Pentagon proposes selling Israel four littoral combat ships

July 17, 2008, 12:04 PM (GMT+02:00)

The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency has notified Congress of its wish to sell Israel shore-hugging combat ships, spare parts, software and other goods and services worth $1.9 billion. Israel has requested the littoral combat ships to patrol its shores, mainly from Lockheed Martin, General Dynamis and Raytheon. The agency statement said: "It is vital to the U.S. national interest to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives."

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

Dear Earendel,I could agree that a muslum could be the false prophet.But For the Jews to except the anti-christ as the messiah....and the Sanhedrin do proclaim that the Messiah must be a jew....then naturally,,,he would have to be a jew........The interesting thing about this is that there is one who is a jew and at the same time is coming out of the revived roman empire......sorta like in comparrison, that Jesus was a Jew and came out of Egypt.
Ezekial 38 will happen......but Isaiah 17;1 will happen first.Which will set up the circumstances that open the way for Ezekial 38......But as a christian....I believe that we will see the Isaiah 17;1 event from front row seats in heaven.If I understand the signs...There is a strong chance that we may be going home in about 10 weeks from now....a lot of evaluation of the season of the rapture, depends on, if Isaiah 17;1 "cannot be put off".... for another year???
All we can do at this time is watch and be sober....I don't know about you guys,...but this Sarkozy guy thing is getting real freaky....And I really think that we are about to get caught up....We are a hindrence, and need to be removed.
I could be wrong in my assessment of this, so don't hold me to it.I am just giving you my thoughts.Maybe we will get a more of a suspicious heads-up in the next 3 or 4 weeks................................benny

This is why the Lord has blessed the U.S., so much, because they have sheltered and protected the Jews His chosen. But the day is drawing to a close now, and the trumpets are about to sound, and the time of man's rule on Earth are drawing to a close...the day in which when Babylon the Great is destroyed (that is to say the rule of man).

568 page thread? Tha's Bi-Polar or in some languages known as Crazy.

To analyze and discern the approuching prophecy of Isaiah 17;1
This info goes back about 42 months. There is not another site in all the world that tracks this coming prophecy as does "CHRISTIAN-FORUM"

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

Little Kittie:

The Voice here is:

Jesus loves you!

From the Internet:
Damascus is perhaps the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world. It has never been destroyed in warfare. But a prophecy in the Hebrew Old Testament predicts its complete destruction. Since this has never happened before this prophecy must be in the future sometime.

Do you think that God is able to getter done?

?

There is no voice there only funny pictures pretty letters and writing.

http://newsblaze.com/story/200807151.....;/topstory.html


Crossfire War - Hezbollah Adding Chemical Warheads to Katyusha Rockets
By Willard Payne

BEIRUT - Information from Arab sources and INN report Hezbollah has begun fitting chemical warheads on Katuysha rockets. Monday the Kuwait newspaper Al-Siyasa said Hezbollah has acquired chemicals to produce nerve and mustard gas warheads from North Korean suppliers. Israel Defense Minister Ehud Barak is also accusing Damascus in assisting Hezbollah and it is also believed Tehran is involved. All this is obviously part of the constant preparations for the wider regional war this summer. Other Arab sources have mentioned Hezbollah is reinforcing their bunker network, especially in south Lebanon with assistance from Beirut based Dalal Steel Industries which admitted shipping "truckloads" of building materials, steel and concrete to the south. [INN]

At the same time Hezbollah continues to prevent the 13,000 European units in south Lebanon serving with UNIFIL from monitoring the Shia militia an extension of Iran's army. It was even mentioned yesterday Iranian officers are now in command of every Hezbollah unit. As in 2006 the heaviest ground fighting will be in Lebanon's south from Israel's border to the Litani River nearly 20 miles to the north. When the Israel Defense Force (IDF) establishes its security zone by reaching the Litani it will move the Katyushas out of range of Israeli communities.

There are even reports the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) are constructing military posts in the disputed Shaba Farms/Mount Dov region where the borders of Lebanon/Israel/Syria converge. Senior officers with the IDF suspect this is being done to assist Hezbollah and to enable Syria to reclaim the area which was conquered by Israel during the Six Day War in June 1967.

Tehran - Iran is following up on its recent six days missile maneuvers by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) with air force exercises. PressTV reports the maneuvers have been designated the Defenders of the Sky of Velayat. Air Force commander Brigadier General Ahmad Miqani has stated the exercises are designed to prevent any penetration of Iran's airspace. This is obviously in anticipation of the possible air attack on some of Iran's nuclear facilities by the Israel Air Force (IAF). [PRESSTV]

Tehran - It is now being reported by RIA Iran is admitting its Shahab-3 ballistic missile actually has a range longer than the reported 1,250 miles (2,000 km). The announcement was made over the Fars news agency by Brigadier General Nosrallah Ezzati. For obvious reasons he did not mention its real range but I suspect it is close to the range of the CSS-2 purchased by the Houe of Saud from China in the mid-1980s. Its range is 2,5,00 miles (4,000 km). [RIA]

Mohmand Tribal Agency - NATO is risking a major crisis with Pakistan by preparing to stage a major offensive operation against Taliban bases on the Pakistan/Afghan border. Xinhua quoted a broadcast over the privately owned Geo-TV, "Hundreds of allied troops armed with their choppers, tanks and high-tech weapons have arrived at the Pak-Afghan border." NATO-Brussels have chosen to ignore constant warnings from Islamabad it will not allow foreign forces to operate on Pakistani soil for any reason probably because NATO misses a lot. Only last month eleven Pakistani soldiers were killed by a U. S. air strike. This cross border operation will destroy relations completely with one of the most strategically located countries in the world but Brussels, like Washington; seem hell-bent to create more enemies in the name of stability. A local Taliban unit, the Tahreek-i-Taliban (Pakistan Taliban) have already stated they will retaliate against any attack and I suspect Islamabad will send them military assistance and make no secret of it as Pakistan closes down any military mission or liaison with NATO. [XINHUA]

Srinagar - "We will continue to wage Jehad (holy war) against the Indian troops in Kashmir. We will not halt our attacks on them in Kashmir. Gun is part and parcel of the freedom struggle." Fayaz Wani of NewsBlaze reports that was the statement from the head of Hizbul Mujahideen Syed Salah-ud-din and this confirms the warnings by Indian intelligence and military officials attacks will increase in the state this summer. Kashmir is divided between Pakistan/India/China and Salah-ud-din is constantly aware only with the support of Islamabad-Tehran will his movement have any chance of ending India's occupation, the flashpoint of two of the three wars between Pakistan/India since 1947. [NEWSBLAZE]

He and his unit are at the vanguard of Pakistan President-General Pervez Musharraf's Action Plan which Musharraf presented to Tehran in February 2007. Of course the plan is offensive and this most recent warning could signal a sudden increase of infiltration attempts by Islamic fighters based on launching pads inside Pakistan's part of Kashmir. Not only has infiltration been maintained this year but right after Iran's most powerful decision making body the Council of Guardians visited Pakistan in May there have been a few occasions when Pakistan troops-Rangers provided cover fire for infiltration groups and just last week Pakistan/Indian troops exchanged fire for the first time since perhaps 1971 the year of the last full scale war between the two.

This year the infiltration attempts involve units of ten or more fighters instead of just two or three as in recent years and if that continues to increase it will force Delhi to put into action its Hot Pursuit policy and attack the militants at the bases inside Pakistan. Islamabad has constantly stated if that ever happens they will be forced to respond and the fourth war will be underway with Tehran also entering. There have even been indications for the past two years at least Beijing has positioned itself to take advantage of the next war by invading India again in the north east-Arunachal Pradesh which borders Tibet. China still claims the area and invaded India there for one month in October 1962.

Night Watch Information Service
http://www.crossfirewar.com
................................................benny

Jul 17, 2008 22:55 | Updated Jul 18, 2008 1:35
Mofaz repeats his talk of attacking Iran
By GIL HOFFMAN
Print Subscribe
E-mail Toolbar
Share article:

What's this?





Talkbacks for this article: 0


Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, who stands a good chance of becoming prime minister shortly after September's Kadima primary, defended his hawkish statements about a prospective attack on Iran this week in an interview with The Jerusalem Post.


Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz.
Photo: Ariel Jerozolimski [file]

Slideshow: Pictures of the week Mofaz was blamed for a record rise in gas prices worldwide after he told Yediot Aharonot on June 6 that Israel would attack Iran if it did not cease nuclear development.

The newspaper quoted him as saying that the sanctions against Iran were ineffective and therefore "there will be no choice but to attack Iran to halt the Iranian nuclear program."

Speaking this week at his Jerusalem office, Mofaz denied that he had any impact on international gas prices, which he said were the result of supply and demand. He reiterated his threats to Iran and said that Israel must be ready to act.

"Israel cannot let Iran get to the point of nuclearization," Mofaz said. "All options are on the table. If there won't be a choice other than a nuclear Iran or a military option, it's clear what our decision has to be."

Mofaz said all diplomatic alternatives must be exhausted before an attack was considered. But he said that Iran had succeeded in using the diplomatic process to stall for time as it expedited its production of centrifuges, warheads and missiles that could reach every European capital.

As the minister in charge of Israel's strategic dialogue with the United States on Iran, he will head to Washington later this month for a meeting with key officials in which joint policies on Iran could be reevaluated. One option that will be considered is a fourth and stronger set of United Nations sanctions.

"The strategy against Iran has not changed and it will continue to be led by the United States," Mofaz said. "We cannot let a dangerous regime threaten the entire would."
.................................................benny

Hizbullah moves into 'every town'

Jul. 17, 2008
Yaakov Katz , THE JERUSALEM POST
Hizbullah is bolstering its presence in south Lebanon villages with non-Shi'ite majorities by buying land and using it to build military positions and store missiles and launchers, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The decision to build infrastructure in non-Shi'ite villages - where Hizbullah has less support - is part of the group's post-war strategy under which it has mostly abandoned the "nature reserves," forested areas in southern Lebanon where it kept most of its Katyusha rocket launchers before the Second Lebanon War.

