Oct 1, 2007 3:03
Larijani: If US attacks Iran, Israel will be 'in wheelchair'
By JPOST.COM STAFF
Print Subscribe
E-mail Toolbar




If the US would attack Iran, it would get "an Israel in a wheelchair," Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani was quoted as saying by Army Radio, Sunday overnight.

Larijani, speaking to The Financial Times, added that if the US would set a date for beginning withdrawal of its troops from Iraq, the Islamic Republic would assist in maintaining calm in Iraq.
.........................................benny

Silence in Syria, panic in Iran

Dr. Jack Wheeler
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 1 October 2007
http://www.brookesnews.com/070110wheeler.html

One of India’s top ranking generals assigned to liaise with the Iranian military recently returned to New Delhi from several days in Tehran — in a state of complete amazement.

“Everyone in the government and military can only talk of one thing,” he reports. “No matter who I talked to, all they could do was ask me, over and over again, ‘Do you think the Americans will attack us?’ ‘When will the Americans attack us?’ ‘Will the Americans attack us in a joint operation with the Israelis?’ How massive will the attack be?’ on and on, endlessly. The Iranians are in a state of total panic”.

And that was before September 6. Since then, it’s panic-squared in Tehran. The mullahs are freaking out in fear. Why? Because of the silence in Syria. On September 6, Israeli Air Force F-15 and F-16s conducted a devastating attack on targets deep inside Syria near the city of Dayr az-Zawr. Israel’s military censors have muzzled the Israeli media, enforcing an extraordinary silence about the identity of the targets. Massive speculation in the world press has followed, such as Brett Stephens’ Osirak II? on September 18 in The Wall Street Journal

Stephens and most everyone else have missed the real story. It is not Israel’s silence that “speaks volumes” as he claims, but Syria’s. Why would the Syrian government be so tight-lipped about an act of war perpetrated on their soil? The first half of the answer lies in this story that appeared in the Israeli media last on August 13: Syria’s Antiaircraft System Most Advanced In World. Syria has gone on a profligate buying spree, spending vast sums on Russian systems, “considered the cutting edge in aircraft interception technology.”

Syria now “possesses the most crowded antiaircraft system in the world,” with “more than 200 antiaircraft batteries of different types,” some of which are so new that they have been installed in Syria “before being introduced into Russian operation service.” While you’re digesting that, take a look at the map of Syria: Notice how far away Dayr az-Zawr is from Israel. An F15/16 attack there is not a tiptoe across the border, but a deep, deep penetration of Syrian airspace. And guess what happened with the Russian super-hyper-sophisticated cutting edge antiaircraft missile batteries when that penetration took place on September 6th.

Nothing.

El blanko. Silence. The systems didn’t even light up, gave no indication whatever of any detection of enemy aircraft invading Syrian airspace, zip, zero, nada. The Israelis (with a little techie assistance from us) blinded the Russkie antiaircraft systems so completely the Syrians didn't even know they were blinded. Now you see why the Syrians have been scared speechless. They thought they were protected — at enormous expense — only to discover they are defenseless. As in naked.

Thus the Great Iranian Freak-Out — for this means Iran is just as nakedly defenseless as Syria. I can tell you that there are a lot of folks in the Kirya (IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv) and the Pentagon right now who are really enjoying the mullahs’ predicament. Let’s face it: scaring the terror masters in Tehran out of their wits is fun. It’s so much fun, in fact, that an attack destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities and the Revolutionary Guard command/control centers has been delayed, so that France (under new management) can get in on the fun too. On September 16 Sarkozy.s foreign minister Bernard Kouchner announced that “France should prepare for the possibility of war over Iran's nuclear program.”

All of this has caused Tehran to respond with maniacal threats. On Monday September 17, a government website proclaimed that “600 Shihab-3 missiles” will be fired at targets in Israel in response to an attack upon Iran by the US/Israel. This was followed by Iranian deputy air force chief Gen. Mohammad Alavi announcing today September 19 that “we will attack their (Israeli) territory with our fighter bombers as a response to any attack.”

A sure sign of panic is to make a threat that everyone knows is a bluff. So our and Tel Aviv’s response to Iranian bluster is a thank-you-for-sharing yawn and a laugh. Few things rattle the mullahs’ cages more than a yawn and a laugh. Yet no matter how much fun this sport with the mullahs is, it is also deadly serious. The pressure build-up on Iran is getting enormous. Something is going to blow and soon. The hope is that the blow-up will be internal, that the regime will implode from within. But make no mistake: an all-out full regime take-out air assault upon Iran is coming if that hope doesn't materialize within the next 60 to 90 days. The Sept. 6 attack on Syria was the shot across Iran’s bow.

So — what was attacked near Dayr az-Zawr? It’s possible it was North Korean “nuclear material” recently shipped to Syria, i.e., stuff to make radioactively “dirty" warheads, but nothing to make a real nuke with as the Norks don’t have real nukes (see Why North Korea’s Nuke Test Is Such Good News, October 2006).

Another possibility is it was to take out a stockpile of long-range Zilzal surface-to-surface missiles recently shipped from Iran for an attack on Israel. A third is it was a hit on the stockpile of Saddam’s chemical/bio weapons snuck out of Iraq and into Syria for safekeeping before the US invasion of April 2003. But the identity of the target is not the story — for the primary point of the attack was not to destroy that target. It was to shut down Syria’s Russian air defense system during the attack. Doing so made the attack an incredible success.

Syria is shamed and silent. Iran is freaking out in panic. Defenseless enemies are fun.
..........................................benny

Bolton, Podhoretz Say: Bomb Iranian Nuclear Plants

by Gil Ronen


(IsraelNN.com) Former US ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton told Conservative Party delegates in Britain Sunday that efforts by the UN to negotiate with Iran had failed and that he saw no alternative to a pre-emptive strike on suspected nuclear facilities in the country. Influential conservative thinker Norman Podhoretz told a British paper that he has advised President George W. Bush to do just that.

"This is not an attractive option, but after four-plus frustrating years watching European diplomacy fail time and time again and watching our options more and more constrained, I do not know what the alternative is," Bolton told delegates at the Conservative Party's annual conference in the northern British holiday town of Blackpool. "Because life is about choices," he said, "I think we have to consider the use of military force. I think we have to look at a limited strike against their nuclear facilities."

Bolton said that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "pushing out" and "is not receiving adequate push-back" from the West. He added that any strike should be followed by an attempt to remove "the source of the problem," President Ahmadinejad.

"If we were to strike Iran it should be accompanied by an effort at regime change as well, because I think that really sends the signal that we are not attacking the people, we are attacking the nuclear weapons program," he said. "The US once had the capability to engineer the clandestine overthrow of governments. I wish we could get it back," he said, and received applause and cheers.

Bolton said that the fact that only partial intelligence about Iran's nuclear activity existed is not an excuse for inaction. "Intelligence can be wrong in more than one direction," he explained. He asked how the British government would respond if terrorists exploded a nuclear device at home. "'It's only Manchester?'... Responding after [nuclear devices] are used is unacceptable."

Bolton also said the UN's involvement with Iran was "fundamentally irrelevant."

Podhoretz: I told Bush 'Strike Iran'
Norman Podhoretz, an intellectual leader of the neoconservative movement in the US who has joined Republican Rudy Giuliani’s 2008 presidential campaign as a senior foreign policy advisor, told London's Sunday Times he urged US President George W. Bush to bomb Iran during an unpublicized meeting with him late last spring at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York.

"I urged Bush to take action against the Iranian nuclear facilities and explained why I thought ther
Bolton: "how the British would respond if terrorists exploded a nuclear device at home? 'It's only Manchester?'
e was no alternative,” said Podhoretz. “I laid out the worst-case scenario – bombing Iran – versus the worst-case consequences of allowing the Iranians to get the bomb.”

He also told Bush: “You have the awesome responsibility to prevent another Holocaust. You’re the only one with the guts to do it.” The president looked very solemn, Podhoretz said.

For the most part Bush simply listened, although he and then-advisor Karl Rove both laughed when Podhoretz mentioned giving “futility its chance”, a phrase used by another neoconservative, Robert Kagan, regarding pursuing United Nations sanctions against Iran.

“He gave not the slightest indication of whether he agreed with me, but he listened very intently,” Podhoretz said.

'No need for using nuclear weapons'
Podhoretz is convinced, however, that “George Bush will not leave office with Iran having acquired a nuclear weapon or having passed the point of no return” – a reference to the Iranians’ acquisition
Podhoretz told Bush: “You have the awesome responsibility to prevent another Holocaust. You’re the only one with the guts to do it.”
of sufficient technical capability to produce a nuclear weapon.

“The president has said several times that he will be in the historical dock if he allows Iran to get the bomb. He believes that if we wait for threats to fully materialize, we’ll have waited too long – something I agree with 100%,” Podhoretz said

Podhoretz told Bush that he thought America could strike Iran militarily without nuclear weaponry. “I’m against using nuclear weapons and I don’t think they are necessary,” he said. He believes the tepid British response to Iran’s seizure of Royal Navy hostages last spring strengthened Iran's determination to acquire nuclear weapons.

John Bolton, too, mentioned the naval incident: "They [Iran] got no response from the UK or the US," he said. "If you were the Iranian leader, what conclusion do you draw?"

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

DEBKAfile reports: Russians employed at Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor suddenly depart in a body, according to local Arab sources

October 1, 2007, 11:01 AM (GMT+02:00)

The Khorramshar News Agency, which is published by the ethnic Arab underground of Iran’s oil-rich Khuzestan, reported early Oct. 1 that the entire staff of Russian nuclear engineers and experts employed in building the nuclear reactor at Bushehr had abruptly packed their bags Friday, Sept. 28, and flew back to Russia. The agency’s one-liner offers no source or explanation. DEBKAfile have obtained no corroboration of its report from any other source.

