Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Isaiah 17;1-latest Update
Christian-Forum.net > Current Events > Current Events
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72
benny balerio
Restraint on Syria vital


Syrian threat to Israeli civilians much greater than our leaders believe

Shmuel Gordon Published: 04.10.08, 12:03 / Israel Opinion




Israel's government ministers have repeatedly declared that Israel has no interest to attack Syria, but that if Syria strikes us it would face a bitter end. One of the ministers even warned Syrian President Bashar Assad that he could "lose everything" should he decide to launch an offensive.



The officials' statements reflect a lot of self-confidence: Israel has nothing to fear, our deterrence and might are so much greater that Syria would do best to be careful, lest it pay a very high price and could end up "losing everything."




But is this really the current sate of things? It's true, Israel is stronger than Syria and could deal a severe blow to it in the case of a military confrontation, like it did in the Yom Kippur War. But this is not the balance we should take into consideration. There is a much more significant balance influencing the Israeli interest.



This is the balance of mutual damage to the civilian population. Syria, which manufactures and purchases large amounts of missiles and long-range rockets could inflict damage to the Israeli civilian population that is two-three times greater than the damage caused by Hizbullah during the last war.



Its ability to cause damage emanates not only from the missiles' range, but mostly from the size of their warheads. Remember how eight civilians were killed in the Haifa Bay by one rocket with a 100-kilogram (220 lbs) warhead during the war? This is just a fraction of the damage that hundreds such rockets and missiles could cause.



In terms of military capacity, Israel is capable of inflicting a much graver physical damage to the civilian Syrian population. However, as a western country that adheres to the laws of war, international law and universal moral principles, we would not be able to realize our destructive ability in the heart of uninvolved civilian areas. We know this and the Syrians know this. They understand that there is a limit to our restraint, and will not push it.



Silence is golden
However, in the Second Lebanon War they have learned that our "restraint threshold" is rather high and enables quite a bit of leeway, and control over the number of missiles fired each day for a substantial period of time. This way they could claim a large number of casualties, deal a serious blow to the civilians' morale, weaken the government institutions, and undermine Israel's perceived deterrence and its international standing.



Therefore, when examining the practical damage balance, Syria has a big advantage over Israel. With such a working premise, not only do we have no interest to attack Syria or Hizbullah, but rather - Israel has a clear, objective interest to avoid action, provocation or a mistake that could ignite conflict on the northern border. This is the fundamental principle that must guide Israel's policy in the three coming years. Israel's leaders must refrain from making threats or taking confidence-shattering moves that could lead us to a war in which Syria has a clear advantage. We have a slight disadvantage, and we should bear this in mind.



Advertisement



This Syrian advantage is only temporary and will only last until we develop systems capable of intercepting missiles, rockets and perhaps even mortar shells of all ranges. These systems would lower the number of hits to a tolerable level, minimize Syria's ability to hurt Israeli civilians, and tilt the practical damage balance in Israel's favor. In the meantime, silence is golden.



Dr. Shmuel Gordon is an expert on national security and counterterrorism

...................................................benny cool.gif
Justice
Recording the word twisting of Iran, a feeble attempt to act as good guy, haha with such a name ahmadmaninjihad?
Russia be careful for the turmoil spilling over from the Chinese border may bite your tail.
benny balerio
'Site found where Iran building 6,000 km ballistic missile'
By JPOST.COM STAFF
Print Subscribe
E-mail Toolbar
Shape public opinion:


What's this?





Talkbacks for this article: 5


New satellite imagery exposed a site where Iran was developing long-range ballistic missiles, the London-based Times reported Friday.


The site where Jane's Intelligence Review analysts assess that Iran is working on long-range ballistic missiles.
Photo: Courtesy Times
On February 4, Iran launched a "research rocket" as part of its space program, the Islamic Republic announced. Experts have estimated since then, however, that the rocket launch was in fact a field test of Shihab-type ballistic missile.

But four days after the launch another intriguing feature of the test became apparent: analysis of photographs taken by the Digital Globe QuickBird satellite indicated that the launch site of Kavoshgar 1, as the Shihab missile was dubbed by the Iranians, is also the site where Iran is busy developing ballistic missiles with a range of about 6,000 km.

The site, about 230 km southeast of Teheran, was previously unknown and its link with the Iranian weapons program was revealed by Jane's Intelligence Review after the images were studied by a former Iraq weapons inspector.

Using a space program as a façade for a weapons program was the path chosen by Korea until it declared it had passed the nuclear weapon threshold.

Geoffrey Forden, a research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that there was a recently constructed building on the site, about 40 metres in length, which was similar in form and size to the Taepodong long-range missile assembly facility in North Korea.

Jane's Proliferation editor Avital Johanan said analysis of the Iranian site indicated that Teheran may be about five years away from developing a 6,000 km ballistic missile. This would tie in with American intelligence estimates and underlines why President Bush wants the Polish and Czech components of the US missile defence system to be up and running by 2013.

Missiles with a range of 6,000 km, launched from Teheran's environs, can hit not only any Middle Eastern countries, but also any target in Europe, including targets in Britain; almost any target in China and Russia,and most of India.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has announced his country has installed 6,000 centrifuges for the purpose of enriching uranium, a process which can be geared towards either a civilian or military program.

He did however continually reject incentives offered by the West in exchange for Iran halting its own enrichment, including a promise that Russia and other countries supply Iran with all the nuclear fuel it needed for peaceful purposes; Iran continues to deny it is trying to develop atomic bombs.

President Shimon Peres had posited several times in the last few months that there was "no logic" in working diligently towards producing long-range ballistic missiles unless it planned to couple such missiles with nuclear warheads.
.................................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
We're Already Fighting With Iran

April 11, 2008
www.courant.com


The language that Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker used Tuesday to describe the Iranian role in Iraq was extreme — and telling. They spoke of Tehran's "nefarious activities," its "malign influence" and how it posed "the greatest long-term threat to the viability" of the Baghdad government.

Iran was the heart of the matter during Senate testimony on the war. With al-Qaida on the run in Iraq, the Iranian threat has become the rationale for the mission, and also the explanation for our shortcomings. The Iranians are the reason we're bogged down in Iraq, and also the reason we can't pull out our troops. The mullahs in Tehran loom over the Iraq battlefield like a giant "Catch-22."

The order of battle in Iraq isn't likely to change significantly for the rest of the year. That was Petraeus' implicit message when he was asked about additional troop withdrawals after July, when U.S. forces are to return to their pre-surge levels. He spoke about a 45-day period of "consolidation and evaluation," followed by an open-ended period of "assessment."

The translation was that he wants to keep the most robust possible force there to prevent security from deteriorating on his watch. That's understandable for a commander, but it means the question of future troop strength will land squarely on the shoulders of the next president.

And inescapably, the issue of containing Iran will fall to the next American president, too. Can a new administration draw the adversary that Petraeus and Crocker described into a new security architecture for the region? Can America reduce its forces in Iraq without creating a dangerous vacuum?

U.S. officials, even the most sophisticated ones such as Petraeus and Crocker, sometimes speak as if Iranian mischief in Iraq is a recent development. But it has a long history.

Iran's covert campaign to reshape Iraq has been clear since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Iranian intelligence officers prepared lists of Iraqis for assassination in the weeks and months after the war; they sent Iranian-trained mullahs to take over the Shiite mosques of central and southern Iraq that had been smashed by Saddam Hussein; they pumped an estimated $12 million a week in covert financial support into their allies as the January 2005 election approached; they infiltrated all the major Shiite political parties, and many of the Sunni ones, too.

Fighting a war against Iran is a bad idea. But fighting a proxy war against it in Iraq, where many of our key allies are manipulated by Iranian networks of influence, may be even worse. The best argument for keeping American troops in Iraq is that it increases our leverage against Iran; but paradoxically, that's also a good argument for reducing U.S. troops to a level that's politically and militarily sustainable. It could give America greater freedom of maneuver in the tests with Iran that are ahead.

Somehow, the next president will have to fuse U.S. military and diplomatic power to both engage Iran and set limits on its activities. A U.S.-Iranian dialogue is necessary for stability in the Middle East. But the wrong deal, negotiated by a weak America with a cocky Iran that thinks it's on a roll, would be a disaster.

Petraeus and Crocker were taking the hard questions Tuesday, but soon enough it will be one of the presidential candidates who were dispensing sound bites Tuesday: John McCain, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
...................................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
Iran will wipe out 'corrupt world leadership'

Friday 11th April 2008
www.gulf-daily-news.com


TEHRAN: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad yesterday set Iran the target of wiping out the "corrupt world leadership," in his latest verbal attack on Western powers locked in a nuclear crisis with Tehran.

"The Iranian nation will not give up until the corrupt leadership in the world has been obliterated," Ahmadinejad said in Mashhad, northeast Iran, quoted by the Fars news agency.

"Our foes should know that threats, sanctions, and political and economic pressures can not force our nation to back down," he added.

Ahmadinejad outlined two goals for the Islamic republic and its people.

Washington is sceptical that Iran is installing 6,000 new centrifuges to enrich uranium and testing an advanced centrifuge with greater capacity, a top US diplomat said yesterday.

Gregory Schulte, US ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN's nuclear watchdog, told they should take "with a grain of salt" comments by Ahmadinejad.

Centrifuges are used to enrich uranium, which can be used as fuel in power plants or, if highly refined, for nuclear weapons.

The West fears Iran's objective is to make a bomb. Tehran says its programme is for peaceful uses only.

"Ahmadinejad has a record of making bold political announcements not necessarily supported by technical facts," Schulte said, calling the speech more of a "political stunt".

"Iran has not yet mastered the capability to enrich uranium although they are obviously working very hard to do this," he told.

"We have two missions, to build Islamic Iran and to exert an effort to change the leadership in the world. We have to carry out both (missions) as well as we can," he said.

"The resolutions which are adopted against Iran are ... scraps of papers. The Iranians are a peace-loving people of dialogue in fair circumstances, but they will not discuss their rights," he said.

Ahmadinejad vowed Iran would not halt its nuclear drive in the face of pressure from the West.

The United States warned Iran it risked further isolation and new international sanctions after refusing to comply with UN Security Council resolutions over its disputed nuclear programme.

Ahmadinejad announced Iran has started the installation of 6,000 new centrifuges to enrich uranium at its main nuclear plant in Natanz, prompting expressions of anger and concern from Western countries.