Behind the change is the mandate given to UNIFIL by the United Nations after the war in 2006. According to the mandate, the peacekeeping force can patrol freely throughout southern Lebanon but cannot enter villages or cities without being accompanied by soldiers from the Lebanese Armed Forces, which regularly tips off Hizbullah ahead of the raids.

News of the change in Hizbullah strategy came as Israel is trying to persuade the UN to strengthen UNIFIL's mandate to give it the right to patrol the villages freely.

"Hizbullah is moving into every town that it can," a senior defense official told the Post. "This is in order to evade UNIFIL detection."

On Thursday, Lebanese complained they were receiving recorded phone messages from Israel promising "harsh retaliation" for any future Hizbullah attack. The automated messages also warn against allowing Hizbullah to form "a state within a state" in the country.

The phone messages end with the words: "The State of Israel."

There was no immediate confirmation from Israel, though similar reports surfaced of Israeli phone campaigns during the 2006 war trying to persuade Lebanese not to support Hizbullah.

Lebanon's official National News Agency said residents in the country's south and east, as well as in Beirut reporting receiving the calls. It said Telecommunications Minister Jibran Bassil contacted the United Nations to complain, calling it a "flagrant aggression against Lebanese sovereignty."

Also Thursday, defense officials warned that with the prisoner swap completed, Hizbullah would no longer need to restrain itself and might decide to avenge the assassination of the group's operations chief, Imad Mughniyeh, who was killed by a car bomb in Damascus last February.

As a result, the IDF has slightly increased its level of alert along the border, based on the assessment that even if a retaliatory attack took place abroad the violence would spread to the Israeli-Lebanese border.

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

The Message in the Missiles

By Alireza Jafarzadeh
Fox News | 7/17/2008

Last week the ayatollahs’ capacity to stow death and destruction beyond Iran’s borders was on full display, when a barrage of Shahab missiles was test fired. Also last week, the French energy company, Total, pulled out of a huge investment in Iran's gas sector, citing "political risks."

Meanwhile, back in Iran, the gallows were busy. On July 10, Khalij Fars news agency reported four men were publicly hanged in the southern city of Borazjan. On Sunday, two men were hanged in the central city of Isfahan. A day before, Iran’s Supreme Court upheld the death sentence for three Kurdish political activists.

The common thread here is that Tehran faces mounting political and social dissent, aggravated by factional infighting, at home, and growing international isolation abroad. Belligerence looks to Tehran like a way out of this impasse.

Dismissing the missile test as a mere bluster is very dangerous. Much has been made of the unimpressive technology and Tehran's failed attempt at doctoring images of the launch. That analysis misses the point that Tehran’s missile capability still poses a grave threat to the region, because the intent behind it is belligerent.

Moreover, Iran's missile program has made advances in recent years, particularly since the ascendance of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) to the pantheon of power and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's presidency in 2005. After the main Iranian opposition, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) exposed Tehran's nuclear site at Lavizan in 2003, the regime transferred much of its nuclear work to secret tunnels. As I reported in my book, The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and Coming Nuclear Crisis, the secrecy of Iran’s missile production is now based upon so much of the program being underground. North Korea has been Iran's primary collaborator in building and expanding this underground infrastructure, providing experts and blueprints.

In September 2005, MEK provided more details about Iran’s missile operations in the secret tunnels associated with the Parchin Military Complex, a site 19 miles southeast of Tehran. A few weeks later the group was able to provide new information about the massive size and operations of the regime's tunnel complexes.

Accessible only by military roads, the largest tunnel complex is beneath the mountains of the Khojir region, just east of Tehran. This is where Movahed Industries, housed in the largest tunnel in the Khojir complex, builds the main body, does the final assembly, and warehouses the final product. This tunnel is about 1,000 meters long and 12 meters wide. Inside are six forklike, 500 meter extensions which extends from deep inside the central area of Khojir to the Bar Jamali Mountain.

The eyewitness accounts of the Iranian opposition sources inside Iran describe this tunnel as an underground city, complete with its own firefighting system, steam boilers for an independent heating system, air conditioning, water pumps, and a water-resistant electrical system.

Security measures include codenames for the industries that work on various aspects of the program. For example, Nori Industries, which builds the warhead and is the most secretive part of the program, is known as "8500."

The Khojir complex also contains dozens of other well-equipped tunnels that vary in length from 150 to 300 meters and contain more industries and warehouses in which missiles are kept. Among these is Bakeri Industries Group, whose five facilities in the Khojir complex produce surface-to-surface missiles, including the Iran-designed Fateh A-110, Nazeat, and Zolqadr. Fateh was among the missiles the Iranian regime fired last week.

Indeed, in an interview with the French daily Le Monde on February 25, 2005, Iran’s then nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani, acknowledged that reports about Iran building tunnels to hide its nuclear technology "could be true."

So with much of the ayatollahs’ missile program tucked away in massive underground tunnels, the level of its missile technology cannot really be judged from the video clips of last week’s launch. But one thing the world can be certain of is the nefarious intent of a regime whose IRGC commanders boast they have their fingers on thousands of missile triggers, aimed at 32 U.S. targets in the Middle East, and will plunge the region into "raging fire". Bluster? Maybe, but can the free world afford to take that chance?

The mullahs are building nuclear bombs and the missiles to carry them. Nuclear capability will make them a powerhouse in the region, and will bolster the morale of the hated IRGC, the key means to their repressive regime's staying power.

Although the ayatollahs’ missile-rattling can hardly disguise their growing political weakness, if they are not stopped, we are looking at a nuclear-armed state-sponsor of terrorism with an aggressive agenda that extends beyond neighboring Iraq. Washington needs to recognize this fact, with finality.

A day before the ayatollahs’ launch, the US Treasury Department slapped new sanctions on Tehran and pursuant to Executive Order 13382, designated four individuals and four entities for their roles in Iran’s missile and nuclear program. As Stuart Levey, under Secretary of Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, correctly pointed out, "Iran's nuclear and missile firms hide behind an array of agents that transact business on their behalf."

A growing number of members of Congress from both sides of the aisle believe that sanctions should be coupled with political pressure aimed at heightening the internal discontent, and weakening the regime. They maintain that Washington should remove all restrictions from the Iranian opposition groups, allowing them to play their real and indigenous role as a potent political force and dedicated to democratic change in Iran.
..........................................benny

John Bolton is making sense
Wed, 07/16/2008 - 8:39pm
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/9277
In a private e-mail list, Iran policy sage Gary Sick responds to John Bolton's latest editorial salvo (posted with permission):

As usual, John Bolton is absolutely right. His policy prescriptions may be reckless to the point of foolishness ("When in doubt, bomb!"), but his understanding of what is happening in Washington policy... is unerringly accurate.

While much of the world was hyperventilating over the possibility that the United States (and maybe Israel) were getting ready to launch a new war against Iran, Bolton was looking at the realities and concluding that far from bombing, the U.S. was preparing to do a deal with Iran. He had noticed that over the past two years the U.S. had completely reversed its position opposing European talks with Iran.

First, the U.S. indicated that it would participate if the negotiations showed progress. Then, when they didn't, we went further and actively participated in negotiating a new and more attractive offer of incentives to Iran. Bolton noticed that when that package was delivered to Tehran by Xavier Solana, the signature of one Condoleezza Rice was there, along with representatives of the other five members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany.

He had probably also noticed Secretary Rice's suggestion of possibly opening a U.S. interests section in Tehran -- the first step toward reestablishing diplomatic relations. And he didn't overlook the softening of rhetoric in Under Secretary William Burns's recent testimony to the Congress about Iran [pdf].

Now, just one day after Bolton's cry of alarm that the U.S. is going soft on Iran, we learn that the same Bill Burns will participate directly in the talks that are going to be held on Saturday in Geneva with the chief Iranian negotiator on the nuclear file. Bolton's worst suspicions seem to be confirmed.

Unlike many observers and commentators, Bolton has been looking, not at what the U.S. administration says, but what it does. Ever since the congressional elections of 2006, the U.S. has been in the process of a fundamental change in its policy on a number of key issues: the Arab-Israel dispute, the North Korean nuclear issue, and Iran. Since the administration proclaims loudly that its policies have not changed, and since the tough rhetoric of the past dominates the discussion, it is easy to overlook what is actually going on.

Bolton no doubt noticed that Rumsfeld is gone and replaced with Robert Gates, a very different sort of secretary of defense. He will have observed that the worst of the neocons (including himself) are now writing books and spending more time with families and friends, cheerleading for more war by writing op-eds from the outside rather than pursuing their strategies in policy meetings in the White House.

He will have seen the gradual shift of the policy center of gravity from Dick Cheney to Rice and Gates. He will have been listening when the Chairman of the JCS and others have said as clearly as they realistically can that the military option, though never renounced as a theoretical possibility, is the least attractive option available to us and in fact is close to impossible given our overstretch in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In other words, Bolton, as someone whose policies (in my view) are certifiably insane, recognizes real pragmatism and moderation in Washington when he sees it. And he does not like what he sees in this lame duck administration.

Over the past two or three years, we have been treated to one sensational threat after another about the likelihood of imminent war with Iran. All of these alarms and predictions have one thing in common: they never happened. Perhaps it is time for us to join Bolton in looking at the real indicators. When Bolton quits writing his jeremiads or when he begins to express satisfaction with the direction of U.S. policy, that is when we should start to get worried.
...................................................benny

The Jews

By Jim Fletcher

I like Jews. I like them a lot. More than that, I believe that God put a love for the Jewish people in my heart.