The story appears to have originated with the ethnic Arabs who live near the reactor or who come in contact with its Russian staff. If true, DEBKAfile can offer three hypothetical scenarios to account for the Russians’ precipitate departure:

1. Another crisis has cropped up in the patchy Russian-Iranian dealings over the Bushehr reactor. This is unlikely because Russian president Vladimar Putin is due for a high-profile visit to Tehran on Oct. 16, when he plans to sign a series of nuclear accords with the Islamic Republic. Furthermore, Moscow, like Beijing, stands foursquare behind Iran’s efforts to delay harsher sanctions for its continued uranium enrichment. Only this week, the two powers gained Iran two to three months’ grace by forcing a delay in the UN Security Council session that was to have approved a third round of sanctions.

2. Moscow or Tehran has been tipped off that a US or Israeli attack is imminent on the Bushehr plant and Iran’s other nuclear installations and acted to whip Russian personnel out of harm’s way.

3. Moscow has learned that an Iranian pre-emptive attack is imminent against American targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf and/or Israel.

Aside from these hypothetical scenarios, DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources report that the Khorramshar News Agency keeps its ear to the ground on happenings in Bushehr, because it is claimed by Khuzistan separatists as Arab land which they will fight to liberate from Iranian “occupation.”



http://www.debka.com/
.............................................benny

Shifting Targets

Katrina vanden Heuvel
35 minutes ago
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20...BH9Y0ACAj9wxIF

The Nation -- Last week, the Senate -- via the Kyl-Lieberman Senate resolution -- handed the Bush Administration a close-to-blank check for military strikes against Iran. The resolution accuses Iran of fighting "a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq." (Hillary Clinton, along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, voted for it.) Sy Hersh's chilling article in this week's New Yorker ("The Administration's Plan for Iran") shows how the Administration may attempt to use that resolution as it redefines its military and political justifications for attacking Iran.



Hersh reports that the White House has requested that the Joint Chiefs redraw its plans for a possible attack on Iran. Confronted with a lack of public support for a major bombing campaign, with the intelligence community's assessment that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a nuclear bomb, and the growing realization in Washington that Iran is "the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq," the Administration has been marketing a new and dangerous line. The view that has taken hold in the White House, Hersh writes, is "that if many of America's problems [in Iraq] are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians."

As a result, "What had been presented primarily as a counterproliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism." The focus is no longer broad bombing attacks--with targets including Iran's known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure cites. Instead, " the emphasis is on 'surgical' strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which the Administration claims, have been a source of attacks on Americans in Iraq."

The revised bombing plan, "with its tightened focus on counterterrorism, is gathering support among generals and admirals in the Pentagon," Hersh writes. One former senior intelligence official tells Hersh, " Cheney's option is now for a fast in and out--for surgical strikes." Hersh is careful to state that he was "repeatedly cautioned in interviews" that Bush has yet to issue the "execute order" that is required for military operations inside Iran--"and such an order may never be issued." But, he continues, " there has been a significant increase in the tempo of attack planning."

Hersh quotes former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski: "This time, unlike the attack in Iraq, we're going to play the victim. The name of our game seems to be to get the Iranians to overplay their hand. A lot depends on how stupid the Iranians will be. Will they cool off (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad and tone down their language?" How will the Iranians react to more limited bombing strikes? Brzezinski tells Hersh that Iran would likely react "by intensifying the conflict in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, their neighbors, and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years."

America's allies have shown mixed reactions to the new plans. Strikingly, Hersh reports that the new British government of Gordon Brown has had the most positive response to the plan--even though, as one retired four-star General tells Hersh, the British believe they were "sold a bill of goods" before the war in Iraq and "the burden of proof is high" for action against Iran. There are a few speaking out against plans that could result in disastrous and unintended consequences for US and world security. Hans Blix tells Hersh, "There are important cards that Washington could play; instead, they have three aircraft carriers sitting in the Persian Gulf."

As to the drumbeat for war, Blix says that his "impression is that the United States has been trying to push up the accusations against Iran as a basis for possible attack--as an excuse for jumping on them." David Kay, the former CIA adviser and chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations, tells Hersh that "questions remain about the provenance of weapons in Iraq, especially given the rampant black market in arms

His inspection team was astounded, Kay says, in the aftermath of both Iraq wars, by the 'huge amounts of arms' it found circulating among civilians and military personnel throughout the country. He recalled seeing stockpiles of explosively formed penetrators, as well as charges that had been recovered from unexploded American cluster bombs. Kay also says, "I thought Petraeus went way beyond what Iran is doing inside Iraq today."

Hersh's important and alarming article is a warning that the Administration is intent on taking us into another military disaster--which will destabilize the region and the world and make the US less secure. And actions like the Senate's Kyl-Lieberman resolution, while only symbolic, could be used as a pretext by a White House determined to use military confrontation to avoid blame for the catastrophe in Iraq.

It must be repealed. In its place, the Senate should introduce and pass a resolution stating that there are no good military options for solving our disagreements with Iran. Military action will only result in disastrous and unintended consequences for US, regional and global interests. It is time for tough-minded and astute diplomacy and engagement with Iran--so as to weaken the hardliners in that country's government. One tragedy among many: At a time when a majority of Americans appear to have learned that there are limitations to the use of military force, it appears increasingly likely that the hardliners in our country are intent on taking us into another fiasco.
............................................benny

'USAF preparing Arab allies for Iran'
By JPOST.COM STAFF
Print Subscribe
E-mail Toolbar





The United States Air Force (USAF) is working with military leaders from Persian Gulf states to train and prepare Arab air forces for a possible war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph reported Tuesday.


Iran's nuclear enrichment facility in Natanz. A future American target?
Photo: AP [file]
Attendants at an air warfare conference in Washington last week were told how American air chiefs have helped to co-ordinate intelligence-sharing with Gulf Arab nations and organized combined exercises designed to make fighting together easier.

Gen. Michael Mosley, USAF chief of staff, used the conference to seek closer links with allies whose support America might need if US President George W. Bush decided to bomb Iran, the paper reported.

Pentagon air chiefs have helped set up an air warfare center in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) where Gulf nations are training their fighter pilots and America has large-scale bases. The center is modeled on the USAF warfare centre at Nellis air force base in Nevada.

Jordan and the UAE have both taken part in combined exercises designed to make sure their air forces can fly, and fight, together and with American jets, the Telegraph reported.

While it was unlikely that America's Gulf allies would join any US air strike against suspected nuclear targets in Iran, their co-operation might be required to allow passage of warplanes though their airspace. American defense officials were also reported to be keen that Iran's Arab neighbors prepare to deal with any Iranian attempt to target them in return.
......................................benny

Congress approves $1.2 billion worth of US-funded Israeli arms purchases, including 50 huge GBU-28 guided bunker busters

October 2, 2007, 10:30 PM (GMT+02:00)


American GBU-28 guided bunker buster sold to Israel

DEBKAfile’s military sources report the package, discussed by US Pentagon and Israel defense ministry officials, aims at replenishing the seriously depleted Israel Air Force stocks of missiles, bombs and fuel to their level prior to the 2006 Lebanon war, ready for any potential war contingency. Some of these items will be delivered shortly; others over a five-year period.

They include thousands of missiles, tens of thousands of new bombs worth $799 million and 132 million gallons of jet fuel worth $308 million.

The accent of this consignment will be on the heaviest American bombs designed for such subterranean targets as the bunker fortresses of Iran, Syria and Lebanon’s Hizballah and on operating and guidance systems for upgrading Israeli Air Force ammunition.

The list, according to US defense sources, also includes 10,000 JDAM tail kits for high precision guidance of bombs in all weathers at ranges of up to 25 km, which are designed for use with the GBU-29-32 bunker busters; 4,000 laser-guided Paveway II munitions kits; more than 11,000 Mk-84 and Mk-82 bombs; 2,000 heavy fortifications-penetrating BLU-109 bombs; and 50 GBU-28 5,000-pound guided bunker busters.

The Israeli Air Force will also receive 500 Sidewinders AIM-9M, and 200 AIM-120C (AMRAAM) medium range air-to-air missiles.

The American DefenseNews.com quotes Israeli industry executives, including the state-owned Rafael Armament Development Authority, Israel Aerospace Industries and Military Industries, as concerned by the country’s increasing dependence on American weaponry. While appreciative of American generosity, they complain that locally made, alternative products are often more capable than US systems and better adjusted to Israeli needs. They took particular exception to the defense ministry’s plans to stock up on US Sidewinders and AMRAAM missile when the Python-5, Derby and follow-on indigenous systems are specifically designed for the Israeli Air force.

This massive purchasing program, say Israeli industry sources, not only denies their firms billions of shekels in new orders, but threatens to erode their international sales of such items as Israeli-built air-to-air missiles, which have made their mark on world markets.


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

US garners support for strike on Iran

Anne Davies Herald Correspondent in Washington
October 2, 2007
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-...091029426.html

AUSTRALIA, Britain and Israel have reportedly "expressed interest" in a US campaign to launch surgical bombing raids on Iran targeting Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities.

A report in The New Yorker by the journalist Seymour Hersh said the Bush Administration had stopped trying to justify a campaign against Iran on the basis of curtailing Iran's nuclear ambitions. It is instead redefining the war in Iraq as a strategic battle between the US and Iran.

Hersh said the bombing plan has had its most positive reception from Britain's Prime Minister, Gordon Brown. While Hersh did not mention Australia in the article, he told CNN: "There have been expressions of interest from Australia, and other countries. The Israelis, of course, have gone bananas. They're very upset about the idea of not going … They want us to go. And they want us to hit hard."

The Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, was in the US a month ago for briefings with defence officials and a meeting with the US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates. Dr Nelson told reporters at the time that he had discussed Iran, but declined to elaborate.

A spokesman for Dr Nelson declined to comment yesterday.

A spokesman for the Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, referred to his comments in New York last week after a meeting with the Iranian Foreign Minister, and said the position had not changed.

He said Iran needed to be put under pressure by the UN Security Council, but consideration should also be given to other measures such as financial sanctions.