...................................................benny cool.gif
Stephen
Ahmadinejad speaks very much like the Bible's rendition of Daniel's little horn and Revelation's beast at the time of the end. There are many parallels to his ambitions. This is an interesting thing to watch and ponder. Is he the little horn? No one can know this at this time in my opinion. But I would recommend a close watch on the things that are taking place as of current in the Middle East. I would recommend studying Daniel 7,8,9, 11:36-45, 12:7. This character [the little horn] turns into the first beast of Revelation and is the same. The little horn's actions during his rise to prominence are documented in these verses. He is the king of the north in the Middle East.
Rose
Amen, Stephen. I think you're right on here. Something to watch... hm...
benny balerio
Apr 11, 2008 23:35 | Updated Apr 11, 2008 23:40
US: Iranian boats approached US ship
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Print Subscribe
E-mail Toolbar
Shape public opinion:


What's this?





Talkbacks for this article: 0


A US Navy ship encountered a small Iranian high-speed boat in the central Persian Gulf and warned it away by firing a flare, the Pentagon said Friday.


The Persian Gulf
Photo: Courtesy
Two other similar Iranian boats in the area did not approach as closely.

The USS Typhoon tried unsuccessfully to establish radio contact with the Iranian boat after it came within an estimated 180 meters of the Typhoon on Thursday, outside Iranian territorial waters. A Navy official said Friday the ship then fired the flare and continued on its way without incident.

The official said there were no signs any of the Iranian boats was armed.

RELATED
US launches formal protest on Iranian boats incident

Iranian English-language Press TV quoted an unnamed official with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard as denying "any new confrontation" in the Persian Gulf.

"The Iranian boats approached the US warship in the Persian Gulf for a routine check," the official was quoted as saying on Press TV.

Meanwhile, Iran's Arabic-language Al-Alam TV cited on its Web site an unnamed senior Iranian Navy official as saying that "no accident took place between the Iranian boats and the US ship, but there was a recognition of the US forces' presence in the Persian Gulf."

This passed in a "normal way ... and according to protocol, and then the boats left the scene with no accident whatsoever," the Iranian Navy official said.

This marked at least the second US Navy encounter with an aggressive Iranian high-speed boat this year. In January, Iranian boats made what the Navy called provocative moves near a US ship in the Strait of Hormuz.
...........................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
Apr 11, 2008 20:42 | Updated Apr 11, 2008 21:05
Iran complains to UN chief about Ben-Eliezer's remarks
By JPOST.COM STAFF
Print Subscribe
E-mail Toolbar
Shape public opinion:


What's this?





Talkbacks for this article: 40


Iran has lodged a complaint with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon over National Infrastructure Minister Binyamin (Fuad) Ben-Eliezer's remarks this week that Israel would destroy Iran if it were attacked first.


UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon meets Defense Minister Ehud Barak at the UN headquarters.
Photo: AP
"An Iranian attack will prompt a severe reaction from Israel, which will destroy the Iranian nation," Ben-Eliezer said on April 8, as the nation conducted the largest home front security drill in its history.

Teheran, the minister added, "is definitely aware of our strength. Even so, they are teasing us with their alliances with Syria and Hizbullah, and supplying them with many weapons, and we have to deal with that."

In a letter to Ban, Iran's UN envoy, Muhammad Khazei wrote that "The Israel regime continues making impudent threats against Iran... [Ben-Eliezer], in his April 7 remarks, which blatantly violated international law and the UN Charter, threatened the Iranian nation with destruction."

RELATED
Column One: Ahmadinejad's smile
'Iran training Hizbullah fighters for next conflict with Israel'

These "shameless remarks," Khazei's letter continued, followed earlier claims by other Israeli officials and constituted a serious breach of the United Nations Charter. The charter forbids the use of force by a country against another nation, Khazei pointed out.

The Iranian envoy urged the Security Council to respond to Ben-Eliezer's remarks and keep Israel from "threatening" another state in the future.


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Photo: AP
If the UN failed to do so, Khazaei warned in his letter, Israel would be "emboldened" to "continue its dangerous policies and remarks."
.................................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
Bush warns Iran over 'meddling'

Friday 11th April 2008
www.gulf-daily-news.com


WASHINGTON: US President George W Bush issued a stark warning to Iran to stop interfering in Iraq yesterday and characterised Iran and Al Qaeda as "two of the greatest threats to America."

In a speech at the White House, Bush, who has accused Iran of backing militant groups in southern Iraq and providing explosives to extremists in the country, said Tehran had a choice in its relations with Iraq.

"It can live in peace with its neighbour, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties, or it can continue to arm, train and fund illegal militant groups which are terrorising the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran," Bush said.

"If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests and our troops and our Iraqi partners," he added.

Two US air strikes in Baghdad's embattled Sadr City district killed 10 people as fighting flared for a fifth straight day between Shi'ite militiamen and security forces hunting mortar and rocket teams.

A US soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in central Baghdad, military said.

Violence in other parts of Baghdad and across the country killed another eight people, among them a policeman and a soldier.

An air strike in the heart of Sadr City on a building crammed with oxygen cylinders - which can be used to make roadside bombs - killed two people and wounded four, the officials said.

A joint US-Iraqi force arrested 15 men during search and raid operation in the town of Numaniya, 120km south of Baghdad, and raided a Sadr office in the town, seizing a number of light weapons.

A roadside bomb targeted a police patrol, killing one civilian and wounding four, including two policemen in central Baghdad.

l Iraqi troops have discovered more than 30 bodies in a mass grave at a house in Mahmudiyah, south of Baghdad, military said.

.................................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
Strong measure needed against a nuclear Iran

By Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post Writers Group
Published on: 04/11/08
www.ajc.com


On Tuesday, Iran announced it was installing 6,000 more centrifuges —- they produce enriched uranium, the key ingredient of a nuclear weapon —- in addition to the 3,000 already operating. The world yawned.

It is time to admit the truth: The Bush administration's attempt to halt Iran's nuclear program has failed. Utterly. The latest round of U.N. Security Council sanctions, which took a year to achieve, is comically weak. It represents the end of the sanctions road.

The president is going to hand over to his successor an Iran on the verge of going nuclear. This will deeply destabilize the Middle East, threaten the moderate Arabs with Iranian hegemony and leave Israel on hair-trigger alert.

This failure can, however, be mitigated. Since there will apparently be no disarming of Iran by pre-emption or by sanctions, we shall have to rely on deterrence to prevent the mullahs, some of whom are apocalyptic and messianic, from using nuclear weapons.

During the Cold War, we prevented an attack not only on the U.S. but also on America's allies by extending the American nuclear umbrella, i.e., declaring that any attack on our allies would be considered an attack on the United States.

Such a threat is never 100 percent credible. Nonetheless, it made the Soviets think twice about attacking our European allies. It kept the peace.

We should do the same to keep nuclear peace in the Middle East. How to create deterrence? The way John Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis. President Bush should issue the following declaration, adopting Kennedy's language while changing the names of the miscreants:

It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran.

This should be followed with a simple explanation: "As a beacon of tolerance and as leader of the free world, the United States will not permit a second Holocaust to be perpetrated upon the Jewish people."

This policy —- the Holocaust Declaration —- would establish a firm benchmark that would outlive this administration. Every future president —- and every serious presidential candidate —- would have to publicly state whether or not he supports the Holocaust Declaration.

It is an important question to ask, because it will not be uncontroversial. It will be argued that the Holocaust Declaration is either redundant or, at the other extreme, provocative.

Redundant, it will be said, because Israel could retaliate on its own. The problem is that Israel is a very small country with a small nuclear arsenal that could be destroyed in a first strike.

Would such a declaration be provocative? On the contrary. Deterrence is the least provocative of all policies. It is, of course, hardly certain that deterrence would work on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other jihadists. But deterrence would encourage rational Iranian actors, of whom there are many, to restrain or even depose leaders like Ahmadinejad who might sacrifice Iran's existence as a nation in order to vindicate their divine obligation to exterminate the "filthy bacteria" of the Jewish state.

For those who believe that America stands for something in the world —- that the nation that has liberated more peoples than any other has even the most minimal moral vocation —- there can be no more pressing cause than preventing the nuclear annihilation of an allied democracy, the last refuge and hope of an ancient people openly threatened with the final Final Solution.

...........................................benny cool.gif

Fri, Apr. 11, 2008

As Iraq war boils, Iran threat simmers

U.S. concerns are increasing

By WARREN P. STROBEL - McClatchy Newspapers
http://www.thestate.com/nation/story/372267.html


WASHINGTON — The hours of congressional testimony, the speeches and the press conferences this week were all, nominally, about Iraq.

But another, equally explosive question — what to do about Iran — loomed over the presentations by Army Gen. David Petraeus, the American military commander in Iraq, over U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker and over U.S. strategy for the Middle East.

Petraeus and Crocker, arguing that there’s been progress in stabilizing Iraq since President Bush ordered a troop buildup there last year, fingered Iran’s support for Shiite militias in Iraq, which they called “special groups,” as the No. 1 threat to Iraq’s security.

“Unchecked, the special groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq,” Petraeus told the House Armed Services Committee.

Iran also announced this week that it has begun installing 6,000 high-speed centrifuges to enrich uranium that could be used for nuclear weapons. While U.S. officials cast doubt on the claim by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the announcement underlined Tehran’s refusal to abide by U.N. Security Council demands that it suspend uranium enrichment.

Concerns also have been growing over the unpredictable consequences of a possible attack on Israel by the Iranian- and Syrian-backed Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah. The militant Shiite Muslim group blames the Israelis for a car bombing in Syria that killed one of the group’s longtime leaders.

The Bush administration has been divided over Iran policy almost since the day the president took office and according to a variety of officials, it remains so today.

One faction, led by Vice President Dick Cheney and including a sprinkling of officials at the Pentagon, State Department and elsewhere, has argued that before President Bush leaves office in January, the administration should use military force to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and punish Iran for supporting international terrorism and thwarting U.S. aims in Iraq.

Even supporters of that approach, however, acknowledge that their case was badly, perhaps even fatally, undercut by a National Intelligence Estimate last November that found that Iran, while still enriching uranium, had stopped work on nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.

A second faction, led by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and much of the uniformed military and the intelligence community, opposes military strikes in favor of continued sanctions, diplomatic pressure and talks with Iran under certain conditions.

This faction appears, for now, to retain the upper hand.

Iranian and U.S. representatives are expected in the coming weeks to hold a new round of security talks in Baghdad, the first since last summer, a State Department official said Thursday.

.................................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
Iran operating hundreds of new centrifuges in Natanz


Iranian News Agency reports nearly 500 new uranium-enriching centrifuges made operational in central nuclear plant of Natanz, on top of 3,000 existing ones

Dudi Cohen, AFP Published: 04.11.08, 18:59 / Israel News





Iran is operating 492 new uranium-enriching centrifuges at its main nuclear plant in Natanz, the state-run IRNA news agency reported Friday, quoting an informed source.



"Three cascades of 164 centrifuges from the second series of 3,000 centrifuges are operational in Natanz," the source, who was not named, told the agency.



