara admitted from a safe distance to the Qatar-based al Jazeera TV channel that he was under suspicion of spying for Hizballah during its war with Israel and would not be returning home any time soon.

Add on the US defense secretary Robert Gates’ visits to Jordan, Israel and Egypt this week reportedly to coordinate and oversee preparations connected to a potential military operation against Iran and, in the view of DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources, these espionage rumbles denote a far greater upheaval boililng up below ground.

Most can be traced one way or another to the mysterious disappearance of the Iranian general Ali Reza Asgari from Istanbul in February. Tehran’s job description of the missing general – a former deputy defense minister, who also worked with the Lebanese Hizballah in the 1980 - is correct as far as it goes. But the failure to bring it up to date is an attempt to obfuscate the fact that, at the time of his disappearance, he headed Iran’s Middle East spy networks.

The cases disclosed Tuesday may be just the tip of the iceberg, with more spy dramas on the way. But even at this early stage of a potential intelligence earthquake, certain conclusions are indicated.

Firstly, Israeli will soon have no choice but to declare Iran an enemy state and ban Israeli travel to the Islamic Republic for the first time in the 28 years since Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolution. Surprisingly, Israelis are still legally permitted to visit Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran.

The Shin Bet did not need to publicize Iran’s intense hunt for Israeli spies in order to stop those visits; there are other ways. The espionage case would not have been brought out in the open without the knowledge of the relevant ministers – certainly not a graphic account of how the Iranian consulate in Istanbul, whence Gen. Asgari vanished, doubles as the distribution center for visas to Iran and a recruiting center for spies. Israelis applying for visas are obliged to deposit their Israeli passports there and issued with travel documents which gain them entry to Tehran. This process is drawn out to enable Iranian intelligence agents to make their first pitch to the targeted Israeli. It is followed up after he enters Iran.

The Shin Bet’s sudden outburst of transparency indicates that the scene is being set for a major diplomatic, military or intelligence step in the summer. This time, the Israeli government will not repeat at least one of the mistakes committed in July 2006, when it refused to declare that Israel was at war and the Hizballah an enemy, even after its forces crossed in to northern Israel, kidnapped two soldiers and let loose with a Katyusha barrage.

Israel is now putting the horse before the cart and declaring Iran an enemy country before the event.

It is therefore vital to deter Israeli nationals from visiting Iran in advance of potential Middle East hostilities. If Iran is involved, even through its allies or the Hizballah, Israelis in the Islamic Republic would be in danger of being taken captive or hostage.

Israel’s latest posture and precautions are likely to have the dual effect of raising Middle East tensions and placing Iran’s ancient Jewish community, reduced now to 25,000, in jeopardy. “Israeli spy rings” may soon be “uncovered” by Iranian security agents.

Second, the Middle East has embarked on a nuclear arms race. It is no secret that at last month’s Arab summit in Riyadh, the Saudi ruler strongly urged his fellows to unite their national nuclear programs under a single roof. Though played down, this was the summit’s most important decision – not the so-called Saudi peace plan, although it made the most waves. It was a step intended to produce an Arab nuclear option versus the Iranian weapons program.

Every aspect of the unified Arab nuclear program is therefore extraordinarily sensitive and hemmed in with exceptional security measures. Each has become a prime intelligence target - and not only for Israel. Hence the song and dance the Egyptian prosecutor general made Tuesday of an alleged Israeli spy network said to operate out of Hong Kong, with an Irish and a Japanese agent charged with planting Israeli espionage software in Egyptian nuclear program’s computers, together with an Egyptian engineer. Egyptian intelligence was making sure to warn off any Egyptian tempted to work for Israeli intelligence, just as the Shin Bet was cautioning Israelis to beware of falling into Iranian intelligence traps.

The events of a single day brought Iran and its nuclear threat into sharp relief as the most pressing issues for Israel. Relations with the Palestinians and Syria, on which so many words are poured day by day, pale in comparison.




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

JPost.com » Middle East » Article


Apr. 18, 2007 11:47 | Updated Apr. 18, 2007 13:05
Olmert says Israel does not intend to attack Syria
By JPOST.COM STAFF



Talkbacks for this article: 1

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Wednesday that Israel has no intention to attack Syria, and that he does not believe Syria is preparing to wage war on Israel, but merely intends to protect itself if it is attacked.

Olmert addressed the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in response to Syrian Information Minister Mohsen Bilal's belligerent remarks on Sunday, that Syria would resort to Mukawama (resistance in Arabic) - a phrase analysts say could mean either a limited terror campaign or full-scale war - if Israel would not cede the Golan Heights peacefully.


Analysis: Don't underestimate Syria's military
Olmert also told the FADC that he was not aware of any plans the United States may have to attack Iran this summer.

Turning to negotiations for the release of captive IDF Cpl. Gilad Schalit, who was kidnapped by Hamas operatives in a cross-border raid at Kerem Shalom nearly 10 months ago, Olmert stated that Israel was not prepared to pay whatever price Schalit's kidnappers demand for his release.

"We can't decide that everything is permissible," Olmert said, adding that he was "the one who was in constant contact with [Schalit's] family."

"My heart is broken," the prime minister added, "but we have to act responsibly."

Meanwhile, Srian President Bashar Assad on Wednesday called Israel a "fierce enemy," and said that Syria was "working daily to strengthen [its] defenses."

"We always prepare ourselves. Israel is a fierce enemy. We have seen nothing from it but harm," Syrian President Bashar Assad told the Arabic paper Dar Al Hayat.

"We do not know whether war will take place, but we should not disregard this possibility. We are apprehensive vis-a-vis Israel," Assad added.


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

Syria Has a New Plan
April 17, 2007: Noting the apparent success of Hizbollah in bombarding northern Israel with short range rockets, Syria has reorganized its missile and ground forces. It's unclear exactly what Syria is up to, but they have moved 300 of their SCUD missiles closer to Israel, so that these missiles can cover nearly all of Israel. Other rocket systems have been moved as well, along with the 10,000 troops assigned to the "Rocket Force."


Syria also has some of 10,000 elite infantry, often called commandos. This force is being expanded, and trained to fight Israeli troops in villages along the border, like Hizbollah troops did last Summer. Syrias regular forces (twelve tank and infantry divisions) have not gotten any new equipment or weapons for years, and are becoming more obsolete each month.



What Syria has invested in, is Russian anti-aircraft missile systems. That, and more training for its rocket troops, and its commandos. Thus it appears that Syria is preparing to fight like Hizbollah, in the event of another war with Israel. Fire lots of SCUDs and smaller rockets, use good infantry to fight in border villages, and shoot down Israeli aircraft with modern missile systems. Yeah, that might work.



Syria has, for the last decade, seen a lack of money turn its armed forces to a much less effective force. Israel, meanwhile, added new weapons and equipment. But Israel also had to deal with an upsurge of Palestinian terrorism. The Israelis defeated this in the last two years, but at the cost of losing training for many of its ground troops. Hizbollah took advantage of that, and Syria hopes to as well. Otherwise, Syria fears that the Israelis could quickly overrun them and march right into Damascus. Now, using a Hizbollah strategy, the Syrians see hope. That hope may prove elusive, for the Israelis are fixing the problems they encountered last Summer.

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

Ahmadinejad Vows to "Cut Off the Hand" of Any Attacker

April 18, 2007
Reuters
Hossein Jasseb
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldN...12107020070418

TEHRAN -- Iran's army will "cut off the hand" of any attacker and is at the ready to fulfil its defensive duties, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday during an annual military parade.

Iran is embroiled in a row with the West over its nuclear ambitions. The United States, which says Iran is trying to build an atomic bomb, has said it wants a diplomatic resolution to the standoff but has not ruled out military action if that fails.

"The army stands against any aggressor and will cut off its hand," the president said in a televised address before troops, tanks, missiles and other military hardware paraded passed.

He made a similar remark in last year's annual ceremony saying Iran would "cut off the hands of any aggressors".

Written above the president's podium were the words: "Peaceful nuclear technology is a fundamental and basic need for our country."

Iran, the world's fourth largest oil exporter, insists it does not seek a nuclear weapon and says it wants to master nuclear technology so it can generate electricity.

Ahmadinejad's statement this month that Iran had begun work to make nuclear fuel on an industrial scale drew condemnation from the West and was a snub to the U.N. Security Council which has demanded Tehran halt all such uranium enrichment work.

The United States has warned Iran it could face further sanctions, which would follow two previous U.N. sanctions resolutions. The first resolution was passed in December.

Top Iranian officials have brushed off the impact of sanctions and say Iran is ready for any eventuality.

"To fulfil its responsibilities, (the army) is at full readiness," the president said, describing Iran's military as a defensive rather than offensive force.

"Our army is self sufficient ... and is at the service of peace, brotherhood and security in the region," he added.

Parachutists dropped down from planes over the parade area near the tomb of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic. Close by are tens of thousands of graves of those who died in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war.

Tanks and armoured personnel carriers loaded onto trucks were driven pass, along with a range of missiles, unmanned surveillance aircraft and two-man submarines with men wearing aqua-lungs standing next to them.

The television commentator described some of the equipment on show as Nazeat-6, heat-seeking Sidewinder and radar-guided Sparrow missiles. A land-to-sea Raad missile was also towed past on a truck.

Iran did not show off its longest range missile, the Shahab-3, which it says can hit targets 2,000 km (1,250 miles) away, putting Israel or U.S. bases in the Gulf in range.
..............................................benny

Iran making nuclear fuel in underground plant: IAEA By Mark Heinrich
1 hour, 20 minutes ago



VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran has begun making nuclear fuel in its underground uranium enrichment plant, the international atomic watchdog said on Wednesday, in a move by Tehran that raises the stakes in its showdown with world powers.

ADVERTISEMENT

A confidential note by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also said Iran had started up more than 1,300 centrifuge machines in an accelerating campaign to lay a basis for "industrial scale" enrichment in the Natanz complex.