Hersh said the revised bombing plan, with its tightened focus on counter-terrorism, was gathering support among the generals and admirals in the Pentagon who had been apprehensive about an earlier, broader plan to bomb Iran.

"The strategy calls for the use of sea-launched cruise missiles and more precisely targeted ground attacks and bombing strikes, including plans to destroy the most important Revolutionary Guard training camps supply depots and command-and-control facilities," Hersh wrote. He said there were also plans to hit Iran's anti-aircraft surface-to-air missile sites.

He said a Pentagon consultant on counter-terrorism had told him that if the bombing campaign took place, it would be accompanied by a series of what he called "short, sharp incursions" by American Special Forces into suspected Iranian training sites.

Sources have told the Herald the plan is likely to be put into action only if there were significant US casualties in Iraq that could be attributed to Iranian activity. Hersh also floats this scenario, suggesting a significant attack on American servicemen from across the border could trigger US action.

Hersh pointed to a speech made by the US President, George Bush, in August to the American Legion in which Mr Bush said: "The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased … The Iranian regime must halt these actions, and until it does I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.

"I have authorised our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities."

But since then Mr Bush has made a number of other comments suggesting that the Administration may still be hopeful of a diplomatic solution, and in recent weeks has prevailed upon France to assist in dealing with Tehran.

In response to the Hersh article, a White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said: "The President believes this issue can be solved diplomatically. And the Administration is working with the international community through the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany to bring diplomatic measures to bear on Iran to put an end to its enrichment and reprocessing activities."

But Hersh's article detailed conversations with numerous sources in the Department of Defence, the CIA and former Administration officials who have heard talk of the strike plans and who claim the option is gaining momentum.


Hersh pointed to a speech made by the US President, George Bush, in August to the American Legion in which Mr Bush said: "The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased … The Iranian regime must halt these actions, and until it does I will take actions necessary to protect our troops.

"I have authorised our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities."

But since then Mr Bush has made a number of other comments suggesting that the Administration may still be hopeful of a diplomatic solution, and in recent weeks has prevailed upon France to assist in dealing with Tehran.

In response to the Hersh article, a White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said: "The President believes this issue can be solved diplomatically. And the Administration is working with the international community through the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany to bring diplomatic measures to bear on Iran to put an end to its enrichment and reprocessing activities."

But Hersh's article detailed conversations with numerous sources in the Department of Defence, the CIA and former Administration officials who have heard talk of the strike plans and who claim the option is gaining momentum.
__________________
...............................................benny

Excerpt, page 4 of 6 page report by Seymour Hersh, in this months New Yorker Magazine, that Col. Jacobs alluded to:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...?currentPage=4

".....The revised bombing plan for a possible attack, with its tightened focus on counterterrorism, is gathering support among generals and admirals in the Pentagon. The strategy calls for the use of sea-launched cruise missiles and more precisely targeted ground attacks and bombing strikes, including plans to destroy the most important Revolutionary Guard training camps, supply depots, and command and control facilities.

“Cheney’s option is now for a fast in and out—for surgical strikes,” the former senior American intelligence official told me. The Joint Chiefs have turned to the Navy, he said, which had been chafing over its role in the Air Force-dominated air war in Iraq. “The Navy’s planes, ships, and cruise missiles are in place in the Gulf and operating daily. They’ve got everything they need—even AWACS are in place and the targets in Iran have been programmed. The Navy is flying FA-18 missions every day in the Gulf.” There are also plans to hit Iran’s anti-aircraft surface-to-air missile sites. “We’ve got to get a path in and a path out,” the former official said....."

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

JPost.com » International » Article


Oct 3, 2007 21:58 | Updated Oct 3, 2007 22:02
Bush says he believes US will 'defend its ally Israel'
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Print Subscribe
E-mail Toolbar




Talkbacks for this article: 17


President Bush warned Wednesday of a nuclear-armed Iran but did not rule out that the United States would negotiate with its provocative leader if he gives up his suspected nuclear weapons ambitions.


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaks during the 62nd session of the United Nations General Assembly at UN headquarters.
Photo: AP
He denounced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his remarks about destroying Israel.

"In Iran, we're dealing with a country where the leader has said that he wants to destroy Israel," Bush said. "My belief is that the United States will defend our ally Israel. This is a leader who has made very provocative statements. And, we have made it clear, however, that in spite of that, we are willing to sit down with him, so long as he suspends his program."

"In other words, it's his choice, it's not mine anymore. So I believe that's the best way to achieve an objective," the president added.

"If your question is, will you ever sit down with them? We've proven we would with North Korea. And the answer is yeah, just so long as we can achieve something, so long as we are able to get our objective."

Bush also said it's important for the United States to stay engaged in neighboring Iraq to convince the Iranians that the US is committed to democratic reform in the region. "There would be nothing worse for world peace than if the Iranians believed that the United States did not have the will and commitment to help young democracies survive," Bush told businessmen and women where he took questions after a talk on government spending.

"If we left before the job was done, there would be chaos," Bush said about withdrawing US troops prematurely from Iraq. "Chaos would embolden not only the extremists and radicals that would like to do us harm, but it would also embolden Iran. What you don't want is to have a nuclear arms race taking place in the Middle East."


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

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magaz...that-day.thtml

So close to war’
We came so close to World War Three that day
James Forsyth and Douglas DavisWednesday, 3rd October 2007On 6 September, when Israel struck a nuclear facility in Syria

A meticulously planned, brilliantly executed surgical strike by Israeli jets on a nuclear installation in Syria on 6 September may have saved the world from a devastating threat. The only problem is that no one outside a tight-lipped knot of top Israeli and American officials knows precisely what that threat involved.

Even more curious is that far from pushing the Syrians and Israelis to war, both seem determined to put a lid on the affair. One month after the event, the absence of hard information leads inexorably to the conclusion that the implications must have been enormous.

That was confirmed to The Spectator by a very senior British ministerial source: ‘If people had known how close we came to world war three that day there’d have been mass panic. Never mind the floods or foot-and-mouth — Gordon really would have been dealing with the bloody Book of Revelation and Armageddon.’

According to American sources, Israeli intelligence tracked a North Korean vessel carrying a cargo of nuclear material labelled ‘cement’ as it travelled halfway across the world. On 3 September the ship docked at the Syrian port of Tartous and the Israelis continued following the cargo as it was transported to the small town of Dayr as Zawr, near the Turkish border in north-eastern Syria.

The destination was not a complete surprise. It had already been the subject of intense surveillance by an Israeli Ofek spy satellite, and within hours a band of elite Israeli commandos had secretly crossed into Syria and headed for the town. Soil samples and other material they collected there were returned to Israel. Sure enough, they indicated that the cargo was nuclear.

Three days after the North Korean consignment arrived, the final phase of Operation Orchard was launched. With prior approval from Washington, Israeli F151 jets were scrambled and, minutes later, the installation and its newly arrived contents were destroyed.

So secret were the operational details of the mission that even the pilots who were assigned to provide air cover for the strike jets had not been briefed on it until they were airborne. In the event, they were not needed: built-in stealth technology and electronic warfare systems were sophisticated enough to ‘blind’ Syria’s Russian-made anti-aircraft systems.

What was in the consignment that led the Israelis to mount an attack which could easily have spiralled into an all-out regional war? It could not have been a transfer of chemical or biological weapons; Syria is already known to possess the most abundant stockpiles in the region. Nor could it have been missile delivery systems; Syria had previously acquired substantial quantities from North Korea. The only possible explanation is that the consignment was nuclear.

The scale of the potential threat — and the intelligence methods that were used to follow the transfer — explain the dense mist of official secrecy that shrouds the event. There have been no official briefings, no winks or nudges, from any of the scores of people who must have been involved in the preparation, analysis, decision-making and execution of the operation. Even when Israelis now offer a firm ‘no comment’, it is strictly off the record. The secrecy is itself significant.

Israel is a small country. In some respects, it resembles an extended, if chaotic, family. Word gets around fast. Israelis have lived on the edge for so long they have become addicted to the news. Israel’s media is far too robust and its politicians far too leaky to allow secrets to remain secret for long. Even in the face of an increasingly archaic military censor, Israeli journalists have found ways to publish and, if necessary, be damned.

The only conceivable explanation for this unprecedented silence is that the event was so huge, and the implications for Israeli national security so great, that no one has dared break the rule of omertà. The Arab world has remained conspicuously — and significantly — silent. So, too, have American officials, who might have been expected to ramp up the incident as proof of their warnings about the dangers of rogue states and WMDs. The opposite is true. George Bush stonewalled persistent questions at a press conference last week with the blunt statement: ‘I’m not going to comment on the matter.’ Meanwhile the Americans have carried on dealing with the North Koreans as if nothing has changed.

The Syrian response, when it eventually came, was more forthcoming but no more helpful. First out of the blocks was Syria’s ambassador to the United Nations, Bashar Ja’afari, who happily announced that nothing had been bombed in Syria and nothing had been damaged.

One week later, Syria’s Vice-President, Farouk a-Shara, agreed that there had, after all, been an attack — on the Arab Centre for the Studies (sic) of Arid Zones and Dry Lands (ACSAD). Brandishing a photograph of the Arab League-run plant, he declared triumphantly: ‘This is the picture, you can see it, and it proves that everything that was said about this attack was wrong.’

Well, perhaps not everything. The following day, ACSAD issued a statement denying that its centre had been targeted: ‘Leaks in the Zionist media concerning this ACSAD station are total inventions and lies,’ it thundered, adding that a tour of the centre was being organised for the media.

On Monday, Syria’s President, Bashar Assad, offered his first observations of the attack. The target, he told the BBC disingenuously, was an unused military building. And he followed that with vows to retaliate, ‘maybe politically, maybe in other ways’.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post noted that the United States had accumulated a growing body of evidence over the past six months — and particularly in the month leading up to the attack — that North Korea was co-operating with Syria on developing a nuclear facility. The evidence, according to the paper, included ‘dramatic satellite imagery that led some US officials to believe the facility could be used to produce material for nuclear weapons’. Even within America’s intelligence community, access to that imagery was restricted to just a handful of individuals on the instructions of America’s National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley.