Intelligence

Report: Secret Iranian missile development site revealed / Ynet

The Times reports new satellite photographs show secret site where Iran is suspected of developing long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching targets in Europe; expert says recent launching of Kavoshgar missile from site did not demonstrate any significant advances in Islamic Republic's ballistic missile technology
Full story



According to the UN nuclear watchdog, Iran has already installed around 3,000 of the centrifuges at the uranium enrichment plant in central Iran.



Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced Tuesday that Iran was working to install 6,000 more centrifuges at the plant in defiance of UN Security Council resolutions which have called on Tehran to freeze enrichment.



The 492 new centrifuges appear to be part of this new installation. This is the first time Iran has announced how many of the envisaged 6,000 centrifuges it has operational.



Earlier Friday, Muhammad Saidi, deputy head of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization rejected claims suggesting his country has encountered difficulties in its nuclear program, saying "we have no technical problems in adding new centrifuges… we are determined to increase their quantity and quality."



Saidi went on to tell IRNA that no deadline has been put on the Iranian nuclear program, mainly because nuclear technology around the world is developing on a daily basis.



The West is following Iran's nuclear effort with a measure of concern, fearing it may be secretly enriching uranium for military use – high-grade uranium can be used in atom bombs.



Tehran has continuously rejected these claims, saying its nuclear program is for peace purposes only – namely alternative energy and scientific research.



Iran has filed official reports with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), saying it is in possession of low-grade uranium only, needed to maintain operational reactors.



Advertisement



Thursday saw the Iranian news agency Fars quote Ahmadinejad as saying "our enemies should know that threats, sanctions and political and economical pressures are futile and will not make us back down." He continuously referred to the UN resolutions on Iran as "pieces of paper".



...................................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=61277



Petraeus points to war with Iran

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 10, 2008
8:27 pm Eastern

© 2008



Ever since President Nouri al-Maliki ordered the attacks in Basra on the Mahdi Army, Gen. David Petraeus has been laying the predicate for U.S. air strikes on Iran and a wider war in the Middle East.

Iran, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee, has "fueled the recent violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support of the special groups."

These "special groups" are "funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government (the Green Zone) ... causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital."

Is the Iranian government aware of this – and behind it?

"President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders" promised to end their "support for the special groups," said the general, but the "nefarious activities of the Quds force have continued."

(Column continues below)




Are Iranians then murdering Americans, asked Joe Lieberman:

"Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?"

"It certainly is. ... That is correct," said Petraeus.

The following day, Petraeus told the House Armed Services Committee, "Unchecked, the 'special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq."

Translation: The United States is now fighting the proxies of Iran for the future of Iraq.

The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand, for consider the question it logically raises: If the Quds Force and Hezbollah, both designated as terrorist organizations, are arming, training and directing "special groups" to "murder" Americans, and rocket and mortar the Green Zone to kill our diplomats, and they now represent the No. 1 threat to a free Iraq, why has Bush failed to neutralize these base camps of terror and aggression?

Hence, be not surprised if President Bush appears before the TV cameras, one day soon, to declare:

"My commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has told me that Iran, with the knowledge of President Ahmadinejad, has become a privileged sanctuary for two terrorist organizations – Hezbollah and the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – to train, arm and direct terrorist attacks on U.S. and coalition forces, despite repeated promises to halt this murderous practice.

"I have therefore directed U.S. air and naval forces to begin air strikes on these base camps of terror. Our attacks will continue until the Iranian attacks cease."

Because of the failures of a Democratic Congress elected to end the war, Bush can now make a compelling case that he would be acting fully within his authority as commander in chief.

In early 2007, Nancy Pelosi pulled down a resolution that would have denied Bush the authority to attack Iran without congressional approval. In September, both Houses passed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Courtesy of Congress, Bush thus has a blank check for war on Iran. And the signs are growing that he intends to fill it in and cash it.

Israel has been hurling invective at Iran and conducting security drills to prepare its population for rocket barrages worse than those Hezbollah delivered in the Lebanon War.

Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, the Central Command head who opposed war with Iran, has been removed. Hamas and Hezbollah have been stocking up on Qassam and Katyusha rockets.

Vice President Cheney has lately toured Arab capitals.

And President Ahmadinejad just made international headlines by declaring that Tehran will begin installing 6,000 advanced centrifuges to accelerate Iran's enrichment of uranium.

This is Bush's last chance to strike and, when Iran responds, to effect its nuclear castration. Are Bush and Cheney likely to pass up this last chance to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and effect the election of John McCain? For any attack on Iran's "terrorist bases" would rally the GOP and drive a wedge between Obama and Hillary.

Indeed, Sen. Clinton, who voted to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, could hardly denounce Bush for ordering air strikes on the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, when Petraeus testified, in her presence, that it is behind the serial murder of U.S. soldiers.

The Iranians may sense what is afoot. For Tehran helped broker the truce in the Maliki-Sadr clash in Basra, and has called for a halt to the mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone.

With a friendly regime in Baghdad that rolled out the red carpet for Ahmadinejad, Iran has nothing to gain by war. Already, it is the big winner from the U.S. wars that took down Tehran's Taliban enemies, decimated its al-Qaida enemies and destroyed its Sunni enemies, Saddam and his Baath Party.

No, it is not Iran that wants a war with the United States. It is the United States that has reasons to want a short, sharp war with Iran.
................................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
Israeli ex-general sharply criticizes official “defensive” policy as recipe for war
April 11, 2008, 8:54 PM (GMT+02:00)


Static tank warfare is ineffectual
Former OC Central Command and ex-defense ministry Dir.-Gen Ret. Gen. Shraga Biran said Friday, April 11, that Israel’s security problems will not be solved through defensive operations. In an unusually outspoken diatribe against current government policy by an apolitical military strategist, Biran warned that this defensive posture would lead inexorably to war, while strengthening Israel’s antagonists, Syria, Hizballah and Hamas.

He faulted the West as a whole for closing its eyes to Iran’s rising strength and nuclear aspirations.

DEBKAfile’s military sources hold up Israel’s military action in Gaza Friday to illustrate the point made by Gen. Biran.

Following the murder on April 9 of two Israeli civilians at the fuel terminal supplying Gaza, Israel’s Givati Brigades, tank and engineering units, supported by combat helicopters advanced to between one and 1.5 km deep into the Gaza Strip and stopped short outside the El Bureij camp. All day, they engaged fire with armed Palestinians who used rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine gun and mortars. The troops kept on dodging the fire without advancing.

Israeli helicopters hit Palestinian firing positions, killing six gunmen and a child. In the afternoon the IDF spokesman accused the Palestinians of fighting from inside populated areas.

Two things happened in this engagement, according to DEBKAfile’s military analysts:

1. Palestinian forces had another chance to hone their combat skills by watching Israeli tank movements and learning how to defend themselves, before going on the offensive.

2. The Palestinian population practiced ways of supporting their gunmen.

It is a well-known convention that Hamas draws its forward front lines in and around Gaza’s urban centers, such as Gaza City and Al Bureij and uses the population as human shields.

The operation was mounted to exact a penalty from the Palestinian terrorists two days after their unprovoked incursion into the fuel facility and two murders. Instead of showing their deterrent mettle, Israeli combat forces had to make do with fighting from a distance and presenting Hamas with a demonstration of ineffectiveness. The presence of an Israeli force outside al Bureij did not deter the Palestinians from continuing to shell Nahal Oz, launching a missile at Erez and shooting at ID border patrols. Snipers again aimed at an Israel farm tractor working in the fields of Nir Oz, two days after the IDF embarked on an earlier operation to put a stop to the harassment of Israeli farmers from Gaza.

All in all, because of the excessive caution of chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi and his superiors, Israel has not only failed to halt missile attacks from Gaza but even mortar shelling and light automatic rifle by lone snipers.

...........................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
Iran nuke threat grows

Time to try Cold War deterrence on mullahs

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 11, 2008
www.bostonherald.com


WASHINGTON - On Tuesday, Iran announced it was installing 6,000 more centrifuges - they produce enriched uranium, the key ingredient of a nuclear weapon - in addition to the 3,000 already operating. The world yawned.

It is time to admit the truth: The Bush administration’s attempt to halt Iran’s nuclear program has failed. Utterly. The latest round of U.N. Security Council sanctions, which took a year to achieve, is comically weak. It represents the end of the sanctions road.

The president is going to hand over to his successor an Iran on the verge of going nuclear. This will deeply destabilize the Middle East, threaten the moderate Arabs with Iranian hegemony and leave Israel on hair-trigger alert.

This failure can, however, be mitigated. Since there will apparently be no disarming of Iran by pre-emption or by sanctions, we shall have to rely on deterrence to prevent the mullahs, some of whom are apocalyptic and messianic, from using nuclear weapons.

During the Cold War, we prevented an attack not only on the U.S. but also on America’s allies by extending the American nuclear umbrella - i.e., declaring that any attack on our allies would be considered an attack on the United States.

Such a threat is never 100 percent credible. Nonetheless, it made the Soviets think twice about attacking Europe. It kept the peace.

We should do the same to keep nuclear peace in the Middle East. It would be infinitely less dangerous (and therefore more credible) than Cold War deterrence because there will be no threat from Iran of the annihilation of the United States. Iran, unlike the Soviet Union, would have a relatively tiny arsenal incapable of reaching the U.S.

How to create deterrence? The way John Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis. President Bush should issue the following declaration, adopting Kennedy’s language while changing the names of the miscreants:

It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran.

This should be followed with a simple explanation: “As a beacon of tolerance and as leader of the free world, the United States will not permit a second Holocaust to be perpetrated upon the Jewish people.”

This policy - the Holocaust Declaration - would establish a firm benchmark that would outlive this administration. Every future president - and every serious presidential candidate - would have to publicly state whether he or she supports the Holocaust Declaration.

It is an important question to ask because it will not be uncontroversial. It will be argued that the Holocaust Declaration is either redundant or, at the other extreme, provocative.

Redundant, it will be said, because Israel could retaliate on its own. The problem is that Israel is a very small country with a small nuclear arsenal that could be destroyed in a first strike. During the Cold War, both the U.S. and the USSR created vast and invulnerable submarine fleets to ensure a retaliatory strike and, thus, deterrence. The invulnerability and unimaginably massive size of this American nuclear arsenal would make a U.S. deterrent far more potent and reliable than any Israeli facsimile - and thus far more likely to keep the peace.

Would such a declaration be provocative? On the contrary. Deterrence is the least provocative of all policies. That is why it is the favored alternative of those who oppose a pre-emptive attack on Iran. What the Holocaust Declaration does is turn deterrence from a slogan into a policy.