I just wanted to be upfront about my stance on the People the world obsesses over.

Sir Martin Gilbert said last year, “People don’t like Jews.” The British historian was not giving an opinion; he was stating a fact. I think he is correct. He was giving us a reason for some of the bizarre policies from the international community. You know, ways in which power-brokers the world over turn truth on its head: placing terror states like Syria on the U.N. Security Council; silence over Palestinian barbarism, while condemning Israel’s insistence on survival. Things like that.

I think Jew-hatred is a supernatural sickness. It infects otherwise healthy individuals. It is my opinion that a majority of people, if polled, would indicate either an indifference or hostility toward the Jews. It has always been this way, which is one of the most remarkable validations of the Bible, by the way.

For some reason, late in his life, Benzion Netanyahu has become a friend of mine. Whenever I’m in Israel, I like visiting with him. Now 97, the patriarch of a great Israeli family is sharp, engaging, and very wise. I’m sure he wonders why an evangelical from the American Midwest calls him.

And yet Benzion is a prime example of everything that is good about the Jews. He is fiercely nationalistic. He is discerning when it comes to human nature. He is principled. He has his detractors, because, as Charles Spurgeon once said, darkness hates the light.

Benzion guided his three sons to achieve great things in life. One, Yoni, became a legendary combat hero. Another, Iddo, is one of the most gifted writers I’ve ever known; he also finds time to be a physician! Of course, the third son, Bibi, was prime minister and the most eloquent spokesman for the Jewish state in the world today.

All three sons served in Israel’s elite commando unit, Sayeret Matkal. They are Zionists.

Thank God.

At a time when international opinion of Israel is hardening into something “not good,” there are people like the Netanyahu family that stand their ground. They see the world for what it is. People like that keep the rest of us alive.

Beyond that, there is the ethereal quality.

Benzion told me once about being a boy playing on the sand dunes of Tel Aviv. This was around 1920, when the city was still young. On Israel’s coast, today Tel Aviv is a bustling metropolis. “Then, there were only a few small buildings and the sun burned all day,” Benzion said. A stone’s throw from the beach (in the vicinity of Independence Hall), this section for me is a metaphor for Israel’s modern ascension. It is the sun shining on Israel’s rebirth, a miracle without peer in world history.

Today’s Jewish state is new, the brightest of lighthouses showing us the way. For in it, one can plainly see the guiding hand of the Lord of History. No puny man can thwart Him. Hezbollah from outside seeks to kill Israel. Hamas does the same from within. There are reports now that the Palestinian Authority’s Mahmoud Abbas will “reconcile” with the killers from Hamas. No surprise there; they are vultures-of-a-feather.

The recent terror event in Jerusalem, in which a Palestinian worker drove his bulldozer through a street of panicked people, is indicative of the madness of the Arabs. The scene unfolded near the city’s central bus station, where a friend of mine maintains an office. God told us in Genesis that Ishmael would be a wild donkey of a man, and that no man could reason with him. Terror plots are snuffed-out on a daily basis by the Israelis, and unfortunately, some succeed. Daily. People are obsessed with killing Jews. “People don’t like Jews.” None of this makes sense, unless the Bible is true.

The international community cannot summon-up the moral courage to scream about the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. American diplomats fume about Jewish reluctance to give away everything for a paper peace. Israeli society is divided to some degree, not able to make up its mind whether peace initiatives are good or bad.

And yet.

Through the prophet Isaiah, God said that He is always watching, and that Jerusalem’s walls are ever before Him. God does not forget even one captured soldier. He also gave ample warning to the nations, long ago, not to do anything that would endanger the Jews. Finally, even in that fractured society, Israel today speaks with one voice, literally. A century ago, the scholar Eliazar Ben-Yehuda began to resurrect the ancient Hebrew language. Right at this moment, Israelis gathered from dozens and dozens of countries…speak Hebrew. Again, this is unparalleled in human history, this restoration of an ancient people.

It isn’t that the world doesn’t recognize these things. It’s that the world rejects them. Fundamentally, humans understand that there is a God who made everything. In fact, He predicted our rebellion. He provided and provides constant proof that He exists. But the international community continues its mad march to oblivion and doom.

Once, the Jews were few in their ancient land. The land itself was bleak. But on cue, the Jews came back. They ran and laughed and shouted on the sandy shore of the Mediterranean.

The world hates them. The world tries to ignore them. Scholars call them a coincidence, an accident of history. Their enemies plot against them.

But — thanks be to God — they are here.

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

Moscow RIA Novosti) - Russia began the active stage of large-scale military exercises in several regions of the Southern Federal District, which includes the highly volatile North Caucasus republics, a senior military official said.

The exercise, dubbed Caucasus Frontier 2008, involves units of the North Caucasus Military District, mainly the 58th Army, the 4th Air Force Army, Interior Ministry troops, and border guards.

Lt. Col. Andrei Bobrun, an aide to the commander of the North Caucasus military district, said the exercise involves some 8,000 military personnel, about 700 combat vehicles and over 30 aircraft.

The main goal of the exercise, he said, is to practice interoperability between federal troops, interior ministry's troops, border guards, and the Air Force in special operations against militants and the defense of Russia's state borders.

The exercise will mostly take place on the territory of Chechnya, North Ossetia, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, and Karachayevo-Circassia.

According to statistics, 80% of terrorism-related crimes in Russia occur in the Southern Federal District, which includes the North Caucasus republics of Chechnya, Daghestan and Ingushetia.

Meanwhile, another large-scale military exercise began in the region on Tuesday as Georgia and the United States started Immediate Response 2008 near Georgia's capital, Tbilisi.

A total of 1,650 personnel, including troops from Armenia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine, are taking part in the $8-million drills, planned by the U.S. Armed Forces European Command and financed by the U.S. Defense Department.

Relations between Russia and Georgia plunged to a new low recently against the backdrop of outbreaks of violence in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, with the two countries trading accusations of provoking violence.

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

US Makes it Absolutely Clear: We Will Not Attack Iran's Nukes
July 18….(JWR/Caroline Glick) Any residual doubt that Washington has decided to take no action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons dissipated Wednesday with the news that Undersecretary of State William Burns will be participating in EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana's negotiations with Iran's nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili in Geneva on Saturday. That those negotiations will fail to end or even slow down Iran's progress towards nuclear weapons capabilities is a certainty. Ahead of the talks, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reiterated for the umpteenth time that Iran will make no compromises on its uranium enrichment activities. And so far, Iran, as opposed to Washington, has been true to its word. Given Iran's forthrightness, there is only one reasonable explanation for the administration's decision to send Burns to meet with Jalili: the US wants it to be absolutely clear to Iran and everyone else that it has no intention whatsoever of attacking Iran's nuclear installations. It makes sense that Washington considers it necessary to make this point clearly. In light of the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would constitute to US national security interests, it would have been more reasonable to assume that the US would attack Iran's nuclear facilities preemptively than to assume that the US would allow Iran to go forward with its goal to acquire nuclear weapons. A nuclear-armed Iran would place the US military's hard-won victories against Iranian surrogates in Iraq and its tentative success in separating Iraq's Shiite leaders from Teheran in jeopardy. So too, given Iran's increasingly active support for the Taliban, an Iranian acquisition of nuclear capabilities would cast doubt on the US's ability to defeat the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan. The US's economic well-being would be also endangered by a nuclear-armed Iran. Teheran has repeatedly threatened to attack Saudi oil platforms and endanger the oil shipping lanes in the Straits of Hormuz. And a nuclear arsenal will give Iran unprecedented power to dictate price setting policies for the OPEC oil cartel. Beyond all that, a nuclear-armed Iran would directly threaten US territory in two ways. First, there is no reason not to think that Iran would use Hizbullah cells in the US to detonate nuclear devices in US cities. Iran has already shown its willingness to use Hizbullah to carry out terror attacks in the West, most spectacularly in the 1994 bombing of the AMIA Jewish center in Buenos Aires. Second, it is widely feared that Iran is developing the capacity to launch an electromagnetic pulse (or EMP) attack against the US mainland. An EMP attack is conducted by launching a nuclear bomb into the atmosphere above a country. It needn't actually hit the country. Simply by detonating a nuclear device at sufficiently high altitude, an EMP attack can destroy the electrical grids, communications systems and military-industrial foundations of a society. Such an attack on the US would set the country back a hundred years. Fears of an Iranian EMP attack against the US were sparked last week by Iran's test of an advanced version of its Shihab-3 ballistic missile. The day of the missile test, William Graham, who heads a congressionally mandated commission on the EMP threat to the US, gave testimony on the issue to the House's Armed Services Committee. Graham explained that Iran has already conducted missile test launches from ships in the Caspian Sea. If it acquires nuclear weapons, it will apparently have the capacity to launch a nuclear warhead capable of carrying out an EMP attack against the US from a freighter sailing in international waters off the US coast. While any of these threats would be sufficient to justify a preemptive US attack against Iran's nuclear installations, the US still has a reasonable excuse for not conducting such an attack: Iran has made clear that if it acquires nuclear weapons, the US will not be Teheran's first target. Israel enjoys that distinction. And since the US is Iran's second target, the Bush administration has made clear that if Iran attacks Israel, the US will launch an attack against Iran. That is, the US will fight to ensure that Iran won't be able to attack it if America moves to the head of Iran's target list. But as long as it's only number 2, it will take no action. The US cannot be accused of being unfair to Israel by deciding not to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. After all, defending Israel is Israel's responsibility, not America's. And on this point, news reports in recent weeks have made it clear that while the US will not attack Iran, it has given Israel a "green light" to attack Iran's nuclear installations in a preemptive attack. And this is no small thing. The Bush administration's willingness to stand back and allow Israel to attack Iran's nuclear installations in order to prevent a nuclear holocaust of the Jewish state compares well with the President's father's administration's treatment of Israel in the 1991 Gulf War. At that time, Israel was under threat of Scud missile borne chemical weapons attack. Although Saddam Hussein ended up not attacking Israel with chemical weapons, the threat that he would was credible. He attacked Israel with Scud missiles almost every night for the duration of the Gulf War. Despite this obvious *causus belli*, the first Bush administration not only refused to politically support Israel's right to defend itself against Iraqi aggression, it took active steps to prevent Israel from attacking Iraq's Scud missile installations. Then President George H.W. Bush refused to provide Israel with the electronic codes that would allow Israeli and US jets to identify one another as friendly aircraft. In so doing, he left open the prospect that the US would shoot down IAF jets over Iraqi airspace if Israel dared to defend itself. So mindful of the precedent set by his father, President George W. Bush's decision to leave the door wide open for an Israeli preemptive attack against Iran is a positive development. But an open door is only significant if someone is willing to walk through it. And it is far from clear that the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government has any intention of walking through it. For an Israeli government to walk through that door, its leaders would have to be vested with a sense of national destiny and a modicum of responsibility and competence. But as Wednesday's bodies-for-murderers deal with Hizbullah demonstrated, the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government has no sense of national destiny and no competence to lead the country. What Wednesday's spectacle showed is that Israel's leaders' horizons are limited to the space between yesterday's news and tomorrow's headlines. Wednesday Israel received the corpses of IDF hostages Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser in exchange for baby murderer Samir Kuntar, four fellow Hizbullah terrorists and two hundred bodies of Palestinian and Lebanese murderers. The government knows for a fact that Wednesday's deal will lead directly to the murder of more Israelis and to the abduction and murder of more IDF soldiers. It simply doesn't care. Given the media's refusal to cover anything that they can't personalize and trivialize, the media are incapable of adequately reporting the danger that Iran's nuclear program constitutes to Israel as a whole. And since they will not concentrate on this basic reality, the Olmert-Livni-Barak-Yishai government feels no pressure to contend with the danger. Aside from that, although a successful strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would win them considerable clout with the public and unsuccessful strike would end their political careers. And their careers are the only thing Israel's leaders are concerned with. This being the state of affairs in Israel today, all the open doors in the world won't help Israel in its moment of crisis. Only two things can guarantee that Israel's leaders will take action against Iran. Either someone will come up with a way to guarantee success, and this is not likely; or the government will fall and the nation will elect new leaders who understand their responsibility for Israel's national destiny and are capable of walking the nation through that open door.