Iran has been steadily upping the ante in a standoff with the U.N. Security Council, which has demanded an enrichment halt over suspicions that Tehran's declared civilian nuclear fuel project is a cover for mastering the means to build atom bombs.

Tehran says it seeks only nuclear-generated electricity. But its past concealment of sensitive enrichment research from the IAEA and continued stonewalling of the agency's inquiries have sapped confidence in its intentions.

Iran announced on April 9 that it had begun enriching in the Natanz hall, ramping up from a limited research operation above ground. But diplomats treated the disclosure skeptically pending confirmation from the Vienna-based IAEA.

To that end, the IAEA note said, agency inspectors visited the plant on April 15-16 and learned that 1,312 centrifuges, divided into eight cascades, or fuel-cycle networks, were operational and "some" uranium was being fed into them.

Iran has doubled the number of centrifuges in Natanz in the past two months and aims to have 3,000 running by end of May.

That could be enough to refine uranium for one bomb within a year, if Iran wanted to and if the machines ran for long periods without breakdown. Iran has yet to demonstrate such proficiency.

"...The quantity of UF6 (uranium feedstock) introduced at this time is small and the cascades are operating under low pressure, indicating that Iran is at an early stage of enrichment in the cascades," the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington think-tank that tracks Iran's nuclear activity, said in reference to the IAEA note.

The three-paragraph document by IAEA deputy director Olli Heinonen also said Iran had stopped letting inspectors verify design work at the Arak heavy water reactor, under construction and scheduled for launching in 2009.

PROLIFERATION RISK

Major powers see the reactor as a nuclear proliferation risk as it could be used to produce plutonium for the core of nuclear bombs, although Iran says it has only peaceful purposes such as production of radio-isotopes for medical care.

Iran blocked IAEA access to Arak under its decision a few weeks ago to stop giving inspectors early design detail on future nuclear facilities. The move retaliated for a March U.N. resolution widening sanctions on Iran over its nuclear defiance.

Heinonen, whose note was addressed to Iran's IAEA envoy, said Tehran had agreed after prolonged negotiations to allow "a combination of unannounced inspections and containment and surveillance measures" to improve transparency at Natanz.

He urged Iran to honor the deal and to "reconsider" its withholding of further information about the Arak reactor.

Heinonen said a 2003 accord with Iran governing inspector access to Arak "cannot be modified unilaterally" by Tehran.

Iran has to date refused to let the IAEA install video cameras pointed at the underground centrifuges and stopped allowing snap inspections last year in retaliation for U.N. pressure, saying it had no legal obligation to either step.

Iran has reduced its cooperation with the IAEA to a legal minimum, well below what the agency sees as essential to clearing up longstanding questions about the nature of the Iranian nuclear program.

Asked about the letter, Iranian Ambassador Ali Ashgar Soltanieh told Reuters: "Enrichment is continuing under safeguards of the IAEA. Everything is continuing as planned and the IAEA is informed about it."

Tehran vowed on Tuesday to pursue plans to heighten its uranium enrichment capacity and said U.N. financial sanctions would not hamper centrifuge installation in the Natanz plant, guarded by anti-aircraft guns against feared U.S. attack.

Iran's Atomic Energy Organization chief has suggested it could take 2 to 4 years to reach the goal of 50,000 centrifuges.

Centrifuges spin at supersonic speed to produce fuel for power plants or, if enriched to high levels, warheads.

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

Want Middle East Stability? Move UN to Iraq
by Prof. Cynthia E. Ayers and COL ® David W. Cammons

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Army, the Dept. of Defense, or any organization within the U.S. government.

“Get the U.S. out of the U.N.!,” a sign near Gettysburg shouts. “The United Nations sabotages America’s security,” author Eric Shawn declared in his book The U.N. Exposed. Iranian spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham told reporters that the U.N. “must be relocated from the U.S.” And a few days after Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez’s rant before a U.N. audience, a New York Daily News editorial encouraged Chavez to “take the atrophied, self-abasing remains of a global idea 2,100 miles to Caracas!”

The idea of moving U.N. headquarters seems to resonate with many—those who believe that the U.S. is being manipulated by anti-American and anti-Israeli elements within the U.N., as well as those who feel that the U.S. is doing the manipulation. For Americans, it would of course mean the loss of a global status symbol—but it would also mean the reacquisition of valuable New York real estate, fewer cases of diplomatic immunity for the legal systems, and perhaps a reduction of anti-American sentiment worldwide.

Where should it go? Try Iraq. While moving the U.N. headquarters to Venezuela or Iran is probably not wise, moving it to Iraq might be a strategic coup. There is even a ready-made location for it—Saddam Hussein’s 600-room palace and compound constructed over the remains of the ancient city of Babylon. Americans might even consider footing the bill for the relocation.

Think about it. If the U.S. should be forced to abruptly withdraw from Iraq, a peacekeeping force—something similar to the International Security Assistance Force now in Afghanistan—would probably be deployed. Yet peacekeeping forces under temporary mandates, with all the associated communications problems, functional restrictions, and managerial arguments that so often spring from ego or nationalist pride, generally don’t work. They would be even less viable in a region like Iraq, where the threat of kidnapping and indescribable torture would keep many countries from participating. Relocating U.N. headquarters to Iraq, however, might actually be a reasonable alternative.

Former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan agreed with member states’ demands for the U.S. to leave Iraq. Yet he admitted that any force reductions would have to be planned so as not to lead to greater violence and instability. Moving the U.N. to Iraq might be the only method of ensuring that a departure of U.S. forces would not leave the country and the region in chaos.

Considering the severe cutbacks in U.N. personnel within Iraq following the 2004 truck bombing of its Baghdad compound, the idea might seem ridiculous; but the mission of the U.N. is to promote and preserve peace. In order to maintain its fledgling democracy, Iraq needs international commitment, an inducement to stop factional violence, and a stable form of income not subject to the terrorists’ reprisals. It is hard to imagine a more visible and binding form of commitment than a change of such magnitude. The prestige factor alone might guarantee stability. Middle East leaders may seize upon the move as recognition of the region’s importance, thus stimulating their sense of self- and nationalist esteem while gaining further incentive for dealing with internecine conflict.

It would be to the benefit of all members to ensure the security of the new headquarters. A multinational coalition under the auspices of a colocated U.N. would be perceived as a more neutral and acceptable force. Additionally, since the security of the U.N. would rest on the stability of the new Iraqi regime and vice-versa, there would be a strong mutual interest in maintaining a working relationship between the multinational coalition and the security forces of Iraq.

As a model for coexistence, a resident U.N. headquarters could inspire the three factions within Iraq to forego violence, thus reducing the need for security forces. The move might even satisfy Iran’s leaders sufficiently for them to quit sending weapons into Iraq. Chavez (as a new-found friend of Iran’s president Mahmud Ahmadinejad) and possibly even militant Islamic extremists (Sunni or Shi’a) would find it hard to justify verbal or physical attacks against a U.N. headquarters based in the heart of the Middle East.

New York is an expensive city, and representation at the U.N. is currently a costly endeavor. Poor countries would benefit from the move, since costs associated with membership would be drastically reduced. Representatives who may have been selected specifically because of social status and wealth might be replaced with individuals who maintain a higher commitment to the U.N. mission. The remaining big spenders should have a positive effect on the Iraqi job market and improve the overall economy of the entire region, which might in turn reduce the tendency to engage in violence. With such a large and formidable presence, fundamental human rights issues ranging from honor killing and female infanticide to state-imposed death sentences for children, religious converts, and political dissidents (as opposed to those which U.S. representatives have publicly identified as having been driven by “anti-Israeli bias”) could be more effectively addressed, transforming the region developmentally in the process.

What’s in it for the United States? For those Americans disappointed with the malfeasance often associated with U.N. leadership, the move would be a victory. It could be similarly spun for those who feel that the U.S. has not been sufficiently deferent to or reliant
upon the U.N.—an implication that the U.N. could and should do what the sole superpower could not. Domestically, the move would be a win-win scenario.

Globally, a move from American soil—where location might appear to indicate ownership—could reduce anti-Americanism. It might change the perception of the U.S. from that of a superpower with imperial aspirations to simply a member of a global force for peace; thus, a positive diplomatic scenario.

Recent debates over U.S. involvement in Iraq seem to focus on only two alternatives—a surge or an immediate reduction in force. The issue has become a politically polarized hot-potato. The search for alternatives seems to have stalled—but if there is to be hope for stability in the Middle East, consideration must be given to all possible solutions. The idea of relocating U.N. headquarters to Iraq should therefore be open for discussion, and not simply dismissed as untenable.

Prof. Ayers is a Visiting Professor and COL Cammons (U.S. Army Retired) is a former Senior Research Associate at the U.S. Army War College’s Center for Strategic Leadership.

Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.

Posted by Prof. Cynthia E. Ayers and COL ® David W. Cammons on April 9, 2007 4:02 PM
.................................................benny

Reading the below causes my soul to be filled with indignation and fear...

Iran's First Official Nuclear Threat

April 19, 2007
FrontPageMagazine.com
Steve Schippert
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=27901

Last week, Iran announced that it has graduated into the industrial production phase in their nuclear program, claiming to have enriched uranium in a 3,000-centrifuge cascade. "I proudly announce that as of today Iran is among the countries which produce nuclear fuel on an industrial scale," boasted Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But while the Iranian claims are questionable, it is what Ahmadinejad said soon after that should garner the lion’s share of attention from the observant. What followed is nothing short of Iran’s first official nuclear threat.

Ahmadinejad forewarned the United States and Europe about its opposition to Iran’s nuclear weapons program by announcing, “Iran has so far moved in a completely peaceful path and wants to continue following this path, they should avoid doing something which forces this nation to review its behavior.” And with that, Iran seeks to shift responsibility for the coming Iranian nuclear weapons production. A nuclear armed Iran will thus be the fault of the United States and Europe. This psychology is important to both acknowledge and understand.

If by “completely peaceful path” Ahmadinejad means that Iran has “so far” not produced a nuclear weapon, he’d be quite right. But Western populations should note that Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear program went swiftly and officially under military control of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ command the moment the extent of its once-clandestine program was revealed by Iranian dissidents 2003.