It is, of course, hardly certain that deterrence would work on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other jihadists. But deterrence would encourage rational Iranian actors, of whom there are many, to restrain or even depose leaders like Ahmadinejad who might sacrifice Iran’s existence as a nation in order to vindicate their divine obligation to exterminate the “filthy bacteria” of the Jewish state, “this disgraceful stain (on) the Islamic world.”

For the first time since the time of Jesus, Israel is the home of the world’s largest Jewish community. An implacable enemy has openly declared genocidal intentions against it - in clear violation of the U.N. charter - and is pursuing the means to carry out that intent. The world does nothing. Some, like the Russians, are literally providing fuel for the fire.

...............................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
April 11, 2008

Spy photos reveal 'secret launch site' for Iran's long-range missiles

A close examination of the photographs has indicated that the Iranians are following the same path as North Korea

Michael Evans
www.timeonline.co.uk


The secret site where Iran is suspected of developing long-range ballistic missiles capable of reaching targets in Europe has been uncovered by new satellite photographs.

The imagery has pinpointed the facility from where the Iranians launched their Kavoshgar 1 “research rocket” on February 4, claiming that it was in connection with their space programme.

Analysis of the photographs taken by the Digital Globe QuickBird satellite four days after the launch has revealed a number of intriguing features that indicate to experts that it is the same site where Iran is focusing its efforts on developing a ballistic missile with a range of about 6,000km (4,000 miles).

A previously unknown missile location, the site, about 230km southeast of Tehran, and the link with Iran's long-range programme, was revealed by Jane's Intelligence Review after a study of the imagery by a former Iraq weapons inspector. A close examination of the photographs has indicated that the Iranians are following the same path as North Korea, pursuing a space programme that enables Tehran to acquire expertise in long-range missile technology.


Geoffrey Forden, a research associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said that there was a recently constructed building on the site, about 40 metres in length, which was similar in form and size to the Taepodong long-range missile assembly facility in North Korea.

Avital Johanan, the editor of Jane's Proliferation, said that the analysis of the Iranian site indicated that Tehran may be about five years away from developing a 6,000km ballistic missile. This would tie in with American intelligence estimates and underlines why President Bush wants the Polish and Czech components of the US missile defence system to be up and running by 2013.

The Czech Republic has now agreed to have a special radar system on its soil and the Polish Government is still negotiating with Washington over the American request to site ten interceptor missiles in Poland.

The Kavoshgar 1 rocket that was launched in the presence of President Ahmadinejad of Iran was based on the Shahab 3B missile, a version of the North Korean Nodong liquid-propellant missile.

Dr Forden said that the Kavoshgar launch did not demonstrate any significant advances in ballistic missile technology. “But it does reveal the likely future development of Iran's missile programme,” he said.

At a meeting on February 25 between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Iranians, UN inspectors confronted them with evidence of design studies for mounting nuclear warheads on long-range missiles. The Iranians denied any such aspirations.

However, according to Jane's Intelligence Review, the satellite photographs prove that the Kavoshgar 1 rocket was not part of a civilian space centre project but was consistent with Iran's clandestine programme to develop longer-range missiles.

The examination of the launch site revealed that it was part of a large and growing complex “with very high levels of security and recent construction activity”. It was clearly “an important strategic facility”, Dr Forden said.

The former Iraq weapons inspector said that Iran was benefiting from the North Korean missile programme and following its designs. The Taepodong 1 consisted of a liquid-propellant Nodong (like the Shahab 3) first stage, a liquid-propellant Scud second stage and a solid-propellant third stage.

“The production and testing facility next to the Kavoshgar 1 launch site would seem well positioned to contribute to this third stage,” Dr Forden said.
..............................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
Israeli think tank: Hamas has 20,000 armed men in Gaza Strip

By Haaretz Service and The Associated Press

Tags: Hamas, Iran, Israel, Gaza

An Israeli think tank said in a study it released on Thursday that Hamas' military buildup is at its peak, despite the international blockade on the Gaza Strip.

In an estimate of the current strength of the militant group's forces, the think tank said Hamas had organized 20,000 armed forces and acquired long-range rockets and advanced anti-tank weapons.

The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center also said that Israel's 2005 pullout from Gaza enabled the militant Palestinian group to boost its power in the coastal strip, over which it gained control in a violent takeover in June 2006.
Advertisement

"The Israeli disengagement from the Gaza Strip in August 2005 created a new situation which accelerated the establishment of an area fully controlled by Hamas. It was quick to use its increased military power to make political capital in internal Palestinian affairs," the study states.

Iran and Syria supply Hamas with weapons, technical knowhow and training, the study also stated.

Futhermore, the study said the Islamic group has smuggled 80 tons of explosives into the Gaza Strip since it seized the territory last year.

Referring to Hezbollah, the study described the Lebanese guerilla group's "success in providing an asymmetric response to the Israel Defense Forces' might" during the Second Lebanon War as having made it a role model for Hamas.

The center has close links to Israel's defense establishment and based its report on data supplied in part by the Shin Bet security service.


.................................................benny cool.gif

NKorea to quietly acknowledge US nuke charges

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

North Korea has agreed with the United States to resolve a months-old standoff through a face-saving private acknowledgement of US allegations over its nuclear programmes, a report said Friday.
Pyongyang missed a deadline in a six-nation disarmament deal to declare all nuclear programmes by the end of last year. But the chief US and North Korean negotiators reported progress at a meeting Tuesday in Singapore.

Japan's Kyodo News, quoting unnamed diplomatic sources, said the two sides struck a tentative deal under which North Korea would privately acknowledge two US allegations -- that it has a secret uranium programme and shared nuclear technology with Syria.

North Korea would submit a document to the other nations in the six-way talks that it "acknowledges" and takes "seriously" the two US assertions, which have been key sticking points, Kyodo News said.

But the document would not be made public, avoiding embarrassment for the communist state, which has steadfastly denied that it has proliferated or secretly enriched uranium.

North Korea has an acknowlegded plutonium programme, which it used to detonate an atom bomb in October 2006.

US President George W. Bush's administration is seen as considering the North Korea disarmament deal a key diplomatic success in its final months in office.

Kyodo News said the agreement reached in Singapore was a first step in jump-starting the dormant six-nation talks, but quoted an unnamed Asian diplomat stressing it was "not a final deal."

"While there is movement in the process compared to the time when it was completely stalled, we have yet to reach a point where we can say when we could hold the next six-party talks," the diplomat was quoted as saying.

Kyodo News also said the United States had reiterated to North Korea it would remove it from the list of state sponsors of terrorism if the process moves forward.

A delisting would allow the impoverished state to seek multinational loans. But the move is steadfastly opposed by Japan, which has tense relations with Pyongyang due in part to the regime's past kidnappings of Japanese civilians.

The six-nation talks involve the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States.

http://www.spacewar.com/2006/080411131607.lq8cqwcy.html
__________________
........................................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
Iran boasts hundreds of new centrifuges: report by Hiedeh Farmani
Fri Apr 11, 1:18 PM ET



TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran has started operating hundreds of new uranium-enriching centrifuges at its main nuclear plant, the official IRNA news agency said on Friday, confirming Tehran is expanding its contested atomic drive.

ADVERTISEMENT



Iran is now operating 492 new centrifuges at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant, the agency quoted an informed source as saying, in defiance of UN calls to freeze the process which the West fears could be used to make the bomb.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced on Tuesday that Iran was working to install 6,000 more centrifuges at an underground hall in the plant but gave not figures on how many of the new centrifuges were operational.

The IRNA report was the first time an official source has given numbers to go with the progress.

According to the UN nuclear watchdog, Iran has already installed around 3,000 of the centrifuges at the uranium enrichment plant in central Iran and the 492 new machines are part of a second series of installations.

"Three cascades of 164 centrifuges from the second series of 3,000 centrifuges are operational in Natanz," the source, who was not named, told the agency.

The source added that the new centrifuges were of the original P1 type and not the faster models that Iran has been testing at an above-ground research facility at the plant.

This new generation of machines are Iran's version of the more efficient P2 centrifuges -- the IR-2 -- which officials say can enrich uranium with five times the output capacity of the standard P1s.

Ahmadinejad's announcement on Tuesday came as Iran marked its "national day of nuclear technology" on the second anniversary of its first production of uranium sufficiently enriched to make atomic fuel.

It provoked an angry international reaction with Western countries warning Tehran faces further sanctions if it continues to expand its nuclear drive.

The West fears Iran could use enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon, and Tehran's refusal to suspend the process has been punished with three sets of UN Security Council sanctions and US pressure on its banking system.

But Iran insists that its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful and solely aimed at generating energy for a growing population whose supply of fossil fuels will eventually run out.

Some diplomats have said that Iran has experienced difficulties in utilising its existing centrifuges to full capacity.

But the deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organisation, Mohammad Saeedi, told IRNA on Friday that "there are no technical problems regarding the development of centrifuges."

Despite the international alarm about the expansion of Iran's nuclear drive, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has expressed scepticism about the latest nuclear announcements from Tehran.

"I can't substantiate the claims. There are always multiple claims coming out of Iran about progress on this, progress on that. I don't think the underlying situation has changed," Rice said on Tuesday.

..............................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
Russia army vows steps if Georgia and Ukraine join NATO
Written by MikeS

Gog and Magog
Oleg Shchedrov
REUTERS
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia will take military and other steps along its borders if ex-Soviet Ukraine and Georgia join NATO, Russian news agencies quoted the armed forces' chief of staff as saying on Friday.

"Russia will take steps aimed at ensuring its interests along its borders," the agencies quoted General Yuri Baluyevsky as saying. "These will not only be military steps, but also steps of a different nature," he said, without giving details.




Russia is opposed to NATO plans to grant membership to ex-Soviet Ukraine and Georgia, saying such a move would pose a direct threat to its security and endanger the fragile balance of forces in Europe.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier this week that Moscow will do everything it can to prevent the two countries, run by pro-Western governments, from becoming NATO members.

Maka Gigauri, a spokeswoman for Georgia's foreign ministry, said Baluyevsky's words were "a demonstration of open aggression against Georgia."

"This is why we, Ukraine and Georgia, want to become NATO members. Such attempts by Russia to prevent Georgia and Ukraine from becoming NATO members will prompt an appropriate reaction from the leaders of NATO member states."

Ukrainian officials were not immediately available for comment.

President Vladimir Putin has said that if NATO military installations ever appear in Ukraine, Moscow would have to target its missiles at the country.

At a summit in Bucharest this month, NATO members turned down requests from Georgia and Ukraine to be granted a Membership Action Plan, which would have set them on the road to membership.

But under pressure from Washington, one of the strongest advocates of enlargement in the alliance, NATO gave a commitment that the two countries would be allowed to join eventually.