If the US sacrifices Israel, God will sacrifice the US.

July 18…. The United States will announce in the next month that it plans to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years, a British newspaper said on Thursday. In a front-page report, the Guardian said Washington would open a US interests section in the Iranian capital, halfway towards opening an embassy. The unsourced report by the newspaper's Washington correspondent said: "The Guardian has learned that an announcement will be made in the next month to establish a US interests section in Tehran, a halfway house to setting up a full embassy. "The move will see US diplomats stationed in the country." Senior US diplomat William Burns said in testimony to Congress last week the United States was looking to opening up an interest section in Tehran but had not made a decision yet. The Guardian said the development was "a remarkable turnaround in policy by President George Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his time in office." Washington said on Wednesday it was sending Burns to join atomic talks with Iran this weekend to signal to Tehran and others that Washington wanted a diplomatic solution to their nuclear impasse. The United States cut off diplomatic ties with Tehran during the 1979-1981 hostage crisis, in which a group of militant Iranian students held 52 US diplomats hostage at the American embassy for 444 days.

Iran preparing for the twelveth Iman.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=399_1216562613

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

Top US military chief is convinced Iranians seek atom bomb
DEBKAfile Special Report

July 20, 2008, 9:16 PM (GMT+02:00)

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Fox News he is convinced the Iranians are seeking to building an atomic bomb, “a very destabilizing possibility in that part of the world.” He stressed the US had the capacity and the reserves to attack Iran as a last resort

DEBKAfile’s Washington sources stressed the special significance of Mullen’s statement on Sunday, July 20. The night before, a senior Israeli security official said that if the US-Iranian talks failed, President Bush planned to use the three-month period between the November elections in America and his exit from the White House in January for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Saturday night, too, Israel’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi arrived for a week’s visit as the admiral’s guest.

Mullen warned that while the US has the capacity and reserves for attacking Iran, there could be “possible unintended consequences” and an unpredictable regional impact from any attack on Iran – a hint at a dangerous backlash from a possible Israeli strike uncoordinated with the United States.

“I’m fighting two wars and I don’t need a third one,” said Mullen referring to Iraq and Afghanistan.

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

Jul 20, 2008 23:51 | Updated Jul 21, 2008 0:04
'I'm fighting 2 wars, don't need a 3rd'
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON
Print Subscribe
E-mail Toolbar
Share article:

What's this?





Talkbacks for this article: 9


The Pentagon's top military officer Adm. Mike Mullen on Sunday discussed the fallout from a potential attack against Tehran by either the US or Israel. "Right now I'm fighting two wars and I don't need a third one."


Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen. [file]
Photo: AP

Slideshow: Pictures of the week Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Mullen added, "I worry about the instability in that part of the world and, in fact, the possible unintended consequences of a strike like that and, in fact, having an impact throughout the region that would be difficult to both predict exactly what it would be and then the actions that we would have to take to contain it."

In the same interview, Mullen also said that a specific time frame for withdrawing US combat troops from Iraq could jeopardize political and economic progress, leading to "dangerous consequences."

According to Mullen, the agreement between US President George W. Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to set a "general time horizon" for bringing more troops home from the war was a sign of "healthy negotiations for a burgeoning democracy."

RELATED
Gillerman: Iran likelier to use nukes via proxies
Report: Iran, US holding joint exercise
"I think the strategic goals of having time horizons are ones that we all seek because eventually we would like to see US forces draw down and eventually all come home," the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman said. "This right now doesn't speak to either time lines or timetables, based on my understanding of where we are."

The best way to determine levels of troops, he said, is to assess the conditions on the ground and to consult with American commanders - the mission Bush has given him.

"Based on my time in and out of Iraq in recent months, I think the conditions-based assessments are the way to go and they're very solid. We're making progress and we can move forward accordingly based on those conditions," Mullen said.

Maliki, meanwhile, was quoted by a German magazine over the weekend as saying US troops should leave "as soon as possible" and he called Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's suggestion of 16 months "the right timeframe for a withdrawal." Later, his chief spokesman said in a statement that the prime minister's comments were "not conveyed accurately."

Mullen, asked about the possibility of withdrawing all combat troops within two years, said, "I think the consequences could be very dangerous."

"It's hard to say exactly what would happen. I'd worry about any kind of rapid movement out and creating instability where we have stability. We're engaged very much right now with the Iraqi people. The Iraqi leadership is starting to generate the kind of political progress that we need to make. The economy is starting to move in the right direction. So all those things are moving in the right direction," Mullen said.
.................................................benny

Is the US involved in Joint Military Exercises Against Iran???

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

http://newsblaze.com/story/200807201.....;/topstory.html

Iran Not Involved in Joint Military Exercises With U.S.

By Alan Gray, NewsBlaze

Today, The Media Line reported a joint military exercise in Kyrgyzstan, with Iran and the US taking part. [ Reproduced at NewsBlaze: Iran, U.S. in Joint Military Exercise ]

According to information received from The Media Line, "The computer command-post exercise codenamed Regional Cooperation 2008 began on July 15 and will end on July 24, the Russian news agency Interfax reported."

U.S. Central Command in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, for the Regional Cooperation exercise tells NewsBlaze the Interfax news agency story has a key inaccuracy. Iran is in no way involved with the Regional exercise.

USCENTCOM reports "The countries involved in the exercise are: Kyrgyzstan; the United States; Tajikistan; Kazakhstan; Pakistan; and Afghanistan."

The Media Line reported the original source as Interfax, but NewsBlaze is unable to locate the story at Interfax.

judythpiazza@newsblaze.com
.............................................benny

Back to Headlines | Previous Story | Next Story | Print Version




US Gen Warns Russia Against Basing Nuclear Bombers In Cuba



WASHINGTON (AFP)--Russia would cross "a redline for the United States of America" if it were to base nuclear capable bombers in Cuba, a top U.S. air force officer warned on Tuesday.

"If they did, I think we should stand strong and indicate that is something that crosses a threshhold, crosses a red line for the United States of America," said General Norton Schwartz, nominated to be the air force's chief of staff.

He was referring to a Russian news report that said the military is thinking of flying long-range bombers to Cuba, and possibly establishing a base there.

-Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-5500

Click here to go to Dow Jones NewsPlus, a web front page of today's most important business and market news, analysis and commentary: http:// www.djnewsplus.com/al?rnd=QA5Or9%2BdFTmIOp%2FOWRu4fw%3D%3D. You can use this link on the day this article is published and the following day.

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

Tuesday, July 22, 2008
OBAMA IN THE EPICENTER: Will he admit mistake in opposing the "surge" in Iraq?