The psychology of Ahmadinejad’s threat is revelatory and supported by past behavior in that regard. First, the voting public in Western democracies should understand that the statement targets them much more their current leaderships.

What Iran is trying to do – with some success – is to portray itself as the victim of unfair and oppressive behavior and not the aggressor. As this applies to their nuclear gambit, if it weren’t for the aggressive elected leadership in the United States, Britain, France and elsewhere, Iran would not one day have to ‘switch over’ to producing nuclear weapons. Iran is setting the stage for as many voters as possible to perceive the emergence of its nuclear weapons as the fault of Western aggression, an unfortunate diversion from their original peaceful aims of nothing more than kilowatt-hours.

This is the psychological imagery the regime also employed during the recent British hostage situation. The British sailors and Royal Marines were not only shown ‘confessing’ on tape and over the air, but also smiling, thanking Ahmadinejad for his hospitality and toting home goodie bags filled with Persian gifts. After their release, the regime made sure to counter later claims of mistreatment with more imagery and footage of the same individuals comfortably playing chess and other pastimes. Hospitable and benevolent Iran. That’s the message. Never mind that the sailors were abducted from Iraqi waters. They left with smiles and goodie bags.

To close the psychological loop, consider by contrast the images aired and published of the Iranian freed from Iraq soon after the Brits were sent home. Jalal Sharafi, described as the Second Secretary at the Iranian embassy in Baghdad, is visible at a Wednesday Tehran press conference – days after his release – at the microphones dressed in blue hospital scrubs, lest anyone forget he is hospitalized for his mistreatment. For good measure, a doctor in his white medical robe is placed behind him and always within camera range of Sharafi. Iran, the victim of US aggression. That is the message.

And the electorates of the West are the primary intended recipients. The leaderships of those countries are already committed to a track of economic sanctions – weak as they may be – on an Iran whose economy can endure little outside pressure without profoundly dangerous consequences for the regime’s stability. But those electorates are seen as receptive, particularly in America where President Bush’s popularity is so low as to usher in a sweeping change in Congressional leadership.

And if that leadership is maverick enough to ignore the sitting president and conduct parallel foreign policy with Iranian ally Syria, surely there is opportunity in the cards for the mullahcracy. That, of course, is the plan, as the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and others have announced their desire to trek to Tehran soon. And welcome they would be.

One member of Pelosi’s Congressional junket, Representative Tom Lantos, is quoted in Bashar Assad’s regime-controlled Syrian Arab News Agency as saying of the Assad policy meetings, “The visit expressed in a marvelous way interests of the US, that led to embarrassment of the current US administration which has closed doors for dialogue with Syria.” Lantos continued that Assad “strongly encourages the continuation of the Syrian-American dialogue.”

Well of course he would. The visiting members of Congress are effectively doing Assad’s bidding against President Bush and he is quite pleased that their actions have “led to embarrassment of the current US administration.” Assad could never have accomplished this alone. Iran too wants a visit and Lantos said he was "ready to get on a plane tomorrow morning" for Tehran to oblige.

Astonishingly, Lantos says he is anxious to discuss a ‘new’ United States House of Representatives initiative to establish a world “nuclear fuel bank” that would supply Iran with it’s nuclear fuel necessary to run its envisioned nuclear electric plant. Unfortunately, this idea has already been broached by both the Europeans and the Russians in the past 3½ years of ‘negotiations.’ Not surprisingly, the Iranians rejected this novel idea already and sent the Russians and Europeans packing. You see, the issue is not about kilo-watt hours. It remains about Iran’s domestic mastery and control of the nuclear fuel cycle, affording them the ability to ultimately produce nuclear weapons.

When it comes to the upstart Congressional Foreign Policy Czars, we should apparently never mind that they are being used by the regimes. Never mind too that the responsibility for foreign diplomacy lies – Constitutionally – solely with the Executive Branch.

Do mind, however, that Iran is still training those who attack and kill our troops in Iraq. Do mind that Iran is still supplying arms and funds to Hamas who, Israel has learned, has been planning major attacks against her. Do mind that over 100 al-Qaeda terrorists, including leadership, remain operating freely – under ‘house arrest’ – in Iran. And, of course, do mind that Iran has already rejected Congressman Lantos’ planned international ‘nuclear fuel bank’ solution.

Iran has said time and again that uranium enrichment is non-negotiable. At some point, this oft repeated position will have to be acknowledged.

And while Iran is busy not negotiating its nuclear program, it welcomes talks with Europe and, surely, American congressmen. It would be prudent for such American elected officials to bear in mind that Iran is clearly also busy making their first nuclear threat, as Ahmadinejad warns that the West “should avoid doing something which forces this nation to review its behavior.”

Perhaps it would indeed be wise to “review its behavior” as the world’s premier state sponsor of international terrorism. But given the West’s lack of appetite to substantively derail the Iranian nuclear weapons program, Iran likely sees little cause for concern. This week’s first official Iranian nuclear threat looks more likely to be eventually followed by nuclear blackmail or worse. Least likely of all is a solution magically negotiated through the prescient wisdom of American congressman.

But come on over. Iran has always sought a diplomatic solution to the West’s unnecessary nuclear concerns, and who better to broach the subject than the new American Foreign Ministry? Warm presidential hospitality and Persian goodie bags await.
__________________
..................................................benny

McCain jokes about bombing Iran
’08 GOP hopeful spoofs Beach Boys song in off-hand remark

The Associated Press
Updated: 2:55 p.m. ET April 19, 2007

WASHINGTON - Republican presidential contender John McCain, known for having a quirky sense of humor, joked about bombing Iran at a campaign appearance this week.

In response to an audience question about military action against Iran, the Arizona senator briefly sang the chorus of the surf-rocker classic “Barbara Ann.”

“That old, eh, that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran,” he said in jest Wednesday, chuckling with the crowd. Then, he softly sang to the melody: “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, anyway, ah ...” The audience responded with more laughter.

His quip was prompted by a man in the audience who asked: “How many times do we have to prove that these people are blowing up people now, nevermind if they get a nuclear weapon, when do we send ‘em an airmail message to Tehran?”

The campaign stop was in Murrells Inlet, S.C.

After his joke, McCain turned serious and said that he agrees with President Bush that the United States must protect Israel from Iran and work to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. McCain has long said the military option should not be taken off the table but that it should be used only as a last resort.

The episode echoed President Reagan’s 1984 quip at the height of the nuclear arms race when he said: “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”

Reagan was testing a microphone before his regular Saturday radio address.


© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18202742/
.............................................benny

ISRAELI MILITARY EXPECTS MISSILE WAR


TEL AVIV [MENL] -- Israel's military expects the next war to include intense rocket and missile attacks on the Jewish state.

Officials said the military assessed that the next war would be marked by missile and rocket attacks from Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Authority. They said this could mean that thousands of rockets would rain on Israel, exceeding that in the war against Hizbullah in mid-2006.

"We experienced thousands of rockets in the second Lebanon war," Brig. Gen. Daniel Milo, commander of air defense forces, said. "We will experience more in the next war. This is clear to us."

In the 34-day war that ended in August 2006, Hizbullah fired an estimated 4,500 short- and medium-range rockets into Israel. The Israeli military failed to stop the rocket salvos, which intensified during the last days of the conflict.


http://www.menewsline.com/stories/20...l/19_04_2.html
__________________
................................................benny

Iran May Be Fueling New Missile War On Israel
By: David Bedein, The Bulletin
04/19/2007
Email to a friendPost a CommentPrinter-friendly
The Middle East Newsline reports that Israel's military expects the next war to include intense rocket and missile attacks on the Jewish state, which will emanate from Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian Authority.
"We experienced thousands of rockets in the second Lebanon war," Brig. Gen. Daniel Milo, commander of air defense forces, said. "We will experience more in the next war. This is clear to us."
In the 34-day war that ended in August 2006, Hezbollah fired an estimated 4,500 short- and medium-range rockets into Israel.
In an address to a missile seminar at Tel Aviv University on Tuesday, Milo suggested that the military might not be more effective in a future war with Hezbollah, which is expected as early as mid-2007. He said the air force could not detect Katyusha or other short-range rockets concealed in underbrush or in bunkers.
"If the Katyusha is under the bushes or sand, no F-15 [fighter-jet] will find it," Milo said.
Dr. Michael Widlanski, a journalist who holds a Ph.D. in Arabic language media assessment, has been carefully listening to the Hezbollah broadcasts in Arabic, and reports what Sheikh Naim Qassem, the deputy leader of the Hezbollah terror organization, declared this week, "We are prepared for the possibility of another adventure or the demand of American policy that might push the IDF [the Israeli Defense Force] in that direction."
Widlanski explains that "adventure" is the term used by Hezbollah to describe an Israeli preemptive strike, and that Qassem's claims "are taken seriously by Western analysts, including the director of Israeli military intelligence, Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin. Iran, Hezbollah and Syria, he believes, are preparing for war this summer."
Qassem has been a deputy to Hassan Nasrallah, for more than a decade, and his remarks telegraph the policy of Hezbollah and its Iranian overlords.
Widlanski reports that IDF analysts say Hezbollah has already replenished stocks of arms, explosives and rockets lost during last summer's war with Israel. During that war, Hezbollah invaded Israel, killed several IDF soldiers and abducted two others, setting off several weeks of fighting. Israeli intelligence officials say the Lebanese-based and Iranian-run terror organization has brought in thousands of Katyusha and Grad rockets, like those fired at Israeli cities last summer. In addition, Hezbollah has replenished its stocks of anti-tank munitions, apparently intended to stave off a deep-penetration Israeli assault to uproot well-entrenched Hezbollah gunners in cement-lined tunnel complexes throughout southern Lebanon.
Widlanski recently conducted his own tour of the Israeli-Lebanese border and saw what he called "worrisome signs," reporting that "although Hezbollah has not put armed men on the fence, its men and informers are deployed all along the area.
The new factor that Widlanski reports is that Fatah, led by PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas, has now aligned itself with Iran.
Widlanski quotes a source in Israeli intelligence, Brig. Gen. Shalom Harari, who estimates that 40 percent of the various Palestinian organizations were directly funded by Iran. "There is a growing strategic alliance between Iran and the radical Palestinian forces in the territories," noted Harari during a recent briefing. "Iran is involved in supporting both the Islamic factions and Fatah as well. Today, at least 40 percent of Fatah's different fighting groups are also paid by Hezbollah and Iran. Hamas thinks it can build a new southern Lebanon in Gaza, and this is what it is busy doing."
One theory discussed in Israeli intelligence circles is that Iran is desperately trying to create a distraction, to divert attention from its nuclear development projects.
That would mean one thing: Israel would really be at war with Iran, not only with its neighboring Arab states.