Asked to respond to the Russian general's comments, a NATO spokeswoman in Brussels said any European democracy could apply for membership of the alliance. "This is nothing new and no third country or party has a right to veto," she said.

"In Bucharest, NATO heads of state and government decided Georgia and Ukraine would not be granted Membership Action Plans at this stage, but membership of those two countries is not a matter of if but when."

Russian news agencies quoted Baluyevsky as telling reporters that it was premature to talk about Georgia and Ukraine joining NATO any time soon. "This is not the end of the day," he said. "We will live and see."






"Son of man, set your face against Gog, the land of Magog, the chief ruler of Rosh, Meshech, and Tubal, and prophecy agaisnt them" -- Ezekiel 38:2

.........................................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
Chamoun: Syria-Israel war is imminent
By CLAUDE SALHANI (Editor, Middle East Times)Published: April 10, 2008
Dory Chamoun - "There will be a mock-up war between Syria and Israel. And at the same time Israel will take the advantage to beat up Hezbollah. This time they will fight in the Bekaa Valley. This is a scenario that I see unfolding," Chamoun tells the Middle East Times.
TOOLBAR
Print Story
Add CommentsWASHINGTON -- Dory Chamoun is the sole surviving son of former Lebanese President Camille Chamoun, who founded the National Liberal Party, one of Lebanon's right-wing Christian groups.

As president during Lebanon's first civil war in 1958 Chamoun asked for U.S. intervention, and U.S. Marines were dispatched to quell the unrest.


The PNL, as Chamoun's party is known by its French acronym, is part of the pro-government and anti-Syrian March 14 coalition.


Following the brutal assassination on Oct. 21, 1990, of Dany Chamoun, (Dory's brother) along with his German-born wife Ingrid, and his two sons, Tarek, 7 and Julian, Dory found himself at the head of the National Liberal Party.


On a visit to Washington, D.C., Chamoun spoke with Middle East Times editor Claude Salhani about the situation in the region and in Lebanon. The following are extracts of the interview.


Claude Salhani: What is your perception of the current situation in the Middle East?


Dory Chamoun: The situation in the Middle East is not going to remain as it is. There is a peace process going on between Syria and Israel, which is on track. How to achieve it remains the question. It is a fact that the Golan Heights is to be divided. Israel wants part of the Golan Heights. This is something the old [former President Hafez] Assad refused.


Now, to achieve that part; they will not be able to achieve it through peace, because Mr. Assad who represents a minority regime cannot say, 'okay, I will give what my father did not give.'


There will be a mock-up war between Syria and Israel. And at the same time Israel will take the advantage to beat up Hezbollah. This time they will fight in the Bekaa Valley. This is a scenario that I see unfolding.


Q: What will be Iran's position in case of war between Syria and Israel, whether it's a mock-up war or not?


A: I don't see Iran going to war for the sake of Syria.


Q: What about Hezbollah?


A: Israel might like to make peace with Syria, but with a promise from Syria to put an end to Hezbollah; if Israel has such a mirage, because it is only a mirage. I don't see Syria upsetting its only ally, Iran. Besides, the opposition [Hezbollah] is getting weaker by the day. All that they have achieved is to congest the [Beirut] city center with their tents.


Q: Do you see Syria ever giving up its ambitions on Lebanon?


A: No doubt this is a dream Syria has always had. All their regimes had an appetite to swallow up Lebanon. We are not going to allow it. The only time they [the Syrians] succeeded was when they made a deal with the United States. They made two deals with them. The first deal was the Kissinger plan in 1976, but it failed when the Christians didn't run away.


In 1976 the Syrians said they would go in to quell Lebanon and establish peace; they didn't succeed, they didn't quell the Palestinians. At the end of the day Israel had to come in.


During the First Gulf War, the first Assad, who was an old fox, found an opportunity to make a deal with the Americans. He told them, 'I will be your ally against Saddam Hussein but in return I want Lebanon. I want to be able to use my air force and my navy in order to beat the [Christian Lebanese] resistance.'


Q: And now, what kind of assurance are you getting from the Bush administration?


A: The Bush administration is serious. The feedback is positive. Lebanon is on their agenda. They are earnest about wanting to help physically, financially, as well as giving some goods to the Lebanese army. Especially after the Nahr el-Bared incident [when the Lebanese army fought members of an Islamist Group called Fatah al-Islam], the Lebanese army proved that it is strong, that it will not splinter.


For once, the United States is not going to trade Lebanon against something else to achieve some sort of peace with Syria.


Q: You are getting guarantees from this administration. What happens next January if the Democrats are in the White House?


A: I'm not worried because the policy on Lebanon is not guided by diplomacy; it is guided by security needs. And if the people in charge of the security of the United States decide that Lebanon must continue to be what it is today, and that Lebanon must be safe and not fall into the hands of the Syrians.


Remember what happened when it was in the hands of the Syrians? All the world-wide terrorist organizations mushroomed in Lebanon. Again, I don't think they [the U.S.] can take the risk after 9/11.


I think the whole strategy of the United States vis-à-vis our part of the world has changed 180 degrees. At one time the security frontiers of the United States used to be the oceans. Today the frontier goes all the way to Pakistan and Afghanistan. That sort of security policy, which the U.S. is following today is going to be the guideline, whether they are Democrats or Republicans.


Q: Overall, how do you see the future of Lebanon?


A: I am optimistic. However, it's a sad fact that Lebanon is a tiny country surrounded by two of the most horrible neighbors. One wants to swallow up Lebanon, while the other would like to see it shattered to pieces because Lebanon is the anti-image of the Jewish State of Israel. Lebanon is a state where there are 18 confessions (religious groups) who knew how to live together. And can live together again.


Q: What about the presidency? Lebanon has been without a president since November.


A: There's a lot of fuss about the presidency, but one should not make a mountain out of a mole hill. You consider the two presidents we had - that were Syrian puppets - to be presidents? I don't.


Q: Who do you think killed former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri?


A: Definitely the Syrians.


Q: When you say the Syrians, did it come from President Bashar, or from the intelligence?


A: The way the regime functions in Syria, I don't think that anything of that magnitude could take place without Bashar knowing.

.......................................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
Apr 12, 2008 20:02 | Updated Apr 12, 2008 20:03
IAF scrambles choppers over north
By YAAKOV LAPPIN
Print Subscribe
E-mail Toolbar
Shape public opinion:


What's this?





Talkbacks for this article: 0


A light aircraft piloted by an Israeli who took off without permission and failed to identify himself while flying over northern Israel caused a scare Saturday afternoon, prompting the Air Force to scramble military helicopters to investigate further.


IDF helicopters.
Photo: Ariel Jerozolimski
The incident ended peacefully when the choppers returned to base, after the pilot's identity was established, the IDF said.

"The Air Force registered an unknown aircraft on Saturday afternoon, flying over Israeli airspace. Air Force helicopters took off in the direction of the aircraft, and when the plane made contact, the helicopters returned to base," a statement from the IDF spokesman said.

Dozens of concerned northern residents reported unusually high levels of Air Force activity over Haifa, Nahariya and the Western Galilee during the afternoon.

The IDF remains on high alert across the north, following Hizbullah threats to launch a vengeance attack for the car bomb assassination of its operations commander Imad Mughniyeh in February in Damascus. Israel denies any role in the assassination.
................................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
Netanyahu: 'We won't be able to deter nuclear Iran'
By JONATHAN BECK
Print Subscribe
E-mail Toolbar
Shape public opinion:


What's this?





Talkbacks for this article: 98


"Iran will be the first nuclear state in history against which deterrence won't work, even if the deterrent is nuclear," Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu said Wednesday at an international conference titled "Russia, the Middle East and the Challenge of Radical Islam."


Binyamin Netanyahu speaking in the "Russia, the Middle East and the Challenge of Radical Islam" international conference in Jerusalem, Wednesday.
Photo: Courtesy IDC Herzliya / Shalem Center
The conference was held at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem under the auspices of the center's Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies and the Eurasian Institute of the Inter-Disciplinary Center, Herzliya.

"Nothing will stop the Iranians - not the use of force and not a fear of being hit in retaliation," he said, adding that "every Israeli withdrawal from territories it controls leaves room for Iranian terror to enter."

Netanyahu added that "if in the past, Hizbullah was a state within the state of Lebanon, it seems today that the government of Lebanon is a state within a Hizbullah stronghold." "In the last 30 years, we have been living in a world where Sunni extremists succeed in attacking targets in the Western world, while on the other hand, Shi'ite Iran is rapidly advancing to the point of no return in its nuclear aspirations," the Likud leader said.

Regarding the conflict with the Palestinians, Netanyahu said there was "no chance that moderate factors in the Palestinian Authority will succeed in halting terror or replacing Israeli forces in securing the territory. Israel should ensure its safety on its own and provide Palestinians with the financial growth they aspire to, in order to create real peace partners."

Netanyahu finished his speech by stating that "unlike the common belief that peace will bring about financial improvement, history teaches us that the opposite is far truer."

Opening the session before Netanyahu, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Navarov, who heads the North America Bureau in the Russian Foreign Ministry, said, "Russia understands that the security of one state cannot be based on upsetting the security of others."

Responding to a question by one of the other members of the panel, Navarov said that "Russia will not make use of its nuclear capabilities, and there is an acute need to find other solutions to the problems the world is facing."

However, in a statement seemingly critical of Navarov's stance, Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad, head of the Defense Ministry's Diplomatic-Security Bureau, said that "Russia holds a central role in establishing security in the Middle East, but is no less responsible for the lack thereof."

Dr. Peter Gladkov, a former Putin adviser and expert on Russian policy, criticized the policy of the United States under President George W. Bush, saying that "the US's attempt to gain influence in Eurasia in fact expresses a similar characteristic in American policy against Russia. Over time, such a policy can undermine the equilibrium in Eurasian countries because the developments the US is pushing are not always in line with the region's needs."

Gladkov's comments were echoed in part by Prof. Uzi Arad, director of the Institute for Policy and Strategy in the IDC, who said NATO was putting too much emphasis on expanding the alliance - a preoccupation that, he said, was pushing subjects such as the Iranian threat to a low priority at the expense of a struggle between the US and Russia over their international influence.

Maj.-Gen. Giora Eiland, meanwhile, accused the US of "not putting a stop to the Iranian threat because this is not one of its top priorities. If the US really wanted to stop Iran, it would not waste its time on... setting up missiles in Eastern Europe. This behavior makes Russia, too, avoid entering the Iranian issue, and the US is well aware of this reality."

According to former Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov, Russia was "not initiating negotiations with Iran, but ensures communication channels remain open considering the situation created by the EU and the UN. Russia will avoid talking to Iran if some other country picks up the gauntlet. It [Russia] does not see itself as initiating disputes or negotiations, but as an arbiter between different groups."