Why are all sides so reluctant to clarify the details of this extraordinary event? ‘In the Middle East,’ noted Bret Stephens, a senior editorial executive at the Wall Street Journal and an acute observer of the region, ‘that only happens when the interests of prudence and the demands of shame happen to coincide’. He suggested that the ‘least unlikely’ explanation is a partial reprise of the Israeli air strike which destroyed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981.

Another of the ‘least unlikely’ possibilities is that Syria was planning to supply its terrorist clients with ‘dirty’ bombs, which would have threatened major cities through*out the world. Terrorism is a growth industry in Syria and it is only natural that, emboldened by its Iranian ally, the Syrian regime should seek to remain the market leader by supplying the ultimate weapon to Hezbollah, Hamas and a plethora of Palestinian rejectionist groups who have been given house-room in Damascus.

The Syrians have good reason to up the ante now. The Alawite regime of Bashar Assad is facing a slew of tough questions in the coming months — most particularly over its alleged role in the murder of the former Lebanese leader, Rafiq Hariri, and its active support for the insurgency in Iraq. Either of these issues could threaten the survival of the regime. How tempting, then, to create a counter-threat that might cause Washington and others to pull their horns in — and perhaps even permit a limited Syrian return to Lebanon?

But that does not explain why the consignment was apparently too large to be sent by air. Look deeper and you find an array of other highly plausible explanations. The North Koreans, under intense international pressure, might have chosen to ‘park’ a significant stockpile of nuclear material in Syria in the expectation of retrieving it when the heat was off. They might also have outsourced part of their nuclear development programme — paying the Syrians to enrich their uranium — while an international team of experts continued inspecting and disabling North Korea’s own nuclear facilities. The shipment might even — and this is well within the ‘least unlikely’ explanations — have been intended to assist Syria’s own nuclear weapons programme, which has been on the cards since the mid-1980s.

Apart from averting the threat that was developing at Dayr as Zawr, Israel’s strategic position has been strengthened by the raid. Firstly, it has — as Major General Amos Yadlin, the head of Israel’s military intelligence, noted — ‘restored its deterrence’, which was damaged by its inept handling of the war in the Lebanon last year. Secondly, it has reminded Damascus that Israel knows what it is up to and is capable of striking anywhere within its territory.

Equally, Iran has been put on notice that Israel will not tolerate any nuclear threat. Washington, too, has been reminded that Israel’s intelligence is often a better guide than its own in the region, a crucial point given the divisions between the Israeli and American intelligence assessments about the development of the Iranian bomb. Hezbollah, the Iranian/Syrian proxy force, has also been put on notice that the air-defence system it boasted would alter the strategic balance in the region is impotent in the face of Israeli technology.

Meanwhile, a senior Israeli analyst told us this week that the most disturbing aspect of the affair from a global perspective is the willingness of states to share their technologies and their weapons of mass destruction. ‘I do not believe that the former Soviet Union shared its WMD technology,’ he said. ‘And they were careful to limit the range of the Scud missiles they were prepared to sell. Since the end of the Cold War, though, we know the Russians significantly exceeded those limits when selling missile technology to Iran.’

But the floodgates were opened wide by the renegade Pakistan nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan, who is revered in Pakistan as the Father of the Islamic Bomb. Khan established a virtual supermarket of nuclear technologies, parts and plans which operated for more than a decade on a global stage. After his operation was shut down in 2004, Khan admitted transferring technology and parts to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Proliferation experts are convinced they know the identities of at least three of his many other clients: Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

In addition to selling nuclear-related knowhow, the Khan network is also believed to have provided Syria with centrifuges for producing enriched uranium. In 2003, concern about Syria’s nuclear ambitions was heightened when an experimental American electronic eavesdropping device picked up distinctive signals indicating that the Syrians had not only acquired the centrifuges but were actually operating them.

If Israel’s military strike on Dayr as Zawr last month was surgical, so, too, was its handling of the aftermath. The only certainty in the fog of cover-up is that something big happened on 6 September — something very big. At the very least, it illustrates that WMD and rogue states pose the single greatest threat to world peace. We may have escaped from this incident without war, but if Iran is allowed to continue down the nuclear path, it is hard to believe that we will be so lucky again.

Douglas Davis is a former senior editor of the Jerusalem Post and James Forsyth is online editor of The Spectator.
__________________
..............................................benny

EU's Solana wants 'several meetings' with Iranian nuclear envoy
03 October 2007, 19:47 CET
(BRUSSELS) - EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said Wednesday that he wants "several meetings" with Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani before he submits a report to the UN Security Council next month.

"I hope to be able to see Larijani as soon as possible and not just once but several meetings, which will be needed for the report to the Security Council," he told members of the European Parliament.

Solana must report to major world powers Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China and the United States before mid-November on Iran's willingness to give up uranium enrichment in exchange for political and trade incentives.

The West, led by the United States, believes that Iran is trying to covertly use its civilian nuclear programme to build an atom bomb, but the Islamic republic says it only wants to generate electricty.

Despite several meetings last year, Solana and Larijani failed to overcome Tehran's objections to suspending uranium enrichment before sitting down to negotiate the terms of its future nuclear development.

The major powers, split over whether to impose further sanctions against Iran, said last week that they would wait for Solana's report and another from the head of the UN nuclear watchdog before deciding what action to take.

Solana said it was important to "send a clear message to Tehran that it does not have unlimited time".

He said he would try to reach Larijani by telephone on Thursday to see when their first meeting could take place.

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

ElBaradei warns against showdown with Iran on nuclear issue: report

October 05, 2007
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/6276970.html

Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohamed ElBaradei warned against any showdown with Iran, noting cooperation is the best way to solve Iran's disputed nuclear issue, Egypt's Arabic newspapers al-Ahram reported on Thursday.

In an interview with the mass-circulated Egyptian newspaper published Thursday, ElBaradei said the Middle East has enough troubles to deal with, warning against any showdown with Iran.

Noting the matter is not just about Iran's nuclear file but of the regional security, ElBaradei said the best way to find a solution to Iran's nuclear issue is through more cooperation and the adoption of confidence building measures.

The international community should encourage Iran to cooperate with the IAEA to prove its nuclear activities are entirely peaceful since the West are worried about Iran's nuclear intentions and its regional policies, said ElBaradei.

"We should give Iran a chance to prove it has a good intention or not," said ElBaradei.

A solution can only be reached when all parties concerned, including the Arab countries, come together to the negotiating table to address the problems, he added.

In late September, ElBaradei said Iran does not currently pose an immediate threat to the international community and called for more efforts to push forward dialogue, saying that a delay in talks could result in negative consequences.

The United States has been seeking to impose tougher sanctions on Iran through the UN Security Council on the grounds that Tehran is developing a nuclear weapon program under the guise of a civilian-use program.

Iran has insisted that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes and voiced hope for talks to defuse the nuclear standoff.

Despite Iran's constant clarification, the United States has never ruled out military action against the Islamic Republic's suspicious nuclear targets.

Source: Xinhua
................................................benny

US 'must break Iran and Syria regimes'

By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 2:09am BST 05/10/2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...5/wiran105.xml

America should seize every opportunity to force regime change in Syria and Iran, a former senior adviser to the White House has urged.

(Profile: US hawk David Wurmser
Toby Harnden: David Wurmser - a neocon unbowed


David Wurmser: 'If we start shooting, we
must be prepared to fire the last shot')


"We need to do everything possible to destabilise the Syrian regime and exploit every single moment they strategically overstep," said David Wurmser, who recently resigned after four years as Vice President Dick Cheney's Middle East adviser.

"That would include the willingness to escalate as far as we need to go to topple the regime if necessary." He said that an end to Baathist rule in Damascus could trigger a domino effect that would then bring down the Teheran regime.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the first since he left government, he argued that the United States had to be prepared to attack both Syria and Iran to prevent the spread of Islamic fundamentalism and nuclear proliferation in the Middle East that could result in a much wider war.

Mr Wurmser, 46, a leading neo-conservative who has played a pivotal role in the Bush administration since the September 11th attacks, said that diplomacy would fail to stop Iran becoming a nuclear power. Overthrowing Teheran's theocratic regime should therefore be a top US priority.

advertisementIran was using Syria as its proxy against Israel and among Sunni Arabs and both regimes had to be overthrown, he insisted.

"It has to be, because who they are is now defined around provoking a wider clash of civilisations with the West. It is precisely to avoid this that we need to win now."

Both countries were part of a "proliferation consortium", possibly in league with North Korea, that is helping Teheran to acquire a nuclear bomb, he said.

If Iran was seen to be powerless to prevent regime change in Syria, Mr Wurmser claimed, Teheran's prestige would be undermined just as the Soviet Union's was when it failed to come to the aid of Syrian forces during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982.

Regime change was possible because Syria was "weak and rattled" while Iran had adopted a "go-for-broke strategy" of stirring up regional tensions to overcome the reality that "the foundations of the regime in Teheran are fragile".

A situation such as last year's attack on Israel by Hezbollah, which was backed by Iran and Syria, could provide an opportunity for US intervention.

Although Mr Wurmser's recommendations have not yet become US policy, his hard-line stances on regime change in Iran and Syria are understood to have formed the basis of policy documents approved by Mr Cheney, an uncompromising hawk who is deeply sceptical about the effectiveness of diplomatic pressure on Teheran.

Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State and an advocate of multilateral diplomacy, currently holds sway within the Bush administration but Iran's intransigence on the nuclear issue and its role in the Iraq insurgency could well shift the balance back towards Mr Cheney.

Limited strikes against Iranian nuclear targets would be useless, Mr Wurmser said. "Only if what we do is placed in the framework of a fundamental assault on the survival of the regime will it have a pick-up among ordinary Iranians.

"If we start shooting, we must be prepared to fire the last shot. Don't shoot a bear if you're not going to kill it."