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

Apr. 20, 2007 1:43

Column One: Fighting the next war

By CAROLINE GLICK
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

Last Friday, Haaretz's military commentator Ze'ev Schiff accused the Barak and Sharon governments of responsibility for last summer's war. As Schiff put it, since the IDF withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, "a threatening system [comprised of Hizbullah, Syria and Iran] arose [on Israel's northern border], which required a preemptive strike. The aversion to conducting such a strike eventually caused the war."

Schiff's analysis is correct. But since it stops short of drawing lessons for the present dangers, it is largely useless. Today, due to the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government's failure in the last war, we stand at the brink of the next one. And in the next war, the main enemy will be Syria, which will fight in coordination with Hizbullah and the Palestinians and under Iranian guidance.

Syria has been openly preparing for war since the last summer. And in the space of the past week alone, the Syrians twice announced their intention to attack Israel. On Monday, Syria's Propaganda Minister Moshen Bilal threatened that if Israel doesn't fully implement the Arab plan which calls for its retreat to the 1949 armistice lines and acceptance of millions of Arab immigrants, Syria will go to war. On Wednesday, Syrian dictator Bashar Assad said, "We always prepare ourselves. Israel is a fierce enemy. We have seen nothing from it but harm."

A constructive Israeli policy for contending with Syria must be based on a clear understanding of both Syria's interests and our own.

First there are Syria's war preparations. Many note optimistically that Syria has not moved its tanks to the border. But why would it?

Syria has no intention of fighting a conventional war against Israel. The war that Syria is planning will bear greater similarity to the insurgency in Iraq and Hizbullah's war last summer than to Syria's previous wars with Israel.

In the midst of last summer's war, Assad announced the formation of a new terror force tasked with infiltrating and attacking targets on the Golan Heights. The Syrian order of battle also includes a highly trained commando division; a massive artillery force capable of wreaking destruction on the Golan Heights and the Galilee; Scud ballistic missiles with ranges covering all of Israel; and chemical warheads that can be fitted on the Scuds.

This week CBN broadcast satellite footage of three hardened Syrian missile facilities outside of Homs and Hama. Syria aims to bleed Israel in order to force subsequent Israeli political concessions.

Syria has good reasons to go to war with Israel. Its forced departure from Lebanon in 2005 humiliated and weakened the regime both politically and economically. The regime views an achievement on the Golan Heights as a way to make up for the shame.

Moreover, Hizbullah's achievements in last summer's war challenge Syria to demonstrate that it too can humiliate Israel. It is also notable that June 11 will mark the fortieth anniversary of Israel's liberation of the Golan Heights.

Rather than contend with the Syrian challenge, the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government has opted to ignore it. In his appearance before the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Wednesday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said, "We have no intention of attacking Syria."

He added, "The assessment of all of Israel's assessment bodies is that Syria is deploying defensively in line with a scenario of an attack against them. But we are also preparing for a situation where we are surprised."

The gist of Olmert's statements is that he is unwilling to decide how to deal with the Syrian threat. He would rather be "surprised" by the Syrians than prevent surprises by crafting an Israeli policy that would defend Israel's interests and preempt Syrian aggression.

The Israeli Left maintains that the only way to prevent war is by holding peace talks with Syria that will lead to an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights. But former national security adviser Maj. Gen. (ret.) Giora Eiland explained in a recent lecture at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs that under current conditions, in contrast to the Left's protestations, an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights, even in return for a peace treaty, would increase the chance of war with Syria, and decrease Israel's chances of winning the war. Syria would have little reason to abide by the agreement after an Israeli withdrawal and Israel would lack international support to enforce the agreement after Syria breached it.

Rather than preemptively surrendering, Israel's strategic aims should be to degrade Syria's capacity to harm it and to change the Syrian regime's assessment of the attractiveness of attacking Israel.

Any plan to reduce Syria's capacity for aggression against Israel should properly begin with Schiff's analysis of last summer's war in Lebanon. Given the nature of the gathering threat, it makes sense to consider a preemptive strike on Syria's terror training camps, its missile sites and artillery bases. Such a strike should be guided by the lessons from the last war regarding the limitations of air power. Air strikes had limited results against hardened targets and they exposed Israel's flank to anti-Israel propagandists in the media war.

Changing Syria's cost-benefit analysis of war with Israel involves going beyond the military realm. To impact Syria's decision-making loop, Israel must also consider the economic and political realities facing the Assad regime.

Syria is an economic basket case. In a study of the Syrian economy published this week, the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) noted that since the US-led invasion of Iraq, some one million Iraqis have fled to Syria. Rather than stimulate economic growth, due to the corruption and economic incompetence of the regime, the population inflow has simply caused massive inflation. Aside from this, Syria's oil revenues are steadily declining. US and EU economic sanctions instituted in recent years have made it impossible for Syria to receive financial credits or significantly expand its international trade. Today the regime can barely provide basic services to the population.

Syria's economic weakness undermines the regime's political stability. Another factor undermining that stability is the restive Kurdish minority in northeast Syria. The Kurds, who comprise twenty percent of Syria's overall population, already staged an uprising against the regime in May 2004.

Today, Syria's Kurds are inspired by their brethren in Iraq to work to achieve their rights. Like the Iraqi Kurds, the Syrian Kurds, who have good relations with their Arab compatriots, do not demand independence. Rather they seek to transform Syria from a centralized totalitarian state into a federated democracy.

Two weeks ago a conference of Iraqi, Syrian, Turkish and Iranian Kurds took place in Irbil, Iraq. Massoud Barzani, the President of Iraqi Kurdistan, spelled out the Kurdish view of Israel in an interview with Al Arabiya.

In his words, "If [Iraq] establish[es] relations [with Israel] we will do so publicly. There is no reason for these relations to be kept secret, because we are neither afraid nor ashamed of such relations."

Barzani attacked the Iranians, Hizbullah and Palestinians for supporting Israel's destruction, explaining, "I am against driving Israel into the sea…. This policy is wrong, illogical, and unreasonable. Why annihilate a people?"

Sherkoh Abbas, who heads the Kurdistan National Assembly of Syria from his home in the US, participated in the conference. In a recent conversation he explained, "Most Syrian Kurds…have views similar to President Barzani. As Kurds we can say that we have no issues with Israel; in fact we are against the desire of the Ba'ath party, the Muslim Brotherhood or terrorists to destroy Israel…

"The Kurds did not suffer by the hands of Israelis or Jews. All or most of their sufferings were caused by Arabs, Persians and Turks. In Syria, the Ba'ath regime Arabized the Kurdish region, stripped 300,000 Kurds of Syrian citizenship, and killed many Kurds.…. We do not want to fight for the Syrian regime."

The Kurds' desire to replace the current regime with a democratic federal government is backed by the Syrian Reform Party, an exile group with strong ties to the population in Syria. Farid Ghadry, a Washington-based Syrian exile who heads the party, believes that the Kurdish federal plan is the best way to bring freedom to Syria.

The interests of the Kurds and the other regime opponents align with Israel's interests in many ways. First, Israel will benefit greatly if they achieve their aim of democratizing Syria and protecting minority rights by decentralizing authority while maintaining the territorial integrity of the country.

Centralized governments throughout the Arab world are the primary fulminators of Arab hatred of Israel. These regimes require a constant drumbeat of incitement against Israel to deflect their people's attention from their failure to provide basic services. Decentralized governments would have difficulty blaming the Jews for their failures.

There is widespread fear in Israel that if Assad's regime is overthrown, it will be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood. This makes sense given that for the past 30 years, the Ba'athists ensured that the Muslim Brotherhood is the only other force in the country with organizational and financial means. But even so, strengthening the Kurds - who oppose jihad - will counterbalance the Muslim Brotherhood, whether or not the regime falls.

Turkey, too, fears Kurdish separatism. But Israeli support for the advancement of legitimate Syrian Kurdish rights through the cultivation of democratic federalism rather than secession, should not concern Ankara.

One of the reasons the Olmert-Livni-Peretz government is taking the Arab "peace plan" seriously in spite of the fact that it is inherently hostile to Israel is because the government is desperate to find allies against the Iran-Syria-Hizbullah axis. The trouble with this gambit is that the Sunni countries involved in the initiative act as the Iranian-Syrian-Lebanese-Palestinian axis's support network against Israel. The Saudis and their colleagues have no interest in helping Israel.

In contrast, the Kurds are natural allies for Israel with overlapping interests and values. They would be happy to receive Israeli media and financial support. And, if at the same time as Israel helped broadcast Kurdish language television and radio into Syria, it also provided the Kurds with arms to defend themselves against Syrian aggression, the move could potentially alter Syria's cost-benefit analysis of war with Israel.

Even if the Syrians open hostilities, arming the Kurds would likely muddy the waters in a manner that would cause serious harm to Syria's war-making capacity. How well would Syria contend with the IDF if it were simultaneously trying to put down a popular rebellion? And how long would the regime survive in the aftermath of such a war?

Studying past wars is always worthwhile. But today we must prepare for the next one.

There is an Israeli strategy for victory. If we conduct a military strike that degrades Syria's ability to harm us while economically weakening the regime still further and politically supporting an oppressed, large, pro-Israel minority, perhaps we could avert war altogether.