However, Labor MK Ephraim Sneh, who served as deputy defense minister under Amir Peretz, called Russia "the Iranian Empire's No. 1 weapons supplier," saying it "in fact arms the forces most hostile to Israel today. This is totally against the role the new Russia should be filling in the regional and international arenas."

He added that "escalation in the ongoing confrontation between Israel and Iran and its proxies is inevitable. This confrontation is part of a wider confrontation between western democracy and Islamic fascism, and the Russian leadership will have to pick sides - the sooner the better."

Closing his address, Sneh directly attacked the Russian regime: "Iran's ballistic missiles have a range of 3,500 kilometers. Take a map and a ruler and see where they reach. Also, in all of its wars, Israel was forced to fight against Russian weaponry in the hands of its enemies. If the Russians want to profit from continuing these sales, they should insist next time on getting cash."
.......................................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
Iran denies confrontation at sea with U.S. NavyStory Highlights
Iran denies report of Persian Gulf confrontation with U.S. Navy boat

Three small boats taunted USS Typhoon, U.S. military source said

Flare fired, but incident not considered serious, source says

U.S. media pushing for permanent U.S. presence, Iranian agency says

Next Article in World »


Read VIDEO

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran denied a report that several of its boats taunted a U.S. Navy vessel in the Persian Gulf on Thursday night, according to IRNA, Iran's official news agency.

A U.S. military official told CNN Friday that the USS Typhoon, a small patrol craft, was approached by three small Iranian boats in a "taunting manner."

"There has been no confrontation between Iranian boats and the U.S. [Fifth] Fleet," IRNA quoted an unnamed Iranian source as saying.

The U.S. military source said U.S. Navy officers conducted bridge-to-bridge communications with the Iranian boats and two of them then turned away. But one came within 200 yards of the Typhoon, prompting it to fire a warning flare. The Iranian boat then turned away.


IRNA said the U.S. media "tries to portray the Persian Gulf as a turbulent area in order to prepare the grounds for the permanent presence of U.S. forces in the region." Watch Gen. David Petraeus assess Iran's role in the region »

The confrontation is not considered serious, the U.S. official said. E-mail to a friend

CNN's Shirzad Bozorgmehr contributed to this report
...................................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
Apr 13, 2008 0:38 | Updated Apr 13, 2008 2:31
'Iran knows it can't destroy Israel'
By DAVID HOROVITZ
Print Subscribe
E-mail Toolbar
Shape public opinion:


What's this?





Talkbacks for this article: 7


Iran's talk of eliminating Israel is more a case of political sloganeering than genuine intent, says Russia's former foreign minister, a veteran negotiator with Teheran who knows members of the regime's leadership well.


Former Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov, left, greets Iran's former nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani in Moscow during his tenure as foreign minister. [file]
Photo: AP , AP
Igor Ivanov, who was also his country's national security adviser until last summer, told The Jerusalem Post that Russia was determined to work with the international community to prevent Iran from obtaining the technology necessary to build nuclear weapons, but that the West should be directly engaging with Teheran, which had concerns about its own security, and also that Israel should be talking to Hamas.

Ivanov, who left Israel Thursday after participating in an international conference here on "Russia, the Middle East & the Challenge of Radical Islam," said he was "totally against" Iran's anti-Israel positions, and understood Israel's concerns and preoccupations. Iran was not merely unwilling to recognize Israel, but said it sought to destroy it, he noted.

"But I think this is more political slogan than a real political decision to destroy Israel," said Ivanov, a frequent interlocutor with Teheran over the years who was foreign minister from 1998 until 2004, and was then-president Vladimir Putin's national security adviser until last July.

"I don't think their political leadership is so stupid as to think they can do this," he went on. Iran wants "to lead an international movement against the American presence in the region. They want to be one of the leaders, or maybe the most important leader, in the Muslim world. They need some strong political slogans. One of them [relates] to Israel."

Ivanov said he knew many of Iran's leaders personally, and that they were "very pragmatic" about the potential consequences of attacking Israel.


Former Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov.
Photo: AP
"They are thinking about a strong Iran," he said, "and they want to play an active role... not only in the region, but on many other issues... I think it is necessary to direct these interests to the right way. The right way is to engage them in a political solution...

"They are saying they want to help the world," he added. "Let us see how they can do it. But if you don't give them this chance, you will have only confrontation. I don't think that through confrontation we can reach what we want. What we want is to be sure that they don't have nuclear weapons and can't have [such weapons]. We want them to play a constructive role in [solving] the problems which we know - in Iraq, in the Middle East, Israeli-Palestinian relations, in Lebanon."

He said Israel and Iran and others should be at the negotiating table together, and that Israel should engage with Hamas, too.

"Hamas is the reality. Hamas is a player in this conflict... To speak to Hamas today may not be very comfortable," he said, "but if you don't explain to them, maybe they think they are right."

Ivanov, a 35-year diplomat, noted that he had made frequent trips to Teheran to negotiate with the Iranians over their nuclear program.

He said that "nothing" Russia was doing to advance Iran's nuclear energy capabilities, notably at the Bushehr reactor, could be manipulated by Iran toward a weapons capability. All work there was being conducted under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, he said, and "if all our experts left Iran tomorrow, Bushehr would [simply] close down... Sometimes public opinion does not understand, thinking that we are helping Iran in some way to create military nuclear programs. This is not true."

He said Russia fully shared the international community's goal of ensuring Iran could not achieve a nuclear weapons capability, and that it was crucial to prevail in the case of Iran and North Korea, because otherwise the nuclear non-proliferation framework would collapse and many more countries would move toward such a capability.

Unfortunately, he acknowledged, despite the "positive" assistance being given to Iran for development of a strictly peaceful nuclear energy program on the one hand, and the coordinated "negative" efforts to deter Iran through sanctions, "we still cannot say that the nuclear problem of Iran is resolved. We don't have a legal instrument saying that everything is under control in Iran and that we are sure Iran will not develop military programs."

He stressed that "we don't have any evidence that they are developing nuclear weapons," but at the same time, "we cannot say today that they will not develop [such weapons] in the future."

The problem, in today's post-Cold War era, he said, was that even when the United States and Russia agreed on something, such as the need to deter Iran from nuclear weapons, there was no international "mechanism" to force other states to change course.

The US has been looking to ratchet up sanctions on Teheran, which this week announced plans for a new uranium ore processing plant and said it had begun installing 6,000 new centrifuges for enrichment - which would triple its number of centrifuges - at its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. But Russia has said there is no need for further sanctions.

Ivanov told the Post that "sanctions can help you, but not as the main tool in the resolution of this problem," which could only be achieved "by political measures."

He said his experience with sanctions in three cases - with Cuba, Yugoslavia and Iraq - clearly showed their limits, and that "Iran is bigger and stronger economically than all of those countries."

Under sanctions, he said, "ordinary people suffer, and they will be very angry. But the anger will be not against their leadership, but against those who are imposing the sanctions, and maybe [as a consequence,] radicalism will be greater."
...................................................benny cool.gif
Justice
Dear God, I pray to you that the Truth, Your Truth prevails. Would not Creation be more complete when every time that a lie is spoken, the speaker will show a forked tongue? Without knowing the Truth, how can injustice be weeded as TARES?
benny balerio
John Hagee hires public relations firm, 'stops talking about Armageddon'

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

http://www.thejewishweek.com/viewArt...rnational.html

Gentler Hagee Seen Gaining New Traction

Shift in rhetoric having impact in pro-Israel community.

Despite withering criticism from the leader of the Reform movement, there is growing evidence that America’s leading Christian Zionist, Pastor John Hagee, is winning acceptance in pro-Israel circles. And some politicians are taking note.

While nervously distancing himself from the controversial Hagee’s endorsement when addressing other audiences, Sen. John McCain last week raised the Hagee connection in an interview with a Jewish newspaper.

Those are only two elements in an increasingly tangled controversy that reflects bitter divisions among Jewish groups about Middle East peace — and that is colored by Hagee’s fundraising for Israel. This week the San Antonio pastor announced he is adding $6 million to the millions he has already poured into Israeli charities, much of it in the West Bank.

liberals worry that Hagee’s rhetorical shift — toning down his apocalyptic themes and moving away from outright opposition to the policies of the current Israeli government — is winning friends in the Jewish community, or at least blunting opposition.

“He has adjusted his rhetoric to win approval in the Jewish world,” said Rabbi Haim Beliak, founder of Jews on First, a Web site that focuses on church-state separation and includes harsh criticism of the Christian Zionists.

Hagee’s adjustment has even included reissuing modified, toned-down versions of his earlier books, Beliak charged.

In a Monday news conference, Hagee continued to adjust his image, saying that Christians United for Israel’s (CUFI) only “concrete action in connection to the peace process” has been “limited to asking the White House not to pressure Israel into making territorial concessions that she herself does not wish to make.”

He said the group’s “work of Christian-Jewish dialogue and reconciliation continues moving forward.”

Language like that has produced gains for Hagee in many communal boardrooms.

“What he’s doing is refining his positions and the way he expresses them,” said Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). “There’s nothing wrong with that.”

The Jewish community’s response to Hagee and other Christian Zionists is “conflicted,” Foxman said. “Many would like to embrace him, but are hearing all kinds of talk that his support for Israel is conditional. I don’t think it is conditional.”

Hagee, he said, has “defused” some of the criticism from some in the Jewish community.

A top Jewish leader said there is a different communal calculus in the face of mounting attacks on Israel by “mainline” Protestant churches. “Frankly, we’d rather be standing up with the Presbyterians than with people who speak in tongues, but we can’t because they are more and more biased against Israel. So Hagee looks more attractive to many.”

But Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the president of the Union for Reform Judaism and the leader whose speech last week touched off the latest round of Hagee controversy, said he is skeptical about the new Hagee.

“If he is adopting a new line in which he says he will defer to the wishes of the Israeli government, then we have a new reality, and I’d be delighted,” Yoffie told The Jewish Week. Rabbi Yoffie also said he would accept Hagee’s invitation for a face-to-face meeting.

But he said the fiery preacher and his fellow Christian Zionists have a “long record of very specific statements” indicating that their support for Israel is conditional on a rejection of any land-for-peace settlement with the Palestinians.

Sharp Catholic Reaction

The Hagee connection to the pro-Israel cause resurfaced in late February, when the San Antonio megachurch pastor stood at McCain’s side and announced his endorsement. Also endorsing McCain: Ohio megachurch Pastor Rod Parsley, who has argued that America was created to destroy Islam in a kind of holy war to preserve Christianity. Parsley is a regional director of CUFI.

The Hagee endorsement produced a sharp reaction from a Catholic civil rights group, which claimed Hagee had slandered the church in his prophetic writings, forcing McCain to distance himself from the pastor’s views while not repudiating his endorsement.