Mr Wurmser emphatically denied recent allegations he told a small group that Mr Cheney intended to press Israel to launch strikes against Iran in order to provoke a retaliation that the US would then respond to.

It was "fantastical" to suggest that he or Mr Cheney would "try to cause a war that the president expressly doesn't want", he said. "Everything that was done was to execute the policies of the president and not to subvert them."

Mr Wurmser, an outspoken proponent of removing Saddam Hussein in the years before the 2003 invasion, was highly critical of British forces in southern Iraq. "Being in Basra, the British had a major role to play and they didn't really play it very well.

"Under British presence, the Iranians extended their power considerably. British troops are still there but Iraqis see them as dead men walking.... everybody's looking towards who is the real power that fills the vacuum and that then translates into an Iranian-American confrontation in that area."

British withdrawal, he said, could be a plus for the US. "It frees our hand to deal aggressively with their [Iran's] structures. Once we have responsibility for that area, we'll have to do what we need to do and that could well mean troops on the ground."

Although he conceded many mistakes had been made by the US in Iraq, Mr Wurmser said there were now reasons for optimism. "While Iraq became more violent, it also became in some ways the international bug-zapper of terrorists.

"It was the light that attracted all the terrorists of the world. And that became the battleground, and this is a decisive battle. I think the battle is turning in our favour now, and this is a defeat that it will take the al-Qaeda world a long time to recover from."

In the meantime, the US still had the power to deal with Iran militarily. "If we decided from no preparation to doing something in Iran, while it would cause a lot of heartburn among many people in the Pentagon, we could do it.

"I would never underestimate the raw capability of the United States in any off-the-shelf situation. If that's what we decided to do, things can be done."
..........................................benny

The fallout from an attack on Iran would be devastating

The drumbeat of war in Washington is growing - and so must public pressure against British involvement in such folly

Seumas Milne
Friday October 5, 2007
The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/colum...184267,00.html

It seems almost incredible after the catastrophe of the Iraq war, but the signs are growing that the Bush administration wants to do it all over again - this time to Iran. Just as in the runup to the invasion of Iraq, the Washington air is thick with unsubstantiated claims about weapons of mass destruction; demonisation of the country's president has reached bizarre proportions; intelligence leaks about links with al-Qaida and attacks on US and British targets are now routine; demands for war from the administration's neoconservative outriders are becoming increasingly strident; the pronouncements of George Bush and his vice-president, Dick Cheney, are turning ever more belligerent - and administration sources claim that the British government is privately ready to play ball.

You might imagine after invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq at such huge human and strategic cost, an attack on another Muslim country would be the last thing on the US president's mind. But the drumbeat of war has been unmistakable since the summer, when Bush declared he had "authorised our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities", and the administration let it be known that it was preparing to brand Iran's Revolutionary Guards a "terrorist organisation".

Last month Bernard Kouchner, the hawkish new French foreign minister, insisted that "we must expect the worst" and "the worst is war" - while Mohamed ElBaradei, the UN's chief weapons inspector in charge of overseeing Iran's nuclear programme, warned against the "neo-crazies" pushing for an attack after 700,000 had died in Iraq on "suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons". Meanwhile, Israel's recent air raid on Iran's ally Syria has been widely interpreted as, at least in part, a power play aimed at Tehran.

This week John Bolton, the former US ambassador to the UN, used the Tory conference to call for an attack on Iran, as leaks to the US press about war preparations continued. Newsweek reported that Cheney had been discussing the possibility of encouraging Israel to launch missile strikes at an Iranian nuclear site in order to provoke Iran into "lashing out", and open the way to a wider US assault. And in the New Yorker magazine, the investigative writer Seymour Hersh reported that in a videoconference this summer Bush told the US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, that he was thinking of attacking targets in Iran, and the British "were on board".

A Downing Street spokesman said yesterday that the "prime minister and president have never had a discussion about an attack on Iran in Iran" and that the government was pursuing a diplomatic solution. "Of course, it's the job of a lot of people to see that contingency planning is done," he added, but denied that any go-ahead had been given. The echoes of similar denials in the runup to the Iraq war, however, cannot be missed. Nor should the reference to an attack on Iran "in Iran". Both the US and British military now regard themselves as already involved in a proxy war with Iran in Iraq, as General Petraeus recently told the US congress.

What is becoming clearer is that the likely pretext for aggression against Iran has shifted from the possibility that Tehran might develop nuclear weapons to its role in supporting and allegedly arming the resistance in neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan. The administration is increasingly convinced that it will be far easier to convince the American public of the case for war on Iran if it's seen as being about the protection of US troops rather than nuclear scaremongering from the people who brought you Saddam Hussein's WMD. So the focus of the military plans has changed accordingly: from a wide-ranging bombing assault on Iran's known and suspected nuclear sites to "surgical" strikes on the Revolutionary Guards, who the US claims are backing armed attacks on its occupation forces.

In reality, the growing confrontation between Washington and Iran has less to do with nuclear weapons or Iraqi resistance and more with the fact that Iran has emerged as the main strategic beneficiary of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran and its allies now offer the only effective challenge to US domination of the Middle East and its resources. It's hardly surprising that the US is alarmed by the increased influence of an avowedly anti-imperialist state sitting astride a sea of oil, now making common cause with other radical, independent regimes in Latin America. But it is of course the direct result of Bush's own policies, which have also provided an object demonstration of the advantages of possessing nuclear weapons - even if there is as yet no evidence that Iran actually intends to acquire them.

Of the three states Bush originally damned as the axis of evil, one - Iraq - had no nuclear weapons and was duly destroyed. The second, North Korea, managed to acquire some nuclear capability and is this week reaping the benefits in aid and negotiation. The third is Iran, a country surrounded by US troops and caught between two nuclear-armed US allies: Pakistan and Israel. And despite the populist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's ugly remarks about the Holocaust, it is the nuclear states America and Israel that now threaten and have the capacity to attack Iran, not the other way round.

What should not be in doubt is that the consequences of an attack on Iran would be devastating, both in the region and beyond. Iran has the reach to deliver an unconventional armed response in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf - as well as on the streets of London. The economic impact could be even greater, given Iran's grip on the 20% of global oil supplies that are shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. It would also certainly set back the cause of progressive change in Iran.

Iranian leaders have dismissed the threat of attack as "psychological warfare", and no doubt the US would prefer to bring Iran to heel through political upheaval in Tehran rather than by force. But current destabilisation efforts seem unlikely to succeed, and so, short of a sudden US embrace of genuine negotiation, the chances of war before Bush leaves office look high. The likelihood of a Brown government directly participating in an attack must be small after the debacle of Iraq. But the possibility that logistical or political support might be offered is more serious. The need to step up public pressure to make sure that does not happen could not be clearer.
.........................................benny

07/10/2007

Syria paper urges return of Golan Heights 'by any means'

By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/909944.html

An editorial in the state-run Syrian newspaper Al-Ba'ath called for the return of the Golan Heights to Syria by any means necessary.

"We, the Syrian people and our leaders have the steadfast determination to liberate our captured land no matter the means or the methods," the article read.

The article appeared in the paper on Saturday to mark the 34th anniversary of the start of the Yom Kippur War.

Elias Morad, the editor of the paper and the author of the piece, stated in the editorial that the Syrian people "know the path to liberation is long and difficult, it is not easy or simple like its described."

Morad then described Israel as "an enemy that has the support of the strongest country on Earth," alluding to the United States.

Also on Saturday, a letter was issued by members of the Syrian Army's top brass, which stated that Israeli leaders have "grown accustomed to provocation," adding that this does not mean they don't reserve the right to self-defense and that Israel would pay the price for violating Syria's sovereignty, possibly alluding to the September 6 Israel Air Force strike on a reputed Nuclear facility in Syria built with North Korean assistance.
__________________
...........................................benny

Gordon Brown 'Will Back Air Strikes on Iran'

October 07, 2007
Telegraph
Tim Shipman in Washington
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...7/wiran107.xml

Gordon Brown has agreed to support US air strikes against Iran if the Islamic republic orchestrates large-scale attacks by militants against British or American forces in Iraq, according to senior Pentagon officials.

Washington sources say the Prime Minister has been informed of US plans to launch limited air and special forces raids against Revolutionary Guard bases.

After talks with President George W Bush in July, Mr Brown left US officials with the belief that Britain was "on board" for a military response — but only if Iran was proved to be behind a big militant attack or another stunt similar to the kidnapping in March of British sailors.

The US wants Britain's Special Air Service Regiment to take part in special forces raids inside Iran and has requested help from the Royal Navy to combat Iranian retaliation in the Gulf. But no decisions have been made.

Mr Brown made clear to Mr Bush that he would not support a campaign to destroy Iran's nuclear programme and bring about regime change in Teheran.

But Pentagon officials say he did indicate he would be prepared to back strikes in certain circumstances.

Vincent Cannistraro, a former White House intelligence chief in close contact with senior Pentagon officials, said: "The British understand there's a possible need to strike — not strategic bombing of nuclear sites but facilities in Iran in support of Iraqi elements. This understanding was reached shortly after Brown took office."

The threat of action has been passed to the Iranian government and is credited with slowing the flood of Iranian weapons into Iraq.

The suggestion that Mr Brown has discussed air strikes will anger critics who believe Tony Blair was too quick to approve military action against Iraq.

A Downing Street spokesman said: "While we won't comment on the specifics of conversations between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States, this is not a version of events we recognise."

A source close to Mr Brown said the two had talked about Iran but "we have not had this conversation.........................benny

Petraeus: Iran still fueling war

From CNN's Jim Clancy
October 7 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/...ran/index.html

FORWARD OPERATING BASE CALDWELL, Iraq (CNN) -- Although America's top general in Iraq called al Qaeda "the wolf closest to the sled," he said sectarian fighting among militias fueled by Iran could be the biggest long-term challenge for Iraq.

Petraeus says Iran must prove it is no longer supplying weapons to Iraq militias.