At the very least, if war comes, we would win.
__________________
.....................................................benny

Updated Apr. 20, 2007 11:29

IAF to ask US for new cutting-edge jets

By YAAKOV KATZ, MARK WEISS AND HILARY LEILA KRIEGER
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

In the face of Iran's race to obtain nuclear weapons, the Israel Air Force has expressed newfound interest in receiving the F-22 - a US-developed fifth generation stealth fighter jet - and has requested that the Defense Ministry present the request on its behalf to the Pentagon, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

While the sale or transfer of F-22s to Israel did not come up in talks Wednesday between Defense Minister Amir Peretz and US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, defense officials told the Post that Israel would ask to receive the aircraft in order to retain its "military edge" in the Middle East.

Gates was here for talks with government officials on a range of key strategic issues including American plans - which Israel has objected to - to sell smart bombs to Saudi Arabia.

The F-22 formally entered operational service in the US Air Force in December 2005 but has not yet been sold outside the US due to a federal law which barred export sale of the aircraft.

Last March, however, Congress lifted the nine-year ban on its sale, potentially clearing the path for an Israeli purchase of what is considered the most advanced fighter jet in the world today.

The single-seater, double-engine aircraft can achieve stealth though a combination of its shape, composite materials, color and other integrated systems.

A positive US decision on the issue in the coming months could see the F-22 in Israel by the end of decade, years before the IAF is expected to begin receiving the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) - another stealth fighter under development - also known as the F-35, expected in 2014.

On Thursday, Gates tried to ease Israeli concerns about the planned American weapons sale to Saudi Arabia as well as other US Gulf allies, saying that Washington remained committed to preserving Israel's military edge over its neighbors.

Gates also said his 24-hour trip to Israel did not include any discussions on taking military action against Iran. He reiterated his belief that diplomacy was the best course of action for halting Iran's nuclear program.

Israeli officials have objected to US plans to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and other moderate Gulf states, fearing it would damage Israel's deterrent capabilities in the Middle East. The New York Times reported earlier this month that Washington had delayed the arms sale package because of the objections.

Speaking to reporters in Tel Aviv before his departure, Gates said he had urged Israeli leaders to look at the deal in terms of the "overall strategic environment" and stressed that Israel's neighbors had other alternatives for purchasing arms.

"I'm confident that the Russians would be very happy to sell weapons to countries in the region," he said. Gates said he affirmed the US would continue to help Israel maintain its qualitative military edge, but did not say whether the Saudi deal would go through. Israel is particularly worried about the planned sale of advanced air systems that would vastly upgrade the striking ability of Saudi warplanes, some of which could be stationed just several hundred kilometers from Israeli airspace.

In response to Israeli concerns about the deal, US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters in Washington earlier this month that Israel's qualitative military edge "is something that we are dedicated to helping Israel preserve for a number of different reasons - for their defensive needs, for the deterrent nature of that edge, as well as allowing Israel to take calculated risk in the interest of peace. So in any consideration of arms sales in the region, this is an important factor along with our good, strong, close historical relations with countries in the Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia."
...............................................benny

Military action against Iran even by Israel cannot be undermined

Musharraf ISLAMABAD, April 21
http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesP...15&Language=en

(KUNA) -- Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf has termed Tehrans nuclear question as "extremely dangerous." Musharraf in an interview with Al-Arabia channel said that Iran should avoid the conflict by not taking the issue to the brink.

He said any possible attack on Iran would be a disaster for itself, region and the Gulf besides leaving very negative implications on Iran and Pakistan as well. "We would like to avoid taking sides, rather play a role to stop the conflict with some understanding," he said.

The strategy for possible military attack on Iran would be very high-tech and should not be compared with Iraq and Afghanistan, where ground forces were used, he added.

To another question about resolution of the Palestine dispute, the President said that he was ready to play any role to resolve the Palestine issue, if he will be asked adding that it will be an honor for him to play any role, if he will be accepted by all the parties. "I do not believe in intruding in that area, where I am not required or I am not welcomed by both sides, if at all there is a role that I can play, and both sides accept that role, I will play that role," he said.

"There are many ways to meeting the leadership of (Palestine and Israel), may be in any third country," he added.

The President said that Pakistans stand on Palestine is very clear adding that "We have bitter past, fought four wars and we have not reached any conclusion," he added. (end) amn.rk KUNA 211521 Apr 07NNNN
..................................................benny

Israel: 'No thanks' to Musharraf offer
By MARK WEISS



Talkbacks for this article: 25

Israel has rejected the surprise offer by Pakistan's President Gen. Pervez Musharraf to help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

An official in the Prime Minister's Office described the offer as "a little ridiculous," noting that there are no diplomatic relations between Islamabad and Jerusalem.

"We have an Arab initiative. Why would we need a Pakistani initiative?" the official asked, adding that mediation efforts would be welcomed from any state that had ties with Israel.

Sources in Jerusalem said that although Prime Minister Ehud Olmert welcomed the possibility of dialogue with Saudi Arabia, which also has no diplomatic ties with Israel, Saudi Arabia cannot be compared with Pakistan. Saudi Arabia, together with Egypt, is one of the leaders of the Arab and Muslim world, and is on a different level, as far as Israel is concerned, than Pakistan.

A more conciliatory note was sounded by Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev who said Pakistan's involvement would be welcomed, but that Musharraf's effectiveness would likely be limited.

In an interview with the pan-Arab Al-Arabya television station, based in Dubai, Musharraf said he would be willing to visit Israel to help bring peace to the Middle East.

In the interview aired late Friday, Musharraf said he was "enthusiastic" to solve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and would go to Israel if his offer to mediate was accepted.

Musharraf said he could also start such talks first with the Palestinians, or "maybe in some third country... going to Israel is also a possibility."

It will be an honor if I can contribute in any way," said Musharraf. "If there was a role that I can play, and both sides accept that role, yes, indeed, I would like to play that role."

The Pakistani leader suggested that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan would not be solved unless solutions for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were found first, adding that these solutions would have an impact on the Middle East's stability, bringing serenity and stability to the region and beyond.

The first public contacts between Pakistan and Israel came in September 2005, after disengagement from Gaza, when then-foreign minister Silvan Shalom held talks in Istanbul with his Pakistani counterpart, Kursheed Kasuri. Shalom expressed a hope the Istanbul talks would mark the beginning of a process that would end with full diplomatic ties between the two countries.

There were street protests in Pakistan following the talks. Musharaf defended the contacts but made it clear that Pakistani recognition of Israel would only come after the establishment of a Palestinian state.•
..........................................benny

Arab FMs plot next step in Israel carve-up

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

Printer-friendly version By Stan Goodenough
April 19, 2007

The foreign ministers of 12 Arab states met in Cairo on Wednesday to discuss how most effectively to push for the realization of their vision for an Israel-free Middle East.

They selected Jordan and Egypt – the two countries that have signed agreements with Israel – to approach Israel and push the Olmert government towards going along with the Saudi-drafted “peace” plan.

A weak leader who has turned his back on Zionism, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently voiced his appreciation for the Saudi plan.

It sees Israel relinquishing hold and claim to its biblical heartland and withdrawing to the 1949 ceasefire lines so that a Palestinian state can be created in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

The plan requires the Jewish state to surrender large parts of Jerusalem – Israel’s ancient capital – including the Old City and the Jews’ holiest site – the Temple Mount so that “Palestine” can have its capital there.

It also insists that Israel allow millions of Arabs who claim that they, or their parents, were driven from Israel in 1948 and 1967, to “return home.”

If permitted, this “right of return” would swamp what would be left of Israel with Arabs, who would then go on to fight for their right to vote – thereby ousting the Jewish-led government and quickly seeing Israel ingested into “Palestine.”

The states represented at Wednesday’s meeting were Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, Tunisia and Yemen.

Of course, a representative of the Palestinian Authority was also present.

While differences on a whole gamut of issues have long divided the Arabs, a uniting factor has always been their commitment to the eventual “cleansing” from their Muslim midst of what the press in their countries frequently refers to as “the Jewish cancer.”

The current step in their strategy employs the creation of a Palestinian state on whatever parts of the Land of Israel they can obtain – either through terrorism or negotiation or a combination of both.

For this step they enjoy the support of most the nations of the world.

The London Financial Times Thursday praised the Cairo meeting as “unprecedented in its overture to Israel.”

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

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Hamas threatens to start abducting Israelis and Jews overseas

April 21, 2007, 9:38 PM (GMT+02:00)

The threat, issued Sat. April 21, is in response to Israel’s refusal to bow to the terms for releasing the Israeli soldier Gilead Shalit and BBC correspondent Alan Johnston. Israeli security sources: Lacking networks outside the Gaza Strip and West Bank, Hamas is expected to employ the extensive Lebanese Hizballah covert infrastructure which branches out across the Middle East, Africa and Europe, for its threatened kidnap offensive abroad.

Regarding the Palestinian group’s previous vow to kidnap more Israeli soldiers, its spokesmen say that there enough Zionist figures and agents in various parts of the world who can be targeted equally. The Shin Bet security service has circulated a kidnap alert to Israeli embassies, overseas firms and Jewish institutions. The Hamas escalation is taken very seriously. It is also seen as further confirmation of its close working ties with Hizballah under active orchestration by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

In the next 24 hours, Palestinian spokesmen plan to release another false bulletin purporting progress in the negotiations for the release of Gilead Shalit who has now been held for nine months without a word on his fate. DEBKAfile’s sources stress that these bulletins are fabricated deliberately to deceive.
..............................................benny

04-23-07

Is the US Going to Attack Iran?

By Nasir Khan
Nasir Khan, Ph.D., taught history at the University of Oslo and is the author of Perceptions of Islam in the Christendoms: A Historical Survey (2006).
http://hnn.us/articles/37820.html

Is the United States going to attack Iran? This question is being asked around the world.

The big American military build-up in the Persian Gulf has gone on for some time, and there is every reason to believe that Washington is setting the stage for a major offensive against Iran. In fact, the Bush administration has followed a carefully orchestrated strategy with a view to paving the way for a major conflict with Iran. The clearest signal comes from US Vice President Dick Cheney’s latest comments on February 23.

