I found this bit of new interestesting, Pulled it from the News Report from Jerusalem!

Looks like the Russians are getting bold!





As the storm of war approaches


10.06.2006.14:28

The clouds of the coming war are converging upon Israel. But the Jewish State's political and military leaders refuse to look up at the darkening sky.

The Russian bear has awakened after fifteen years of hibernation. Under the leadership of former KGB commander President Vladimir Putin, Russia is reasserting its traditional hostility towards Israel.

On Tuesday, Russian military engineers landed in Beirut. Their arrival signaled the first time that Russian forces have openly deployed in the Middle East. In the past Soviet forces in Syria and Egypt operated under the official cover of "military advisors." Today those "advisors" are "engineers." The Russian forces, which will officially number some 550 troops, are tasked with rebuilding a number of bridges that the IDF destroyed during the recent war. They will operate outside the command of the UNIFIL.

Mosnews news service reported on Wednesday that the engineers will be protected by commando platoons from Russia's 42nd motorized rifle division permanently deployed in Chechnya. According to the report, these commando platoons are part of the Vostok and Zapad Battalions both of which are commanded by Muslim officers who report directly to the main intelligence department of the Russian Army's General Staff in Moscow. The Vostok Battalion is commanded by Maj. Sulim Yamadayev who Mosnews refers to as a "former rebel commander."

With the deployment of former Chechen rebels as Russian military commandos in Lebanon, the report this week exposing Russia's intelligence support for Hizbullah during the recent war takes on disturbing strategic significance.

According to Jane's Defense Weekly the Russian listening post on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights provided Hizbullah with a continuous supply of intelligence throughout the conflict.

Much still remains to be reported about the impressive intelligence capabilities that Hizbullah demonstrated this summer. But from what has already been made public, we know that Hizbullah's high degree of competence in electronic intelligence caused significant damage to IDF operations. Now we learn that Moscow stood behind at least one layer of Hizbullah's intelligence prowess.

Moscow's assistance to Hizbullah was not limited to intelligence sharing. The majority of IDF casualties in the fighting were caused by Russian-made Kornet anti-tank missiles that made their way to Hizbullah fighters through Syria. Indeed, as we learn more about Russia's role, it appears that Russia's support for Hizbullah may well have been as significant as Syria's support for the terror organization. And now we have Chechens in Lebanon.

Russian backing of Hizbullah, like its support for Syria and Iran has been matched by its extreme, Cold War-esque hostility towards Israel. On Tuesday, Channel 2 reported that for the past few months Putin has been obsessively demanding that the government transfer proprietary rights and control to the Russian government over the Russian Compound, which has served as a police station since the British Mandate, and other Russian historical buildings in central Jerusalem.

Putin's demand, which has no legal foundation or diplomatic precedent, exposes startling disrespect for Israeli sovereignty. According to Channel 2, Russian diplomats have been raising this obnoxious demand at the start of every meeting they have had with Israeli officials for the past several months. This most recently reported slap in the face joins a long list of diplomatic crises that Russia has fomented in the past few months.

In just one example, last month the Russians cancelled the Russia-Israel trade fair in Tel Aviv on the eve of its opening. Russian businessmen who had already arrived in Israel and were unable to get flights home the day of the announcement, were ordered by the Russian embassy to remain in their hotel rooms until they returned to the airport for the first available flight to Russia.

Then there is Russia's unstinting support for Iran's nuclear weapons program. During the latest of his frequent visits to Teheran, Tuesday Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced, yet again, that Russia opposes all international sanctions against Iran. Indeed, since Iran's nuclear program was exposed three years ago, Russia has acted as Iran's defender against every US attempt to galvanize the international community to take action to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capabilities.

In 1967 Russia played a central role in fanning the flames of war in Syria. In the months that preceded the Six Day War, Moscow fed Damascus a steady diet of false intelligence indicating that Israel was planning to invade. In the summer of 1973, the Soviets also encouraged Syria to join Egypt in invading Israel.

Whether or not Russia is interested in fomenting the next war, its intentions are less relevant than how Russia's extreme positions are interpreted by the Arabs. Judging by Syrian President Bashar Assad's recent bellicose speeches, it appears that Damascus believes that Russia will support Syria if it goes to war against Israel. In his latest address regarding Syria's willingness to go to war if Israel doesn't fork over the Golan Heights forthwith in "peace negotiations," Assad made clear his belief that whatever its level of intensity, a Syrian war against Israel could well advance his interests.