Gen. David Petraeus, in an interview with CNN's Jim Clancy near the Iranian border in Diyala province, said, "Militias could potentially be the long-term problem for Iraq, if you assume that we can continue to make progress against al Qaeda," Petraeus said.

He said he is in a "show-me mode," waiting to see if Iran honors a pledge to stop the flow of arms, money and training from Iran into Iraq that has helped both Shiite and Sunni militants.

"Al Qaeda remains the wolf closest to the sled, if you will. The enemy that is always bent on reigniting sectarian violence, causing the most horrific casualties, damaging the infrastructure in the most difficult way. So you cannot lose focus on al Qaeda."

But, Petraeus added, there was "no question" that Iranian arms were ending up in the hands of the Iraqi militias and there was "no debate" that six Iranians detained by the U.S. military in northern Iraq are Iranian Quds force members, the Iranian unit accused by the United States of training and arming insurgents.

"There's no question, absolutely no question that Iran is providing advanced RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades], RPG 29s," Petraeus said.

"It has provided some shoulder-fired, Stinger-like air-defense missiles. It has provided the explosively formed projectiles and it has provided 244 mm rockets, in addition to mortars, mortar rounds and other small-arms ammunition."

Petraeus also said the Iranians "are implicated in the assassination of some governors in the southern provinces."

He said one indication the Quds force controls Iranian policy is that Iran's ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazzem Qomi, is a member of the the group. Qomi, who has diplomatic immunity, could not immediately be reached for a reaction.

Gen. Petraeus said the Iranian ambassador has given his Iraqi counterpart assurances Iran would stop the supplying and training of insurgents.


"They had two sessions," he said. "Numerous Iraqi leaders have gone to Tehran and asked that they stop very, very directly, stop the lethal assistance. There have been sub-ambassadorial meetings as well. And there have been assurances in return actually from Iran to Iraqi leaders and we are waiting to see if those assurances bear fruit or not frankly. We are very much in the show-me mode right now. We would love to see that."


Petraeus reiterated that Iranians detained by the United State recently in northern Iraq are Quds Force members. One of them was arrested recently in Sulaimaniya and five others were arrested in Irbil.

The U.S. military has intercepted caches of explosively formed projectiles -- a more sophisticated and powerful type of roadside bomb -- and other weapons from Iran in recent months, but Petraeus said stopping the regular flow of arms to the militias is a challenge.
...........................................benny

Syria: We'll Go to War Over the Golan

24 Tishrei 5768, October 6, '07
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Ne...sh.aspx/134198

(IsraelNN.com) In commemoration ceremonies marking the 34th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, official Syrian media said that Damascus would “not hesitate for a moment” to open a war against Israel in order to seize and reoccupy the Golan.

"Our people and our leadership are certainly determined to liberate our conquered lands using all means, methods and ways,” the editorial in al-Baath. “This enemy claims to seek peace, but does the opposite using all possible means,” it added.
..............................................benny

October 12, 2007
Jim Bramlett
Oct 8, 2007

Dear friends:

There is a corrected Jewish calendar that purports to be more biblical, supposedly showing the true feast dates. It is at http://www.truthofyahweh.org/calendar.html. I am not a calendar person and cannot vouch for its accuracy, but you can judge their methodology described at http://www.truthofyahweh.org/cal_vari.html.

It shows the Feast of Trumpets beginning at sundown with the new moon on October 12, 2007.

That appears to be shaping up as an eventful day. Tony Ellsworth points out that October 12 is the very day Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492. Christopher means "Christ-bearer," and Columbus is from the word for dove (Holy Spirit). Columbus was driven to take Christ to undiscovered lands, and hundreds of years later the land of America would produce the largest missionary outreach in history, covering the world with missionaries and radio and TV gospel broadcasts. It is a historic day in the history of Christianity, the Great Commission, and the gospel to the Gentiles. See my essay at http://choicesforliving.com/spirit/part4/america1.htm.

Tony also astutely points out that October 12 is "Al Quds Day" -- but not the celebration of Jerusalem ("Al Quds") that it is presented as by the press. In reality, it is a coordinated political display of anti-Western and anti-American propaganda, according to http://www.snappedshot.com/archives/...-Quds-Day.html

This could be ominous. An Islamic spokesman "warned that Washington's insistence on its wrong policies and arrogant approaches would have no result but further political disgrace for itself." Referring to the approaching World Qods Day, the spokesman stressed, "Supporters of the Zionist regime (that's us) will definitely receive the final response for their support on that day."

"Supporters of the Zionist regime will receive their response during the world Quds Day's rallies," Iranian government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham said at a weekly press conference Wednesday.

IsraelNN.com says "Iran has promised a devastating 'final response' to supporters of the Jewish State on October 12, the Islamic Republic's Quds (Jerusalem) Day."

For more about this threat and "final response" see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123724.

Get that? Final response? Devastating?

A 2007 Trumpets rapture, and even the simultaneous beginning of the Tribulation, is still not out of the question. A reader reported that this coming weekend Pastor Hagee is celebrating Rosh Hashanah as he does every year, with 'A Night to Honor Israel,' and special speakers.... " Also, Hagee said yesterday, 'Be sure everyone comes next weekend; it will be televised, but also, we may go home and I want everyone to go home from Cornerstone' (his church)."

Always hoping,

Jim
............................................benny



08/10/2007

Washington Post: Several N. Korean scientists hurt in IAF strike in Syria

By Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz Correspondent
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/910257.html

WASHINGTON - A top-secret report by the U.S. intelligence services says several North Korean scientists were injured in Israel's strike in Syria last month, top Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland reported in the paper Sunday.

Some two weeks ago, British newspaper The Sunday Times reported that diplomats in North Korea and China believed a number of North Koreans had been killed in the strike, based on reports reaching Asian governments about conversations between Chinese and North Korean officials.

In his article about the efforts to dismantle North Korea's nuclear program, Hoagland said the site of the attack was a plutonium enrichment facility for the Syrian nuclear program.
Advertisement

According to Hoagland, Israel sent soil samples from the site and other evidence to the United States both before and after the strike on September 6. Hoagland's report appears to corroborate details reported by the Sunday Times two weeks prior.

The Washington Post report is based on Hoagland's talks with a senior official in the American defense establishment, and with other sources involved with the attack.

Media reports are providing an increasingly fuller picture of the circumstances surrounding the incident, and the activities undertaken at the site.

Over the weekend, the American television network ABC reported that President George W. Bush's administration had been involved in the preparations for the strike since the summer. According to ABC, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had objected to the plan, pushing the intended date from mid-July to September.

American and British media reported that Israeli special forces were operating near the site during the attack and beforehand to collect intelligence in preparation for the operation.

North Korea was one of the first countries in the world to condemn Israel for the strike just several days after it became known. But North Korea and Syria denied that the site was linked to the North Korean nuclear program, which is due to be terminated in accordance with international agreements Pyongyang has signed.
...............................................benny

Ah...this is the thread I was referring too!

Isaiah 17!

Benny benny boy...always looking up! GOD BLESS YOU

calling Benny,
Hey brother! wanted to ask you a question...we both think the next prophetic event will be Is. 17...do you think the church will be here to see that happen?

You know i have been saying for a while i didnt think the US would bomb iran..now i dont know...sounds like the rapture happens and Gog gets this crazy idea to invade Israel...I mean, ezek 37-38 tells us there is no response militarily to stop the invasion and if iran/russia tried today, we would go to war right then to help Israel. So im figuring the rapture removes the US from the military equation....and we know that syria doesnt come with iran during the magog invasion (because damascus is a ruinous heap)...but if Israel and syria went at each other today, wouldnt iran jump in? I propose one of two things here: 1-either Israel nukes damascus and tells iran that if they get involved they are next or 2-we bomb iran before israel and syria go at it...

what are your thoughts here?

I believe that there are a lot of christians in Damascus at this moment.....With that in mind.....I think about Abraham, when he asked the Lord if He would not spare Sodom for the sake of the 50 righteous, if there were 50 righteous to be found.......It is this line of thinking that causes me to believe that the Rapture is now at the door of this generation............The stage is now set!..........................................benny ......................................................................................................................October 10, 2007
Breaking The Stone
by Michael G. Mickey
(10-10-07)

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

A recent Associated Press story opens as follows (emphasis added mine):

Two senior Israeli politicians, including the prime minister's closest ally, talked openly Monday about dividing Jerusalem, signaling a possible shift in Israeli opinion about one of the Mideast's most contentious issues.

The dispute over Jerusalem has derailed negotiations in the past, and the latest comments come at a time when Israeli and Palestinian teams are trying to agree on principles guiding future peace talks.
The end is near. How much clearer can it be in light of this latest development, particularly if this should come to pass?

Having sought to obtain Jerusalem as their capital for as long as I can recall, it seems the Palestinians, with the aid and support of the international community, may have finally convinced Israel to surrender at least part of the city to them that they might make it the capital of a Palestinian state to be created on Israel's covenant lands. I cringe at the mere thought of it!

Historically, possession of the city of Jerusalem has been a key stumbling block to peace coming to the Middle East but now, with an international peace conference scheduled to be held in November the goal of which is to bring about a lasting peace in the Middle East, the Israeli government suddenly seems willing to do what it has never been willing to do before. If the information contained in the news report above as well as others I have read is accurate, Israel's resistance of the will of its enemies and the collective will of the international community is beginning to crumble.

So, what next?

The Palestinians and the international community have set for themselves a goal of breaking the burdensome stone of Zechariah 12:3 - Jerusalem - into pieces. If Israel is truly considering submitting to this goal, things are looking up for those of us who have placed their faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Conversely, things are looking anything but good for the unbelieving world!

The prophet Daniel tells us, as recorded in Daniel 9:26-27, that a prince (or leader) of Roman descent is going to confirm (or make strong) a covenant of peace in the Middle East seven years in length in the prophetic future, potentially soon in light of recent developments. This he (the prophesied Antichrist) will do "with many." The confirmation of the covenant of peace prophesied by Daniel will mark the beginning of the prophesied seven-year Tribulation Period - a time of absolute horror upon the earth which will be preceded by the Rapture of the Church.