At a joint news conference with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, Cheney said that ‘all options’ are on the table if Iran continues to defy UN- led efforts to get Tehran to abandon its nuclear program. The news conference was held amidst tight security because thousands of protesters were voicing their anger at his visit. They called the main architect of invasion and occupation of Iraq a ‘war criminal’ and they called for the withdrawal of Australian soldiers from Iraq.

Cheney said that the United States remained ‘deeply concerned’ about Iran’s activities, including the ‘aggressive’ sponsoring of terrorist group of Hezbollah and ‘inflammatory statements’ by President Ahmadinejad: ‘We worked with European community and the United Nations to put together a set of policies to persuade the Iranians to give up their aspirations and to resolve the matter peacefully, and that is still our preference.’ ‘But I have also made the point, and the president has also made the point, that all options are on the table,’ said Cheney.

Even though Iran says its nuclear program is for only peaceful purposes, to generate energy, the United States and some of its allies suspect this could lead to Iran producing nuclear weapons that could challenge the nuclear power and political hegemony of the US and Israel in the Middle East. Only the United States of America and Israel have some kind of ‘God-given’ right to have nuclear and other destructive weapons of mass destruction and to use them whenever they decide to do so.

The whole world knows that the US occupation forces used internationally banned weapons during their deadly assault on Fallujah. They also used prohibited substances including mustard gas, nerve gas and other burning chemicals in their attacks. Fallujah residents reported that they saw ‘melted’ bodies in the city, which suggests that US military used napalm gas that makes the human body melt. Last summer, Israeli army littered the whole of south Lebanon with cluster bombs provided by the United States.




Let us recall the similar scenarios in 2002 and early 2003 when Iraq was accused by the United States of possessing weapons of mass destruction. Of course, the Bush administration knew that no such weapons existed in Iraq. But the pretext was used to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. It was in furtherance of the grand strategy to bring the Middle East under America’s political hegemony and to control its oil resources. Now the US administration is using the same methods in the case of Iran.

The BBC recently revealed some clear indications of the US-planned attack on Iran. According to the BBC, the US contingency plans for air strikes on Iran extend beyond nuclear sites and include most of the country’s military infrastructure. Any such attack would target Iranian air bases, naval bases, missile facilities and command-and-control centres.

Iran is within an hour’s flying time from some American base or aircraft carrier. In case of war, America, most probably America and Israel together, will have no difficulty in destroying Iranian army, its military bases and the economic infrastructure of Iran.

Military Plans

Seymour Hersh, an American Pulitzer Prize winning investigating journalist, reported that American Special Operation Forces were already operating inside Iran in preparation for a possible air ground attack (New Yorker, 24 January 2005). He also later reported that current and former officials told him that one of the options being considered by the Bush administration against Iran called ‘for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as B61-11, against underground nuclear sites’ (New Yorker, 17 April 2005).

Hersh pointed out last year how the Bush administration had increased the secret activities inside Iran with a view to pave the way for a major air attack. He writes: ‘Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups’ (New Yorker, 17 April 2006).

The United States has been deeply involved in the affairs and politics of Iran since the Second World War. The Shah of Iran who had inherited the throne from his father in 1941 was forced into exile in 1951 by the popular government headed by the Iranian leader Dr Mohammad Mossadegh. He nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. US intervened in 1953 and installed the Shah in power again. He established a dictatorship. In 1957 Washington helped the Shah create SAVAK, the notorious secret police, which silenced all those who criticised the policies of the Shah. The brutal regime of the Shah came to an end in 1979 and Ayatollah Khomeini established the Islamic Republic. America cut off all diplomatic relations and imposed tight economic sanctions against Iran. During the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) Washington provided seed stock for biological weapons, weapons and financial backing to Iraq.

Iran continues to be a major concern to the US for a number of reasons. Iran, like Iraq, is a big country. It has oil wealth, water resources and a large population. After having occupied Iraq and its oils resources under control, in Washington’s calculation, Iran is the only country in the region that can challenge its domination of the Middle East. As the US controls the political developments throughout the Middle East, the only major country that has not capitulated to Washington is Iran. The stage is set for a new war of aggression and the Bush administration has been busy preparing for a massive attack on Iran.

Bush in his January 10, 2007 speech not only announced sending further US troops to Iraq; he also signalled his determination to reshape the entire Middle East under the domination of the United States. ‘Succeeding in Iraq requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge,’ Bush declared. ‘This begins with addressing Iran and Syria.’ What he meant by ‘defending Iraq’s integrity’ and ‘stabilizing the region’ was to safeguard the military occupation of Iraq without any complaint from any quarter and extending the US domination over Iran and Syria, who have not been brought to their knees yet. In his speech, Bush also declared: ‘We are taking steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East.’

In fact, a huge military build-up in the Persian Gulf had been gaining momentum. The World Net Daily staff writer Dr Jerome Corsi has pointed out that by the end of February, an American armada of 50 warships was scheduled to be stationed in the area. The USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) aircraft carrier battle group has gone to join the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) aircraft carrier battle group already stationed there. Besides, the USS Boxer (LDH 4) amphibious assault ship is stationed in the Persian Gulf. The USS Bataan (LHD 5) was also sent to the area in January. A fleet of 12 ships supports each carrier attack group, including two guided missile-cruisers, two guided missile destroyers, and an attack submarine.

American military domination of the Middle East is maintained by a vast network of military bases throughout the region. The US military in case of war has the capacity to crush Iran by round-the-clock bombing using cruise missiles and hundreds of warplanes. Batteries of Patriot anti-missile systems are at present being installed in the Gulf states to protect vital US military assets.

Despite the clear war preparations that are going on, President Bush continues to declare that the US has no immediate plans to attack Iran. The fact remains that his objective is to have an Iran closely allied with the US as under the Shah and the rest of the Arab rulers. Such an objective will not be achieved by negotiations to end the nuclear standoff but by changing the present rulers of Iran. As no clandestine operations have succeeded so far in bringing the clerics to capitulation, the Bush administration thinks that a major blitzkrieg will do the job and protect the American interests in the Middle East. But we all know what those interests are.

The dangerous course followed by Washington has not been the focus of only informed media, but also of some important American public figures. At the end of last year, the Baker-Hamilton report, written by a bipartisan commission of Republicans and Democrats, suggested opening talks with Iran and Syria to resolve the Iraqi crisis. However, President Bush has taken a total opposite direction and blames Iran and Syria for the US military losses in Iraq!

Perhaps the most realistic warning of the dangerous policies followed by the Bush administration came in the February 1, 2007 testimony of the former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski to the Senate Foreign relations Committee. Deeply critical of the disastrous policies followed by Bush, Brzezinski said:

‘The war in Iraq is a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America’s global legitimacy. Its collateral civilian casualties as well as abuses are tarnishing America’s moral credentials. Driven by Manichean impulses and imperial hubris, it is intensifying regional instability.’

Brzezinski, fully aware of the policy of the use of overwhelming military power , predicted that ‘if the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and much of the world of Islam.’

In a sharp critique of Bush’s so-called ‘war on terror,’ Brzezinski described as ‘a mythical historical narrative’ where the attempts are being made to equate Islamic extremism and Al Qaeda with the threat posed to the US by Nazi Germany and the Soviet Russia: ‘This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and Stalinism was able to mobilise not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine.’

He warned that ‘to argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicentre, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.’ He saw the danger of the White House manufacturing ‘some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the United States’ to blame Iran and using it as a pretext to unleash a ‘defensive’ military action against Iran.

According to the Kuwait-based Arab Times (January14, 2007), an attack on Iran can come anytime. This information was obtained from a reliable source, which said that President Bush had held a meeting with Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other assistants in the White House to discuss the plan for an attack in minute detail. While Gates and Rice seem to have suggested postponing the attack, President Bush and Dick Cheney wanted to go ahead with the attack in the near future.

But there is also opposition to the plans of Bush and Cheney in the military and navy. Some generals and admirals have recently said that they would resign if Bush orders an attack on Iran.

Despite all the military build-up in and around the Middle East war is not a foregone conclusion. Bush and Cheney have also an alternative course by which they can continue to further the interests of American imperialism short of war. They can engage in a meaningful dialogue with Iran and Syria in order to avoid another war and spare the life and livelihood of millions of people.
__________________
...........................................benny

Sunday, 22, April, 2007 (04, Rabi` al-Thani, 1428)

Iran and US: Chances of Accidental Confrontation

Sir Cyril Townsend, Arab News
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7&sect.....;m=4&y=2007

The long-running crisis over Iran’s apparent, but denied, determination to acquire nuclear weapons has moved to a higher level, with Tehran’s claim to have made a dramatic leap forward with its nuclear program. I would suggest this is now the No. 1 issue before the United Nations Security Council.

Iran is very much to be blamed for this crisis, which is most certainly damaging the Iranian economy through lack of outside investment. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s infamous description of Israel as a “disgraceful blot” that should be “wiped off the map”, while based on similar remarks by his predecessors, was bound to concentrate attention on what Iran might be up to. It increased the general feeling - not just within the US-EU bloc - but also in the Arab Gulf states, that some action against Iran had become necessary.

President Ahmadinejad has been boasting. Just a few days ago he claimed his country had started enriching uranium on an “industrial scale”. If true, Iran would be in breach of three UN resolutions. He threatened the big powers to respect Iran’s rights or his country would “reconsider its treatment toward them.”

Later, Ali Larijani, with whom No. 10 Downing Street dealt with over the release of the 15 British hostages, followed the president by suggesting Iran had 3,000 centrifuges to assist with fuel for electricity generation or - as its critics allege - for one or more nuclear warheads. However, experts in other countries tend to think Iran is still some way from mastering uranium enrichment.

The Iranian government sought to make much publicity out of its alleged nuclear success by calling for a “National Nuclear Day”, its first, which will not have amused its neighbors. School bells rang out across the land. Last autumn the Iranian president said: “The Iranian nation will never abandon its obvious right to peaceful nuclear technology.”