But in an interview with the Los Angeles Jewish Journal (read it here), McCain seemed to regard Hagee as a plus with Jewish voters. Editor Rob Eshman asked McCain how he would get pro-Israel Evangelicals to support any peace agreement.

“I know they favor a peace process. I know they favor that because of my close relations with them, and pastor John Hagee ... is one of the leaders of the pro-Israel Evangelical movement in America,” McCain said.

Eshman wrote: “I started to correct him — Hagee and other Evangelicals most certainly don’t support compromise on territory or Jerusalem, and McCain must know this. That’s when I got my first taste of the famous McCain technique: I’ll-talk-so-you-can’t.”

Democrats tried to use Hagee’s endorsement — and the candidate’s initial enthusiasm for it — to offset the political problem caused by Sen. Barack Obama’s long association with a Black Nationalist pastor in Chicago, but that tactic has produced scant results.

“Relatively few Americans are aware of what Pastor Hagee’s ‘end times’ theology is,” said Kenneth Wald, a University of Florida political scientist. “So it doesn’t resonate in the way Rev. Wright’s comments resonate.”

And Hagee has been “transforming” his public persona since creating Christians United for Israel in 2006, Wald said.

“He’s stopped talking about Armageddon; he’s focusing much more on being a friend of Israel. In some segments of the Jewish community, that is having an impact,” Wald said. Hagee has also backed away from hints he would use his political muscle against any Israeli government that tried to withdraw from the West Bank.

Last summer, he told a Washington audience that he would support Israeli government policy “as long as it does not violate Biblical principles.” Among the principles he has written and spoken about: his claim that Israel has a “Bible mandate” to Gaza and the West Bank and that “the nation of Israel should keep it now and forever.”

New Tone A Gambit?

But in a press conference on Monday the Texas preacher said that while he and other Christian Zionists have “grown skeptical of territorial concessions ... CUFI’s fundamental philosophy from day one has been that Israelis and Israelis alone have the right to make the existential decisions about land and peace.”

Some of Hagee’s repositioning has provoked anger in Evangelical circles. His latest book, “In Defense of Israel,” had to be quickly revised because some Evangelical leaders said it promoted a “two-track” scheme for salvation in which Jews do not necessarily have to accept Jesus Christ as messiah — which some fellow evangelicals say was a rejection of the messiahship of Christ.

Some critics argue that Hagee’s new tone is just a gambit to defuse concerns about the motives behind his support for Israel.

Hagee’s 18,000 member church “still hews to the doctrine of dispensationalist premillennialism,’” said Gershom Gorenberg, an Israeli journalist whose book “The End of Days” took a critical look at the emerging alliance. “His church’s statement describes the standard dispensationalist doctrine on the End Times.”

But the pastor “has learned that outside of his subculture, these ideas put people off — especially Jews,” Gorenberg said. “However, even the language he uses at the CUFI site makes it clear that he believes that Israel has a divine mandate to keep all the land.”
Gorenberg argued that if Hagee has actually changed his views, “his church’s Web site would look different.”

But some liberal Jewish leaders worry that Hagee’s toned-down message, his focus on fighting anti-Semitism and containing Iran, his continuing fundraising for Israeli charities and the Jewishly connected public relations firm he is using have combined to soften resistance to his pro-Israel outreach.

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, the Reform leader, attributed Hagee’s growing acceptance to two factors: his keynote speech to AIPAC last year, which legitimized him in the eyes of many, and the allure of CUFI’s Night to Honor Israel events.

In his speech to the Central Conference of American Rabbis, Rabbi Yoffie warned that alliances with Hagee could isolate the Jewish community because of the pastor’s harsh positions on other faith groups – and hurt Israel because the “vision” of many Christian Zionists “rejects a two-state solution, rejects the possibility of a democratic Israel, and supports the permanent occupation of all Arab lands now controlled by Israel.”

Another motive for Rabbi Yoffie’s speech, Reform insiders say, centered on concerns expressed by some movement rabbis that they were being pressured by local pro-Israel groups to endorse or participate in CUFI’s “Night to Honor Israel” events.

Rabbi Yoffie urged rabbis not to participate because participation will “drive away our allies. And I cannot accept the argument from Jewish leaders that they can endorse CUFI events, appear as speakers at these events, accept CUFI money, and still distance themselves from the positions that CUFI embraces.”

One rabbi who has appeared at one of the Christian Zionist galas last year now agrees.

The New Jerry Falwell?

Rabbi Jack Moline, spiritual leader of a Conservative synagogue in the Washington suburb of Alexandria, Va., and a leading church-state separation activist, stunned many colleagues when he agreed to join CUFI leaders on the podium at last year’s CUFI gala in that city.

During the event a CUFI leader told him “when Jerry Falwell died, the mantle was passed on to John Hagee,” Rabbi Moline said this week. “If that’s the case, I am grateful to Rev. Hagee for his support of Israel, but I’m with Eric Yoffie; we have to be deeply suspicious of him.”

While many of CUFI’s positions are not beyond the pale, he said, some Night to Honor Israel events are dominated by those with extreme views — including a speaker at last year’s Alexandria event who accused the Olmert government of “ethnic cleansing” when it removed Jewish settlers from Gaza.

“I would not go back to an event like that without more confidence it would stay on message: just support for Israel,” Rabbi Moline said.

But CUFI leaders believe they have a receptive audience in Jews who reject the peace initiatives of the past 17 years and more mainstream leaders who worry about fading support for the Jewish state among “mainline” Christians.

“Hopefully, there is more acceptance of Dr. Hagee,” said Dr. James Hutchens, a CUFI regional leader. “But it’s no secret that Christian Zionists have common cause mostly with those who base their support for Israel on staying in Judea and Samaria and Gush Katif, and basing that on the Bible. Where there is not that kind of view, we are probably not going to get much acceptance.”
.............................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
IDF General Unhurt as Shell Lands Aside Him

by Hillel Fendel


(IsraelNN.com) One of a cluster of five mortar shells fell 20 meters from IDF O.C. Southern Command Gen. Yoav Galant as he toured east of Gaza on Sunday morning. No one was hurt.

Galant was touring the Eshkol Regional Council area - one of the areas bordering Gaza that have been targeted by many mortar shells and rockets over the past weeks and months - with Council Head Chaim Yellin. The two had reached Kibbutz Ein HaShlosha when the shells hit. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack.

Ein HaShlosha, nearly adjacent to the border with south-central Gaza, has frequently been hit by shells, and PA snipers have shot at Kibbutz workers in the fields; one was killed, one was wounded. Early last month, St.-Sgt. Liran Banai was killed when a PA terrorist-planted bomb was detonated under his patrol jeep in the same area.

Further to the north is Nachal Oz, some ten kilometers south of Sderot. Just four days ago, Palestinian terrorists infiltrated and murdered two Israelis at the Nachal Oz Crossing fuel depot, under the cover of heavy mortar fire.

"Calling Egypt-Israel Border a 'Peace' Border is a Dangerous Mistake"
Amidst all the terrorist dangers in the area, Yellin feels that one of the worst is the open Egyptian-Israeli border along the Sinai Desert, through which Hamas terrorists from Gaza and Sudanese refugees easily sneak. "If Israel continues to ignore the dangers there and continues to call it a 'peace border,' this will be a grave and dangerous mistake," Yellin told Arutz-7's Hebrew newsmagazine.

Speaking of the need to restore "Zionism" to the thinking of typical central-Israel Jews, Yellin said, "The farmers in the field, working under the threat of rocket fire and shootings, are the real pioneers; I'm just a clerk."

Other Weekend Terrorist Attacks
Palestinians fired two Kassam rockets from the Gaza Strip at the western Negev Friday night, and two more on Saturday night. The rockets landed in open areas outside Sderot, causing no casualties or damage.

In addition, seven mortar shells were fired by Gazan terrorists over the weekend. One landed south of Ashkelon, and the others landed in and near Nachal Oz, causing damage to a stockroom and electric lines.

Sunday afternoon:
Arabs in Hawara, near Yitzhar in the Shomron, hurled a shock grenade at an IDF jeep, lightly wounding four Border Guard fighters... An Arab infiltrator from Gaza was caught near Kibbutz Alumim, and was taken for interrogation... Arabs stoned a bus near Pisgat Ze'ev outside northern Jerusalem, lightly injuring a female soldier...

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and PA chief Mahmoud Abbas met this evening at Olmert's home in Jerusalem.


................................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
Why Ahmadinejad smiles

By Caroline B. Glick








http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The regime affiliated Iranian Fars news agency published a sensational story this week. According to the Fars report, Saudi Arabia and Israel collaborated in killing Iranian terror-master Imad Mughniyeh.

The story is important regardless of whether it is true. It is important because it says something important about the nature of Iran's relationship with Syria. Specifically, it says that Iran views Syria as a vassal state.

If Teheran were not convinced of its control of the Syrian regime, it would never have dared to publish a story that places the Assad regime in an open confrontation with Saudi Arabia. An even partially independent Syria would never go along with such an open challenge to Saudi Arabia.

Syria of course is not Iran's only proxy in the Arab world. There is the Hamas regime in Gaza as well. Thursday the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center released an in-depth report on Hamas's military build-up since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in September 2005. The report notes that Hamas receives arms and funding from Iran and Syria and sends its fighters for extending training at camps in Iran and Syria.

By directly supporting Hamas and by supporting Hamas indirectly through Syria and Hizbullah, Iran has successfully transformed Gaza into a wholly-owned subsidiary of Iran. While Hamas may have independent interests, the fact is that any independent will Hamas may have had at one time has become entirely subservient to Teheran. This is so because Teheran has rendered itself Hamas's indispensible ally and protector. Without Iran, Hamas would have no staying power.

Then there is Lebanon. The weak Siniora government, which was brought to power by the anti-Syrian and anti-Iranian March 14 democracy movement three years ago, is clearly no match for Iran and its proxies. Presidential elections have been held up for five months due to Hizbullah's Syrian- and Iranian-ordered refusal to agree on a compromise candidate. The Siniora government needs Hizbullah's agreement because Iran's proxies have murdered a sufficient number of cabinet ministers and members of parliament to take away Siniora's parliamentary capacity to elect a successor to Syrian-puppet, former president Emil Lahoud.

The assassination of political opponents in Lebanon of course began in earnest with the March 2005 assassination of pro-Western and pro-Saudi former prime minister Rafiq Hariri. This week in Washington Senator Arlen Specter asked Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to comment on an interesting Syrian offer. According to Specter, during Jordanian King Abdullah's visit to Washington last month, he suggested that Syria might be willing to rein in Hizbullah and Hamas in exchange for an offer of immunity for President Bashar Assad in the UN's probe of Hariri's murder. Rice rejected the offer, but that is not what is interesting.