Russian influence is also evident in Assad's "peace" rhetoric. His protestations of willingness to conduct negotiations with Israel are taken directly from the Soviet playbook. As the reactions the speech elicited from leaders of the pro-Syrian camp in the Israeli Left like Maj. Gen. (ret.) Uri Saguy, Education Minister Yuli Tamir, Ha'aretz columnist Yoel Marcus, and MK Azmi Bishara made clear, all that is needed to manipulate Israeli public opinion regarding Syrian intentions is a hollow and disingenuous Syrian announcement: If we abide by all of Damascus's demands, (something Damascus will never allow us to do), then Syria will give us "peace," and if we don't, then the responsibility for the war that will ensue will be our own.

What is Israel doing to meet these gathering threats?

First we have our elected leaders. They contend with the growing threats by denying them, giving in to them and attempting to change the subject. The Olmert-Livni-Peretz government had no public reaction to the Russian-Chechen deployment in Lebanon. As far as the Israeli government is concerned, this issue, like the fact that Hizbullah has returned to its pre-war positions and that UNIFIL forces are doing nothing to prevent its rapid rearmament, should be of no interest to the public.

According to Channel 2, Olmert is now leaning towards capitulating to Russia's demands and transferring proprietorship over the Russian Compound to the Russian government during his upcoming visit to Moscow.

As to Syria, rather than crafting a Syria policy, the government argues about the desirability of giving Syria the Golan Heights now or later. Above and beyond all else, as Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Amir Peretz proclaim, from the government's perspective, the best way to deal with the growing military threats is to ignore them and destroy Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.


Our political leaders are not the only ones involved here. It is the IDF's duty to sound the alarm bells and contend with these threats. But the IDF is doing no such thing. Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz claims that he is devoting all of his time to rebuilding the IDF after what he refers to as its "mediocre" performance in Lebanon. Practically speaking, however, Halutz is not contending with the threats. In an interview with Yediot Ahronot on Sunday, Halutz discounted the Syrian developments and maintained his position that we won the war in Lebanon and are feared by Hizb'allah.

Far from contending with the IDF's "mediocrity," Halutz is prolonging it. The IDF's "mediocre" land campaign in Lebanon was led by Deputy COS Maj. Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky, Operations Directorate Chief Maj. Gen. Gadi Eisenkot and Brig. Gen. Tal Russo who oversaw the IDF's special operations. Rather than contend with these officers' demonstrated mediocrity, Halutz has promoted them. Eisenkot was appointed the new commander of Northern Command, and Russo will be promoted to major general and replace Eisenkot as head of Operations. Furthermore, Maj. Gen. Iddo Nehushtan who commands the Planning Directorate supports opening negotiations with Syria. Halutz promoted Nehushtan to his position after he led the IDF's failed media campaign during the conflict.

Halutz has repeatedly stated that he will resign if he feels that his authority is no longer accepted by the army. Yet, the primary officers who have felt the brunt of his authority - Armored Brigade 7 commander Col. Amnon Eshel and Maj. Gen. Yiftach Ron-Tal - are the most prominent officers who have forthrightly attempted to point out the reality of the IDF's defeat.

It is clear why Halutz behaves this way. If he were to sound the alarm bells about the rising dangers in the north, he would have to admit that he failed in his command of the war. Similarly, if he were to bring new blood into the ground forces' chain of command, he would be effectively admitting that Kaplinsky, Eisenkot, Russo, and he as their commander, led the war irresponsibly. Indeed, the only way that Halutz can keep his job is by not contending with the dangerous military realities that have arisen as a result of the IDF's defeat in the war against Hizbullah this summer.

It is this policy of denial that motivated Halutz to fire Maj. Gen. Ron-Tal from the service on Wednesday night for Ron-Tal's statement of the obvious: The year the IDF devoted to training its forces to expel the 9,500 Israeli civilians from Gaza and northern Samaria last summer came at the expense of training for war against Israel's enemies. It was also this policy of denial that motivated Halutz to bar Eshel from promotion for two years after Eshel pointed out how incompetently Division 91 Commander Brig. Gen. Gal Hirsh commanded his forces in Lebanon.

Halutz accused Ron-Tal, who has been on paid leave pending his retirement for the past seven months, of bringing politics into the IDF for his statement that the IDF's single-minded devotion to the government's controversial political program harmed its war-fighting capabilities, and for his call for Halutz and Olmert to resign. Yet, during his tenure as Chief of Staff, Halutz has been slavish in his public devotion to the government's political preference for using the IDF to fight the Israeli residents of Judea, Samaria and Gaza over preparing for war against Israel's enemies.

Any objective observer of the developments in our region understands that the storm of war is rapidly approaching us. With Moscow's blessing, the Palestinians, Hizbullah, Syria and Iran are steadfastly preparing for battle.

There is no doubt that Israel can weather the coming storm. But to do this, we must have political and military leaders who are willing to recognize its inexorable approach.

Jewish World review




Your Friend in Christ,

Valerie

Messiahiscoming






Iran warns of retaliation if sanctions imposed





I heard that N. Korea has basically said the same thing!