Most countries at the United Nations, and not least Western countries, do not for a moment disagree that Iran has a right, like any other country, to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. It is a fact that worldwide there is a growing interest in nuclear technology, as the demand for energy grows and the need to cut back on carbon emissions becomes more obvious and important.

In late May the UN Security Council will review Iran’s nuclear compliance or lack of it. It will be recalled the Security Council got involved after the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) referred Iran to it. The IAEA believed Iran had not kept to the rules and had behaved in an underhand manner. It will be remembered also the United Kingdom, Germany and France together spent two years trying to mediate with Tehran, before finding their mediation had reached a “dead end”.

It is well known that there are those in Iran who are less than enthusiastic over the policies and approach of their controversial President. The imposition last month of fresh UN sanctions seemed to have caught the regime by surprise and certainly alarmed its opponents.

The Times’ international expert, Bronwen Maddox, has reminded her readers that here is a country “that has been prevented by sanctions and lack of expertise from building refineries to turn its own oil into petrol.” She believed it cannot even make spare parts for its national airline.

According to The Week (April 14): “... over the past year hard-liners have come under increasing attack from pragmatists who want better relations with the West.”

Experts appear to agree that if Iran is working flat out to make a nuclear weapon it will need some five years to succeed. Thus for the moment there is no imminent nuclear threat and there is time for both cooperation and negotiation with Iran to find a satisfactory answer. Moderate factions in that vast country need our support and encouragement to alter policies that harm Iran and put it in some potential danger.

My worry is that America and Israel will not necessarily agree with such thoughts. Israel has claimed Iran’s nuclear program “can be destroyed”.

I am sure there are neoconservatives in powerful places in Washington who believe that this international issue must be brought to a head before President George Bush leaves the White House. Of course, such folk are not thinking of an invasion but targeted strikes throughout Iran against nuclear facilities.

There is at present a real danger that the military confrontation between the United States and Iran could occur accidentally. Both sides are trigger-happy, and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps could be out of control of the politicians. The Gulf is looking extremely dangerous.
__________________
.............................................benny

A war in the summer?

By Orit Shohat
Sun., April 22, 2007 Iyyar 4, 5767
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/851488.html

The talk about a sizable war this summer already started in the midst of the war last summer (there were those who called it a promo and thanked Hezbollah for having revealed its weaknesses in ample time). A "sizable war" is a code name for a war that includes Syria. The outgoing chief of staff estimated in November that there would be a war with Syria this summer, and in a series of general-staff discussions he held, there was talk of "a working assessment" that dictated exercises in anticipation of a war this summer.

Now the summer is almost upon us. Was this an assessment or a self-fulfilling prophecy? When the Syrian president says that if there is no peace there will be a war, he is responding to incessant mumbling from our side. This is where the dynamics of another war start. In a situation as explosive as that in the Middle East, the sparks can be ignited even when no one really wants that to happen.

Too many people sit in too many rooms with war maps rather than maps with peace arrangements. There are new plans with new code names. There are colorful computer presentations, and in place of every division commander who has lost face, there is another glowing radiantly for the moment with an updated military doctrine that will provide "the answer," as they say in the army, to problems revealed in the previous war. Instead of a chief of staff who relies only on the air force, we now have a chief of staff from the Golani Brigade. It can be assumed that he is fervently training regular and reserve forces for the next round after reading all the debriefings and learning the necessary lessons.

But the main lesson, after all, has yet to be learned. To this day, the decision makers believe that last summer's war was inevitable and was merely conducted without talent. Just a few corrections, and we can go on our way again. That is why, when the prime minister asks the new chief of staff if the Israel Defense Forces can beat the Syrians, he will apparently respond in the affirmative.

A chief of staff is a chief of staff, after all. But at a meeting of military-academy graduates held last week, Major General (res.) Uri Saguy said that this result is dubious. There will no longer be a classic defeat. Israel's security concept, which is based mostly on deterrence, warning and defeat, is no longer relevant. After a war with Syria, this summer or another, the strategic reality will not change; therefore, it is possible to skip the war and move straight on to the agreements.

One can assume that in the next war, the IDF will already know how to capture Hezbollah's "nature reserves" and find those responsible for firing the Katyushas. B ut in the next war, we will face a mass of rockets and long-range missiles, some of which, perhaps, with chemical warheads that the Syrians will fire, not necessarily from Bint Jbeil.

The home front will remain the same home front. Perhaps it will be weaker, because the civilians have also learned their lessons and know the only thing the state has to offer is firemen with hoses. Perhaps this time they will provide protection for Safed's hospital. But that belongs to the last war. Now the hospitals in Tel Aviv are on the front line.

Whoever speaks about the necessity of preparing the home front for the next war is planting false hopes. It is impossible to protect the home front, not in half a year and perhaps not at all. The only really effective protection for the home front is a political arrangement. When Ehud Olmert goes to bed at night, does he think about how to prevent the next war or how to rehabilitate his lost pride ("the deterrence") and that of the IDF?

If he is afraid of being remembered as the one responsible for a defective war, perhaps he indeed is planning the "campaign for bringing back pride." But if he internalized something else last summer, for example, how a modern war looks when the home front is exposed, perhaps he will think twice before agreeing to bomb an air field of a neighboring country. Perhaps he has understood that modern war equipment does not put the home front at a greater distance, and that America's strength also stems from the fact that its home front is very far from any front.

Something very, very strange has been happening since last summer. Several months have elapsed since the last war, and it appears that it did not end, but rather just stopped for a minute. We will merely read the Winograd Committee's report and then continue. Meanwhile, rumblings are being heard, from Pakistan to Syria and Saudi Arabia, about the possibility of political arrangements. But we are still talking about Gal Hirsch and Udi Adam, and about who is more guilty for not implementing the ground forces invasion plan.
............................................benny

Amos Speaks Again … Part 2
A Bible Study by Jack Kelley

Having presented His indictment of Israel's neighbors, the Lord now turns His attention toward the two Jewish Kingdoms, the Southern Kingdom of Judah first. We ended part one in verse 3 of chapter 2, so we'll pick up the narrative in verse 4.

Amos 2
This is what the LORD says: "For three sins of Judah, even for four, I will not turn back {my wrath}. Because they have rejected the law of the LORD and have not kept his decrees, because they have been led astray by false gods, the gods their ancestors followed, I will send fire upon Judah that will consume the fortresses of Jerusalem." (Amos 2:4-5)

The Lord called Amos to prophesy primarily to the Northern Kingdom, during the same time that Isaiah was His spokesman to the South. Even so, He had Amos give this short message to Judah before launching into a full scale rant against the North.

Although it was nearly 150 years away, judgment of the South was coming. The warning provided by the imminent destruction of the North by the Assyrians would be ignored and so the Lord would send Babylon against the South. In the process the City of Jerusalem including the magnificent Temple of Solomon would be put to the torch and exist no more. (2 Chron. 36:19)

Before they were taken captive to Babylon, the Lord had Jeremiah tell the people not to resist this, but to go to Babylon and settle there because after 70 years He would bring them back.

He told them, "When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place. For I know the plans I have for you," declares the LORD, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future." (Jeremiah 29:10-11)

As we'll see now, He made no such promise to the Northern Kingdom.

Judgment on Israel
This is what the LORD says: "For three sins of Israel, even for four, I will not turn back {my wrath}. They sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor as upon the dust of the ground and deny justice to the oppressed. Father and son use the same girl and so profane my holy name. They lie down beside every altar on garments taken in pledge. In the house of their god they drink wine taken as fines. (Amos 2:6-8)



Someone has said, "When the bonds between God and man are broken, the bonds between man and man can fare no better." This picture of the oppression of the lower class by people of privilege is only the beginning of the Lord's indictment against Israel but it proves the point and provides a good lesson for us. The Northern Kingdom split from the South over idolatry. Having freed themselves from the restraints provided by God's Law, they yielded to man's natural inclination to mistreat the less fortunate. This was a violation of the Law. The Lord had laid down very clear and strict laws to protect servants and the poor, but these laws were being scandalously ignored. Household servants were bought and sold for a pittance. Female servants were turned into family prostitutes. Garments taken in pledge (as security for a loan) were illegally kept over night, and the practice of levying exorbitant fines to settle trumped up charges was common. Often it literally took the clothes off the backs of the poor and food off their tables.



Today even in developed countries the injustices suffered by the poor are different but just as abhorrent. But, to follow up on a couple of the examples above, women and girls of all races are still sold as slaves in the sex trade, as trafficking in humans continues worldwide. A few nations still maintain low age of consent laws to encourage sex tourism with the lure of young girls.



And in the US "interest-free" credit card offers target the young and the poor where debts are quickly piled up to levels that are impossible to re-pay, since when the interest kicks in affordable payments don't even cover the outrageous carrying costs. Paying these debts has the effect of placing millions of people in life long financial servitude. The same goes for sub-prime mortgages, where declining property values and rising interest rates have put many thousands of families at risk of losing everything.



Where is the moral restraint that used to prevent mercenary lenders from exposing vulnerable consumers to temptations they aren't savvy enough to resist? Where is the public outcry that just a few decades ago would have demanded that the human traffickers be prosecuted under the same laws that put an end to slave trading a few hundred years ago? It disappeared when God was drummed out of our society.

"I destroyed the Amorite before them, though he was tall as the cedars and strong as the oaks. I destroyed his fruit above and his roots below. "I brought you up out of Egypt, and I led you forty years in the desert to give you the land of the Amorites. I also raised up prophets from among your sons and Nazirites from among your young men. Is this not true, people of Israel?" declares the LORD. "But you made the Nazirites drink wine and commanded the prophets not to prophesy.