Ready to fly? If not, today is a good day for you to get ready! Jesus Christ is Lord and He's coming soon! ............................................benny

So Rapture late October then Benny?

God the Father knows the day and hour........We are to only know the general time......so my answer to you sister is;..........watch and be ready........................................benny

http://www.debka.com

DEBKAfile Exclusive: Syrian Civil Defense Services Placed on the Ready

October 12, 2007, 12:50 AM (GMT+02:00)


Syrian forces stay calm on the front line

Our military sources report exclusively that Thursday night, Oct. 11, Syria placed its civil defense services on a state of preparedness and mobilized their reservists.

Government and military hospitals across Syria have also been alerted.

These measures were ordered Tuesday, Oct. 9, and were in place within three days. In contrast, there is no change in the deployment of Syrian forces along the border with Israel on Golan and Mt. Hermon.

Thursday, Syrian defense minister Gen. Hassan Turkmani published a message to the armed forces calling for “readiness to withstand all aggression.”

A day earlier, the Syrian chief of staff, Gen. Ali Habib, said at an officers’ passing-out parade: “Syria is capable of beating off any conspiracies” against the country.

All these measures and this rhetoric strongly indicate the Syrian regime is convinced that either an American or Israeli assault, or attacks by both against Syria and Iran are due shortly.

Syrian president Bashar Assad articulated this fear in an interview published by the Tunisian daily Al-Shorouk Thursday. He said: I am working on the premise that the Americans will attack Iran,” explaining that this was the answer he received when he asked the Iranians how they evaluated the situation.

DEBKAfile’s sources note that the only two Iranian personalities he would have talked to would be supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Assad went on to say to the Tunisian interviewer: This means we are facing a force (the Americans) which has no respect for international laws and values, exactly as in Iraq. The United States,” he continued,” backs the enemy Israel absolutely which prevents us from perceiving the US in any other light that an enemy.”

An attack on Iran will harm the whole world but as we have seen in the Iraq War, the Americans do not enter into such calculations. “I cannot play games of anticipation,” said the Syrian ruler. “I must be ready for any US or Israeli operation against Iran or Syria.”
................................................benny

great update Benny....never thought of damascus becoming a ruinous heap and the sodom saga like that...very insightful.....

A burdensome stone effecting the whole body...Like a kidney stone...Pass it or Zap it? So the body can function again...It's coming...It's decision time for a lot of people. Backs are against the wall. Choose..

American government is corrupt..but the begining ideal wasn't corrupt. We strayed and did our own thing. Babylon isn't even good enough..they have to whore after Eygpt too...(shaking head)...

but God spares those who've turned from following their own way...
Many have awakend to the smell of coffee.
It has to be why God lets things play out. So that people are forced to see and make a choice.

Pride keeps people on the fence. Whole nations won't humble themselves because of resentment. God puts us flat on our faces...Talk about being a lowly vine. He uses the sin in our lives to force us to humble ourselves to our enemies...woe is us....But wouldn't you rather humble yourself in the face of your enemy in obedienc to God rather than experience his wrath? IT'S NOT TO LATE to be willing to be a lowly vine...

Warning To Damascus: ''The 'Burden' is On You''
Prophecy - Signs
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor

In recent weeks, there's been an explosion of intelligence information that all seems to point toward an impending war of annihilation between Israel and Syria. The accidental explosion at a Syrian base near Aleppo that Damascus attributed to hot weather detonating a stockpile of explosives was really a chemical weapons accident.


It's since been established by multiple sources that the explosion killed 'dozens' of Iranian weapons engineers and their Syrian counterparts whom they were assisting in mounting chemical warheads on Scud-C missiles.
The explosion released VX gas, sarin gas and mustard gas blistering agent throughout the area.

VX gas is one of the most dangerous chemicals ever created by man. It can be inhaled, or absorbed through the skin. It takes less than a single drop to kill a human being. VX is so adhesive that it is virtually impossible to remove from the surface that it is in contact with.

VX has extremely low votility, which means it does not evaporate or decompose. An area oversprayed with VX in a military attack stays stuck to surfaces, with the potential to kill anyone who comes near them.

VX kills by cutting off the nervous system. It binds to the enzyme that transmits signals to the nerves and inhibits them. Therefore the nerves become isolated and uncontrollable.

In the movie, "The Rock," Nicolas Cage's character describes the effect in graphic Hollywood fashion, saying, the victim "convulses until he snaps his own spine."

Sarin is a clear, colorless, and tasteless liquid that has no odor in its pure form. Sarin rapidly evaporates into a gaseous vapor that spreads rapidly into the atmosphere.

It can be inhaled, or absorbed through exposed eyes or skin. It mixes easily with water. Contaminated water will kill anyone touching or drinking it. Sarin also contaminates and poisons food.

Exposure to even tiny amounts of sarin results in loss of consciousness, convulsions, paralysis and respiratory failure. Severe exposure means certain death.

The third chemical agent being fitted to Syrian missiles is reportedly a "mustard gas blistering agent." Since mustard gas has been around since the 1st World War, it somehow doesn't sound as ominously lethal as VX or sarin.

In its pure form, mustard blistering agent is colorless, odorless, viscous liquid. In its gaseous form, it is yellow-brown in color and smells a bit like mustard plants or horseradish.

Mustard gas is ranked a Schedule 1 chemical weapon by the UN Chemical Weapons Convention, the same classification as VX and sarin. Those exposed usually suffer no immediate symptoms.

Within 4 to 24 hours the exposure develops into deep, itching or burning blisters wherever the mustard contacted the skin; the eyes (if exposed) become sore and the eyelids swollen, possibly leading to conjunctivitis and blindness.

At very high concentrations, if inhaled, it causes bleeding and blistering within the respiratory system, damaging the mucous membrane and causing pulmonary edema.

Blister agent exposure over more than 50% body surface area is usually fatal.

These are three of the weapons that Syria is preparing, with Iranian assistance, for use against the Israeli population.

It has been an open secret that Syria has been stockpiling vast quantities of chemical and biological weapons and delivery systems for at least a decade.

I recall reporting in mid-1990's that Syria's chemical and biological arsenal was already the largest in the Middle East.

(And that was before Saddam Hussein's rumored stockpiles mysteriously 'vanished' into Syria in early 2003.)

Nobody, except the Israelis, Syrians and North Koreans (and none of them are talking) know exactly what Israel destroyed in the Syrian desert on September 6. About the only thing that seems certain was that it was nuclear in nature, and that it originated in North Korea.

(As an aside, it is worth remembering that the world is much smaller now, thanks to the Caracas-Damascus-Tehran air corridor. Whatever is in Syria today could be in Caracas in 12 hours and at the US-Mexican border in a week.)

Tensions between Israel and Syria are so jumpy that recently the IAF scrambled three Israeli fighters to respond to a flock of migrating birds.

A Syrian opposition party newspaper reprinted a December, 2006 report from the Kuwait daily, Al-Siyasa, which reported that Syria was conducting "an advanced nuclear program" in Hasakah, a province in northeastern Syria.

The report quoted British sources as having identified Colonel Maher Assad, a relative of Syrian President Bashar Assad, and Rami Mahmouf as the two people "supervising" the project.

According to the report in Al-Siyasa, the Syrian nuclear program used Iraqi materials smuggled by Saddam Hussein's sons prior to the US invasion in March, 2003.

(Isn't it interesting that no mainstream media outlet picked up the Al-Siyasa story about Saddam's nukes going to Syria? The media put all its bets on Saddam's nuclear program being a myth. So they ignored it altogether.)

On September 20, weeks after the accident exposed Syria's chemical weapons program and the Israeli air strike exposed Syria's nuclear program, the International Atomic Energy Agency adopted an Egyptian-sponsored resolution declaring the Middle East a "nuclear weapons free" zone.

The resolution, which would require Israel to dismantle its existing nuclear arsenal, was pushed through by a 53-nation Arab bloc, despite abstentions from, Australia, Canada, Georgia, Ghana and Zambia. The measure passed 53 for, 2 against (US and Israel) and 47 'courageous' abstentions.

But it was the reports of the Syrian chemical weapons accident that may have ultimately sealed the fate of Damascus, despite the machinations at the UN. Once the news went public, Israeli public opinion instantly hardened.

"We will not attack them first. But if they ever use these weapons against Israel, then we must be clear — it will be the end of this evil and brutal dictatorship," Yuval Steinitz, a right-wing member of the Israeli parliament, told the Daily News yesterday.

In addition to its nuclear arsenal, (whose existence Israel will neither confirm nor deny) is Israel's arsenal of neutron bombs. In 1997, Jane's Defense News reported on an Israeli plan to retaliate against a feared chemical attack from Saddam Hussein "with a devastating neutron bomb barrage."

The neutron bomb kills by irradiating the area of detonation with untold trillions of neutrons that kill all humans and animals, but leave all buildings and vehicles intact. This bomb also releases very little radiation, so the area formerly inhabited by living people can be immediately occupied.

The Prophet Isaiah, as we've discussed, prophesied the "burden of Damascus" which predicts the utter destruction of Damascus at Israeli hands over what amounts to weak global objections. Damascus, the world's oldest continuously-inhabited city, is prophesied to become a 'ruinous heap'.

But Damascus is only 135 miles from Jerusalem. The total nuclear destruction of Damascus would threaten much of Israel with radioactive fallout, not to mention the results of the blast.

Israel has small yield nuclear artillery that would effect much destruction, but the kind of destruction that 'removes Damascus from being a city' would demand a combination of low-yield nukes and a neutron barrage.

The problem of proximity is complicated by the fact that any war with Syria will include Hezbollah forces in Lebanon, right along Israel's border, and with Hamas from Gaza and the PA from the West Bank.