UDPATE: Joel will be on Janet Parshall's nationally syndicated radio show at 2:15pm eastern today -- Tuesday -- to discuss the Iranian threat to the U.S. and Israel
* U.S. says Iran has missile that could hit Europe
--------------------------
The race for President of the United States is currently in a dead heat. I have absolutely no idea who is going to win this thing, and anyone who tells you they do is just guessing. Remember: a year ago, the pundits said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was a "sure thing" to win the Democratic nomination, and Sen. John McCain was a "sure thing" not to win the GOP nomination. The pundits were wrong then. I wouldn't put much stock in them now....That said, Sen. Barack Obama faces a very real and daunting hurdle to victory in November. Only 48% of Americans think he would be a strong and decisive enough Commander-in-Chief to lead the U.S. through what could be a tumultous next four years, according to a poll released last week by ABC News. Another 48% are convinced Sen. Obama would specifically not be a good Commander-in-Chief. By contrast, 72% of Americans believe Sen. John McCain would lead our military forces well, while only 25% say he would not. Understand that gap and you'll understand precisely why Obama this week is in the epicenter....With all eyes fixed on Israel and her neighbors and the conflicts that consume them, the junior Senator from Illinois realizes his international record does not inspire confidence. He has no military experience and precious little foreign policy experience, certainly none to compare with to Sen. McCain, a bonafide war hero who has been engaged in every major foreign policy debate of the last quarter century. To win in November, Obama has to close that perception gap. He has to convince more Americans that he is ready for whatever comes next, be it more terrorism from al Qaeda, or an orderly transition of power in Iraq, or -- heaven forbid -- a full blown war with Iran. So he is meeting with foreign leaders as well as U.S. military commanders on the ground in Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan and Israel and hoping at the very least that the pictures Americans see on TV and in the newspapers from his whirlwind tour will cause them to begin to see him as a world leader and ease their many doubts....While it's true that a picture is worth a thousand words, even a week's worth of photos may not be enough. After all, the Senator's core problem is not simply that he lacks the requisite experience. It's the widespread perception that he lacks the necessary judgment when it comes to the most troubling issues of the Middle East. Consider two examples, Iraq and Iran.
-----------------------------
IRAQ -- From the moment President Bush announced that he was taking Sen. McCain's advice to send more U.S. troops to Iraq to crush the insurgency and restore order, Sen. Obama has been a fierce critic of the "surge," arguing not only that it would not help, but that it would actually make the situation worse. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq are going tosolve the sectarian violence there," Obama said on January 17, 2007. "In fact, I think it will do the reverse." Eighteen months later, the results are in: the "surge" has been an astounding success. Things didn't get worse. They got better. Much better. Violent attacks against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians are down 80%. More than 90% of Iraqi terroritory is now quite safe. More than 70% of combat operations in Iraq are now led by Iraqi forces, with U.S. assistance. Yet Sen. Obama struggles to acknowlege the success and refuses to describe his decision to vote against the "surge" in Iraq as a mistake, even as he supports a surge of more U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Consider this exchange yesterday with Terry Moran of ABC News.
Moran: "'[T]he surge of U.S. troops, combined with ordinary Iraqis' rejection of both al Qaeda and Shiite extremists have transformed the country. Attacks are down more than 80% nationwide. U.S. combat casualties have plummeted, five this month so far, compared with 78 last July, and Baghdad has a pulse again.' If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you -- would you support the surge?"
Obama: "No, because -- keep in mind that -"
Moran: "You wouldn't?"
Obama: "Well, no, keep -- these kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. I think what I am absolutely convinced of is that at that time, we had to change the political debate, because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with."
Moran: "And so, when pressed, Barack Obama says he still would have opposed the surge."
----------------------------
IRAN -- In May of this year, Sen. Obama told a town hall meeting that he thought of Iran as small and relatively harmless country, hardly a major threat to the United States, Israel or our allies in the Middle East. “I mean think about it.," he told a group of supporters. "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us....You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military." His aides and advisors were horrified. Even Sen. Clinton conceded Iran was a major threat -- particularly given the regime's lust for nuclear weapons --though she refused to offer a plan to neutralize the threat. So the next day, the Senator flip-flopped. He told a new audience a new story, that he actually does believe Iran is a threat. But Obama's original, unscripted remarks were telling. In his heart, Sen. Obama does not actually believe the regime led by the Ayatollah Khameini and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are deeply and inherently dangerous. He sees Iran as a nuisance, not a forthcoming nuclear-armed power. That is why he is so adamant about wanting to sit down and negotiate personally with Ahmadinejad, without preconditions. His official website actually boasts about this position. "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions," it reads. But to what end?....Has Sen. Obama actually studied the speeches of Khameini and Ahmadinejad? Has he studied their eschatology, or end times theology? Has he been properly briefed on how this eschatology is driving Iranian foreign policy? No one who truly understands what the current Iranian leadership believes could honestly conclude that they can be successfully negotiated with, much less deterred. Ahmadinejad, after all, believes it is his God-given mission to annihilate the U.S., Israel and Judeo-Christian civilization as we know. Why? To create the conditions that will bring the Islamic Messiah known as the Mahdi or the "12th Imam" to earth. Ahmadinejad is not just another power-hungry dictator in the mold of the Soviet or Chinese leaders of yore. He is a Shia Islamic fascist. He believes his life destiny is to kill millions of Jews and Christians and usher in an Islamic caliphate. He believes he is a John-the-Baptist, a forerunner, of the Islamic Messiah. If he dies, he believes he will spend eternity in paradise with 72 virgins. But he doesn't really believe he's going to die. He believes he has been chosen for a divine appointment, and that nothing can stop him. That is what makes him so dangerous. Unfortunately, too many Washington politicians -- Sen. Obama included -- do not understand this....Bottom line: I am glad Sen. Obama and his team are traveling through the epicenter this week. My prayer is that aside from all the lights and cameras and political stagecraft, the Senator is able to hear and discern true wisdom about the actual conditions and trendlines in the region. I hope he is able to come away with a new sense of the high stakes of American failure or success in Iraq, and a palpable sense of the rising threat from Iran. The eyes of the nations are riveted on the Middle East for a reason. The future of the world increasingly depends on what happens there, and the future of America depends a great deal on having a President who understands the times and knows what the U.S. should do.
--------------------------------------
MORE HEADLINES TO TRACK:
* Terror attack in Jerusalem in front of King David Hotel ahead of Sen. Obama visit: Bulldozer driver goes on rampage in Jerusalem, apparent copycat of recent deadly attack, 24 wounded, driver shot dead
* Obama opposes surge in Iraq....
* ....but Obama supports surge in Afghanistan
* Venezuela's Chavez calls for alliance with Russia
* British PM warns Iran in speech to Israel's Knesset: "Iran has a clear choice to make: suspend its nuclear program and accept our offer of negotiations or face growing isolation and the collective response not just of one nation, but of all nations around the world."
--------------------------------------
* "60 Ways To Bless Israel At 60"
* Would you consider signing up to make a monthly donation to The Joshua Fund of $25, $40 or $60? All donations are tax deductible. For more information on how to make contributions by mail -- or by secure on-line credit card transactions -- please click here.
* What is The Joshua Fund?
* Sign up for Flash Traffic, free email alerts from Joel C. Rosenberg
* Dead Heat: A Novel (34% off at Amazon)
* Epicenter: Why The Current Rumblings In The Middle East Will Change Your Future (32% off at Amazon)
* Epicenter documentary film on DVD

posted by Joel C. Rosenberg @ 10:18 AM
..................................................benny

Russia needs bombers in Cuba due to NATO expansion - ex-commander
14:53 | 21/ 07/ 2008

MOSCOW, July 21 (RIA Novosti) - The possible deployment of Russian strategic bombers in Cuba may be an effective response to the placement of NATO bases near Russia's borders, a former Air Force commander said on Monday.

Russian daily Izvestia earlier on Monday cited a senior Russian military source as saying that Russian strategic bombers could be stationed again in Cuba, only 90 miles from the U.S. coast, in response to the U.S. missile shield in Europe.

"If these plans are being considered, it would be a good response to the attempts to place NATO bases near the Russian borders," Gen. of the Army Pyotr Deinekin told RIA Novosti.

"I do not see anything wrong with it because nobody listens to our objections when they place airbases and electronic monitoring and surveillance stations near our borders," the general said.

However, Deinekin said the possibility of Russian bombers being stationed in Cuba is largely hypothetical, because Russia's Tu-160 Blackjack and Tu-95MS Bear strategic bombers are both capable of reaching the U.S. coast, patrolling the area for about 1.5 hours, and returning to airbases in Russia with mid-air refueling.

Russia resumed strategic bomber patrol flights over the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic oceans last August, following an order signed by former president Vladimir Putin. Russian bombers have since carried out over 80 strategic patrol flights and have often been escorted by NATO planes.

Deinekin suggested that Cuba could be used as a refueling stopover for Russian aircraft rather than as a permanent base, because the Russian political and military leadership would be unlikely to take such a drastic step under current global political conditions.

In October 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis brought U.S. and the U.S.S.R. to the brink of nuclear war when Soviet missiles were stationed in Cuba.

The crisis was resolved after 12 days when the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, backed down and ordered the missiles removed.

Moscow had a military presence on Cuba for almost four decades after that, maintaining an electronic listening post at Lourdes, about 20 km (12.5 miles) from Havana, to monitor U.S. military moves and communications.

Russia was paying $200 million a year to lease the base, which it closed down in January 2002.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080721/114527149.html


Russian combat aircraft could return to Cuba - paper
11:13 | 21/ 07/ 2008

MOSCOW, July 21 (RIA Novosti) - Russian combat aircraft could return to Cuba in a bid to counter U.S. plans to deploy a missile shield in Central Europe, a Russian daily reported on Monday.

Moscow has strongly opposed the possible deployment by the U.S. of 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and an accompanying radar in the Czech Republic as a threat to its national security. Washington says the defenses are needed to deter a possible strike from Iran, or other "rogue" states.

"While they are deploying the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, our strategic bombers will already be landing in Cuba," a high-placed military aviation source told the Izvestia newspaper.

Russia's Tu-160 (Blackjack) and Tu-95 (Bear) strategic bombers are both capable of reaching Cuba.

However, while the source admitted that the possibility of Russian bombers being stationed in Cuba was for now just a hypothetical possibility, he also noted that the rumors had not appeared from out of thin air.