What is interesting is that Syria would feel comfortable making what amounts to a confession of control over Hizbullah and Hamas. While at first glance the Syrian offer seems to contradict the assertion that Syria is an Iranian proxy, it actually does no such thing. It shows that Iran is willing to shuffle some proxies around in order to protect other ones. To protect Assad for instance, Iran may be willing to have Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal temporarily decamp to Teheran or Qatar or Bahrain. While such a move would have absolutely no impact on Iran's continued control over its proxies, it could neutralize the UN tribunal's threat to the Syrian regime.

To sum up, through its proxy strategy, Iran has taken control of Syria, has paralyzed and is increasingly calling the shots in Lebanon and has effective control over Gaza from which it can attack Israel and Egypt at will. And of course, it is the primary sponsor of the insurgency in Iraq.

Led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the Sunni Arab states are well aware of Iran's proxy strategy for attaining regional dominance, and they are not pleased. The partial boycott of the Arab League summit in Damascus last month was the Sunni Arab states' symbolic way of showing their displeasure with Iran's domination of Syria and Lebanon. On a more operational level, this week the Syrian media reported that the Syrian oppositionist National Salvation Front run by the Muslim Brotherhood and former Syrian vice president Abd al Halim Khaddam will launch an anti-regime satellite television channel in a few months. Presumably wealthy Gulf kingdoms are bankrolling the project. Strategically, the Sunni Arab states have voiced varying degrees of interest in building their own nuclear programs to compete with the Iranian nuclear program

But diplomatic snubs, jihadist television stations with anti-regime bents, and loud plans to build nuclear reactors will not suffice to defeat Iran or even to slow down its bid for regional domination. And the fact is that the Sunni states are aligned with most of Iran's policies. They keep Iraq at arm's length and loudly criticize US operations in the country. They continue to back Hamas and ostracize Israel. And they have taken no substantive stands against Hizbullah's subversion of the Siniora government since the end of the Second Lebanon War.

The main reason that the Sunni Arab countries cannot contend with Iran is because their publics share Iran's jihadist ideology. And their publics share Iran's general jihadist ideology because the Sunni states have indoctrinated their publics to believe in jihad through their state-controlled media. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and their Sunni Arab brothers are in no position to argue with Iran publicly or to confront Iran's Arab proxies because they can't explain to their own people why Iran's bid to destroy Israel and dominate the world in the name of Islam is a bad thing.

The attraction of Iran's jihadist ideology for so many Muslims has also helped Iran expand its army of proxies. Acting as the *avant guard* of global jihad, Iran has collected otherwise adversarial terror groups in their hours of need and has transformed them into Iranian proxies over time. After the al Qaida leadership fled Afghanistan in late 2001 for instance, many of its leaders received sanctuary in Iran from which they continued to operate.

The late al Qaida in Iraq commander Abu Musab Zarkawi received medical care in Iran and entered Iraq from Iran. He received his operational orders from the al Qaida leadership in Iran.

In a recent interview with the Qatari *Al- 'Arab* translated by MEMRI, Ahmad Salah al-Din, who serves as the spokesman for the Iraqi Sunni jihadist group Hamas-Iraq alleged that al Qaida in Iraq today is wholly subservient to Iran. Salah al-Din claimed, "We found Iranian [currency], *toman* at an Al Qaida headquarters that we uncovered. We have also captured Iranian weapons, not to mention audio and video recordings containing announcements by Al Qaida fighters that they had received training in Iranian military camps and that Al Qaida wounded were being transported to Iran for medical treatment."

So too, Iran has a long history of collaboration with Fatah dating back to the early 1970s when Ayatollah Khomeini's future revolutionary leaders received training in PLO camps in Lebanon. In 1999, as Yassir Arafat geared up his terror armies ahead of the launch of his terror war against Israel in 2000, Iran began funding Fatah terror cells. Today, after sponsoring Hamas's rout of Fatah in Gaza last June, Iran no longer needs to deal with Fatah leadership. Through Syria, Hamas and Hizbullah it controls Fatah terror cells directly.

Iran's policy of combining a proxy war strategy with a popular revolutionary ideology is almost an exact reenactment of the Soviet Union's Cold War strategy for fighting the US. Two things however distinguish Iran's war against the West today from the Soviets' war against the West in the twentieth century. First, Iran is much less powerful than the Soviet Union was. Second, the Iranian regime is far less open to deterrence than the Soviets were. As David Wurmser, Vice President Richard Cheney's former Middle East advisor noted recently at an address before the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, the Iranian regime is motivated by a messianic ideology with a strong apocalyptic component. This renders useless the threat of mutually assured destruction.

The other main distinction between the Soviet war against the West and the Iranian war against the West is that the US-led West embraced a dual strategy of confrontation and containment against the Soviets. Today, the same US-led West follows no coherent strategy for contending with Iran.

The only battleground where Iranian proxies are directly confronted today is in Iraq. After the 2006 Iranian proxy war against Israel, the US largely abandoned its support for the Siniora government. Hizbullah has been permitted to rebuild its forces and its arsenal and to reassert control over much of South Lebanon and to extend its control north of the Litani River.

Rather than confront Hamas, at the US's insistence, Israel has done nothing to prevent Hamas's military build-up in Gaza or even to prevent it from continuing its missile campaign against the Western Negev. Then too, by supporting the defeated Fatah leadership, the US and Israel are indirectly strengthening Hamas. During the Arab League summit, Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas announced that he spends some 58 percent of his US, Israeli and European budget on paying the salaries of 77,000 officials who serve under the Hamas regime in Gaza. So by funding Fatah which supports Hamas, Israel and the US are strengthening Iran's control of Gaza through its Hamas proxy. They are also facilitating the weaker Fatah's incremental absorption into the Iranian axis.

As for Syria, both Israel and the US consistently ignore the fact that Syria is no longer and independent actor. By effectively adopting the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group's recommendations from 2006, the Bush administration and Israel give credence to the notion that Syria will moderate its behavior if Israel surrenders the Golan Heights and so encourage Iran to continue its aggression by seeming to reward it. Then too, while allowing Sunni Arab states to support the Muslim Brotherhood as a presumed counterweight to Iran, Israel and the US ignore the repeated pleas of Syrian Kurds for assistance in their campaign to overthrow the Syrian regime in favor of a federal, anti-Iranian democratic state. The Syrian Kurds receive no assistance from either the US or Israel in their own bid to set up a pro-democracy satellite television station to broadcast into Syria even as they are violently repressed by the regime.

In the absence of a strategy of confronting Iran either directly or through its proxies, the only coherent course that remains is one of containment. But this option is raft with danger. With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's announcement this week that Iran is now introducing 3,000 upgraded centrifuges to its Natanz nuclear installation, it is clear that international sanctions have had no impact on Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. It is also clear that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it will be impossible to confront its proxies who will operate under Iran's nuclear umbrella.

So as Iran progresses forward with its grand strategy for regional hegemony, the West dithers and so assists it. No wonder Ahmadinejad is always smiling.

...................................................benny cool.gif
benny balerio
A Mystery in the Middle East

By George Friedman









http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | The Arab-Israeli region of the Middle East is filled with rumors of war. That is about as unusual as the rising of the sun, so normally it would not be worth mentioning. But like the proverbial broken clock that is right twice a day, such rumors occasionally will be true. In this case, we don't know that they are true, and certainly it's not the rumors that are driving us. But other things — minor and readily explicable individually — have drawn our attention to the possibility that something is happening.


The first thing that drew our attention was a minor, routine matter. Back in February, the United States started purchasing oil for its Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The SPR is a reserve of crude oil stored in underground salt domes. Back in February, it stood at 96.2 percent of capacity, which is pretty full as far as we are concerned. But the U.S. Department of Energy decided to increase its capacity. This move came in spite of record-high oil prices and the fact that the purchase would not help matters. It also came despite potential political fallout, since during times like these there is generally pressure to release reserves. Part of the step could have been the bureaucracy cranking away, and part of it could have been the feeling that the step didn't make much difference. But part of it could have been based on real fears of a disruption in oil supplies. By itself, the move meant nothing. But it did cause us to become thoughtful.


Also in February, someone assassinated Imad Mughniyah, a leader of Hezbollah, in a car bomb explosion in Syria. It was assumed the Israelis had killed him, although there were some suspicions the Syrians might have had him killed for their own arcane reasons. In any case, Hezbollah publicly claimed the Israelis killed Mughniyah, and therefore it was expected the militant Shiite group would take revenge. In the past, Hezbollah responded not by attacking Israel but by attacking Jewish targets elsewhere, as in the Buenos Aires attacks of 1992 and 1994.


In March, the United States decided to dispatch the USS Cole, then under Sixth Fleet command, to Lebanese coastal waters. Washington later replaced it with two escorts from the Nassau (LHA-4) Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG), reportedly maintaining a minor naval presence in the area. (Most of the ESG, on a regularly scheduled deployment, is no more than a few days sail from the coast, as it remains in the Mediterranean Sea.) The reason given for the American naval presence was to serve as a warning to the Syrians not to involve themselves in Lebanese affairs. The exact mission of the naval presence off the Levantine coast — and the exact deterrent function it served — was not clear, but there they were. The Sixth Fleet has gone out of its way to park and maintain U.S. warships off the Lebanese coast.


Hezbollah leaders being killed by the Israelis and the presence of American ships off the shores of Mediterranean countries are not news in and of themselves. These things happen. The killing of Mughniyah is notable only to point out that as much as Israel might have wanted him dead, the Israelis knew this fight would escalate. But anyone would have known this. So all we know is that whoever killed Mughniyah wanted to trigger a conflict. The U.S. naval presence off the Levantine coast is notable in that Washington, rather busy with matters elsewhere, found the bandwidth to get involved here as well.


With the situation becoming tense, the Israelis announced in March that they would carry out an exercise in April called Turning Point 2. Once again, an Israeli military exercise is hardly interesting news. But the Syrians apparently got quite interested. After the announcement, the Syrians deployed three divisions — two armored, one mechanized — to the Lebanese-Syrian border in the Bekaa Valley, the western part of which is Hezbollah's stronghold. The Syrians didn't appear to be aggressive. Rather, they deployed these forces in a defensive posture, in a way walling off their part of the valley.


The Syrians are well aware that in the event of a conventional war with Israel, they would experience a short but exciting life, as they say. They thus are hardly going to attack Israel. The deployment therefore seemed intended to keep the Israelis on the Lebanese side of the border — on the apparent assumption the Israelis were going into the Bekaa Valley. Despite Israeli and Syrian denials of the Syrian troop buildup along the border, Stratfor sources maintain that the buildup in fact happened. Normally, Israel would be jumping at the chance to trumpet Syrian aggression in response to these troop movements, but, instead, the Israelis downplayed the build