"Now then, I will crush you as a cart crushes when loaded with grain. The swift will not escape, the strong will not muster their strength, and the warrior will not save his life. The archer will not stand his ground, the fleet-footed soldier will not get away, and the horseman will not save his life. Even the bravest warriors will flee naked on that day," declares the LORD. (Amos 2:9-16)

When God promised the land to Abraham, He said the transaction wouldn't take place for 400 years "because the sin of the Amorites has not reached its full measure." (Genesis 15:16) Knowing the end from the beginning, God knew that the Amorites wouldn't repent of their evil ways. But He was going to give them the time anyway, because He really wanted them to, and so that couldn't say He hadn't warned them.

Though the Bible doesn't speak of it, the character of God would have demanded that He tell them their time was running out. (In a few verses we'll see Him implying just that in respect to Israel.) Remember, after the flood all the peoples of the Earth worshiped God. Before long most fell away, replacing the truth about mankind's origins with outrageous lies. But certainly the knowledge of their past still existed somewhere in their memories. At least one of Noah's sons, Shem, was still alive and living in the region of the Amorites. And Abraham traveled the length and breadth of their territories. (Genesis 13:17) These circumstances point to the fact that it wasn't that He hadn't warned them, but that they hadn't listened. So, when the time was up He brought the Israelites under the command of Joshua as His agents of judgment and the Amorites were dispossessed.

Now the very nation who saw first hand how God felt about the pagan lifestyle was indulging in the same behavior they had judged in the Amorites. What's more, they too had ignored the warnings of the prophets and even undermined the efforts of those tried to remain holy. How could they think that God would not judge them?

The South didn't learn the lesson of the North. The world today hasn't learned the lesson of either. God is the same, yesterday, today and forever. (Hebr. 13:8) How can we think that He won't judge us?

Amos 3
Witnesses Summoned Against Israel
Hear this word the LORD has spoken against you, O people of Israel—against the whole family I brought up out of Egypt: "You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your sins."



Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so? Does a lion roar in the thicket when he has no prey? Does he growl in his den when he has caught nothing? Does a bird fall into a trap on the ground where no snare has been set? Does a trap spring up from the earth when there is nothing to catch? When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When disaster comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets. (Amos 3:1-7)



These examples show that while God's promises to Abraham were unconditional, His relationship with Israel was based on cause and effect. Obedience brought blessing and disobedience brought judgment. In fact the entire Old Testament can be boiled down to just one question. "Israel, are you going to obey me or not?"



Just as Israel was warned by the prophets, so too is the world of today. We should take comfort from the promise that God will never do anything without telling us first. No surprises, except to those who refuse to believe. Paul distinguished the believers from the unbelievers at the end of the age by saying that the former would not be taken by surprise, while the latter would. (1 Thes. 5:3-4) It turns out that even though His promises to the Church are unconditional, mankind's relationship with God is still based on cause and effect. Belief brings blessings while unbelief brings judgment. In fact the entire New Testament can also be boiled down to just one question. "Mankind, are you going to believe me or not?"

The lion has roared— who will not fear? The Sovereign LORD has spoken— who can but prophesy? Proclaim to the fortresses of Ashdod and to the fortresses of Egypt: "Assemble yourselves on the mountains of Samaria; see the great unrest within her and the oppression among her people." (Amos 3:8-9)

Even the pagan leaders of Philistia and Egypt would agree that God's judgment upon the Northern Kingdom is just and well deserved.

"They do not know how to do right," declares the LORD, "who hoard plunder and loot in their fortresses."

Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says:
"An enemy will overrun the land; he will pull down your strongholds and plunder your fortresses."

This is what the LORD says:
"As a shepherd saves from the lion's mouth only two leg bones or a piece of an ear, so will the Israelites be saved, those who sit in Samaria on the edge of their beds and in Damascus on their couches." (Amos 3:10-12)

Having severed their connection with their Creator, they no longer had the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Therefore the Lord was sending Assyria to judge them. On their way the Assyrians would conquer Damascus as well.

The Assyrian Empire was growing. Without a strategy to prevent it, they'd soon spend all their time keeping the peace as conquered nations mounted efforts to regain their independence. So when the Assyrians conquered an enemy, they took all those among the survivors who looked like potential leaders and relocated them to other areas of the Empire, leaving only those who posed no threat in place. The Lord had Amos use a shepherd's analogy to describe this. When a wild animal captured a sheep, the shepherd would save the discarded parts of the animal for the owner's inspection to prove that it was eaten and not stolen by the shepherd. Just so, the Lord would preserve only the unwanted remnant of Israel to prove that a judgment had taken place. In New Testament times this remnant was called the Samaritans. They were despised by the Jews for following a counterfeit version of Judaism. Today the Samaritan community in Israel numbers only about 900 and is suffering the effects of generations of inter-marriage.

"Hear this and testify against the house of Jacob," declares the Lord, the LORD God Almighty. "On the day I punish Israel for her sins, I will destroy the altars of Bethel; the horns of the altar will be cut off and fall to the ground. I will tear down the winter house along with the summer house; the houses adorned with ivory will be destroyed and the mansions will be demolished," declares the LORD. (Amos 3:10-15)

Shortly after the civil war, a golden calf had been set up in Bethel near the site where Jacob had seen the Ladder ascending into heaven. (Genesis 28:10-19) Bethel had become a center of pagan worship that the Lord sometimes called Beth Aven, or House of Evil. Their religion disgusted Him and its centers would be destroyed. Likewise the fine houses of the wealthy, bought with the money they extorted from the poor.

The lesson here is clear. The Lord is patient, allowing ample time for His disobedient children to return to the righteous way. But there comes a time when His patience runs out and His justice demands accountability. We are on the cusp of that time today, and the prophecies tell us that since we haven't learned the lessons of history, we're doomed to repeat them. Stay tuned. 04-21-07

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

April 22, 2007
Atheists Ask The Dumbest Things...
by Michael G. Mickey

My struggle to reach the militant atheists of YouTube.com and get Christians to SPEAK UP about their faith in these end times continues, but, occasionally, there is something that comes along that gives me a gut-busting laugh!

Numerous times I'd passed over CityzenJane's ridiculous question below and never thought to respond to this mockery of my faith. Tonight, however, I was feeling a bit feisty and came up with an answer worthy of such a question. Thus, I thought I'd share it with my readers....

CityzenJane (3 days ago)
After the Rapture, can I have your car?

RaptureAlert (14 minutes ago)
Sure, but I'm taking the keys.....

Titus 2:13: Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;


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

DEBKAfile Exclusive: A large, high-ranking Syrian delegation of 40 generals on secret mission to Tehran

April 23, 2007, 12:42 PM (GMT+02:00)





Led by Maj. Gen. Yahya L. Solayman, War Planning chief at the Syrian armed forces General Staff, the delegation represents all branches of the Syrian armed forces. On their arrival on April 18, the Syrian officers went straight into conference with Iranian defense minister Brig. Gen. Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar, Revolutionary Commanders chief Maj. Gen. Yahya Rahim-Safavi and dep. chief of staff Maj. Gen. Hassani Sa’di, who is Iran’s chief of military war preparations. The Syrian visitors were taken around RG and armed forces training installations and given a display of the latest Iranian weapons systems, including stealth missiles, electronic warfare appliances and undersea missiles and torpedoes. They also visited the big Imam Ali training base in N. Tehran, where hundreds of Lebanese Hizballah and Palestinian Hamas and Jihad Islami terrorists are taking courses.

In Washington and Jerusalem, there is little doubt that the two allies timed the Syrian delegation’s mission to Tehran as a rejoinder to US defense secretary Robert Gates’ Middle East tour last week.

Israel sees four causes for concern:

1. The unusually large size of the Syrian delegation and the presence of operations officers from the various army corps.

2. The elevated positions of the Iranian officials hosting the Syrians: the top men with responsibility for preparing the RGs and armed forces for armed conflict.

US and Israeli intelligence experts agreed in their talks during Gates’ two-day visit to Israel last week on the object of the Syrian mission: to tighten operational coordination at the highest level between the Syria military and Iran’s armed forces and Revolutionary Guards.

3. The installations and weapons shown the Syrian officers. The intelligence estimate is that they saw the weapons systems soon to be consigned by Iran to the Syrian army and Hizballah, as well as the types of assistance pledged for Syria in the event of a military showdown with the United States or Israel. Syrian-Iranian consultations must also be presumed to have cleared the routes by which these weapons would reach Syria and Hizballah in a military contingency.

During the 2006 Hizballah-Israel war, Iran ran an airlift to Damascus through Turkish airspace and over the Mediterranean.

4. The unusual length of the visit. Monday, April 23 the Syrian officers were still busy in Tehran after six days and showed no sign of leaving.
...........................................benny

SYRIA DEPLOYS IRANIAN MISSILES


TEL AVIV [MENL] -- Israel's military has assessed that Syria deployed an Iranian-origin cruise missile.

Military sources said Syria has obtained and deployed the Iranian version of the Chinese-origin C-802 anti-ship missile. They said the missile was used successfully by Hizbullah during the war against Israel in mid-2006.

"Syria has ordered scores, if not hundreds, of such missiles," a military source said. "The C-802 would keep the Israel Navy away from the Syrian coast in any future war."

The C-802 employs a small turbojet engine and contains a range of 120 kilometers. The missile could be launched from aircraft, ships, submarines and land-based vehicles.

http://www.menewsline.com/stories/20...l/24_04_1.html
__________________
........................................benny

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
'Syria preps for summer war'
Officials: Iran helping Damascus produce rockets, move troops, missiles

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 23, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Aaron Klein
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


TEL AVIV – Syria aided by Iran is making preparations for a summer war with Israel, including acquisition of advanced weaponry, placement of missiles near the Jewish state's border, and training and movements of strategic troop battalions, Israeli security officials told WND.

The information follows media interviews last week in which Syrian President Bashar Assad stated he doesn't rule out the possibility of war with Israel. Syrian officials recently have also been warning if Israel doesn't vacate the Golan Heights, Damascus will resort to "resistance."

(Story continues below)


The Heights is strategic mountainous territory that looks down on Israeli and Syrian population centers; it was twice used by Damascus to mount ground invasions into the Jewish state.

According to Israeli security officials, the Syrian military in recent week has been carrying out stepped-up training of troops and has increased the readiness of its army