At the same time, Leonid Ivashov, the former head of the Russian Defense Ministry's department for international cooperation, and currently president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, told Izvestia that Cuba could be used as a refueling stopover for Russian aircraft rather than as a permanent base.

In October 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis saw a tense standoff between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. when Soviet missiles were stationed in Cuba. As the world held its breath, President John F. Kennedy opted to launch a blockade of Cuba rather than invade, as some American military commanders wanted. The crisis was resolved after 12 days when the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, backed down and ordered the missiles removed.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080721/114500746.html
.....................................................benny

Hold Iran accountable


Senator Obama should express commitment to acting against Iran's genocidal intentions

Irwin Cotler Published: 07.22.08, 23:33 / Israel Opinion




During his visit this week, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president of the United States, Senator Barack Obama, can be expected to speak eloquently about Israel’s right to live in peace and security, and the struggle for peace in the Middle East.



What is of compelling concern now – for the sake of peace and security – is that Senator Obama affirm – and act upon – the lessons of the Holocaust and of the more recent genocides – in the Balkans, Rwanda, and Darfur – that followed. As Senator Obama well knows, the enduring lesson of these tragedies is that they occurred not simply because of the machinery of death, but because of the state-sanctioned incitement to hatred. This teaching of contempt – this demonizing of the other – this is where it all begins.



Obama Campaign

Image is everything / Yigal Walt

Obama, Palestinians embody world where symbols more important than substance, Yigal Walt says
Full Story



As the Supreme Court of Canada put it, "The Holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers; it began with words."



It is this understanding of the lessons of history and jurisprudence by Senator Obama – a distinguished constitutional law professor before entering politics – and his appreciation of the companion lesson of the dangers of indifference and inaction in the face of genocide, that invite him to undertake a leadership role in advocating the available legal remedies to combat this state-sanctioned incitement to genocide.



For we have been witnessing for some time a state-sanctioned incitement to genocide whose epicentre is Ahmadinejad's Iran. I distinguish Ahmadinejad's Iran from the people of Iran who are themselves increasingly the target of the Iranian regime's massive repression of human rights – a fact underscoring the principle that countries that violate the rights of their own citizens will surely violate those of neighbouring countries.



Indeed, today, in Ahmadinejad's Iran, one finds the toxic convergence of the advocacy of the most horrific of crimes, namely genocide, embedded in the most virulent of hatreds, namely anti-Semitism. It is dramatized by the parading in the streets of Tehran of a Shihab-3 missile draped in the words "Wipe Israel off the map" while the assembled thousands are exhorted to chants of "Death to Israel" - a standing incitement ever present on his website.



Moreover, Ahmadinejad's Iran is increasingly resorting to incendiary and demonizing language, including epidemiological metaphors reminiscent of Nazi incitement. Senator Obama himself stated that Ahmadinejad’s “words contain a chilling echo of some of the world's most despicable and tragic history.” For example, Ahmadinejad characterizes Israel as "filthy bacteria," “a stinking corpse” and "a cancerous tumor that needs to be excised," while referring to Jews as "evil incarnate," “blood-thirsty barbarians” and the "defilers of Islam" - the whole as prologue to, and justification for, a Mid-East genocide, while at the same time denying the Nazi one.



Moreover, calls by the most senior figures in the Iranian leadership for the destruction of Israel are also frighteningly reminiscent of calls for the Rwandan extermination of Tutsis by the Hutu leadership. The crucial difference is that the Hutus were equipped with machetes, while Iran, in defiance of the world community, continues its pursuit of the most destructive of weaponry - nuclear arms.



Iran has already succeeded in developing and testing a long-range missile delivery system for that purpose, which former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said could "eliminate Israel in one single storm."



The failure to stop past genocides, as in the unspeakable, preventable genocide of Rwanda, caused the then-UN secretary general Kofi Annan to lament in 2004 on the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan genocide: "We must never forget our collective failure to protect at least 800,000 defenceless men, women and children who perished in Rwanda 10 years ago.



"Such crimes cannot be reversed. Such failures cannot be repaired. The dead cannot be brought back to life. So, what can we do?"



The answer is for the international community to pay heed to the precursors of genocide in Ahmadinejad’s Iran, and to act now as mandated under the Genocide Convention, which prohibits the "direct and public incitement to genocide." Indeed, as one involved as Minister of Justice in Canada in the prosecution of Rwandan incitement, I can state that the aggregate of precursors of incitement in the Iranian case are more threatening than were those in the Rwandan one.



Senator Obama clearly understands these threats from Iran. In his speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee last month, Senator Obama spoke of Ahmadinejad as a “President (who) denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave; it is real; and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.”



But the Senator stopped short of an important initiative: identifying and supporting now, as the presumptive Democratic nominee, the juridical remedies available to the United States to combat Ahmadinejad’s incitement.



For what is so often ignored is that state parties to the Genocide Convention, such as the United States, have not only a right, but a responsibility, to enforce the convention, particularly to prevent genocide.



Indeed, the Genocide Convention itself, together with international legal instruments such as the Treaty for an International Criminal Court – which also directly prohibits the public incitement of genocide – and the UN Charter, authorize panoply of international juridical remedies to which Senator Obama could refer.



Specifically, an application for immediate action against Iran – also a state party to the Genocide Convention – should be submitted to the Security Council pursuant to Article 8 of the Genocide Convention. This would allow the United States to detail the compelling danger of genocidal incitement presented to Israel by Ahmadinejad’s Iran and seek an effective range of sanctions and remedies against this dire threat, the whole without any procedural obstacles to overcome.



The evidence supporting such an application to the Security Council – as Senator Obama can appreciate – is alarming and overwhelming, and it includes:



The virulent hate speech and incitement to genocide that emerges on a continuous basis from Ahmadinejad’s Iran, dehumanizing Israelis and Jews and paving the way for a genocide to be perpetuated against them.


The despicable support for Holocaust denial – an assault on Jewish memory, truth and justice.
The tangible steps towards acquiring nuclear weapons that Ahmadinejad’s Iran continues to take, in blatant disregard for international condemnation and sanctions.
The shameful, criminal connection between Ahmadinejad’s Iran and crimes against humanity through its support for two genocidal movements – Hizbullah and Hamas – which are trained, financed, armed and instigated by this regime. This terrorist link has been confirmed, among other sources, by Argentina’s Special Prosecutor Alberto Nisman, who concluded that the horrific bombing of the Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1994 – the greatest terrorist atrocity in Argentina since World War II – was conceived, planned and ordered by the “highest echelons in the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
The myriad domestic human rights violations committed on a daily basis in Ahmadinejad’s Iran, showing the regime’s callous indifference to the most basic freedoms of its population and the lives of its neighbours.



Accordingly, given this genocidal incitement, the cases of Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders can be referred to other UN agencies as well. It is astonishing that this criminal incitement has yet to be addressed by any agency of the UN, including the UN Security Council the UN General Assembly, or the UN Human Rights Council. To the contrary, the UN found fit to give Ahmadinejad a podium in the past, while he has indicated that he will attend the UN General Assembly again this fall.



Senator Obama can also advocate several measures that the United States could be taking on the domestic front. For instance, it should be preparing criminal indictments of Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders on the basis of the "universal jurisdiction" principle, which would become actionable when they set foot on American territory, just as Ahmadinejad did on September 24, 2007, when speaking at Columbia University in New York, and just as he prepares to do again when he visits the UN General Assembly in the fall. At the very least, the United States should support remedies in private law against Ahmadinejad, akin to the tort action that was instituted against the Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic.



Perhaps most simply, Ahmadinejad and other designated Iranian leaders should be placed on a watch list, preventing their entrance into the United States as "inadmissible persons," as has been done in the past for then-Austrian president Kurt Waldheim because of his participation in the persecution of civilian populations during World War II.



Advertisement



It is time for Senator Obama – while still the presumptive Democratic nominee – to support and promote one or more of the above options, which might also embolden progressive forces within Iran, while holding the responsible Iranian individuals accountable.



The juridical remedies to Ahmadinejad’s incitement exist, but the leadership has thus far been wanting. Just last month, Senator Obama declared that “as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security.” Yet in the face of Ahmadinejad’s incitement, continued inaction is compromise.



When he visits Israel and the Middle East this week, Senator Obama will have the opportunity to demonstrate that he understands these lessons, that he understands his country’s responsibility under the Genocide Convention, and that he understands that the full force of international law must be invoked against those who so outrageously defy its principles. Senator Obama knows very well the tragic history of genocide; let us trust that he will act against incitement and indifference to it.



The writer is the Member of Parliament for Mount Royal and the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. He is a Professor of Law (on leave) at McGill University and has written extensively on - and prosecuted for - incitement to genocide


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

Sudan Receives New Shipment of Russian Fighter Jets

Russian MIG-29 fighter Jet

July 23….(Sudan Tribune) A shipment of new Russian MIG-29 tactical fighters has recently arrived into Sudan from Belarus, a source familiar with the matter told Sudan Tribune today. The source who spoke on condition of anonymity said that a dozen MIG-29 combat fighters were shipped discreetly by planes through a Belarusian company two weeks ago. However he could not confirm whether the fighters were actually sold by Belarus or they simply came through the East European country. The planes are now in the Wadi Sayedna air base, the source added. Belarus is one of the Sudan armament providers. A military cooperation protocol covering training, exchange of experiences, and military science fields was inked between the two countries in June 2006. If the MIG-29’s are used in Darfur it would be in violation of UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution 1591 which prohibits selling arms to Sudan government or Darfur rebels for use in the war ravaged region. Last year Russia was accused by Amnesty International (AI) supplying arms to Sudan for use in Darfur but the Russian foreign ministry denied the charge. Last May a MIG-29 was shot down by Darfur rebels over the Sudanese twin capital city of Omdurman and its Russian pilot was killed.