Still, the Prophet Obadiah predicts the destruction of House of Esau by 'the fire' of the House of Jacob, leaving no survivors among the House of Esau. (Obadiah 18)

And the Prophet Zechariah describes the scene from the perspective of the battlefield, describing 21st century warfare using a 5th century BC vocabulary:

"And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth." (Zechariah 14:12)

We've devoted most of the past week to studying and updating the situation on the ground between Israel and Syria and its possible implications to unfolding Bible prophecy. I confess it's been a terrifying scenario to contemplate, but it is the scenario that exists, and ignoring it won't make it go away.

This may -- or it may not be -- a prelude to the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy of the destruction of Damascus. It is still possible, although unlikely, that Assad will realize his peril and suddenly stand down. And in the event war does break out, Damascus may -- or it may not -- survive.

While it is difficult to imagine, given the circumstances, that it could turn out any other way, there is no way of knowing if THIS is the fulfillment until after it happens. That isn't the point.

The issue isn't whether or not Isaiah got his prediction right, but rather one of whether or not I am reading the timeline correctly. I could be wrong on the timeline with Isaiah's accuracy remaining untouched. I'm not hedging on Isaiah -- I'm hedging on Jack. I'm not a prophet -- just a student of prophecy.

Even if Damascus manages to survive this confrontation, it is just a matter of time before Syria miscalculates and uses chemicals against Israeli targets.

And THAT is the point. More than two thousand, five hundred years before the fact, the Hebrew Prophets had already predicted this precise scenario would unfold.

They predicted who the antagonists would be, by name and region. They predicted that the target would be Israel, twenty-five centuries before there WAS an Israel.

And they predicted, from their various (and different) vantage points in geography and history, all these events would occur at the same point on the timeline, just before the coming of the Messiah-King.

Everything that they predicted that could come to pass HAS come to pass, literally, and not allegorically, from the restoration of Israel to the alignment of nations to the effects of 21st century battlefield weaponry in the field -- with 100% accuracy.

There is no reason to believe that, given such stunning accuracy so far, those prophecies remaining to be fulfilled will be fulfilled any less accurately or literally in the days ahead.

Be confident, despite the chaos and uncertainty. All is according to God's Plan, outlined for us in advance so we would KNOW the signs of the times and rejoice in them, rather than fear them, for we know what they mean.

"The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe." (Proverbs 29:25)

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

INTL - Top North Korean official to visit Syria amid nuclear fears

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

A top North Korean official is to visit Syria, the country's official media said on Saturday, amid fears the two countries are collaborating on a secret nuclear programme.
Choe Thae-Bok, chairman of the communist country's rubber-stamp Supreme People's Assembly, left on Saturday for a foreign trip which will also take him to Italy, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said.

"Chairman of the DPRK Supreme People's Assembly Choe Thae-Bok and his party left here on Saturday to visit Italy and Syria," said the one-line dispatch, monitored here.

Syria last month denied a British newspaper report that Israel seized nuclear material in a commando raid on a secret military site.

US media reports also said a mysterious Israeli air strike in Syria in September may have targeted a joint nuclear project.

Suspicions were heightened when North Korea's number two Kim Yong-Nam had "a friendly talk" with a high-ranking Syrian delegation in Pyongyang two weeks after the strike.

http://www.spacewar.com/2006/071013130555.zjk0dqcw.html
__________________
............................................benny

Isn't this where Iraq's chemical arsenal was suppose to have gone?

By Terry James



Each time the tornado siren goes off in our town during our sometimes stormy springs, I or someone else within our home will wonder aloud: “Are they just playing with that thing again?”
By that, whoever makes the statement means that it seems like every time there’s a rumble of thunder in a darkened sky during the tornado season, somebody pushes the siren button. Finally, the tornado hasn’t struck, so we lose the edgy angst of what might be going on just to our west/southwest, the direction from which most thunderstorms assault at that time of year. It’s like the little boy who cried "Wolf!" The big bad wolf hasn’t come to the door, so we settle into a more comfortable configuration, turning our thoughts and attention elsewhere.

There is an end-time storm approaching. It is almost upon this generation. We at Rapture Ready, and many others who man God’s last-time radar scope for prophetic warnings, have perhaps been pushing the siren buttons for so long now that we’ve about worn them out. But, the warnings have been warranted. The thunder is boiling, and the lightning is crashing on the horizon. But, with each warning has come the turning from the sirens of alert to things as usual. The big bad wolf hasn’t come to the door yet. No need to worry.

The European Union (EU) is forming into what looks to be the reviving Roman Empire, like Daniel predicted; Russia, with Iran (ancient Persia) and other nations north of Jerusalem are linking in ways that might bring forth the Ezekiel 38 and 39 Gog-Magog coalition. China is making noises of becoming a superpower to rival America’s superpower status, looking to very likely become the lead nation of the kings of the east forces of Revelation chapters 9 and 16.

Israel is in constant turmoil, with the nations of the world –as seen in U.N. diplomatic activity—singling out the Jewish state as the one country on earth that is most a target of vilification. Records are set constantly for the most high-magnitude earthquakes; strongest hurricanes; most terrible floods and droughts; devastating famines and horrendous pestilences. Great space feats have become humdrum, as have sightings in the night skies of Unidentified Flying Objects and space bodies that might threaten Planet Earth. Every one of the apostle Paul’s “perilous times” end-time indicators are present today just within America. Even formerly strong Christian ministries have degenerated to fit the description, “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof.”

All are exigencies that meet descriptions given to end-of-days geopolitical, geophysical, and socio-economic as well as religious signals foretold by Jesus and the prophets to be prevalent and on the increase while the time of Christ’s return draws near. Thinking on these things, we need go back no farther than September 11, 2001 to understand how the warnings have become worn out before a world of earth-dwellers who just seem to roll on as if nothing worse can possibly touch them.

Many can remember where they were and what they were doing when they first heard the news that a plane had crashed into one of the World Trade towers in lower East Manhattan. But, surprisingly –unlike the time when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963—there are some who were full-grown adults on that fateful Tuesday who can’t clearly recall precisely what they were doing when the reports of the attacks on the first tower occurred.

Whatever the reason for that terrorist attack not stamping quite the same depth of imprint upon the memory, the fact that the event held potential for even more portentous danger to America than did the Kennedy assassination was, and remains, a reality. Call it desensitization, or numbing, or something other, but the 9/11 attack and the threats that have flowed into this generation since seem to have made everyone less easily drawn to alerts of the dangers they face.

So it is with Bible prophecy –eschatology—the things of the end time.

We who believe it is our commission by the Lord to be watchmen on the wall during these times are seeing signals that our warnings about prophetic times are wearing thin with this generation. The issues and events that almost certainly are precursor convulsions of the prophetic birth pangs given by Jesus and the prophets of the Bible for the time of the tribulation are evident in all directions today. Yet each birth pang-like contraction within geopolitics, geophysics, global socio-economics, or world-wide religion brings less reaction than did the preceding contractions.

Church pews were full the Sunday following Tuesday, September 11, 2001. I, myself, was asked to speak to the situation that particular Sunday, as to what the attacks on New York, Washington, D.C., and the foiled attack that ended with the deaths of the heroes in the field in Pennsylvania might mean prophetically.

The Barna Group, an organization that examines and presents statistics of importance, reported that church attendance was exponentially up the Sunday following the 9/11 assaults. The attendees then dropped off just about as quickly as they had streamed into the churches. It was back to business as usual within several weeks –possibly with even lower attendance than prior 9/11/01.

We at Rapture Ready were inundated with media attention for several years following the attacks and the beginning of the war on terror. Our mention in Time magazine brought millions of hits to the site and requests for interviews on world conditions as they might relate to Bible prophecy. Although many interviews were to prove to be attempts to put the pre-trib view of prophecy in the category of absurdity, there was a sense of a certain kind of apprehension by those doing the interviews in many cases. They wanted to pooh-pooh the whole Armageddon thing, but, after all, these terrorists did come from the place where that prophesied war is foretold to take place…

And, modern Israel, after all, did represent the nation the Bible says will be back in the Holy Land, surrounding the city of Jerusalem, at the time Armageddon is supposed to take place…

Better not get too far afield in pooh-poohing those who study and preach on those end-of-days things, was the sense I got, while being interviewed from news teams and documentary crews from, literally, all around the world.

And, we who are the watchmen did, indeed, press the warning siren buttons –while examining, analyzing, dissecting the strange issues and events going on all around this generation, under the light of God’s prophetic Word.

A strange thing was happening, in my view. The world, and even local media, grew more and more interested in what was predicted in the Bible to happen while the end of the world grew near. All the while, the churches, the pastors, the people in the pews of fundamentalist, evangelical churches –not to mention the seminaries out of which the pastors and leaders come—grew less and less interested in Bible prophecy yet future. Instead, these turned more inward than ever, and seemed to be bent on replacing the Gospel of Jesus Christ with a gospel of entertainment and feel-good motivation sessions. And, church growth exploded into mega-churches with glitz and glamour befitting a Las Vegas hotel.

Seems the words of warning from God’s end times siren had about worn out the itching ears of what had been even the most evangelical, Bible-centered local church bodies of the not-too-distant past. The trend has not abated. We see church leaders of the mega-churches kneeling and praying with Muslim clerics. The ministers are praying not that the Islamic will come to Christ, but that their people and Christian people will come to common ground of understanding. That we will all be accepting that we are all God’s children.

And, all the while, the father of lies smiles wickedly. He sneers a hiss of approval, watching the “love fest” he is orchestrating, while he gleefully causes the luciferically-desensitized ears of his willing victims to become deaf to the warning: “The rapture is going to happen! The tribulation is approaching! Christ is coming!”

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

http://rapturealert.blogspot.com/2007/10/t...-sermon-by.html ........................benny

October 16, 2007
A Gog-Magog Rift Rising?

by Michael G. Mickey
(10-16-07)

In Bible prophecy, as recorded in Ezekiel 38 & 39, a battle is going to take place in the prophetic future most refer to as the Gog-Magog attack on Israel. The nations most believe will be participants in this future attack are as follo