This is getting pretty messy!





Your Friend in Christ,

Val



Messiahiscoing

INTL - US fears 'hell' of a response

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



PLANS previously drafted by the Pentagon predict 52,000 US military casualties and one million civilian dead in the first 90 days of conflict if America attacked Pyongyang.

The US leadership is looking at international economic and diplomatic sanctions against North Korea as its primary response to Monday's nuclear test.
But military contingencies are considered as a matter of course and analysts paint a horrific picture for even the most targeted of US strikes.

A report this week by US-based security and military analyst Stratfor predicts North Korea could return fire on Seoul with "several hundred thousand high-explosive rounds per hour" -- with up to 25 per cent of shells filled with nerve gas.

Other estimates say the US would need at least 500,000 ground troops to secure against a North invasion of the South.

"When US military planners have nightmares, they have nightmares about war with North Korea," the Stratfor analysis says.

Despite the risks, Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations expert Michael Levi, along with several Australian analysts, believe a North Korean nuclear test would increase the likelihood of a US military response.

Pentagon strategists continue to work on military contingencies but all scenarios forecast massive casualties and a high likelihood of escalating war.

When confronted with Pentagon drafts in 2004, US President George W. Bush was reported to have been horrified at the human cost. Updated Pentagon plans outlining bombing of North Korean nuclear sites, border artillery and troop emplacements call for:

ROUND-the-clock strikes using Stealth and Lancer aircraft and naval-launch cruise missiles to destroy nuclear and missile capability and set the research program back years.

AIR bombing, possibly including US tactical nuclear weapons, to penetrate metres-thick concrete protecting the North's nuclear research complex at Yonben.

But Stratfor's assessment said even if limited strikes were ordered against only nuclear research facilities, North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's unpredictability meant a high potential for huge retaliation.

Stratfor argued the US had two advantages -- the time it would take Pyongyang to develop a miniaturised nuclear weapon for carriage on a missile; and America's distance from North Korea.

"The most important issue is the transfer of North Korean nuclear technology to other countries and groups," Stratfor said.

It concluded by urging US military restraint. "The consequences of even the most restrained attack could be devastating."

LINK:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...19-661,00.html
.................................................................................................benny

US push for air strikes

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

PENTAGON hawks will try to persuade US President George W. Bush he should order immediate military air strikes to obliterate North Korean nuclear sites.

Australian National University defence expert Ron Huisken said Mr Bush's chief advisers would be gunning for action without waiting for a lead from the United Nations.
"The President will receive some advice to the effect that it is better not to wait, that there will not be a clearer trigger point than what we have now," said Dr Huisken, senior fellow at the ANU's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre.

"I suspect (Vice-President Dick) Cheney and (Defence Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld might argue we now know (they've got the bomb) and we've got to do this some time.

"I think they have an eye also on Iran. You certainly can't rule (an attack) out."

The ANU centre's director, Robert Ayson, said the stakes were high.

He said the problem the US faced in attacking would be North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's promise to turn South Korean capital Seoul into "a sea of fire" and the potential for it to launch missiles on Japan.

Dr Ayson said the US had 37,000 troops in South Korea and casualties would be high. Pyongyang had an estimated 80,000 artillery pieces concentrated on the area and may use non-conventional chemical weapons.

Despite the risks, Dr Ayson, a specialist in North Asian strategy, said the US military option was a real possibility, given Mr Bush has said he could not tolerate a nuclear North Korea.

"Military action is now more likely after the test, but is probably less than 50 per cent (likely)," Dr Ayson said.

US intelligence sources said the Bush Administration was considering naval action around North Korea, stopping short of a blockade but intercepting and inspecting all ships off the peninsula.

Analysts estimate North Korea may have enough nuclear material for a dozen weapons and has built two or three, but is yet to miniaturise them enough for long-range missiles.

The major threat its nuclear capacity posed was the potential for it to sell a bomb to a terrorist group that would sail it to a US port, or the possibility for it to drop a device from an aircraft over a major city.

The regime has claimed to have had nuclear arms since 1995; they are mainly plutonium-based but North Korea is also known to be developing uranium-based material.

Dr Huisken said China would be angered by North Korea ignoring its demands in recent weeks not to conduct the test -- a factor that should lead to quick agreement by the UN Security Council for economic and diplomatic sanctions against the regime.

"For the first time in four years Seoul, Beijing, Tokyo and Washington would be prepared to agree that this is an intolerable development," Dr Huisken said.

"I think the hardest part will be to agree on how far to go."

But US military strikes could eventuate if the UN process gets bogged down, military analyst Derek Woolner said.

"Military action is possible but it is more important to get a strong international diplomatic response," he said.