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

Iran, Israel, and the risk of war

Paul Rogers
www.opendemocracy.net


The cautious optimism over Washington's hesitant dialogue with Tehran is counterbalanced by growing unease that Israel is intent on a military option, says Paul Rogers 24 - 07 - 2008

The prospect of war over Iran's nuclear plans seemed to recede in mid-July 2008 after a marked change in United States attitudes to the country. This was signalled by the decision to hold direct talks with the Islamic Republic for the first time since the revolution of 1979 and the subsequent hostage crisis that did so much to embitter relations between the two countries. The outcome of the discussions held in Paris on 19 July was disappointing to western hopes of concessions from Iran over its uranium-enrichment plans, but the fact of the meeting has been hailed as a positive step that diminishes what had seemed to be the escalating risk of armed confrontation.

Between this hope and a stony reality, however, falls a shadow. For even if the momentum in Washington has moved away from the planning for a military strike against Tehran's nuclear facilities, the option of an attack by Israel is very much alive. In the complex strategic calculations of the three main state actors, therefore, the mild and provisional rapprochement between the US and Iran is only one counter that in itself does not eliminate the possibility of war (see "Israel, the United States and Iran: the tipping-point", 13 March 2008).

A static momentum

The shift in Washington's approach to Iran seems to have been the result of pressure from two branches of government: the state department, where influential policy-makers have sought to revive a diplomatic path over Iran; and the defence department, where there has been real concern over the possible consequences of a military confrontation. This has been voiced by a number of senior military commanders, most recently Admiral Mike Mullen, chair of the joint chiefs-of-staff (see "Top US admiral says strike on Iran means turmoil", Reuters, 20 July 2008). Mullen has conveyed a pithy scepticism about the fallout of war with Iran ("This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable") with a sharp awareness of the limits imposed by the US's own military overstretch ("Right now I'm fighting two wars and I don't need a third one"). At the same time, he is emphatic that Iran has to be "deterred" in its ostensible ambition of achieving a nuclear-weapon capacity (see "U.S. admiral calls for global pressure on Iran", Xinhua, 21 July 2008)

This element of ambiguity was reflected too at the 19 July meeting (which included representatives from China, Russia, France, Britain, and Germany). Although the US was represented by under-secretary of state William Burns, the highest ranking US official to be in dialogue with Iran for many years, the sense of a process almost immediately stalled was palpable. The secretary of state Condoleezza Rice was critical of the Iranian delegation immediately after the meeting (see Matthew Lee, "U.S. says Iran not serious at nuclear talks", Baltimore Sun, 21 July 2008). Members of other delegations that took part were scornful of Iran's preparation and input, including the paper distributed at the meeting which outlined Tehran's core positions (see Elaine Sciolino, "Iran offers 2 pages and no ground in nuclear talks", International Herald Tribune, 22 July 2008).


Paul Rogers is professor of peace studies at Bradford University, northern England. He has been writing a weekly column on global security on openDemocracy since 26 September 2001.



A vengeful disillusion

The Paris dialogue may nonetheless have confirmed that the balance within the George W Bush administration has moved away from planning for war with Iran. This would be a cruel disappointment to those inside (vice-president Dick Cheney and his team) and outside (neo-conservative and other hawkish voices) the administration who have long sought to match action against Iran to the "axis of evil" rhetoric.

Indeed, the reaction of the analysts who have promoted a hardline agenda on Iran to Washington's change of approach is instructive. For many, it has evidently been a bad dream which has confirmed their sourness towards Condoleezza Rice and the state department but also introduced a new note of disillusioned disgust against the George W Bush administration as a whole.

The hardliners' unsettled mood is compounded by Barack Obama's lead in the opinion polls, amid a more general positive coverage of the Democratic candidate's campaign reflected in the blanket coverage of his overseas tour to Afghanistan, the Middle East and western Europe (see Dan Balz, "Obama Going Abroad With World Watching", Washington Post, 19 July 2008).

In addition, the agreement of Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki with Obama's call for a major US troop withdrawal from Iraq is a serious embarrassment for the Republican candidate, John McCain, who has been making much of Obama's inexperience in foreign affairs (see Jim Lobe, "McCain knee-capped by Maliki", Asia Times, 23 July 2008). The widespread frustration of Republicans and conservatives at the Obama summer festival is reinforced by the apparent media sidelining of the campaign of the Republican candidate, John McCain (see Linda Feldmann, "McCain camp cries foul", Christian Science Monitor, 24 July 2008).

Yet the neocon focus on Iran remains central, with a rising sense of aggravation that Iran has been rewarded with serious diplomatic attention from Washington even though it has made no effort (and has expressed no intention) to cease its uranium-enrichment activities. Such a cessation had long been a pre-requisite for any change in the US's attitude; its abandonment opens the administration to that toxic charge: appeasement, only one step from betrayal.


In addition to his weekly openDemocracy column, Paul Rogers writes an international security monthly briefing for the Oxford Research Group; for details, click here.

Paul Rogers's most recent book is Why We're Losing the War on Terror (Polity, 2007) - an analysis of the strategic misjudgments of the post-9/11 era and why a new security paradigm is needed.


Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute described Bush's reversal as "diplomatic malpractice on a Carter-esque level that is breathing new life into a failing regime" (see Michael Rubin, "Now Bush is Appeasing Iran", Wall Street Journal, 21 July 2008). Indeed, Rubin contends: "As Ahmadinejad begins his re-election campaign, he can say he has successfully brought Washington to its knees through blunt defiance, murder of US troops, and Holocaust denial."

This is strong stuff, but others are even harsher on the Bush administration. Stephen F Hayes, a regular commentator in the neocon journal the Weekly Standard, makes a direct connection with the Bush about-turn on North Korea (which included, on 26 June 2008, removing Pyongyang from the United States's list of state sponsors of terrorism). After North Korea's nuclear test in October 2006, Bush initially rejected calls for negotiations; yet in a matter of weeks he allowed the state department's Christopher R Hill to meet a North Korean delegation, with a further meeting in Berlin in early 2007. This rapprochement notwithstanding, Stephen F Hayes notes that North Korea assisted Syria in developing the nuclear reactor that was (on 6 September 2007) to be bombed by Israel.

Hayes goes on to argue:

"Despite all of this - despite North Korean nuclear aid to one of the world's leading terrorist regimes and despite its subsequent failure to account for its nuclear programs - in June the Bush administration volunteered to lift sanctions on North Korea under the Trading with the Enemy Act and, over the objection of our close ally Japan, decided to remove North Korea from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terror" (see Stephen F Hayes, "'Stunningly Shameful': The Bush administration flip-flops on Iran", Weekly Standard, 28 July 2008).

Another stern reproach for the administration's u-turn on Iran comes from the former under-secretary of state for arms control and United Nations ambassador in the Bush administration, John Bolton. Bolton focuses too on Israeli concerns about Iran's nuclear plans, and is straightforward in arguing that the Bush policy towards Iran has failed, and that it is reasonable to expect Israel to take military action. Moreover, he argues:"we should be intensively considering what cooperation the U.S. will extend to Israel before, during and after a strike on Iran. We will be blamed for the strike anyway, and certainly feel whatever negative consequences result, so there is a compelling logic to make it as successful as possible" (see John Bolton, "Israel, Iran and the bomb", Wall Street Journal, 15 July 2008).

A spreading unease

Meanwhile, Israeli sources report that Iran is about to get the first shipments of the advanced S-300 surface-to-air missile system which can track multiple incoming aircraft simultaneously and can attack up to twelve at a time (see Yaakov Katz, "Officials: Advanced S-300 on way to Iran", Jerusalem Post, 23 July 2008). Some sources indicate that a number of the missiles could be deployed around nuclear sites later in 2008 or very early in 2009, making any Israel attack far more costly (see Dan Williams, "Iran to get new Russian air defences by '09 - Israel", Reuters, 23 July 2008).

In Israel itself, there is now far more talk of the need to take action before the US presidential election comes to a climax on 4 November 2008, or at latest before the new president is inaugurated 20 January 2009. The Israeli academic Benny Morris is among those arguing that an Israeli attack is highly likely:

"Israel will almost surely attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months - and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country's nuclear program" (see Benny Morris, "Using Bombs to Stave Off War", New York Times, 18 July 2008).

For their part, the western European countries may have been buoyed by the US's leaning towards dialogue with Iran, but the overall mood in at least some capitals has otherwise darkened notably in recent weeks. In contrast to the relief engendered by Washington's cautious reach-out to Tehran, there is mounting unease at the chances of dissuading the Israelis from using their perceived window of opportunity.

A conflict involving Iran is not inevitable, but the blunt fact is that it is more likely in the next few months than at any time in the last five years. Alongside the incalculable - but almost certainly very grave, and possibly catastrophic - security and economic consequences, at least one likely political effect is not what the conflict's architects would wish. This is that a singularly hardline presidential candidate would gain a much needed boost in a forthcoming election as his country falls into line behind him at a time of crisis; thus might Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in mid-2009 help ensure himself four more years in power.


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

Israeli Intelligence: Iran will Wait for Bush Exit
July 24….(Jerusalem Post) The Israeli intelligence community has reported its conclusion that Iran has decided to maintain restraint until the departure of US President Bush and that its allies hope for the election of Sen. Barack Obama. The intelligence community has assessed that Iran and Syria would continue preparations for war with Israel and the United States but would seek to maintain regional calm until the new administration takes office in January 2009. "They are unlikely to begin a war with Israel while Bush is still in office," Israeli military intelligence chief Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin said. In a briefing to the Israeli Cabinet on July 20, Yadlin said Iran and Syria could use their proxies, particularly Hamas and Hizbullah, to attack the Jewish state. But the military intelligence commander said the two Middle East states remain concerned that Bush might order a massive strike before he leaves office. The Israeli intelligence assessment has determined that Damascus and Teheran believe that Bush's successor would either reject or suspend any US plan to destroy Iran's nuclear weapons infrastructure. The assessment said Iran and its Middle East allies were rooting for the victory of Sen. Barack Obama. Yadlin said Iran and Syria have not completed their rearmament effort. He said both countries were acquiring advanced Russian platforms and weapons and would need until at least 2009 to absorb them into their militaries. Over the last year, Iran and Syria have been deploying a range of Russian air defense systems. Officials said they included the S-300 for Iran, the TOR-M1 and the Pantsyr-S1E.

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

Olmert to Obama: By late 2009, early 2010 Iran will be able to assemble nuclear bomb
DEBKAfile Special Report

July 23, 2008, 11:23 PM (GMT+02:00)

Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert told visiting US Senator Barack Obama Wednesday night, July 23 that within little more than a year, Iran would be able to assemble all the components for a nuclear bomb. He said the international penalties to force Iran to give up its nuclear plans must be speeded up without removing the military option from the table.

Earlier, senior Israeli defense sources reported that Iran is set to receive Russian S-300 anti-air missiles for fighting off strikes against its nuclear facilities by early September, seriously complicating any air attack.

DEBKAfile’s military sources note that this was the second statement in four days by Israeli security sources, stressing the need for expeditious action to preempt Iran’s military nuclear progress.

It is not by chance that this latest statement coincided with the visit by the Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama. He spoke in general about his commitments on Iran if he wins the race to the White House. This second Israeli statement indicated a specific time frame for action.

The Israeli sources, who refused to be named, said the first delivery of S-300 missile batteries was expected as soon as early September, weeks away, and could take six-to 12 months to be deployed and made operable.

“There is no doubt,” he said, “that the S-300s would make an air attack more difficult.

This assessment clashed with a statement by US defense secretary Robert Gates who said on July 9 ”… it’s highly unlikely that those air defense missiles would be in Iranian hands any time soon.” Gates is known to be a firm objector to a US or Israeli military operation against Iran’s nuclear sites.

Israel’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, who is spending a week in Washington will no doubt update American officials on Israel’s latest intelligence on Iran’s plans.

Saturday night, July 20, an Israeli “security-political official” estimated that if diplomatic efforts to bring Iran to give up uranium enrichment failed, President George W. Bush would order Iran attacked between the November 4 presidential election and his exit from the White House in January. The quote was aired shortly after the six-power talks with Iran in Geneva – with US official participation for the first time – ended without an answer from Tehran.

One of the purposes of the Israeli air force drill over the Mediterranean last month, widely seen as a dress rehearsal for a possible raid on Iran, was to practice passes against the S-300 batteries which Greece acquired from Russia via Cyprus.

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

Last update - 09:31 24/07/2008


Ashkenazi in U.S.: All options are on the table regarding Iran

By Haaretz service and Reuters

Tags: Iran, Gabi Ashkenazi, IDF

Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, on his first official visit to Washington, warned Thursday that Israel would not rule out any course of action regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions, Israel Radio reported.

"We are all united in the view that Iran needs to be prevented from obtaining a nuclear weapon. There is no doubt that diplomatic activity and sanctions are preferable, but we all understand - we and the Americans - that we need to prepare all options," the radio report quoted Ashkenazi stating after meeting with senior United States officials.

Western nations accuse Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of its civil nuclear program. Iran denies that, saying its atomic program is to generate power so it can export more of its valuable oil and gas.
Advertisement

On the first day of his trip Wednesday, the IDF chief warned that it was crucial to block what he called "Iranian aggression" in the Middle East.

"We are are witnessing, I believe, a paradigmatic change in the Middle East in which radical countries and elements are trying to [install] a new order to replace the traditional national, secular one that exists today," Ashkenazi said in a brief speech at the Israeli Embassy.

Israel and Washington accuse Iran of fomenting violence in Iraq and of supplying arms to Palestinian militants and to Lebanon's Hezbollah, which the United States regards as a terrorist organization.

"At the center of this radical axis is Iran, who seeks to achieve its regional aspiration of hegemony by upsetting the existing balance of power," Ashkenazi told the embassy, accusing Iran of backing "terror organizations and radical groups" and of pursuing nuclear arms "to project power within the region and beyond."

"I believe it is therefore crucial that we block Iranian aggression, which [may] in turn weaken the radicalization process in the region presently being manifested in such places as Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and in the Palestinian territories," he added.

Ashkenazi made no reference to speculation about the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. Israel carried out an air strike last year on a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor.

The IDF chief met with U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney on Wednesday, as well as senior congressmen and John Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state. On Thursday he was set to meet with his counterpart at the Pentagon, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen.

Meanwhile, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama pledged to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert Wednesday that if elected, he will coordinate his policy on Iran with Israel.

Senior U.S. officials, while saying they never take any option off the table - code for the possibility of a military strike - have played down speculation about a U.S. military strike against Iran over its nuclear program.

But speculation that Israel could bomb Iranian nuclear installations has grown since it reportedly carried out a large-scale air force drill over the Mediterranean last month that was widely seen as a "dress rehearsal" for a possible raid on Iran.

The United States is pursuing a diplomatic path to try to persuade Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program, a process that can produce fuel for power plants or, if greatly refined, for nuclear weapons.

So far, neither Western offers of economic incentives nor three UN Security Council sanctions resolutions have convinced Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.

U.S. officials have said repeatedly they are focused on the diplomatic track and, along with other permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany, have given Iran two weeks to respond to a fresh offer of incentives from the so-called P5+1 group if it suspends uranium enrichment.

Ashkenazi's schedule on Wednesday included meetings with U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and key members of Congress. On Thursday, he is to meet Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.


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

U.S. admiral: Iran strike on Israel 'likely'

By Amir Oren



Iran is likely to launch ballistic missiles against Israel and the United States and the NATO alliance should prepare for it, was the warning issued earlier this week by Admiral James Winnefeld, commander of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. In recent years, the missile boats of the Sixth Fleet practiced intercepting Shahab-3 missiles from Iran aimed at Israel, along with the Arrow batteries of the air force and U.S. and Israeli batteries of Patriot missiles.

In an article entitled "Maritime Strategy in an Age of Blood and Belief" in the U.S. Naval Institute's monthly Proceedings, Admiral Winnefeld describes the possibility of an offensive barrage of ballistic missiles fired from Iran against Israel as being "by far the most likely employment of ballistic missiles in the world today, and it demands our immediate attention in the event of a need for a U.S. or NATO response." Advertisement


He says Iran is an "unpredictable adversary," which could be provoked into action "by an isolated, and perhaps seemingly unimportant, event."

Winnefeld's commander, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon, Admiral Michael Mullen, mentioned earlier this week during his visit in Israel the presence of missile defense vessels of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean and their role in intercepting Iranian missiles.

One of Mullen's hosts noted at the end of the visit that even though Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and the other senior officers did not discuss operational coordination, it was mentioned during discussions that both sides would like to avoid mistaken confrontations, of the sort that led to the IDF attack against the U.S. Navy ship, Liberty, in June 1967.

At a briefing to reporters in the Pentagon Wednesday, Mullen discussed his good relations with Ashkenazi and his impressions of the visits with the IDF on the northern border and near the Gaza Strip. "Israel remains a vital and trusted military ally in the Middle East," he said, which faces "very real security threats" and "the tyranny of what I call 'close-quarters geography,'" Mullen said.

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs added that "Iran is still working to develop nuclear weapons" and that the Israeli timetable in relation to Iran's nuclear program is shorter than the U.S's. However, the admiral stressed he is opposed to an Israeli or U.S. strike against Iran.

Such a strike could destabilize the region and open a third front for the U.S. armed forces, while it is preoccupied in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said.

The Iranian regime remains "a destabilizing factor in the area," Mullen said, but in his view the prefered way of resolving the issue lies in international diplomacy and not the use of military force.
................................................benny

i have wondered this now, many times when seeing this topic..

and because i certainly don't know a whole of of prophecy.. I wanted to ask.. and maybe? somebody could explain..

the topic title Isaiah 17:1 speaks of damascus .. i think? damascus is in syria.. but all the postings seem to be about iran

how are the two tied together?

any simple and brief explanation will do.. and thanx!! in advance

Cheryl - aka - HE IS Faithful

i think the main connection today is that Iran uses syria (damascus) as its proxy..remember the last Irsaeli war vs hizbullah? sure they were fighting hizbullah but syria was pulling hizbullahs strings and Iran was "advising" syria....i think iran will use syria to do its dirty work next time...that way, iran can guage the west/israeli response without taking any hits to iran itself...

Waiting for Islam's Messiah
By George Thomas
CBN News Reporter
July 17, 2008


CBNNews.com - QOM, Iran -- Iran's president believes Allah has chosen him to prepare the world for the coming of an Islamic 'savior' called the Mahdi.

But before the Mahdi's return, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes there must be global chaos - even if he has to create it himself.

Whether it's his belief that Israel should be wiped off the map, denials of the Holocaust, obsession with going nuclear, or support for radical Islamic terrorist groups, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a man on a divine mission.

To understand him, and that mission, you have travel to the small dusty village of Jamkaran tucked in a corner of Iran's holy city of Qom.

On a recent Tuesday afternoon, CBN News made that journey heading south out of Iran's capital, Tehran. Some 95 miles, and a couple of wrong turns later, we arrived at the Jamkaran mosque on the outskirts of Qom.

Behind the Jamkaran mosque there is a well. According to many Shiite Muslims, out of this well will emerge one day their version of an Islamic 'savior.'

They call him the Mahdi or the 12th Imam.

Ron Cantrell has written a book about the Mahdi. He explained, "The Mahdi is a per