China, North Korea's main ally and benefactor, would now increase its pressure on Pyongyang, including the possibility of withdrawing financial and food support, which could leave millions more North Koreans at risk of starvation.

Mr Woolner said the nuclear crisis might also drive the US and China closer together.

Iran, which continues to ignore international pleas to abandon its nuclear program, is also likely to be encouraged if North Korea is not dealt with harshly.

Mr Woolner said the US and Australia had been concerned for some time about North Korea's desire to spread missile technology and the potential for it to share its nuclear developments with Iran and others.

Mr Woolner said the US would redouble its efforts to destabilise Kim Jong-il from within North Korea, but its isolation made that prospect difficult and he faced no established opposition.

"There are continuing whispers about just how strong his grasp on power is," Mr Woolner said.

But others, including Dr Ayson, believe the military leadership in Pyongyang fully supports North Korea's entry into the nuclear arms club.

LINK:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...45-663,00.html
.................................................................................................benny

Tehran Arms Hamas for a Double-Barreled War Option and Gaza as Second Lebanon

DEBKAfile Special Military Report

October 13, 2006, 10:42 PM (GMT+02:00)

The military pacts Palestinian Hamas interior minister Said Siyam signed with his Iranian counterpart Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi in Tehran on Oct. 12 are designed to transform Hamas’ military wing, the Ezz e-Din al Qassam, into a crack operational arm of the Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, and Gaza into a second Lebanon.

Syam was in Tehran for two days at the head of a 7-man delegation.

DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources report Tehran has committed to training Hamas’ rapid deployment force of 6,500 men in Hizballah combat tactics, with the accent on missiles, especially the anti-tank variety which were used with devastating effect against Israeli tanks in the Lebanon War. The force will be sent over in batches for six-week courses at Revolutionary Guards installations in southern Iran.

Iran will foot the $60 million bill for the training as well as for the top-notch weaponry.

The Hamas military delegation flew from Cairo to Dubai and on to Tehran. Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and intelligence chief, Gen. Omar Suleiman, were apprised of the Hamas leaders’ trip and the military accords they were to sign, but did nothing to detain the travelers.

This was taken by Hamas and the Iranian government as signaling Cairo’s assent to the Hamas-Iranian transaction, a green light for the trips through Egypt of trainee groups to and from Iran and a continuing blind eye to the delivery of Iranian armaments via Egypt to Gaza.

Egypt is thus assuming the same role In relation to Tehran and its terrorist proxies as does Syria, which places its airfields at Iran’s disposal for delivering arms to Hizballah.

The accords merely formalize Tehran’s massive arming of Hamas which is already in progress. Smuggling tunnels from Egyptian Sinai under the Philadelphi border strip are the conduits into S. Gaza for supplies of long-range anti-tank missiles, Grad rockets and some two tons of TNT every month. Israeli forces have been battling the Hamas and its supply routes for the last three days.

According to our intelligence and Iranian sources, the pacts that were signed were compiled in September down to the last detail by three Revolutionary Guards generals stationed in Syria since the Lebanon war, as Hizballah’s forward command, and the Damascus-based Hamas politburo head, Khaled Meshaal.

Hamas’ military wing is accordingly undergoing a process that within months will transform the Palestinian terrorist group into one of Tehran’s overseas operational military arms, the second after Hizballah in Lebanon.

This will enable the Islamic Republic to ignite two simultaneous wars against Israel – from Gaza in the south and from Lebanon in the north.

This development is the direct consequence of this summer’s Lebanon War. It was made possible by Israel’s evacuation of the Gaza Strip in September 2005.

The Gaza maneuver shows Iran’s rulers striking with speed, efficiency and ruthlessness in their determination to isolate the Jewish state and draw a military noose around its borders.

Instead of resistance, they encounter inertia on the part of Israel’s political and military leaders. Prime minister Ehud Olmert has eyes for nothing but broadening the base of his government coalition. He has offered to create for Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the (Russian immigrant) party Israel Beitenu, the new post of Deputy Prime minister for Strategic Threats. Defense minister Amir Peretz thinks it is more important to prepare the armed forces for the evacuation of unauthorized West Bank settlements than for the next war. By the time they find a moment from these preoccupations, they will find Iran, Syria and Hamas have perfected a real strategic threat. By then it will be too late to repel except by a major campaign to recapture the Gaza Strip and crush the Hizballah-style force threatening southern Israel.

This campaign may be even tougher than the Lebanon war because it will have to be fought mainly in densely built-up areas against a staggering volume of war materiel.

But Tehran will win the chance of repeating its successful ruse of July and August, 2006: Whenever the UN Security Council comes close to a sanctions debate, an Iranian surrogate is sent into action to start a new Middle East war. Now, the Iranians have bought themselves the option of a double-barreled offensive from two of Israel’s borders.

Sun and Mo